Net neutrality
From LentzWiki
Or... how the net is financed.
Network neutrality is a consumer-based, flat-rate pricing system for network services. See Wikipedia Net Neutrality page for details on the basics.
Net neutrality would ensure that those operating Internet connections don't prioritise one type of content over another, or charge them at different rates. The reason being, it's not just a technical question but quickly turns into a battle of interests. Some will tell you that with VoIP and IPTV, we may need differentiated charging; well, that thesis has been proven wrong in the past (in the early 90s some were saying the same about email, yet many countries went for flat rate very quickly and these countries are now amoung the front-runners on the net!)
Contents |
Interests
- Without net neutrality, ISP or infrastructure provider may decide to give certain types of traffic priority. Does that prioritisation jive with your wishes? It might, or it might seriously hinder your choices and restrict the way you can use the net.
- Without net neutrality, a stakeholder could strike a deal with an ISP or infrastructure provider, to give its favourite kind of traffic priority. Let's say Sony (just an example!) wants to promote some kind of "pay per view" service... well I'm sorry, but I would like to get what I want when I want it, which may or may not be from Sony, and may not be a pay per view but perhaps pay once, store locally and see when I want it?
The question is, should consumers pay for what they use, or just pay a flat fee...
In the Netherlands, for instance. most ISPs charge a flat fee per month, really unlimited. I say really because "unlimited in Australia often has small print about traffic amounts, bandwidth capping, or hours of usage. How odd!
Australia does not have a shortage of external bandwidth. Telstra, Singtel/Optus, Primus, Agile, all have international connections. And there's plenty of fiber at the bottom of the sea already to cover way more.
So why are Australians paying more, and with such limitations? Really, my broadband costs more than that of my colleagues in Mexico and Russia. Isn't that curious.
Trust
Are Australians more untrustworthy than Dutchies, that ISPs won't allow them to have unlimited traffic? That's highly doubtful.
Users do tend to splurge a bit when they first get broadband, but that quickly levels out. When there's abundance, people are comfortable that they can still get some tomorrow and don't feel inclined to binge. Internet or food, it's no different in that sense. These days we know we can go to the shop to get food, so we don't keep huge stocks in our house. There's abundance and we have trust in the infrastructure that provides it. If either the abundance or the trust breaks down, people start hoarding. Very natural.
In Australia, there is little trust from the users towards the ISPs, because plans are cancelled or changed and generally the users find themselves paying more for less. So, they are included to make use of what they have now.
The ISPs in turn see all this as proof that those darn uses will rip what they can get.
Isn't that a sad story?
The Telstra Peering Story
Once fact is that Telstra, in the early 90s, was convinced by external advisors that it would have to charge based on use, to be able to build the necessary infrastructure in the future. But let's leave aside what Telstra has done with that money...
Anyone wanting to host a website on a server in Australia, would have to deal with the bandwidth charges. That's an unknowm variable cost, and thus a big business risk. Alternatively, they can host their site in the US, and pay a fixed fee with unlimited or huge included bandwidth. So, these companies go to their US with their business. Consequently, people in Australia browsing to this site, browse to the US and generate inbound traffic towards Australia. Of course the connection will be slower than it would have been if the site had been in Australia, that's also unfortunate.
Now, the Internet infrastructure is made up of peering arrangements. These are generally "closed wallet" deals, with two or more parties agreeing to carry eachother's traffic. Do you see what's coming next? Telstra has little to bargain with, because most of its traffic is inbound, not outbound!
Not only are Australian business putting their sites in the US or elsewhere, and Australian users have to browse across the international link for domestically targeted sites, but now if a site has international appeal, we don't see the benefit of that generating outbound traffic either. It's a complete losing situation.
Conclusion
The key here is to recognise the cause and the effect. Yes Telstra is paying for stuff now because there's lots of traffic, and so users are having to pay for that. But that's not the whole story, as you have read above. The cause is the pricing structure. If it were different, then businesses could affort to host sites here, Telstra would have less inbound traffic, more outbound traffic to bargain with, and be in a much improved position with its peering partners.
Some Australian ISPs do charge a fixed fee, with broad limits that you generally don't even get close to. One such example is Internode. Their customers trust them, because they have a history of truly upgrading their plans: you keep getting more, and often for less money. Glorious. No, they're not the cheapest - but I'll happily pay more for quality; and trust!
