Vodafone: Net neutrality won't work without second network

What is really needed is both a IPX and a second Video and Data Centric Wireless Network running in parallel to the existing Voice grade Cell Network like AT&T HSDPA network. This will allow the Carriers to focus on what they do best and that is deliver (focus)high quality Voice services on their GSM nets and redirecting their subscribers demanding very high bandwidth low latency symmetrical type services to a more robust Wireless network. AT&T might surprise everyone here by directing development and deployment of a new (Parallel)Wireless network combining their new 700Mhz spectrum with the new WiMAX technology. This plus a new series of smartphone/laptops with dual mode (700Mhz WiMAX and HSDPA)devices would allow their existing customers to automatically switch between the 2 nets based on content/Application requested. Cost to deploy this new net on some of the existing towers would be cheaper then to do a forklift upgrade to their existing HSPDA net to LTE just to be a me-to to VZW. AT&T has stated that they have another generation of technology in their GSM stable that would allow them to cost effectively (firmware) upgrade their existing nets that would effectively allow them to run a re-focused Voice Centric network for another 5-10 years. This would give their competitor (Verizon Wireless) major problems as they try and deploy their LTE network in the 2010 time frame and attempt to balance their Voice with these new demands for serious Data/Video and Audio sharing. AT&T would then have: 1.Highest quality Voice Network-everything focused on delivering VOice. 2. The most Robust Data/Video Centric (and some new VoiceIP) low latency symmetrical type Mobile Wireless network in parallel an in conjunction with the VOice net. 3. A MediaFLo Mobile Video Broadcast Network operating in conjuction with the above 2 networks. 4. New relationships (pure quess) with the Master Content Applications Service provider Google, providing the highest quality Premium access to its Worldwide Network of Data Centers. My my how strong would that be?

Leftley is exactly right that there is a fundamental conflict in internet economics--all bits cost the same to transport but are not all worth the same to the user. It certainly appears there is acknowledgement of this in regulatory bodies--the question isn't if network management, but how is it done. However, Leftley seems to be only addressing QoS across a core network. While that is important, the bigger issue is in the scarce and more expensive last mile, especially for mobile operators. Rather than deploy an entirely separate access network as suggested in the earlier comment, technology exists (or is develpoment) that would allow for dynamic differential QoS over the same access network--i.e. PCMM in cable, secondary PDP contexts with RF qoS in mobile. As bandwidth/user goes up, this technology will become key as long as operators are clear and open about the terms of how it is used.

The idea of a second network is a scare tactic of telecom never having or caring to have a handle on the IP world. There is a fundemental and monetary difference between a T1 and DS1. In general terms, a T1 is a term arbitrarily placed on lowest common denominator in facilitory transport. The less commonly known is the DS1 which is to most equivelant, but fundementaly different. Both manages up to 1.54 Mb of data or voice. Both are used interchangably in the telecom world because we know the difference, but you will never hear the term DS1 in an IT environment because they shouldn't exist there because of their inherent inefficiencies. Let us start with a T1. A T1 is in simplist terms a 1.54 Mb pipe. Everybody who thinks they know what they are talking about uses this term in debates. In this environment, users are like wild horses in open fields. There is really no "true" management in the internet, but it wasn't designed to be managable, but efficient. I mean that between two points the retrieval of data takes the "least cost route" to its destination and it only consumes the space of the total size of the package and doesn't require a dedicated 56 kb tributary to complete the transaction. Here is the teleco issue, the future is out of control and unmanagable. A DS1 consists of 24 64 kb channels that is equivelent to 1.54 Mb. These 24 channels in the telecom world are known as talk channels and the consist of exactly one conversation regardless of the substance. Whether it is dead air, a yapping mother-in, or a fax, it can only be used by one person at a time ie very managable. Everyone is familiar with a landline and that green stump at the corner of neighborhoods. That stump may consist of a number of T1s and each of the 24 64 kb channels are broken out to each home. This is the reason why you could only get 56 kbs, theoretically, on a conventional modem. You will loose 8 kbs and a 3 to 4 kbs on control and overhead. This is the telecom world, control and management. Essentially, they don't know how much it costs to take a breath let along the amount of effort it takes 1 kb of data to move between Dallas, TX and London, UK. In the "old" teleco work, things are finite; 24 ds0s on a ds1, 28 ds1s on a ds3 and 3 ds3s in a OC3. The internet is truly a cloud and made of infinite possibilities. The telcos had no problem thinking is terms of 56 kbs (analog modems) but when the competition of the cable providers forced their hand to move into the DSL realm, they unwillingly accepted the double edge sword. The reaped the benefits of the side that comes with the growth of customers but the are falling on the side of competition. And, they are trying to mask the competition side that is forcing them to grow at an extraordinary pace and infinite possibilities with their own fear of doing business in an open and free market. They don't want to be regulated but they want to regulate their customers. I hope they will have a better understanding and respect for government after this whole thing blows up in their face. Fair is fair, don't regulate us if you don't want to be regulated. This DPI is the term used to qualify as QoS. This is a facade. Telcos: You have the network and I want to use it. I pay for it, I want it they way I expect.