You are right. The reason Google supports net neutrality (for example) is to prevent Comcast from making a deal with Vimeo to offer QOS on Vimeo videos, allowing them to play at noticeably higher quality.
Comcast could even make a deal with a yet unheard of startup and suddenly Google would lose lots of market share to an upstart who was willing to accept Comcast's terms.
YouTube isn't exactly a shining example of high-quality grade video, but I totally get your point.
I'm just hoping that a tiering of QOS from a technical standpoint is not entirely ignored. Perhaps it's something already being addressed by Net Neutrality proponents.
I hope so too. Surprisingly, I was watching youtube 1080p content via AppleTv the other day and was quite impressed. I certainly know why Comcast opposes net neutrality :)
Comments
You are right. The reason Google supports net neutrality (for example) is to prevent Comcast from making a deal with Vimeo to offer QOS on Vimeo videos, allowing them to play at noticeably higher quality.
Comcast could even make a deal with a yet unheard of startup and suddenly Google would lose lots of market share to an upstart who was willing to accept Comcast's terms.
YouTube isn't exactly a shining example of high-quality grade video, but I totally get your point.
I'm just hoping that a tiering of QOS from a technical standpoint is not entirely ignored. Perhaps it's something already being addressed by Net Neutrality proponents.
Edit: Here's an article from a Cisco podcast that discusses this same issue I've mentioned: http://www.ciscohandsontraining.com/2009/09/need-for-qos-ver...
I hope so too. Surprisingly, I was watching youtube 1080p content via AppleTv the other day and was quite impressed. I certainly know why Comcast opposes net neutrality :)