A 2 Tier Internet - Is this the end of the itnernet as we know it?

[gordano]

Discussions are taking place about the possibility of creating a fee-based Internet service where data moves faster for websites that pay for the service.

It is alleged the Google an Verison has "hatched a deal" .. you can read more here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10890495

This could have a major affect on Internet surfing and "equality of information" availability with those paying for distribution getting priority?

Any view on this?

 

[NuBlue]

Was bound to happen really. Think this is the start of the 'toll road' for the internet.. want to get where you are going faster.... then pay.

I think they would be hard pressed to start prioitising websites that paid however as this would be plain wrong and a big barrier to entry for people looking to go online so I can't see it myself.

 

[Astaroth]

It leads to lots of questions of how throttling at the ISP end will work..... there is already a multi tier aspect to the internet with this just adding in another point of consideration.

As website owners we already consider if we want to pay for a dedicated server or shared hosting. Do we go for a budget set up with bottlenecks of connections out of the servers or a full fat solution which has SLAs never to use more than 50% of the capacity they have on their outbound lines.

If we start getting ISPs and potentially subsequently other intermediary also offering multiple options it is just another consideration for site owners, are AOL or Plus.Net your more likely customers? It does also start raising questions of who is it that's making these decisions? Can hosting companies decide to buy priority lines for their servers and have it as a USP? It ultimately could simply result in greater clarity when buying hosting (as an SME) -v- the slight lottery that currently exists.

 

[Dominic Taylor]

I think the whole idea is ridiculous. How do you enforce it, specify a delay? Introduce packet loss? Throttle bandwidth (like consumer ISPs do already)?

If the latter, well, why?

So much for Google going on about speeding up the internet - what's the point.

And what's the point in offering fast hosting if ISPs will throttle, then our clients would blame us? So what do we tell them, to pay their ISP more? They'll just choose another host who's in bed with the ISP such as the ISP itself.

Or if us hosts have to pay more, why should we?

The whole thing will be a mess and, at least, a pain. But I don't see how they'd roll it out for everything - likely just the large bandwidth users - which is fine so the above may be moot.

At least initially...

 

[emailexpert]

Nuetrality of the internet is key to its success. "Do No Evil" wanting to get in bed with Verizon to kill that very premise of nuetrality is certainly evil in my books.

It also goes specifically against what Google have said before:
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/01/hey-fcc-keep-internet-open-and-awesome.html

They made that statement just this year.

Why is it a problem?
(explained here: http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/08/0...rizon-that-would-kill-net-neutrality-forever/)


Let’s say there’s a nifty new online service like RDIO In a world without Net Neutrality, ISPs would be able to say to it, “Look, you have a nice service there. But if you want to reach our customers at anything more than [arbitrarily low speeds], you’re going to have to pay for that. Don’t like it, tough.”
Then the Internet as you know it dies.

 

[emailexpert]

This is literally just in. Google says it is all BS

http://twitter.com/googlepubpolicy/status/20393606477

 

[bdw]

In the Guardian...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/05/gogle-denies-verizon-deal-net-neutrality

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Nuetrality of the internet is key to its success.

People keep saying stuff like this, but is it really true?

As Dan pointed out, there's already a difference in the speed of websites, because of where and how they're hosted.

Yet, somehow, the internet has survived.

Steve

 

[Gord]

People keep saying stuff like this, but is it really true?

As Dan pointed out, there's already a difference in the speed of websites, because of where and how they're hosted.

Yet, somehow, the internet has survived.

Steve

I think the danger is that if and when any concept of a two tier system is established and accepted, however insignificant, it gives a green light to gradually ratcheting up the barriers to entry for a small business, by those with the £billions to spend. At the moment, suggestions like this are generally met with some degree of outrage, hence the swift denial by both Google and Verizon to this NYTimes article. But should the concept ever get past this first hurdle, you can be pretty sure that it will gradually impact on the marketplace, to the detriment of smaller businesses.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I think the danger is that if and when any concept of a two tier system is established and accepted, however insignificant, it gives a green light to gradually ratcheting up the barriers to entry for a small business, by those with the £billions to spend.

You seem to be assuming that some sites being faster means other sites being slower.

Maybe, maybe not.

What would happen if Google bought some bandwith for an ISP with the agreement that that bandwidth would only be used for customers using youtube?

Youtube would become faster under that ISP. But other sites wouldn't slow down.

Steve

 

[Gord]

You seem to be assuming that some sites being faster means other sites being slower.

Maybe, maybe not.

What would happen if Google bought some bandwith for an ISP with the agreement that that bandwidth would only be used for customers using youtube?

Youtube would become faster under that ISP. But other sites wouldn't slow down.

Steve

For me, it's the same thing Steve. A two tier system is a two tier system and will eventually work against the smaller business and favour the big boys. The fact that Google or anyone else could buy infrastructure privileges will give them competitive advantages that will cost everyone else who thinks about entering the market, and set a precedent which will be exploited by all those with the big bucks in all markets. Infrastructure needs to be neutral if you want to be able to compete on a level playing field.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

For me, it's the same thing Steve. A two tier system is a two tier system and will eventually work against the smaller business and favour the big boys. The fact that Google or anyone else could buy infrastructure privileges will give them competitive advantages that will cost everyone else who thinks about entering the market, and set a precedent which will be exploited by all those with the big bucks in all markets. Infrastructure needs to be neutral if you want to be able to compete on a level playing field.

Isn't that only a problem if your website is too slow?

The neutrality thing, to me, sounds like crap communism. Not everyone can afford first class, so let's only have second class.

I don't think I should be forced to have slow hosting because other people aren't willing or able to pay for good hosting.

The internet is commercial. Those who are willing to pay to better serve their users a better experience shouldn't, IMO, be held back - or dictated to - by those who aren't.

Steve

 

[Gord]

But dn't the pipes of the web have a finite capacity?
If one company is given priority then it will slow everyone else down.

Bit like letting Tesco buy the fast lane on the M1 for its own use.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

But dn't the pipes of the web have a finite capacity?

Do they?

Steve

 

[Gord]

Do they?

Steve

I reckon.
Otherwise why not put everyone on 'superfast'?
Prioritising traffic is done to solve capacity problems and is essentially achieved by slowing everyone else down.

But the bigger concept is the more dangerous one for me, once infrastructure providers can make loads of cash from discriminating, the small business can only provide a second class service and will suffer.
No big deal today, but the mission creep and the technological advance of interfaces and content ( virtual shops , life Hi Def Video, stuff I can't even think of etc) over the next 5-10 years will make this important, as will the fact that every other powerful company will jump on the first class bandwagon.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I reckon.
Otherwise why not put everyone on 'superfast'?

I'm not sure that argument holds. 10 years ago, people were on 56k dial up. Now people have 2 meg broadband... even though there are more people using the internet.

That, to me, suggests it's not finite.

But the bigger concept is the more dangerous one for me, once infrastructure providers can make loads of cash from discriminating, the small business can only provide a second class service and will suffer./QUOTE]

That argument is, IMO, the same old protectionist argument. With, as usual, self-interest dressed up as "the greater good".

Steve

 

[Gord]

I'm not sure that argument holds. 10 years ago, people were on 56k dial up. Now people have 2 meg broadband... even though there are more people using the internet.<br />
<br />
That, to me, suggests it's not finite.<br />

A lot of fibre optic cable has been laid over the last 10 years.
The capacity is finite, that's why downloads take longer at weekends / peak times.
I'm not expert enough in this area to know whether the capacity constraints are on the web backbone or at a more local level. Either way, where you have a capacity issue, speed is increased for some by slowing down others, unless you are going to increase bandwidth by laying down more cable and install servers to cope, or create more efficient protocols.

That argument is, IMO, the same old protectionist argument. With, as usual, self-interest dressed up as &quot;the greater good&quot;.

I see the complete opposite Steve, the self-interest in the net neutrality debate is from those who are big enough, wanting to dictate infrastructure priorities which will create barriers to entry into the marketplace for everyone else.
The key point being that unless they build there own infrastructure, they can only deliver a faster service by slowing everyone else down.( Or like I said, otherwise everyone would be on 'superfast' levels )
Protectionist strategies are developed by businesses with a market share to lose, not by start ups & small businesses.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

unless you are going to increase bandwidth by laying down more cable and install servers to cope, or create more efficient protocols.

Which, of course, will happen.

I see the complete opposite Steve, the self-interest in the net neutrality debate is from those who are big enough, wanting to dictate infrastructure priorities which will create barriers to entry into the marketplace for everyone else.

You're assuming that their self-interest is, somehow, invalid or immoral, while at the same time, the self-interest of the small businesses is moral.

What I see is one group wishing to pass laws to restrict the business of the other group... and one group which doesn't want to pass laws at all.

And I feel the group that want to get into bed with legislators are, as usual, the ones who are in the wrong.

Steve

 

[Gord]

Which, of course, will happen.<br />

If the OP post were true , you're saying that Google and Verizon were going to create a faster service by laying loads of new cables or create a more efficient protocol ?
That's not going to happen Steve.
They would be using the existing bandwidth at the expense of everyone else.

You're assuming that their self-interest is, somehow, invalid or immoral, while at the same time, the self-interest of the small businesses is moral.<br />

Nope.
It's not strictly about self-interest. We can assume everybody has that.
The question is whether the you believe that the internet infrastructure should be available for everyone or just the few.
The net neutrality argument is simply an argument for a level playing field on which to compete.
Your alternative argument for no interference is one which creates barriers to entry and blocks competition.
Not being blocked out of a marketplace is the morally correct stance in my view.

And I feel the group that want to get into bed with legislators are, as usual, the ones who are in the wrong.

Legislation is necessary if you want to preserve competition.Would you also abolish other market legislators like the monopolies and mergers commission ?

I still like my other traffic analogy.
Would you be happy to allow TESCO to buy the right to exclusively use the fast lane of the M1 ? ( which would allow them to provide a better service to customers, but slow everyone else down )

Incidentally, here's a statement from Mr Google on their website:

"Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody - no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional - has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay.Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.
Thanks for your time, your concern and your support.
Eric Schmidt"

 

[mit74]

This 2 tier system has absolutely no benefit to anyone except the telecomm industries who make money. It goes against everything the internet stands for. Why do we need this system? The internet is fast enough as it is. The hidden agenda here is that many search engines rank websites by speed not just content. Companies will want to the lowest possible ping and therefore pay good money for their traffic to be given priority even if it's only a few ms. Any lobbying for a tier system on the internet is solely down to greed and nothing else.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

If the OP post were true , you're saying that Google and Verizon were going to create a faster service by laying loads of new cables or create a more efficient protocol ?

No, I'm saying that the internet will become faster as time goes by. End of story.

Now the question is: why should that speed be allocated evenly across all sites?

It's not strictly about self-interest. We can assume everybody has that. The question is whether the you believe that the internet infrastructure should be available for everyone or just the few.

Sorry, but that's not the question at all. The question is "should some sites be allowed to be faster than others due to deals between ISPs and site owners/hosts?"

Totally different question once you take out the emotive language about excluding people.

The net neutrality argument is simply an argument for a level playing field on which to compete.

And, as such, it makes no real sense. There's no such thing as a level playing field in life and, to try to create one is socialism/communism.

Your alternative argument for no interference is one which creates barriers to entry and blocks competition.

If you want to make that argument, then there should be no such thing as PPC - as not everyone can afford to compete for the top ad ranking. And, there should be no such thing as SEO as not everyone has the skills to do SEO... and there should be no such thing as web design as hiring good web designers requires money... and so on...

It's just daft.

As I said, there's no such thing as level playing fields in life.

Not being blocked out of a marketplace is the morally correct stance in my view.

But you're not going to be blocked out the market.

Legislation is necessary if you want to preserve competition.

No, it isn't.

Let me prove it with a question: what legislation ensures there's competition between web designers?

I'd suggest that, in truth, the net neutrality legislation is to prevent competition.

Would you also abolish other market legislators like the monopolies and mergers commission ?

Let's not be silly. This isn't about preventing monopolies being established, it's about passing legislation to prevent other businesses using their resources as they choose.

And, as such, it's really no different to other forms of protectionism.

Steve

 

[directmarketingadvice]

It goes against everything the internet stands for.

I'd guess your idea of what "the internet stands for" is some utopian ideal that has no basis in reality.

Whatever its roots, the internet is driven by commerce.

Steve

 

[mit74]

I'd guess your idea of what "the internet stands for" is some utopian ideal that has no basis in reality.

Whatever its roots, the internet is driven by commerce.

Steve

A utopian ideal were all traffic is treated equally, the fact it's driven by commerce (or not) has nothing to do with it. A 2 tier system is the first step to limiting and controlling traffic on the internet. What next? Filters on ISPs perhaps

 

[directmarketingadvice]

A utopian ideal were all traffic is treated equally, the fact it's driven by commerce (or not) has nothing to do with it. A 2 tier system is the first step to limiting and controlling traffic on the internet.

Do you think people have equal control over internet traffic?

No. Some people have far more than others.

This "controlling traffic on the internet" argument could just as easily be applied to the SERPS - those people on page 1 control most of the traffic and, thus, limit the traffic available to everyone else.

Steve

 

[mit74]

I've read all your posts Steve and you've yet to put forward an argument why we need a 2 tier system. If the internet is driven by commerce then all traffic is driven by commerce so why the need for 2nd tier traffic?

 

[Dominic Taylor]

I'd guess your idea of what "the internet stands for" is some utopian ideal that has no basis in reality.

Whatever its roots, the internet is driven by commerce.

Steve

Unfortunately the internet is designed by geeks who simply chuck bits down pipes, but run by beancounters who are seeing lots of traffic from a few sites and wondering why they're having to shoulder the cost of it.

Heaven forbid they should actually be able to provide what their customers have paid for. Obviously the top users should be limited, but beyond that, it's pure and simple profit making at the expense of every internet user, for no legitimate reason whatsoever.

 

[Gord]

Let's focus on question of whether legislation is necessary.

There's no such thing as a level playing field in life and, to try to create one is socialism/communism.

I'm sorry Steve but that's a ridiculous argument.

Creating an economic framework within which companies, big and small, can exist and trade, survive and fail within a free market environment sometimes requires legislation. And I say that as a strong supporter of small Government.

Do you think there would be any other Telecon co's other than BT if legislation to create a level playing field by opening up the network wasn't passed ?
If BT had the authority to block, prioritise and throttle traffic, there would be no competition today.

Let me prove it with a question: what legislation ensures there's competition between web designers?

None whatsoever.
That proves the web designer market is fine.

I'd suggest that, in truth, the net neutrality legislation is to prevent competition.

Refer to the BT example.



Let me put the argument another way.
I would want consumers & web surfers to decide which sites have value, not someone sat on the beech in the Cayman Isle.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I've read all your posts Steve and you've yet to put forward an argument why we need a 2 tier system.

Why would I put forward such an argument?

Do you look around the world and conclude that everything we have is something we need?

e.g. We don't need mobile phones, but most people still have them.

We don't even "need" the internet, so why would we "need" something to do with the internet.

It's yet another daft argument to go along with all the other daft arguments people are making about why this should be outlawed.

Steve

 

[bdw]

There's no such thing as a level playing field in life and, to try to create one is socialism/communism.

I am afraid this make little sense to me either. Are you suggesting that everything about socialism/communism is wrong? How did we get onto politics? :|

Let's rewind a bit. Back at the start of this thread we published links to a public statement from Google saying that this was not true. All we are doing here is hypothesising.

