[opendtv] Re: Net Neutrality
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:19:04 -0400
On Jun 4, 2014, at 7:15 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Fast lanes, either faster service bought by individual broadband customers,
> or virtual private networks leased by government or corporations for their
> intranets, make perfect sense and need to exist. What needs to be prohibited
> is for the ISP to charge double: hit the consumer first, then punish or hit
> the content source next.
Not exactly. Leasing a private network is not the same as subscribing to an ISP
service. When a company creates an intranet they are buying a service with
contracted performance specs; min/max data throughput, and possibly a cap on
total throughput.
When a consumer subscribes to an ISP service they pay for an average level of
performance; they may also have a cap on total throughput. There is no
guarantee that the subscriber will get the max speeds during peak demand
periods. There is no guarantee that the ISP will not slow the traffic from
specific "bandwidth hog" services like Netflix.
And there is no way for that consumer to know that a service "favored" by an
ISP gets a fast lane, while other services are "throttled." But we know this
has happened.
>
> It's not the FCC that came up with this
> content-source-payoff-to-ISPs-for-decent-service. That would be Comcast, and
> other ISP/MVPDs too. It's just that the FCC seems unable to fine-tune on what
> needs to be done with regulations, apparently being unable to get beyond what
> the MVPD/ISPs are asking for.
Correct. It is the marketplace that has created this situation, and in most
cases the marketplace has worked. Thus CDNs have been created to deal with
backbone congestion by moving content closer to the edge; Netflix, Apple,
Amazon et al have paid CDNs to improve their QOS.
When an ISP actively advantages some bits over others, or disadvantages some
bit, we have a different situation - a monopolistic gatekeeper disrupting the
market.
This should NOT be difficult to regulate, were it not for another reality. As
the video pointed out, the Fox is running the hen house. We have an industry
that enjoys a lucrative oligopoly (in many cases two oligopolies - MVPD and ISP
service), being regulated by the same folks who helped create those
oligopolies.
It is not that the FCC is incapable of dealing with net neutrality. The problem
is that they are aiding and abetting the migration of one regulated oligopoly
to help create another that is likely to replace the first.
"Fast lane" is essentially a code word for "these OTT services compete with our
MVPD service, so we want to level the playing field and force our competitors
to pay us a toll to compete."
On the other hand, if OTT replaces today's MVPD services, somebody has to pay
for the upgrades to the infrastructure that will make it possible. Should the
ISP bear all of this cost, which will enhance the position of competitors, or
should they share this expense?
> Humor is great, but it would be even better for coherent suggestions to be
> made to the FCC. Title II, applied only to as small a bounded set as possible
> (e.g. applied only to the "natural monopoly" cabled infrastructure).
The "bounded set" includes both cabled MVPDs and the telcos, who may or may not
offer MVPD service on a market by market basis. And then there are "hybrids."
If AT&T is allowed to buy DirecTV, they will have the same incentive as Comcast
to charge tolls via their wired ISP, and wireless data services.
The bottom line, unfortunately, is that the FCC and the court system are being
used to prop up the oligopolies and control the shift from MVPD to OTT services
delivered by ISPs.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
