The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers, the New York Times reports.
Presumably that would be possible only if all application providers were allowed to pay for the assured quality of service, and presumably Google would want to ensure that no application provider got a price advantage. In other words, Verizon would be allowed to offer video prioritization services, so long as all video application providers were able to get the same priority treatment.
The deal apparently is still in the works, so the confusion about the general outlines is understandable. So far, one version of the story is that there will be no prioritization allowed, at least on Verizon's fixed network. Another version is that prioritization is allowable, so long as all application providers within an application class get the same expedited treatment.
The New York Times version seems to suggest application-related priorities are permissible, and that providers could pay to get such treatment, but not that every video, voice, gaming, conferencing or other latency-sensitive app automatically will get such treatment.
No comments:
Post a Comment