How do ISPs work? [bandwidth bill = electricity bill]

In summary, the conversation discusses the basic structure of the internet and how money is exchanged within the industry. It is mentioned that individual residential households pay the ISP for access to the electric wires/cables and that the ISP may pay a backbone provider for further access into the internet. The topic of ISP expenses and charges for "access" and "bandwidth usage" is also brought up, with questions about what exactly these charges mean and what the ISP's role is in creating the ability to access websites. The conversation also delves into the role of the processor and modem in modifying the flow of electrons for internet access. Finally, the concept of bandwidth and its various meanings is discussed, specifically in relation to ISPs and their claims about high bandwidth usage.
  • #1
Lebombo
144
0
ISP-1.jpg



After some of the information I've read and a few youtube videos, this is a rough idea of how I view a basic internet structure. However, I would like to find out how money changes hands in this industry. This is my guesstimate of who pays who:

The individual residential households pay the ISP for access to the electric wires/cables which connect to other residential households. The ISP may pay a backbone provider for access to another set of wires that connect further into the internet, perhaps with other ISPs which connect to other residential households and websites.

However, one thing I'm having trouble understanding is the expenses of the ISPs and backbone providers. They charge for "access," and "bandwith usage." But what does that mean? If I'm not mistaken, the only thing flowing through the wires are electrons. And when those electrons flow through my outlet to my computer, I pay my electric utility company for that electrons flow. So what is it that I am really paying my ISP for? The ISP claims I pay for internet usage, so internet usage could just be electrons flowing in some specific pattern that allows me to send email and view websites? Okay, but is it really the ISP that is involved in the technology that creates the specific electrical signals to view a webpage or is that something that the technology that exists in my internet browser? If its the ISP that creates the specific ability for those electrons to retrieve a website, then I wonder what the cost involved is? I would guess that the ISP owns and operates lots of servers that route traffic around their networks and into other ISP networks. And those servers that ISPs operate must consume a lot of electricity to operate, so ISPs must pay the utility company just like residential internet users. So when it all comes down to it, am I really just paying my ISP so that my ISP can pay it's electricity bill? If not, what other operation does an ISP perform other than laying some wire and setting up some routers and letting the internet flow autonomously? So does it boil down to when ISPs are claiming that bandwidth usage is high on their network, it is just a synonym for saying that their electric bill to the utility company is too high?
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
  • #2
Lebombo said:
so internet usage could just be electrons flowing in some specific pattern that allows me to send email and view websites?
So, why do you buy a computer? You could just as well modify the flow of electrons and get rid of a processor?
 
  • #3
Dickfore said:
So, why do you buy a computer? You could just as well modify the flow of electrons and get rid of a processor?

Right, so the processor modifies the flow of electrons which make the computer perform specific operations. Is it then the processor within the computer that is modifying the electrons that are flowing out of the computer and into the internet? If so, then is the ISP's sole function to direct that flow of pre-modified electrons to its destination within the internet? So if a football stadium were a website, then the ISP can be analogous to traffic cops directing cars (modified electrons) to the correct parking spots within the stadium?

edit: In otherwords, if its the processor that's modifying the electrons on non-internet operations, is it also the processor that's modifying the electrons for transport into and across the internet, or is it the router that is doing some modification? Or is the router just reading and following the instructions of the computers processor? Who's in charge of modifying the electrons to access and retrieve a website - the computer's processor only, the ISP network only, or a mixture of both?
 
Last edited:
  • #4
No, the modem/NIC is "modifying the flow of electrons" (a.k.a. transmitting and receiving electric signals) in your computer that come from a network.
 
  • #5
Okay, the modem in my computer modifies the flow of electrons that are sent out of my computer, into the router (which I assume begins to become ISP territory) and out into the internet (which is ISP territory). So the ISP is soley a bunch of wires that connect to traffic cops (servers/routers) that send my electrons on the right path to its destination. So when an ISP claims that Google's bandwith usage is very high and that Google should therefore pay the ISP more money, what is the ISP actually talking about? Are they saying that Google is causing too many electrons flowing through the ISP's wires and traffic servers?
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Lebombo said:
Okay, the modem in my computer modifies the flow of electrons.
Yes, but that is not the sole purpose of the modem. See the concept of communication
.
Lebombo said:
So the ISP is soley a bunch of wires that connect to traffic cops (servers) that send my electrons on the right path to its destination.
No. It facilitates communication between remote machines by providing (in part) physical connections, as well as devices working under agreed upon protocols.

