Broad Soft

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Wednesday, 4 December 2013

New FCC Chairman Distinguishes Between "No Blocking" and "Quality of Service," It Seems

Posted on 08:28 by Unknown
One clear difference of opinion about U.S. Internet policy is whether content delivery networks are an impermissible violation of the rule that users must be able to access and use all lawful applications on the Internet.

Content delivery networks are standard on the back end of the access market, allowing application owners to pay other firms to minimize latency. 


The issue has been whether it also is permissible to allow firms or end users to take similar measures to minimize latency and improve end user experience.


Blocking is not the issue. Methods of providing enhanced user experience, without any blocking, are the issues. 


Anti-competitive behavior is a potential problem, as if an ISP minimized latency for its own services, but would not allow it for competing services.


But the FCC seems keenly aware of such dangers, as does the Department of Justice. 


Also, business users already can buy services that support latency reduction. The issue is whether consumers can receive any similar quality of service support. 


New F.C.C. Chairman Tom Wheeler seems to affirm both the "Open Internet" rules, which forbid Internet service providers from favoring their own content or paid content when allowing data to flow through their system, as well as quality assurance mechanisms, though.


Wheeler said variable pricing and service plans represented the effects of competition. “We might see a two-sided market,” where a company like Netflix might pay an Internet service provider to guarantee that Netflix customers get the best available transmission speeds.


It's more than a nuance. At the moment, it is among the key dividing lines between supporters and opponents of such latency-reducing measures. 


Strand Consult has analyzed this debate and its stakeholders and presents the 30 arguments that net neutrality supporters will likely use to further their position. The 30 arguments are:

  1. Neutrality (or “openness”) is an original, deliberate, and essential feature of the internet.
  2. The end to end principle is responsible for internet innovation.
  3. Zero is a fair price for content delivery, and it was established early in the development of the commercial internet.
  4. The internet needs regulation to keep it neutral and to preserve its many fine features.
  5. Net neutrality is common carriage.
  6. Net neutrality is free speech.
  7. Without net neutrality there will be no innovation
  8. Without net neutrality there will be no democracy
  9. Operators' networks consist of smart edges and a dumb core. The operator's job is to deliver the bits.
  10. The internet is a human right.
  11. The internet is a public good and therefore should be regulated like a utility. Internet service should be free, meaning subsidized by the government.
  12. All content is equal or a bit is a bit is a bit.
  13. Consumers value all content the same, and more content is better.
  14. There should be the same internet available on every device.
  15. Applications don’t create traffic; users create traffic.
  16. The leaders of the net neutrality movement have good and right on their side.
  17. Consumers care about net neutrality, and the net neutrality activists are their voice.
  18. Net neutrality is needed because of vertical integration in the market for content and internet access.
  19. There is a lot of evidence proving that network management practices harm customers.
  20. Operators want to harm their customers, and only preventive measures will keep them in check.
  21. Operators want to block or throttle competing services.
  22. Operators want to use price discriminate to exploit their customers.
  23. Operators want to make agreements to preference certain content on the web.
  24. Operators will use pricing to create fast lanes and dirt roads for internet access.
  25. Operators will use deep packet inspection to exploit their customers.
  26. Operators only invest because of the growth in applications and content.
  27. Operators should just build infrastructure, and more infrastructure is better.
  28. Operators have always invested in infrastructure, and they always will
  29. All broadband providers, whether cable or telco, should be classified as common carriers and their obligations increased.
  30. Net neutrality is a human rights issue, not an economic issue.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to Facebook
Posted in | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Seattle's Gigabit Squared Fails: Sustainability Remains an Issue for Muni Access Networks
    Seattle's Gigabit Squared  network appears to have failed, illustrating a recurring problem with all municipal or joint venture Internet...
  • Access Networks Increasingly are All About Video
    In North America, r eal-time entertainment is responsible for over  68 percent of downstream bytes during peak periods, compared to 65 perce...
  • Using a Drone-Mounted Camera to See what a Surfer Sees "In the Water"
    If you've ever seen a picture of a surfer (the ocean kind), shot from shore, you have one view of what's going on, but you can't...
  • New Report Confirms: Investment or Competition is a Real Issue for Access Networks
    The latest Ofcom report on U.K. broadband infrastructure illustrates the inherent tension between promoting investment in next generation ne...
  • Google Fiber in Provo Prices Same as Kansas City
    Google Fiber  in Provo, Utah will be priced the same way as Google Fiber in Kansas City. People will be able to sign up for free 5 Mbps down...
  • EC to Review Telefonica, E-Plus Merger: How Many Carriers are Needed in Germany?
    European Union antitrust regulators will examine deals such as the proposal by Telefonica and Royal KPN to combine their German assets, base...
  • AT&T Tower Sale Raises, Does Not Answer, Question of "Core Competency"
    What is AT&T’s “core competency?” That is a question observers might raise, in the wake of AT&T’s decision to sell its U.S. mobile t...
  • How Big a Phone Will You Carry All the Time?
    How big a device will you carry with you, all the time, like you carry a mobile phone? Samsung Mega is going to provide some real-world tes...
  • To Attack U.S. Mobile Pricing Structure, Sprint and T-Mobile US Will Have to AddressTheir Own Cost Structures
    If a mobile service provider wants to attack prevailing retail prices in a serious way, it also has to attack its own operating and possibly...
  • Market Disruption is a Game Verizon Can Play as Well
    One often tends to think that big market disruptions are caused by small, upstart firms. History might suggest something quite different. Y...

