[opendtv] Re: Lawsuit wave challenges FCC on net neutrality | ZDNet
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:17:37 -0400
On Mar 25, 2015, at 7:06 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> "Net neutrality, proposed by FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, forces Internet
> Service Providers (ISPs) to grant customers equal broadband and traffic
> speeds with no regard to the type of traffic which flows through a network by
> reclassifying Internet access as a utility in the United States."
>
> As far as I can tell at this point, this is not true. What is true is that
> this generic Internet broadband traffic has to be sent without
> prioritization, or let's say "best effort" for all comers. The ISP can't take
> "bribes" from some sources, to get special treatment, for this type of
> traffic.
>
Unfortunately it is far from clear what the new FCC rules mean, or how the FCC
will enforce and regulate interconnection agreements. There was much discussion
about this before the new rules were released, and it is likely that there will
be many lawsuits from both sides of the interconnects as the FCC tries to
regulate these interconnections.
What is clear is that some traffic is generic and does not require interconnect
deals, while high volume traffic can be dealt with in a number of ways,
depending on the approach taken by the service generating the bits. A service
may choose to work with one or more content delivery networks, or it can build
its own CDN as is happening with Amazon, Netflix, Apple, and others.
Traditionally, CDNs have negotiated interconnect deals, or peering agreements,
based on the symmetry of the traffic in and out of an ISP. When CDNs like
Cogent or Akamai present a highly asymmetrical load to ISPs (heavy
downstream/light upstream) they typically have paid the ISP a higher
interconnect fee, or in some cases pay the ISP for colocation of servers to
help balance the load by preloading popular bit during off hours.
When a commercial CDN lies between the source of the bits and the ISPs, it can
get complicated, as the traffic they deliver to the ISP may come from multiple
sources, each of which may generate as symmetrical traffic. As the CDNs are a
business that "should" operate profitably, they will charge the customers whose
bits they deliver enough to cover their operating costs and an equitable
portion of interconnect fees.
The customers typically charge their subscribers more when these costs
increase. This is one of the reasons Netflix had to raise their rates;
increased spending on original content was also a factor.
Bottom line, there are real costs associated with moving from dedicated linear
MVPD networks to Internet delivery of entertainment. The marketplace has done a
reasonable job of dealing with this, but now, the FCC is going to monitor, and
most likely regulate these fees. Much of the discussion before the FCC
announced the new rules involved cost shifting. That is, some rates might be
set artificially below actual costs, forcing the company that would lose money
to pass along these losses to their customers.
> But that does not mean that Netflix can get access on the same terms as your
> local thrift store. At least, that hasn't been decided, last I know.
The local thrift store does not generate 30% of all U.S. Internet traffic
during prime time. Netflix is building out its own CDN, setting up its own
interconnect deals, and co-locating servers at ISPs as part of these deals.
Thus the "definition" of what is a "fast lane" comes into play, not to mention
issues like throttling and prioritization. Throttling is a built in feature of
the Internet, when congestion occurs; most streaming servers monitor the
connection and can adjust the quality of what they are sending to prevent
buffeting at the client device.
With server co-location, congestion at the interconnection between the ISP and
Internet backbone can largely be avoided. Is this providing the company that is
paying to co-locate their server at the ISP a "fast lane?"
>
> It's possible something has changed on this score -- or not. I would think
> that much depends on details, case by case, e.g. whether the high volume
> content source agrees to fund its own mirrored servers.
When the government decides to regulate an industry the devil is always in the
details. And not just the original rules. Wheeler told us that the FCC will
"forebear" application of some parts of Title II, like universal service fees.
But the FCC can impose these fees at any time in the future with a simple
majority vote.
What we are seeing is the introduction of vast uncertainty, in an industry that
has done a remarkable job of building out a new infrastructure that is critical
to our new economy. So critical, that the politicians have decided to regulate
and tax it.
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: