The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

Tue Apr 29 23:48:14 UTC 2014

It was pointed out privately to me that I may
have caused some confusion here with my
variable substitution.  $BB_provider was
intended to be "BroadBand provider", *not*
"BackBone provider", as some people have
(understandably) misread it.  So--to clarify,
this was not meant as any type of characterization
of backbone providers, but rather of broadband
providers.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion.

Thanks!

Matt

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net>wrote:
>
>> Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can
>> charge content providers or guarantee packet loss?
>>
>> In a normal "free market", if two companies with a mutual consumer have a
>> tiff, the consumer decides which to support. Where I live, I have one
>> broadband provider. If they get upset with, say, a streaming provider, I
>> cannot choose another BB company because I like the streaming company. I
>> MUST pick another streaming company, as that is the only thing I can
>> "choose".
>>
>
>
> [I speak only for myself here; any use of the word "we"
> should be taken to represent only my sense of inclusion
> with the rest of humanity, and not with any commercial
> entity or organization.  Any other characterization of the
> following words is patently incorrect, and grounds for
> possible actions, up to and including litigation.  Please
> don't be an ass, and quote me out of context, or as
> representing something I'm not.  Original post edited
> slightly, with specific entity names replaced with
> variables; you may do your own substitution back
> into the variables as you feel appropriate.  --MNP]
>
>
> What if we turn the picture around slightly, and look
> at it like the negotiations between broadcast networks
> and cable companies?  2010's battle between Fox television
> and  cablevision comes to mind, where the content holder
> blacked out access to their content for specific cable
> companies unless they agree to pay the demanded fees.
>
> It would be interesting to have seen $content_CEO take a
> hard line stance; it wouldn't be hard to send a BGP feed
> to video streaming servers, and if the requestor's IP was
> from a prefix seen behind AS$foo, put up a message
> informing the subscriber that their access to $company's
> content would cease on such-and-such a date, due
> to $BB_provider's unwillingness to agree to increase
> interconnect capacity, and that if subscribers wished
> to continue to see $company's content, they should consider
> switching to a different network provider.  Basically,
> follow the same model News Corp used against
> Cablevision, Viacom used against Time Warner,
> or Disney used against Cablevision.
>
> How long would $BB_provider be able to hold out against
> the howls of its users, if there was a scrolling
> banner across the top of the screen during their
> favorite show, or favorite movie alerting them that
> they would soon be unable to see that content
> unless they switched to a different service provider?
>
> It's easy to forget that the sword can be swung both
> ways.   Right now, $BB_provider is swinging the sharp edge
> at $content; but $content is not without its own influence in
> the market, and could swing the sword the other way,
> cutting back at $BB_provider.  Yes, it comes at some great
> risk to $content, in terms of potential customer loss; but
> no great wins come without great risks (unless you
> cheat, and use the government to get you a big win
> at no risk--but none of us like that model).
>
> I think it's high time for content players to flex their
> power, and push back on the eyeball networks that
> attempt to use their customer base as hostages to
> extract additional revenue from the content being
> requested by their users.  If the content providers
> simply make it clearly visible to the end users that
> they cannot watch the requested content on that
> network, or that they can only watch in reduced
> resolution from that network, it will have a two-fold
> effect: a) traffic volume from the content provider
> to the contentious network will be reduced, limiting
> the need for the upgrades in the first place, and
> b) customers of the provider will be informed of
> their status as hostage cannon fodder on the
> battlefield, allowing them to vote with their wallets.
> One could potentially even insert suggestions
> for alternate connectivity options they might
> consider into the content feed, to help the
> users vote with their wallets more easily.
> Or, provide the phone number of the local
> municipal office that granted the franchise
> rights to the BB provider, along with instructions
> on what to say when calling ("Hi--I'm a registered
> voter in your district.  If you'd like to get re-elected
> next term, you need to repeal the cable franchise
> agreement with broadband provider such-and-so,
> as their monopolistic practices are hampering
> my ability to freely choose what content I can
> consume.")
>
> We're not powerless in this fight.  We often take
> a victim mindset, and look for some other entity
> to rescue us; but that's not the right way to thrive.
> Instead of thinking that we're weak, we're victims,
> and can't protect ourselves, or that we need some
> other big, strong entity to shelter and protect us,
> we need to realize that we *are* strong.  We *are*
> capable of standing up and fighting back.  We *do*
> have power, and can say no to the bullies.
>
> They want us to feel we have no say in the matter,
> that we cannot survive without protection.
>
> But they are wrong.
>
> We are strong.
> We are capable.
> We *can* fight back.
>
> For example, in Patrick's case (he being a Bostonian
> still, I believe), the municipal cable office responsible
> for the cable franchises in the city are handled by:
> http://www.cityofboston.gov/contact/?id=35
>
>
>
>
>>
>> How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market?
>>
>> --
>> TTFN,
>> patrick
>>
>>
>> http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/23/the-fcc-is-planning-new-net-neutrality-rules-and-they-could-enshrine-pay-for-play/
>>
>>
>> Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
>>
>>
>>
> I don't think it's good for the consumer or the market;
> but I also don't think it's just up to the government to
> step in and try to protect the consumer and the market.
> There's a lot we can do to shape the outcome, if we
> just step up to the plate and make our voices (and our
> wallets) heard.
>
> We are not victims.
>
> We *are* the market.
>
> Never forget; we have given them the power they
> currently have.
> And that means we can take it away again.
>
> It won't be easy.
>
> It won't be painless.
>
> But it *can* be done.
>
> Matt
>