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.
Cheater87Look what FINALLY came to Australia uncut! http://www.gamespot.com/articles/left-4-dead-2-gets-reclassified-in-australia/1100-6422038/09/02/2014 - 6:49am
Andrew EisenHence the "Uh, yeah. Obviously."09/02/2014 - 12:53am
SleakerI think Nintendo has proven over the last 2 years that it doesn't.09/02/2014 - 12:31am
Andrew EisenSleaker - Uh, yeah. Obviously.09/01/2014 - 8:20pm
Sleaker@AE - exclusives do not a console business make.09/01/2014 - 8:03pm
Papa MidnightI find it disappointing that, despite the presence of a snopes article and multiple articles countering it, people are still spreading a fake news story about a "SWATter" being sentenced to X (because the number seems to keep changing) years in prison.09/01/2014 - 5:08pm
Papa MidnightAnd resulting in PC gaming continuing to be held back by developer habits09/01/2014 - 5:07pm
Papa MidnightI find it disappointing that the current gen of consoles is representative of 2009-2010 in PC gaming, and will be the bar by which games are released over the next 8 years - resulting in more years of poor PC ports (if they're ever ported)09/01/2014 - 5:06pm
Andrew EisenMeanwhile, 6 of Wii U's top 12 are exclusive: Mario 3D World, Nintendo Land, Pikmin 3, Mario Kart 8, Wonderful 101, and ZombiU. (Wind Waker HD is on the list too but I didn't count it.)09/01/2014 - 4:36pm
Andrew EisenLikewise, only two of Xbox One's top 12 are exclusive: Dead Rising 3 and Ryse: Son of Rome (if you ignore a PC release later this year).09/01/2014 - 4:34pm
Andrew EisenNot to disrespect the current gen of consoles but I find it telling that of the "12 Best Games For The PS4" (per Kotaku), only two are exclusive to the system: Infamous: Second Son and Resogun.09/01/2014 - 4:30pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/09/01/beyond-two-souls-ps4-trophies-emerge-directors-cut-reported/ MMM MMM, nothing quire like reheated last gen games to make you appreciate the 400 bucks you spent on a new console.09/01/2014 - 4:24pm
Andrew EisenThat's actually a super depressing thought, that a bunch of retweeters are taking that pic as an illustration of the actual issue instead of an example of a complete misunderstanding of it.09/01/2014 - 4:20pm
Andrew EisenObviously, the picture was created by someone who doesn't understand what the issue actually is (or, possibly, someone trying to satire said misunderstanding).09/01/2014 - 4:10pm
Papa MidnightPeople fear and attack what they do not understand.09/01/2014 - 4:04pm
Papa MidnightWell, let's not forget. Someone held their hand in a peace sign a few weeks ago and people started claiming it was a gang sign. Or a police chief displayed the hand signal of their fraternity and was accused of the same.09/01/2014 - 4:04pm
SleakerEither people don't understand that what the picture is saying is true, or the picture was created out of a misunderstanding of what sexism is.09/01/2014 - 3:52pm
Sleaker@AE ok yah that's where the kind of confusion I'm getting. Your tweet can be taken to mean two different things.09/01/2014 - 3:51pm
Andrew EisenSleaker - No. No, not even remotely. The pic attached to my tweet was not made by me; it's not a statement I'm making. It's an illustration of the complete misunderstanding of the issue my tweet is referring to.09/01/2014 - 3:13pm
Papa MidnightIn other news, Netflix states why it paid Comcast: http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/29/technology/netflix-comcast/index.html?hpt=hp_t209/01/2014 - 3:10pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician