NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ 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. -----Original Message----- > 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!" -- > right? 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. john- |