As we move from static bandwidth assignment to bandwidth-on-demand, which is the real endpoint that the large ISPs want to get to, we’re going to see a lot more flexibility in the way packets are queued from hop-to-hop. From the network design standpoint this is a very good thing, and something that some protocol architects have been advocating for more than a decade.

Second, I work in the internet industry, so I understand very well how it works. I’ve worked for Several local ISPs, as well as a CLEC.

Third, and I may be wrong here…but a fat pipe is a fat pipe is a fat pipe. So, data is sent as fast as the bandwith and switching devices allow, barring excessive network traffic or spiked bandwidth utilization. What we’re actually talking about is not “speeding up” packet delivery in terms of physical speed. We’re talking about allowing providers (who own the networks) to specifically prioritize packet delivery based on some pre-defined set of rules and tiered payment system.

It seems unfair, to me, that a company paying for, say, an OC3 connection one hop from the main backbone, could have packets from its connection delayed, or otherwise “de-prioritized” if you will, simply because they were outbid for priority access over a given network.

The whole point of peering agreements, as I understand them, is to allow traffic across the multiple networks to pass uninhibited and unrestricted, so long as bandwidth / equipment costs are factored into the prices of the agreements. Essentially the free-flow of information. It ensures that everyone has equal access to the network and pays their fair share of network bandwidth utilization.

Some companies pay for really, really fast Internet connections (fat pipes) - Google for example. Others pay for really, really cheap ones. There are many providers of connections, and we call then Network Service Providers or NSPs. NSPs pass packets back and forth from their various customers, according to something called “peering agreements” that allow them to make money and avoid giving deadbeat NSPs a free ride. This is an established practice and nobody complains about it.

The issue that Google is all upset about is something that would at least partially negate the advantage they have with their fat pipes - a system where a competitor could speed up the path all the way to the customer. In my opinion, this would be a really cool thing for all sorts of reasons, and we don’t do it today because the design of the Internet — 25 years old — is too retarded.

Don’t be Google’s bitch, Visiworks, think for yourself.

There was another comment left here that is a good read and pretty much makes the point I was going to make.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/04/26/250000-petition-signatures-for-the-markey-amendment/#comment-59

I’d also like to address a few things in your last post.

First: Equipment.
The ability of private industry (with or without government funding) to innovate techologically superior routing devices and methods of transmission has little (if anything) to do with whether Telcos and Cable companies should be allowed to implement a tiered content-access scheme. The need for faster access is going to be driven by the needs of the global economy and it is arrogant to believe that the US alone drives this innovation.

Second:
As long as you have interconnected networks, you are going to have malicious users spreading viruses and unsolicited mail. Even the best of hardware firewalls is not immune to hacking…and virus protection is only as efficient as the idiot that opens the email in the first place. Again, this has nothing to do with the bill before the House Committee.

Third:
I do agree that the last thing we want is a government run Internet. That includes not only the US Government, but the governments of the world. Again, though…this has little to do with the language of the current proposal.

These access providers (AT&T/SBC, WorldCom, TimeWarner, BellSouth, Verizon, etc.) already charge on a tiered access system. Not only do they charge for bandwidth usage, they also charge for speed of connectivity from the basic end user all the way to datalines used by the US Government. The issue is not about these companies making money. The issue is allowing these companies to control which data flows over their pipes, how fast, who gets to see it…and is tantamount to censorship.

Along with the example given in the link I posted above….here’s another, even more basic example.

-You have a company that sells widgets.
-You choose to host your company with Verizon (NE Provider).
-The market for your widgets resides in Southern Florida, which is BellSouth Territory.
-Bellsouth has a client that sells similar widgets.

Under the current plan the Telcos are interested in, traffic to your widget company website could be severly hampered because you:

A.) Don’t host with BellSouth
B.) You’re a startup that cannot afford to pay Bandwidth Usage and Hosting fees to Verizon AND pay a tiered price to BellSouth just so you can have more than 5 visitors an hour to your site.

And if you host with BellSouth, but have to access the internet through Verizon, there’s the possibility that you may not be able to get to your own site for the exact same reasons listed above.

How does this foster competition or the concept of a free-market? This would actually create a closed market, whereby 98% of the bandwidth is effectively controlled by 10 major corporations who get to decide which companies are *worth* the priority packet traffic. And their *worth* is determined by how much money they’re willing to pay for that traffic. I can just see the endless bidding driving up costs!

And, if, as you say, Americans will abandon the Telcos…where will we go? In my local market for telephone service, I have a choice between BellSouth, BellSouth, and BTI (who buys access from BellSouth). If I get pissed at BellSouth…who can I get my phone service through? See my point.

Before capatilism…there’s a little thing called the First Amendment…the single greatest principle this country is founded on. Allowing Telcos the ability to essentially deny access to sites by redirecting traffic for monetary gain is no different than denying you the right to publish your comments on this site, because the site operator disagrees with you and you didn’t pay for the priveledge of posting to an otherwise free blog.

I hope the Telcos do kill the Internet, because we need one that’s way better. I’d like an Internet that’s free of spam and viruses, and one that’s capable of scaling VOIP into tons of conversations while transmitting real-time video alongside web browsing.

We’re not going to get that kind of Internet out of the equipment of today, and we’re not going to get the equipment of tomorrow if the Telcos and Cables can’t make money on it.

I suppose the Net Neutering fiends would prefer we replace the Internet of today with a government-owned and -run monopoly, but I don’t want to go there. Let the market work.

Mr. Richard, then where will we go? Cable and teleco’s control 98.9% of the broadband connections. And what’s the other option? Sat’s? For $90/mo. for a 1Mbps download, and dial-up speed upload? With really low bandwidth caps? Whoo hoo!

And go read the draft again:

“The legislation gives the FCC authority to enforce its broadband policy statement and principles when it receives a complaint that the principles have been violated. On September 23, the FCC concluded that it has the jurisdiction necessary to ensure that providers of telecommunications for Internet access or Internet Protocol-enabled (IP-enabled) services are operated in a neutral manner.”

That “broadband policy statement and principles” isn’t set in stone, and in fact, Comm. Martin wants to toss it.

So what then?

And Richard, I’m not on the side of microsoft. I’m a Linux man. But MS realizes that this bill will kill the Internet, which isn’t so good for business. Sometimes your allies are your friends, right? Like the way you’re on the same side as most of the brownshirts at LGF?

For the record everyone, Mr. Dickie Bennet is a consultant who stands to make a ton of money helping AT&T turn the Internet into CableTV. He’s a high-paid troll.

The actual legislation before the Commerce Committee has a clause that forbids censorship of non-criminal web sites, which is all the protection you need and lot more than Google affords its users in China.

And Buckie, if you want me to respond to you, try getting my name right. You’re on the side of Microsoft, found guilty of monopolistic practices in a federal court, and you’re crying about monopolies. That’s hilarious.

If the Telco wants to make stupid and crazy business decisions, the market will abandon them. This is America and that’s how we do things.