Net Neutrality example for those who don't understand it

[tzikeh]

The New York Times reports that Comcast will block Netflix streaming unless a new fee is paid to Comcast--the logic being that that Netflix's prices will be raised for Comcast users, who will then turn to Comcast's video service instead (good luck with finding anything like Netflix's library there).

In other words, none of you who are Comcast internet customers will be able to get Netflix streaming unless Netflix agrees to pay Comcast a fee, which it doesn't have to do with any other ISP.

Let me put that one more way: Comcast, an internet service provider, is telling Netflix, an online store, that it cannot sell its product to anyone who accesses the internet via Comcast's service, *unless Netflix pays Comcast for the privilege of being able to conduct business on its street*.

Some people see this as the natural result of free enterprise--whatever the market will bear. Others recognize it for what it really is, which is protection money. It's a fucking shakedown.

In an even more disturbing example of a) vertical integration (the new catch-phrase for "monopoly") and b) possible outcomes if Net Neutrality is not protected: the FCC will soon decide whether to allow Comcast to buy NBC merge with NBC/Universal (corrected). Without Net Neutrality, Comcast can then charge every other competing media outlet--ABC, CBS, FOX, etc.--massive fees in order to deliver their content to anyone who has Comcast. You know that annoying "this content not available in your country" message you sometimes get trying to watch a video clip? Just wait for "this content not available to Comcast subscribers."

Non-television example: they could block or degrade iTunes, so that tracks from iTunes would cost more for Comcast users. Why? Comcast has its own online music store. Go there instead!

Here's a disturbing example of how things can go if Net Neutrality is not upheld: Comcast (or any ISP) could charge companies on the opposite side of the political spectrum more to reach their customers than companies that are politically amenable to Comcast's policies, so that they have less financial power and/or less audience reach. Comcast leans Republican; so I'm sure you'll be able to get to Target.com (their PAC goes heavy for the GOP), but you might be surprised when you try to look up your favorite NFL team's website (the NFL PAC gave double the $ to the Dems as to the GOP this year).

This is the week that Julius Genachowski (FCC Chairman) announces whether or not the FCC will protect Net Neutrality.

Sign the petition telling the FCC to stop Comcast from blocking Netflix, and to protect Net Neutrality.

Don't we have laws against this shit already?

ETA:

What Your Internet Provider's Plan Could (And Probably Will) Look Like Without Net Neutrality

Comments

[principia-coh.livejournal.com]

The waters are a bit muddied, in the sense that Comcast is hitting up Level 3 for money that other content push businesses are already paying them - so it's not entirely fair to claim that Level 3 is being picked on solely because they service Netflix.

However, that such fees are theoretically standard practice raises an even more important general question: why the hell is Comcast even allowed to extort money from other people's hosting services at all? They're already raking in money from their broadband customers to pay for moving that content.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

I don't know that it isn't fair to claim that, only because Netflix is a) a huge money-maker, b) a bandwidth-heavy product, and c) a direct competitor of Comcast's video-on-demand. Last-mile providers becoming extortionists is the only thing that's bringing the general public's attention to Net Neutrality, though (apparently 97% of the country doesn't know what the term means), so maybe there will be some good to come of this.

This is the railways and the robber barons all over again; only we don't have a Teddy Roosevelt on our side this time around. It's amazing to me that many people who are strongly in favor of the whole "Small businesses are the backbone of America!" think Net Neutrality goes against free enterprise. It's just a cognitive dissonance party.

[principia-coh.livejournal.com]

I don't know that it isn't fair to claim that, only because Netflix is a) a huge money-maker, b) a bandwidth-heavy product, and c) a direct competitor of Comcast's video-on-demand.

Let's put it this way: I would be interested to see a list of what other high-bandwidth content providers Comcast is squeezing money out of. Do they actually have the cojones to hit up, say, Google? Or is it a case of Level 3 (and the theoretical other content providers Comcast is hitting up for the same fees) being big enough to represent a significant demand on the network while being just small enough for Comcast to push around?

It's not just last-mile providers who can be extortionists: content providers that are large enough, like the Disney group of companies or Fox have demonstrated when going up against cable conglomerates that they can be bullies too. (Although if the goddamn cable companies would let their customers pick channels a la carte then the providers of niche content like ESPN would have less of a leg to stand on.)

All of this makes it doubly dangerous to combine a large-scale content provider with a large-scale cable conglomerate.

Small-business related comedy from this morning: because I live in the DC area, the most prominent local news radio station gets lots of advocacy ads. AT&T had the gall to put out an ad batting their eyelashes and claiming they started out as a small business too! (I'd have to find the ad to remember what the rest of it was about, because I was too busy being dumbfounded to process the rest of the ad.)

[txvoodoo.livejournal.com]

I'd also like to see what the other ISPs are doing - Timewarner, Verizon, etc. I wouldn't even know where to go to to find this data, but I think it's all pertinant.

LOL at AT&T's "small business" claim. In a way, they're not ENTIRELY lying - once upon a time, they weren't a big business. Of course, back then, we still drove around in buggies pulled by horses ;)

[principia-coh.livejournal.com]

In a way, they're not ENTIRELY lying - once upon a time, they weren't a big business.

They haven't been a small business since Henry Ford was a teenager. The oldest person alive would barely be old enough to remember Henry Ford during the heydays of the Model T.

So unless they're being secretly run by the preserved zombie head of Grover Cleveland or something, they can't claim with a straight face that they have even an institutional memory of being anything faintly resembling a small business.

[txvoodoo.livejournal.com]

LOL, right? hence the "horse & buggies" bit.

"
So unless they're being secretly run by the preserved zombie head of Grover Cleveland or something..."

SHH. Someone will write a book about this a la Pride & Prejudice & Zombies ;)

[lydiabell.livejournal.com]

So unless they're being secretly run by the preserved zombie head of Grover Cleveland or something

I'm pretty sure that's who's in charge of their U-Verse rollout, at least around here.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

AT&T had the gall to put out an ad batting their eyelashes and claiming they started out as a small business too!

...

Remember this?

[ratcreature]

Yeah, it seems like a step back in time to your internet connection becoming like this special company money that you had to use in the company store with worse product to worse prices because you were shackled to your owner employer and their own system.

[txvoodoo.livejournal.com]

*nod* that's a more pertinant, and less examined issue in this mss - why is Comcast getting away with double-dipping?

[lydiabell.livejournal.com]

Others recognize it for what it really is, which is protection money. It's a fucking shakedown.

HA! I just made that exact point in my note to the FCC. "Nice packets you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to 'em."

[principia-coh.livejournal.com]

Fires happen, Chairman Genachowski. Things burn.

[klia.livejournal.com]

Ugh, this issue makes me nuts. I honestly don't understand how Genachowski can be considering not protecting net neutrality, because, hello, NEUTRALITY should be a no-brainer.

I thought we had laws against monopolies, too (I remember, vividly, when the gov't broke up AT&T), but where I am, there are single providers for a number of services, including cable TV (which, of course, is Comcast, so I've already preemptively hated them for YEARS).

BAH.

[brewsternorth.livejournal.com]

*nods* I know someone who had a bust-up with their cable co. (as it turned out, someone else in their building was effectively screwing them over) and because of the location of the building, neither satellite nor rabbit-ears are a terribly good way of getting telly... they're having to wait and hope that FiOS gets into their neighborhood, because otherwise the cable co. is the only game in town.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

I remember, vividly, when the gov't broke up AT&T

Ah, Ma Bell. The good old days.

[grace-om.livejournal.com]

"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company!"

[txvoodoo.livejournal.com]

A few notes: it isn't Netflix which is being charged the fee directly, but rather, their ISP, Level 3. This is more about the bandwidth. Now granted, the bandwidth demands are high because of Netflix, but Netflix won't be billed directly by Comcast over this.

That's not to say we don't need Net Neutrality, but just to say that some of these issues are being conflated.

And the issue of Comcast owning NBC is one I don't like in the least, either. Again, however:

"ithout Net Neutrality, Comcast can then charge every other competing media outlet--ABC, CBS, FOX, etc.--massive fees in order to deliver their content to anyone who has Comcast."

That's not really the issue. In fact, net neutrality doesn't have anything to do with broadcast & cable networks - it's exclusively about the internet, not TV.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

That's not really the issue. In fact, net neutrality doesn't have anything to do with broadcast & cable networks - it's exclusively about the internet, not TV.

Television is more and more a part of the internet, so when you say "exclusively" the internet, that includes everything that happens over the internet--which is how more and more people are watching television and movies. I used tv examples because this is a (mainly) fannish journal, but I included the political one to show that it wasn't about tv, per se.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but let me make myself clear so that other people reading this don't think I'm just talking about tv. ISPs creating tiered service is bad business for everyone except the ISP itself, and the biggest loser is the customer at the end of the last mile. Whether you can shop Amazon.com or barnesandnoble.com should not depend upon corporate marriages between your internet service provider and online merchants. Each person on the internet should be able to get to each site on the internet. An ISP is supposed to be exactly that: an internet service provider, not an internet service filter-for-profit.

[txvoodoo.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's more & more part of the internet - but it's still conflating things that aren't comparable. Net neutrality will have *nothing* to do with verticle integration of television networks and cable tv providers. That's an entirely separate (and urgent!) issue. To treat them the same is to create misunderstanding about this issue. Granted, misunderstanding is rife, even among legislators & journalists about it. Very few have been able to communicate the issues with clarity.

BTW? We already have tiered service. We have for years. It's only become more urgent to create neutrality with the advent of the internet being so completely multi-media, and so much commerce occuring on it.

But again, (and, like you, I know I'm preaching to the choir), net neutrality will have not one iota of influence over cable & broadcast tv.

Now - Comcast owning both tv channels AND the delivery system for them AND being an internet provider? A freaking barrel of worms.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

BTW? We already have tiered service. We have for years. It's only become more urgent to create neutrality with the advent of the internet being so completely multi-media, and so much commerce occuring on it.

Maybe I'm using the term differently? I mean tiered service as it pertains to what customers pay for their internet service, not what businesses pay to have an online presence via their ISP. I suppose because the term is generic, there could be confusion in that regard.

And right - it won't have any influence over what goes out over the broadcast/cable route to your television. It will have a great deal of influence as to what we can see at television websites, or if we can even access them at all.

[txvoodoo.livejournal.com]

Nope, that's what I mean by tiered service. It exists now. We've had it at Timewarner since we've been here (2001), dialup used to have it, DSL, etc.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

Net neutrality will have *nothing* to do with verticle integration of television networks and cable tv providers.

Yes - you and I are agreeing but talking in circles at one another. :) I mean vertical integration of disparate arms of communications (i.e. Comcast + NBC)

[silveraspen]

ISPs creating tiered service is bad business for everyone except the ISP itself, and the biggest loser is the customer at the end of the last mile. Whether you can shop Amazon.com or barnesandnoble.com should not depend upon corporate marriages between your internet service provider and online merchants. Each person on the internet should be able to get to each site on the internet. An ISP is supposed to be exactly that: an internet service provider, not an internet service filter-for-profit.

Excellent phrasing. Mind if I borrow it for my "comments" to the petition?

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

Feel free!

[silveraspen]

Thanks!

A great infographic re: net neutrality

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

To further clarify that I'm not just talking about tv -- I've added an infographic to the post that someone put together that I find very useful in explaining to others why we need to protect Net Neutrality.

[phoenix64.livejournal.com]

Actually, since it's about how the internet content from those networks could be treated it's very much about net neutrality. It's a sticky business to begin with but the fact that businesses are allowed be involved in both content production and content delivery is a HUGE source of potential abuse.

[bentleywg.livejournal.com]

The main problem is that, even though we think of internet access as telephones -- something that everyone should have equal access to (i.e., it costs the same whether you're phoning the corner store or the big local corporation and the calls go through with the same ease) -- the internet was legally declared to be... I forget what they're called. Something that telephones aren't. That's how they can get away with it.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know -- but if you go back to earlier internet history, you'll see that the cabling companies and phone companies were legally bound to deliver nationwide fiber optic networks. Still haven't done that. So "legal" and "internet" still have a ways to go before anything can be enforced for the *users* (but everything can sure be enforced for the corporations, can't it).

[mirandir.livejournal.com]

This has been driving me nuts for years. I don't even know how many petitions I've signed and donations I've sent. I live on the internet-- this stuff is crystal clear to me. And yet we are where we are because Congress dropped the ball how many times on this?

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

Way, way, way too many times.

[luminosity]

I just gave this very same issue, with links to petition, a signal boost on Facebook and Twitter. It's shit like this that makes me want to live on another planet. Just think about it. We're going to be the ones who say "I remember when the Internet was a bastion of free speech and exchange of ideas, not the overpriced, privacy-invading, digital salvage center that it has become."

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

Blargh. I just want to run through Congress, hitting people on the head with congressional record books showing all the stuff that was supposed to have be done, by law, by these companies, none of which has happened, and that Congress hasn't even bothered to point out to them.

[surreal-44.livejournal.com]

Since we all agree Net Neutrality is important, I just have one irrelevant question: Why would Comcast even be allowed to buy NBC? Why is the answer to that just plain "NO"? It'd be like the government buying NBC. That sort of thing just shouldn't happen.

[tzikeh.livejournal.com]

Well, but -- we *don't* all agree that Net Neutrality is important, which is why Comcast can step up and do the things its doing. I mean, a lot of us think universal health care is important. Doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. Regarding Comcast and NBC, the answer isn't just "no" because deregulation allowed for media conglomeration, which allowed for vertical integration, which means that there's nothing stopping Comcast and NBC from merging, according to the letter of the law.

It's going to be interesting, and ugly.

[surreal-44.livejournal.com]

Well, but -- we *don't* all agree that Net Neutrality is important, which is why Comcast can step up and do the things its doing.

Oh, I meant on the thread. I should have clarified. :D

I mean, a lot of us think universal health care is important. Doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere.

Oh well, my objections to Comcast are about the same as my objection to universal healthcare. One company should not control every aspect of a good or service. Period.

Comcast attempting to beat down its competitors with ridiculous fees are about the same to me as government making outrageous demands of healthcare providers so that they will go out of business.

In the end neither provides the consumer with much of a choice, and that's just wrong.

But healthcare is a whole other discussion and I know we disagree so I won't talk about that any more. :-)

Regarding Comcast and NBC, the answer isn't just "no" because deregulation allowed for media conglomeration, which allowed for vertical integration, which means that there's nothing stopping Comcast and NBC from merging, according to the letter of the law.

I assume this was a misguided and stupid effort on the part of Republicans. It sounds like something they'd do. The idiocy of the party is astonishing at times.

[ramblinsuze.livejournal.com]

*incoherent rage*

[dementedsiren.livejournal.com]

Initial reaction: AH FUCKING FUCK.

Secondary reaction: Having just had to shop internet/tv/phone in the Chicago area and finding out how exactly, minutely we're financially screwed by the providers (and AT&T is as big a culprit here as Comcast, IMO), this hits a raw, raw nerve. Yes, from a pure "market" perspective, it's an intelligent move: someone's taking up more of "your" resources for a competitive service, leverge your resources to kick them out. Where this a fun game of tabletop Monopoly I'd be applauding whoever pulled this shit.

But it's not. It's, more and more, people's lives and livelihoods. No, most people don't make money by sitting at home watching Netflix (except reviewers, bloggers, etc....) BUT internet connectivity and accesibility - to media, information, etc - is huge for people in general these days, in so any other ways. People who are disabled or otherwise unable to leave the house, people who telecommute, people who live in areas witout access to "public" features otherwise provided by the internet, etc. And this has been a blind spot just long enough that The Man (telecom) has wiggled around and created a semi-legal quagmire.

So we're being robbed and screwed over at the same time. Fun fun fun.