Jack Bates wrote:
On 4/28/2014 12:05 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it as getting a piece of the action. (One of my favorite ST:TOS episodes, by the way). The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the businessman in me (hey, gotta make a living, no?) thinks I need to get a piece of that profit, since that profit cannot be made without my last-mile network, and I'm willing to 'leverage' that if need be. How many mail-order outfits won't charge for a customer list? Well, in this case it's actual connectivity to customers, not just a customer list. The argument about traffic congestion is just a strawman, disguising the real, profit-sharing, motive.
However, as a cable company, comcast must pay content providers for video. In addition, they may be losing more video subscribers due to netflix. In reality, Netflix is direct competition to Comcast's video branch.
Which is why many policy oriented folks urge "separation of content from carriage" - i.e., you can't be in both businesses, or at least there needs to be a "Chinese wall" between the two businesses - otherwise the edge providers have both an inherent conflict of interest and a position that allows for monopoly abuse. The original FCC Computer Inquiry II proscribed just such a separation for the Internet business - but defined the line as being between local loop (e.g., copper) and "information services" - and defined IP transport as an "information service." Great if you're trying to protect the nascent Internet carriers from abuse by Ma Bell (though just try to buy an unbundled local loop these days); not so great for protecting Internet content providers from broadband carriers. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra