How Netflix and Google Could Lead the Fight For Net Neutrality

 February 17, 2014  

 Article: http://www.wired.com/business/2014/02/google-save-netflix-net-neutrality-fight/

Summary: This article from Wired Business was written by Marcus Wohlsen on February 12, 2014. According to new data from the video stream outfit, Google Fiber is the fastest way to watch Netflix. It's good news for Netflix itself as it faces a fight over what's know as Net Neutrality. After a recent U.S court ruling struck down Net Neutrality ( the principle that all internet traffic should be treated equally) traditional internet service providers appear to be free to throttle Netflix's streaming video. However, Google and its broadband loom in the background as potential salvation, since Google's business depends on an internet where all traffic is free and equal. Last month, the U.S Federal Court gutted FCC net neutrality rules. Since then, there is a lot of speculation and anxiety over ISPs slowing or blocking access to Netflix and other bandwidth gluttons. Afterwards, Verizon, the Plaintiff in the case against FCC, could as an example, charge Netflix a toll to transmit data. Legally, the Telecom giant Verizon,  is entitled to do so. If this situation arises, Netflix seem to have no choice but to pay. Therefore, Netflix may have no alternative but to pass those costs into the viewers. However, it may not play out this way. Netflix has its own leverage in the battle over net neutrality, with some possible heavyweight backup from Google. Here is where Google could also ride to the rescue. Of all the companies streaming Netflix, Google is the only one where the case for full-one Net Neutrality makes bottom-line sense. Much like it's android operating system for mobile phones, Google Fiber is not so much a business in itself as a way to feed Google's core advertising business into more parts of people's lives. 

Opinion: I think that with a recent court ruling striking down Net Neutrality, it could have effectively left Netflix in a position to be extorted by internet service providers. Verizon, who was the Plaintiff in the case against FCC, stated that "we treat all traffic equally and that has not changed". Therefore, It's not likely that Netflix would be extorted by internet service providers but it could happen and it's technically legal. 

That's not to mention that Netflix has been left without defense against this possibility. Netflix remains in high demand and it's not without guile. Consumers usually purchase higher bandwidth packages mostly because of the high-quality streaming video. While Netflix has been slowed by Comcast and Verizon in recent months, customer demand may rule the day.

Besides, it may work out that Netflix has an ally, Google, in this potential fight for Net Neutrality. It's known that Google's core business requires that the internet remains open for its advertising revenues that still drive the company. Therefore, Google could expand Google Fiber with the promise of keeping the internet open without tinkering with bandwidth limits. Seems to me that, Google has demonstrated its willingness to enter the physical world more and more each year and it may expand Fiber if others mess with people's love of Netflix's content. 

Reference: Wohlsen, M ( 2014, February 12 ) How Netflix and Google Could Lead the Fight For Net Neutrality Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/business/2014/02/google-save-netflix-net-neutrality-fight/

Discussion: 1- Do you think Verizon will continue treating the internet traffic equally?

2- Has the recent U.S court ruling on Net Neutrality left Netflix in a position to be extorted by internet service providers? 

3- Do you think Google is willing to expand Google Fiber in order to support Netflix? 

Comcast-TW Cable Merger Changes the Dynamic for FCC’s Net Neutrality Wrangle

February 16, 2014 

Article: http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/comcast-tw-cable-merger-changes-the-dynamic-for-fccs-net-neutrality-wrangle-1201102818/

Summary: This article from Variety was written by Ted Johnson on February 14, 2014. U.S largest broadband provider, Comcast, will become even bigger, commanding about one-third of the marketplace for high-speed Internet service. Comcast and Time Warner Cable, announced a merger to create a world-class technology and media company. However, when it comes to the rules of the road for the Internet ( the net Neutrality guidelines that prohibit providers from blocking or favoring certain types of traffic) the proposal has changed the dynamics of the debate raging in Washington. After the U.S recent court ruling on Net Neutrality, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has been weighting his options on how to proceed on Net Neutrality. He's promised a proposal, but the Comcast-TW Cable transaction may give him new options, even as debate is likely to center on whether Comcast will command too great a share of the broadband market. Now Wheeler and the FCC have leverage to demand further conditions like extending the length of time that Comcast will abide by Net Neutrality. Just the sheer size of Comcast could have an impact on the rest of the industry. Last Thursday, Comcast executive VP David L. Cohen has asked whether the company would agree to extend Net Neutrality beyond 2018. He said that he would rather not negotiate with the press, however, he had no doubt that the FCC would have a new plan in place to protect an open Internet.


Opinion: What does this match between Comcast and Time Warner Cable mean for content creators, Net Neutrality, apple tv and those of you waiting for the internet repairman to show up at your house?

 Now that they merged, it could lead the way to better business practices or maybe not. Seems like not everyone is convinced the merger will lead to good things. There is a concern about the fact that Comcast will now control one-third of high-speed internet. For those who were recently disappointed when the FCC's net neutrality rules were dismissed by the U.S recent court ruling, this could be a chance to make another push to get them back. There is a lot of theory on the internet that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who might have a good case for blocking the legality of the merger, might instead bargain for rules on Net Neutrality to be accepted by Comcast-TW Cable.

I think this merger may mean that there would be practically a monopoly on television and internet and this will stifle growth in their respective industries. Besides, I just don't think the FCC is up to the task of enacting rules to ensure Net Neutrality is protected. 


Reference: Johnson, T ( February 14, 2014) Comcast-TW Cable Merger Changes the Dynamic for FCC’s Net Neutrality Wrangle Retrieved from http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/comcast-tw-cable-merger-changes-the-dynamic-for-fccs-net-neutrality-wrangle-1201102818/


Discussion: 1- Do you think Comcast would agree to extend Net Neutrality beyond 2018?

2- What are your thoughts about the Comcast-TW Cable merger?

3- What do you think could be the FCC's new plan to protect an open internet? 
              

A FEMA-level fail: The law professor who coined 'net neutrality' lashes out at the FCC's legal strategy

 Sunday, February 16, 2014


Article http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/14/a-fema-level-fail-the-law-professor-who-coined-net-neutrality-lashes-out-at-the-fccs-legal-strategy/

Summary: This article from Washington Post was written by Brian Fung on January 14, 2014. Tim Wu wrote the definitive paper on Net Neutrality when he was a law professor at the University of Virginia, back in 2003. The information scholar coined the term in a essay proposing how regulations could keep the internet free and open for everybody. On January 14, 2014 a U.S appeals court struck down the Federal Communication Commission's net neutrality rules. Wu, who is now a professor at Columbia Law School spoke with the Washington Post about the ruling and its effect on internet access and about what the FCC should do next. He affirms that this recent U.S court ruling on Net Neutrality leaves the internet in completely uncharted territory. The law professor also states that was a huge legal error on the FCC's part. The FCC's legal strategy put it in the position of arguing that its rules are not common carrier rules when the two components of the regulation (anti-blocking and anti-discrimination) have been at the center of common carrier regulation since medieval times, around 1450.


Opinion: I think the FCC's Chairman Wheeler will fight hard to preserve the FCC's rules. He represented both of the industries ( Verizon and FCC) long before either of them were providing internet access. His effectiveness, thought, might end up being determined less by how he runs the FCC than by circumstance. That is specially true when it comes to network neutrality rules, which bar internet service providers from favoring or disfavoring particular flows of online traffic. 

Still, the FCC has the authority and has the responsibility to regulate the activities of broadband networks. They will have ample opportunities to debate ways and means, to consider specific in specific cases as they arise. 

I think FCC has to appeal. Other judges might see it in a different light. The FCC's has an opportunity to tackle net neutrality again. The court decision threw the issue back to the agency, which may not attempt to rewrite the rules. Therefore, the FCC will probably consider appealing this recent U.S court decision on Net Neutrality. Besides, i believe the court of public opinion weights heavily here, which means we probably won't see any sudden, rash actions. 


Reference: Fung, B ( January 14, 2014)  A FEMA -level fail: The law professor who coined 'net neutrality' lashes out at the FCC's legal strategy Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/14/a-fema-level-fail-the-law-professor-who-coined-net-neutrality-lashes-out-at-the-fccs-legal-strategy/


Discussion: 1- What could the FCC have done differently? 

 2- Did the court leave the FCC wiggle room for regulating broadband?

 3- Do you think Chairman Tom Wheeler will follow through with an appeal? 

Pros and Cons of Net Neutrality

Saturday, February 15, 2014


Article: http://gigaom.com/2014/01/15/marc-andreessen-talks-about-the-pros-and-cons-of-net-neutrality-and-the-need-for-innovation/

Summary: This article from Gigaom was written by Marc Andreeseen on February 15, 2014. In a Twitter discussion about the recent court decision striking down Net Neutrality entrepreneur-turned-VC Marc Andreeseen talked about the need for massive investment in new network technologies and how to balance that with the desire for an open internet. He discussed about net neutrality, the need for continued innovation on the internet and the best way to ensure that it happens. The bottom line, the Andreeseen Horowitz founder said, that he would like to see the network remain open to all but also would like to see massive investment in new technologies and the challenge is how to make both of those things happen at same time. Andreeseen states that massive investments will be needed in existing and new networks for decades to come. He also states that the status quo will not be sufficient to support all the applications and services that the society requires. According to him, the issue is that if carriers like Verizon are spending $20 billion or so on their networks every year they need a certain return on that investment in order to continue to do so.


Opinion: The pros are that there is no restrictions on what parts of the internet that people can access, except for what local governments decide. For example, no restrictions or preferences over emailing, file sharing, podcasts, blogs, video conferences, etc. There is also no throttling. Currently, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) cannot change the download or upload transfer rates depending on what people are accessing. Besides, there is no censorship and no restrictions on what or how much anyone can upload or download besides connection rates. I believe that Net Neutrality promotes a level playing field for competing companies and allows start-ups easier access to new potential customers. Therefore, Net Neutrality is equated to a free market. 

 The cons against Net Neutrality is that ISPs, in addition to governments, can decide what parts of the internet people can access and what parts are blocked. For instance ISPs could block peer to peer file transfers. Additionally, IPSs could censor criticism against themselves, other companies or politicians that they favor. Also ISPs can decide what type of services have prefer transfer rates. For instance, Google's gmail account could be faster while their competitors Microsoft's Hotmail could be slower, depending on how much both companies pay their internet service providers. Besides, there is already a lot of monitoring on the internet. However, without Net Neutrality, ISPs could literally monitor everything that their customers do on the internet and sell or use that information as they choose. 


Reference: Andreessen, M. (2014, January 15) Marc Andreeseen talks about the pros and cons of net neutrality and the need for innovation Retrieved from http://gigaom.com/2014/01/15/marc-andreessen-talks-about-the-pros-and-cons-of-net-neutrality-and-the-need-for-innovation/


Discussion: 1-  What do you think are the pros and cons of Net Neutrality?

2- Who determines methods of profit, customers or government regulators?

3- Is Marc Andreeseen right about the need for massive investment in new network technologies? 

Does the recent U.S court decision on net neutrality affect Canada's internet situation?

   Wednesday, February 5, 2014

           
   Article: http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2014/01/16/will-u-s-court-ruling-on-net-neutrality-affect-canadas-internet-situation/


                                           

                                        

Summary: This article from RCI was written by Wojtek Gwiazda on January 16, 2014.

 Last month, the U.S Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C, dismissed a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule regarding Net Neutrality which acted to prevent Internet providers from giving preferential treatment to data from a specific provider or platform. The challenge was launched by U.S. company Verizon. Supporters of an open and easily accessible Internet around the world are concerned by the ruling and its implications by consumers and what they get as a service from telecommunication companies. In the most basic terms, the open internet rules ensured that all data on the web was treated fairly and equally. In essence, it means that the internet is open to the highest bidder; those with the most money will ensure that their content is seen, while all others cannot. The U.S court decision on net neutrality worry supporters of an open internet in Canada. Will the recent U.S court ruling on net neutrality affect Canada's Internet situation?  

Opinion: I think the U.S net neutrality court case may affect Canadians too. Although the concept has been around for at least 10 years, not many people really know what's about. I wasn't too informed about it either. What does "Net Neutrality" really mean? Net Neutrality ( also Network Neutrality or Internet Neutrality) is the principle that internet providers and government should treat all data on the internet equally, not discriminating or charging differently by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment and modes of communication. In essence, it argues that no bit of information should be prioritized over another. This principle applies that an information network such as the internet is most efficient and useful to the public when is less focused on a particular audience and instead is attentive to multiple users. 

The recent U.S court decision on net neutrality has brought the subject to the forefront of the news. As an example, there is a lot of theory on the internet that (and depending on where you get your information from) this court decision could lead to a monthly rate hike for Netflix. I don't think this is impossible. However, it's improbable that the reason of a possible increase to what we pay Netflix monthly would be due to net neutrality.

I think there are pros and cons about this ruling. The pros are that according to the court ruling on net neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can't push too much regulation on the internet. The cons are that this ruling means telephone companies are free to do what they please. In spite of that, I believe it's not the end of Net Neutrality. The recent U.S court decision on Net Neutrality is about a specific case and this still could be changed as well. Besides, the FCC could still try to regulate via another avenue. 

To conclude, this recent U.S court decision on net neutrality can't be good for Canadians. I believe it establishes a frightening pattern and it may affect the average consumer. We should keep a close eye on it.

References: 1- Wojtek, G (2014, January 16) Will U.S court ruling on net neutrality affect Canada's internet situation? Retrieved from http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2014/01/16/will-u-s-court-ruling-on-net-neutrality-affect-canadas-internet-situation/ 

2- Net Neutrality (n.d.) In Wikipedia. Retrieved February, 04, 2014, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality 

Discussion:

1- How will this U.S court ruling on net neutrality affect countries outside the U.S, like Canada? 

2- Should the FCC be given greater power, or less power than it currently has? 

3- How will the recent U.S court ruling affect the average consumer?