A few days ago I wrote a short post commenting on Time Warner’s proposal to evaluate a plan calling for different rates for Internet use based on the amount of content moved. Today, a Washington Post article proposes that the issue is bandwidth limitation brought on by the increased interest in online video.
The article mentions illegal content, but I think it might be me doing legal things. I am sitting at my office desk catching up on the blogs I read AND watching CNN via my Slingbox. Evidently, according to CNN, the diet drinks I enjoy may be making me fat. That and finding out I am ruining the Internet at the same time.
I know UND does ‘traffic shaping” so we must still be under our allocation.
Way back when, the talk was of media convergence via the computer. For a long time, there was almost a disappointment that the predictions were not coming true. Now, perhaps, we are realizing that change is upon us.
Washington Post writer Steven Levy outlines a Time Warner proposal to charge Internet users by the Gig. The monthly cut for basic service is 5 gigs (I assume this would be for less than the current price). The article mentions the capacity eaten up by those involved in illegal file sharing. New and legal online video services – the article mentions iTunes, but I would think NetFlix would possibly be a bigger problem because there is no charge per download – are also a concern.
Of course, if such fees can be applied, it will again be less expensive to rent the DVD at your local store. It will also be less expensive to use “pay per view” through your cable company.
Levy contends this is somehow different than the net neutrality issue.
This is in contrast to behavior that violates the principle of “net neutrality,” which asserts that providers shouldn’t be able tilt the digital playing field to favor their favorite Internet services (i.e. their partners or those who pay them).
I don’t see it that way. If the cable company owns the pipe, digital cable content and Internet content are still coming into your home through the same connection. If the company can restrict one form of digital content in order to increase sale of the other, they certainly are not neutral. I’ll bet the download tax won’t be applied to pay per view purchases? Perhaps pay per view downloads require no bandwidth.
A Sept 6 Wired article claims that the Justice Department has come out against the concept of Net Neutrality. Without an assumption that providers would be neutral to the content they deliver, providers would have the opportunity to control the rate/cost at which you receive categories of content.
to charge some users more money for loading certain content or Web sites faster than others.
Why and when is this an issue? As I understand the argument, this could be an issue because allowing differential pricing presents the opportunity for providers to shape content delivery to advantage their total business model. For example, DSL providers could slow or charge for VOIP content and cable providers could slow or charge for video content. Phone companies would degrade an alternative to their phone business and cable providers to their video business. This is not the way providers describe their motives – they claim they need to raise more money to upgrade services. The rejoinder is – if this general concern is true, why not simply raise prices and why request the opportunity to be specific about which packets cost what.
The failure of the argument that the “market” will not allow abuse because people will move to services that meet their needs is that not all users have access to multiple providers.
The Justice Department claimed:
However, the agency said it will continue to monitor and enforce any anticompetitive conduct to ensure a competitive broadband marketplace.
I would be more comfortable if the Justice Department would be more specific in describing at least the beginning of a list of practices that would be regarded as anticompetitive.
Time for a little political activision. You will soon encounter a documentary exploring the history of commercial communication and the importance of assuring net neutrality. The video obviously takes one position, but as I understand the issues I am in favor of keeping the Internet open.
Blog posts during my holiday breaks are sporadic. I have more time, but I may be spending time in locations that make it difficult to connect my computer (not my TREO) to the Internet. I guess we all need a break.
Net neutrality is one of those issues that most citizens are unprepared to take sides on, but that may be decided before the long term (or even short term) consequences are known.
The controversy involves the issue of whether service providers can charge extra for allowing access to certain content or can prioritize what content moves through their fiber. To me, the concern seems to involve what might happen and what might happen is not necessarily obvious from our present experiences. The providers contend they must be able to generate a reasonable amount of revenue and somehow this potential is being limited. I have really tried to understand this position and must admit I struggle. I think the argument is that the popularity of new applications (e.g., streaming media) may swamp capacity reducing the number of subscribers who can be serviced. One solution from this perspective might be to charge more for those clients who want to receive such content. So, it might be fair for you to read your email and view static web pages for $29.95 a month, but not spend hours watching YouTube or watching CNN Pipeline.
The neutrality position suggests that making money should not involve the opportunity to control what content is sent through “the pipe”. This is the situation in which what could happen is the problem. Companies with the money to be major players are complex and do much more than put fiber optic cable in the ground. For example, you may access the Internet through your cable company or through your phone company. While the cable company must be able to generate money by providing Internet access, should it be able to retard the flow of packets that would allow you to view video? Online video represents a challenge to a cable company’s interest in selling you more cable channels – nothing to do with fiber capacity. A similar position exists for phone companies. What if a phone company decided that VOIP packets should be slowed unless users wanted to pay a premium? Potentially, companies could make money by providing access to the Internet and also control access in ways that allow the companies to make more money from other unrelated services.
C|NET reports that the recent FCC agreement to allow BellSouth and ATT to merge required these companies to agree to certain principles proposed by consumer advocacy groups. A major argument that net neutrality legislation is not needed has been that competition would make packet discrimination a bad business decision. In other words, if your local cable provider wanted to charge you more for watching YouTube and this was a big interest of yours, you might move your account to DSL. However, mergers and other factors that reduce access to potential competitors diminish the validity of this argument. So, these two providers agreed to the nondiscriminatory expectations to move their merger ahead. However, the agreement holds for only 30 months.
This is not the most serious issue facing the new congress, but it is also much more significant that most people realize. Pay attention.
[Appended – here is another related piece from the New York Times]
Internet neutrality proponents believe that the recent change in Congress is likely to boost their efforts to push legislation that would prohibit tiered access to the Internet.
The article suggests that Reps. Markey and Dingell will be in better positions to support a telecommunications reform bill.
See SavetheInternet for additional information (e.g., are your senators for or against – I did find this presentation confusing – I am assuming FOR means for neutrality and not FOR the Stevens telecommunications bill).
I have commented on the topic of “net neutrality” several times. A recent post by David Warlick brings this topic up again and brought my attention to a Bill Moyer’s “Moyers on America” special “The Net@Risk“. This special covers related topics that concern the significance of an independent Internet and how equitable access and neutrality are being threatened.
The program is essentially about the telecoms’ interest in and lobbying for control of the Internet, and their apparent lack of interest inactually improving the Internet, to keep us in line with the serviceand cost enjoyed by many other industrial countries around the world. (Warlick)
The online video from the Moyers site and the Warlick post (summarizing a Learning and Leading article by Anita McAnear) are both informative and alarming.
The Moyer’s piece mentions of the work of North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan in attempting to bring attention to the issue of net neutrality. Perhaps because I work in North Dakota I have thought about why this issue would be something Senator Dorgan would take on as a cause. One explanation that occurs to me is that in very rural states citizens often have few options for high speed access and may be lucky if they have one option. One of factors that works against the abuse of ownership of the access point is the option of users to switch to another provider. When that option is not there, users are more vulnerable to whatever decisions the provider makes.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
