dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
398
OwlSaver
OwlSaver
Premium Member
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA

OwlSaver

Premium Member

I think that Net Neutrality is too abstract and idea

To me the solution to the problem is not some concept of neutrality. I would prefer to put a separation between infrastructure and content into the law. That is, create one company that can deliver a pipe to each home. But, the actual content is delivered by one or more separate companies. The content companies can compete on price and packages. There should not be competition on infrastructure - it is a waste of resources. This seems to be a logical separation that has been used in many industries. Of course, Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and such will fight this tooth and nail.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: I think that Net Neutrality is too abstract and idea

So, you liked it back in the 50s/60s when AT&T had a government regulated monopoly on the telephone system, I guess. Yeah, that produced lots of innovation, and prices came down like crazy due to competition. Not.
OwlSaver
OwlSaver
Premium Member
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA

OwlSaver

Premium Member

Re: I think that Net Neutrality is too abstract and idea

In the 50s and 60s, AT&T was vertically integrated just like the providers are today. The sold you the wires, the service, and the phone set. The innovation really came when that was separated and you could by service (well at least long distance) from any provider and phone equipment from any seller. So, I think we have vertical integration today and have little innovation and would get more if we separated the tiers.

As an example, I think that Comcast buying NBC will reduce choice and innovation, not spur it on. Also, as it stands today Internet only TV service is really limited. This is because Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T do not want it to impact their business. If they could not offer TV service, I think innovation would flourish.
MyDogHsFleas
Premium Member
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX

MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

Re: I think that Net Neutrality is too abstract and idea

said by OwlSaver:

In the 50s and 60s, AT&T was vertically integrated just like the providers are today. The sold you the wires, the service, and the phone set. The innovation really came when that was separated and you could by service (well at least long distance) from any provider and phone equipment from any seller. So, I think we have vertical integration today and have little innovation and would get more if we separated the tiers.
Hmm, I see your point but I think what I'm saying is that the ISP industry today is like the phone industry is today... you choose your own equipment (PC or phone), you choose your provider (choice of ISP or choice of long distance provider), and you go at it. The OP was saying the government should set up one company to own the pipes. That struck me as going back to the old days of AT&T. Not a perfect analogy but you see my point?
As an example, I think that Comcast buying NBC will reduce choice and innovation, not spur it on. Also, as it stands today Internet only TV service is really limited. This is because Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T do not want it to impact their business. If they could not offer TV service, I think innovation would flourish.
I think that's not the business reason for limited Internet TV service. The real drivers are not the cable systems, but the content providers (studios and producers). They are going to try to maximize their revenue. Right now Cable/Satellite have the vast majority of the viewers vs. Internet TV, therefore they will get much more advertising dollars, therefore they can offer much more to the content providers for their shows. Internet TV is seen as an attractive add-on to the base TV revenue, much like DVDs and syndication are, but it's not nearly as big as those are yet. So, Internet TV is sucking hind tit as the saying goes, therefore you see limited offerings and the premium stuff goes to cable/satellite. Whether this will change, and how fast, is a big question.

Regarding Comcast buying NBC Universal, this is not anything to worry about. In-house production for the outlets has been around for a long time (see broadcast TV), and hasn't really hurt innovation, lots of independent producers still sell their stuff in interesting ways. It's all about getting mindshare and viewer interest going, which will pump ratings. If Comcast doesn't syndicate NBC's stuff they are making a stupid business decision. Why limit your revenue and ROI from your in-house production, just so that people might sign up for Comcast over, say, DirecTV?
OwlSaver
OwlSaver
Premium Member
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA

OwlSaver

Premium Member

Re: I think that Net Neutrality is too abstract and idea

There is absolutely no perfect solution. No matter what is done or not done, someone is going to be un happy.

I think DirectTVs Sunday ticket is an example of the problem that I see cropping up. The Sunday Ticket (BTW, I do not care much about football, so it does not impact me) is used by Direct TV to get and keep viewers. That is a fine competitive stance. But, it creates an artificial limit on the availability. Wouldn't it be "better" if the NFL could sell Sunday Ticket to anyone on any system? I see Comcast doing the same thing with NBC. They may limit some high value content just so that people will switch from Direct TV or FiOS to Comcast. Or even worse keeps people subscribing to Cable Service rather than just getting entertainment over the Internet.

I have FiOS and think it is great. But, for Cable TV, I have to use their infrastructure, their STB, and their content. I envision a future where I have a High Speed Internet Pipe and can use any equipment to get any content. It seems to me that this will be much better than what we have today.