Friday, 30. April 2010. 18:41 von 4-HTECHWIZARDS.ORG
I am sure many of you have heard the term “Network Neutrality” returned about a lot. But what exactly does it mean to be neutral? What is that ISPs are kicking such a fuss?
Well, since the “dot com bubble” burst, so to speak, we have had a lot of infrastructure and bandwidth to play with. That and a massive broadband Internet connections through technologies such as cable and ADSL have led to a rapid increase in both number and type of content online.
Seven years ago, it may take a minute to download page, 56k modem, if it would be more than a few small JPEG it. Now studies show that on average, we are disappointed, if the page takes more than three seconds to load. We have digital images throughout the high resolutions, Internet radio and pod-casting is a broad (though apparently at risk), and online videos galore dot the landscape. We enjoyed the richest content on the Internet or other media service has never been able to offer.
Most Web sites now operate a similar model, due to the advertising revenue rather than the contents of orders. And most of us have become accustomed not to pay (at least not directly) the content we see on the Internet. All are welcome. Internet regularly receive our monthly revenue, content providers receive regular stream of viewers and generate revenue from advertising, and we get the child has a golf ball retriever as a light saber.
But the dark times are ahead. . .
Although the current system works well, it seems that not everyone is so happy as we thought. Internet seems to want a little more.
For many years, ISPs have provided their own Internet services, and provides a connection. AOL is its search system, Instant Messenger client, and even use their own browser on again (even though it was only Internet Explorer wearing a pretty dress). And many other companies have partnerships with content providers. United Kingdom, where I live, British Telecom (BT) is a Yahoo one, and although none of its properties forced us to have a clear bias to promote BT Yahoo content.
Now, service providers need the present system “unfair.” Say, “what they [content providers] want to do is use my pipes for free” (a direct quote and CEO Edward Whitacre Split Banc Corp – a group that now owns a large American ISP AT & T). And a recent report, Jupiter Research has concluded that a two-tier Internet can be introduced in the UK, where service providers are unable to resist the temptation to pricing access at both ends. And here I was thanking my lucky starts that this would only apply to the USA!
What does this mean? Well, they are effectively saying that they want to anyone providing information along their cables will be charged. It feels really good to apply at first sight, but when you look deeper, you’ll see that it simply does not work. The proposed model, where the fee payer can achieve higher bandwidth rates via the ISP’s system will be achieved only by restricting the normal traffic at lower speeds. They can not create a new more advanced than that for paying customers, forcing them nobody is paying on a lower level than now.
This is a big Internet companies like Google and Microsoft worried. Almost all of Google’s revenues come in the form of ad generation through search engine in conjunction with other projects exist only to help users to develop in. If they were forced to operate slower speeds, even Google’s lightweight template without a glossy or more tickets would be affected. What about all the splendors we are accustomed to? What about the 24 / 7 streaming video, Internet radio, endless guides and photos, blogs and guides, reviews, forums, chat and Instant Messaging far away friends?
What is Wikipedia? They are deemed to be of a body is not “income” as only donations and sponsorship to keep them and their servers running. How can they pay the fees, so that people could get them on? How to wake up could not exist at all, if people could never get them to easily customize and participate?
This generation of Internet is the source of all knowledge, even if the information is incorrect, defective, or simply useless. We have it all in our reach, and we want to do so.
Many critics and human rights advocates say China’s “Great Firewall” as the worst abuse of Internet technology. China to filter the content of its citizens for historical revisionism and government propaganda. But all this variety, which has proposed its own ISP?
Blocking or at least restrict access to certain sites, because they do not pay for the privilege did not show any difference to me. In fact, seems even worse because it comes very close to violating antitrust laws. Internet service providers offer their services can not force customers to help them the same way that Microsoft can not force customers to use Live Search, or Windows Media Player in Windows Vista.
What are we likely to see, but not all of the exclusion of dissidents cheapskate companies, but something similar to what has been implemented in response to Internet-Bit Torrent and other broadband peer-to-peer applications: traffic shaping. This simply means that service providers set up controls to restrict traffic companies “blacklisted” and give priority to companies that pay way.
It makes me think, however. How does the pricing system for service work at the international level? No one company alone owns a large part of the Internet backbone (infrastructure with international connectivity through broadband fiber optics). And you can really claim that the content provider can not use part of the network without paying? It could act at the local level where individual service providers define “use pipe” such as sending the contents of one of their customers, but when the international backbone networks used in the beginning of what will happen?
Most of the world’s web servers are located in the United States. Are the Europeans will be omitted because American companies do not pay fees to get fast speeds across the Atlantic link? Are the content providers will probably pay for each major ISP in order to transport them to go anywhere? What about countries like India and China, a rapidly growing number of Internet users? Will they want to pay fees? Is the Chinese government just take the opportunity to close off the whole world?
Since the United Kingdom, I am hopeful that the European Union more efficient and to prevent such a disaster. They have a hard line to Microsoft abuse its monopoly operating system market to force consumers to other services on top, so maybe they will listen to businesses and the lackeys in September when the opportunity to ensure network neutrality comes up in their oh-so-busy schedule.
Yes, content providers offer Internet infrastructure, but a lot of it was there first, when the dot-com boom and subsequent burst. Many of the smaller ISPs in the UK only rent equipment and broadband lines BT (British Telecom, the former state-owned telecommunications company before privatization). Internet backbone itself is owned by the largest companies and some governments around the world. In order to net neutrality, the Internet is permitted to pay the end user can use any part of the internet. They merely provide access to what else is connected to the network.
The problem is they are starting to see the content providers to end-users as well. Very core of the problem is that network providers do not want anyone to use part of the network without paying for it. Although it may seem like a market could enable more competitive, this is not what it offers.
What happens when a small start-ups will not be anyone without paying fees? These on their content production costs of the cost of hosting said content, and pay the cost of one-time Internet connection and bandwidth already. It’s not like the content producers do not already pay for access to them. However, what has been proposed that they pay for all Internet service providers, not just one, by providing them with a local connection, but the only one who owns the backbone cabling.
But what happens when there is no “new My Space” to attract people? What happens when all people are offered by one company is looking for, etc. through your ISP? What happens when they can not watch videos, listen to Internet radio, see the wild pictures and read the occasional murmur about someone else’s life?
If the service providers just thought, why do we all go onto the internet, and realized that we are all more than just a bunch of numbers, which seem to endlessly want to pay them money on offer in this context, so they do not want to think twice about neutering it. They do not see that we were not genuinely have cable. We pay to get what the other hand, head, and just put up with Internet access to it.
Lowest Domain and hosting services from http://www. yours domain. com
Online videos http://www. ispcheck. com. SME
Lowest UK hosting http://www. theexalter. co. uk