NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: AT&T: Bandwidth-wise, the sky is falling!
> In regard to issues such as this, I think it is important for Net Neutrality > proponents to focus the argument on Internet service and not be involved > or concerned with other services that may be carried over the same > backbones such as subscription video. What we want to prevent is > AT&T or other large bandwidth providers offering a "service" that allows > content providers such as Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft to pay (or be > held ransom) for favored treatment. While I of course agree with the last sentence regarding favored treatment, I must strongly disagree with the premise that neutrality proponents need not be involved or concerned with ISPs' "intranet"-delivered subscription video and related services. For example, given that ISPs are largely free not only to determine their own ratio of provisioned intranet video services vis-a-vis Internet services, and the bandwidth (*and tiers/caps*) for outside Internet connectivity, the viability of outside services is directly affected, since intranet services are typically not counted against any user Internet bandwidth caps. So, an ISP can make it very attractive to pay for and stream (VOD/PPV) movies from their own servers (not counted against users' Internet bandwidth) vs. similar services available from outside Internet-based operations that users would not only have to pay for, but also massively eat into their Internet bandwidth allocations in the process of viewing the materials. The potential conflict of interest is obvious. When an ISP providing Internet access services is also providing/selling content that competes with the content of outside services, there is a strong incentive to structure the Internet access services in ways that favor ISPs' own content, either by limiting Internet performance, surcharging outside Internet services, or otherwise distorting the competitive playing field (such as it is). --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator