On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 05:56:09PM +0100, Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote:
> Only path forward is, I think, that end users start to demand better
> service, and the ones that do are prepared on paying more. Like "if
> you just want broadband, buy blue service, but if you want better
> quality, buy red service" tied together with "to be able to use our
> movie distribution service, you need a broadband access of at least
> red service".
Of course the other model is that the content provider temporarily
upgrades your "blue" service to "red" service for their streams. If
content providers cannot do this and most people have "blue" service,
then the market for content that requires "red" service may be less
then the critical mass required to make providing the content viable.
The problem is how do we differentiate between cases where content
providers pay to get a higher then default QOS for their streams
vs. the case where the provider pays to prevent the ISP from
intentionally interfering with their streams. I believe the former is
reasonable while the later is extortion. Then there is the threat that
ISP's will permit their "default" level of service to degrade over
time because all those who "care" must now pay for higher QOS.
-Jeff
--
=============================================================================
Jeffrey I. Schiller
MIT Network Manager
Information Services and Technology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue Room W92-190
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
617.253.0161 - Voice
jis@xxxxxxx
============================================================================
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf