OK, so I finally took the time to look into what all of this hubbub is really about. As I understand it, Internet providers want to be able to use QoS services on their own pipes to push some content ahead of other content. All I can say is big freakin' deal. What Verizon, etc. are saying is that they want to push video and other high bandwidth content, and central to that strategy is enabling QoS to make sure the content gets there.
Let's break it down. This situation only really matters when bandwidth is saturated, right? Because if it isn't saturated, QoS rules don't kick in. And after all, we're talking about Verizon, for example, wanting to favor its own content over its own infrastructure. They can't deny other content providers the use of the infrastructure, but they can favor their own. That makes perfect sense to me. If someone finds that a Verizon or AT & T is effectively blocking content, there will be hell to pay, but short of that, it's fair game. And if bandwidth becomes so saturated that people can get to the things they want, the market will fix that problem. Hell, if Google wants to be sure they have access to consumers (e.g. for Google Video), they better break out that war chest and start building some infrastructure. On 4/29/06, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [ A host of tech outfits, from Google to Intel, suffered a setback in > a battle over access to the Internet on Apr. 26. At issue is whether > telcos like AT&T and cable operators such as Comcast, which maintain > the country's vast broadband networks, can favor one provider's Web > traffic over another's. A measure that would bar the practice was shot > down by a Congressional committee.] > > We are that much closer to the bill that I posted last week coming > into power. Congress has decided that discrimination is a good thing. > > [MANAGING NETWORKS. It also provides for competition among all > network, application, and content providers. But it still leaves scope > for operators to limit the development of publicly available bandwidth > while dramatically speeding up a "premium" service that gives faster > delivery to companies that pay up.] > > The net as we know it, is dead. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:205905 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
