On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>wrote:
Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can charge content providers or guarantee packet loss?
In a normal "free market", if two companies with a mutual consumer have a tiff, the consumer decides which to support. Where I live, I have one broadband provider. If they get upset with, say, a streaming provider, I cannot choose another BB company because I like the streaming company. I MUST pick another streaming company, as that is the only thing I can "choose".
[I speak only for myself here; any use of the word "we" should be taken to represent only my sense of inclusion with the rest of humanity, and not with any commercial entity or organization. Any other characterization of the following words is patently incorrect, and grounds for possible actions, up to and including litigation. Please don't be an ass, and quote me out of context, or as representing something I'm not. Original post edited slightly, with specific entity names replaced with variables; you may do your own substitution back into the variables as you feel appropriate. --MNP] What if we turn the picture around slightly, and look at it like the negotiations between broadcast networks and cable companies? 2010's battle between Fox television and cablevision comes to mind, where the content holder blacked out access to their content for specific cable companies unless they agree to pay the demanded fees. It would be interesting to have seen $content_CEO take a hard line stance; it wouldn't be hard to send a BGP feed to video streaming servers, and if the requestor's IP was from a prefix seen behind AS$foo, put up a message informing the subscriber that their access to $company's content would cease on such-and-such a date, due to $BB_provider's unwillingness to agree to increase interconnect capacity, and that if subscribers wished to continue to see $company's content, they should consider switching to a different network provider. Basically, follow the same model News Corp used against Cablevision, Viacom used against Time Warner, or Disney used against Cablevision. How long would $BB_provider be able to hold out against the howls of its users, if there was a scrolling banner across the top of the screen during their favorite show, or favorite movie alerting them that they would soon be unable to see that content unless they switched to a different service provider? It's easy to forget that the sword can be swung both ways. Right now, $BB_provider is swinging the sharp edge at $content; but $content is not without its own influence in the market, and could swing the sword the other way, cutting back at $BB_provider. Yes, it comes at some great risk to $content, in terms of potential customer loss; but no great wins come without great risks (unless you cheat, and use the government to get you a big win at no risk--but none of us like that model). I think it's high time for content players to flex their power, and push back on the eyeball networks that attempt to use their customer base as hostages to extract additional revenue from the content being requested by their users. If the content providers simply make it clearly visible to the end users that they cannot watch the requested content on that network, or that they can only watch in reduced resolution from that network, it will have a two-fold effect: a) traffic volume from the content provider to the contentious network will be reduced, limiting the need for the upgrades in the first place, and b) customers of the provider will be informed of their status as hostage cannon fodder on the battlefield, allowing them to vote with their wallets. One could potentially even insert suggestions for alternate connectivity options they might consider into the content feed, to help the users vote with their wallets more easily. Or, provide the phone number of the local municipal office that granted the franchise rights to the BB provider, along with instructions on what to say when calling ("Hi--I'm a registered voter in your district. If you'd like to get re-elected next term, you need to repeal the cable franchise agreement with broadband provider such-and-so, as their monopolistic practices are hampering my ability to freely choose what content I can consume.") We're not powerless in this fight. We often take a victim mindset, and look for some other entity to rescue us; but that's not the right way to thrive. Instead of thinking that we're weak, we're victims, and can't protect ourselves, or that we need some other big, strong entity to shelter and protect us, we need to realize that we *are* strong. We *are* capable of standing up and fighting back. We *do* have power, and can say no to the bullies. They want us to feel we have no say in the matter, that we cannot survive without protection. But they are wrong. We are strong. We are capable. We *can* fight back. For example, in Patrick's case (he being a Bostonian still, I believe), the municipal cable office responsible for the cable franchises in the city are handled by: http://www.cityofboston.gov/contact/?id=35
How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market?
-- TTFN, patrick
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/23/the-fcc-is-planni...
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
I don't think it's good for the consumer or the market; but I also don't think it's just up to the government to step in and try to protect the consumer and the market. There's a lot we can do to shape the outcome, if we just step up to the plate and make our voices (and our wallets) heard. We are not victims. We *are* the market. Never forget; we have given them the power they currently have. And that means we can take it away again. It won't be easy. It won't be painless. But it *can* be done. Matt