[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/2010/11/XMcKL6.jpg[/newsimage]As part of the recent net neutrality debate, internet service providers want to start charging content providers a premium in order to have priority access to subscriber traffic. ISPs claim that they need to begin charging for this priority access in order to ensure their future financial solvency, but some industry experts argue that it may actually lead to their demise. Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/internet-priority-access-deals-are-a-dangerous-delusion-36842/](http://www.myce.com/news/internet-priority-access-deals-are-a-dangerous-delusion-36842/) Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.
So … to get your corporation priority bandwidth to gain greater visibility, you pay a premium …
Eventually, this premium becomes the defacto standard … and then there will be a premium premium … which becomes the defacto standard … and then so-on and so forth, until eventually any internet presence will be prohibitively expensive for everyone
Of course, all these costs are passed on to consumers of the corporations products
This works great as a distribution model whereby the ISPs/Backbone companies channel huge amounts of cash into their investors pockets, at the expense of everyone, while expending no capital towards improving their service, ie expanding bandwidth, infrastructure or efficiency.
It really does not matter at all.
Imagine a 100MBit connection costing about $200/month. That’s fun for a company, even more awesome for a consumer. I can have one awesome connection to a site that is protected by source connections. Example: no download managers allowed, one download pipe per ip address.
But if 10 x 10Mbit would cost about the same (10 x $20), i’d rather have 10 x 10Mbit! It gives me 10 times more access points to distribute data to. I can prioritize the data myself depending on my needs. I can also throw out all download managers, since i can have 10 seperate connections (i got 10 ip’s!)
Hopefully it doesn’t go like the way Eircom has been doing here in Ireland. Here, they seem to have their lower end connections (1Mb / 3Mb / 7.6Mb) on one line and their higher end connections (12Mb / 24Mb) on another line. I noticed this at work, where we had a 7.6Mb connection and found that in the afternoon, the actual throughput was at best ~2Mb and typically ~500kbps on speed tests . When I would complain, they would blame our equipment, router, PC, fax machine, too many users downloading at our premises, etc. The same was with one of my colleagues connected to this same exchange. We had our work connection upgraded to 12Mb as we needed a faster uplink and to our surprise, we get a constant ~10Mb in speed tests since the upgrade, yet my colleague who still has the slower DSL connection at home still gets crippled performance in the afternoon and evenings.
[QUOTE=debro;2558557]Eventually, this premium becomes the defacto standard … and then there will be a premium premium … which becomes the defacto standard … and then so-on and so forth, until eventually any internet presence will be prohibitively expensive for everyone [/QUOTE]
I remember this is exactly how it went when I had Satellite Internet access before DSL came to my area. With the standard access, I had something like a 500MB (yes MB) monthly allowance with one provider and if I was online at peak time, it was often quicker to use my 56k modem than the satellite connection. They had various premium levels which they called gears and well outside of what I could afford. E.g. Gear 2 had traffic priority over users on Gear 1, Gear 3 had even higher priority and the same up to Gear 5, which had an insane running cost, but I’m sure would have been fast for anyone with a deep pocket.
In the UK it’s recently been anounced by our shitty government that net neutraility is a pipe dream and they don’t give a damn about the public.