The
proliferation of video content options via the Internet raises questions about
what ISPs can and should do to offer “better than best efforts” to enhance
quality of service. Is this an
opportunity for “pay to play” extortion, or welcomed quality of service
discrimination? One might assert the
lack of a need for service prioritization in light of the absence of network
congestion, but as bandwidth intensive, video demand increases does this
conclusion make sense?
Video
content often qualifies as “mission critical bits” whose delivery must arrive
on time, or the streaming content freezes and evaporates. For example, Netflix and its subscribers
expect each and every link to work with sufficient switching, routing and
transmission capacity to deliver packets on a timely basis. Few Netflix subscribers would stick with the
company if suddenly full motion video streams became slide shows of random
frames.
Increasingly
ISPs want to secure surcharge payments from companies like Netflix to guarantee
timely packet delivery. So on top of the
double-sided market where ISPs already receive payments from end users and
upstream carriers, such as Content Distribution Networks, a third revenue
stream should flow further upstream from content providers like Netflix. Is this being greedy, particularly in light
of what ISPs markets to subscribers? Bear
in mind that traditionally both peering and transit agreements involved
directly interconnecting carriers, not ones further upstream or downstream.
Broadband
end users expect their $50-75 monthly subscriptions to cover the cost of access
without a surcharge to them and others for the privilege of accessing full
motion video sites. ISPs already have
the option of charging more for high volume users. ISPs: send “broadband hogs” fruit packets and
a higher bill, not throttled service.
ISPs also tier service based on bit transmission speed. Are they entitled to more compensation from
the sources of content that motivate broadband subscriptions in the first
place?