QoS peering emerges

[warning, for nerds only]

George Ou and I theorized about QoS peering arrangements when we were talking about neutrality a few weeks ago. One of the arguments for neutrality legislation was along the lines that "even if companies want to sell QoS, it only applies to their networks", implying that charging for QoS was impractical since it couldn't guarantee performance from end to end.

My reaction to those arguments is twofold. First, such an argument conflates whether such an approach should be legal vs. whether it could be successful. A classic bit of pro-neutrality FUD in my opinion, since it implies that it is the role of government to decide which business arrangements are likely to succeed. Those that might fail should be outlawed, no?

This is the sort of sloppy thinking that needs to be countered. The obvious answer is that we can never know what will work (now or in the future), and the beauty of the market is that all possibilities are tested. This is especially true in the world of tech.

My second reaction was that QoS peering arrangements would emerge. George speculated that no money would need to be exchanged, like many existing arrangements. To which I said, well, maybe, maybe not, but let the players decide what it's worth.

Anyway, guess what: http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=101271

Comments

[The Gentle Cricket]

[warning, for nerds only]

Amen!

[The Gentle Cricket]

[warning, for nerds only]

Amen!