[opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 22:24:27 -0500
On Jan 15, 2016, at 8:47 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I'm glad that the nonsense about congestion got called out for what it was.
What is the problem with the Republican Party these past years, anyway? Egad.
They love taking the wrong side, on just about anything.
First, the congestion problem WAS called out for what it was. It was not a case
of Comcast throttling service to its ISP customers; it was congestion in the
interconnection networks Netflix was paying to deliver its bits to Comcast and
other ISPs. It was a matter of peering disputes.
This article was written before the FCC Title II rule making, but it explains
what was going on and how the problems were resolved. It is a long article with
some helpful graphics, so I am including the link and a few key paragraphs here:
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/feamster/why-your-netflix-traffic-is-slow-and-why-the-open-internet-order-wont-necessarily-make-it-faster/
The FCC recently released the Open Internet Order, which has much to say
about “net neutrality” whether (and in what circumstances) an Internet
service provider is permitted to prioritize traffic. I’ll leave more detailed
thoughts on the order itself to future posts; in this post, I would like to
clarify what seems to be a fairly widespread misconception about the sources
of Internet congestion, and why “net neutrality” has very little to do with
the performance problems between Netflix and consumer ISPs such as Comcast.
Much of the popular media has led consumers to believe that the reason that
certain Internet traffic—specifically, Netflix video streams—were
experiencing poor performance because Internet service providers are
explicitly slowing down Internet traffic. John Oliver accuses Comcast of
intentionally slowing down Netflix traffic. These caricatures are false, and
they demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how Internet connectivity
works, what led to the congestion in the first place, and the economics of
how the problems were ultimately resolved.
In fact, while there are certainly many valid arguments to support an open
Internet, “faster Netflix” turns out to be a relatively unrelated concern.
Contrary to what many have been led to believe, there is currently no
evidence to suggest that Comcast made an explicit decision to slow down
streaming traffic; rather, the slowdown resulted from high volumes of
streaming video, which congested Internet links between the video content and
the users themselves. Who is “at fault” for creating that congestion, who is
responsible for mitigating that congestion, and who should pay to increase
capacity are all important (and contentious) questions to which there are no
simple answers. To say that “net neutrality” will fix this problem, however,
reflects a fundamental misunderstanding. Below, I explain what actually
caused the congestion, how the problem was ultimately resolved, and why the
prevailing issue has more to do with Internet economics and market power than
it does with policies like network neutrality.
The rest of the article is an interesting read...
It goes on to explain that the congestion occurred in the four interconnection
networks Netflix had contracted to deliver its bits to ISPs. The problem was
exacerbated by the fact that these companies had unpaid peering agreements with
Comcast based on the symmetry of traffic BEFORE Netflix caused the traffic TO
Comcast to increase dramatically. Ultimately Netflix chose to pay Comcast to
connect directly to the Netflix servers.
Bottom line, this was not a Net Neutrality issue, and Netflix is NOT paying
Comcast to prioritize its traffic. Comcast and Netflix have not revealed the
terms of the agreement, but it may include co-location of edge servers to
reduce the volume of bits from the Netflix servers.
As for your political views, let's just say that there is significant
disagreement and that the FCCs Title II decision is being challenged on many
fronts including the courts and by Congress.
If the bill discussed in the article I posted does get to Obama, he will surely
veto it. The decision to regulate the Internet under Title II only gained
traction at the FCC after Obama pressured the FCC to take that approach. The
courts may not agree.
I would add that the author of the article, Caroline Craig, may be more biased
on this issue that Bert.
I posted it, as I often do, as it contains some news, and a point-of-view on a
contentious issue we have been following. I do not agree with her, or Bert, but
it is useful to look at all sides.
IMHO, the marketplace was dealing with Net Neutrality, even as the politicians
and regulators were trying to convince us there was a problem - one that needed
government regulation.
If Bert truly believes that the Internet is creating competition for "bad
actors" in the video business, then one would think he would want to create
real competition in the ISP market to bypass them.
The Title II decision does just the opposite, virtually locking up the market
for the cabled incumbents, who will gladly extend their oligopoly to broadband.
That industry has been able to raise rates and maintain their Set Top Box
monopoly, despite the best efforts of Congress and the FCC to regulate rates
and open the market for STBs.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
- » [opendtv] Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld - Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: Congress to cable customers: Stop your whining | InfoWorld- Manfredi, Albert E