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 :

Poll

Will Code Avarice's Paranautical Activity make its way back onto Steam?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
NeenekoJust look at how interviews are handled. Media tends to pit someone who is at best a journalist, but usually entertainer, against an expert, and it is presented and percieved as if they are equals.10/25/2014 - 7:38am
Neeneko@MC - Focusing on perpetrator does nothing for prevention, the media and public lack the domain knowledge and event details to draw any useful conclusions. All we get are armchair risk experts.10/25/2014 - 7:36am
Neeneko@AE - no name or picture, I like it.10/25/2014 - 7:34am
PHX Corp@MW and AE The news media needs to stop promoting the Shooters. period10/25/2014 - 7:16am
Andrew EisenWhen I write about these massacres, I don't use the shooter's name or picture. I'm not saying everyone has to play it that way but that's how I prefer to do it.10/25/2014 - 12:44am
Andrew EisenYep, it's why the news media stopped spotlighting numbnuts who run out on the field during sporting events.10/25/2014 - 12:01am
Matthew Wilsonin media research its called the copycat effect. it simply says that if the news covers one mass shooting shooter, it increases the likelihood of another person going on a mass shooting.10/25/2014 - 12:00am
Andrew EisenAgreed. It bugs me that I know the names, faces and personal histories of a bunch of mass shooters but I couldn't tell you the name of or recognize a photo of a single one of their victims.10/24/2014 - 11:51pm
AvalongodAgree with Quiknkold. @Mecha...if that worked we would have figured out how to prevent these long ago.10/24/2014 - 11:32pm
MechaCrashUnfortunately, you have to focus on the perpetrator to figure out the whys so you can try to prevent it from happening again.10/24/2014 - 10:55pm
quiknkoldpoor girl. poor victims. rather focus on them then the shooter. giving too much thought to the monster takes away from the victims.10/24/2014 - 10:15pm
Andrew EisenFor what it's worth, early reports are painting the motive as "he was pissed that a particular girl wouldn't date him."10/24/2014 - 10:12pm
quiknkoldwell then I suck as a man cause I ask for help when necessary :P10/24/2014 - 10:07pm
Technogeek(That said, mostly I was making the smartass evopsych comment because your post seemed like the kind of just-so story that has come to dominate 99% of its usage.)10/24/2014 - 10:04pm
TechnogeekHell, Liam Neeson built his modern career around it. Cultural factors likely play a far greater role than you appear willing to admit.10/24/2014 - 10:03pm
TechnogeekSeriously, though, the idea of "because women are protectors and that's why they never commit school shootings" is, at best, grossly overreductive. There's nothing inherently feminine about being willing to kill in order to protect one's offspring.10/24/2014 - 10:03pm
MechaCrashThe "toxic masculinity" thing refers to how you have to SUCK IT UP AND BE A MAN because seeking help is seen as weakness, which means you suck at manliness, so it builds and builds and builds until something finally snaps.10/24/2014 - 10:01pm
quiknkoldthere, I'm done. And thats what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown10/24/2014 - 9:54pm
quiknkoldand I am not spouting Evopsych, technogeek. tbh I never heard the phrase till you said it. I'm going off my observations.10/24/2014 - 9:54pm
quiknkoldmoreover, the guy who did this isnt even white. He was native american according to the news report I read. Also that he went for a specific target. That's a much different picture than a certain Sandy Hook guy who will not be named10/24/2014 - 9:53pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician