The US Justice Department has said that internet service providers should be allowed to charge for priority traffic. The agency said it was opposed to 'network neutrality', the idea that all data on the net is treated equally. The comments put the agency at odds with companies such as Microsoft and Google, who have called for legislation to guarantee equal access to the net.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-15
Member since:2005-07-06
This is crap. The Washington Post recently had an article stating Japan is almost totally wired with 100 meg fiber to the home. They can do it without a two tier structure why can't we?
That's exactly why the US and other countries doing such a thing will get left behind.
Member since:2005-06-29
This is crap. The Washington Post recently had an article stating Japan is almost totally wired with 100 meg fiber to the home. They can do it without a two tier structure why can't we?
Because the US is a completely different country and society than Japan or European countries.
Take a look at the whole GSM thing. You Americans invented the cell phone thing, but it took you years and years longer to properly implement it - 3rd world countries were already using full-coverage cellular networks, and you guys were still trying to figure out how to best divide/sell the frequencies.
On top of that, the US is an immense country. For us Dutch, implementing a nation-wide super-fast internet would be relatively easy compared to doing the same in the US.
And I'm not even mentioning the fact that the US governmental structure is quite odd - Washington's say in things is fairly limited compared to The Hague's say over here.
Member since:2005-07-24
Look at the size of Japan, though.
Considering the size of the U.S. we have a pretty sweet internet back-bone. In fact most of our internet back-bone is on optic cable, with speeds exceeding that of Japan's hopes for the future.
Problem is that smaller ISPs cannot afford optical connections, and opt for less expensive solutions, and larger ISPs often 'cannot afford' to run optical to all of their sub-stations or local hubs.
I live well outside of any large town, in Texas, and fiber optics have been laid to most subdivisions in the area, with each group of subdivisions having their own private subnet / local hub.
This is a technical requirement which causes good decentralization, good performance, and excellent capability. The true bottleneck then lies in the equipment utilized to power the network, and the standards applied to that equipment. Quality of Service features on most routers could be easily switched on to provide point-of-demand priority adjustment, merely by flipping a single option on the most popular networing equipment used to power the internet ( mostly Cisco, IIRC ).
--The loon
Member since:2007-07-10
Member since:2006-02-04
The problem is ISPs have had their heads shoved in the ground and apparently haven't been paying the slightest bit of attention to what's going on.
Let's be realistic, we have paid and we are paying. And the ISPs are failing to provide the service we paid for. They have squandered their money and refuse to upgrade/extend their infrastructure.
If you pay for a service and an ISP can't live up to the terms of that service, it is up to the ISP, not you to fix whatever is wrong.
Member since:2005-07-18
And the ISPs are failing to provide the service we paid for. They have squandered their money and refuse to upgrade/extend their infrastructure.
I don't know where you live, but Verizon has been tearing up the streets and yards here in Maryland for over a year laying "the last mile" of "fiber to the house". And a while before them, Comcast upgraded all their distribution infrastructure to fiber.
I'm not totally sure what the network neutrality buzzphrase means, but one thing is sure--the ISPs are very active in trying to bring us better service.
Member since:2005-07-06
Now, the internet is changing and things like P2P and video are causing the average user to become less bursty.
You pay an ISP for an estimated average bandwith. Now if that bandwith is decreased due to too many subscribers than that ISP has the obligation to invest in faster equipment.
A lot of subscribers have a monthly data rate beside a capped transmission rate. Also not uncommon is a fair use policy.
Why should one have to suffer because your freaky neighbour on the wire likes to stream mp3 to half the net population?
Member since:
2006-01-01
I think the real problem here is one of expectations. Your ISP expects you to use the internet in a bursty manner, maybe downloading a song or reading web pages. When they sell you their n mbps service they expect you will not use the full potential of their service and they charge you based on this expectation.
Now, the internet is changing and things like P2P and video are causing the average user to become less bursty. Now, the ISP has to beef up their equipment and get nothing in return, because of course your service technically didn't change, you only changed how you use it. So the consumers expectation is no price increase.
What happens when everyone moves from bursty to constant connection? Who pays for this? The end user, the ISP or the content provider? And let's be realistic someone will pay.
If end users are anything like me, I would not want to pay any more for my service.
If the ISP pays, the end user pays so this is moot.
If the content provider, somehow, pays for getting their content to the end users then they can either charge the end user directly or use ad revenue.
The only new source of money I see in my example is advertising. Am I wrong? And the only one with access to ad revenue is the content provider, right?
If no one pays, does this force the ISP not to invest in providing high speed service in under served areas because the capital is being spent on upgrading existing customers?