Comments on: When It All Goes Peer Shaped http://www.slaw.ca/2008/03/26/when-it-all-goes-peer-shaped/ Canada's online legal magazine Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:41:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John G http://www.slaw.ca/2008/03/26/when-it-all-goes-peer-shaped/comment-page-1/#comment-363413 John G Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:58:24 +0000 http://www.slaw.ca/2008/03/26/when-it-all-goes-peer-shaped/#comment-363413 There are two ends to this discussion, i.e. two places where the telecoms can influence traffic: 'shaping' or 'throttling' at the consumer end, and charging extra rates to - or slowing transmission from - different sources of content. The latter has been the focus of much of the net neutrality discussion in the US: will telecoms charge e.g Google or eBay higher rates because a lot of people use their bandwidth (or because they compete with the telecoms' own services)? The other end of it is charging consumers more for greater bandwidth. This is not new. What is new(ish) is not giving consumers what they have paid for. It seems undesirable for telecoms to throttle bandwidth without admitting it. Someone has to pay for bandwidth, and in my view it should not be the content providers, since that will favour big providers over small or innovative or unpopular but important providers. So it will end up being the consumers, since ultimately the telecoms are just intermediaries (albeit with their own content interests, to complicate analysis). But honest disclosure should be the policy and the law - and of course already is, if it could be enforced economically. So if I want to stream movies, it will cost me more than if I just want to read Slaw. Fair enough, say I. My son the denizen of World of Warcraft or my daughter the movie buff may disagree. I guess who pays for the household's bandwidth is a matter for a Family Meeting! There are two ends to this discussion, i.e. two places where the telecoms can influence traffic: 'shaping' or 'throttling' at the consumer end, and charging extra rates to – or slowing transmission from – different sources of content. The latter has been the focus of much of the net neutrality discussion in the US: will telecoms charge e.g Google or eBay higher rates because a lot of people use their bandwidth (or because they compete with the telecoms' own services)?

The other end of it is charging consumers more for greater bandwidth. This is not new. What is new(ish) is not giving consumers what they have paid for. It seems undesirable for telecoms to throttle bandwidth without admitting it.

Someone has to pay for bandwidth, and in my view it should not be the content providers, since that will favour big providers over small or innovative or unpopular but important providers. So it will end up being the consumers, since ultimately the telecoms are just intermediaries (albeit with their own content interests, to complicate analysis). But honest disclosure should be the policy and the law – and of course already is, if it could be enforced economically.

So if I want to stream movies, it will cost me more than if I just want to read Slaw. Fair enough, say I. My son the denizen of World of Warcraft or my daughter the movie buff may disagree. I guess who pays for the household's bandwidth is a matter for a Family Meeting!

]]> By: Robin Anderson http://www.slaw.ca/2008/03/26/when-it-all-goes-peer-shaped/comment-page-1/#comment-360037 Robin Anderson Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:47:40 +0000 http://www.slaw.ca/2008/03/26/when-it-all-goes-peer-shaped/#comment-360037 New Zealand's actual broadband speeds are such that even 5 Mb/s is more of a dream than a reality, in both commercial or residential settings. Sadly! New Zealand's actual broadband speeds are such that even 5 Mb/s is more of a dream than a reality, in both commercial or residential settings. Sadly!

]]>