One might argue that neither network neutrality nor “fair share” payments by a few hyperscale app providers make sense.
Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data on the internet equally, regardless of the source, destination, or type of content.Without net neutrality, proponents argue, ISPs could block or slow down access to certain websites or services, or charge consumers higher fees for accessing certain content.
“Fair share” is the concept that a few popular app providers should pay telcos a fee for using their infrastructure. You see the contradiction. “Fair share,” by definition, treats bits differently and allows ISPs to charge fees to some sources.
Note that the principles are mutually exclusive: treating all bits the same--irrespective of source--means no “fair share” payments are allowed.
Beyond that, even when net neutrality rules are in place, ISPs are allowed to groom traffic during times of congestion. But net neutrality does not prevent ISPs from practicing traffic shaping or congestion control, which do not treat all bits equally.
Also, keep in mind that ISPs and internet domains already compensate each other for asymmetrical traffic flows, in the form of interconnection payments.
Critics might note that internet domains--including the targeted hyperscale firms--already pay such fees for traffic asymmetry, even ignoring the fact that it is ISP customers themselves who are asking the hyperscalers to send data to them.
Some might argue that “fair share” essentially is an effort to recreate the old closed network, where every app on the network had to be approved by the access service provider.
No comments:
Post a Comment