Question:

Why does certain internet providers are only available in certain countries?

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

Certain counrties does not receive a good servicce &quality and some times they have to forge may be a signature or some word or phrase to get through with problems.

 Tags:

   Report

2 ANSWERS


  1. A major argument in favor of network neutrality is that discriminatory networks distort market forces depending on those networks, and ultimately may slow national economic growth. For example, if a network provides different Quality of service for one Application layer protocol over another this preference may slow innovation by increasing the barrier to entry for new network software applications.

    Another argument in favor of network neutrality suggests that Quality of service may be used to differentiate between content providers such as major search engines. This would have a fragmenting effect on the network causing core networks to behave similarly to the Bulletin board systems of old, where content availability was substantially different between one provider and the next.

    The argument is summarized by saying that either practice reduces future innovation and thereby has a negative effect on the economy. Network neutrality is essentially a Soundbite used to encompass this general theory with the idea that a legislative or regulatory response is necessary. This approach a political charged version of arguments over Internet censorship that have been around since the conception of the Internet. Until now Usenet has been the preferred media of dozens of censorship scares usually resulting in the original author ending up on Alt.usenet.kooks

    Ironically the opponents of Network Neutrality make precisely the same points. Discrimination is generally bad for the Internet and for the economy. However, traffic discrimination is also absolutely required at some level for the Internet to work as a whole. Border Gateway Protocol, which is essentially the traffic control system for the entire Internet is designed to provide some low level descrimination between traffic as well as route selection.

    "Dumb" versus "intelligent" networks

    Network neutrality is a theory of network design closely related to the end to end principle. Under this principle, a neutral network is a dumb network, merely passing packets according to the needs of applications. This point of view was expressed by David S. Isenberg in his seminal paper, The Rise of the Stupid Network[5] to wit:

        [In] the Stupid Network, because the data is the boss, it can tell the network, in real time, what kind of service it needs. And the Stupid Network would have a small repertoire of idiot-savant behaviors to treat different data types appropriately. If the data identified itself as financial data, the Stupid Network would deliver it accurately, no matter how many milliseconds of delay the error checking would take. If the data were two-way voice or video, the Stupid Network would provide low delay, even at the price of an occasional flipped bit. If the data were entertainment audio or video, the Stupid Network would provide wider bandwidth, but would not necessarily give low delay or absolute accuracy. And if there were a need for unique transmission characteristics, the data would tell the Stupid Network in more detail how to treat it, and the Stupid Network would do what it was told.

    These terms merely signify the network's level of knowledge about and influence over the packets it handles - they carry no connotations of stupidity, inferiority or superiority.

    Quality of Service and Internet Protocols

    Early Internet routers typically forwarded packets on a best-efforts basis, without regard for application needs, but this is changing. Many private networks using Internet protocols now employ Quality of Service, and Network Service Providers frequently enter into Service Level Agreements with each other embracing some sort of QoS.

    The IP datagram includes a 3-bit wide Precedence field which may be used to request a level of service, consistent with the notion that protocols in a layered architecture offer services through Service Access Points. Obeying this field is optional and it has rarely been used across public links, although it is commonly used in private networks, especially those including WiFi networks where priority is enforced. Indeed, no single standard describing exactly how such requests would be upheld across independently functioning Internet routers has successfully gained dominance, although SIP, RSVP, IEEE 802.11e, and MPLS define this behavior.

    Router manufacturers have begun to introduce routers that have logic enabling them to route traffic for various Classes of Service in at "wire-speed".

    With the emergence of multimedia and VoIP and applications that would benefit from low latency, various attempts to address this oversight have arisen, including the proposition of offering differing, priced levels of service that would shape Internet transmissions at the network layer based on application type. These efforts are ongoing, and are starting to yield results as wholesale Internet transport providers begin to amend service agreements to include service levels.[6]

    Gary Bachula's Testimony

    Gary Bachula, Vice President for External Affairs for Internet2, asserts that specific QoS protocols are unnecessary in the core network as long as the core network links are "over-provisioned" to the point that network traffic never encounters delay.

