So, you can understand the howls emanating from open Internet proponents, who feel besieged by a series of recent events that may have turned their cause on its head. 2014 has not been kind to them.
On Jan. 15, a federal appeals court threw out the Federal Communications Commission's open Internet rules — also called net neutrality — removing any legal barriers that would stop Internet service providers from interfering with or discriminating against any data sent through their pipes. The FCC lacked the proper oversight authority to enforce the rules, the court said.
A month later, Comcast agreed to buy Time Warner Cable for $45.2 billion, a deal that would merge the nation's No. 1 and No. 2 cable TV providers and create the largest Internet service provider in the U.S.
The tempest of reaction from merger opponents had hardly subsided when Comcast announced another stunning deal, this one with Netflix, just 10 days later. Buffeted by customer complaints about slow streaming, the most popular video service chose to speed up transmission by paying Comcast an undisclosed sum to have the cable powerhouse retrieve content directly from Netflix's servers rather than going through third-party distributors as it had before.
The emerging landscape these events suggest — a weakening regulatory environment at a time when media companies are consolidating to assert greater control over content providers — frightens those who prefer that the Internet pipes remain free and open for all.
Here are some questions to consider as the fate of the open Internet plays out:
Q: What is the open Internet?
The open Internet, or net neutrality, is a principle that says all legal content on the Internet is equal. The idea is that innovators and creative types would be encouraged to enliven the Internet if they're freed from the fear that their work co! uld be discriminated against by Internet Service Providers via subpar Internet delivery.
For example, according to this approach, Comcast should not be allowed to stream TV shows from its subsidiary NBCUniversal — or any video company that pays Comcast — more quickly than other material.
Q: What is the status of the FCC's open Internet rules?
As a result of the January ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the FCC's rules are largely no longer in effect.
Q: So what's the FCC doing about that?
The FCC will not appeal the appeals court's ruling. Instead, the court allowed the agency to recast the rules, which it is doing.
Basically, the court said the FCC can regulate ISPs if it reclassifies them as "common carriers" — private companies that sell their commodity services to all consumers without discrimination, like utilities, rather than tailoring their rates for different types of consumers. The FCC chose to refrain from classifying ISPs as common carriers in 2010 because it wanted to refrain from overly regulating the Internet.
The agency says the Telecommunications Act of 1996 allows it to regulate net neutrality violations on a case-by-case basis, and it'll continue to press this point.
Q: Why does Comcast's merger with Time Warner Cable worry open Internet proponents when Comcast doesn't directly compete with TWC?
Comcast and TWC currently offer Internet service to about 32 million customers in the U.S. The companies argue that their proposed marriage won't hurt competition because their service markets don't overlap and consumers have other options, such as Dish or DirecTV, that use satellites. But for most people in city centers and suburbs, Internet access beamed from satellites is thought to be slower and more cumbersome to install.And consumer advocates say that the lack of choice has led to higher bills,and this trend will only accelerate.
While market size is a concern, merger opponents also are wor! ried abou! t the combined company's influence on content providers and other suppliers. Comcast owns NBCUniversal, 30 cable networks, 26 local TV stations and a stake in streaming service Hulu.
"There's a lot of content out there, but your Internet and cable company is the gateway to all that content," writes Craig Aaron, CEO of media watchdog Free Press, on SaveTheInternet.com. "It would have both the incentive and the power to limit access to competing content on the distribution platforms it owns."
Q: Why is Netflix's deal with Comcast such a shocker to net neutrality advocates?
Open Internet proponents see it as the first overt example of the pay-for-play practice that could invite abuse from ISPs.
Netflix is, by far, the largest Internet bandwidth hog, occupying nearly one-third of North American data traffic, according to technology firm Sandvine.
Netflix, like other content providers, uses third-party companies to store and move its content to ISPs. Once ISPs receive the content at their front door — think of the ISP as a large castle receiving delivery carts at the drawbridge on its moat — they then transmit data to consumers.
Netflix has sought Comcast to connect directly to its own servers to speed streaming, eliminating the middlemen. Comcast had refused the overtures until the new agreement emerged, forcing Netflix to pay for the privilege.
Because Netflix is in such heavy demand, the pipes that connect its third-party distributors and Comcast are clogged. That Netflix is now going to pay to relieve the bottleneck is hardly a net neutrality violation, says Dan Rayburn, an analyst at Frost & Sullivan. "Netflix should figure out the best economic way to get that traffic into the ISP's network," he says. Others believe Comcast deliberately slows the delivery of Netflix's content as it enters Comcast's network.
Q: How is the Netflix-Comcast deal a game changer for the net neutrality debate?
Net neutrality regulators and proponents had op! erated wi! th the assumption that the rules applied mostly only to the question of whether ISPs treat content fairly.
But the Netflix deal has them thinking more broadly. It's an example of why new net neutrality rules should be expanded to include these back-end "transit" deals, says Michael Weinberg, vice president of Public Knowledge.
That video could occupy 70% of all Internet traffic in the next three years — as predicted by Verizon Communications CEO Lowell McAdam last month — means that ISPs could start to squeeze content makers to pay to improve streaming, he says. "We're going to see a lot more of these problems in the next year or two," Weinberg says.
No comments:
Post a Comment