[opendtv] Re: TV Technolgy: A Twisted Look at Net Neutrality
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2018 10:29:22 -0500
Before getting to Bert’s predictable diatribe, let’s look at the article itself.
The author makes the case that AT&T is now receptive to some form of ISP
regulation, providing six reasons to support this position. Here are the
“reasons” and why most of them are wrong:
That's the context that helps explain AT&T's change of position. AT&T has at
least six reasons to support regulation:
1) An even playing field helps simplify their operation and prevent
neutrality from becoming a competitive issue;
What does this even mean? Is an even playing field one in which the former
bright line rules are placed into legislation and enforced by the FCC?
Not likely. It is true that AT&T knows how to play the regulatory game, and can
afford to use its lawyers and lobbying dollars to gain competitive advantage.
But some of the former rules are not even feasible - the whole discussion about
peering reveals the fact that edge providers are responsible for the traffic
they generate, and they routinely pay for prioritization techniques to make
certain their subscribers can get the QOS necessary to use the service.
What is far more likely is that AT&T wants Congress to resolve this issue with
some finality, rather than dealing with the uncertainty that the rules will
keep changing in the future. And they believe that Congress will clearly choose
a solution based on marketplace competition rather than heavy handed regulation.
2) In the absence of federal rules, there are likely to be a myriad of state
rules; a nightmare for a nationwide-ISP;
The author is clueless here. The FCC has clear authority to prevent the states
from creating a patchwork quilt of incompatible regulations. The Internet is a
classic example of Interstate Commerce, and as such Federal regulation preempts
state regulation.
3) Net neutrality is essential to their DirecTV NOW OTT business;
Patently absurd and completely unsupported.
Netscape is living proof that Net Neutrality rules ARE NOT needed to assure
that any ISP will not block or throttle services that might compete with a
service affiliated with an ISP. More important, Netscape has taken
responsibility for its bits and is paying for prioritization techniques to
assure that subscribers can use the service.
AT&T has the ability - in fact it is a necessity - to develop similar paid
prioritization arrangements if it wants DirecTV Now to become a competitive
VMVPD service.
4) By supporting legislation, they would be in a better position to ensure
paid peering arrangements will be legal under the law;
Paid peering agreement have never been illegal, even under the Title II bright
line rules. What was in play under Title II was FCC regulation of the rates
Edge Services would pay for peering agreements.
5) If there are federal rules for the ISPs to play by, there's less of a
chance that they will be deemed monopolies and broken up, and don't forget...
Here we go again with the convoluted logic. Just the opposite is true.
Historic federal rules for telecommunication companies created and protected
monopolies and oligopolies; this continues to be true today for broadcasters.
But Congress has been moving to deregulate telecommunications since the ‘80s
with major competitive success stories - particularly cellular services.
Congress would need to legislate the Title II rules in order to permanently
entrench the current “monopoly” ISP services. It is far more likely that
Congress would do just the opposite and guarantee a competitive marketplace.
6) AT&T is still trying to purchase Time Warner and wants to be seen as
being cooperative and content neutral.
DUH.
But cooperative with who.
1. The current administration and Congress, which would likely support
deregulation and competition?
2. The possibility of a Democratic Congress next year that would attempt to put
the Title II rules into legislated statute?
#2 is unlikely, as Trump would veto any legislation that regulates ISPs under
the Title II rules.
The likely outcome would either be maintaining the status quo, or for Congress
to resolved this permanently by encouraging competition.
Now onto Bert...
On Feb 2, 2018, at 10:23 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The peering issue is not exactly something you must solve by promoting
non-neutral service. It benefits the high intensity sites, such as Netflix,
every bit as much as it benefits the ISP, to make sure their streams don't
overload the core ISP networks. And they play an active role in solving the
problems. If the peering issues are missing in the arguments, by all means,
incorporate peering considerations, in those arguments. Let's not pretend
that non-neutral service is the only answer.
Paid prioritization is the solution to neutral service Bert, not a threat. It
means that any Edge provider assumes the responsibility for their bits and the
QOS that they need to attract subscribers.
"Charter actually has a disincentive to carry Netflix content that might
compete with Charter's own video products."
And this is good? This is exactly what everyone in his right mind wants to
avoid. (No the FCC Chairman, of course. He's all in favor of blocking and
throttling, by the service provider.)
But Charter is carrying Netflix and working with Netflix to assure that Charter
customers get a high quality experience. It is also worth noting that Netflix
does not compete with the MVPD services offered by Charter - they are
complementary. If Charter were to throttle Hulu or DirecTV Now the author might
have made his point. But the reality is that both Hulu and DirecTV Now already
have agreements with Charter, or use CDNs with such agreements.
Charter is not going to risk its future - as a broadband provider - knowing
that it will continue to see its MVPD subscribers defect to cheaper VMVPD
services. They will simply ride the MVPD ship down, relying on the reality that
the majority of their MVPD subscribers will stick around for the rest of this
decade, if not longer.
"Paid-peering has been an important part of the solution. If it were not, the
ISPs would be likely to charge different tiers of service for Netflix users,
higher prices or meter bandwidth, none of which would be appealing to
American consumers."
Well, sure, either pay, or let the Netflixes take responsibility for
installing the needed infrastructure. Another possibility, establish data
caps, while at the same time offering a way for the users to limit the bit
rate they want, say for media streams. A knob, adjustable by the user, to
avoid exceeding the monthly cap. In short, prioritization, BY THE USER.
DUH. This already exists Bert. Fixed ISP services are offered in tiers with
different levels of peak data rates and associated data caps.
None of this should ever involve the telecom service playing favorites among
web sites, among subscribers (other than what service the subscriber is
paying for), among political parties, or anything else. Telecom service
neutrality is as essential as free speech, for heaven's sake. Glad to see
that AT&T is finding a way to make it work for themselves too.
And the Internet grew and thrives today because of the inherent EXPECTED
neutrality of the pipes. Nobody is doing the things that the Title II rules
were intended to prevent except for the misguided paid prioritization rule.
It is clear that the Wheeler FCC did not understand that today’s internet
cannot work without paid prioritization. The first attempt to use this rule was
aimed at Zero Rating, which is nothing more that a competitive bundling
technique available to ANY Edge Service willing to pay to have their bits Zero
Rated.
And none of this should create a tiered Internet, where ISPs are heavily
regulated and forced to obey rules, while Edge Service providers are free to
ignore Net Neutrality.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts: