QoS and Network Neutrality

There are times when you want less latency than a typical Internet set-up can get you.

• If you're playing a real-time game.
• If you're competing in a real-time auction.
• If you're making a video call.
• If you're doing a remote operation.

These are all applications where the lowest-possible latency is desired. And reducing this latency was what the old "Quality of Service" argument was about.

Run your traffic on a single network, let that network take responsibility, define parameters for measuring latency, and pay more for the privilege. This is a key difference between buying "Internet" services and the services of a "private network."

In theory I have nothing against it. (The illustration, by the way, comes from this Equifax page.)

The problem is that Verizon and AT&T are trying to define QoS and network neutrality as the same thing.

They're saying, in effect, if you require network neutrality, we can't do QoS.

Nonsense.

Most telemedicine applications happen between a doctor's office and the hospital he or she works for. No problem putting that inside the hospital network.

Trading houses have long handled latency problems by getting contracts specifying QoS benchmarks from their network operators.

Gaming companies can do the same thing.

Fact is this is being used as a smokescreen by the Bells. QoS will continue, regardless of the outcome of the network neutrality debate.

But if the people lose, it will be forced on everyone. The Bells will be able to increase latency as they choose, on what they choose, and force those who need their bits to pay blackmail for the privilege of having the network work normally.

Don't be fooled.