    The Internet2 project concluded, in 2001, that the QoS protocols were probably not deployable on its Abilene network with equipment available at that time. While newer routers are capable of following QoS protocols with no loss of performance,[7][8] equipment available at the time relied on software to implement QoS. The Internet2 Abilence network group also predicted that "logistical, financial, and organizational barriers will block the way toward any bandwidth guarantees" by protocol modifications aimed at QoS.[9][10] . In essence they believe that the economics would be likely to make the network providers deliberately erode the quality of best effort traffic as a way to push customers to higher priced QoS services.

    The Abilene network study was the basis for the testimony of Gary Bachula to the Senate Commerce Committee's Hearing on Network Neutrality in early 2006. He expressed the opinion that adding more bandwidth was more effective than any of the various schemes for accomplishing QoS they examined.[11]

    Bachula's testimony has been cited by proponents of a law banning Quality of Service as proof that no legitimate purpose is served by such an offering. Of course this argument is dependent on the assumption that over-provisioning is always possible. Obviously factors like natural disasters, delays in installation caused by zoning, domestic politics, and construction permits all affect the ability to pursue an over-provisioned network. Note however, that these are all short term and temporary set backs.

    Quality of Service Procedures

    Over-provisioning is not above controversy. Unlike the Internet 2 Abilene Network, the Internet's core is owned and managed by a number of different Network Service Providers, not a single entity. Hence its behavior is much more stochastic or unpredictable. Therefore, research continues on QoS procedures that are deployable in large, diverse networks.

    There are two principal approaches to QoS in modern packet-switched networks, a parameterized system based on an exchange of application requirements with the network, and a prioritized system where each packet identifies a desired service level to the network.

    On the Internet, Integrated services ("IntServ") implements the parameterized approach. In this model, applications use the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) to request and reserve resources through a network.

    Differentiated services ("DiffServ") implements the prioritized model. DiffServ marks packets according to the type of service they need. In response to these markings, routers and switches use various queuing strategies to tailor performance to requirements. (At the IP layer, differentiated services code point (DSCP) markings use the 6 bits in the IP packet header. At the MAC layer, VLAN IEEE 802.1q and IEEE 802.1D can be used to carry essentially the same information.)

    For a fuller discussion of these issues, see the Quality of Service entry.

    Background on the political controversy

    For many years, Internet access across the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) was governed by common carrier regulations. These guidelines required unbundling of communications services and ISP functions. However, on August 5, 2005, the FCC reclassified DSL services as Information Services rather than Telecommunications Services, and replaced common carrier requirements with a set of four less-restrictive net neutrality principles.[12] This sparked a debate over whether or not Internet Service Providers should also be allowed to discriminate between different service providers by offering higher network priority to higher-paying companies and customers, allowing some services to operate faster or more predictably and ultimately become more acceptable to end users.

    Cable modem Internet access had always been classified an Information Service and not regulated by common carrier law, just as the high-speed data links that make up the Internet's core are non-regulated.

    Supporters of net neutrality regulations argue that the current FCC principles are too weak to prevent telecommunications companies from charging fees to certain content providers in exchange for preferential treatment, which they believe will threaten innovation and entrepreneurship on the Internet. They see the Internet as a "level playing-field" which rewards the best ideas rather than the most well-funded ideas and believe that net neutrality guidelines are necessary to maintain this dynamic.

    Opponents of net neutrality regulations argue that the Internet is not a level-playing field as companies such as Google and Akamai are free to achieve a performance advantage over smaller competitors by replicating servers and buying high-bandwidth services. Service discrimination, against the real background of today's Internet, actually makes the Internet more neutral, according to this view.

    Telecommunications companies, having invested billions of dollars from consumers and government subsidies, in new network infrastructure, believe they have the right to operate the network with minimal government interference. They believe that imposing net neutrality regulations would prevent them from expanding and improving Internet access for their customers, stifling incentives to develop new technologies and possibly leading to higher prices for consumers. There is currently a debate in Congress over how to best balance the concerns of both groups:-)


  2. This is just like any other local business - some businesses are all over the world as in fast food chains. But since Internet service is such a tricky situation with local wire services I am sure it is not a money maker like other business. If any business has to do fraud to work with the local govt. I would not have anything to do with it. Your question was not too clear but i hope this helps.

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 2 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.