What the Pundits Aren't Saying About Net Neutrality
I'd like to thank Psicotic, a gaming geek with a degree in business law and fellow TeamWarfare colleague, for his insight and assistance regarding application of the COPE & IFN Acts. Thanks Psi!
In the 21st century, virtually our entire world seems to be connected via one big pipeline. Todays big issue in Congress is Net Neutrality. The Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act has been passed in the House of Representatives, and is currently being debated on the Senate floor. If you type 'Net Neutrality into a search engine, every article you read has an agenda, a slant, or an opinion on the matter. What does Net Neutrality mean exactly? What parts of this issue are pro-competition and pro-neutrality supporters ignoring? What effect does it have on the end-user, the consumer? The biggest one: why should you care about this?
To ultimately understand the issue of Net Neutrality, we need to know a little bit about how data travels over the Internet. For this exercise, Ill use CNN.com as an example, although any website really can be used. At the moment, assume you are the sole person connected to the network.
| How Internet Works | Who Pays What? | Bringing It Together | The Issue |
| The Answer | Getting Involved |
Back to Top
How the Internet Works: A Hypothetical Example
- When you request information from a website (i.e. request CNN.com to load), the data goes from CNN.com to its Internet Service Provider (ISP).
- From the ISP, it travels to a Network Access Provider (NAP). A NAP is what allows data to be transferred between different ISP networks. In this example, you subscribe to Comcast cable internet. CNN.com buys their bandwidth from Qwest. A NAP is the intermediary between Comcast and Qwest to transfer data back and forth, found in very large cities.
- From the NAP, it goes to your own ISP (Comcast).
- It then shows up in your internet browser, all of this in a matter of seconds.
- Now add another person, another Comcast subscriber, who also pays for the same service you do: 6 mbps download. Now CNN.com would need, in theory, 12mbps upload bandwidth.
- Finally, add millions of people to that network.
Okay, lets take stock of the situation:
At the moment, youre the only one on the network, and you subscribe to a connection that gives you 6 megabits per second in exchange for a monthly fee.
Its all well and good right now.
CNN.coms upload (i.e. a video downloading on your computer) requirements arent terribly high. Because youre the only one on the network, CNN.com doesnt need to pay for an extravagant amount of bandwidth. They can, but they wont, because they just wouldnt need it for only one person.
Millions of people every day go to CNN.com to watch news videos. So CNN.com tells Qwest (in this hypothetical example, their ISP) they need their bandwidth limit raised. Qwest tells CNN.com they need to pay more in exchange for a larger amount of bandwidth.
Along with the millions of people added to this hypothetical network comes lag and delay. On any one particular line, there is still only a finite amount of data that can travel over the network at any given point in time. It is sometimes why you experience lag in websites. More people on the network means less bandwidth per person.
Back to Top
Who Pays What?
This is a hypothetical example of a pretty simple, common and reasonable concept. All websites currently pay for the bandwidth they use. CNN.com, for example, pays an exorbitant amount of money so that millions of people can download videos from their website each and every day. In this hypothetical example, they pay Qwest for the use of Qwests internet lines. CNN.com passes this cost, in turn, onto website advertisers, and on to the consumer in the form of video subscription. They offer some videos only with premium service, for which you must pay to receive.
You also pay your own ISP, mostly for traffic going the other direction downloading. This is why ISPs sell you, the consumer, a connection listed as 6 mbps down, 768 kbps up. You must pay for the traffic you use, just like CNN.com pays for the traffic they use, going the other direction.
We currently have a tiered Internet price set-up you pay based on the speed with which you want to download. You pay approximately $10; you get dial-up. You pay approximately $30; you get DSL. You pay approximately $45; you get cable Internet, and so on and so forth. Same goes for CNN.com they pay for bandwidth according to what they use.
Content providers pay millions of dollars every year for their bandwidth. YouTube alone pays $1 million per month for their bandwidth, approximately 200 terabytes per day, according to Forbes Magazine.
ISPs networks are only valuable because we make it so. For example, at ECT Telecom, you pay anywhere from $17,125 to $18,681 per month for a connection that provides you with the capability of 155 mbps. If you wanted the capability of 2488 mbps, it would cost you approximately $452,700 per month. Google and other content providers are already paying for what the bandwidth they use. CNN.com, YouTube, Google, and you, the consumer, are paying ISPs to connect each other to the ends of the network.
Back to Top
Bringing it Together
Okay, so now we know how data travels over a network. We also know, roughly, how ISPs make money. They make money by connecting the end-users of the network together - i.e. You and CNN.com. How does Net Neutrality apply to this?
With the revolution of P2P and mass streaming video sites like YouTube, telecom companies are now saying their networks cannot handle the traffic requirements. According to them, their networks werent designed for it.
Now their networks are congested, and telecom companies need more bandwidth to support the massive increase in Internet traffic. They want to tax content providers, along with consumers, to guarantee the speed of their data over the network saying that companies like Google, YouTube, CNN.com, and the like get free bandwidth. The problem is that these content providers have already paid for it.
The COPE Act proposes a tiered internet. Although we already have this, the companies supporting this bill, very simply, say that big content providers get 'free' bandwidth. They want to charge for the same connection on the purchasers choice of either an upper tier or a lower tier of service. Those that pay for an upper tier would get bandwidth priority over those that pay for a lower tier of service. For example, if a game server hosting company didnt pay for the upper tier service, their bandwidth would fluctuate depending on how many upper tier connections were online at the time.
Same goes for services like Vonage: If Vonage doesnt pay its ISP for the upper tier service, obviously they wouldnt be able to compete with its ISP's digital phone service. There is also nothing specifiying where these 'tiering profits' will go. Do they upgrade like they say they want to, or keep the money coming in, upgrading only when necessary? Yes, you can get better service for a higher price, but nothing says theyre going to upgrade their pipes to improve service overall. They may just charge a higher price for the same service. Not to mention that shutting out competition like this leads to the question: does this violate the Clayton Anti-Trust Act?
Back to Top
The Issue
These networks were never set up to run at the speed they advertise in the first place. They base their advertised speed off of user ratios, not actual bandwidth. They do this to cut down on costs. The more people you have on the network, the less bandwidth there is for each person.
Instead of providing an unlimited amount of bandwidth for each person, ISPs will very often limit the bandwidth of those they feel are 'abusing' their network. This is the big problem. ISPs do not openly advertise their bandwidth caps: Cox, Comcast, GCI Cable, Bell Canada, RoadRunner, Verizon, and Shaw Cable all have bandwidth caps. Even SBC/AT&T says in the fine print it's not meant to be unlimited, always on, always connected. When you subscribe to an internet service, what they tell you in that fine, magnifying-glass-required print is that if you use the internet too much, you will be cut off. If, in this hypothetical example, I were to actually use all the bandwidth I paid for, in this case - 6mbps, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, my ISP would cut my bandwidth. Comcast would tell me that I am hogging bandwidth on the network, that I am causing congestion, and possibly even send me a letter telling me I am abusing the Terms of Service and threaten to cut my service.
To some extent, they would be absolutely correct. Lots of people also need to use that bandwidth, why should I take up a huge chunk of it? You can also apply this theory on traffic going the other direction from websites like CNN.com and YouTube. If either of those sites hogged bandwidth, their service would either slow way down or stop completely.
In a real life example, John Borland of CNet News writes, Worse, Keith said, Comcast refused to tell him how much downloading was allowed under his contract. A customer service representative had told him there was no specific cap, he said, adding that he might avoid being suspended if he cut his bandwidth usage in half Other high-volume Comcast subscribers have been getting letters since late summer warning them of overuse. A few others have even had their service suspended after the first warning.
So what is the ultimate question we need to ask our ISPs in regards to Net Neutrality? It is very reasonable to ask companies to pay for bandwidth they use, but arent we paying already? Its somewhat of a paradox as to why I should pay more for the same amount of bandwidth; when, in theory, and in their advertisements, Im already paying for 6 mbps download and 768 kbps upload.
If their networks cant handle the traffic, (i.e. 6mbps down/768 kbps up) then why did they advertise it as such? Somewhere, someone along the line sold either the consumer or the content provider (i.e. CNN.com) more bandwidth than the network could handle.
Back to TopThe Answer
Right now, the House of Representatives is considering a bill called the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006. This bill provides:
Originally posted by: Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006
DISCRIMINATION BY BROADBAND NETWORK PROVIDERS
Sec. 28.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any broadband network provider--
(1) to fail to provide its broadband network services on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions such that any person can offer or provide content, applications, or services to or over the network in a manner that is at least equal to the manner in which the provider or its affiliates offer content, applications, and services, free of any surcharge on the basis of the content, application, or service;
(2) to refuse to interconnect its facilities with the facilities of another provider of broadband network services on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms or conditions;
(3)(A) to block, to impair, to discriminate against, or to interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband network service to access, to use, to send, to receive, or to offer lawful content, applications or services over the Internet; or
(B) to impose an additional charge to avoid any conduct that is prohibited by this subsection;
(4) to prohibit a user from attaching or using a device on the provider's network that does not physically damage or materially degrade other users' utilization of the network; or
(5) to fail to clearly and conspicuously disclose to users, in plain language, accurate information concerning any terms, conditions, or limitations on the broadband network service.
(b) If a broadband network provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, it must prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type (regardless of the origin or ownership of such data) without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or enhanced quality of service.
What can you do about it? Read. A lot. Write your senators. Write your House representatives. If the COPE Act passes, nothing but the IFN Act prevents ISPs from regulating what does and doesn't go on the 'upper' tier, whatever those regulations may be. So many people, supporters and nay-sayers alike, giving their opinions on the issue are leaving out major keys to understanding what is really going on in the COPE Act. Couple that with our not-so-tech-savvy Senators and House members, and you have yourself quite a mess! It isnt about what the pundits are proclaiming it is. Its about deceptive advertising. Internet Service Providers need to start advertising what theyre actually selling. If they advertise 6 mbps, then they need to provide 6 mbps, or advertise user ratios. They need to make their business practices more transparent, not push legislation giving them the right to charge for overuse. We're paying to connect to the ends, not the middle.
Back to Top
Getting Involved
If you want to get involved, here are a few places to get started:
Resources:
| NetCompetition.org | SavetheInternet.com | COPE Act | IFN Act |
| Who's Your Senator? | Who's your House Rep? | Nuts and Bolts of Net Neutrality |
Sites Mentioned:
| CNN | Comcast | Qwest | YouTube | Google | BitTorrent | Vonage |
________________________________________________________________________________________
©2005 TeamWarfare.com
Community First Gaming, LLC, All rights reserved
Reprint Inquiries Contact:
News@Teamwarfare.com