http://disqus.com/people/dc57ee2b826bbbe6d3f8ba66e1410abd/enTue, 01 Nov 2005 20:30:48 -0000http://tlf.disqus.com/the_technology_liberation_front_raquo_archive_raquo_the_real_net_neutrality_debate_pricing_flexibility_versus_pricing_regulation/#comment-1444615<p>Three decades ago there was already a model for computer resource allocation: timesharing. (I presume something like it must be used by today's pre-emptive multitasking PC operating systems, such as any 32-bit version of Microsoft Windows.) In timesharing, the priority of a user's tasks decreases as the user's recent resource consumption increases and as the time since the last user action (e.g., a terminal keystroke) increases. A similar principle in TCP would say that you divide the available bandwidth among everyone who wants it, weighting recent requests higher than continuing service of older requests and weighting users who haven't used much bandwidth recently (we're talking seconds or minutes here, not hours or days) higher than those who have been taking a lot. The net effect would be to prioritize short, simple tasks (like getting an ordinary web page) so that their response time remains rapid while slowing higher bandwidth activities (and letting real-time high-bandwidth activities fail) during times when the system is struggling to meet demand... but slowing them <i>only</i> as much as is needed to maintain the chosen target response time for simple tasks.</p><p>This should keep typical users happy and encourage high-bandwidth users to do their big tasks at times when the overall system load is low, without imposing arbitrary punitive measures or engaging in the practice of trying to determine just <i>what</i> users are doing (something I think should be avoided like the plague it could become).</p><p>The next step in this business model would be to sell priority: e.g., if you pay more, the parameters used to compute your priority relative to other users would be changed so that you could take more bandwidth at busier times before being slowed (all relative to what others are paying, of course; hmmm... this could turn into bidding for priorty: perhaps a good thing, perhaps not). </p>CoisesTue, 01 Nov 2005 20:30:48 -0000