NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ NNSquad ] Re: Is network unneutrality necessarily bad?

> ... take VOIP or any other realtime application (eg, online
> games).  These applications all share a property of fairly low data
> rates but very high realtime needs.  So why should (if I'm willing to
> pay) this traffic not receive better than best effort service.

I believe there could be a "slippery slope" effect from the 
long-term existence of pricing (e.g., traffic) tiers.

Suppose a carrier has a sack of investment money.  If that money is 
spent by the carrier in upgrading everyone's service (*including* 
the lowest tier), the carrier earns a bunch of satisfied customers. 
Revenues for the carrier increase if additional users subscribe, or 
if existing users want more service and are willing to pay.  But the 
'return on investment' from the lowest tier might be meager.

If that same money is spent only for the higher-tier services, to me 
*those* users seem more likely prospects for wanting to expand their 
use if satisfied.  If that comes true, I expect the 'return on the 
carrier's investment' to be better with such higher-paying tiers.

Should such revenue effects be believed by the carriers, a possible 
long-term outcome might be that their lowest-tier (for instance, 
best effort) services stagnate (because of less overall investment).


NNSquad mailing list information: