Net neutrality is a proposed legislation in the US, this legislation is to prevent service providers from giving preferential routing. This is suported by the likes of Google, Microsoft, Amazon.com .., the content providers on the internet.
On the other hand the likes of AT&T, Verizon are against any such legislation. The telcom
equipment manufacturer are also against any such legislation. (As They profit when the service providers profit/pucrchase more equipment)
If there are no legislations and things carry on as they currently are - We could be seeing creation of dedicated services from the service providers (or the service providers partners).
We call them "dedicated services" since the IP packets for these services will be given a higher priority (Has the service provider owns the cables/infrastructure).
In such a scenario you could expect a video streaming application hosted by the service provider having a distinctly better quality than youtube or other similar services.
There is speculation that in such a scenario
- There could be a "natural" degradation of traffic originating from non-premium or rival sources.
- Service providers could "abuse" this to their benefit. For example AT&T and Yahoo have a long standing tie up. So if AT&T is allowed to build in priority routing in it's infrastructure, we could start seeing yahoo sites getting faster and google less responsive.
- If a content provider has to pay a premium for faster routing, he will be recovering the cost from the end user(us).
But the above is only a speculation!
Having a legislature in favour of net neutrality will be going against the historically open architecture of the internet! It will also give the FCC the power to legislate on what network arrangements are permitted and what not ...
I think we should let the internet chart its own course .., and not end up with protectionist legislation based on speculation.
No comments:
Post a Comment