Net Neutrality and the Netflix Effect

December 10, 2010 -

While Net Neutrality is headed to the next FCC meeting on December 21 for a vote, commentators are talking about the negative and positive effects of new regulations. One such commentator is ZDNet's John Carroll, who sees services like Netflix as a big problem for both pro- and anti-net neutrality camps.

On the one hand, Carroll believes that regulation is important because it keeps service providers from controlling content it does not own and prioritizing content it has a vested interest in. This argument has been made against companies like Comcast, who wants to buy up NBC Universal. Net Neutrality advocates point out that there would be nothing stopping the new mega-company from prioritizing the content it owns - even if it does not actually slow down or block services out of its control.

On the other hand, services like Netflix could prove to be problematic when online video consumption makes up the majority of online traffic. A report from Juniper Networks that appeared in the Bloomberg Newsweek article "Will Video Kill the Internet, Too" paints a scary picture:

The report predicts that carriers such as AT&T and Comcast will see Internet revenues grow by 5 percent a year through 2020. Meanwhile, traffic will surge by 27 percent annually, and carriers will need to increase their investments by 20 percent a year to keep up with demand. By this math, the carrier’s business models break down in 2014, when the total investment needed exceeds revenue growth.

By 2014, video will account for more than 90% of Internet traffic. As Michael Hatfield, founder of Cyan Optics, noted in the article, “this is the most dramatic change in the network that has ever occurred.”

The author concedes that Juniper Networks has an interest in such a dire forecast because it helps sell its networking equipment to gateway owners. Still, Carroll feels that even if consumption eclipses profit and infrastructure investment at a later date, it's still a serious problem. 

In the end, he believes that some kind of regulation balanced with some good old-fashioned capitalism is the real solution. Nevertheless, those who want net neutrality and those that have a stake in less government intervention cannot seem to meet somewhere in the middle. Much like our current political atmosphere, the net neutrality fight is an "all or nothing" battle.

You can read the rest of the article here. The article raises a lot of interesting points no matter what your stance on net neutrality is.


Comments

Re: Net Neutrality and the Netflix Effect

Until broadband meets these specifications:

http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm

The ISPs shouldn't be given a single inch.  Simple as that.

- Left4Dead

Why are zombies always eating brains? I want to see zombies that eat toes for a living. Undead-related pun intended.

- Left4Dead Why are zombies always eating brains? I want to see zombies that eat toes for a living. Undead-related pun intended.

Re: Net Neutrality and the Netflix Effect

Concerns over how much traffic video will take up wouldn't be a concern if ISPs were as committed to upgrading speeds as much as the rest of the civilized world.

When I hear from friends overseas that they're gettting 100mb speeds for the equivalent of $20, and I'm only getting 15mb at best for $60, I now that I'm getting screwed and it's only going to get worse.

Re: Net Neutrality and the Netflix Effect

Heh.  The comments in that article get to the point quite quickly.....

Netflix is in no way an argument against Net Neutrality.... if ISP's customers are using up more bandwidth, ISPs can still charge their own customers more.  NN does not stop (or should not stop, since like any movement differnt people are calling for differnt things) ISPs from charging their customers whatever they want (though again, local monopolies make this element a problem)... it would only stop ISPs from charging OTHER ISP's customers.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
E. Zachary KnightGreat musical video about online trolling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nS-QeM2ne810/20/2014 - 2:46pm
Andrew EisenBut again, this whole thing is just too damn vague to form an opinion on.10/20/2014 - 2:40pm
Andrew EisenWithout the original communication, it's impossible to say if it could honestly be misconstrued as a friendly suggestion rather than an employer directive. However, it appears that subsequent emails should have cleared up any doubt.10/20/2014 - 2:40pm
Andrew EisenThose aren't the owner's words, they're Chris Dahlen's. For what it's worth, we do see an email from Gonzalez stating "you've already broken the only rule we set for you!!!!!!!"10/20/2014 - 2:38pm
Michael ChandraSo really the guy's own words strike me as "wah! How dare you disagree with me!" behaviour, which is the sort of childish attitude I am unfortunately not surprised by.10/20/2014 - 2:17pm
Michael ChandraCorrect AE, but then again the owner's own words are about "wishes", not about an order. No "we told him not to", but going against his wishes.10/20/2014 - 2:16pm
Matthew Wilsonyup. sadly that has been true for awhile.10/20/2014 - 2:10pm
james_fudgewelcome to 2014 politics. Increasingly fought online10/20/2014 - 1:54pm
E. Zachary KnightIt is honestly a shame that anyone has to publicly state they are against such vile behavior, but that is the sad life we live.10/20/2014 - 1:46pm
E. Zachary KnightDecided to publicly reiterate my opposition to harassment campaigns. http://randomtower.com/2014/10/just-stop-with-the-harassment-and-bullying-campaigns-already/10/20/2014 - 1:45pm
Andrew EisenMichael Chandra - Unless I overlooked it, we haven't seen how the directive to not talk about whatever he wasn't supposed to talk about was phrased so it’s hard to say if it could have been misconstrued as a suggestion or not.10/20/2014 - 12:35pm
Andrew EisenHey, the second to last link is the relevant one! He actually did say "let them suffer." Although, he didn't say it to the other person he was bickering with.10/20/2014 - 12:29pm
Neo_DrKefkahttps://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/SxFas https://archive.today/1upoI https://archive.today/0hu7i https://archive.today/NsPUC https://archive.today/fLTQv https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 11:21am
Andrew EisenNeo_DrKefka - "Attacking"? Interesting choice of words. Also interesting that you quoted something that wasn't actually said. Leaving out a relevant link, are you?10/20/2014 - 11:04am
quiknkoldugh. I want to know why the hell Mozerella Sticks are 4 dollars at my works cafeteria...are they cooked in Truffle Oil?10/20/2014 - 10:41am
Neo_DrKefkaAnti-Gamergate supporter Robert Caruso attacks female GamerGate supporter by also attacking another cause she support which is the situation happening in Syia “LET SYRIANS SUFFER” https://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 10:18am
Neo_DrKefkaThat is correct in an At-Will state you or the employer can part ways at any time. However Florida also has laws on the books about "Wrongful combinations against workers" http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/448.04510/20/2014 - 10:07am
james_fudgehe'd die if he couldn't talk about Wii U :)10/20/2014 - 9:16am
Michael ChandraBy the way, I am not saying Andrew should stop talking about Wii-U. I find it quite nice. :)10/20/2014 - 8:53am
Michael Chandra'How dare he ignore my wishes and my advice! I am his boss! I could have ordered him but I should be able to say it's advice rather than ordering him directly!'10/20/2014 - 8:52am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician