Network Neutrality: Implications, Pros & Cons

[kaos]

Recently there has been a lot of controvesy about network neutrality, that telecommunications companies are planning a multi tiered internet in which some data are prioritised and maybe even blocking certain data.

What are your thoughts and opinions on the subject.Ive been looking it up myself but the implications are not clear to me(Whos it going to affect,pros and cons etc).

 

[Anttech]

what are you talking about? Have you some sources..

 

[-Job-]

The internet is already multitiered. If you think about it there are cases where prioritizing is useful and very important. ATM machines are an example. You'd probably prioritize traffic from/to ATM machines over traffic from someone downloading an MP3. But, this news being true, then i think the reason might be that some Phone companies are going for Packet Switching rather than Circuit Switching, thus utilizing the internet for data delivery. In these scenarios you might want to give priority to the packets corresponding to users talking on the phone for example, otherwise network congestion might mean your phone won't give good performance, and think how this would affect everyone in emergency situations.
Blocking of data might be only on request or under infringement of some law, not arbitrary.
I'm not worried because it's up to my ISP to guarantee and deliver good performance, so whatever changes take place in higher Tiers, they have to adapt or they'll run out of business.

 

[Anttech]

Well... I still don't understand the question... QoS isn't new, and its not used on the internet between Autonomous Systems. In Fact I don't think it is used anywhere on the 'net. Typically QoS info from 1 AS to another isn't trusted, and the QoS informaion is disregarded. So even if it was implemented it wouldn't be end to end.

 

[kaos]

Ok I am still looking up this topic.I ll explain more when i understand it better.

 

[draco1387]

Network Neutrality Good and Bad

I agree that having a controlled tiered internet can be a good thing but it isn't exactly all good.

Do you really think that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are going to pass up a chance for extra profit? I mean really what do u think this is perfect land . They are going to charge for it and whoever can pay the most will get the most. Then what are all the small companies who are just starting up going to do? They don't have the money for great service and so their pages won't get up to quickly and no one will buy and they will tank. Nonprofit are introuble because they have no money for more bandwith and no one will go because they take forever to download.

It would be a good think if people were not greedy and wanted to be fair; but there is not very many in the large corporations that feel that way.

So instead of thinking that you it ain't going to affect you but it will trust me in the long run you will only have a few companies you will be able to buy from on line and then they can charge what they want because there will be no competition.

 

[Evo]

The internet is already multitiered. If you think about it there are cases where prioritizing is useful and very important. ATM machines are an example. You'd probably prioritize traffic from/to ATM machines over traffic from someone downloading an MP3. But, this news being true, then i think the reason might be that some Phone companies are going for Packet Switching rather than Circuit Switching, thus utilizing the internet for data delivery. In these scenarios you might want to give priority to the packets corresponding to users talking on the phone for example, otherwise network congestion might mean your phone won't give good performance, and think how this would affect everyone in emergency situations.
Blocking of data might be only on request or under infringement of some law, not arbitrary.
I'm not worried because it's up to my ISP to guarantee and deliver good performance, so whatever changes take place in higher Tiers, they have to adapt or they'll run out of business.

That is data prioritization on a company's personal WAN, it has nothing to do with the internet.

 

[Evo]

I agree that having a controlled tiered internet can be a good thing but it isn't exactly all good.

You need to explain what you think this is.

Do you really think that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are going to pass up a chance for extra profit? I mean really what do u think this is perfect land . They are going to charge for it and whoever can pay the most will get the most. Then what are all the small companies who are just starting up going to do? They don't have the money for great service and so their pages won't get up to quickly and no one will buy and they will tank. Nonprofit are introuble because they have no money for more bandwith and no one will go because they take forever to download.

It would be a good think if people were not greedy and wanted to be fair; but there is not very many in the large corporations that feel that way.

So instead of thinking that you it ain't going to affect you but it will trust me in the long run you will only have a few companies you will be able to buy from on line and then they can charge what they want because there will be no competition.

There are thousands of little ISP's that resell internet service, you get what you pay for.

Here in the US, everyone pays a surcharge that goes into a fund that helps to pay for internet service for schools and LEGAL non-profit organizations. Someone that puts up a website and isn't making money off of it is not a legal "non-profit" organization.

 

[Evo]

Ok I am still looking up this topic.I ll explain more when I understand it better.

Do you mean IPv6?

 

[draco1387]

net neutrality would stop the internet from having a smart server. Right now the ISPs pass information without really looking at it. but if the bill does not pass they will be able to give information priority over other info; such as the information from who is paying for a lot bandwith getting sent quicker than the poor guy who can't buy band with so his page takes two hours while the perfered customer gets to load in 5 seconds.

 

[Anttech]

Its not possible!

As I said already QoS isn't trusted between Autonmus systems.

ISP's cannot priorities traffic end to end, because they 99.9% of the time don't own the network end to end.

Cisco however have produced devices that enable ISP's to Bill per service rendered.

ATM machines are an example. You'd probably prioritize traffic from/to ATM machines over traffic from someone downloading an MP3

Job ATM traffic (authentication and file transfer, within and between financial institutions) doesn't go over the internet, its all VPN. I work in the financial sector now, and actually engineer these networks for a rather well known financial company.

 

[Evo]

net neutrality would stop the internet from having a smart server. Right now the ISPs pass information without really looking at it. but if the bill does not pass they will be able to give information priority over other info; such as the information from who is paying for a lot bandwith getting sent quicker than the poor guy who can't buy band with so his page takes two hours while the perfered customer gets to load in 5 seconds.

You're not making any sense. Did you read some article? If you link the article, then we can explain what it means.

 

[-Job-]

Job ATM traffic (authentication and file transfer, within and between financial institutions) doesn't go over the internet, its all VPN. I work in the financial sector now, and actually engineer these networks for a rather well known financial company.

I meant that some ATM networks might use the same routers and switches that are used on the internet and that they might have dedicated bandwidth. ATM over VPN is new to me but i can believe it. From what i remember the forwarding table of routers can have a table for circuit numbers. Any traffic with a circuit number would automatically be routed to the next router in line, following a specific path. Unfortunately I'm not as fresh as i was when i was taking my network class, sadly.

I actually work for a company that provides systems for banking institutions and i think ATM is one of their things, but i don't know anything about that, I'm just a developer.

 

[Anttech]

Are we talking about "ATM Machines" or ATM, as in 'asynchronous transfer mode' :)

I think the first, well VPN Tunnels are just encrypted and encapsualted IP traffic, you can add additional IP information over the top of other IP information, so it looks to the use, as if his traffic is going over an extended LAN.

What I *actually* ment by VPN, is MPLS ATM and lease lines. We use a combination of these technologies, with several differing large ISP's. I look after the European segment so I am working with Equant (Orange) BT and KPN. We also use AT&T in the states. So our traffic doesn't go onto the internet its all private.

 

[Evo]

ATM (automated teller machines) and ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) are obviously not the same thing, as Anttech pointed out. However most banks in the US have traditionally used low speed multi-point private lines for the connections, I haven't seen any on VPN yet, although we do offer wireless connectivity for ATM machines now.

 

[-Job-]

I'm pretty sure i was talking about ATM machines.

 

[Evo]

I'm pretty sure i was talking about ATM machines.

Yes, and what you described was correct as it applied to a private WAN, but it has nothing to do with the internet. WAN's are either priavte networks that can either be dedicated private line, frame, or ATM, or they can be Virtual Private Networks which are "carved out" pieces creating a "private" WAN carried on the internet, but what is run on them and how they are configured does not affect the rest of the internet.

 

[draco1387]

Net neutrality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Pro-neutral_regulations_websites_and_articles"

This is one website that has a few links to a few pro websites/articles and websites/articles against net neutrality.

My whole point is looking at each piece of information being sent through and prioratized gives plenty of time to put a different price tag on it. so what would stop ISPs from favoring one company compared to another?

 

[Evo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Pro-neutral_regulations_websites_and_articles"

This is one website that has a few links to a few pro websites/articles and websites/articles against net neutrality.

My whole point is looking at each piece of information being sent through and prioratized gives plenty of time to put a different price tag on it. so what would stop ISPs from favoring one company compared to another?

If you would have read the notes at the top, this particular wikipedia section has been tagged as having been defaced, the information is mostly inaccurate.

People just do not understand that the internet is not something that "exists" independent of the telecom companies. It *IS* ALL of the telecom companies that allow traffic over their networks that creates the *image* of a global network, which we call the internet.

I will go into further details maybe tonight if I have the time.