Accessing information and interactive resources available around the globe via the Internet is a pretty simple task. In a carefree Internet world, the dynamics of connecting to resources are transparent, and we expect resources we want to access are available through our local Internet service provider. Technical details of connecting to Internet resources are an abstract concept for most, and whatever mechanics happen behind the scenes are not relevant to our everyday use of the network.

Because the Internet is made up of a complex matrix of physical, business and international relationships, how these systems interact and collaborate is actually very important to the end user, as well as to those providing Internet services and content. Of the greatest concern impacting online resources from eBay to the Bank of America is the potential financial pressure brought on by the largest Tier 1 networks. As the only networks in the world having global Internet visibility, these few companies, including AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, Level 3, and Cable and Wireless, facilitate access to the global Internet - a function which people and companies worldwide depend on to ensure small networks and content providers are available through their local service providers.

The Tier 1 world was born at the demise of NSFNet (National Science Foundation Network). In the early days of Internet development, the NSF supported development of a large publicaly funded academic and research network throughout the United States, and connecting many foreign academic networks to the US as a hub through the International Connections Manager (ICM Network). As commercial Internet development grew in the early 1990s, the NSF realized it was time to back away from publicaly funding the "Internet" and grant contracts to large US carriers to take over responsibility for the former US Domestic backbone and ICM portions of the NSFNet.

Small Internet exchange points (IXPs) were also funded, allowing the large networks taking over NSFNet assets, as well as their own commercial Internets to connect and share Internet traffic. Those network access points (NAPs) were also contracted to the large US carriers, who managed policies for US and International network exchange. The large US carriers ultimately had control of the networks, and were the original Tier 1 Internet providers.

Roadblocks in the Internet Community

Debates around net neutrality highlight some underlying issues. The goal of net neutrality is to preserve the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet. But whether the largest networks use their control to hinder growth and innovation within the Internet-connect business community or impede free access to Internet-connected content sources, they have the power and control which could present challenges to an open Internet environment.

A Tier 1 network, for example, has the power to charge a major content delivery network (CDN) a premium to access its network. This is because the CDN may deliver a very large amount of content traffic into a network, and the Tier 1 network believes they should receive additional compensation to fund additional capacity needed to support content distribution. This premium may be more money than the CDN is willing or able to pay. In turn, if the CDN doesn't comply, the Tier 1 can ultimately refuse the CDN access to its network and cut its consumers access to the CDN's content. This applies whether consumers access the Tier 1 directly or if the Tier 1 is the middle-network between consumers and their Tier 2 or 3 networks.

A voice over Internet Protocol Company underscores another potential conflict of interest. Let's say you're a consumer of a Tier 1 network that's also a telephone company and you want to use a VoIP company, such as Vonage. But the Tier 1 doesn't want the VoIP company to compete with its network and would rather that you use its own telephone product, so the Tier 1 may prevent you from using your VoIP company. In other words, a Tier 1, in developing its own commercial VoIP product, can prevent non-owned VoIP traffic from passing through its network.

While Tier 1 networks hold value for much of the Internet world, they also impose many political and financial barriers on smaller networks, content delivery networks, emerging VoIP companies, online gaming businesses, B2B and online commerce, and entertainment web sites. It is evident that Internet Service Providers (ISPs), CDNs, VoIPs, and many others need an alternative method of communicating with each other - one providing tools to redesign how relationships and interconnections bond the US Internet content and access communities.

Breaking Down Barriers

One objective in building efficiency and the performance needed to deliver content resources to end users is to flatten existing Internet architecture. Whenever possible, you eliminate the Tier 1 Internet networks from participating in the delivery of content resources to end users.

How do we accomplish this task? One option is through development and use of commercial Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), a location where many Internet-enabled networks and content resources meet to interconnect with each other as peers.

According to Wikipedia, an IXP is a physical infrastructure that allows different Internet Service Providers to exchange Internet traffic between their networks (autonomous systems) by means of mutual peering agreements, which allows traffic to be exchanged without cost. An IXP is essentially a physical switch in a carrier hotel or data center with the capacity to connect thousands of networks together, whether content providers or network providers.

Today at the Any2 Exchange, an IXP built within One Wilshire, on a single switch 125 different networks interconnect and are freely able to pass traffic amongst each other without having to go to a Tier 1 for routing. Members pay a small annual fee to the Any2 Exchange for the one-time connection and then benefit from the "peering" relationships among members of the Internet exchange.

Akamai, for example, a large content distribution network company that delivers streaming media and movies on demand, can connect to American Internet Services, a Tier 3 ISP in San Diego, Calif., through a local or regional Internet exchange point such as the Any2 Exchange, the Palo Alto Internet Exchange (PAIX), or other large exchange points operated by data centers and carrier hotels.

When an American Internet Services user wants to watch a movie that's available on Akamai's content delivery network, the data is passed directly from Akamai to American Internet Services - and subsequently to the end user - without transiting any other network. Not only has the goal of being less reliant on a Tier 1 been achieved, but the performance is superior because there are no "hops" between the CSP and ISP. Anytime you're able to cut out the transit network, you increase the end user experience. Plus, it's more economical, as in moist cases the CDN and ISP have no financial settlement for data exchanged.

The European IXP model, which is more mature and robust than the US model, highlights the important function of IXPs and how an exchange point alone can help influence the net neutrality debate. In Europe, Internet service providers and content delivery networks look to the IXP as their first connection point and if the IXP doesn't have what they're looking for, only then will they go to a Tier 1 or large Tier 2. Americans on the other hand, partially due to geographic size

Overall European IXP traffic grew at a rate of 11.05%, compared to America's rate of 7.44%, according to the European Internet Exchange Association in August 2007. This can be attributed in part to greater member density in Europe - the London Internet Exchange/LINX has more than 275 members - where the larger the addressable community, the larger the traffic exchanged and the more the members want to get involved. After all, network effect (exponential growth of a community) and the "Law of Plentitude" (the idea that once an addressable or social community reaches participation by 15% or greater of a total community, it becomes a risk to not participate in the emerging community) motivate European companies to use IXPs. Additionally, Europeans generally have lower entry costs for participation, giving companies every reason why to participate in the IXP-enabled peering community. If one were to buy access to 275 networks through a Tier 1, the cost would be astronomical, but through a single connection to LINX, one can access 275 networks for a nominal fee. This is why European companies rely on IXPs 60% of the time, and only look to Tier 1 or 2 networks 40% of the time.

In contrast, American ISPs normally look to larger wholesale and Internet transit providers first and then consider reducing their operational expenses via an IXP as a second priority. American ISPs companies use IXPs at a more meager 15% rate, looking to larger wholesale and transit Tier 1 or Tier 2 networks 85% of the time. Still, recent American IXP traffic growth does exceed other regions, such as Japan (+5.85% in August) and the rest of Asia (+4.3% in August), which we believe is a result of increased price pressure on the American IXP industry. Newer IXPs, such as the Any2 Exchange, have lowered entry costs significantly, forcing others to follow suit and encouraging more networks to participate. As the cost of entry to IXPs continues to fall, participation in IXPs will become more common and attractive to all access and CDN networks.

What can we learn from the European model? Participation in an IXP can increase performance, lower operational costs and expenses, as well as bring an additional layer of redundancy and disaster recovery capacity to even the smallest networks. But most important, companies' independence from Tier 1s through the collective bargaining of the exchange points puts them in a stronger position to deal with large networks than our position allows for in the US, where the vast majority of people have their primary Internet connections through a large Tier 2 or Tier 1 network provider.

Adding to the Cause

Today's content-rich Internet is just a prelude to the future content, media, applications and services soon to be developed and deployed. It's no wonder that in large IXPs, such as the Amsterdam Internet Exchange (AMS-IX), there are already several content delivery networks using bundled 10Gbps ports, clearly showing end users' insatiable demand for high bandwidth applications and services. High Definition Internet TV (IPTV), massive online interactive gaming, video on demand (VOD), and feature-rich communications (video conferencing) are just a few examples of Internet-enabled applications contributing to the heightened demand.

For American ISPs that pay anywhere from $20-to-$40/Mbps when connecting to Tier 1 and Tier 2 networks, the cost of delivering applications and services to end users who require much larger network and bandwidth resources is one of the obstacles that needs to be overcome. But without broad participation in IXPs, access networks have a difficult future, as do content providers who will find that the cost of delivery to end users becomes much more expensive if Tier 1 and Tier 2 networks increase the cost of delivering both wholesale and end user Internet traffic.

What Can the American Internet-Connected Community Do?

Whether through price increases or monopolistic practices, the largest networks are currently writing the rules for a global Internet product. They are gradually merging and acquiring competition, reinforcing their influence in wholesale and transit network share and presence. Opportunities for network peering decrease with each merger.

Carrier hotels and large data centers in the US can support positive change in the Internet peering community by creating or supporting open and low cost Internet Exchange points promoting network peering and content delivery to all networks.

Reducing barriers to entry and the cost of wholesale or transit networks will allow Internet network and content companies to focus on delivering network access and services, with the ultimate winner being end users who will enjoy a lower cost, higher performance Internet experience.

==============

Sidebar

Networking professionals describe Internet tiers as:

Tier 1 - A network with visibility of every other network and route on the Internet. Tier 1 networks have a unique position within the Internet, as the custodians of global routing. Tier 1 networks attempt to maintain their status by setting high barriers to entry for other large networks attempting to gain similar status. Tier 1 networks rarely peer with other networks, keeping their settlement-free interconnection community restricted to other Tier 1 networks.

Tier 2 - A regional network peering with other regional networks, but still relies on Tier 1 networks to reach at least routes and networks. Tier 2 Internet networks frequently peer at public Internet exchanges to connect to other Tier 2 networks, as well as large content delivery networks. In some cases regional Tier 2 and global Tier 2 networks are actually larger than their Tier 1 networks, with the only limitation being their global network visibility.

Tier 3 - An access network purchasing wholesale Internet access or transit from other larger networks to reach the global Internet. Tier 3s frequently participate in public Internet exchange points to try an minimize the costs associates with buying wholesale and transit routes or access from larger Tier 1 and Tier 2 networks. Tier 3 networks make up the majority of the global Internet, as the Internet access providers whom actually connect with end users.

There is no heavy technology in a recent New York Times story on growth of Internet congestion. That's for the best, since two of the worthwhile points the piece makes would be obscured if readers were knee-high in bits and bytes. The takeaway is that the dramatic stresses on the Internet - in the form of both a higher volume of data and the need to support far more finicky convergence applications - is being met by an equal growth in the technology. In other words, demands are growing, but so are the Internet's capabilities.

Maintaining this equilibrium going forward is more than a technical issue. The writer says it also is a matter of public policy, which is a big deal in an election year. Clearly, there are more pressing issues for the candidates to deal with, such as the overall economy and the war in Iraq. The approach to broadband infrastructure nonetheless is a very important issue in terms of the nation's competitiveness.

The Internet is so fundamental that broadband policy has become an important national issue. A recent executive summary from a long report from EDUCAUSE backs provisioning of 100 Mbps of capacity to every home and business in America by 2012. This would be paid for by a $100 billion Universal Broadband Fund.

The organization, which advocates the use of information technology in higher education, suggests that there will be a shortfall of capacity in the near future and says that the United States is lagging behind other nations because of our deregulatory approach. The writer concedes that such an approach offers some benefits. It has a fatal flaw, however: Many elements that are important to society but not in the interests of the companies building the network get short shrift. Benefits of upgrading to 100 Mbps include fiber's lower maintenance costs and a huge stimulus to the economy. Such networks could expand beyond 100 Mbps.

Public versus private seems to be shaping up as a vital issue. Here, Reclaim the Media editorializes on California's Broadband Task Force's final report. The report and the editorial say that there are about 2,000 communities in the state without broadband access and many others that are underserved. The editorial bemoans the fact that the task force advocates the use of private providers to build out the system. A better approach, the paper says, is public ownership. This will give communities more control over their telecommunications futures.

The general consensus is that we are at a crossroads in terms of our national telecommunications infrastructure. That was a point made by Michael Kleeman last autumn in the San Francisco Chronicle Kleeman, a senior fellow at UC San Diego and at the Annenberg Center for Communication at USC, wrote that the telecommunications infrastructure is as real as that supporting water, electricity and roads. The basic difference - that it is invisible to end users - doesn't lessen its relative importance. The bottom line, he says, is that the traditional Internet infrastructure can't support the demands increasingly being put on it. Writes Kleeman:

"It's as if every home in America suddenly needed 10 times more water at 10 times the quality coming out of the same sized faucet. Today, the average home uses as much bandwidth as a major office park did a few years ago."

He says that the United States has gone from fourth to 15th place in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's broadband ranking.

The United States isn't the only nation facing these issues, of course. This Telegraph story outlines similar challenges in the UK. If anything, the situation is more stark: 90 percent of Brits connect via broadband. The comments are similar to remarks about infrastructure on this side of the Atlantic. The common wisdom seems to be that demand is growing at a frightening pace, but that if prudent measures are taken - such as herding folks into the type of service that most suits them and transferring some demand onto wireless - the situation can be handled.

For those that live in remote areas, obtaining high-speed Internet access can be quite difficult. Cable access is almost unheard of in rural areas. Digital Subscriber Loop access, also know as Digital Subscriber Line or DSL, is available but the service can be unreliable depending on how far away from the central office you are. Using a Dial-up service provider still remains the predominant method of connecting to the Web and at best it is very slow. The only other option, which is becoming more and more popular, is satellite Internet access.

This is the perfect solution for those that live in less populated areas and have no other way of obtaining broadband (high speed) access. The service provider has a central location that acts as the middleman between the customer and a satellite that orbits Earth. When data is downloaded, it is transmitted from the satellite to the central location and then forwarded to the customers receiver. Then it is routed through the modem to where the customer can gain access to it. The process for uploading data is slightly different. It has to be routed through a dial-up modem first and then through the receiver. It then goes to the central location where it is forwarded to the satellite.

There are several drawbacks to this type of service. One major drawback is that it does have a tendency to be unreliable. Even though this problem is not nearly as bad as it used to be, some users still experience connectivity issues during heavy wind, fog and rain. You may also experience network latency issues that could significantly slow down your connection. For this reason, it may not be conducive to playing interactive online games. Also, the overall cost is higher than it would be for dial-up, cable, or DSL. For the service alone, one can expect to pay anywhere from $59 a month to $199 a month. That does not include the initial cost of the equipment, such as the satellite dish and modem.

While dial-up Internet access may have several drawbacks, so too does satellite access. Even though it does connect at a faster speed, its performance remains an ongoing issue. Ultimately, it is up to the consumer to weigh the pros and cons and then decide if it is the right solution for them.

Broadband, derived from the words broad bandwidth, is a term that is used to describe any high-speed Internet connection that does not utilize a dial up service. This includes Digital Subscriber Line (DSL), Cable, Fiber, Wireless, Satellite and Broadband Over Power Line (BPL) connections. It is by far the most popular way to connect to the Internet because it is said to have many advantages over dial-up.

The main difference between broadband and dial-up is the way by which your connection is established. Dial-up connects using a modem and an existing phone line. Every time you want to initiate a new web session, you have to establish a new connection and IP address. Because of its limited transmission capability, at best, you will get a maximum connection speed of 56,000 bytes per second (56kbps), which makes downloading or opening large files a time consuming, if not impossible, task.

As noted above, there are several different types of Broadband services, all of which are capable of transmitting data faster and more efficiently than dial-up. You never have to reestablish a connection or IP address because it is always on, regardless of whether you are using DSL, Cable, or Satellite etc. The only way it goes offline is if someone physically disconnects it. The best part is that you will normally have a connection speed of approximately 5 million bytes per second (5Mbps) with this type of service.

There are definite advantages to using broadband Internet. There are a wide variety of new services available that dial-up just plain can't handle, such as Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoiP or digital phone). You never have to worry about additional phone lines, usage charges, or tying up your main phone line while you are online. Loading graphic intense web pages and downloading/ uploading large files are no longer a problem. As far as performance goes, it is definitely the better choice.

There are also some drawbacks that you should be aware of. The overall cost of broadband, including installation, equipment, and monthly service charges, can be significantly higher than dial-up. Also, because you are always connected to the Internet, there is an increased security risk. However, Installing a good firewall should help eliminate that problem.

Ultimately, only you can decide whether or not broadband is right for you. Some people feel that it is not worth paying such a higher price for while others feel that it is worth paying more. If you are the type of person that uses the Internet just to check their mail and read the news, then you are probably better off with a dial-up connection. If you are one that likes to watch videos, play online games, or download a lot of data then it might be worth it for you to switch to broadband.

Over half of us don't bother to read the small print when signing a contract with a broadband provider. We trust in the company we are signing with, and assume that nothing will go wrong. Perhaps it won't; you may be one of the lucky ones who never fall foul of a cleverly worded clause. But for the rest of us, it's important to know what we're signing. So read the terms and conditions carefully and watch out for the following:

Setup fees

Some providers will ask you for an upfront charge for equipment and connection. This can be anywhere between £20 and £40. In itself that isn't too bad, but there are companies which will also ask for the first two months subscription upfront too, which bumps up the initial cost considerably.

Introductory offers

If you see a sign advertising broadband 'for only £6.49 a month' you'd jump at it, right? Well, look before you leap. Often this low price is only for the first three months after signing, then the price can double for the rest of the term. Watch out for this, it's a common ploy used to lure customers into a contract, then charge them when they can't afford the increased payments.

Exceeding the download capacity

Unless you have paid for an unlimited download package, you may fall foul of this. A download is any data you receive from the web, be it a movie, a song or even just looking at a website. So if you browse a lot and download music too, you run the risk of exceeding your capacity. Some providers can charge as much as £2 per GB over your limit. Avoid this by assessing your usage and going for the maximum you think you'll need, rather than the cheapest.

Payment charges

Think how you intend to pay for your service. Many providers charge you extra for not paying by direct debit. This can be anything from £3.50 to £5 per month.

Helpline charges

If something goes wrong - and it probably will - you'll need to call the helpline. Helpline costs can vary greatly; from 3.5p per minute up to a staggering £1.05. Considering you'll probably be on hold for quite a while, this can work out incredibly expensive. Look for a provider who offers free helpline calls.

Late payment fees

If you are late with a payment, you could be faced not only with a charge from your bank, but some providers will disconnect your service and charge you for doing so. They may also charge you an administration fee for a late payment. If you think you may struggle making payments on time, look for a provider with lower penalty charges.

Contract termination fees

This is the one to watch out for. Some providers like you to commit to them for a minimum of 12 or 18 months, and charge you if you cancel your subscription within this time. All well and good if the service is fine and you just want a better deal, but if the service is shoddy you may resent having to pay to escape it. If you have any problems with your service, keep records of all correspondence and use it as proof if you need to contest a cancellation fee.

No minimum contract

If a provider says there is no minimum contract, this doesn't mean you can leave at any time and avoid getting charged. There will still be a cancellation fee, they just don't want to put you off with the words 'minimum contract'.

If you can find the right provider, broadband is a wonderful thing to have. Just don't fall foul of these little tricks. Shop around, examine terms and conditions carefully, and don't be afraid to question anything with the provider. Make sure you know precisely what you're signing, and you should avoid any nasty surprises a few months down the line.