I have an open mind on this, perhaps because I am not perceptive and analytical enough to know what would happen. I like the concept of net neutrality but I also pay Virgin Media extra each month for fast cable broadband. If and when something much better comes along that would help me in my work and I can afford it then I will probably pay that as well.

My point is that at this stage we are talking about hypothetical situations that may never exist. There's no point in getting too excited about it until we know that it is going to be applied and how it will be applied.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Let's focus on question of whether legislation is necessary.

Finally... you're going to make a case why this isn't just self-interest...

Creating an economic framework within which companies, big and small, can exist and trade, survive and fail within a free market environment sometimes requires legislation.

But you don't want a free market, you want a market where your competitors are restricted.

Do you think there would be any other Telecon co's other than BT if legislation to create a level playing field by opening up the network wasn't passed ?

I think you'll find that that market was opened up by deregulation.

What you're proposing isn't the opening up of a market, what you're proposing is the opposite.

If BT had the authority to block, prioritise and throttle traffic, there would be no competition today.

If BT had that authority, it would be able to monopolise the industry.

No-one is suggesting that Google - or any other company - should be given a monopolistic control to "block, prioritise and throttle" all internet activity.

So it's a meaningless comparison.

None whatsoever.
That proves the web designer market is fine.

And, therefore, disproves your statement that "Legislation is necessary if you want to preserve competition".

Let me put the argument another way.
I would want consumers & web surfers to decide which sites have value,

Again, this is a fantasy world stuff.

Do you use Google? Do you search for stuff? If so, you're asking Google to choose for you which sites have value and which haven't.

It seems to me that you're trying to preserve a world that doesn't exist, based on an argument that doesn't hold water in order to serve either a general dislike of big business or your own self-interest.

Steve

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I am afraid this make little sense to me either. Are you suggesting that everything about socialism/communism is wrong?

I'd suggest the whole idea underpinning it has no basis in reality. But that's another subject and one that'll take about 4 pages to explain.

When "level playing field" is brought up to justify business legislation, it usually means

"My competitor has an advantage that might take my customers away and put me out of business. I can't compete with that, so I'll suck up to some whore politicians to try to get some laws passed to prevent him from using that advantage."

If anyone really wants to know more - and has a spare month - they could read "Atlas Shrugged".*

Steve

* Disclaimer: the views of Ayn Rand do not necessarily reflect those of this forum member. Warning: reading Atlas Shrugged in August can lead to a loss of productivity and the lack of a suntan.

 

[Gord]

Let's just agree to disagree Steve

 

[NetwiseHosting]

I'm sure the community at large would rise up against such limitations.

And even if it did go through, give the hacking/cracking community a couple of days, and they will have a ream of workarounds.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I'm sure the community at large would rise up against such limitations.

There's a "community"?

Steve

 

[NetwiseHosting]

There's a "community"?

Steve

There are enormous communities active online. People will naturally come together in stopping such legislation, especially those with a valid interest in keeping the internet an open space.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

There are enormous communities active online. People will naturally come together in stopping such legislation

I'm somewhat sceptical. What are they going to threaten to do? Stop using the internet?

Steve

 

[NetwiseHosting]

I'm somewhat sceptical. What are they going to threaten to do? Stop using the internet?

Steve

I had a feeling you might be sceptical!

You dont need to threaten anything per se. Surely you understand the idea of power in numbers. How do you think pressure groups work?

But still, disregarding what people may choose to do/not do in response to this ever happening, the internet is by its very nature incredibly difficult to police with any efficiency. There will be work arounds in days.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

You dont need to threaten anything per se. Surely you understand the idea of power in numbers. How do you think pressure groups work?

By threatening things - e.g. voting en-masse against a particular political candidate, boycotting a particular company etc.

But still, disregarding what people may choose to do/not do in response to this ever happening, the internet is by its very nature incredibly difficult to police with any efficiency. There will be work arounds in days.

I don't think so.

Steve

 

[NetwiseHosting]

I don't think so.

Steve

I guarantee it .

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I guarantee it .

Really? How are you going to do that? And how much do I get paid when you're wrong?

Steve