Internet bottleneck

Internet Bottlenecks

Internet bottlenecks are places in telecommunication networks in which ISPs, or naturally occurring high use of the network, slows or alters the network speed of the users and/or content producers using that network. A bottleneck is a more general term for a system that has been reduced or slowed due to limited resources or components. The bottleneck occurs in a network when there are too many users attempting to access a specific resource. Internet bottlenecks provide artificial and natural network choke points to inhibit certain sets of users from overloading the entire network by consuming too much bandwidth. Theoretically, this will lead users and content producers through alternative paths to accomplish their goals while limiting the network load at any one time. Alternatively, Internet bottlenecks have been seen as a way for ISPs to take advantage of their dominant market-power increasing rates for content providers to push past bottlenecks. The Federal Communication Commission has created regulations stipulating that artificial bottlenecks are in direct opposition to a free and open Internet.

Technical Details

The technical details surrounding Internet Bottlenecks are largely related to network congestion in which the user experiences a delay in delivering or accessing content. The bottlenecks can occur naturally, during high network use, or artifically created in order to prevent the network from experiencing overload.

The network demands of users continues to grow and with it so do the pressures on networks. The way current technologies process information over the network is slow and consumes large amounts of energy. ISPs and engineers argue that these issues with the increased demand on the networks result in necessary bottlenecks, but the bottlenecks also occur because of the lack of technology to handle such huge data needs. There are attempts being made to increase the speed, amount of data, and reduce power consumption by the networks. For example, optical memory devices could be used in the future to send and receive light signals working much faster and more efficiently than electrical signals. Some researchers see optical memory as needed to reduce the demands on the network routers in data transmission, while others do not. The research will continue to explore possibilities for greater network bandwidth and data transfer. As data consumption needs increase, so will the need for better technology that facilitates the transfer and storage of that data.

Political Details

The policy infrastructure is an important facet to network neutrality. Network neutrality has been continually debated, but Internet bottlenecks have largely been lumped into the debate. The Federal Communication Commission published a new set of regulatory rules for ISPs on September 23, 2011, which took effect November 20, 2011. This new set of regulations has three primary rules:

1. Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services;
2. No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful Web sites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services; and
3. No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

Of these rules, setup by the FCC, only number 2 and number 3 apply to network bottlenecks. Network bottlenecks represent a specific part of that policy discussion in which ISPs are able to create network flows that are slower for competitors possibly leading customers to go to another website that is more easily accessed, which gives the parent or children companies of the ISPs an advantage. Thus, in the FCC's rule number 2 and 3 there are specific requirements that ISPs do not discriminate or restrict services to those companies who offer competing services similar to the ISP's services.

Alternatively, ISPs argue that the bottlenecks are necessary to create artificial control points that create a better experience for all users and content providers creating a more fair and balanced network system. Thus, there is a market-based approach to addressing the issue of bottlenecking by allowing the market to choose from other ISPs that are providing better network speeds, which may force the ISPs using Internet bottlenecks to reduce or remove the bottlenecks.

Internet bottlenecks are nested within the political framework surrounding network neutrality. Network neutrality is an Internet that is regulated by the government in order to maintain equal and equitable access to network resources by all interested parties.

The interested parties in this political issue include:

1. ISPs - whose interest is to maintain profitability while maintaining quality service to a loyal consumer and content provider base.
2. Advocacy groups - their goal is to regulate the ISPs. Advocacy groups believe the ISPs are misusing a public good that should be equally distributed to all people and organizations.
3. Content provider - the institution that creates content on the web and distributes that content through networks belonging to ISPs.
4. Individual consumer - the average person in the United States, who has home access to the Internet, wireless smart phone data use, or any other Internet access.

Pro-Regulation

Organizations, such as the Free Press argue that Internet bottlenecks are unnecessary and used by ISPs to arbitrarily lead users to alternate websites, which may or may not be companies of the ISPs. Groups like Free Press, Consumer Federation of America, and Consumers Union argue that the ISPs have no reason to remove bottlenecks from the network. The ISPs can charge more money to content providers to push past the Internet bottleneck. However, Free Press argues that ISPs could alleviate bottlenecks for all by increasing available bandwidth. Advocacy groups are not the only arm of pro-regulation; Google and other companies like Facebook and Wikipedia support regulatory policy that stops ISPs from placing network bottlenecks on content providers and consumers. Thus, the pro-regulatory argument is for Network Neutrality. If network neutrality does not pass or is ignored than it is probable that ISPs will not increase bandwidth for all customers, but only provide bandwidth to those content providers with more resources. This approach is more of a market-driven approach, which is argued as being as in favor of ISPs.

Anti-Regulation

Alternatively, the groups that represent the anti-regulation of Internet bottlenecks are Comcast, At&t, etc... They argue that their networks need the Internet bottlenecks in order to protect the use by all users within the network.

The Role of Government

The FCC has been tasked with designing and maintaining national broadband through the National Broadband Plan (United States).

The federal government has drafted several bills, x, y, z, but none have had any substantial win for either side.

From the Content Provider

Content providers are actors who have specific interest in gaining as much Internet traffic as possible, but they also have other competitors from other content providers. Advocacy groups argue that content providers need regulated fair access, while some content providers support this, others recommend a free-market system as suggested by Free Press. Those who can afford to bypass any Internet bottleneck will then have an advantage in network speeds, but will have to pay for it.

Subsequently, in some cases, peering, creating a physical connection between two networks to avoid other network transit services, has been used to bypass Internet bottlenecks by the user and content provider. There is some speculation that if there is no regulation of Internet bottlenecks, both users and content providers will simply create systems like peering to navigate around ISPs effectively neutralizing them. This may also lead to network security risks that would enable....