Looks to me like this is a pretty strong indictment against Whitacre tiering.
Scenario 1: in the no-peering-for-QoS world, each content provider has to connect directly to each network operator's core (this is what the carriers want, BTW). That'll be fun. In fact, it's downright amusing to contemplate the redundant data-center infrastructure that each content-provider (say, NetFlix or anyone else willing to pay for QoS) would have to build out for connecting up to each telco and cable company.
Scenario 2: as this article discusses, there's no shortage of business and technical issues that go hand-in-hand with implementing peering arrangements in a QoS world.
In fact, the carriers I've spoken with don't even contemplate the second model. They prefer scenario 1. In other words, they don't tackle the settlement issues at all - settlement-free peering would be for best-effort only.
This article is strong evidence that the FCC should be equipped with brass knuckles and cattle prods to keep the carriers in line.
Richard Bennett
· 3 years ago
Doug, you're lying again. Show some evidence of "this is what the carriers want, BTW" that doesn't come from your feverish imagination.
directorblue
· 3 years ago
Uhm, I can you assure you that I'm not lying. I can't say more than that at the moment.
Richard Bennett
· 3 years ago
St. Ronnie said "Trust, but verify". If we can't verify your feelings with hard evidence, director Doug, they have no value to us.
Dave Siegel
· 3 years ago
No, he's right.
The carriers that have been most vocal against net neutrality would rather have the big content providers connect directly to them, paying for a connection to their network, then they would go through the effort of implementing a QoS capability across their network boundaries to their peers. The reason is that it's simpler and follows conventional business models.
Remember, at the end of the day the primary motivation is for the carrier to make more money. Some of this desire is basic business sense, some of it is around concern for continued price erosion, and some of it is pure greed.
An evolution to an Internet with QoS does not necessarily satisfy these motivations. Don't get me wrong, there are still reasons to consider it, but I personally came to the conclusion some time ago that the addition of QoS capability does not, in and of itself, change the economics of the Internet.
All Comments
Scenario 1: in the no-peering-for-QoS world, each content provider has to connect directly to each network operator's core (this is what the carriers want, BTW). That'll be fun. In fact, it's downright amusing to contemplate the redundant data-center infrastructure that each content-provider (say, NetFlix or anyone else willing to pay for QoS) would have to build out for connecting up to each telco and cable company.
Scenario 2: as this article discusses, there's no shortage of business and technical issues that go hand-in-hand with implementing peering arrangements in a QoS world.
In fact, the carriers I've spoken with don't even contemplate the second model. They prefer scenario 1. In other words, they don't tackle the settlement issues at all - settlement-free peering would be for best-effort only.
This article is strong evidence that the FCC should be equipped with brass knuckles and cattle prods to keep the carriers in line.
The carriers that have been most vocal against net neutrality would rather have the big content providers connect directly to them, paying for a connection to their network, then they would go through the effort of implementing a QoS capability across their network boundaries to their peers. The reason is that it's simpler and follows conventional business models.
Remember, at the end of the day the primary motivation is for the carrier to make more money. Some of this desire is basic business sense, some of it is around concern for continued price erosion, and some of it is pure greed.
An evolution to an Internet with QoS does not necessarily satisfy these motivations. Don't get me wrong, there are still reasons to consider it, but I personally came to the conclusion some time ago that the addition of QoS capability does not, in and of itself, change the economics of the Internet.