Showing posts with label Comcast. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Comcast. Show all posts

Friday, October 17, 2014

Net Neutrality: A Counter Viewpoint


Net neutrality to me is obvious. I don't want the Internet to go the way of cable television. Expanding capacity is how you respond to an increase in traffic load.

But it is okay to listen to a counter viewpoint.

The Right Way to Fix the Internet
Letting go of an obsession with net neutrality could free technologists to make online services even better. ..... the Internet never has been entirely neutral. Wireless networks, for example, have been built for many years with features that help identify users whose weak connections are impairing the network with slow traffic and incessant requests for dropped packets to be resent. Carriers’ technology assures that such users’ access is rapidly constrained, so that one person’s bad connection doesn’t create a traffic jam for everyone. ..... It costs more to get online in the United States than just about anywhere else in the developed world ..... U.S. service is sometimes twice as expensive as what’s available in Europe—and slower, too. ...... the Internet arose in an ad hoc fashion; there is no Internet constitution to cite. ..... their equivalent of the Federalist Papers: a 1981 article by computer scientists Jerome Saltzer, David Reed, and David Clark. The authors’ ambitions for that paper (“End-to-End Arguments in System Design”) had been modest: to lay out technical reasons why tasks such as error correction should be performed at the edges, or end points, of the network—where the users are—rather than at the core. In other words, ISPs should operate “dumb pipes” that merely pass traffic along. This paper took on a remarkable second life as the Internet grew. In his 2000 book Code, a discussion of how to regulate the Internet, Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig said the lack of centralized control embodied in the 1981 end-to-end principle was “one of the most important reasons that the Internet produced the innovation and growth that it has enjoyed.” ...... “unavoidable vagueness” about the dividing line between allowable network-management decisions and impermissible bias. .. The line remains as blurry as ever, which is one reason the debate over net neutrality is so intense. ......... if profit-hungry companies are left unfettered to choose how to handle various types of traffic, they “will continue to change the internal structure of the Internet in ways that are good for them, but not necessarily for the rest of us.” ........ codifying too many overarching principles for the Internet makes many engineers uncomfortable. In their view, the network is a constant work in progress, requiring endless pragmatism. Its backbone is constantly being torn apart and rebuilt. The best means of connecting various networks with one another are always in flux. ......... “You can’t change congestion by passing net neutrality or doing that kind of thing,” says Tom Leighton, cofounder and chief executive of Akamai Technologies. .. To keep traffic humming online, Leighton says, “you’re going to need technology.” ........ A central tenet of net neutrality is that “best efforts” should be applied equally when transmitting every packet moving through the Internet, regardless of who the sender, recipient, or carriers might be. But that principle merely freezes the setup of the Internet as it existed nearly a quarter-century ago, says Michael Katz, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, who has worked for the FCC and consulted for Verizon. “You can say that every bit is a bit,” Katz adds, “but every bitstream isn’t the same bitstream.” Video and voice transmissions are highly vulnerable to errors, delays, and packet loss. Data transmissions can survive rougher handling. If some consumers want their Internet connections to deliver ultrahigh-resolution movies with perfect fidelity, those people would be better served, Katz argues, by more flexible arrangements that might indeed prioritize video. Efficiency might be more desirable than a strict adherence to equity for all bits. ......... For many years, high-volume sites run by Facebook, YouTube, Apple, and the like have been negotiating arrangements with many companies that ferry data to your Internet service provider—backbone operators, transit providers, and content delivery networks—to ensure that the most popular content is distributed as smoothly as possible. Often, this means paying a company such as Akamai to stash copies of highly in-demand content on multiple servers all over the world, so that a stampede for World Cup highlights creates as little strain as possible on the overall Internet..................... Netflix last year was accounting for as much as one-third of all U.S. Internet traffic on Friday evenings. .... In the short term, Netflix resolved the problem by paying for more of the peering points that carriers such as Comcast and Verizon required. More strategically, Netflix is arranging to put its servers in Internet service providers’ facilities, providing them with easier access to its content. ....... the Netflix fight shouldn’t distract regulators who are trying to figure out the best way to keep the Internet open. They should be focusing, he says, on making sure that everyday customers are getting high-speed Internet as cheaply and reliably as possible, and that small-time publishers of Internet content can distribute their work. .... A tiny video startup doesn’t generate enough volume to force Comcast to install extra peering points. ........ “zero rating,” in which consumers are allowed to try certain applications without incurring any bandwidth-usage charges. The app providers usually pay the wireless carriers to offer that access as a way of building up their market share in a hurry... In much of Africa, people with limited usage plans can enjoy free access to Facebook or Wikipedia this way. ......... In the United States, T-Mobile lets customers tap into a half-dozen music sites, such as Pandora and Spotify, without incurring usage charges. ...... When Tim Wu talked about net neutrality a decade ago, he framed it as a way of ensuring maximum competition on the Internet. But in the current debate, that rationale is in danger of being coƶpted into a protectionist defense of the status quo. If there’s anything the Internet’s evolution has taught us, it’s that innovation comes rapidly, and in unexpected ways. We need a net neutrality strategy that prevents the big Internet service providers from abusing their power—but still allows them to optimize the Internet for the next wave of innovation and efficiency.


Sunday, January 15, 2012

Mark Cuban: Contrarian On The TV Business

Mark CubanImage via WikipediaI love following the VCs I follow in the blogosphere, but I wish my list was more tilted towards entrepreneurs. The problem is the top entrepreneurs don't blog. Mark Cuban is an exception. He does blog. And the guy sure is opinionated.

I think Mark Cuban just told me the people who added smarts to the phone are going to have a much harder time doing the same to TV. I don't think his stand is definitive. But his stand does give me a glimpse into the complexity of the landscape. Mark Cuban of Broadcast.com fame. I remember when they got bought by Yahoo. I was doing some preliminary work on a dot com that went on to do really well, for two years.

Mark Cuban: The TV Business Keeps Getting Stronger!
We had a policy that we never tried to create hits. That we were always going to go wide and create a reason for people to start watching video online. 17 years later. Yep, its been 17 years since we started Broadcast.com (as audionet.com first), Youtube and others are still doing the exact same thing. ...... Good for them ! Except they are making one huge fundamental mistake, they are trying to create hits. They don’t like the idea that beyond a steady stream of 1 hit wonders they haven’t been able to create a sustainable roadmap to content success. In other words, they have no idea how to drive an audience to specific content. Their hits come out of nowhere. ...... viewing for cable networks has skyrocketed and the amount of traditional tv watched has continued to increase. ..... used to be that only movie companies got output deals ..... Today, TV shows are getting output deals and generating lots of revenue across all the different platforms that show TV shows. Its not just syndication,but those online distributors want to make sure they get the best shows and they are committing up front to buy those shows. An output deal. Found money. ...... The TV business isn’t dead. It really isn’t even morphing. Sure people will watch video online. They will watch it on phones. They will download it. But the videos that online distributors pay the most for will be those that have done the best on traditional TV. Which in turn means more money for the production of shows. ...... Online video is to TV today like DVDs were to Movies in the past. A great revenue source that correlated to the movie’s boxoffice. ...... having to hit the internet button on the remote, or even worse, the input button on the remote will not be the path of least resistance for watching tv. Believe it or not, it will be far too much hassle for most people when compared to just turning on and watching TV the old fashioned way. And on top of that, distributors like Dish, Directv, Charter, Comcast, etc are working hard to improve their guide experiences which will be faster and easier than their online counterparts....... last but not least, MOCA, DLNA and good old fashioned wi fi is always going to be a hassle. No one has perfect wi fi at their apartment or house. It always screws up.
(1) TV shows are high quality stuff. Not just anyone can produce them. People like them.
(2) Video is content king. People like consuming content in video format. Much faster broadband might stand a chance but not the broadband we know. The Internet pipes just are not there yet.
(3) Ease of use is supreme. People want to be able to just turn on and watch. No browse and click.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Semil Shah On Quora


Frequently Asked Questions About Quora The incredible growth of Quora has also led to an equally incredible growth in chatter, punditry, and analysis ..... If organized correctly, the information contributed to and categorized on Quora could not only result in the best Q&A site ever, but it may also transform into a new type of search engine and destination for information. .... Those who contribute content to Quora do so because, in exchange for their contribution, Quora gives them the chance to establish a brand, reputation, and areas of expertise. ..... Quora has a very good idea of what interests its users have, and that is very, very valuable knowledge. .... where the mutual meeting place is Quora.

Thursday, April 08, 2010

Net Neutrality Is The Internet's DNA



Fred Wilson: Internet Freedom
..... the net neutrality camp (which I am very much in) is on its heels .... the era of permissionless innovation that has characterized the first fifteen years of the commercial Internet ....... If we lose Internet Freedom, we won't have any companies we would want to invest in and we'll close up shop and move on with our lives.
Albert Wegner: The Price Of Internet Freedom Is?
Here there is much less of a market force at work as a potential corrective because in many local markets there is only a single broadband provider available and at best most markets have a duopoly.
Wall Street Journal: Court Backs Comcast Over FCC On "Net Neutrality"
"The court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet, nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end," said FCC spokeswoman Jen Howard........ the idea that Internet providers should treat all forms of Web traffic equally ...... The court's decision prompted calls Tuesday from Democrats and consumer groups for Congress to pass new legislation to give the FCC more authority to police Internet providers. "They may have won the battle only to face a larger war" ...... Republican lawmakers have generally opposed net-neutrality rules. ....... AT&T said the FCC's current net-neutrality principles work and it will continue to abide by them. ....... Verizon Chief Executive Ivan Seidenberg said, it isn't a "slam dunk" that net neutrality is the right policy. ...... Time Warner Cable Inc. said the decision doesn't change its commitment to providing the "high-quality, open Internet experience" its customers expect...... President Obama supports net-neutrality rules
Daily Kos: What Happens Now With Net Neutrality
...... Comcast, which has asserted its right to slow its own cable customers' access to file-sharing ........ not an out and out win for Comcast .... there are a number of ways forward from here for the FCC. ..... the Supreme Court might reverse ..... The Supreme Court might disagree. ...... Congress might amend the Federal Communications Act to create a new source of jurisdiction to regulate broadband. To do this one would need at least 60 votes in the Senate. Good luck with that........ under its Title II jurisdiction, the FCC can require open access requirements, which would be even more valuable for purposes of promoting freedom of speech and innovation. ....... the FCC might decide that the better solution is to retrace its steps, correct the mistake it made in 2002, and reassert Title II authority over broadband ..... an FCC that under chairman Genachowski has been a strong Net Neutrality advocate
TechDirt: Court Tells FCC It Has No Mandate To Enforce Net Neutrality (And That's A Good Thing)
......it's now official that the FCC has no power to mandate net neutrality or to punish Comcast (even with a gentle wrist slap) for its traffic shaping practices. Lots of people seem upset by this, but they should not be. ......Even if you believe net neutrality is important, allowing the FCC to overstep its defined boundaries is not the best way to deal with it...... Comcast .. should still be punished -- but by the FTC, rather than the FCC -- for misleading its customers about what type of service they were getting, and what the limitations were on those services. As for the FCC, if it really wants a more neutral net, it should focus on making sure that there's real competition in the market, rather than just paying lip service to the idea in its broadband plan.
Net neutrality is the Internet's DNA. This is the Internet Century. Take away free speech and America is just a landmass. Take away net neutrality and the Internet is glorified cable television. It is not the Internet no more.

Net neutrality has received a temporary setback. But the anxieties are very real. Net neutrality is here to stay, but that does not mean there isn't work cut out for the net neutrality enthusiasts, which is pretty much everyone I know.

This judicial decision reminds me of the Supreme Court decision against campaign finance reform a few months back that Obama spoke against in his State Of The Union speech. The judiciary is capable of nonsensical decisions. This is one of them. One reason might be the judges are not term limited like the politicians. Maybe there ought to be a 12 year term limit rule for the Supreme Court justices.

We are nowhere close to losing the net neutrality fight, but the fight we have not even waged yet is the fight that will bring true competition in the high speed internet access arena. It is the fight to release the spectrum. The spectrum war needs to be taken to Comcast's doors.  


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]