[opendtv] Re: And VoIP
- From: "Craig Birkmaier" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "brewmastercraig" for DMARC)
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 08:51:37 -0400
On Sep 23, 2018, at 1:52 AM, Manfredi (US), Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John wrote:
Remember paying by the minute for "long distance" phone calls? Thank
you, Title II.
Again, net (or telephone service) neutrality had nothing to do with how the
telcos charged for service. We had unlimited long distance, nationwide, for
many years before we had broadband service. The neutrality is a government
guarantee, and it has nothing to do with how the companies charge people.\
It sure did Bert. There was nothing neutral about the cost of long distance -
it was what you would expect from a monopoly. And you really stepped in it with
your unlimited Long Distance comment, long before broadband.
We got unlimited long distance because of competition Bert. This came from the
massive investment by MCi and others in a national fiber network, the very same
network that now carries massive broadband traffic.
Sorry, but your Title II monopoly infrastructure was outdated - it has largely
been replaced by fiber and wireless voice/data. When the Title II companies
were allowed to compete, they started to deploy FTTH and other new services
that now compete in the market for broadband.
And the real competition is just beginning, as wireless broadband starts to
roll out.
But this is where you make the case for net neutrality:
VoIP (Magic Jack) killed that, but the telcos went kicking and screaming
to congress to reign in Magic Jack and their ilk for not charging per
minute for long distance service ...
**EXACTLY** John. VoIP meant that innovative services could be layered on top
of the Internet - but only if it wasn't blocked by the provider! Just like
OTT sites can be. The incumbents, legacy telcos in this case, clearly want
that competitive telephone service stopped, but if Internet service is
neutral, they have to comply. The guy who provides access to the Internet
must allow access to all users. Not block those that displease this Internet
provider.
No Bert. They did not want competitive telephone service to be stopped. They
wanted the regulation to stop so they could compete. It is very difficult to
innovate and compete when multiple layers of regulation dictate what you can
do, while new technologies not subject to regulation are free to innovate.
And this is the REAL STORY of Net Neutrality. It has NEVER been about
neutrality Bert, it has always been about regulating the broadband providers to
keep the regulatory state alive: to keep them hiring K street lawyers: to
“paper” the FCC and state Public Service Commissions to get anything done; and
to limit the ability of the ISPs to enter edge service businesses.
The discussion here is government regulated industry innovation vs.
free market innovation.
You mean, like when Comcast blocked BitTorrent or Netflix, or all the other
examples of monopolies blocking their competition?
But that never happened Bert. Comcast still blocks bit torrent for customers
who abuse it. THe courts simply made it more difficult to do so, since a tiny
fraction of Bit Torrent traffic is legal. Netflix refused to pay for the
traffic it was creating and Comcast called them (actually the CDNs Netflix was
using), on it.
Netflix, You Tube and other major bandwidth users had to scale up and start
taking responsibility for their traffic. The issue was never about building
fast lanes for these services; it was always about managing traffic and paying
for the backbone and peering services that they use.
The government is us, and we're telling the Internet providers that we want
to have unfettered access to any Internet site we damn well please.
No Bert, the government is NOT US. It has not been for many decades. IT should
be obvious that the Government is now a political morass, with career employees
who are more than willing to break the law, regulate us into oblivion, and
protect their rear ends.
DId you see any of the Project Veritas videos released last week?
https://www.projectveritas.com/
These are not isolated “bad apples” Bert. It is the reality of the unelected
bureaucracy that now wants to fundamentally transform the U.S. into a
“socialist utopia.”
Not that a socialist utopia has ever existed...
The Internet providers gain, because they can charge for plans that provide
faster service, and because they are critically important and have virtually
zero competition. (Even mobile is slowly heading in this direction.) Ultimate
job security.
The Internet has been a game of leapfrog Bert. Innovation in the backbone made
it possible. Innovation at the edges (the ISPs) have made new applications
possible as broadband speeds have increased dramatically.
John was absolutely correct. Your Title II phone lines and modems were good for
the proof of concept, giving us e-mail and very simple web sites. The ability
to deliver audio, then video streams, required real innovation, new protocols
and many turns of the Moore’s Law crank. More important, it required
competition and massive investment, without having to spend years jumping
through regulatory hoops.
There is growing competition for ISP service Bert. Unfortunately, there is also
growing congestion, especially on the Hybrid Fiber/Coax cable networks. The
quality and reliability of my DirecTV Now service has noticeably degraded in
the last few months as more and more of us cut the MVPD cord, replacing it with
the new VMVPD and SVOD services.
Who is responsible?
Cox Cable? - are they throttling DirecTV Now? I double it.
DirecTV Now? - probably - they must continuously scale up the contracts for
backbone carriage and peering with ISPs to get the bits to the edge.
MY neighbors - certainly. The speed of my Cox party line network degrades
significantly in the early morning and evening.
Such is the reality of replacing a legacy infrastructure, built and managed by
layers of regulators and bureaucracy. Instead of complaining about a non issue
- the net neutrality canard - consider how far we have come in two decades
driven by innovation and competition.
And innovation wins, because any number of competitive companies can operate
over this Internet telecom service. Tell me who exactly wins, if the Internet
becomes another MVPD service, like the FCC wants. Innovation? Make me laugh.
Get over it Bert. Yes any number of innovative companies can operate over the
Internet. But any market evolves to a relatively small number of competitors,
especially for markets that require massive capital investments.
The ISP side of the Internet is doing just fine. In a few years we will be
wondering what can be created to use all of the bandwidth that will be
available. Video will be just another app, just as audio became commonplace
when the infrastructure scaled up to make it’s carriage “trivial.”
The “edge services” side of the Internet is another story - a story where
“censorship” is rapidly emerging rather than “neutrality.” A story where the
monopolists of the current century are working hand in hand with the
politicians to entrench a far more insidious form of control than the
regulation of natural monopolies during the previous century.
Could it be that Bert’s real fear here is that he may need to start paying for
his TV fix? The number of sources of truly free TV content are declining;
broadcast TV has devolved into a REAL vast wasteland. The ability to replace a
legacy MVPD service with a cheaper VMVPD service is now a reality. More high
value TV content is being produced than at any time in history; but most of it
is moving behind pay walls.
And the content oligopolies, built during the last century, are now
consolidating, more profitable than ever.
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: