[opendtv] Re: Comcast hints at plan for paid fast lanes after net neutrality repeal
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 06:55:46 -0500
The bright line paid prioritization rule was already in shambles Bert. It never
should have been included in the first place, as the Internet cannot work
without it.
Even more important, widespread deployment of services that need QOS
guarantees, like video streaming, will not be possible without techniques that
the Wheeler FCC was calling paid priority (e.g. co-located edge servers for
Netflix).
And then there is the reality that new classes of Internet service will need
paid prioritization - our lives will literally depend on it. This will be
essential for medical devices, and especially for autonomous vehicles.
On Dec 24, 2017, at 6:41 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The only way that any form of prioritization can help is if bandwidth is
inadequate. And the only way prioritization can work *is* by throttling other
traffic. What a great incentive to *not* expand ISP net capacity anymore. No
need. You can make more money getting kickbacks from the web sites with deep
pockets.
Not true.
We are moving to a layered Internet system with multiple competitors. We now
have fixed broadband, wireless broadband, wireless cellular data, pervasive
Wi-Fi, and soon very high density wireless data in urban areas with 5G. At some
point in the future we will have adequate bandwidth, but we will still need
prioritization.
These systems can be prioritized on the basis of traffic type. And Internet
standards can be updated to provide new ways to prioritize IP packets.
As for the ability to collaborate with edge service providers, this is just
business as usual. Comcast is hosting edge servers for Netflix. Many streaming
services use CDNs to get their services closer to customers. And Zero Rating is
very popular.
No big deal - Amazon Prime is Zero Rating for shipping, although the real cost
is passed through to the companies selling their wares via Amazon.com.
Competition is a good thing Bert. And in the area of bundling ISP service with
streaming media services, it is going to heal drive down the cost of our
entertainment fixes.
It's hardly surprising that the broadband providers will go back on any
previous "promises" (to those hopelessly gullible) that they won't play these
games, with an FCC Chairman who is practically begging them to.s nothing
inherently evil about prioritization.
Because there is nothing inherently evil about prioritization.
By the way, the history of the FCC is filled with decisions about
prioritization of broadcast services. Funny how almost every decision in terms
of spectrum allocation for radio and TV wound up with only 3-4 competitors in a
market, when other ways of prioritizing spectrum utilization could have
produced a VERY DIFFERENT competitive landscape.
The lunatic paranoid yahoos are strangely not screaming for "states' rights,"
this time around. The usual hypocrisy, I guess. I'm waiting impatiently for
multiple states to sue this corrupt FCC, to demonstrate what checks and
balances are.
They are not screaming for states rights because there are none. The commerce
clause of the constitution clearly gives the Federal government the
responsibility for interstate commerce. You cannot have 50 separate Internet’s
in the U.S. with different rules. Wireless data does not respect State borders.
It is interesting to note how States are trying to get around the Commerce
Clause. For example, Monty posted an article about the State of New York and
Net Neutrality. They cannot impose net neutrality regulations at the state
level, but they CAN impose requirements on state contracts for broadband
service to state agencies.
The same kind of crap is happening in other areas. Some states and
municipalities are black listing the companies that have built the border wall
prototypes.
Personally, I think this is fine. It helps to prove just how corrupt the
politicians of all stripes have become. If governments can control behavior via
the way they spend OUR money to buy services, then go for it. But they should
NOT pay more for a service that plays by THEIR rules, when a competitor can
provide the same service at a lower cost. This is especially true if the
services are equivalent, but the purchasing decision is based on one company
pledging to follow the states rules, while another does not.
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: