FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler
Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst
For those of you who don't know what net neutrality is, it's a pretty simple concept: all data should be treated equally. Comcast, AT&T, or whoever your internet service provider (ISP) may be, should treat a 10 GB file as a 10 GB file. It doesn't matter what that file contains or where it came from (so long as it's legal) – data is data.
Recently, Netflix and Comcast reached a very controversial deal in which Netflix will pay Comcast for more reliable content delivery. This pissed off a lot of consumer advocates who fear that costs will eventually be passed onto consumers, and may pave the way for future deals that will benefit ISPs at the expense of content providers and therefore consumers.
Earlier today, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler published a very vague blog post in response to allegations that net neutrality is coming to an end. Wheeler outlined the FCC's plans for net neutrality – he stayed away from specifics, but stated that "behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness of the internet will not be permitted." Many are skeptical of Wheeler's intentions, especially because he used to be a cable industry lobbyist, but so far he has been a vocal proponent for an open internet.
Is it fair for ISPs to treat content differently? Should the government step in to prevent ISPs from discriminating content? How will consumers be affected by deals like the Netflix-Comcast arrangement?
5 comments:
To me, it does seem like a violation of net neutrality for ISPs to treat content differently based on what content providers pay, even if the NY Times article states that the Netflix-Comcast deal isn't based on preferential delivery speeds such as in "paid prioritization." Netflix cites the slowdown of delivery speeds as its reason for engaging in the deal with Comcast, and though Comcast denies that it played any role in the slowing of delivery speeds, there is no telling whether or not this is actually true. Even if Comcast actually played only a small part in the slowdown of the delivery of Netflix content, this could lead to a slippery slope in the future when ISPs can deliberately slow down delivery of content behind-the-scenes in order to convince content providers to pay more for a dedicated pipeline. This would amount to essentially the same thing as "paid prioritization" without being called so, and it would thus be a violation of net neutrality. With something such as essential as the internet being generally known and treasured as free and open, allowing ISPs to violate net neutrality would grant them tremendous amounts of power and would be harmful to both consumers who have to pay increased costs and content providers who can't afford to pay more for better service to reach consumers faster. Obviously coming from a pro-net neutrality stance, I do believe that the government should have the power to prevent ISPs from discriminating content.
In one sense, I don't know whether allowing Netflix content to go straight to customers without a intermediary is unfair if all companies are allowed to do as well at reasonable rates. Allowing companies to pay for higher delivery speeds if they so choose seems like it would allow them some freedom on one hand, but on the other hand, I can't really wrap my head around the idea that this wouldn't result in some preferential treatment, even if all companies that gained higher delivery speeds through direct content delivery to customers paid for it. Like Patrick said, it's possible that ISPs would engage in behind-the-scenes manipulation of delivery speeds to prompt companies to pay to directly deliver content to customers. And adding to what the New York Times article said, the rates could skew in favor of larger companies through economies of scale, resulting in them having faster access to customers while leaving smaller companies in the dust. Personally, I think that the government should step in because of the potential for content discrimination through deals like this.
And now it looks like this trend will continue http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/28/5662580/netflix-signs-traffic-deal-with-verizon
I do not believe that content should be treated differently. Such an agreement would set an extremely awkward precedent for future internet use. Ideally, I think the internet should be treated in the same manner as the utilities. This guarantees equal treatment of the content—without net neutrality, I don’t believe that it’s possible for competition on an equal platform.
I also agree with Patrick. If the deal wasn’t a violation of net neutrality, then why does there need to be an agreement in the first place? It’s extremely unclear as to what Comcast is doing behind the scenes here, and the possibility for extorting more money from websites seems very real.
Looking at the followup article, I think Elkana seems to be right; Now Comcast and Verizon (two big companies) teamed up with Netflix. This probably means that more big companies will try to make deals with Netflix for greater revenue, while smaller companies will be pushed out. The whole point of Net Neutrality is to promote equality among the consumers and providers. If the government doesn't step in and take action, this progression is encouraging the growth of large companies while killing off small companies. The progression of this issue proves that we need government intervention to prevent a trend that favors larger companies.
Post a Comment