ISPs face choices about allowing 'free riders'
Portable cell numbers far off subscriber only content
BOSTON - As the Internet becomes the way to carry voice, video and data traffic, one of the big issues on the horizon is how network operators deal with increasing amounts of traffic.
One way to address the challenge is upgrading networks to handle new services. Bell Canada, for example, is spending $1.4-billion over the next three years in Ontario and Quebec while Verizon Communications Inc. has an ambitious US$5-billion strategy to bring high-capacity networks right into the homes of consumers.
Another option that has remained in the shadows is filtering and/or blocking traffic that affects a network's performance or competes with an operator's own services. While the practice is currently little-used, there are signs it is a tool being explored more closely and, in some cases, used.
Shaw Communications Inc., for example, has a $10 a month "service" that promises a better performance for VoIP services such as Vonage or Primus, which suggests Shaw has ways to prioritize voice packets travelling over its high-speed cable network.
In China, the blocking/filtering moved into the spotlight amid reports China Telecom has started to block access to Skype because it is hurting the carrier's lucrative long-distance business. China Telecom has apparently created a "black list" of people who use Skype, and threatens to fine anyone who attempts to circumvent the new rules.
At a recent VoIP conference, the filtering/blocking issue was addressed during in a lively panel called "Free Riders vs. Internet Freedoms." The focus was whether Web-based services have the "right" to travel unencumbered over high-speed networks even if the companies providing these services don't contribute to the network's maintenance or upgrade -- versus the right to "manage" traffic to ensure the network's efficient and reliable performance.
Needless to say, the two representatives from the cable industry on the panel faced a barrage of questions and accusations from people who think there should be no limitations on what can travel over high-speed networks.
While voice traffic over high-speed networks is getting a lot of attention given VoIP's rapid growth, a far more contentious situation could be the rise of video services as IP-TV is launched by carriers while "independent" video producers offer downloaded and streaming video services.
A good example of things to come is NerdTV, a one-hour interview show hosted by PBS.org technology columnist Robert Cringely, that can be downloaded. Mr. Cringely a classic self-promoter, boldly pronounces that "if not the future of television, NerdTV represents a future of television for niche audiences that have a deep interest in certain topics".
If Mr. Cringely's lofty vision materializes, it raises the thorny issue of how cable companies and carriers will regard and treat third-party video traffic that not only travels over their networks but competes against their own programming. What happens if consumers start to download many of their favourite television shows directly from suppliers -- be they independents or majors such as HBO -- and decide to downgrade or stop their cable service? At what point do the cablecos and carriers offering IP-TV say "enough is enough, you're either with us or against us?"
For now, the carriers and cablecos are playing nice with companies offering voice, video and data services over their high-speed networks. In Canada, Bell Canada, Telus Corp., Rogers Communications Inc. and Shaw have promised the CRTC they will not filter or block traffic on their networks but there are no specific regulations that currently prevent them from doing it.
A question poised to the panel at Fall VON last week in Boston was what role, if any, should government regulation play in ensuring the free flow of traffic over broadband networks. Should the CRTC or the U.S. Federal Communications Commission enact regulations that prevent traffic from being filtered or blocked?
While there is probably a case to be made for regulation, a big issue is where to draw the line given traffic can be blocked or filtered at different layers. For example, Microsoft could theoretically put controls within its operating system or Windows Media player to prevent "unauthorized" content -- a.k.a. content not affiliated with programming or network partners -- from being accessed on a personal computer. Does this mean the government needs to apply filtering/blocking regulations to software makers as well?
These are interesting and provocative questions that are being discussed among industry players and regulators but it could be a few years before the issue works itself into the spotlight as Web-based services become more prevalent and popular. Then, the economic issues will come into play for high-speed network operators who may be forced to decide if they want to compete against the "free riders" or rein them in.
Portable cell numbers far off subscriber only content
BOSTON - As the Internet becomes the way to carry voice, video and data traffic, one of the big issues on the horizon is how network operators deal with increasing amounts of traffic.
One way to address the challenge is upgrading networks to handle new services. Bell Canada, for example, is spending $1.4-billion over the next three years in Ontario and Quebec while Verizon Communications Inc. has an ambitious US$5-billion strategy to bring high-capacity networks right into the homes of consumers.
Another option that has remained in the shadows is filtering and/or blocking traffic that affects a network's performance or competes with an operator's own services. While the practice is currently little-used, there are signs it is a tool being explored more closely and, in some cases, used.
Shaw Communications Inc., for example, has a $10 a month "service" that promises a better performance for VoIP services such as Vonage or Primus, which suggests Shaw has ways to prioritize voice packets travelling over its high-speed cable network.
In China, the blocking/filtering moved into the spotlight amid reports China Telecom has started to block access to Skype because it is hurting the carrier's lucrative long-distance business. China Telecom has apparently created a "black list" of people who use Skype, and threatens to fine anyone who attempts to circumvent the new rules.
At a recent VoIP conference, the filtering/blocking issue was addressed during in a lively panel called "Free Riders vs. Internet Freedoms." The focus was whether Web-based services have the "right" to travel unencumbered over high-speed networks even if the companies providing these services don't contribute to the network's maintenance or upgrade -- versus the right to "manage" traffic to ensure the network's efficient and reliable performance.
Needless to say, the two representatives from the cable industry on the panel faced a barrage of questions and accusations from people who think there should be no limitations on what can travel over high-speed networks.
While voice traffic over high-speed networks is getting a lot of attention given VoIP's rapid growth, a far more contentious situation could be the rise of video services as IP-TV is launched by carriers while "independent" video producers offer downloaded and streaming video services.
A good example of things to come is NerdTV, a one-hour interview show hosted by PBS.org technology columnist Robert Cringely, that can be downloaded. Mr. Cringely a classic self-promoter, boldly pronounces that "if not the future of television, NerdTV represents a future of television for niche audiences that have a deep interest in certain topics".
If Mr. Cringely's lofty vision materializes, it raises the thorny issue of how cable companies and carriers will regard and treat third-party video traffic that not only travels over their networks but competes against their own programming. What happens if consumers start to download many of their favourite television shows directly from suppliers -- be they independents or majors such as HBO -- and decide to downgrade or stop their cable service? At what point do the cablecos and carriers offering IP-TV say "enough is enough, you're either with us or against us?"
For now, the carriers and cablecos are playing nice with companies offering voice, video and data services over their high-speed networks. In Canada, Bell Canada, Telus Corp., Rogers Communications Inc. and Shaw have promised the CRTC they will not filter or block traffic on their networks but there are no specific regulations that currently prevent them from doing it.
A question poised to the panel at Fall VON last week in Boston was what role, if any, should government regulation play in ensuring the free flow of traffic over broadband networks. Should the CRTC or the U.S. Federal Communications Commission enact regulations that prevent traffic from being filtered or blocked?
While there is probably a case to be made for regulation, a big issue is where to draw the line given traffic can be blocked or filtered at different layers. For example, Microsoft could theoretically put controls within its operating system or Windows Media player to prevent "unauthorized" content -- a.k.a. content not affiliated with programming or network partners -- from being accessed on a personal computer. Does this mean the government needs to apply filtering/blocking regulations to software makers as well?
These are interesting and provocative questions that are being discussed among industry players and regulators but it could be a few years before the issue works itself into the spotlight as Web-based services become more prevalent and popular. Then, the economic issues will come into play for high-speed network operators who may be forced to decide if they want to compete against the "free riders" or rein them in.
