Joost is already starting to use “Rivulet-like” packet shaping techniques… These approaches basically are not playing byt the rules and taking an advantage of a “bug” in the queue management systems’ interaction with TCP. The question is going to become what technologies the ISPs are going to be allowed to deploy in the context of Net Neutrality. If they can’t legally throttle Joost or Rivulet-based YouTube traffic because of net neutrality, then they’re SOL! Video will simply overwhelm their networks. Technically, they’ve got the same problem — particularly with Joost. The packet inspection boxes simply don’t work with “stealthy” applications like Joost and Skype. So, if I were an ISP today, I’d be looking for a solution that can throttle back both P2P video traffic and any other traffic that doesn’t play by the rules…

What happens when YouTube or Joost start using technologies like Rivulet? Since technologies like these can pretty much obtain as much bandwidth as they need at the expense of others, those video providers simply get whatever they need up until a point. I think the net neutrality people simply don’t understand how difficult it is for the ISPs to even try and keep their networks “fair”. Since Rivulet just got a huge amount of funding from Menlo Ventures, and they’re rumored to be in discussions with YouTube/Google to use they’re technology, I think all bets are off when it comes to net neutrality and how the ISPs can enforce it even if they wanted to.

I’ll miss my TiVO.

Hashi

Bandwidth Buyers Guide is your #1 guide for instant comparisons on T1 lines, T3 access, and various high speed providers.

Net Neutrality is about preventing ISPs and all the middle-man routers giving preferential treatment to certain network data based on nearly arbitrary rules that include business deals, what they like/don’t like, and other BS. Net Neutrality must be upheld at all costs. If we lose Net Netrality, the data and services on the internet will be controlled, similarly to how data is controlled on cell phone networks. All you need to do is look at the $15/month fee to download 20 youtube videos on cingular to see how much that sucks.

Bandwidth != Net Neutrality. Please don’t confuse people, there’s too much at stake with Net Neutrality to add confusion to the mix.

Net Neutrality is about preventing ISPs and all the middle-man routers giving preferential treatment to certain network data based on nearly arbitrary rules that include business deals, what they like/don’t like, and other BS. Net Neutrality must be upheld at all costs. If we lose Net Netrality, the data and services on the internet will be controlled, similarly to how data is controlled on cell phone networks. All you need to do is look at the $15/month fee to download 20 youtube videos on cingular to see how much that sucks.

Bandwidth != Net Neutrality. Please don’t confuse people, there’s too much at stake with Net Neutrality to add confusion to the mix.

I’m skeptical. Don’t today’s more-or-less all-you-can-eat plans reflect revealed consumer preferences? Keep in mind that most users go nowhere near the caps and so pay for more than they use.

And there is also the matter of social norms (more broadly, transaction costs of marginal pricing). Users might well feel that TV is something that ought to fit within the bounds of the “standard” plan, no matter how much bandwidth that takes.

Due to the endowment effect, they’ll be reluctant to give up what they already have–virtually unlimited bandwidth, even if they’re not using it all–and so the impact of something like Joost will be felt in more subtle ways: degraded service (especially by clever traffic shaping) and faster price increases. Everyone pays.

So could Comcast or any other consumer provider charge for bandwidth on a marginal basis? Yes. Is this likely to happen? Probably not.