Jump to content

 
Photo

Net Neutrality

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

#16
frax

frax

    Hall of Fame

  • Associate Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stockholm, Sweden
  • Interests:music, hiking, friends, nature, photography, traveling. and maps!
  • Sweden

Derek, what makes you think that the bulk of bandwidth is consumed by downloading web-site graphics and html?
Hugo Ahlenius
Nordpil - custom maps and GIS
http://nordpil.com/
Twitter

#17
EcoGraphic

EcoGraphic

    Master Contributor

  • Links Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Location:Okanagan Valley, BC
  • Interests:landscape architecture,cartography,information architecture,wayfinding,landscape archaeology,cultural landscapes,sustainable design,visual journalism,travel writing,photography,illustration,languages
  • Canada

I read somewhere recently that the solution to the infrastructure issue would simply be to build more "lanes" rather than create a tiered sytem with fast and slow lanes.


I've read that too, although honestly, that's like saying that the solution to the United States problems related to petroleum is to drill in Alaskan wildlife preserves, or that traffic congestion in a metro area would be resolved by simply adding more lanes to a freeway. No, the real answer is "conservation"......and related to the internet, if every web site were actually built properly (with optimized graphics and efficient code), you'd probably see at least a 15-20% reduction in bandwidth consumption right away. Add-in some SERIOUS offensives launched against the individuals and organization who make spamming, malware and spyware the nuisance that it is, and you'd probably see performance improve by another 50+ percent!


Yes, not suggesting this as an alternative to conservation at all. Just noting alternatives to a tiered structure.

What I am seeing now anyway, is that websites which are built correctly using web standards are starting to rise to the top, and older, clunky websites are dropping down in the search engine rankings. Web standards compliance and lightweight websites will simply be a necessity if anyone wants their website to show up properly in the natural search engines. In a few years it won't even be a question of whether or not you want a standards compliant website, you will just require one.

That's just the nature of Web 2.0.

The whole concept of Web 2.0 just brings you back full circle to Net Neutrality once again. As the web becomes more of a community, the success of a website depends more and more on the quality of its content. With websites like Digg and social bookmarking systems like Delicious, Magnolia, Blink, etc. we are seeing content on the web being ranked and organized by internet users rather than just the commercial search engines. This in turn encourages the creation of more quality content. In order for this to continue however, there must be equal access to all content on the web. This isn't just about whether you will use one search engine or another in the future, its about the social fabric of the net remaining in tact, and being allowed to grow and strengthen.

The fact that we are discussing this in an online forum started by a single person is a perfect example.
Gillian Auld
EcoGraphic Design
www.EcoGraphic.ca

Design is the intermediary between information and understanding
Richard Grefe

#18
EcoGraphic

EcoGraphic

    Master Contributor

  • Links Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Location:Okanagan Valley, BC
  • Interests:landscape architecture,cartography,information architecture,wayfinding,landscape archaeology,cultural landscapes,sustainable design,visual journalism,travel writing,photography,illustration,languages
  • Canada

I'm honestly not TOO worried about the issue of content control, as telecoms will be sacrificing future earnings if they start to monkey-around with those types of things.  I'm not one to buy into conspiracy theorists for the most part.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


How would you know if they were messing around with content control? Sure you would notice if access to Google was degraded as opposed to Yahoo, because you use it every day. But if they start to cut out the independant journalist, niche website, or blogger, you'd never know. You'd just never come across them, or if you did their website would seem difficult to access. You might just assume they had a crappy website and move on, not even realizing that in fact they had been relegated to a "Level 4" ranking with crappy content delivery service.

The Telcos have already said they will do this. It is not a question of conspiracy theory, they are openly admitting this already.

Quote from FreePress.net:

"The fundamentals of this whole debate were nailed last week by Tim Berners-Lee, who might be qualified to speak on the subject because, oh, he invented the World Wide Web, so I'll let him have the last word:

Net neutrality is this: If I pay to connect to the Net with a certain quality of service, and you pay to connect with that or greater quality of service, then we can communicate at that level.

That's all. It's up to the ISPs to make sure they interoperate so that that happens.

Net Neutrality is NOT asking for the internet for free.

Net Neutrality is NOT saying that one shouldn?t pay more money for high quality of service. We always have, and we always will.

There have been suggestions that we don?t need legislation because we haven't had it. These are nonsense, because in fact we have had net neutrality in the past, it is only recently that real explicit threats have occurred."

http://www.freepress.net/news/16373
Gillian Auld
EcoGraphic Design
www.EcoGraphic.ca

Design is the intermediary between information and understanding
Richard Grefe

#19
Derek Tonn

Derek Tonn

    Legendary Contributor

  • Validated Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 455 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Springfield, Minnesota, USA
  • United States

Derek, what makes you think that the bulk of bandwidth is consumed by downloading web-site graphics and html?


Frax,

When I was referring to graphics, I was also including Flash and all of the streaming video within that rather generic category. I build/maintain a number of web sites, and graphics are EASILY the biggest consumer of bandwidth on almost all of the sites that are built out there. For example, on my own web site (mapformation.com), my June 2006 bandwidth consumption as the result of 1,906 visitors, 2,871 site visits, 20,100 page views and 1.75GB of bandwidth traffic was as follows:

49% - .jpg file views (Zoomify presentations in our portfolio, and a couple headshots)
22% - .png file views (banners, non-Zoomify portfolio)
15% - .pdf file downloads
12% - HTML/CSS/javascript/XML code
2% - .swf files in our Clients presentation in Flash

Instant messaging, email/spam, FTP file transfers, etc. chew up a LOT of bandwidth consumption as well! However, my point (I guess) was to try and work on the items we can control, such as:

- Plain text email vs. HTML format
- Tightening up sloppy HTML/CSS/XML/javascript coding on web pages
- Tightening up sloppy presentation of graphics on the web
- Doing "simple" things like making sure that our sites don't have broken links!
- Encryption of email addresses included on web sites (reducing address harvesting for spam)
- Taking care in maximizing quality while minimizing file sizes when creating .pdf files

Etc, etc, etc. A LOT of the spam problem on the internet today is the direct result of individuals not hiding their addresses from spam-bots via the use of encryption instead of "<a href="mailto:address@address.com"> code. Spam-bots are trolling the net 24/7/365, looking for "a href="mailto:" code, and will dump whatever comes after the "mailto:" reference into their databases for harvest and subsequent reselling. If people would do things such as simply avoid the "mailto:" references on their web pages, a L-O-T of the spam (aka bandwidth) problem would be removed.

I apologize for getting off on a long tangent on this issue. However, there are SO many easy things that people can be doing to improve the quality and efficiency of their web sites that DO NOT get done, I felt like dragging out my soapbox while I was stuck working on our Fourth of July holiday today. :)

Derek
Derek Tonn
Founder and CEO
mapformation, LLC

datonn@mapformation.com
http://www.mapformation.com

#20
frax

frax

    Hall of Fame

  • Associate Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stockholm, Sweden
  • Interests:music, hiking, friends, nature, photography, traveling. and maps!
  • Sweden

I have no idea what the stats are now, but if ondemand tv, p2p, itunes, heavy downloads and phone calls are not beating plain http now, they will do very very soon, and then go way past. I think this is primarily where the the ISPs are looking, at raking some of the profits. On-demand TV (IP tv) will grow to be a huge bandwidth consumer in the next couplr of years. Instant messaging, ftp, http and others will just be a fraction of this.
Hugo Ahlenius
Nordpil - custom maps and GIS
http://nordpil.com/
Twitter

#21
EcoGraphic

EcoGraphic

    Master Contributor

  • Links Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Location:Okanagan Valley, BC
  • Interests:landscape architecture,cartography,information architecture,wayfinding,landscape archaeology,cultural landscapes,sustainable design,visual journalism,travel writing,photography,illustration,languages
  • Canada

I have no idea what the stats are now, but if ondemand tv, p2p, itunes, heavy downloads and phone calls are not beating plain http now, they will do very very soon, and then go way past. I think this is primarily where the the ISPs are looking, at raking some of the profits. On-demand TV (IP tv) will grow to be a huge bandwidth consumer in the next couplr of years. Instant messaging, ftp, http and others will just be a fraction of this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Absolutely these will continue to eat up the most bandwidth.

The issue is that you should continue to retain the right to choose which TV broadcast or video you download. This should never be influenced by which broadcaster has paid more to your ISP provider for improved delivery. If you want to download a broadcast from some independant news website, it should download as easily as CNN's news broadcast.
Gillian Auld
EcoGraphic Design
www.EcoGraphic.ca

Design is the intermediary between information and understanding
Richard Grefe

#22
frax

frax

    Hall of Fame

  • Associate Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stockholm, Sweden
  • Interests:music, hiking, friends, nature, photography, traveling. and maps!
  • Sweden

Gill,

Maybe, but I think this is much bigger than www, and downloading news from web-sites. It will be about the big and heavy services - like subscription TV services moving from satellite to Internet, routed to set-top boxes.

I have some understanding for the ISP's point of view actually. If activitiy X (TV, VOIP, p2p, video/games downloads, bittorrent) generates a lot of money for company Y (ABC, HBO, Vonage, Skype, Itunes, Napster, Netflix, Steam) with few middlemen and consumes very heavy bandwidth, maybe even to saturating pipes (and thus reducing other services) - I can see that they want to limit it a bit and also try to rake in some of the profits there. I think they would also be interested in getting in on some of these things themselves, as operators.

For the last mile, consumer power would work, but the problematic bit would be when things are routed through the big telcos backbones, which end ISPs would have little choice and influence on.
Hugo Ahlenius
Nordpil - custom maps and GIS
http://nordpil.com/
Twitter

#23
Hans van der Maarel

Hans van der Maarel

    CartoTalk Editor-in-Chief

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,868 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Interests:Cartography, GIS, history, popular science, music.
  • Netherlands

The issue is that you should continue to retain the right to choose which TV broadcast or video you download. This should never be influenced by which broadcaster has paid more to your ISP provider for improved delivery. If you want to download a broadcast from some independant news website, it should download as easily as CNN's news broadcast.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Isn't this already (unofficially) the case? If I build an interesting website and somehow manage to get it slashdotted, I'm pretty sure my ISP will want to see money or else they'll shut it down.
Hans van der Maarel - Cartotalk Editor
Red Geographics
Email: hans@redgeographics.com / Twitter: @redgeographics

#24
EcoGraphic

EcoGraphic

    Master Contributor

  • Links Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Location:Okanagan Valley, BC
  • Interests:landscape architecture,cartography,information architecture,wayfinding,landscape archaeology,cultural landscapes,sustainable design,visual journalism,travel writing,photography,illustration,languages
  • Canada

Isn't this already (unofficially) the case? If I build an interesting website and somehow manage to get it slashdotted, I'm pretty sure my ISP will want to see money or else they'll shut it down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


If you get Slashdotted and your bandwidth consumption goes through the roof you will pay more for your bandwidth, therefor it will cost you more for your website. That is how it has always been. As long as you pay for your increased bandwidth costs your website will continue to be hosted.

Without Net Neutrality however, if you and I post websites with similar content, and I want to ensure that my website does better than yours, I would also be able to pay off the Telecom companies who provide access to my website, to ensure that my website is faster loading than yours, in order that their customers are more likely to visit my website instead of yours. The person with the deepest pockets wins instead of the person with the best website content.

SlashDot, Digg, etc. only work because people can access every single website, regardless of who publishes it. The internet users decide which websites to recommend to others, not the Telecom companies.
Gillian Auld
EcoGraphic Design
www.EcoGraphic.ca

Design is the intermediary between information and understanding
Richard Grefe

#25
benbakelaar

benbakelaar

    Ultimate Contributor

  • Associate Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 658 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Brunswick, NJ
  • Interests:maps, information, technology, scripting, computers
  • United States

There seems to be a missing distinction in this discussion between "access" and "priority". As I understand it, Net Neutrality would "favor" the traffic of certain paying providers... which obviously would only have an impact on the largest media providers. If Nick here at Cartotalk.com decided he would pay to have "favored/priority" status through a national ISP, he'd be wasting his money... the priority is only going to make a difference at very high levels of traffic.

So, it seems, and maybe I have just missed it, that Net Neutrality opponents don't actually want to "block access" to sites that don't pay. If I am being a bit redundant using a car/highway analogy, I apologize, but I imagine it is something like this... opponents of Net Neutrality want to allow Best Buy and Walmart to build their own access roads off the main strip/highway, which are open _only during times of high traffic/traffic overload_ if you are driving only to/from those stores.

My main point is that simply by allowing extra "priority" roads to exist does not create a world in which a particular independent/anti-whatever website is in effect "blocked". But maybe I am wrong!

#26
benbakelaar

benbakelaar

    Ultimate Contributor

  • Associate Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 658 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Brunswick, NJ
  • Interests:maps, information, technology, scripting, computers
  • United States

I really don't see the connection. The content regulation has to be based on some hard information, whether the port number, the file stream type, etc. If your website is simply HTTP i.e. text and information, I don't see how the company could distinguish "competition" automatically... and if you are claiming they will do it manually, then obviously that should be part of the regulation process, and it should be made illegal. This is more about web services, not web sites.

The only reason I was able to start that business 4 years ago, was because I could do so with such a small advertising budget, and because all I had to pay for was hosting. If I had also had to pay thousands of dollars to my ISP in order to ensure that my customers could access my website, I would simply not have been able to do it.

There ye be.......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



#27
EcoGraphic

EcoGraphic

    Master Contributor

  • Links Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Location:Okanagan Valley, BC
  • Interests:landscape architecture,cartography,information architecture,wayfinding,landscape archaeology,cultural landscapes,sustainable design,visual journalism,travel writing,photography,illustration,languages
  • Canada

Maybe, but I think this is much bigger than www, and downloading news from web-sites. It will be about the big and heavy services - like subscription TV services moving from satellite to Internet, routed to set-top boxes.

I have some understanding for the ISP's point of view actually. If activitiy X (TV, VOIP, p2p, video/games downloads, bittorrent) generates a lot of money for company Y (ABC, HBO, Vonage, Skype, Itunes, Napster, Netflix, Steam) with few middlemen and consumes very heavy bandwidth, maybe even to saturating pipes (and thus reducing other services) - I can see that they want to limit it a bit and also try to rake in some of the profits there. I think they would also be interested in getting in on some of these things themselves, as operators.


Well, you have said it yourself. It is really a question of getting in on more of the money, when they really have no right to.

Think about this. If you call someone on the telephone to make a business deal, and that one telephone call brings in $50,000 to your company, should your telephone company have the right to charge you more for that telephone call? Why not? You used their telephone line to make a lot of money on one telephone call? The reason they can't is because they simply provide a communication service which you pay for. You can call whoever you watn whenever your want as long as you pay for it. The internet is no different.

Obviously as VOIP, on demand TV, etc becomes more popular it will cost companies more money to deliver their content because it takes up more bandwidth. But we already pay for this. Companies already pay for bandwidth. Its like paying for telephone calls. The more minutes you talk the more you pay. Its simple. Because they provide a service. That is it.

If Shaw Cable, AT&T or other telcos want to make money through businesses on the internet, they have the same right as anyone else to start an online business. But at the end of the day, if their online business is crap, people will not use it.

They have absolutely no right to prevent their customers from accessing your website by degrading access to it, so that it won't compete with theirs.

The minute you take away Net Neutrality, they become greedy gatekeepers, not just communication service providers.
Gillian Auld
EcoGraphic Design
www.EcoGraphic.ca

Design is the intermediary between information and understanding
Richard Grefe

#28
benbakelaar

benbakelaar

    Ultimate Contributor

  • Associate Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 658 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Brunswick, NJ
  • Interests:maps, information, technology, scripting, computers
  • United States

You can call whoever you watn whenever your want as long as you pay for it. The internet is no different.


Well I agree, and I see your point, but telephone networks _are) a little bit of a different game than IP networks. But I guess you are right, the consumers pay for it and the companies pay for it.

They have absolutely no right to prevent their customers from accessing your website by degrading access to it, so that it won't compete with theirs.

The minute you take away Net Neutrality, they become greedy gatekeepers, not just communication service providers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I just don't see how this theoretical degredation actually leads to prevention. Internet Protocol is exactly designed for this purpose, it still works over a degraded system. And it's not like they are "de"-grading you, they are simply not "up"-grading you to first class. Everyone who flies is at the least in coach... but some pay more for first class.

#29
EcoGraphic

EcoGraphic

    Master Contributor

  • Links Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Location:Okanagan Valley, BC
  • Interests:landscape architecture,cartography,information architecture,wayfinding,landscape archaeology,cultural landscapes,sustainable design,visual journalism,travel writing,photography,illustration,languages
  • Canada

There seems to be a missing distinction in this discussion between "access" and "priority". As I understand it, Net Neutrality would "favor" the traffic of certain paying providers... which obviously would only have an impact on the largest media providers. If Nick here at Cartotalk.com decided he would pay to have "favored/priority" status through a national ISP, he'd be wasting his money... the priority is only going to make a difference at very high levels of traffic.

So, it seems, and maybe I have just missed it, that Net Neutrality opponents don't actually want to "block access" to sites that don't pay. If I am being a bit redundant using a car/highway analogy, I apologize, but I imagine it is something like this... opponents of Net Neutrality want to allow Best Buy and Walmart to build their own access roads off the main strip/highway, which are open _only during times of high traffic/traffic overload_ if you are driving only to/from those stores.

My main point is that simply by allowing extra "priority" roads to exist does not create a world in which a particular independent/anti-whatever website is in effect "blocked". But maybe I am wrong!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Net Neutrality does not favor the traffic of certain paying providers. It keeps everyone on a level playing field.

Right now every website exists along the same information highway. The only difference is whether or not you have dial-up or high speed access to that information highway.

The issue is that they want to create a tiered system which is just like the road system in the US. Some cities and businesses exist along the interstate and are fast to access (and therefore get more business), others exist along winding country roads and are slow to access (and get less business).

If this happens, some websites will exist along the information interstate, some will exist along the winding back road. Now the question is how they start deciding who exists where, and which websites get preferrential treatment. This is the real problem.

We have always had Net Neutrality. This is why when an ISP tries to block access to Craigslist or iTunes because they compete with one of their own websites, they can be charged, because they have no right to do so. The Telcos have already quietly lobbyed Congress to strip it out of the legislation which governs the internet. Now the question is whether or not the Senate will wake up to what is happening and make sure they ammend the law to keep Net Neutrality a part of the legislation.

The Telcos are working very hard to make it sound like Net Neutrality is a new
thing. It isn't. It just stands in the way of them making a lot of money and profitable backroom deals with internet companies in the future.
Gillian Auld
EcoGraphic Design
www.EcoGraphic.ca

Design is the intermediary between information and understanding
Richard Grefe

#30
EcoGraphic

EcoGraphic

    Master Contributor

  • Links Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Location:Okanagan Valley, BC
  • Interests:landscape architecture,cartography,information architecture,wayfinding,landscape archaeology,cultural landscapes,sustainable design,visual journalism,travel writing,photography,illustration,languages
  • Canada

I just don't see how this theoretical degredation actually leads to prevention. Internet Protocol is exactly designed for this purpose, it still works over a degraded system. And it's not like they are "de"-grading you, they are simply not "up"-grading you to first class. Everyone who flies is at the least in coach... but some pay more for first class.


But just how bad coach class is has yet to be seen. Right now we are all flying coach with no option for first class. Even Google, Yahoo, MSN......

If you want to use that analogy, it would be like getting to the airport, expecting to buy a ticket for coach class, only to be told that there are now fewer coach seats than first class seats, and the 10 coach seats on each flight are unfortunately full for every flight until next month.

"Sorry sir, if you want to pay for first class we can get you to your business meeting in time, otherwise you will have to wait until next month. We make so much money serving our first class passengers, we just aren't bothering to serve the independant businessman any more. It just isn't profitable enough for us."

Unfortunately you wouldn't even have the option to choose another airline because each airport would only be serviced by one airline.
Gillian Auld
EcoGraphic Design
www.EcoGraphic.ca

Design is the intermediary between information and understanding
Richard Grefe




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

-->