[opendtv] Re: News: Netflix Partner Says Comcast 'Toll' Threatens Onli
- From: dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:50:27 -0800
Dan Grimes wrote:
> When an ISP lets some data through but not other data, are
> they not discriminating by it's very definition? How do you
> define discrimination?
Bert responded:
"If you go to the shoe store and you refuse to pay the price for that one
pair of shoes you like, the store will refuse to sell you the shoes. I
suppose they are discriminating against you, based on the fact that you
won't pay the price, but they would be perfectly willing for you to buy the
shoes at the asking price."
Sorry, I am having trouble seeing how this is a good analogy. I never said
all discrimination is wrong. In fact, as I have stated here before, there
are times we must discriminate for proper reasons (and again, I'm not
talking about race and such, I'm using the word more broadly) such as
finding a qualified candidate for a job. Do you agree with me that this
ISP is, in fact, discriminating? The question to you is this: are you okay
with your ISP discriminating as to what data they will allow to get to you,
the end user, without your input?
Dan wrote:
> This is what I hear you saying in your posts: it isn't fair
> for low level users to pay for increase network bandwidth
> that the high level users require, but we don't want to pay
> based on use.
Bert responds:
"Sort of. I'm saying, it would become more of a tiered system. TV content
subscribers would pay a higher fee, through their Netflix or other TV site
subscription fees, because they are requesting a much higher average
throughput. As opposed to the more traditional user, who requests only very
high bursts."
I agree that a tiered system is good. I am just saying that money should
not be exchanged the way Comcast is doing it and it causes lots of other
problems. A tiered pay structure to the end user is fine and I think we
already have that. How many want to pay flat fees for gas, power, food,
etc.? We need to pay for what we use and need. I realize this could lead
to a lot of other philosophical debate.
Bert also responds:
"It's just not correct to claim, "but I pay for 20 Mb/s!" What the pricing
structure has assumed until now is that this 20 Mb/s is a very
short-duration peak rate for you. Not a 3-hour-long average during prime
time. IP nets are provisioned based on these considerations."
While I didn't bring up the issue of the rate, I would agree with you and
wouldn't argue that just because I pay for a rate does not mean that I am
guaranteed that rate sustained for the entire duration of service. But
network providers should define that better if they don't want customer
confusion.
As far as pricing, there are lots of ways to price out a utility. Power is
charged at different rates at different times and both water and power are
charged with tiers and pipes that can only provide a certain flow. I see
no reason why data traffic is not like any other utility.
Dan wrote:
> Of course, in my opinion, this isn't about data bandwidth
> but about protecting media conglomerates and MVPDs.
Bert responded:
"The problem is, even if this is true, their excuse is also perfectly
valid."
True, it is a side argument that does not deal with your argument that
someone needs to pay for the data traffic. My point was only to say that
they must use this excuse because if they were honest and said they were
trying to keep the status quo, they would be under fire. Of course, I
cannot prove it and it is a supposition on my part.
Bert also wrote:
"But aside from any of these arguments, if you are annoyed by the fact that
the ISP might have reason to NOT want to carry some content, because it
conflicts with some of his own content that he would rather you use, then
why should that be surprising? Is this not exactly what the cable networks
objected to, when it came to carrying OTA broadcaster multicasts?"
You are right: it isn't surprising. But I am saying they are wrong for
doing so. I haven't made the connection with the cable networks argument
on multicast must carry so I can't respond to that comment.
Bert also wrote:
"Why should anyone expect the ISP, in this new Internet TV case, to behave
any differently from the MVPD in the past? My position has always been that
ISPs will behave very much like MVPDs, when TV content becomes commonplace
over ISP nets. To expect otherwise would require some strict new government
regs that MVPDs never had to deal with. But, with this FCC, it's possible
they'll get those regs."
The behavior is not surprising but is exactly what I am afraid of.
Evidently, ISPs using an MVPD infrastructure are not really ISPs. They
seem to not be able to disconnect the two businesses and it is wrong for
them not to.
The reason why we have government regulations is because people seem to not
be able to operate in ethical manners. If the MVPDs cannot see this
ethical violation, it appears government regulation is going to be
required. I realize this opens a whole new discussion as to what is
ethical. So I go back to my original question:
Is it okay for an ISP to discriminate as to what data they will allow to go
through their infrastructure?
We certainly don't want the government determining what can and cannot go
through the internet. Why would we allow companies to do the same?
In my opinion, if my ISP decides to discriminate (even if their reason is
that it hurts one of their other businesses), then I do not want to use
them as an ISP and will look to other options.
I realize that America is largely pragmatic in it's philosophy. Because of
such, we often look to solutions for the moment with a future-be-damned
attitude. I do not subscribe to the pragmatic philosophy, but for those
that do, here is my argument against Comcast for their deal with Level 3,
if I were a Comcast customer:
As you know, I do not subscribe to an MVPD service but do use a Broadband
(CATV infrastructure) company for my ISP service. And as a Netflix
subscriber, I am one of those that the MVPD has to fear. But if my ISP
provider filters my data because it might affect their other business that
I have no interest in, then I must stop using them immediately because they
are not providing the service I am paying for. They have breached their
contract with me and have a conflict of interest. Therefore, I would have
to unsubscribe to their service immediately.
If Cox Communications follows Comcast, I will do just that. There are
other ISPs out there I can subscribe to.
Dan
Other related posts:
