Verizon Communications CTO Tony Melone now has floated the idea of "toll free" data access. "There is room for an 1-800-type of service where certain destinations could offset the cost of the network to get customers to those destinations," he said. AT&T also has talked about the concept.
Basically, the offering would work as toll-free calling now does, where a third party pays for calling charges. In principle, the idea, as applied to video content, would be that a content provider would subsidize the bandwidth charges incurred by an end user, rather than having the consumption count against that user's bandwidth cap.
In principle, that is simply a retail charging mechanism; one of many service providers might embrace. The rub, of course, is that such practices strike some as violations of network neutrality, even if the deals might be offered to all video streaming providers, without exception.
The argument requires a bit of stretching. The proposed "toll free" plans would not necessarily require any packet prioritization at all. The only innovation here is that a video provider could ensure that use of a particular video service did not count against a user's normal bandwidth cap.
Verizon has not said it would offer packet prioritization, only that video suppliers would defray the usage on behalf of their customers.
Comcast has stirred similar concerns by considering a similar plan whereby customers of its video subscription services also could view some of that same content using streaming, without likewise having that usage applied to the customer's bandwidth cap. The issue is whether the methods used to identify such streaming usage are, in and of themselves, a violation of network neutrality, if in fact Comcast does not provide any prioritization on those packets, but only identifies them for charging purposes.
Current network neutrality rules prohibit the use of packet prioritization for consumer broadband access services. But Comcast and Verizon do not seem to be proposing to do so, only to identify packets for purposes of charging.
Nor would network neutrality rules prohibit any lawful charging mechanisms modeled on "toll free" principles, or even advertising-supported principles.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Is "Toll-free" Video Streaming a Net Neutrality Violation, or Just Retail Packaging?
Gary Kim has been a digital infra analyst and journalist for more than 30 years, covering the business impact of technology, pre- and post-internet. He sees a similar evolution coming with AI. General-purpose technologies do not come along very often, but when they do, they change life, economies and industries.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Net AI Sustainability Footprint Might be Lower, Even if Data Center Footprint is Higher
Nobody knows yet whether higher energy consumption to support artificial intelligence compute operations will ultimately be offset by lower ...
-
We have all repeatedly seen comparisons of equity value of hyperscale app providers compared to the value of connectivity providers, which s...
-
It really is surprising how often a Pareto distribution--the “80/20 rule--appears in business life, or in life, generally. Basically, the...
-
One recurring issue with forecasts of multi-access edge computing is that it is easier to make predictions about cost than revenue and infra...
1 comment:
There is anecdotal evidence, according to Dan Rayburn just a few days ago, that Comcast is prioritizing packets, including placing low priority tags to packets from streaming services other than their Streampix content http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2012/05/comcast-traffic.html
So the heat is on for Comcast! But I think that toll-free internet is a brilliant idea, provided it continues to leave services like Netflix affordable. If it ends up pushing subscription rates up too high, it wouldn't make sense to lose the convenience of cable TV. And consumers would still be left trying to make ends meet and getting a little relief with the escape of entertainment.
Post a Comment