"The US already has laws on the books that would make it illegal for a carrier to block traffic from a competitor, but don't worry, Narus' president of marketing Jay Thomas has it all figured out. Prepare to be incensed.
'But there's nothing that keeps a carrier in the United States from introducing jitter, so the quality of the conversation isn't good,' Thomas says. 'So the user will either pay for the carrier's voice-over-Internet application, which brings revenue to the carrier, or pay the carrier for a premium service that allows Skype use to continue. You can deteriorate the service, introduce latency [audible delays in hearing the other end of the line], and also offer a premium to improve it.'
This Balkanization of the Internet by competitors cannot be tolerated. 'Network Neutrality,' the view that networks should not discriminate against devices or services as a principle, is going to become a rallying call in the next several years."
Meanwhile, AT&T CEO (clueless egotistical obstructor?) Ed Whitacre continues to make assinine pronouncements, this time claiming that people are only paying for half the Internet.
AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre has made a name for himself by making loud and repeated pronouncements about how people and companies are not paying enough for Internet access. First, there was the infamous "our pipes" comment, made last year as a warning to VoIP providers. Next came the blasting of Google and Microsoft for being freeloaders on the Information Superhighway. Now, to complete the hat-trick, Whitacre has clarified his comments by announcing that only half of people's Internet access is being paid for:
"I think the content providers should be paying for the use of the network—obviously not the piece from the customer to the network, which has already been paid for by the customer in Internet access fees—but for accessing the so-called Internet cloud."
These comments seem ridiculous when looked at closely. Customers aren't paying to access a "cloud," they are paying for access to another endpoint—it's not like MSN and Google aren't paying their phone bills. Proposing that both sides pay for the connection is similar to suggesting that both parties should pay for a long distance phone call.
No comments:
Post a Comment