Neutral Internet should be twice as thick

Opponents of the principle of net neutrality continue to argue in their favor. Another of these was a recent study published by AT & T, entitled Value of Supporting Class-of-Service in IP Backbones ( PDF ). Researchers have figured out how much more resources are required for neutral transmission of any traffic, if providers are categorically forbidden to use their favorite shaping (after all, they often choose competitor traffic for “cutting”). It turned out that in a heavily loaded network the “neutral channel” should be twice as thick in order to maintain the same speed and quality of transmission of priority traffic. In medium-loaded networks, the thickness of the channels should be increased by about 60%.



The fact that the capacity of communication channels in a neutral network must be twice as high does not mean that the maintenance of such a network will cost twice as much. Not at all, because managing a "stupid" network is much easier than "smart." At the same time, allegedly excessively rising costs are the main argument of Internet providers, who do not want to infringe upon their economic interests.

Internet providers do not want to recognize the principle of network neutrality and increase the capacity of communication channels. They claim that it is useless. Like, if you expand the channels, then P2P and Myspace will instantly “eat up” the increase. According to telecoms, only shaping is the only way to ensure quality of service for priority types of traffic.
')
via Ars Technica