One objection I have had to network neutrality rules is that mandating “best effort only” levels of network performance for all consumer apps does not make sense, if there are apps that require higher-quality (speed or latency, but especially latency).
That is abundantly clear as requirements for 5G, connected car and other apps are developed. It is one thing to say that best effort internet access is satisfactory for most consumer applications and people using smartphones.
It is quite another thing to say that best effort actually works for new applications used by sensors and systems that are expected to develop once ultra-low-latency 5G is available.
There still remains a potential antitrust or restraint of trade argument that all lawful applications requiring ultra low latency, and offered as “internet apps” must be permitted by all access providers. That “no blocking” rule would still be relevant.
But there might be many new instances where ultra-low-latency access with specific thresholds must be assured. Then the issue of differentiated access network performance becomes quite important.
Also, since such networks are virtually synonymous with “private enterprise” networks, and since business networks always were exempted from network neutrality rules, there will be a case that such private networks (managed services) must be able to provide quality of service assurances beyond the new “best effort” characteristics of the 5G networks.
In the 5G era, there will be many more instances where quality of service must be assured, and where the new “best effort” level of access will not be satisfactory. As with any managed network, the terms of use for such QoS-assured services might not be the same as for a consumer-grade internet access service.
No comments:
Post a Comment