Comments
Net Neutrality Court Ruling Won't Ruin The Internet
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
<<   <   Page 3 / 6   >   >>
rradina
50%
50%
rradina,
User Rank: Ninja
1/15/2014 | 4:44:52 PM
Re: Not buying it...
The only flaw is assuming folks even have a reasonable choice of providers.  While I have multiple options, I have only one wired option and the other wireless options simply cannot compare.  Don't get me wrong.  I think highly of my one wired option but if they start to follow others down the path that we seem to fear, right now I don't have an alternative to take NetFlix's advice and switch to another carrier.

Otherwise I agree with what you are saying.
rradina
50%
50%
rradina,
User Rank: Ninja
1/15/2014 | 4:41:16 PM
Re: Consumer's interest
That's already differentiated and IMO clouds the issue.  If a hospital needs a super fast connection to another hospital for video medical procedures, they can contract with a major provider to create an MPLS with an SLA that guarantees bandwidth and latency.  That traffic shouldn't even be on the public Internet for so many reasons I have no idea where to begin.  How about a public personality having their operation show up on YouTube?

What we're discussing is a consumer grade Internet connection and that connection treating all data equally has no bearing on the type of connection in my first paragraph.  If that connection doesn't do what the consumer wants, they should have the option to pay for faster/better service.  So should the service provider that seeks to serve them.  However, an ISP shouldn't be allowed to extort more money from me because I want to use service X instead of service Y.  And they shouldn't be allowed to extort money from service providers because they are service X instead of service Y.  If we want to penalize data usage, then let's bill by the byte.  So far we don't seem to want to go there but that's where we should go rather than the silly door we're about to open with ATT's latest moves and this court victory.
rradina
50%
50%
rradina,
User Rank: Ninja
1/15/2014 | 4:28:04 PM
Re: Here's the REAL problem...
Please investigate how much bandwidth an HD NetFlix stream uses.  You might be surprised that it isn't the bandwidth hog that everyone assumes.  Last weekend I watched the Avengers with my kids. The HD stream only used between 700Kbps and 1.5Mbps.  I have a 30Mbps connection and that means at least 25Mbps of it is left for someone else to use.

Using this kind of bandwidth will only get less consequential as technology improves and network vendors (who by the way aren't losing money) continue to invest and improve their networks.
Thomas Claburn
100%
0%
Thomas Claburn,
User Rank: Author
1/15/2014 | 4:12:58 PM
Re: Regulatory Capture
Arguing for lack of regulation is more persuasive when the potential for harm is small. Where harm is a real possibility (ie: robbery or other criminal behavior), we tend not to call for self-policing of behavior. Instead we rely on self-restraint in conjunction with police and the law.

Failing to insist on net neutrality will make it easy for network providers to harm those downstream. In fact, companies like AT&T and Comcast will have an incentive to do so. It's simply not adequate to suggest large telecom companies will behave nicely, particularly when there's very little real competition in the US broadband market.
Lorna Garey
50%
50%
Lorna Garey,
User Rank: Author
1/15/2014 | 3:31:30 PM
Re: Regulatory Capture
The laws of physics, not the government, limits spectrum. And, where there is sufficient demand for passenger railroads, they exist. The Northeast corridor, for example.

My take is that Jonathan is right in the long term but in the short term is overestimating the ability of the free market to provide competition sufficient to make up for a lack of regulation. The Internet is a utility, like electricity or water. Or healthcare, for that matter, though probably don't want to get into that here. As such, it needs some level of regulation. I'm not big fan of micromanagement, governmental or otherwise. But we need a balance, and I for one don't trust Verizon, Comcast or any carrier with a utility.

As others say, follow the money.

 
TerryB
50%
50%
TerryB,
User Rank: Ninja
1/15/2014 | 3:09:24 PM
Re: Here's the REAL problem...
Your primary concern is because the ISP doubles as a content provider. Under that scenario, with the limited competion possible for last mile, there is little choice but to enforce Net Neutrality for just the reason you state. I'm sure FCC will. But doesn't mean I have to like funding it versus getting the ISP's out of the content business in first place. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But I can't except your argument I have to support unlimited buildout of backbone so the NetFlix's of the world can move traffic off of other circuits I intentionally pay for. Time Warner charges me extra because I request to have HD service, they don't stick it on your bill also when you don't want it. At least not as clearly defined anyway. ;-)

I hope other poster is correct that NetFlix cost of however many T3 circuits they buy into datacenter keeps me from paying for the buildout of the backbone those T3's tie into. Somehow I doubt that today.
rradina
50%
50%
rradina,
User Rank: Ninja
1/15/2014 | 3:03:00 PM
Re: Confused author
While I have the same concerns about this ruling, let's not roast the judge.  My take on this is the judge told the FCC that they were trying to regulate what they classified as an "information service".  The judge told them that they only have the power to regulate common carriers.  To boil this down further, a common carrier is essentially a utility.  Utilities are allowed monopolies that operate under close supervision (regulations).  Within reason, the regulatory body that oversees the utility can change rules, make new rules and remove rules.  If the utility does not accept the rules, it has the right to challenge the regulatory body in court.

The ruling simply tells the FCC that if they believe the Internet needs regulation, it will have to classify the providers as common carriers (utilities).  Then they can govern these bodies with regulation.

Another option is for Congress to write some laws that regulate the Internet.

Now back to my concerns.  I'm very concerned that we do not have sufficient competition for the Internet to be self-governed.  Recent NetFlix performance ratings show Comcast falling from grace. At least some Comcast customers are not happy with their NetFlix performance and since they apparently don't have an HSI choice, they are dropping NetFlix.  Competition should punish non-performance.  In this case, NetFlix claims the issues is not on their end and points to other HSI providers that don't have any problems.  At one point Comcast was also ranked at the top of the list (top being good).

Let's dive a little deeper.  If folks cut the Comcast video cord but keep their HSI connection, Comcast loses big money.  They either need to figure out a way to stop video customers from defecting to NetFlix or raise their HSI prices to account for lost video revenue.  Raising HSI prices may not be an option because SOME (not all) customer enjoy a choice (especially those in Verizon's FIOS areas).  Raising prices may drive those customers to a competitor for HSI which then means they'll be playing a zero sum game.  I suppose Comcast could only increase prices where folks don't have a choice but I'm pretty sure they don't want to get caught doing that! 

I'm certainly not suggesting Comcast has willfully degraded NetFlix performance to stem NetFlix defectors.  However, what motivation does Comcast have to solve the issue if it only exacerbates defections to NetFlix?  What we have here is a conflict of interest.  History is rife with examples that inappropriate decisions are made whenever such a conflict exists.

We need to either make sure everyone has a whole bunch of choices for their HSI service or we MUST establish a few rules to keep the insanity of allowing HSI providers to not only own content creators but compete with other services that use their network.
MyW0r1d
50%
50%
MyW0r1d,
User Rank: Strategist
1/15/2014 | 2:58:10 PM
Re: Calm Down everyone
I generally agree with and enjoy Feldman's articles, but he left me confused on this one.  He advocates the best focus of FCC to be encouraging free competitive market, but somewhat conveniently forgets that he reminded us at the beginning that when left to self regulation the big players do not play fairly (ComCast cited).  There can be no free market if the rules do not support a level playing field.  Name the company AT&T, Verizon, ComCast, or Google - where they cannot simply buy you out, they will all seek to tip the scale and rules in their favor.  Simply change providers is not simple as they all have adopted at least two year contracts and high penalties for early termination if you have the luxury of multiple providers to choose from.
The Judge
50%
50%
The Judge,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/15/2014 | 2:39:48 PM
Re: Regulatory Capture
Keep tilting at windmills, Becky.  

And supporting crackpot leftist groups...
BeckyC031
50%
50%
BeckyC031,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/15/2014 | 2:29:56 PM
Regulatory Capture
 

 

The Judge" just clearly just loves regulation –from crayons to railroads. If there is this big demand for passenger railroad in the U.S. why doesn't a company provide it? Radio is pseudo deregulation – it is still under government control and most importantly the government restricts the supply – as a result that demand is now met by the Internet. However around the turn of the century that alternative was almost crushed by government regulation –not the FCC but the Patent Office. Tim Wu, who coined the term "net neutrality' said in his book "The Master Switch:

 "Again and again in the histories I have recounted, the state has shown itself an inferior arbiter of what is good for the information industries. The federal government's role in radio and television from the 1920s through the 1960s, for instance, was nothing short of a disgrace.... Government's tendency to protect large market players amounts to an illegitimate complicity ... [particularly its] sense of obligation to protect big industries irrespective of their having become uncompetitive."
<<   <   Page 3 / 6   >   >>


Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Tech Digest, Nov. 10, 2014
Just 30% of respondents to our new survey say their companies are very or extremely effective at identifying critical data and analyzing it to make decisions, down from 42% in 2013. What gives?
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Archived InformationWeek Radio
Join us for a roundup of the top stories on InformationWeek.com for the week of November 16, 2014.
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.