| "...mesage." I think the essential point in the neutrality debate is how the buck will be passed when QoS implementations distinguish between latency sensitive applications like streaming audio/video and gaming and latency tolerant traffic like htp ftp email etc. If existing subscribers did not have provisions in contracts about restricting access to certain types of services then there is no legal way I can think of for companies to cripple their latency and providing them with their current level of service only if they opt in to a higher tier of service. But remember that these are telecom companies we're talking about and they don't have legions of expensive lawyers for nothing, they're supposed to find them any legal way to make more money. However, common sense dictates if you want to run a large and profitable telco, there are certain costs associted. Playing catchup to consumer demand by revamping your network is an example of such a cost, for which they should be ready to 'suck it up' as it will only allow them more opportunity to provide commercial services, for money. This is an infrastructure matter for the telcos, and consumers should not have to be dragged into the fray at their own expense. |
