Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

The end of the (free) pipe dream?

Filed under
Web

What's gone wrong? Your service provider has abandoned the principle of network neutrality - that a particular service should be treated the same no matter who provides it. Unlike traffic shaping, which prioritises time-sensitive services such as internet telephony over less critical ones like music downloads, lack of network neutrality means that you no longer have a free choice of internet telephony service, as your ISP slows down or even refuses to carry the traffic of providers who haven't paid.

Although ISPs in the UK currently maintain neutrality, the issue is becoming a big one in the United States, with Senate hearings being held amid the clash of lobbyists. Service providers want network neutrality to be the law.

Telecommunications infrastructure providers on the other hand, frustrated that their stock is clapped in irons in the hold while that of Google and other service providers admires the view from the crow's nest, are planning a mutiny. They want a piece of that $2 billion-per-quarter treasure chest.

Ed Whitacre, the chief executive of SBC, a large telecoms company, summarised their frustration last year when he said: "Why should the service providers be allowed to use my pipes? The internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts!"

So should telecoms companies be allowed to discriminate?

Full Story.

I'm all for making a buck...

But come on, we pay them quite enough for the poor service they already provide. And just how are they going to differentiate between a telephone call, an mp3 download, and an e-mail?

*******
http://myfirstlinux.com

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

Leftovers: Gaming

Leftovers: Software

today's howtos

ACPI, kernels and contracts with firmware

This ends up being a pain in the neck in the x86 world, but it could be much worse. Way back in 2008 I wrote something about why the Linux kernel reports itself to firmware as "Windows" but refuses to identify itself as Linux. The short version is that "Linux" doesn't actually identify the behaviour of the kernel in a meaningful way. "Linux" doesn't tell you whether the kernel can deal with buffers being passed when the spec says it should be a package. "Linux" doesn't tell you whether the OS knows how to deal with an HPET. "Linux" doesn't tell you whether the OS can reinitialise graphics hardware. Read more