[opendtv] Re: Court Tosses FCC's 'Net Neutrality' Rules
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:23:59 -0500
> On Jan 15, 2014, at 7:17 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E"
> <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Not too surprising to see inconsistent views from you, Craig. You seem to
> harp endlessly about the supposed monopoly of the numerous TV networks, but
> you get all giddy about obsolescent TV content distribution monopolies.
> Honestly, makes you sound like such a luddite!
Relax Bert. You clearly don't have a clue about my positions in most of what we
discuss.
Just because I layout in detail how and why things work the way they do, DOES
NOT mean I am in favor of theses marketplace, or is in non-market driven,
business practices. I am not giddy about "obsolescent TV content distribution
monopolies," just telling it like it is. I do not need to justify the existing
business models, or support them; I simply explain why they exist and how
difficult it will be to challenge their efficacy.
On the other hand, you seem to assume that just because something is possible,
it should happen, because it favors your view of "the way things should be."
>
>> Looks like data caps and/or tiered pricing for broadband are on their
>> way. The questions now are who is going to pay, and how much?
>
> Anyway, you misinterpret this. It's not truly about net neutrality; it's
> about usage fees. You pay for volume of use for electricity and water, and
> for your telephone in many cases, so I suppose some similar arrangement for
> broadband use should not come as a surprise.
We ALREADY pay tiered Internet usage fees - I am not opposed to this.
There are many interpretations of what the courts just did. In another post I
will provide links to several of the better reasoned viewpoints I have read.
As I indicated, the ruling places another arrow in the quiver of the congloms,
MVPDs and telcos. How they choose to use this new tool, and how the FCC chooses
to use the expanded powers they were just granted remain to be seen. And yes,
although the ruling throws out the 2010 FCC Net Neutrality Order, it appears to
pave the way for the FCC to impose much greater regulatory control over the
Internet, as the links I will post explain.
> And in fact, these bandwidth limits ALREADY exist in various forms, at least
> on the customer's side.
Yup. Most wireless broadband plans are capped at levels that make heavy
consumption of streaming video economically un feasible. And most wired
broadband plans have data caps in the fine print. Tiered broadband plans and
data caps are THE major barrier to the Internet replacing MVPD and broadcast
services.
> Had the MVPDs succeeded in blocking access to these OTT sites, THAT would
> have been "a powerful arrow." I trust the outrage would be huge, even if
> Craig would be in favor.
The court case was based on the decision by Comcast to throttle the bit rate
when their ISP customers used Bit Torrent. They did not block Bit Torrent, but
they did degrade the QOS. When you read the L.A. Times article I am providing
the link for, you will see that this may be the greatest concern moving forward.
Blocking would indeed create public outrage, and the FCC clearly has the power
to legally challenge any such action by an ISP. Advantaging one service over
another in terms of QOS is a very different matter - we will need to see how
this plays out over the rest of this decade. Comcast has agreed to FCC Open
Internet rules through 2018, as part of the FCC imposed rules on their
acquisition of NBC.
And there are legitimate concerns about how Internet content providers could
use this ruling to gain market power. Fox example, could Hulu pay an ISP to
provide better QOS than Netflix, or could Amazon agree to subsidize your
monthly ISP bill if you choose their streaming service over Apple?
We live I In a world where Amazon, using classic product dumping techniques to
monopolize the E-book market, and nearly kill brick and mortar book stores, is
aided by the government. Rather than going after Amazon, the government finds
Apple guilty of antitrust by trying to move the publishers to an Agency Model
that helped to restore a degree of competition, and ultimately lowered E-book
prices further.
Hopefully the Appeals Court will get this right, but in this world ANYTHING is
possible if you have the right lawyers, and contribute to the right
politicians.
> The end result of these caps will probably be to accelerate deployment of
> newer codecs. It will be in the interest of the Googles and the Netflixes.
> That's okay with me. So, sorry Craig, you didn't make your point.
I was not trying to make a point. I was trying to start an important discussion.
I simply stated the obvious, that the "rules of the road" have changed once
again, and the change is likely to help established monopolies and oligopolies.
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: