[opendtv] Re: Tech Crunch: The FCC’s anti-net neutrality proposal is a giant question mark
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 09:13:36 -0400
On May 13, 2017, at 8:49 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
"Remember, this is about the entire basis for the FCC even being able to have
these rules in the first place. That there’s so little to say about the
alternatives to Title II says a lot."
Indeed it does. Most of what we see on this matter, from the FCC and from
Craig, is arm waving.
NO Bert. There is little to say about the alternatives because they were
working, they did not pick winners and losers, and they did not break the law -
the 1996 Telecommunications act when Congress explicitly forbid state and
federal regulation of the Internet.
"For example: '…prior to 2015, many large Internet service providers
voluntarily abided by the 2010 no-blocking rule in the absence of a
regulatory obligation to do so. Do we have reason to think providers would
behave differently today if the Commission were to eliminate the no-blocking
rule?'"
Obviously, the answer is yes.
Only to you and the sheeple/snowflakes that will flood the FCC with meaningless
comments.
I just saw this:
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/332948-cable-industry-poll-majority-support-net-neutrality-rules
Cable industry poll: Majority support net neutrality rules
A majority of registered voters support net neutrality rules that prevent
internet service providers from blocking, throttling or prioritizing content
on the web, according to a new poll from Morning Consult and NCTA, a trade
group that represents the cable and internet industry.
The survey found that 61 percent either strongly or somewhat support net
neutrality rules, while 18 percent either strongly or somewhat oppose them.
Another 21 percent either did not know or had no opinion.
...
The NCTA poll also included questions about the role the government should
have in regulating the internet. A quarter said that the government should
not regulate the internet at all, and 51 percent said it should employ a
“light touch approach” to regulation — a phrase often used by FCC Chairman
Ajit Pai in arguing against the net neutrality rules.
And 51 percent said that the internet should not be regulated like a public
utility — one of the GOP’s main arguments against the net neutrality rules,
though Democrats argue that the rules are not that heavy-handed — while 33
percent said it should.
Whoops!
VERY strong support for the concept of Net neutrality that has existed for
several decades. Yet the majority support the light touch approach to
enforcement of these rules proposed by Chairman Pai in the NPRM that will be
voted on this week.
First, we saw this blocking actually occurring, with Netflix streams, a
couple of years ago.
BUT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
What happened is that Comcast enforced the peering agreements it had with
several of the CDNs flooding Comcast with Netflix bits. This resulted in a
reduction in the QOS for Comcast customers accessing Netflix streams.
This problem was resolved via negotiation between the affected parties, and in
the end, the decision by Netflix to take responsibility for the traffic it was
generating. Rather than blocking or throttling Netflix traffic, the resolution
included the provisioning of Comcast facilities with Netflix edge servers that
reduced peering traffic and assured Comcast customers of a higher QOS than
competitors who do not contract with Comcast for server co-location.
This is know as PAID PRIORITIZATION BERT - and there is nothing wrong with it.
It is the way competitors are supposed to work together to support the
fundamentals of Net Neutrality.
Hadn't happened yet in 2010. Now it did. That was one huge impetus to get
people behind reclassification to Title II, in 2014-2015.
No Bert. It was FAKE NEWS.
The huge impetus to get behind Title II came from President Obama and the
courts that were encouraging to FCC to regulate ISPs under TItle II. This was
done to provide competitive advantage to certain classes of Internet service
providers, while limiting the ability of ISPs to compete.
But more to the point, in 2010 is when TV online streaming really began to
take off. The conflict of interest did not exist much before then, and
certainly did not exist before 2006. The world has changed from the old days,
when MVPDs and OTA, or DVDs for rent, were the only ways to get TV content.
Yes Bert we have been over this ad nauseam.
The fundament structure of the Internet had to be re-invented to make
widespread use of video streaming possible. And the companies that now deliver
these entertainment bits worked through all of this under the light handed
regulatory touch of the FTC.
Then the government decided to regulate the Internet, picking winners and
losers as they have been doing for a century.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
