It's all over the top
Summary: Twisted Wire asks, "what role is there for the telecommunications industry in content, when we seem happy with over-the-top delivery?" FoxtelGo is the latest case in point.
A few weeks ago, Geoff Huston from the Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) said on Twisted Wire that the argument from telcos that we need the managed delivery of content to ensure an adequate quality of service is nothing more than old companies trying to argue their way out of failed business models. In other words, their job is to push bits around; end of story.
Two weeks ago, Foxtel launched FoxtelGo, giving over-the-top access to Foxtel content irrespective of which network you're on. Does this mean that the relationship with Telstra is nothing more than that of a shareholder? "Correct," says Kym Niblock, general manager of Emerging Platforms at Foxtel.
Of course, there's always the risk that disparate networks will react to the success of over-the-top plays. Eli Katz, chair of the UK's Internet Telephony Service Providers' Association, talks about the battle to ensure net neutrality from the fixed and mobile carriers. He sees no reason for any form of network control for voice — it should all run happily over the top.
With faster speeds delivered by the National Broadband Network (NBN), surely it means that everything, even video, can happily be delivered as an over-the-top service. No wonder telcos are laying off so many people.
Do you think carriers still have a role to play in the differentiated delivery of content? Call the Twisted Wire feedback line on 02 8304 5198, or leave a comment below.
Running time: 28 minutes, 05 seconds
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
QoS not quantity
It seems your guest is perhaps very cynical of Telcos and ignores some technical aspects of how QoS works.
Using QoS for different tiers of service is not about charging more for 1GB of movies compared to 1GB of emails simply because the application differs. It is about ensuring a better service for a price premium. Of course this only really comes into affect where the network may be congested, but the context provider could weight this up before determining whether they should pay this.
This is not about Telcos retaining control of the applications, that is a different argument, but should they be able to charge a premium for delivery (which the content provider may pay)?
This is not new or confined to telecommunications.
You could argue that having Express Post boxes slows down regular post as a postman has to empty both instead of one. However the benefit is the postal service has an extra revenue stream and the consumer who pays for the premium service gets a faster delivery.
Does your guest advocate the abolition of expedited shipping or Express Post at a premium price?
Re: QoS not quantity
HFC ???