Lebombo said:
So when an ISP claims that Google's bandwith usage is very high and that Google should therefore pay the ISP more money, what is the ISP actually talking about? Are they saying that Google is causing too many electrons flowing through the ISP's wires and traffic servers?
Bandwidth is a term with multiple meanings. See Bandwidth in web hosting for the particular context of your question.
 
  • #7
Okay, a bit is a basic unit of information. If a bit is represented by a voltage or current pulse. Bit rate is the measure of bits processed per unit of time. So if I give my computer a command that tells my modem to sends out some electrons in the form of a specific pulse, then I'm sending out a bit or a group of bits. This pattern of bits should be useful data whereby components within the internet can read and direct the data to their designated destination. Now here is where I am unsure: While there are almost countless electrons within a physical wire, there are only a finite amount of simultaneous impulses that can be traveling on any single wire at a time. So only a finite amount of different users can be sending data across a wire at anyone time? So bandwidth is the measure of the physical capacity of a wire to support data transmissions?

So while an electric power company is simply charging customers for electron flow they are supplying. The ISP is charging customers for amount of information, in the form of bit-rate (or current pulses) flowing through their wires. The the ISP is essentially allowing the flow of useful data across its wires, but I, the residential community internet user, am still paying the electric utility company for the actual supply of electrons. So an anology could be that the electric utility company are the lungs, the modem is my voicebox, and the air through which the information being sent is the ISP's network?
 
  • #8
Lebombo said:
Okay, a bit is a basic unit of information. If a bit is represented by a voltage or current pulse. Bit rate is the measure of bits processed per unit of time. So if I give my computer a command that tells my modem to sends out some electrons in the form of a specific pulse, then I'm sending out a bit or a group of bits. This pattern of bits should be useful data whereby components within the internet can read and direct the data to their designated destination. Now here is where I am unsure: While there are almost countless electrons within a physical wire, there are only a finite amount of simultaneous impulses that can be traveling on any single wire at a time. So only a finite amount of different users can be sending data across a wire at anyone time? So bandwidth is the measure of the physical capacity of a wire to support data transmissions?

So while an electric power company is simply charging customers for electron flow they are supplying. The ISP is charging customers for amount of information, in the form of bit-rate (or current pulses) flowing through their wires. The the ISP is essentially allowing the flow of useful data across its wires, but I, the residential community internet user, am still paying the electric utility company for the actual supply of electrons. So an anology could be that the electric utility company are the lungs, the modem is my voicebox, and the air through which the information being sent is the ISP's network?

You are paying the electric company for the power units plugged into the sockets into your home. The ISPs pay for electricity used in their parts of the infrastructure. These are some of the costs of their operation, and they incorporate them into the price of the service they provide.
 
  • #9
The ISP has to pay to its engineers , technicians , and employees good enough money in oder to ensure that you have latest technology of data transmission , and your virtual world remains secure.
Then you have customer care , extra services like online storage.
They also need to research on latest technologies of telecommunication which is very essential.
And finally the company need to grab some profit for itself.
 
  • #10
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/05/isps-costs-revenues-dont-support-data-cap-argument/Okay, there are a lot of very legitimate costs. At the same time, there are a lot of people saying the costs that ISPs incur continue to go down year after year while their revenue continues to rise year after year. Yet, these ISPs are trying to rearrange the entire internet into a business model in which rich companies can pay to allow internet users to experience fast internet speeds when visiting their websites and small companies who can't afford to pay the ISPs will suffer with very slow internet speeds on their websites. The ISPs are saying they need to do this to generate more money for themselves if they are expected to expand and upgrade the internet infrustructure. But it is claimed that the ISPs' balance sheets show that they are already making enough money to build up the network infrustructure and that they are purposely stalling on advancing the infrustructure to force people to believe they aren't being paid enough to satisfy customer needs. Further, it may be that ISPs purposely want to have a congested, slow network in order to create greater incentive for companies to pay for faster internet.

So my question would be, are the ISPs costs great enough that the ISPs truley can't afford to invest into and improve their networks so our internet speeds can be on par with other countries (who claim to have much faster internet speeds than ours in the US)? Why do we have such slow internet when compared to other countries? What are our ISPs doing differently that they can't or won't keep up with the rest of the industrialized world?
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Lebombo said:
The author of that opinion article lists figures for revenue of the mentioned Cable Companies, and for operating costs for internet costs. Where did he find this data?

Lebombo said:
Okay, there are a lot of very legitimate costs. At the same time, there are a lot of people saying the costs that ISPs incur continue to go down year after year while their revenue continues to rise year after year. Yet, these ISPs are trying to rearrange the entire internet into a business model in which rich companies can pay to allow internet users to experience fast internet speeds when visiting their websites and small companies who can't afford to pay the ISPs will suffer with very slow internet speeds on their websites. The ISPs are saying they need to do this to generate more money for themselves if they are expected to expand and upgrade the internet infrustructure. But it is claimed that the ISPs' balance sheets show that they are already making enough money to build up the network infrustructure and that they are purposely stalling on advancing the infrustructure to force people to believe they aren't being paid enough to satisfy customer needs. Further, it may be that ISPs purposely want to have a congested, slow network in order to create greater incentive for companies to pay for faster internet.
The bolded terms represent a form of unreliable sources. This website does not accept such references as valid sources.

The last bolded term is an unfounded speculation. Please refrain yourself from making such speculations without any evidence.
 
  • #12
Hsing “Kenny” Cheng and Shubho Bandyopadhyay are professors at the University of Florida, and Hong Guo is a professor at the University of Notre Dame.

http://gigaom.com/broadband/traffic-jams-isps-and-net-neutrality/

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=959944As you most likely know, and have likely known for far longer than me, these disagreements between ISPs, web content providers, and government are well documented across the internet. Congress continuously holds hearings with industry folks, academics and regulators to examine the complexities of all the sides in order to decide how much freedom ISPs should have in terms of data discrimination, teir systems, caps..etc and how much government intervention in the form of FCC "net neutrality" regulations.

However, so many things remain unclear. For instance, on what basis do ISPs justify the fact they don't have the funds to upgrade infrustructure? Why are ISPs pushing for the ability to create a fast and slow lane for companies on the internet? What would that do to sites like physicsforums.com - a site upon which so many people can learn and exchange ideas and information? What if Comcast were allowed to create an exclusive deal with Google such that google searches could be conducted at light speed, but yahoo searches took 20 minutes for each page to load? Does that mean Comcast customers are just can't use Yahoo anymore? What if ATT supported a presidential candidate A and thus chose to slow down the speed of all sites providing information about presidential candidate B? Is the slope of too much freedom in the hands of ISPs really that slippery a slope? If these scenarios are not possible, please tell me why this is impossible when everything I read tells me that ISPs are in fact thinking along these lines.
 
  • #13
I looked up the CV of H. Guo. She is a Prof. in Management. She and the two other professors are the co-authors on all 3 of her papers on "net neutrality". They don't get any citations, and, in general, all their references have a low citation count.

I would hardly say that is "a lot of people".

EDIT:
You still had not provided a source for the revenue and costs data for ISPs claimed in the Ars Technica article.
 
  • #14
EDIT:
You still had not provided a source for the revenue and costs data for ISPs claimed in the Ars Technica article.[/QUOTE]The source is provided in the article. It clearly states the numbers came from the companies' quarterly reports.

ATT
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/120504/t10-q.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/111103/t10-q.html

Comcast
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/120502/cmcsa10-q.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/111102/cmcsa10-q.html

..etc..The numbers show that revenues increase for wireless segments. ATT's numbers show that their costs have decreased in the wireless segment. I am unsure of how to find Comcasts expenses in the wireless segment (it's probably in there and I didn't see it or don't know where to look) - those numbers could exist in the 10K.

So, are ISPs justified in pushing for a fast & slow lane internet system? If ISPs had their way in remodelling the internet into a fast&slow lane, and physicsforums could no longer afford to be in the fast lane, thus taking 20 minutes to load each & every page, would the ISPs be completely justified in their remodelling of the internet's current structure of equal access to content?
 
  • #15
Isn't the primary business in which AT&T is a cell phone operator?!
From your first link:

AT&T is a holding company whose subsidiaries and affiliates operate in the communications services industry in both the United States and internationally, providing wireless and wireline telecommunications services and equipment as well as advertising services.

Also, if you see the rise in revenues reported by AT&T, it is 1.8%, compared to ≈11 % claimed in Ars Technica.
 
  • #16
ATT has various segments of its business, just like most large companies. Revenues of a company can be broken down by business segment, so can costs. 1.8 figure is total revenue, not revenue for a specific segment of ATT's business. In addition, the 11 percent you are quoting is for Time Warner, not ATT.

Total wireless segment operating revenues for ATT is March 2012 increased 5.4%. That is an increase. The net income for the wireless business segment went up did in fact coincidently increase 11%.

The point is that all the information is available. The issue is whether ISPs should be able to reconstruct the internet to benefit themselves at the expense of web content providers and thus consumers. From the ISPs perspective, having greater control of the content that flows through its network will increase its ability to meet the consumption needs of internet consumers. My goal is to learn whether having more control over webcontent by ISPs will actually provide consumers with better overall internet experience or not.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
So, I am pretty unksilled in reading these reports. Is there a line which lists the segment of business of AT&T related to providing Internet service? If so, could you copy/paste it here?
 
  • #18
They are called quarterly reports. Every public company has to file them with the SEC. Every public company has to file an annual report, and 8ks as well. A public company is a company who sells shares to prospective investors via the stock market. Investopedia can clear this all up. I am not not skilled in reading financial statements either. The numbers referred to are Revenue, Expenses, and Income. Revenue is how much money a company takes in. Expenses are how much money a company spends. The difference (subtraction) between the two is the income a company yields. These statements happen to break these down very specifically so that you can see what part of the company is making money and what part is not.

All this information is available. The issue I am having is whether ISPs should be able to reconstruct the internet to benefit themselves at the expense of web content providers and thus consumers. From the ISPs perspective, having greater control of the content that flows through its network will increase its ability to meet the consumption needs of internet consumers. My goal is to learn whether having more control over webcontent by ISPs will actually provide consumers with better overall internet experience or not.

Thank you for teaching me and pointing me in the right direction for learning the difference between bandwidth and electron flow. Has made a real difference in how I view the issues concerning net neutrality. There is more flowing over a wire than electrons...it's also the organized pattern of electrons, or data. Thus, I wonder how much of that data the ISP responsible for maintaining. Does an ISP need to set up internet traffic servers at every few miles or is it more like there is one internet traffic server per state? Or is it actually the web content provider, like Google, who is responsible for setting up traffic servers? Or is it that both ISPs and Web content providers build servers? How are they distributed geographically - I mean, how many per square mile? Are there like 100 servers in the country or more like 100000000 or more? How much does it cost to maintain a server?

Perhaps I'm intending to use the term router instead of server? How many routers, the components that direct internet traffic at points within the internet where there are network intersections, are there? How much does it cost to maintain these routers? Are they relatively cheap?

I know ISPs have lots of expenses. But I'm trying to decide how justified ISPs are in saying they need more money in order to provide infrustructure upgrades.
 
  • #19
Lebombo said:
So, are ISPs justified in pushing for a fast & slow lane internet system? If ISPs had their way in remodelling the internet into a fast&slow lane, and physicsforums could no longer afford to be in the fast lane, thus taking 20 minutes to load each & every page, would the ISPs be completely justified in their remodelling of the internet's current structure of equal access to content?
This is the major misunderstanding being spread about services ISP's sell. The services that allow for faster delivery already exists, and has existed for years. First, the more bandwidth a content provider buys, the more users they can sustain at higher speeds. This has been true since day one. It is not unfair. ISPs sell enhanced services to content providers that want to offer bandwidth intensive services like streaming video, movie downloads, etc... Think of the big news sites, tv broadcast sites, etc... They need to pay extra for the services that give their customers a good experience viewing and downloading.

This has no effect on a site like PF, or an other small site. We don't need these extra services, so we don't buy them.

Also as was pointed out, the bandwidth you use from your internet connection has nothing to do with your electric bill.

You might want to read through this site.

http://www.caida.org/research/
 
Last edited:
  • #20
It sounds like the bandwidth is like like a highway system. Suppose for a moment that there exists a 10 lane highway. Traffic flows smoothly for all drivers because there is a good highway system. Then they build a fast lane for those who want to drive fast, so the 10th lane becomes the fast lane where there is enough space for each car to travel faster and comfortably. And everyone is fine with a barely a noticable change in overall congestion. Then there are more cars who want or can afford to join the fast lane. So they open up the 9th lane for those willing to pay. And the remaining slow lanes get a little more congested and slow. Eventually, many with money pay for a fast lane, whereby the highway company opens up all 9 roads to those who want to pay for the fast lane, and the one slow lane grinds to a complete halt with never ending bumper to bumper traffic. Not because consumers are unwilling to pay, but because mom and pop content providers can't afford to pay, so they are wiped away of the internet.

Okay, maybe that is pure capitalism at play. Fine. However that scenario is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about an ISP's ability to deliberately slow down a competing interest's web content. I'm talking about if there is a blue car on the highway, the ISP can automatically get transferred to the slow lane for being a blue car. I also mean that if an internet user or content provider uses a lot of bandwith, then yes, by all means, pay more. But if a user uses a lot of bandwith, it would be discrimination to make that user pay a higher rate. If two men walk into a grocery store to purchase oranges; person A purchases 1 orange for a snack, but could very well have chosen an apple instead, and person B must purchase 50 oranges in order to sell because is livelyhood depends on purchasing oranges, it is discrimination to charge person B a higher price per orange due to his greater need for the product. You can't put two different prices on the same product depending on who you are selling to or why the person needs to purchase the item. According to what I've been reading, the internet has not always worked in a tier system that operates discriminatoraly. It's always worked the opposite of that, where users can visit the sites they please, not based on political views, or economic factors or exclusive agreements with competitors.

BTW, thanks for the website. I will definitely be looking into the information there. I have school in an hour so I have to get going. I will be back to respond. I am also trying to find/learn about the ISP's justification in that data discriminating will lead to greater innovation and prosperity than abiding by a net neutral policy (net neutral in terms of purposely degrading data transmissions of paying customers for ISP's and charging different prices for different types of data transmissions).
 
  • #21
tl;dr
 
  • #22
Lebombo said:
Eventually, many with money pay for a fast lane, whereby the highway company opens up all 9 roads to those who want to pay for the fast lane, and the one slow lane grinds to a complete halt with never ending bumper to bumper traffic. Not because consumers are unwilling to pay, but because mom and pop content providers can't afford to pay, so they are wiped away of the internet.
As long as there is a market for low end users, there will be services for the low end users. That is how it is now and has been for many years. People just don't realize it. Most people have no idea what the "internet" is and how it works, and they don't really need to. But unfortunately, this is how misinformation spreads. Sure, there have been fights between carriers over breaches of peering agreements, shut downs for non-payment, etc... But the internet is a huge patchwork of individual companies and if you are the customer of a bad ISP, you may be at risk. But that's business. You can buy a junker car for cheap and have it break down, or pay more for a reliable car. Unless you are in a rural area, you have choices of companies.

According to what I've been reading, the internet has not always worked in a tier system that operates discriminatoraly.
It has since the internet went public.

It's always worked the opposite of that, where users can visit the sites they please, not based on political views, or economic factors or exclusive agreements with competitors.
That's incorrect. All of these have always been factors. Look up peering.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Evo said:
But the internet is a huge patchwork of individual companies and if you are the customer of a bad ISP, you may be at risk. But that's business. You can buy a junker car for cheap and have it break down, or pay more for a reliable car. Unless you are in a rural area, you have choices of companies.


May be at risk? At risk of what? We are not talking about buying a junk car from some dude down the block, we are talking about contractual agreements between a dealership and a customer. It's like knowingly selling a good Chevy (insert model) to Person A for being of your desired political party and then purposely selling a junk Chevy (of same model) to Person B for being of an opposing political party as a means to manipulate voting results in your dealership's favor (because the dealership knows the junk cars will break down before getting to the voting polls). For further information please see Civil Rights Act/Fair Housing Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act


Evo said:
It has since the internet went public.


Evo, I'm sorry, but disagree based on everything I'm reading. There is currently no Tiered Internet system in place as the term relates to net neutrality. Only the threat of a tiered internet system. And the threat is from the ISPs from what I am reading.

Tiered Internet: is a proposed Internet architecture that would allow telecommunications providers to divide traffic over their lines into different tiers. High speed tiers can be dedicated for websites with large broadband applications such as voice and streaming video.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiered_Internet

Following are some statements by Vinton Cerf (one of the fathers of the internet) conveying the fact that there is no tier system, only the threat of one by ISPs.

It was not until fairly recently after the merger of two major telecom (telecommunications) companies AT&T and SBC communications where talks of “tiering” the internet came into light.

If a tiered internet existed, the innovative startups that have defined the internet would have been relegated to the slow lane and would not have grown as they did.

However, if the internet was tiered, the startup youtube would simply not have enough capital to pay an extra fee to make sure their connection to the end user is reliable on top of their normal fee.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~raylin/tieredinternet.html

Following are some statements/quotes by Tim Berners Lee (inventer of the world wide web) converying the fact that there is currently no tiered system in place, only the threat of one by ISPs.

