[opendtv] Re: F.C.C. Is Deluged With Comments on Net Neutrality Rules
- From: dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:34:14 -0700
------------------------------
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: F.C.C. Is Deluged With Comments on Net Neutrality
Rules
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 01:53:03 +0000
Craig Birkmaier posted:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/technology/a-deluge-of-comment-on-net-rules.html?ref=technology&_r=0
------------
. . .
"In no other area of the economy does the government ban voluntary market
transactions (here, for example, quality-of-service enhancements)
specifically
in order to prevent those with superior resources from offering better
services
to their own customers." - AT&T
. . .
------------
Kind-a disingenuous, wouldn't you say? No one is saying that customers
can't buy faster or better Internet service, or even access to private
sites. What people are screaming at the FCC about is that the middlemen,
the broadband providers, are doing this behind the backs of their
customers.
"Voluntary market transactions" are supposed to be available to CUSTOMERS.
Instead, they are being denied to customers, when content owners and
locally monopolistic service providers are in cahoots.
Gimme a break.
Bert
------------------------------
Hi Bert (et al.):
I agree with your last sentiments, but I'm a little confused on where you
stand. But maybe I don't have the full understanding.
Not quite 4 years ago, Netflix had to pay Comcast a bunch of money to get
Netflix stream flowing into Comcast at normal speed. Otherwise, Comcast
was going to reduce the bit rates for all traffic originating from the
service provider (Level 3) that Netflix uses. I believe Comcast's
position was that Netflix took up too much bandwidth and needed the money
to expand their infrastructure to support the traffic.
(Example of event in news:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/11/30/netflix.comcast/)
Personally, I thought that this was Comcast's way of choking Netflix,
which, at the time, was competition. But that was my own opinion and I
equated it to blackmail. I thought this was very counter to 'net
neutrality' and I clearly stated I would drop my ISP if they did this to
my traffic. If I remember right, at the time, you countered my argument
and said you had no problem with an ISP negotiating different rates for
the higher bandwidth requirements. But perhaps I misunderstood your
argument.
I also think that the stance Wheeler has taken and proposed FCC
regulations supports Comcast's tactic, that they can adjust speed for
different traffic from where they originate from and negotiate payments
for higher speeds. Perhaps I do not understand the intricacies of FCC's
possible regulation.
But at present, it sounds to me like you are against the possible FCC regs
and these deals the ISPs are making in the middle.
I'm not trying to badger; I'm just curious if you changed your mind: are
you opposed to or support the Net Neutrality bandwagon; or did I
misunderstand your earlier arguments with the Netflix-Comcast deal; or do
I have things all mixed up?
Dan
Other related posts:
