The peering issue is not exactly something you must solve by promoting
non-neutral service. It benefits the high intensity sites, such as Netflix,
every bit as much as it benefits the ISP, to make sure their streams don't
overload the core ISP networks. And they play an active role in solving the
problems. If the peering issues are missing in the arguments, by all means,
incorporate peering considerations, in those arguments. Let's not pretend that
non-neutral service is the only answer.
"Charter actually has a disincentive to carry Netflix content that might
compete with Charter's own video products."
And this is good? This is exactly what everyone in his right mind wants to
avoid. (No the FCC Chairman, of course. He's all in favor of blocking and
throttling, by the service provider.)
"Paid-peering has been an important part of the solution. If it were not, the
ISPs would be likely to charge different tiers of service for Netflix users,
higher prices or meter bandwidth, none of which would be appealing to American
consumers."
Well, sure, either pay, or let the Netflixes take responsibility for installing
the needed infrastructure. Another possibility, establish data caps, while at
the same time offering a way for the users to limit the bit rate they want, say
for media streams. A knob, adjustable by the user, to avoid exceeding the
monthly cap. In short, prioritization, BY THE USER.
None of this should ever involve the telecom service playing favorites among
web sites, among subscribers (other than what service the subscriber is paying
for), among political parties, or anything else. Telecom service neutrality is
as essential as free speech, for heaven's sake. Glad to see that AT&T is
finding a way to make it work for themselves too.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.tvtechnology.com/opinions/0004/a-twisted-look-at-net-neutrality/282669
A Twisted Look at Net Neutrality
Why did AT&T switch sides?
February 2, 2018
By Larry Thaler
A shocking headline occurred this week: AT&T called on Congress to pass net
neutrality rules. Wow. This is the first time an MVPD or telco (AT&T is both)
has switched sides in the argument and the occurrence reminded me of a recent
conversation. At the end of a lunch with a friend, a senior managing director
of a big consulting firm, he asked offhandedly, "What's your take on this net
neutrality thing?" A smile crossed my face. This was an opening I'd been
looking for because I firmly believe the whole subject is entirely
misunderstood.
The people who are pro net neutrality say, "a bit is a bit," and, "my ISP
should not throttle or change how bits are received based upon who is sending
it." They sometimes see the end of net neutrality as "the end of the internet
as we know it."
The people who are against net neutrality say, "it's unnecessary government
meddling," and, "leave this to the marketplace."
PEER TO PEER
What's missing from both these arguments is an understanding of the subtleties
of peering and how networks are connected. When two networks are connected
voluntarily, it's typically because there's mutual benefit to both parties. If
party A and party B exchange an equal amount of information, there's no need
for the parties to charge each other. This is sometimes called "settlement-free
peering."
Things change when traffic is very one-sided. If party A is delivering
significantly more traffic via the network than party B, the "traffic ratio" is
not balanced. Party B has to create and maintain network infrastructure to
support Party A's traffic without receiving a benefit in return.
The classic example is Netflix, who want their bandwidth-heavy video content to
be delivered by ISPs such as Charter. The traffic flow of movies to end
customers is immense, but the opposing flow from customers back to Netflix
consists of only very light commands back through the network. Charter actually
has a disincentive to carry Netflix content that might compete with Charter's
own video products. Paid-peering has been an important part of the solution. If
it were not, the ISPs would be likely to charge different tiers of service for
Netflix users, higher prices or meter bandwidth, none of which would be
appealing to American consumers.
Those in favor of markets, instead of regulations, believe that in a free and
fair market, prices settle and consumers can select the services they want.
This would be their preferred approach to solving the net neutrality problem.
The issue with the market argument is that many Americans have no choice of
ISP; many are limited to just one high-speed provider, or at most two or three.
That's not even close to being a fair market.
BOTH ARE WRONG
In other words, both the people who support net-neutrality and those who are
opposed are wrong. To find where I come out on this, you just need to read my
post from a year ago. The best approach would be a robust market with options
to provide true consumer choice, but that does not appear to be on the radar
screen. Limited regulation is the next best solution.
That's the context that helps explain AT&T's change of position. AT&T has at
least six reasons to support regulation:
1) An even playing field helps simplify their operation and prevent neutrality
from becoming a competitive issue;
2) In the absence of federal rules, there are likely to be a myriad of state
rules; a nightmare for a nationwide-ISP;
3) Net neutrality is essential to their DirecTV NOW OTT business;
4) By supporting legislation, they would be in a better position to ensure paid
peering arrangements will be legal under the law;
5) If there are federal rules for the ISPs to play by, there's less of a chance
that they will be deemed monopolies and broken up, and don't forget...
6) AT&T is still trying to purchase Time Warner and wants to be seen as being
cooperative and content neutral.
If you are reading this article, it's likely you work for a broadcaster or
cable programmer and your company's position on net neutrality is likely to be
nuanced. Supporting the latest FCC ruling-no net neutrality-endorses the MVPDs
who are enablers of the historic business models. It is a vote to maintain the
MVPDs as the gate-keepers of the status quo for as long as possible. Supporting
net neutrality legislation, as AT&T is doing, is an attempt to focus on future
revenue and business models, but comes with the risk of enabling competitors to
that future.
Regardless of where you sit, this one is worth watching carefully.
Larry Thaler is the President of Positive Flux, a consulting firm that
specializes in helping media companies take advantage of the rapid changes
occurring in the industry. He can be reached via TV Technology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
