Obama wants Title II and he wants it now, AT&T is taking its ball and going home, and Tom Wheeler has no friends. What’s your reaction to it all? Here’s a quick, completely scientific poll to find out what Ramblings’ readers think.
Ok, maybe scientific wasn’t the right word…
If you haven't already, please take our Reader Survey! Just 3 questions to help us better understand who is reading Telecom Ramblings so we can serve you better!Categories: Government Regulations · Polls
I buy Netflix. I pay VZ to connect me to Netflix or any other site I want .
VZ sends a request to Netflix on my behalf . When Netflix replies to the request made by VZ on my behalf, VZ says to Netflix,pay me or I will not deliver .
Netflix is not the bandwidth user,it is VZ’s customers who are using the bandwidth. VZ should charge me & the 10s of millions of their customers who are using the bandwidth .
In actuality, the additional expense for VZ is very small .LVLT has offered to pay it by installing the additional needed equipment . It amounts to thousands of $s . This is just an effort to control the future of the internet .
Agree with Morty. The industry has self imposed net neutrality for 20 years with very few large scale incidents; when Comcast and VZ started making bad choices it made us all look bad. It also opened up an incredible market opportunity. Consumers will choose freedom every time. The permanent and sustainable answer to the net neutrality debate: Competition.
Morty, I completely agree with you!!
VZ, ATT, CMCSA and others got into the ISP business knowing and understanding the long standing net neutrality model.
No one is telling them they can’t raise consumer ISP rates. They don’t want to b/c they don’t want to attract investment for alternate internet access solutions/technologies.
Instead, the incumbent ISPs prefer to exact their pound of flesh from the content community by charging them some form of access charge. This permits the incumbent ISPs to keep consumer ISP rates low and, simultaneously, forces the content community to charge (more in some cases) for their services WHICH forces the incumbent ISP customers to select the ISP’s content.
As an affiliate of Comcast how would CNBC pay Comcast to stream the CNBC content to Comcast’s ISP customers? Bloomberg or Fox Business would have to pay explicit access charges to Comcast while CNBC essentially pays their parent company? Such a convoluted transfer or affiliated pricing structure for CNBC raises all sorts of problems. The access structure CMCSA, VZ & ATT want would require torturous (and meaningless) imputation rules for affiliated content and a whole new separations accounting structure.
Bottom line, the incumbent ISPs entered this business eye wide open. They have stamped out all competition so at best there is a duopoly in each market. Now they want to solidify the duopoly by making it impossible for new entrants by cross-subsidizing consumer ISP revenue with content community access charges.
Free Markets are a good thing.
or just the link, i guess: http://bokbluster.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/141115net.jpg