During the mild month of April, Representitive Edward Markey(D) of Massachusetts proposed a measure to prohibit telecommunications companies from charging additional taxes to internet content providers based on individual websites they serve. The proposition would have prevented large communications and bandwidth providers such as At&t, SBC, Time Warner and the vast array of providers from applying an additional fee for bandwidth hogging websites.

In present day, communication providers are responsible for providing the fiber, copper and long-haul network connections many companies rely on to distribute media such as video streaming, audio and large websites. As the topic currently acts, providers do not receive compensation for the amount of flow being utilized by individual companies or services. Providers are contracted to provide a specific amount of bandwidth across numerous lines to various other networks to allow information to be delviered quickly and redundantly to the consumer.

Large network providers such as SBC and At&t would like to receive commissions based on who they are actually serving for and to. The industry beleives such remuneration as fair compensation for the substantial costs of operating these networks, equipment and maintenance provided by their staff and operation.

Many researchers believe that end-users and consumers should be okay with spending an additional tax per se for a faster more reliable connection for content delivery. This belief is based upon the same concept that consumers are willing to pay an outrageous fee for an overnight delivery of a package. Creating a system as aforementioned wouldn’t be extremely difficult, in fact the technology is already present on most networks. Even down to the consumer level of the technical side, many in-home routing appliances and VoIP devices have QoS services embedded within them. These services are actually known as differentiated service routers. These routing devices and their integrated systems prioritize data flow on the current network based on the protocol and port in which the service is utlizing. For example, assume your internet connection is limited to a max burst rate of 4mbps, this is the case for most average cable users, and you are currently downloading a file at your full rate of speed and you recieved a phone call across your VoIP telephone, your QoS agent will manipulate the traffic flow to allow the desired amount of data transfer to be opened up for your phone call and release the rest back to your incoming file stream.

The government is going to try to pass such a bill as outlined above to allow service providers to add an additional tax to our internet service bills. These taxes are going to be option, we hope, to allow for specific consumers to have the ability to retrieve data across the internet at a slightly higher rate of delivery than non-taxed consumers. Until this point, if you wanted data to be delivered any faster than your current ability, you would upgrade your internet connection. Example, upgrade from a 4mbps downstream cable connection to a 9mbps connection. However, you could also opt to switch providers to have a better route to the destinations you connect to most frequently. Now, we can look forward to our current packages plus an additional fee to ensure we have our requested content delivered at a rate of reasonable acceptance.

After researching the legality regarding the topic, I decided to contact a few individuals within the large bandwidth providing industry and get their comments. The questions I asked were simple and straight to the point. I originally quized each individual on the topic as a whole, determined their level of knowledge with the topic mentioned above and received their generalized opinion. Following their opinion I cased them for a more detailed and justified statement to backup their thoughts. The final consensus was just about the same.

I am against the bill at all costs! I don’t know if my company is large enough to make any substanial impact, compared to larger companies such as SBC and Road Runner, it actually would likely put us out of business. It is nothing more than a few companies such as SBC trying to compensate for their ridiculously low DSL prices. They’re charging $12.99 for DSL access and because they’re making no money they’re trying to inrease the profit marging using taxes. As a DSL provider as well we pay for large bandwidth lines such as DS3s to haul in the DSL clients, then we pay PER client. Honestly, if the bill did pass, the current internet would likely fall or we would begin to build a new one.

Smaller companies such as ours would not be able to stay in business if we had to pay new taxes on bandwidth and increase our overall prices for services to our consumers. Providers should upgrade their networks to continue to provide us with the services we pay for and expect as consumers. The entire policy seems to be nothing more than an attempt to slow the growth of the internet. They should be coming up with new ways to upgrade and speed backbones up to higher performing levels, versus slowing users down. It is going to cause consumers to cancel DSL and cable lines, no point in paying for a service you can’t utilize. Lets just time warp everyone back down to the 90s, give everyone dialup and inform them of the relentless wait times for file downloads, the bill will never pass..

Ryan Pekarik, IT Manager for Oplink, Texas

Personally, I agree with Ryan. The entire situation is nothing more than a method for current companies to make up for lost operational costs because of decreased service costs. SBC launches DSL services with an extremely low fee, Verizon offers up an extremely fast connection with modest fees. All in all the internet has become more affordable! For users like myself who want a blazing fast connection, I can get it for cheaper than $100.00 a month now, unlike two years ago. And for users who want a broadband connection, coming from dialup for $3.99 a month, they can as well for a modest $13.00 a month. I made a statement to friends during a conversation when Verizon originally made Fios public. I beleived that Fios would change our entire perception on the internet as a whole. Media delivery is going to be in larger quantities, not necissarily faster, but larger. The pipes have grown and now companies are having to make up for their premature service launches. I have not heard of any complaints on behalf of Level(3) or Verizon over their new service offerings, however, this situation is going to effect everyone. From the fiber owners such as Williams Communications to Resellers of bandwidth such as ThePlanet.

If the current speeds of the internet and end user connections would remain the same, I can honestly say I would have less of a problem with it. However, with connection sizes growing and being provided from companies such as mine, the system is already tiered. I cannot comprehend why they would even involve a third-party or additional charge for browsing faster. It’s stupid unnecissary!

Anonymous, Cogent Communications

Now, not only do you have my opinion, but others as well. I sent my questions off to another friend who obviously has not had the oppurtunity to respond. I am curious as to what his opinions on the conversation will be, primarily because he operates an extremely large network currently. This would effect him greater than Oplink due to size, however, additionally he gets ome bandwidth from Cogent, a large amount actually. As soon as I hear back from him, I will post his statements.

What do you think of the bill, should it pass, fail or do you care? The internet was not developed like cable television.. users aren’t paying for premium channel packages, our premium channels are more or less like premium networks, which we already pay a considerably larger amount for already. It isn’t the consumers fault some networks have faults. I’m curious to read your opinions!