NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Additional or differentiated services
|
The most
extreme form of Net Neutrality advocates taking private property used for delivering
non-Internet services and mandating that it be used for Internet
capacity. I know Bob would love to see this and he has no respect for
private property which he like others mistakenly
believes is public property, but it has no legal foundation. The Verizon-Google compromise sort of defends the right to
enhanced or prioritized services so long as they’re not called
“Internet”. That upsets the people that want to mandate equal service
regardless of payment even though the Internet has always been equal service
for equal payment. George Ou From:
nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of
Bob Frankston Yes. What more can I say – it protects the current business model
against the danger of being undercut by their most feared competition – users
with lots of bits. We see a form of this in today’s story about NECN “NECN
HD a tough sell for Comcast” Why not just make NECN, which is advertising
sponsored, available over the top. Charter spokesman Tom Cohan said: “As Charter deploys new
technologies that allows us to use our bandwidth more effectively, we are adding HD channels. NECN
is certainly one of a number of channels that is under consideration for future
carriage in HD At least FiOS says they plan to add it but we’re talking about a
signal that is broadcast from my city not that far from my house. Yet I can’t
get over the abundant local capacity all around me with 3+ broadbands [sic]. I
have to wait for FiOS to add it. You can argue whatever business model reasons
you want but in the end I don’t get to choose what I can watch. I have to
accept what Verizon decides is in their interest. They don’t want to risk a
real marketplace where they don’t have control. If this weren’t bad enough I have to call FiOS support to find
out why the signal on 690 (Comedy Central HD) is coming in so badly. I’ve got an
IP connection with my VoD coming over IP over my Ethernet to my STB. Why is
Verizon setting aside the bulk of their fiber the cable in my house that they
poached from Comcast (who really owns the RG-6 Comcast installed?) for an
analog signal when they could do it far better over IP? That’s not the only
problem with FiOS insistence on pretending it’s 1950; even over IP they use
brittle protocols that live by and thus die by QoS. So, yes yes yes. It’s all about maintaining a business model
even as the technology as left it behind. From:
nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of
Ellrod, Rick E. I wonder whether
Verizon's principal purpose in introducing this qualification might be to
protect the current model (used, for example, in FiOS) under which cable
service and Internet access are two distinct services, with traditional
multichannel video delivery not subject to the kinds of conditions net
neutrality would require for Internet traffic. Some commenters
have seemed to assume net neutrality would automatically mean that the traditional
cable product would have to be subsumed under Internet access, so that
"over-the-top" Internet video could compete on a head-to-head basis
with cable operator-delivered multichannel video. The exception in the
Verizon-Google proposal might be designed to prevent such arguments, not for
some hypothetical future service, but for current cable service. Rick Ellrod
-----Original
Message-----
Google, Verizon, and Getting Real
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000749.html
Greetings.
Reactions to the "Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal" ( http://bit.ly/9EEEy7 [Lauren's Blog] )
have been splattering around the globe ever since the two firms announced the
plan earlier this month ( http://bit.ly/cpO0bU [Google Public
Policy Blog] ). . . .
Nor is it
clear what sorts of services would qualify for the "additional or
differentiated services" offerings (that is, not part of the public
Internet per se) proposed by the framework plan. Verizon's
CEO, during the conference call announcing the proposal, specifically mentioned
"entertainment services" and 3D television -- but these seem among
the more problematic examples -- especially given the rapid advances in video
encoding technologies (including related to 3D). . . .
--Lauren--
http://www.gctip.org Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
|