. Network Neutrality In the past all attempts to create a content competitor to the internet-at-large -- to create the one true commercial content provider -- have failed. For example, AOL, Prodigy, various portals, MSN, Netscape, on and on. We can split hairs about who goes on the list but the result is clear since if even only one qualifies we know it failed. The point stands. To a great extent net neutrality (or non-neutrality) is yet another attempt to create a content competitor to the internet-at-large. This doesnt prove it wont work but the track record viewed this way is bad: 100% failure rate to date. Mere bandwidth can foil any such nefarious plans, assuming an enforceable zero bandwidth (or nearly so) isnt one of the choices. But just somewhat less bandwidth or as proposed prioritized bandwidth? Maybe not a problem/advantage for very long. ....Note: Im using bandwidth measures below as a stand-in for all ....possible throughput parameters. For example if the norm have-not bandwidth were 100mb/s but the have bw was 1gb/s I doubt it would make much difference to many, many business models such as news and magazine distribution. Those services in general dont even need 100mb/s end to end (barring some ramp-up in what they view as service) so what do they care if they were excluded from 1gb/s except as a moral calumny? Do you think you could tell the difference between surfing news.google at 100mb/s vs 1gb/s? I dont. And if have-not bandwidth was 1gb/s and have 10gb/s it would make little difference to video stream services except perhaps when someone tried to ramp up to 4K or whatever. But, etc., theres always a new horizon, or will be for a while. So the key to network non-neutrality having any effect is bandwidth inadequacy for certain competitive business models. It only can exist as a business force in a bw-poor world. Right now the business model of concern is video streaming. But at what bandwidth is video streaming a non-issue? That is, I have 100mb/s, you have 1gb/s. We both watch the same movie. Do we even notice? How about 1gb/s vs 10gb/s? There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which it simply doesnt make any difference to a given business model. 56kb dial-up is sufficient for displaying 512kx512k images, and 1mb/s is luxurious for that application, you couldnt gain a business advantage by offering 10mb/s modest-sized image downloads. Theres simply no such open-ended extrapolation. Adequate is adequate. ....The internet views attempts at content monopoly as damage and routes ....around it. to paraphrase John Gilmores famous observation on censorship. P.S. I suppose an up-and-coming bandwidth business model which vastly exceeds video streaming is adequate (i.e., frequent and complete) cloud backup. With cheap consumer disks in the multi-TB range, well, do the math.
Posted on: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 17:14:27 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015