Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Keep in mind that this DPI system, besides making it easier to monitor people's communications and even censor them, would also make it very easy for them to identify the type of traffic that goes through the pipes, so they can know exactly how to charge it differently, which brings us to another one of ITU's proposals, which is to kill net neutrality and charge for "premium services" like watching Youtube, or using other type of P2P traffic (Skype, WebRTC, torrents, etc):

http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/proposal-for-ict-and-i...

They want to do this, they say, to help "grow the Internet" (hasn't the Internet grown fast enough without their help in the past 20 years?), despite the fact that evidence suggests that the sender-pays system would slow down the growth of the Internet, not make it any faster (research paper):

http://mercatus.org/publication/do-high-international-teleco...




Note that a kind of sender-pays is already used in practice as all big content providers pay for CDN on a per GB basis, and the CDN company in turn pays for bandwidth.


Sure, but this was the case before CDNs as well. Unless you are a Tier 1 network you usually pay a fee to your upstream carrier.

However, the ITU would like to charge across many networks and discriminate based on the type of service provided.

So if data from your network A reaches the customer through networks B, C and finally D, then D would like to charge you to deliver it and not slow down things artificially.


But that is what CDNs do. A content provider, such as Apple, will pay both for their upstream carrier access, AND for the CDN access. And the CDN will effectively pay each network on the way to the destination, by renting their lines and hosting servers at their PoPs. CDN is a QoS service, it's just that the access networks feel they aren't getting part of that cake.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: