In the last few weeks, the debate over net neutrality (SEE BELOW) has raged again as Level 3 accuses Comcast of violating FCC guidelines governing how broadband providers (like Comcast) manage traffic on their networks. Comcast has demanded compensation for increases in traffic it anticipates because of Level 3's new partnership with Netflix, which streams video content that consumes serious bandwidth.
Is Comcast playing fair?
Level 3's hints that Comcast has set out to thwart a growing competitive threat; Netflix streaming video is a clear alternative to watching movies and TV on Comcast. And, it's not the first time we've seen Comcast use their bandwidth to stymie competitors. Internet forums reveal that Comcast customers using competitive VoIP providers instead of Comcast’s VoIP service experience packet loss issues. These same problems are not experienced when using Comcast’s service. If you call Comcast to get support you will be told that VoIP is not supported on their network. A curious policy for a company that offers VoIP service.
Comcast, however, is not only in the business of providing cable programming. They are also a broadband provider. Their view is that the increased traffic creates additional burdens for them. They want proper compensation to offset the extra demand and that seems reasonable. Whether such an argument has merit or not depends on the nature of the peering agreement between Comcast and Level 3.
Such conflicts are at the heart of the Net Neutrality debate; which is getting just that much thornier with the proliferation of wireless apps and services. As smartphones become mini computers, consuming much of the same Internet content as a wired computer, there's more complexity to fan the fiery discussion. Google and Verizon staunchly support Net Neutrality for wired Internet access, but not so much when it comes to wireless where they have other business interests.
You can surely argue that a public company has a right to make money and adjust pricing to protect their margins. For certain, these multi-media players have a lot at stake in this game.
But, as a consumer, what are your rights?
It's likely you have already been affected by these non-neutral business practices, and you don't even know it. Broadband providers can simply target particular types of traffic going through their pipes and prioritize its performance. If you believe you have a right to use the bandwidth you pay for how and when you want, you have a horse in this race, too. You need to be vocal with your providers. Let them know you want the right to use your bandwidth any way and on any device you want. And, not only in the manner that is optimized for their business models. This may indeed require government intervention to sort out, so being vocal with your government representative is also important.
It's a fight for freedom on a new technology battlefield. Don't leave the outcome to companies who won’t provide that freedom unless they have to.
Mike Lachtanski
HP Media Solutions
"Net neutrality" is the principle that data on the Internet should move impartially, regardless of type of content, destination, or source. Some refer to it as the "First Amendment of the Internet".
Meanwhile, high-speed Internet carriers are seeking legislative support for a two-tiered model in which carriers could charge Web site owners a premium for priority or faster access. They argue they need the pricing flexibility as new channels, such as wireless, develop and mature. Those opposing the carriers argue that the Internet was created to work in a traffic-neutral way and they, in turn, argue continued growth and innovation depend on it. They want Congress and the FCC to pass telecom reform in favor of Net Neutrality to prevent the development of an un-public Internet. At the most extreme, critics fear that without Net Neutrality, two Internets could emerge: the free, public one we know today and a private one with faster premium priced services. It's a heated debate with extensive and lasting implications.
The opinions expressed above are solely those of the author and do not reflect the policies or opinions of HP.
I'm right there with you, wanting neutrality, but I'm not 100% sure it is reasonable to expect it.
ReplyDeleteIf someone moved on next door to you and asked if they could plant a lemon tree on land adjacent to your yard, you might say yes. But what if later, in a couple of years, that lemon tree began producing an enormous amount of fruit far beyond what you reasonably expected?
At the least, you'd be drinking a lot of lemonade, true, but you'd also look to change the arrangement -- perhaps with fences or other impediments to the original perspective.
Would you be wrong to see things from your own side of the issue?
I am loath to agree with Comcast or any multi-media provider, but I suspect that Netflix and Level 3 are living large on their ability to grow lemons on Comcast's lawn.
If nothing else, it cannot be surprising that Comcast would want to find a way to change things since they are not benefitting from this, but they are facilitating it.
I'd guess that my Netflix bill will be going up soon.
@notsosmartguy: I agree that you may need to make concessions on the agreement with the neighbor on their lemon tree, however the concessions would not proclivit their ability to continue producing lemons, which is what I see service providers doing to those with competing services.
ReplyDeleteI see net neutrality more as a highway. Does the DOT have a right to restrict access on certain roads or charge a fee for certain individuals who frequent the roads? Some would say no and others would say yes. We all share the roads and no one should be any more restricted than the rest. That being said, if there are services in existence that use significant bandwidth, then this needs to be accounted for in some sort of collective bargaining or user licensing agreement for maintenance purposes only or it needs to be accounted for in the fees that providers already charge their users. There should not be an impact to how the access is used, what people search for, or the services a user wishes to enjoy. Yes, it would be nice if they sought provider-owned services (like VOIP, TV, and movies) but one should not handcuff one service offering (broadband) in order to pull-up their other services. They should do the opposite and work to make their service offerings more competitive and attractive to the consumer.
> Comcast, however, is not only in the business
ReplyDelete> of providing cable programming. They are also
> a broadband provider.
Do not muddle content with delivery.
The problem is not that Comcast is a Network/Cable provider.
The problem is they are also in the business of providing (and restricting) content.
Comcast Cable-TELEVSION is stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place - being squeezed between their end-user customers who want lower prices and those that own the content (e.g., Disney/ESPN/ABC) who are demanding more for access to that content. Without content to provide, there would be no need for cable-TV services. To remedy that Comcast Cable-TV is buying content companies. Thus Comcast recently bought NBC/Universal.
There would be no problem IF Comcast INTERNET-SERVICES (and others) simply competed to provide network bandwidth services. I have no problem with paying for bandwidth I use, like I pay for electricity. I suspect my bill would actually go DOWN, if I paid "my fair share of bandwidth. BUT THAT IS NOT THE MODEL! Network providers have rigged the game so most of us pay exorbitantly more for bandwidth than what we actually use.
Why hasn't Comcast INTERNET-SERVICES simply suggested their end-users pay for bandwidth? Because those end-users are free to go to a lower cost (better service) competitor. Competing is hard. It should be. That's how a free-market works.
If these businesses compete on simply providing the best INTERNET bandwidth service, the market would fix itself and prices would align with the business cost of providing that services. But instead of competing to provide the best networking service for the lowest price, Comcast (and others) are trying to rig the game by controlling their vertical market. They want to charge the information providers in addition to the information consumers. That's double-billing in my mind. We should be asking IF we should allow Comcast (and other network providers) to control media companies.
More specifically, we should ask if delivering unfettered freedom-of-speech is different from providing the utility that provides access to it.
@Enrique -- I see your point and @ricksevans's, too, but I'm not sure which perspective applies. I guess it comes down to ownership of a resource.
ReplyDeleteIf Comcast controls their resources -- the lawn in our example -- they will get to charge as they wish for it.
If, instead, it is a highway -- intended for common use and public good -- then Comcast shouldn't be able to dictate the charge.
I'm not naive -- I realize that Comcast and its peers are lobbying fast and hard to get the government to act on their behalf, and not on ours.
I'm just not sure that the example of Netflix and Level 3 versus Comcast is the best one to illustrate the net neutrality argument. It seems different to me.