Despite some fears, in some quarters, about paid prioritization of packets, is that a realistic fear? If the value of packet prioritization--paid or not--is guaranteed performance (low latency), 5G (and advanced 4G) should--by definition--eliminate the problem, and therefore the possibility of profiting from services that offer higher quality assurances..
In other words, the potential value of packet prioritization is quality assurance for applications that require low latency (packet arrival times).
But when a 5G network routinely has latency in single-digit milliseconds, is prioritization still needed, and if so, for what apps? In other words, does 5G actually eliminate the problem that packet prioritization is said to solve?
And, if that is true, then fears about paid prioritization are misplaced. As much as some internet service providers might like to sell packet prioritization services, there might not be a market for such services on 5G networks.
Perhaps paid prioritization could still have value on fixed networks, but user experience itself might force fixed networks to upgrade performance, simply to keep pace with 5G networks, and therefore close the window of opportunity for packet prioritization, even on many fixed networks.
The point is that the feared “packet blocking and throttling” still is barred by Federal Communications Commission policy, while “paid prioritization” has a slim window for relevance until 5G arrives.
The stated fears about removing common carrier regulation from internet access will prove misplaced.
No comments:
Post a Comment