Net Neutrality: FCC Saves Us From Our Unreasonable Selves

Good piece. We can almost be assured now of problems, slow-downs, lawsuits, and basically a worse Internet. Gee thanks.

Can’t the government stay out of anything?

It was a cleaver play on words to use the phrase “net neutrality”... I have heard people suggest that this is what is needed to move streaming services forward and protect from bandwidth caps, etc… NOT TRUE! In fact, this actually will make it easier for ISP’s to control OTT video by simply charging for the level of service required to get a reliable stream for HD. Which of course will simply drive the average person to RedBox and cable, and once again innovation is stifled.

Here’s the basic situation they are trying to avoid…

Let’s say a giant publisher like the New York Times pays Comcast to get their content delivered faster at some guaranteed minimum speed, but some small publisher like EH doesn’t have the budget to pay Comcast and 15 other ISPs. EH’s content will get delivered slower, or during peak hours, maybe not at all because the ISP has to meet their contracted min. bandwidth for the paying sites.

Is that what you’re advocating?

neothings, you are correct in identifying what they are trying to avoid.  However, rest assured, someone always pays… 

The fact is, the Internet is not broken and Government involvement will only complicate new media distribution forms and the business models / pricing around them.  Don’t confuse the Level3 spat with net neutrality.  The fact is Level3 severely undercut pricing based on peering arrangements with Comcast which effectively allowed them to share the costs with Comcast. 

The problem (from Comcast perspective) is that Netflix is paying Level3 NOT Comcast.  These deals are very complicated and therefore it’s not always clear on the surface who has a legitimate “beef” and who is just trying to make an extra buck. 

Since we now know Netflix streaming likely costs more than $7.99 / mo to provide, especially when the costs of content acquisition is factored in… I suppose Net Neutrality or not, costs to the consumer must rise.  It’s really just a question of who charges, the ISP or Netflix. 

It’s a fun time to be involved in digital entertainment!

@neothings: And, where there is a monopoly on internet service, the provider being able to decide what content they will allow and what content they won’t.

Mark - who says Redbox isn’t innovative? I believe it is one of the greatest innovations this year, and just the kind of business model that keeps ISPs and content providers on their toes.

Neothings - Indeed, we would hate the advantage that NYT might get over EH, just as you hate the preferential treatment that Crestron gets over neothings at CEDIA. We must compete in other ways.

We are always subject to one gatekeeper or another. One vendor might get better exposure at a distributor by paying for it. Distributors might choose to NOT sell certain lines altogether—in essence deciding what “content” they allow and what “content” they won’t.

Julie: You are correct, redbox has innovated with a highly efficient delivery model, totally agree.  My statement was not well worded.  It is not that I judge redbox as not being innovative, it is that they represent the continuing physical distribution model.  Frankly speaking, in my view (rightly or wrongly) Net Neutrality has the potential to be another drag on digital delivery business models.  How this drag will be manifest to the market you ask?  There are lots of opinions and unknown factors, but I personally believe it *may* be a drag, nonetheless. 

However, the greatest thing about being involved in the digital space, is that it is the most dynamic of just about any right now.  Frankly speaking, what is a “drag on innovation” today, can become lift tomorrow and vice versa.  Which is why this is so much fun.

Mark - you’re absolutely right about Netflix. I also wonder if Comcast was not in the VOD business on the cableTV side if they would care about Level3/Netflix.

Julie - The Net Neutrality argument is really just how we should ration a limited supply of bandwidth. So to make the parallel to tradeshows, if Crestron used their size to buy all of the available booth space at CEDIA, it might seem less fair. I obviously don’t see that happening, just as I don’t see the sky falling if the big ISPs can control their bandwidth, but I’m just playing devils advocate.

Oh no, it’s Atlas Shrugged all over again…

who is John Galt?

Someday, maybe too late, people will wake up and see that this is not about fairness but government control. We will all realize too late that the progressive movement is the demise of the country as we know it as the radical liberals continue to push our society towards socialism one baby step at a time.

Ahhhh, dystopia, under the guise of utopia. One can be president by not only surrounding himself with radicals but preaching it. Easy to do when all succomb to gullibility.

More and more, Julie is doing her Randian channeling and bringing it to her oped.

Anyone that thinks less government in this type of area brings innovation and a free market is deluded.  There is no free market and regulation in these types of things does help to level the playing field but can hardly stem the tide. My only quibble is that it does put enough teeth into the policy. Randians live in such a binary, black and white world, I often wonder how they enjoy the wonders of this incredibly colorful life.

The internet is like water and should not be owned by any corporations.  Comcast’s infrastructure would be useless without the rest of the internet.  They’d like to think they can control their small faction, but where would they be if the rest of the infrastructure was non existent?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=John+Galt

Its not intervention, it’s regulation…  Just like the banks and the mortgage companies have proven to us, we cannot count on these large companies to play fairly or look out for the interests of their customers (or their own futures) vs the interests of short-term gains.

Comcast is throttling back bandwidth on PAYING customers across the US and Canada who are paying outrageous amounts for that connection and speed. 

The #1 reason I ditched my DSL line and signed up with Comcast for cable was for the speed so my Netflix and Hulu viewing was at the lowest compression (best PQ).

Most of the people I know who pay the premium pricing for top-level broadband buy it for the exact same reason.  So with these premiums, the ISPs have ALREADY seen an increase in business for delivering this greater bandwidth to us.  Comcast is so arrogant that they are assuming that we are somehow loyal to THEM and would maintain this premium service regardless of whether or not our desired content was available to us, and are extorting Neflix with a ‘pay-to-play’ type fees to deliver the bandwidth that they have already charged the customers a premium price to deliver.

Yeah, the open market was not working here.

Just like it’s wrong for the Chinese government to censor the web browsing for it’s citizens, it’s wrong for my ISP to tell me (y’know, their CUSTOMER) where I can and cannot get my online content.

They are simply the service provider, they absolutely should NOT be in the business of controlling where I go and what I choose to download or stream.  It would be like my AT&T or Verizon voice service boycotting me from calling Idaho extensions in the morning hours or something equally ridiculous.

This is nothing more than another power-grab by this administration.  It has nothing to do with protecting the consumer.  Period.  Further, they knew it would never pass congress and so the FCC was empowered (we’ll see how that stands up in the Supreme Court) with this new “mission” in a classic end-run around congress.  Don’t think for a minute that the FCC’s desire to be the body that determines proper and/or beneficial internet content wouldn’t be subject to misuse of power - ultimately, misuse is exactly what they had in mind!