NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
NNSquad Home Page
[ NNSquad ] Re: Comcast's New "Two Strikes and You're Dead" Internet Usage Policy -- and More
What nonsense saying “The Internet is NOT an effective delivery mechanism for HD entertainment?” It’s the broadcast system that’s not effective but we can try to delivery high quality content (and 1080p is not the only measure of quality) despite the current system. We shouldn’t be punished for Comcast’s retro design. Their shareholders should be put on notice that his behaviors is not a way to maximize their ROI.
Remember when the internet was not a way do voice communications? Now it is far better than the PSTN. Don't confuse the accidents of the current system that is a repurposed video delivery system for a system that is capable of doing far better.
For starters you'd have had HD ten years ago with many more formats -- not just lame 1080p because you wouldn't need a new infrastructure for each format.
You'd have the same economics that have driven the cost of voice bits down to near zero because you wouldn't limit the capacity of the network to maintain "value" through scarcity. Instead you’d have a repeat of the fiber bubble but it would be a feature not a disaster as we get the benefits of abundance.
You wouldn’t accept a lame idea of only one-delivery of static content to consumers. You could be a participant.
You wouldn’t have so many bugs with mismatches between the content and the program guide. In fact you’d be able to navigate to rich information about what you’re viewing if you’d choose to.
We’d expect to be able to choose points of view and other options that come with not being by limited by the incredible inefficiency of chopping up the capacity there is into channels and then wasting those channels by repeatedly sending the same content whether anyone is viewing it or not.
You wouldn’t have to settle for a pathetic user interface and buggy STBs. And wouldn’t have to infest your house with decades old RG-6 wires just for video and only for their video. And you wouldn’t have to wait for the cable company to deign to give you DVRs as a service.
It would be hard to build a worse system than the current system that is in idiot savant – a very smart network whose value goes to zero outside its design point – just like ATT’s smart network did.
We shouldn’t reward companies for forcing us to pay the price for their century-old design point and we shouldn’t be punished for their attempt to use their accidental control of the pipes for force us to pay for content they choose and prices they choose at times they choose in modes they choose.
Sure the equipment to build the network is currently expensive but it is small compared with the value and highly subject to the Moore’s law effects and we’ve get decades of catch-up pending. The costs cited are generally the transfer (AKA accounting) cost of trading bits with other providers – traffic within a carrier network doesn’t have the same accounting burden. And, in the end – we are arguing about an accounting model that purposely favors the carriers’ business model and disadvantages others.
We shouldn’t tolerate self-serving stories of monopolists even if they may believe it themselves – their own misunderstandings are an escape for the reality we’d all benefit from.
We are paying far more than what the cost of delivery would be had we are marketplace instead of being subject to the extreme antitrust behavior.
> Yeah, I guess "25 HD movies" (as your total usage for the month) wouldn't
> look so great, especially when Comcast's own on-demand/PPV movie offerings
> don't count against your Internet usage cap at all! Well, so much for outside
> movie services providing HD. "We don't need no stinkin' competition!" --
If you built out and owned infrastructure that had the capability of
deliverying content with high-bandwidth requirements for little or no
extra cost, would it be wrong for you to take advantage of that
infrastructure to provide such content for your customers?
If that infrastructure also connected to external resources through an
extra-cost portal whose cost was proportional to its usage would it be
wrong to not want to have to absorb high usage costs incurred by
customers transferring high-bandwidth content through that portal?
This has very little to do with anti-competitive behavior. The problem is
companies like Amazon and Netflix implementing a flawed business plan
that leverages the fact that most Internet users pay a flat rate that
will not reflect the real cost of content delivery.
While it costs next to nothing (well, maintenance and other fixed costs
aside) for Comcast to deliver their own bits down their own network, it
costs real money to move outside bits onto their network. By screaming
"anti-competitive!" you're saying that they either shouldn't be allowed
to provide something that might also be available at a higher cost from
an outside source, or that they should be forced to absorb the delivery
cost for that outside content themselves.
The Internet is NOT an effective delivery mechanism for HD entertainment.
The original argument that started much of this was that the content
providers should pay extra to transit the local infrastructure. The
concern is valid, but the view is backwards. Amazon and Netflix are
merely "making available". The problem is that the consumer isn't
paying for the true cost of local delivery for what they're trying to
retrieve. This would be apparent if Internet access was charged on a
usage basis. But we all feel entitled to "unlimited" access.
Regardless, it's really not fair to make comparisons between internal
and external content delivery. They really aren't the same thing.