The price of broadband is set to rise massively if European regulators enforce strict net neutrality, according to a recent story in the FT. It could go up by 30 percent, one analyst reckoned. This raises a number of issues.
But before we get into those, let's lay out the facts. The concept of net neutrality means that a carrier will treat all data alike. Whether it's from the carrier's biggest client, whether it's kids downloading illegal software, or if it's just your emails, all data is given the same priority. The principle behind it is that the deepest pockets should not determine which traffic is prioritised; it doesn't mean for example that your voice over IP phone traffic cannot be prioritised.
One of the fathers of the Internet, Vint Cerf, reckons that net neutrality is vital: “It's vital to innovation. Companies like Google and Yahoo, and eBay and Amazon, and Skype, and so on, got their start without having to get permission from any ISP or any broadband provider to offer services,” he said on YouTube.
What the carriers are currently bellyaching about is a proposal from the EU that net neutrality be legislated. In other words, it'll become illegal for a carrier to discriminate in favour of traffic originating from its biggest client.
The proposal is part of a new telecoms package that aimed at overhauling the EU's telecoms laws. EU ministers are due to discuss the proposal in November.
But consultants at Copenhagen Economics say in a survey to be published next week that the imposition of net neutrality would result in higher costs being passed onto consumers, and so depress demand for broadband.
They even provide sample costs: Swedish broadband rates could rise from €33 to €44 in Sweden and from €29 to €39 in Germany. That's quite a rise.
The Centre for European Policy Studies reckons in a report that the mandating of net neutrality would be undesirable. Compromises proposed include by the CEPS softer legislation which would ensure that consumers are informed about a lack of net neutrality.
However, whatever you think of net neutrality -- and I for one am nowhere near alone in being a fervent supporter of the concept -- I can't help wondering why prices would rise so much if the concept were abandoned.
I've always assumed, it would appear incorrectly, that we currently operate under a regime of net neutrality, that my data take their turn with everyone else's, and are dealt with by the Internet's routers in a first come, first served fashion. If the legislation were passed and put into force, and prices rose by one-third as a result, imagine how much money ISPs are making in return for preferring MegaCorp's data over those of smaller companies or, for that matter, yours and mine.
Would legislating net neutrality really make that much difference to prices? And if it would, why haven't the carriers told the rest of their customers -- the disadvantaged ones -- about it?
29 October 2008
7 October 2008
Mobile video goes mainstream
Mobile video is coming -- despite the sceptics, who see the idea of people wanting to watch TV on their handsets as an unlikely scenario. I'd number myself among those sceptics, as the situation is likely to be more nuanced than a simple either/or.
What's sparked this thought is the long-expected announcement this week of a deal between T-Mobile and 3 with BT, under which the two mobile operators will have their data traffic backhauled over the incumbent's shiny new 21st century network.
The agreement was actually cut between BT Wholesale and the mobile operators' joint-venture company, Mobile Broadband Network Ltd (MBNL), which was formed to allow the two operators to combine the infrastructure for the two networks. Instating MBNL allowed them to close around 5,000 base stations, according to one report.
That left MBNL with around 7,500 base stations, which are being increasingly inundated with demands for data, as ever more-capable handsets reach the hands of growing numbers of people. While many business users have been downloading the occasional web page along with their emails for years, the iPhone has been at the forefront of generating a hockey-stick curve in the data stats. That, and the jump in sales of 3G and HSDPA-enabled data dongles, have brought about a transformation of the data market, and which could become part of a financial rescue package for the mobile operators.
So that's all very well, but what kinds of data are people downloading -- and what does it mean for the networks? While there's a pile of applications too, along with web pages, email, IM and so on, the bulkiest items that people will download are likely to be videos.
The operative word here is download, rather than stream. Real-world data is thin on the ground but data streaming in a mobile environment is a tough technical challenge. Reports from real users on web forums and the like suggest that what appears to be streaming is in fact downloading: the video downloads and plays while it downloads, YouTube and NetEventsTV-style.
In practice, downloading a video this way is a much safer and more seamless way to view content than expecting it to appear instantly. Even with a broadband link, streaming a video from an online service doesn't always mean you can view it in real time -- it's often best to wait for a minute or two until enough of it is buffered. Over a less reliable cellular link, many if not most users are likely to select this option.
And a further issue that the mobile operators and content providers aren't going to like hearing is that downloading gives users the option to fast forward through the ads, reducing the providers' opportunity to monetise the offering. It's an choice most users are likely to make.
The other issue is how much video users are likely to watch on a phone. Short YouTube clips under ten minutes long -- often called 'snack video ' -- are the most likely candidates. Few are likely to want to watch a full-length feature film, or even an episode of their favourite sitcom on a phone-sized screen. Given both the form factor, the impact on battery life, and the fact that it could take days to download a feature film, this is hardly surprising.
So mobile video is not just coming -- it's here. But downloading is the most likely delivery mechanism, not streaming. And the operators' networks still need to be updated to take account of the anticipated increase in demand. So the deal between BT Wholesale and MBNL is not likely to be the last of its kind.
What's sparked this thought is the long-expected announcement this week of a deal between T-Mobile and 3 with BT, under which the two mobile operators will have their data traffic backhauled over the incumbent's shiny new 21st century network.
The agreement was actually cut between BT Wholesale and the mobile operators' joint-venture company, Mobile Broadband Network Ltd (MBNL), which was formed to allow the two operators to combine the infrastructure for the two networks. Instating MBNL allowed them to close around 5,000 base stations, according to one report.
That left MBNL with around 7,500 base stations, which are being increasingly inundated with demands for data, as ever more-capable handsets reach the hands of growing numbers of people. While many business users have been downloading the occasional web page along with their emails for years, the iPhone has been at the forefront of generating a hockey-stick curve in the data stats. That, and the jump in sales of 3G and HSDPA-enabled data dongles, have brought about a transformation of the data market, and which could become part of a financial rescue package for the mobile operators.
So that's all very well, but what kinds of data are people downloading -- and what does it mean for the networks? While there's a pile of applications too, along with web pages, email, IM and so on, the bulkiest items that people will download are likely to be videos.
The operative word here is download, rather than stream. Real-world data is thin on the ground but data streaming in a mobile environment is a tough technical challenge. Reports from real users on web forums and the like suggest that what appears to be streaming is in fact downloading: the video downloads and plays while it downloads, YouTube and NetEventsTV-style.
In practice, downloading a video this way is a much safer and more seamless way to view content than expecting it to appear instantly. Even with a broadband link, streaming a video from an online service doesn't always mean you can view it in real time -- it's often best to wait for a minute or two until enough of it is buffered. Over a less reliable cellular link, many if not most users are likely to select this option.
And a further issue that the mobile operators and content providers aren't going to like hearing is that downloading gives users the option to fast forward through the ads, reducing the providers' opportunity to monetise the offering. It's an choice most users are likely to make.
The other issue is how much video users are likely to watch on a phone. Short YouTube clips under ten minutes long -- often called 'snack video ' -- are the most likely candidates. Few are likely to want to watch a full-length feature film, or even an episode of their favourite sitcom on a phone-sized screen. Given both the form factor, the impact on battery life, and the fact that it could take days to download a feature film, this is hardly surprising.
So mobile video is not just coming -- it's here. But downloading is the most likely delivery mechanism, not streaming. And the operators' networks still need to be updated to take account of the anticipated increase in demand. So the deal between BT Wholesale and MBNL is not likely to be the last of its kind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
