Mobile video is the benefit for end users if the Federal Communications Commission allows Verizon Wireless to buy spectrum from several U.S. cable operators. Though it is not formally linked to the spectrum sale, Verizon has agreed to provide its products to Comcast, Time Warner, Cox Communications and Bright House Networks under “agency” agreements, in return for Verizon rights to sell cable products under similar agreements.
The agency agreements allow the cable companies to sell existing Verizon products, under the Verizon brand name and retail packaging, and allow Verizon to sell existing cable products, likewise under the existing cable names and packages. If the deal is approved, the partners would, in five years, be able to buy wholesale from the other partners and then “rebrand” them for retail sale.
One suspects there will be a tie-in with the new online video venture Verizon has created with Coinstar, the owner of the Redbox DVD rental kiosk business, though that has not been formally talked about, in public, by Verizon or Coinstar.
One suspects there are other implications, if Verizon’s spectrum buy is approved, and as plans for mobile video are developed. One clear problem is the amount of bandwidth any mobile video service would represent. Many users would find their monthly data caps are reached after watching just two movies, for example.
That suggests something will have to be done that removes that threat. Many have speculated that one solution is to exempt the viewing of such video from user data consumption caps. That also implies, though, that the video service providers and content owners can agree on some reasonable formula for “paying for” the use of such bandwidth.
Proponents of “network neutrality” might have problems with such deals, but that is one reason some have argued against confusing “no blocking of lawful applications” with separate policies to manage networks for performance, or to create different charging mechanisms for different applications and use cases.
Entertainment video has been the poster child for such differential pricing. Other real-time services such as voice and conferencing have been similar examples of applications that virtually demand packet prioritization to maintain quality of experience, at times of network congestion.
No comments:
Post a Comment