He warned that if the US decided to go ahead with a two-tier internet, the network would enter "a dark period". - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5009250.stm

The inventor of the world wide web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, has warned internet service providers (ISPs) that plans for a "two-speed" internet go against the principles that have let the net grow so rapidly in the past two decades. - http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/16/tim-berners-lee-net-neutrality


Thus, what is the ISPs justification for wanting to create a new internet system that discriminates in such ways? Is this the only business model they can operate in so that they can support and expand ISP infrastructure? When the ISPs conspire to end net neutrality, they say they need to restructure the internet model to achieve a better infrastructure and user experience, but when it comes to their shareholders, they seem to say everything is fine and prove that profits continue to rise. Proponents of net neutrality seem to be saying that if the ISPs achieve discrimination, it may provide some users with some content that is great, but the internet will, as a whole, lose the fundamental and original ability for most to enjoy all of the content shared by anyone who wants to share or innovate.
 
  • #24
Lebombo said:
May be at risk? At risk of what? We are not talking about buying a junk car from some dude down the block, we are talking about contractual agreements between a dealership and a customer. It's like knowingly selling a good Chevy (insert model) to Person A for being of your desired political party and then purposely selling a junk Chevy (of same model) to Person B for being of an opposing political party as a means to manipulate voting results in your dealership's favor (because the dealership knows the junk cars will break down before getting to the voting polls). For further information please see Civil Rights Act/Fair Housing Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act

WHy are we trying to avoid the fact that internet involves lots of securiy concerns. We are living in an era , in which we are most likely to do most of our daily business and stuffs online.
Internet is a place where lots of cr@ckers and wannaBe's are awaiting to mess up with your personal and private data. A poor , dirt-cheap ISP may not have all those layers of protections necessary to protect your identity and data , and thus it may land you in trouble.
Frequent breakdowns and poor services are yet another common problem that a user will encounter.

A fast , reliable and secure Internet connection involves lot many things other than just sending and receiving packets of data.

//

Btw, I think you are feeling a bit frustrated at ISPs because they are charging you more for faster internet connection speed and bandwidth.
And basically what you are talking about is "Net Nuetrality ", that every-one should pay the same amount for every bit of data used.
Well this is something you can read :-
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-08-05/tech/30074741_1_net-neutrality-isps-bits [Broken]

Don't forget to read the example lines :
No one has any problem with the concept that the Post Office treats overnight packages differently than slow-boat ones. Importantly, they also charge different rates depending on what is in the package--see "book rate" and all pricing by weight. So why all this hullaballoo about "NET NEUTRALITY"?


I am not trying to be rude about this , but this is how it is.:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
Lebombo said:
Evo, I'm sorry, but disagree based on everything I'm reading. There is currently no Tiered Internet system in place as the term relates to net neutrality. Only the threat of a tiered internet system. And the threat is from the ISPs from what I am reading.
ISP's have been selling tiered services for years. I know, I worked at AT&T ad I SOLD TIERED SERVICES.

Network Application Assurance

Application services are the lifeblood of the enterprise. Whether they are enterprise applications such as SAP, Citrix, HTTP and FTP, or voice and video applications such as VoIP, Telepresence, OCS and video conferencing, the ability for the network to support the performance and availability of these applications is vital to business operations. The AT&T Consulting Application Assurance service helps customers assess and analyze the overall design of the network and readiness associated with bandwidth/capacity planning, IP routing, multicast and QoS necessary to deliver applications in a robust, survivable and scalable manner. AT&T Consulting can profile the network and the applications traversing the network in order to ascertain the demands associated with application service delivery. In addition, we can assess the impact of introducing new applications into the environment by modeling the application characteristics (bandwidth consumption, latency, sensitivity to packet loss, etc.) before the application is introduced into the network.

http://www.corp.att.com/consulting/advanced-infrastructure/

That is mostly MPLS based.

I cannot share most of what I know because it is proprietary and I am under non-disclosure.

View this hearing.
Does the spirit of open networking embedded in the design philosophy of the Internet permit network operators to provide enhanced service tiers for a fee? This has been one of the central questions in the net neutrality debate in Congress since 2006. An open inquiry at the FCC seeks comment on this question, and a recent spate of stories in the media over FCC filings by Free Press, AT&T, and others highlights its contentious nature. Join us for a lively panel at ITIF to explore questions regarding the role of Differentiated Services and similar technologies in the design of the Internet, their status on the Internet of today, and the impact of such plans on future innovations.

http://www.itif.org/media/role-managed-services-broadband-networks
 
  • #26
rishi.sharma said:
WHy are we trying to avoid the fact that internet involves lots of securiy concerns. We are living in an era , in which we are most likely to do most of our daily business and stuffs online.
Internet is a place where lots of cr@ckers and wannaBe's are awaiting to mess up with your personal and private data. A poor , dirt-cheap ISP may not have all those layers of protections necessary to protect your identity and data , and thus it may land you in trouble.
Frequent breakdowns and poor services are yet another common problem that a user will encounter.

A fast , reliable and secure Internet connection involves lot many things other than just sending and receiving packets of data.
By asking "at risk of what," I was asking if a bad ISP could purposely jeapardize my internet experience (for instance, the ISP, ATT, blocking access to Bing just because ATT has decided to get into the online search business, or Verizon not allowing users to access sites with the name Barack Obama, or Comcast blocking users from watching Netflix since Netflix competes with Comcast's video content.). It is against FCC regulation for an ISP to operate this way. Those are the types of net neutrality issues I am referring to.

However, risk in terms of security risks from virus' or someone tampering with an ISP's network is also a cost (besides ISPs electric bills) I'd like to be able to quantify for the purpose of deciding if an ISP is justified in claiming its costs are too high to maintain or expand its existing network infrastructure.

I am not frustrated with my ISP. I'm quite happy with my service. This is for school report/presentation. The topic of net neutrality was possibly going to be the subject assigned. But the topic turned out to be about a specific fuel cell company. However, since I had already started thinking about net neutrality, I have found a significant/relevant way to include net neutrality into the fuel cell report.

Net neutrality, as evo has previously mentioned, can mean many things. Various people attribute various meanings. So it's best to define which type of net neutrality issue you are referring to.
rishi.sharma said:
Net Nuetrality [/b]", that every-one should pay the same amount for every bit of data used.
I'm not 100% sure what your sentance is specifically referring to. Do you mean that everyone should pay the same rate for the quantity of data transmitted? Or do you mean that everyone should pay the same rate, regardless of the type of content they consume? It sounds similar but I think they are two different things. If you and I are buying telephones, and I buy 1 telephone and you buy a package of 50 telephones, I might pay, for example, 30 dollars for the one telephone, while you may only pay 15 dollars per telephone since you bought in bulk. That is not the problem. There is no unfair discrimination occurring. However, if I want to talk about Barack Obama on the phone, and everytime I mention the word Barack Obama, the phone automatically disconnects and I can't get a dial tone for the following 20 minutes, yet when I say Mit Romney, the call reception automatically becomes perfect, then that is unfair discrimination. I want good quality internet when I go to bing as well as when I go to yahoo.

If I pay into the internet, I would like to be able to access all of the internet. Not just specific set of 300 sites my ISP pre selects for my package plan. Further, if I pay into the internet at a DSL speed, why should my ISP give me 56K speed when I'm trying to visit Bing?

How much control over the internet should an ISP have?
 
  • #27
Hi, evo, I respect your non disclosure agreements. I'm going to watch the hearing now. While I'm watching, can you please bring some clarity as to why Tim Berners Lee and the other founders of the internet seem to have not got the memo that the internet operates on a teired system? I am pressed to think there are two different meanings to the term teired service. One meaning of the term is the type of tiered service that is already implemented, and the type of tiered service Tim Berners Lee is referring to is perhaps something different?
 
  • #28
Lebombo said:
By asking "at risk of what," I was asking if a bad ISP could purposely jeapardize my internet experience (for instance, the ISP, ATT, blocking access to Bing just because ATT has decided to get into the online search business, or Verizon not allowing users to access sites with the name Barack Obama, or Comcast blocking users from watching Netflix since Netflix competes with Comcast's video content.). It is against FCC regulation for an ISP to operate this way. Those are the types of net neutrality issues I am referring to.

However, risk in terms of security risks from virus' or someone tampering with an ISP's network is also a cost (besides ISPs electric bills) I'd like to be able to quantify for the purpose of deciding if an ISP is justified in claiming its costs are too high to maintain or expand its existing network infrastructure.

I am not frustrated with my ISP. I'm quite happy with my service. This is for school report/presentation. The topic of net neutrality was possibly going to be the subject assigned. But the topic turned out to be about a specific fuel cell company. However, since I had already started thinking about net neutrality, I have found a significant/relevant way to include net neutrality into the fuel cell report.

Net neutrality, as evo has previously mentioned, can mean many things. Various people attribute various meanings. So it's best to define which type of net neutrality issue you are referring to.





