For those who aren’t necessarily in the know, there has been a debate going on for some time now among the big-guns of the internet regarding your use.

With sites like youtube, last.fm, metacafe, google maps and similar streaming unique content to your computer, along with programs like skype, msn, bittorent and other allowing you to easily download masses of information; some people believe there is a need to pose further restrictions on what constitutes “acceptable use” and what an ISP should be allowed to do to keep its network accessible for all users.

While in Australia any further restrictions are arguably invalid from the users point of view (seeing as you already pay on a time-data-speed basis) for the most part, these ideas sound great to our US friends; as providing access based on maximum speed alone has been the way to go for the most part.

Heres an example of the problem we as ISP’s are now facing, as put by Ars Technica:

Here’s the problem: data on the Internet is exploding. IDC estimates that 161 exabytes of digital content was created and copied in 2006; in 2010, that number could grow as high as 988 exabytes. Not all digital content passes across the Internet, of course, but much of it does (and more of it will as online backup systems become pervasive).

Cisco‘s estimates for IP traffic are in line with this growth rate in digital content. The network equipment maker estimates that IP traffic will quintuple between 2006 and 2011, and it says that P2P traffic alone will account for three exabytes of data each month by that time. Cisco notes that three exabytes is equivalent to 750 million DVDs.

…

But the growth in file sizes is made worse by a concurrent increase in the use of P2P as a delivery mechanism. Distribution gets pushed form the center of the network to the edges as users increasingly become both the consumers and providers of content, so the tubes could be clogged in both directions. Much of this traffic may not even reach the public Internet when large ISPs like AT&T and Comcast have both the uploader and downloader as subscribers. The USIIA describes this transition as a traffic shift “from the Internet backbone to a peered system in which content is streamed directly to consumers,” and the group notes that it will require ISPs to upgrade the most expensive part of their networks to keep pace: the last mile.

So ISP’s face the pressure to build up the “Edge” networks, or find a way to keep the traffic to a reasonable level between all users. You may think that they could just turn off all filters and let whatever is going at the time take preference, but then you should also think about the services you currently rely on… skype, VoIP in general, email, basic web page access and similar would all grind to a halt as those who also use the high bandwidth services destroy any Quality of Service for us all.

Its not just p2p that is the issue thou, sites like facebook and myspace, full of dynamic content, pictures, streaming soundclips and more can often cause similar peak usage while a user is in front of the computer.

Even google has come in with its own thoughts on the idea:

One problem with charging for total bytes transferred (in either direction) is that users will have no reasonable way to estimate their monthly costs. Clicking on a link can take you to an unexpected streaming site or a major file transfer.

So the real question for today’s broadband networks is not whether they need to be managed, but rather how.

In my view, Internet traffic should be managed with an eye towards applications and protocols. For example, a broadband provider should be able to prioritize packets that call for low latency (the period of time it takes for a packet to travel from Point A to Point B), but such prioritization should be applied across the board to all low latency traffic, not just particular application providers. Broadband carriers should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market under the rubric of network management.

Network management also should be narrowly tailored, with bandwidth constraints aimed essentially at times of actual congestion. In the middle of the night, available capacity may be entirely sufficient, and thus moderating users’ traffic may be unnecessary. Some have suggested metered pricing — charging by the megabyte rather than flat fee plans — as a solution to congestion, and prices could be adjusted at non-peak periods. These kinds of pricing plans, depending on how they are devised or implemented, could end up creating the wrong incentives for consumers to scale back their use of Internet applications over broadband networks.

As you can see from this, Australia isn’t really in a great position on the Broadband scale right now, but many 3rd party providers (read: Not Telstra or Optus) are trying to get things right by giving the users the best options they can provide at the time (any Internode users have seen at least 2 data package upgrades so far this year at no extra cost) and with companies like PipeNetworks bringing in their own links from overseas, cheaper access may not be that far off for us here.

Where does AccessPlus sit on this? For the most part, we’re already using some of suggestions outlined in the article. We like other providers are forced to charge a Dollars for Data rate that allows us to pay our backhaul providers but in terms of speed we start with a minimum guaranteed rate and give the users the benefit of higher speeds in non-peak times.

Links can be thought of as an Information highway. The highway is built to handle traffic, but no-one can afford to build an 8 lane highway to accommodate full peak traffic. The highway is managed and upgraded over time to suit the average amount of traffic going over it, hence if you get on the highway in rush-hour your speed will be limited by the concurrent usage whereas jumping in your car for a drive at 2am in the morning will give you near unhindered access aside from the occasional semi. Looking at this from the internet perspective once again, those semi’s could be compared to the internet ‘downloaders’ regardless of if the content is:

- a series of podcasts

- movies purchased online via itunes or similar stores

- p2p file sharing

- updates for online games (anyone who’s played World of warcraft would’ve downloaded gigs of patches )

When enough of those semi’s get on the highway, they use up more space than regular users, even cutting off and getting in the way of other users in peak times. This is by no means a bad thing as all users have the right to access what they want when they want, but without restrictions in place this would become a real internet gridlock for all.

Articles:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080804-google-backs-isp-guaranteed-minimum-data-rates.html

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/08/whats-reasonable-approach-for-managing.html

http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2008/08/hunting-unicorns-myths-and-realities-of-the-net-neutrality-debate/

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/the-coming-exaflood.ars

Post to...