how-to block ads
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| reply to asdfdfdfdf
Re: Gimmie A Break
said by asdfdfdfdf :
"Doesn't "net neutrality" by definition limit how two parties are allowed to exchange data?"
Yes, in the sense that one can not negotiate special privileges on the network that work to the detriment of others.
"Shouldn't a user be able to determine how their data is transported over a network? "
In general, a user should not be able to make a determination that is detrimental to others' transport over the network.
Of course, you're assuming and implying that offering higher QOS services on the internet will negatively impact others. I don't believe that will be the case. Is FedEx Ground service negatively impacted by their Overnight? Is 1st class snail mail negatively impacted by Priority Mail?
Nope, and nope. It can be done. | |
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| "Of course, you're assuming and implying that offering higher QOS services on the internet will negatively impact others."
Yes, I am.
I think, in turn, you are making an erroneous assumption that QOS is being created simply to build a more efficient network.
Although you could make the technical argument that it is possible to enhance certain services without undermining others, since different services can be more or less sensitive to different network variables, we need to look at the real world intent of this within the context of human nature and the behavior of companies.
The telcos want quality of service as a way of extracting additional revenues as well as a way of protecting their services from competition.
They are going to extract additional revenues, from other companies, by having them compete for advantaged transport. No company is going to pay extra, while others don't, for a more efficient network. They are going to pay expecting to be given a performance edge over their competition that doesn't pay.
We can get into sophistries that granting advantage to one company in return for additional payment doesn't create a disadvantage for competing companies but is this true in any meaningful sense?
Furthermore I think it is very unlikely, given what we know about human nature, that the telcos will not use QOS to subtly undermine the performance of competitors in the broad range of services and content telcos want to provide. Once a QOS environment is fully developed it becomes very easy to do such a thing and it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to prove that the intent is to stifle competition. | |
asdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to RJ44
"Is FedEx Ground service negatively impacted by their Overnight? Is 1st class snail mail negatively impacted by Priority Mail?"
The reason I don't feel this is an apt comparison is
1. These services are provided within the same company. They are not services owned and run by competitors with fedex facilitating transport/acting as a middleman. In the same sense net neutrality doesn't deny telcos the right to sell both a 1Mb service level and a 3Mb/s service level. There would be no net neutrality issue if ATT owned and controlled all of the services over the network, as well as the infrastructure, because they would simply build whatever network was required to meet the demands of all their services. Of course this wouldn't be the internet either, it would be an updated version of the old Ma Bell network.
2. Fedex doesn't own the highway and air transport infrastructure with all it's concomitant incentives to use control of that infrastructure to undermine competitor services.
This is a major difference. If the telcos didn't own the underlying wireline infrastructure, but were simply service competitors we wouldn't be dealing with these issues. In fact ATT would be an advocate of net neutrality if they didn't control the infrastructure but were simply another service competitor. | |
|
