See "A potential Net neutrality win-win-win" - here.
Paul says that the problem is with applications and services that are performance sensitive, such as streaming video (i.e. Amazon interest) and VoIP, and suffer from the physical distance between the content provider and user (due to the number of nodes they have to go through). In order to solve the distance problem, content providers can, today "moving [the servers], leasing private lines, and edge caching [e.g. use CDN]".
Paul suggest to add another option - "Internet content providers (and consumers) should be able to purchase "quality of service" or "managed services" from network operators on the same basis--equal availability and no harm to other content". In addition he suggests that when capacity is increased "newly available capacity were dedicated to particular content".
See "The Not So Elusive Middle" - here.
I believe that this is a good compromise which addresses the existing guidelines of Net Neutrality, as long as it is appropriately disclosed to the subscribers. Of course, it gives some advantage to the bigger content provider who may pay the required amounts.
Nevertheless, proving that "no-harm to other content" policy is kept will be extremely difficult as well as deciding what portion of the bandwidth capacity is "basic" (which also has to grow over time) and what is the "newly available capacity" which is subsidized by the content providers/customers paying the extra.
Related posts:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment