When we log onto the Internet, we take lots of things for granted. We assume
that we'll be able to access whatever Web site we want, whenever we want to go
there. We assume that we can use any feature we like -- watching online video,
listening to podcasts, searching, e-mailing and instant messaging -- anytime we
choose. We assume that we can attach devices like wireless routers, game
controllers or extra hard drives to make our online experience better.
What makes all these assumptions possible is "Network Neutrality," the
guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Net Neutrality
means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different
kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field
for all Web sites and Internet technologies. But all that could change.
The biggest cable and telephone companies would like to charge money for
smooth access to Web sites, speed to run applications, and permission to plug in
devices. These network giants believe they should be able to charge Web site
operators, application providers and device manufacturers for the right to use
the network. Those who don't make a deal and pay up will experience
discrimination: Their sites won't load as quickly, and their applications and
devices won't work as well. Without legal protection, consumers could find that
a network operator has blocked the Web site of a competitor, or slowed it down
so much that it's unusable.
The network owners say they want a "tiered" Internet. If you pay to get in
the top tier, your site and your service will run fast. If you don't, you'll be
in the slow lane.
What's the Problem Here?
Discrimination: The Internet was designed as an open medium. The
fundamental idea since the Internet's inception has been that every Web site,
every feature and every service should be treated without discrimination. That's
how bloggers can compete with CNN or USA Today for readers. That's how
up-and-coming musicians can build underground audiences before they get their
first top-40 single. That's why when you use a search engine, you see a list of
the sites that are the closest match to your request -- not those that paid the
most to reach you. Discrimination endangers our basic Internet freedoms.
Double-dipping: Traditionally, network owners have built a business
model by charging consumers for Internet access. Now they want to charge you for
access to the network, and then charge you again for the things you do while
you're online. They may not charge you directly via pay-per-view Web sites. But
they will charge all the service providers you use. These providers will then
pass those costs along to you in the form of price hikes or new charges to view
content.
Stifling innovation: Net Neutrality ensures that innovators can start
small and dream big about being the next EBay or Google without facing
insurmountable hurdles. Unless we preserve Net Neutrality, startups and
entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that
pay for a top spot on the Web. On a tiered Internet controlled by the phone and
cable companies, only their own content and services -- or those offered by
corporate partners that pony up enough "protection money" -- will enjoy life in
the fast lane.
The End of the Internet?
Make no mistake: The free-flowing Internet as we know it could very well
become history.
What does that mean? It means we could be headed toward a pay-per-view
Internet where Web sites have fees. It means we may have to pay a network tax to
run voice-over-the-Internet phones, use an advanced search engine, or chat via
Instant Messenger. The next generation of inventions will be shut out of the
top-tier service level. Meanwhile, the network owners will rake in even greater
profits.
This article explains the hardware (i.e. failover routers, dual-WAN routers) that are the key to internet redundancy when large business can not afford to have an outage. As businesses rely more and more on cloud-based computing, it is becoming more and more costly to have an internet outage. While the article might sell a good story, I don't feel like things are quite as good as advertised when trying to apply this in a hotel setting where oftentimes franchisor IT requirements only allow one static IP address and these routers require multiple IP addresses. I've personally experienced failures in the "last mile" of infrastructure (i.e. construction cuts a line or gophers chew fiberoptic cable) that even if the hotel has a failover router with multiple ISPs, the hotel would have experienced a complete outage due to the fact that both carriers were physically sharing the last mile. Maybe wireless network failover routers have more of a chance to thwart gophers and construction equipment? Conduct proper research to make sure your franchisor could accommodate a failover router.