I'm not 100% sure what your sentance is specifically referring to. Do you mean that everyone should pay the same rate for the quantity of data transmitted? Or do you mean that everyone should pay the same rate, regardless of the type of content they consume? It sounds similar but I think they are two different things. If you and I are buying telephones, and I buy 1 telephone and you buy a package of 50 telephones, I might pay, for example, 30 dollars for the one telephone, while you may only pay 15 dollars per telephone since you bought in bulk. That is not the problem. There is no unfair discrimination occurring. However, if I want to talk about Barack Obama on the phone, and everytime I mention the word Barack Obama, the phone automatically disconnects and I can't get a dial tone for the following 20 minutes, yet when I say Mit Romney, the call reception automatically becomes perfect, then that is unfair discrimination. I want good quality internet when I go to bing as well as when I go to yahoo.

If I pay into the internet, I would like to be able to access all of the internet. Not just specific set of 300 sites my ISP pre selects for my package plan. Further, if I pay into the internet at a DSL speed, why should my ISP give me 56K speed when I'm trying to visit Bing?

How much control over the internet should an ISP have?


Sorry , I thought you were talking about the difference in charges for internet speed , as its usually the case . Also I didn't knew that it was meant for your school project.
My mistake.
 
  • #29
Rishi, why are you apologizing? No need, no worries. Just a good exchange of information across the internet lol.

I wonder how public libraries will get by if the ISPs overcome the current FCC net neutrality regulations. If libraries don't pay into the fast lane, and ISPs decide library internet access isn't important enough for special priority access, and eventually decide to degrade library internet access, what solutions would a public library have in this situation?
 
  • #30
Evo, I'm part way into the video. So far, the situation sounds like this: There are two ways to improve network infrastructure. Build more and better pipes or tinker with existing pipes. ATT seems to be taking the route of tinkering with existing pipes, perhaps as a more cost effective way to improve the network. However, in the name of "improving infrastructure" for customer benefit, it seems they are really talking about tinkering with the pipes to gain more control over network traffic in order to eventually figure out a way to cleverly discriminate in a way that bobs and weaves through current FCC legislation. Just my impression based on listening to the first speaker. I'm trying to reconcile the fact that ATT is trying to create this crony capitalistic, monopolistic, freedom infringing business model with the fact that the panel carries some pretty respectable credentials. I'm at an impasse here.

BTW, if, perhaps, libraries could not afford to pay into the proposed tier architecture that so many others are talking about, and if the telecoms manage to get around or defeat the FCC legislation and decide to throttle/degrade/block..etc public library internet access, what situation would it leave public libraries in? Simply screwed?
 
  • #31
Actually, that leads to a question of which ISPs do public libraries use? They are part of the government, so the question might became, what ISP does the government use?
EDIT: I apologize for calling ATT's business plan crony capitalism. Its just capitalism, crony doesn't fit in this context because ATT seems to be pushing ahead based on merit, not anything that could be considered dubious. However, I'm sure there will be some favoritism at play when ISPs begin to make exclusive deals with some web content providers over others.
 
Last edited:

1. How do ISPs calculate and charge for bandwidth usage?

ISPs use a variety of methods to calculate and charge for bandwidth usage. Some may have a flat rate for a certain amount of data usage, while others may charge per gigabyte or have tiered pricing based on usage. The specifics of how they calculate and charge for bandwidth may vary, so it's best to check with your specific ISP for more information.

2. Is there a correlation between my bandwidth usage and my electricity bill?

Yes, there is a correlation between your bandwidth usage and your electricity bill. The more data you use, the more energy your ISP's servers and equipment will consume, leading to a higher electricity bill. This is because data transmission requires energy to power the servers and equipment that facilitate the transfer of data.

3. Can I reduce my bandwidth bill by reducing my electricity usage?

No, reducing your electricity usage will not directly reduce your bandwidth bill. However, if you are using less data, your bandwidth bill may be lower as a result. This is because using less data means your ISP's servers and equipment will consume less energy, leading to a lower electricity bill for the ISP, which may be reflected in your bandwidth bill.

4. How do ISPs manage and maintain their network infrastructure?

ISPs manage and maintain their network infrastructure through a combination of physical and digital processes. This includes regularly monitoring and optimizing network performance, upgrading equipment and infrastructure as needed, and troubleshooting any issues that may arise. They may also use software and algorithms to manage and allocate bandwidth to different users and devices.

5. Can I negotiate my bandwidth bill with my ISP?

Yes, it is possible to negotiate your bandwidth bill with your ISP. Some ISPs may offer discounts or promotions for new customers or for those who have been loyal customers for a long time. It is always worth asking your ISP if they have any deals or discounts available that could help lower your bandwidth bill.

Similar threads

  • Computing and Technology
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Engineering and Comp Sci Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
590
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
896
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
1
Views
938
Replies
22
Views
6K
Replies
14
Views
965
Back
Top