Blog Archive

  • ►  2014 (23)
    • ►  January (23)
  • ▼  2013 (476)
    • ▼  December (83)
      • New Sprint Nextel Business Offer Might Combine Fix...
      • How Much has the Internet Harmed the Telecom Busin...
      • What Device Sales Indicate About Next Era of Compu...
      • 10 things not to buy in 2014
      • Net Neutrality is Part of an Older Pattern of Tech...
      • Which Revenue Opportunity is Bigger for Mobile Ser...
      • "Near Zero Pricing" for Voice is Not the Problem i...
      • SoftBank Bid for T-Mobile US Could Reshape Thinkin...
      • Are Fixed, Satellite, Cable TV, Mobile Distinct Ma...
      • What's Upside for AT&T Gigabit Networks?
      • Some Things Won't Change in 2014
      • Cheaper to Manufacture in U.S. Than China, Firms Find
      • Will T-Mobile US (and someday Sprint) Achieve Ilia...
      • Internet Does Not Change the Fact that Most Commun...
      • Where Fixed Broadband Prices in Developing Nations...
      • 2013 Not the Year Video Subscription Business Breaks
      • The Year Broadband Access Prices Were "Destroyed"
      • Raising $20 Billion is the Easy Part of Potential ...
      • Freemium is Leading App Pricing Model
      • Rise of Ad-Supported App Firms Could Have Access P...
      • Can "Internet Access" Be More Than a Commodity?
      • Sprint, Dish Network to Test Fixed Wireless
      • EE Now Supports AT&T Customer 4G Roaming in United...
      • 4 and 3: Why Sprint Purchase of T-Mobile US Faces ...
      • Australia NBN Will Miss Target of 25 Mbps to All b...
      • Spectrum Exhaust? Not Likely
      • If Price Were No Object, Would Most People Buy iPh...
      • Could a Merged Spring-T Mobile US Change 600 MHz A...
      • Is U.S. Mobile Market About to be Rearranged?
      • Study Suggests Amazon Kindle Strategy Works
      • What Drives "UnCarrier" Success?
      • Is Utopia in Utah a Potential Investment Target fo...
      • How Important is Ownership of Mobile Access Assets?
      • The New Demand for Asymmetrical Networks
      • One Way Google Fiber Has Changed Regulator Thinking
      • Installment Plans are Similar to "Device Subsidies...
      • The Song that Eventually was Released by the Rolli...
      • Is A La Carte TV a "Farce?"
      • U.K. Consumers Pay Less for Communications, Ofcom ...
      • First Passive Infrastructure Sharing; Then Active ...
      • AT&T Essentially Will Pay its Austin Access Custom...
      • Sustainability a Key Issue for Public-Private Fibe...
      • We Forget that Transition to Optical Fiber Once Wa...
      • Why Economics Matters for the Supply of Broadband ...
      • The Fixed Network Business Case: An Illustration
      • Carriers Pursue Different 4G Business Models
      • Verizon Acquires Content-Delivery Firm EdgeCast Ne...
      • To Attack U.S. Mobile Pricing Structure, Sprint an...
      • Motorola Modular Phone Prototype "Almost Ready"
      • Usage-Based Billing Might be Good for Many Enterpr...
      • U.S. Smart Phone Penetration Reaches 63%
      • Enterprise Customers Say More Cloud, More Consolid...
      • Does the Telecom Industry have a Life Cycle?
      • Indian Mobile Market Illustrates Key Principle Abo...
      • Why Sprint is Certain to Launch a Price War
      • A Scary Bit of History
      • Video Traffic is Moving from "North-South" to "Eas...
      • Rare Earth Elements Underpin Modern Electronics, a...
      • U.S. Auction of Broadcast TV Spectrum by Mid-2015?
      • Another Cycle of Faulty Predictions and Forecasts ...
      • Regulators in Mexico, Brazil Act to Spur Competiti...
      • Two Views on Bitcoin
      • Mobile Broadband will be 81% of Total Broadband in...
      • M2M Might Represent 6% of Global Mobile Connection...
      • Chinese iPhone Buyers are Not "Average"
      • VoLTE Will Help Mobile Service Providers Shut Down...
      • New FCC Chairman Distinguishes Between "No Blockin...
      • Windstream Isn't the Company It Used to Be
      • More Trouble for 4G LTE Investment Models
      • Half of all Smart Phones Bendable by 2019?
      • Why Word of Mouth is Essential for Really Big Comp...
      • Will Change to Communications Act of 1996 Create N...
      • It's not Easy to Run a Carrier-Owned Over the Top ...
      • BlackBerry Says It Isn't Dead
      • Amazon Prime Air Will Need Approval from Federal A...
      • Most Additional Mobile Spectrum Has to Come from E...
      • Up to This Point, "New Services Revenue" Has Come ...
      • Cable, Telco, ISPs Generally Score Very Low on Cus...
      • Oddly Enough, it is Nearly Inpossible to Tell Whet...
      • Android, Windows Phone Shipments Grow Based on Price
      • Twitter More Popular than Facebook Among Users 15 ...
      • 24% of Thanksgiving, Black Friday Shopping Volume ...
      • What is M2M Internet of Things Impact on Mobile Ne...
    • ►  November (79)
    • ►  October (127)
    • ►  September (95)
    • ►  August (92)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile