I'd be interested in how much Verizon will actually be able to achieve with by second-guessing video content.
It reminds me of the design assumptions I cited in http://rmf.vc/IPVZGateway.ipnn where Verizon blithely builds in layered dependencies. If it’s for their own “TV” to cell phones it’s one thing but who are they to know what is “visible” to the human eye? If I download the video so I can view it on my laptop or for local processing then the assumptions they make will simply be false.
Verizon seems to be living in the past when the phone company defined what the service was and a call was complete when the phone rang rather than when a human answered.
At very least Verizon should take the blame for the design problems of repurposing a cellular phone system for carrying bits rather than voice. It’s the very same problem Verizon faced when we repurposed a phone system using modems. Verizon (or Bell Atlantic) didn’t try to second-guess the purpose and build it into the network – we just moved bits to a more bit-friendly transport by repurposing cables and ADSL. It didn’t solve fully solve the problem but it was an improvement over pushing bits through a 56Kbps dedicated path.
Today I see no signs of any carrier attempting to provide a wireless native bit transport that isn’t subject to the constraints of cellular (though maybe LTE/WiMAX are in that direction though they still rely on distant towers). The irony is what with UMA the carriers are doing the reverse – moving their traffic to the connections we are paying for while still charging us for the calls. UMA is a good idea so I’m tolerating the billing for now.
What will it take to see past the gratuitous complexity of today’s telecommunications industry and get to the simple idea of funding a common infrastructure to exchange bits?
ψ
From: David Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 18:37
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Verizon Restrains Video Downloads as IPhone Debuts - Bloomberg
Archives |