6 ms·
This seems like the sticky bit: Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband prov
by moultano 16y ago
This seems like the sticky bit:
Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services. It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options. Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules. The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services.
It seems reasonable, but this is a subtle distinction. Prioritizing internet traffic isn't allowed, but selling services that might get priority over internet traffic is, so long as they aren't called "internet." I guess the hope is that the internet will always be important enough that they'll never throttle the whole thing or risk losing business, hence the FCC monitoring bit at the end.
- nanairo 16y agoActually it seems to me that they are already putting the hands forward to make sure Google TV is not covered. Is this possible? Anyone remembers exactly how the Google TV pitch was?
- Raphael 16y agoGoogle TV adds another layer to whatever video you happen to have, even non-internet television subscriptions.
- ismarc 16y agoI think it's easiest to think about in terms of AT&T UVerse (an easy example). You have TV, Internet and VoIP service delivered over the same network connection. TV and VoIP (the VoIP isn't carried over the Internet, instead it's direct to the internal switching network and just happens to use IP for the packets) are independent of Internet access. TV and the VoIP service can be prioritized as needed, but Internet is just Internet and is only prioritized in relation to the other services (i.e., all Internet traffic is prioritized identically for a connection). I actually like this distinction. It will encourage more broadband rollout as companies add more services that use the same infrastructure but aren't used for just "dumb pipes".
- nanairo 16y agoWouldn't that be really easy to dodge? Something like iPlayer or Hulu integrated with your TV: is that internet or TV? What if you can get the news from a website, or its app? The app "just happens to use IP for the packets".
- ismarc 16y agoYou're confusing terms that are independent of what's actually being discussed. If it is Internet based, it's Internet service and prioritized with all other Internet traffic. If it's traffic that does not go over the internet, but instead through another infrastructure (such as a public switched telephone network, or a local multi-cast network for TV service) it gets prioritized however is deemed appropriate. Just because you watch it on your TV doesn't make it separate from Internet service.
- nanairo 16y agoNo, sorry. The point made was that a lot of communication is being moved using TCP/IP. So they use the same infrastructure.
- lagubya 16y agoRight. What if Youtube and Hulu start bundling their services as part of Verizon's TV service and thus enjoy higher QoS than other video startups? Thats a loophole now.
- jeromec 16y agoI'm not sure I like that allowance, if that's indeed what the terms are. Are you saying the broadband carrier, like AT&T or Verizon can prioritize the delivery of their TV service as needed, to always be faster than say a Google or YC backed TV startup/service?
- moultano 16y agoThat's only a problem if the internet as a whole isn't fast enough, and the FCC is supposed to ensure that this never happens.
- DannoHung 16y agoI can understand objections, but what about this: currently, wireless data and voice is carried over the same medium and is subject to the same network overloads. Is it necessarily unreasonable for carriers to give priority to voice data made through telephony protocols (as opposed to data protocols)? I understand a lot of people are approaching this from the perspective of "how would this be abused?", but I think there is also worth in thinking about it from the point of an honest businessman in "how do I make sure my customers are guaranteed good service?"
- api 16y agoHow's that different from TV? It often goes over the same pipes, but it's not internet.