[opendtv] Re: F.C.C. Is Deluged With Comments on Net Neutrality Rules
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 01:57:20 +0000
Dan Grimes wrote:
> Not quite 4 years ago, Netflix had to pay Comcast a bunch of money
> to get Netflix stream flowing into Comcast at normal speed.
> Otherwise, Comcast was going to reduce the bit rates for all
> traffic originating from the service provider (Level 3) that
> Netflix uses. I believe Comcast's position was that Netflix took
> up too much bandwidth and needed the money to expand their
> infrastructure to support the traffic.
> Personally, I thought that this was Comcast's way of choking
> Netflix, which, at the time, was competition. But that was my
> own opinion and I equated it to blackmail. I thought this was
> very counter to 'net neutrality' and I clearly stated I would
> drop my ISP if they did this to my traffic. If I remember
> right, at the time, you countered my argument and said you
> had no problem with an ISP negotiating different rates for
> the higher bandwidth requirements.
I can understand the technical problem Comcast has to deal with, then and now.
Just ignoring the obvious cost issues the ISPs have does not make for a
convincing argument. Someone has to pay the ISP one way or another.
But if the Netflixes are willing to distribute their own video servers
throughout ISP networks (to mitigate the problem of requiring more core
bandwidth), and if the customers who want the high bandwidth viewing are
willing to pay more to Comcast for that bandwidth (to help defray the cost of
improving last mile connections), and since the streaming protocols are
self-regulating, then this extra demand from the ISP/MVPD begins to sound like
a conflict of interest problem. It sounds like they don't want their own HBO
etc. offerings to have to compete against the outsider.
Therefore, given that now most ISPs are also MVPDs, and are therefore local
monopolies in most cases, how else to solve the conflict of interest problem?
It's not like people can look at another provider, most of the time (unless and
until credible wireless options emerge). Let Netflix take on the responsibility
to distribute servers at their expense, let the ISP deal with subscribers for
different levels of service, and let the streaming protocols self-regulate the
quality they can deliver, in the presence of other traffic.
> I also think that the stance Wheeler has taken and proposed FCC
> regulations supports Comcast's tactic, that they can adjust speed
> for different traffic from where they originate from and
> negotiate payments for higher speeds. Perhaps I do not understand
> the intricacies of FCC's possible regulation.
>
> But at present, it sounds to me like you are against the possible
> FCC regs and these deals the ISPs are making in the middle.
The FCC does not need to help foster runaway greed. Having content sources pay
extra to the ISP is rife with risk. Where will it end? It's perhaps the usual
case of greed having no limits.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: