Happy New Year, everyone.
This is an example of semantics, or formula-think, getting in the way of
common sense.
Telcos want to compete with cable companies, and as far as I'm
concerned, they should have every right. As long as they're made to
follow the same rules.
If telcos (or cable companies) want to use Internet Protocols to deliver
the TV service, that should not have any bearing on their providing
broadband Internet access as a separate service, "network neutral" or
whatever. It is, on the other hand, incumbent on the "net neutrality
activists" to understand the difference between using a protocol for a
particular service and providing Internet access. If the word "internet"
appears in the name of the protocol, it does not make the service using
that protocol necessarily the same as "Internet access."
It would be nonsensical, for example, for AT&T to have to deal with this
formula-think issue, while Verizon gets away with it simply because FiOS
TV does not use IPTV to deliver TV programming. (Possibly FiOS uses IPTV
only for the VOD programs. The broadcast stuff is simply sent as a
broadcast, converted on the premises to FDM over coax, just like cable
TV.)
As far as I can see, the FCC was right on target.
Bert
------------------------------------------
http://www.eetimes.com/blog/news/archives/2006/12/2006_ends_with.html;js
essionid=M3VVNPIWRLGUYQSNDLRSKH0CJUNN2JVN?loc=communications
2006 Ends with AT&T/Bell South Approval - What About IPTV?
The Federal Communications Commission ended the year with a Friday
afternoon vote approving the $86 billion merger of AT&T Co. and
BellSouth Corp., though the way in which some commissioners e-mailed
their votes to Washington suggests that there may have been elements as
rushed as Saddam Hussein's hanging.
Dave Burstein, the analyst who writes the always-provocative DSLPrime
newsletter, thinks that the FCC accepted a less-than-stellar definition
of "Net neutrality" from the merging companies. In his Dec. 30 analysis,
Burstein said that AT&T had assured the commission it believed
wholeheartedly in "neutral routers" and the notion that all broadband
users should have equal packet access without exception. But the
company's pledge to provide IPTV automatically calls that pledge into
question, Burstein says.
David cites several critics of the merger, including Net Neutrality
activist David Isenberg, who focus on wanting activists to be happy with
their influence in forcing a recusal in voting by Commissioner Robert
McDowell. Burstein says he's gotten several emails from activists saying
that he's expecting too much and hence risking all. I won't go that far,
but I do think that AT&T's desire to provide IPTV does not prove it is
going to undermine the notion of Net Neutrality.
Let's face it, Quality of Service prioritization helps balance traffic,
and assures real-time delivery for low-latency services. If telephone
companies are going to compete with cable multi-system operators, they
have to offer TV services as part of their triple or quadruple plays,
and IPTV looks like a cost-effective way to provide it.
Does this mean I think Ed Whitacre can be trusted to fulfill his
commitments to fair networks without constant monitoring? No, I think
most packet-based service provider companies are run by robber barons,
whether the medium is fiber, copper, coaxial cable, or wireless
services. All of these executives should be watched constantly.
But when I order a bundled service from my cable MSO, I have the choice
of combining high-speed Internet with basic cable, with premium digital
cable, with premium digital plus HD, all options with or without
wireless and/or VoIP. If I get special video service, I pay more. And if
my phone company wants to offer an IPTV service, I would expect them to
run the service over Alcatel 7750 routers that might have tighter QoS
constraints than a vanilla broadband Internet service.
So I guess I can live with Whitacre's promises. But I sure am glad
Burstein was there, hounding the commissioners and AT&T late in the day
Dec. 30, to make sure users understood the limitations AT&T put on the
term "Net Neutrality."
Posted by Loring Wirbel on Dec 29, 2006 09:48 PM in Communications
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.