Comment Re:Umm... (Score 1) 499
Actually, the situation is much simpler. The access network that you use is very heavily over-subscribed. It was designed with assumptions with regard to the nature of traffic: mainly that all traffic is equal, that all traffic is best-effort (that is, that any packet can be dropped at any time for any reason), and that hosts can resend traffic if needed. Indeed, the Internet as a whole was designed around the end-to-end principle. This would be great, but now users want more than "best-effort" traffic for certain services such as VoIP, IPTV, and so on. Google has recently entered the fray with its Google video service. In order to better support these applications both network hardware (i.e. routers) and the access and aggregation networks will have to be upgraded. One way to pay for these upgrades would be to raise everyone's rates. But, that would be difficult to accomplish unless the competition also raised rates by the same amount.
Another approach (and the most fair one, IMHO) would be to charge users a premium for better quality treatment for some traffic. This is generally why a 1.5 Mbps T1 dedicated internet access (i.e. business access) costs more than 1.5 Mbps ADSL (i.e. residential) access. Business users are generally given higher QoS and/or non-oversubscribed access links.
The last approach is the one mentioned, where the content provider is charged extra for higher priority. In some ways, this is a kind of "Robin Hood" plan. The end-users get cheaper access, and content providers, who make their money by providing content to the end-users. In some ways, this is like the broadcast TV model where advertisers, in effect subsidize the broadcast TV infrastructure while the views either pay nothing for access (for over-the-air reception) or pay a relatively small amount for cable access. Advocates of this model say that the content provider should pay for an improved experience for their users while allowing end-user subscriber fees to remain low.
In any case, providing basic internet access is not really a very profitable business. The commoditization of the internet does not leave much room for high margins that would be required to attract the additional investors required to fund a round of upgrades.
Another approach (and the most fair one, IMHO) would be to charge users a premium for better quality treatment for some traffic. This is generally why a 1.5 Mbps T1 dedicated internet access (i.e. business access) costs more than 1.5 Mbps ADSL (i.e. residential) access. Business users are generally given higher QoS and/or non-oversubscribed access links.
The last approach is the one mentioned, where the content provider is charged extra for higher priority. In some ways, this is a kind of "Robin Hood" plan. The end-users get cheaper access, and content providers, who make their money by providing content to the end-users. In some ways, this is like the broadcast TV model where advertisers, in effect subsidize the broadcast TV infrastructure while the views either pay nothing for access (for over-the-air reception) or pay a relatively small amount for cable access. Advocates of this model say that the content provider should pay for an improved experience for their users while allowing end-user subscriber fees to remain low.
In any case, providing basic internet access is not really a very profitable business. The commoditization of the internet does not leave much room for high margins that would be required to attract the additional investors required to fund a round of upgrades.
