Once again, I'm sorry to seem like we're picking on Comcast. It's just that the recent bringing of net neutrality to the forefront of FCC hearings is thanks to them. It started with their limiting of bandwidth for BitTorrent users. We also remarked (with non-Comcast hypotheticals) how this bandwidth throttling could be seen as a way to promote Comcast's services (like VoD) over their competitors. This is a sentiment echoed over at Portfolio.com in their coverage of the FCC's hearing on net neutrality yesterday. The FCC is trying to determine the legality of "reasonable network management" and potentially remove an ISP's ability to favor one for of net access over another by way of limiting the bandwidth allocated to one activity versus another.
I don't know if I agree with that. Even FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said that "Consumers need to know if and how network management practices distinguish between different applications, so they can configure their own applications and systems properly," which is something I've been saying for a while. There really isn't any logical reason why Comcast shouldn't be able to determine how their network is used. If they want to allow unfettered access to their proprietary content and services. If they want to start limiting bandwidth hogs, then I guess that's their prerogative. Where I, and apparently Chairman Martin, have a problem is when it isn't made clear to the consumers what actions could cause their access to be limited. If they gave clear limits on bandwidth usage along with a simple way to monitor it or maybe gave some examples of practices that would or would not result in limitations. Maybe something like "Casual e-mail and web surfing with a download the size of a movie once per day is ok, whereas downloading an entire season's worth of 'Friends' each day will probably result in bandwidth being reduced."
Now Edward Markey (D - MA) wants to make net neutrality law. He feels that the internet needs to stay as open as possible. Think about the other major means of mass communication: Television. TV programs can reach millions and millions of people, but only if licensed broadcasters deem your content important or profitable enough and can convince advertisers to agree. The internet is totally different. Right now, I am taking my view on a topic and submitting it for public ridicule and praise. There's no one telling me what I can or cannot post. I have to say that this paragraph has me feeling torn. There's the first part of me who believes that the owner of a network should have a say over how it is used. Then there's the other part of me who feels that the internet is a public space and that a company might not have the right to limit how I access that space and to what ends.
I think that if pressed to choose, I would have to side with Congressman Markey. If Comcast, or any company, wants me to pick their content over someone else's just let the content speak for itself. If your video or method of video delivery is better than another I'll pick you. You shouldn't need to rely on limiting your competitors' access to consumers to boost your own sales.
This isn't even something limited entirely to the internet. Look at Wal-Mart. They have their various "house" brands but they let those brands compete on the same shelf as brand name products. They don't limit Coke and Pepsi to small shelves that are hard to reach while placing their Sam's Club brand front-and-center. It's the same thing at grocery stores where the generics and brand names are side-by-side. Do these retailers promote the benefits of their products versus the brands? Of course they do. They promote the benefits of their products and let you, the consumer decide which you'd rather purchase.
And then, to add insult to injury, Comcast actually paid people off the street to take up space at the FCC hearing in Cambridge. Here they had an amazing opportunity to explain and exonerate themselves to the public and instead they just did more to damage their reputation. Once again, Comcast is hiding when they should be embracing the opportunity to turn around their tarnished image.
Again, and I really can't stress this enough, I'm not out to kill Comcast or make them look bad. When I rant about bad experiences with Sprint's customer service department I'm not trying to create some sort of mass exodus of Sprint customers. Any "negative" post I write about a company's activities are made in the hopes of affecting change. These are open challenges that I hope are accepted by these companies. I'm not here to say "F*** this company" and "You should never buy anything from these guys again." There are plenty of people who can do that. That would be taking the easy way out. Now if Comcast and Sprint and the others want to write off us, and our readers, like that then they're the ones taking the easy way out.
Once again, please prove me wrong, guys. Turn me around. Offer awesome content and services. Be up front about your policies and limitations. Offer the best and you'll attract more customers than you'll know what to do with.
I don't know if I agree with that. Even FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said that "Consumers need to know if and how network management practices distinguish between different applications, so they can configure their own applications and systems properly," which is something I've been saying for a while. There really isn't any logical reason why Comcast shouldn't be able to determine how their network is used. If they want to allow unfettered access to their proprietary content and services. If they want to start limiting bandwidth hogs, then I guess that's their prerogative. Where I, and apparently Chairman Martin, have a problem is when it isn't made clear to the consumers what actions could cause their access to be limited. If they gave clear limits on bandwidth usage along with a simple way to monitor it or maybe gave some examples of practices that would or would not result in limitations. Maybe something like "Casual e-mail and web surfing with a download the size of a movie once per day is ok, whereas downloading an entire season's worth of 'Friends' each day will probably result in bandwidth being reduced."
Now Edward Markey (D - MA) wants to make net neutrality law. He feels that the internet needs to stay as open as possible. Think about the other major means of mass communication: Television. TV programs can reach millions and millions of people, but only if licensed broadcasters deem your content important or profitable enough and can convince advertisers to agree. The internet is totally different. Right now, I am taking my view on a topic and submitting it for public ridicule and praise. There's no one telling me what I can or cannot post. I have to say that this paragraph has me feeling torn. There's the first part of me who believes that the owner of a network should have a say over how it is used. Then there's the other part of me who feels that the internet is a public space and that a company might not have the right to limit how I access that space and to what ends.
I think that if pressed to choose, I would have to side with Congressman Markey. If Comcast, or any company, wants me to pick their content over someone else's just let the content speak for itself. If your video or method of video delivery is better than another I'll pick you. You shouldn't need to rely on limiting your competitors' access to consumers to boost your own sales.
This isn't even something limited entirely to the internet. Look at Wal-Mart. They have their various "house" brands but they let those brands compete on the same shelf as brand name products. They don't limit Coke and Pepsi to small shelves that are hard to reach while placing their Sam's Club brand front-and-center. It's the same thing at grocery stores where the generics and brand names are side-by-side. Do these retailers promote the benefits of their products versus the brands? Of course they do. They promote the benefits of their products and let you, the consumer decide which you'd rather purchase.
And then, to add insult to injury, Comcast actually paid people off the street to take up space at the FCC hearing in Cambridge. Here they had an amazing opportunity to explain and exonerate themselves to the public and instead they just did more to damage their reputation. Once again, Comcast is hiding when they should be embracing the opportunity to turn around their tarnished image.
Again, and I really can't stress this enough, I'm not out to kill Comcast or make them look bad. When I rant about bad experiences with Sprint's customer service department I'm not trying to create some sort of mass exodus of Sprint customers. Any "negative" post I write about a company's activities are made in the hopes of affecting change. These are open challenges that I hope are accepted by these companies. I'm not here to say "F*** this company" and "You should never buy anything from these guys again." There are plenty of people who can do that. That would be taking the easy way out. Now if Comcast and Sprint and the others want to write off us, and our readers, like that then they're the ones taking the easy way out.
Once again, please prove me wrong, guys. Turn me around. Offer awesome content and services. Be up front about your policies and limitations. Offer the best and you'll attract more customers than you'll know what to do with.
Leave a comment