"Network neutrality has always been about how traffic is carried over the pipes. It's never been about how the sources and destinations of that traffic respond to it."
ISPs originally wanted to throttle, block, or create fast lanes to double dip. When it was clear regulators and the public weren't going to allow this, they simply got more creative. Using zero rated apps, for example, or through abusing interconnection agreements, they were able to get their pound of flesh in a different way.
Here, Comcast is just using a different mechanism (refusal to set up a simple authentication process) for the same end result (preventing users from accessing the content they want on their own hardware).
The definition of net neutrality is expanding as ISPs get more clever about seeking out said pound of flesh. Whether that's blocking Google Wallet on phones to give your own mobile payment service a leg up, or failing to enact authentication so users can access a common app you don't like, it's all part of the same conversation.
"But it is HBO's choice to make subscribers authenticate with a cable provider."
No, not really. HBO is basically a lap dog to the cable industry because they get so many subsidies from it. The entire cable industry's "TV Anywhere" initiative is all about forcing consumers to prove they have traditional cable if they want to access certain Internet content.
"Why should the FCC force Comcast to respond in a particular way to an authentication request? That seems way outside their jurisdiction."
Because Comcast is intentionally refusing to get authentication working so that fewer customers use non-Comcast devices to access content. It's still anti-competitive behavior, even if they're hiding behind their decision to not authenticate. Again, no other major ISP has had any problems getting this relatively simple authentication process up and running from day one.
"I'm a bit confused about whether this is active sabotage or willful neglect."
I'm not sure I see the difference here. Roku owners with Comcast broadband connections were unable to access the app for THREE YEARS because Comcast intentionally refused to get TV Anywhere authentication up and running.
The end result was prohibiting Comcast customers from being able to use hardware they own and the bandwidth they pay for to access the content they pay for over the Internet.
No, it's not just "how HBO has chosen to do business." The entire cable TV industry's TV Everywhere initiative only gives you access to oodles of Internet content if you can prove you're a traditional cable TV subscriber.
In this case, Comcast was the only company that couldn't be bothered (quite intentionally) to get relatively simple authentication systems up and running. They're using authentication as an intentional obstacle, preventing its customers from accessing the content they want on hardware they own and bandwidth they pay for.
Though it's again worth noting only Comcast wasn't able to get authentication working immediately. Roku owners were unable to use their device to access HBO GO for THREE YEARS.
Dear mister anonymous commenter accusing me of being "misleading." From my article:
" Every other broadband provider had no problem ensuring the back-end authentication (needed to confirm you have a traditional cable connection) worked, but not Comcast. When pressed, Comcast would only offer a generic statement saying yeah, it would try and get right on that.
Whether they're outright blocking the service, or intentionally lagging on getting authentication to work (when again, it works for every other major ISP) the end result is the same: Comcast is actively working to prohibit consumers from using hardware they own and bandwidth they pay for to access the services they want. I absolutely believe this sort of behavior fits under the net neutrality umbrella.
I still believe it does have to do with net neutrality. If a core component of net neutrality is a company using its size and power to prevent people from using hardware and broadband connections as they see fit, why wouldn't it be? Interconnection and usage caps are considered part of the conversation, why not this?
Just because Comcast is using the authentication process -- and not an outright throttle or filter -- to accomplish this shouldn't matter.
"I think many folks are missing what I missed; that the main issue here is not that Comcast is "blocking" HBO Go in the classical sense, and therefore this has little to do with neutrality. Comcast are simply foot-dragging on agreeing to tell HBO who is and is not an actual HBO subscriber. We can make up all sort of theories as to why Comcast would do this...."
Again, I see that as semantics. The definition of blocking is creating obstacles, and that's precisely what Comcast is doing here. A key component of neutrality (to me) is a gatekeeper using its size and power to deter competing services from hurting its own services, and again, that's precisely what's happening here.
I absolutely think this falls under the net neutrality umbrella. It's Comcast getting in the way of people using their connections and hardware as they see fit.
"While it seems to amount to the same thing for the consumer, Comcast is not blocking HBO Go but rather has not provided the necessary support for the service to work."
That strikes me as semantics for the sole benefit of Comcast. They refused to provide "necessary support" for Roku for THREE YEARS, the end result being people unable to use their broadband connection the way they'd like.
As the article notes it's clearly not a "purely technical issue."
Because we've entered a phase where you can violate net neutrality (and consumers will even support you) if you're just clever enough about claiming you're not violating net neutrality.
"We're uh, just negotiating and ironing out last minute business negotiations...suggesting this is any way a gatekeeper abuse of a dominant market position is the very height of absurdity!"
Re: Re: Re: That's some mighty fine paranoia you've got there
Yup. That was what Thune/Upton proposed, and it was even weaker than the rules Verizon sued to overturn. It would have quite intentionally taken us backward after a decade of conversation.
And the EFF by and large supports Title II with forbearance.
The EFF's justly concerned about vague portions of the rules (I personally am willing to be the FCC does absolutely nothing about zero rating and very little about most interconnection issues), but that doesn't mean they oppose them.
Sorry to say but I don't see the FCC doing anything about this sort of thing, even under Title II. I think even with tougher rules, offenses are going to need to be aggressively ham-fisted for them to get an ISP in trouble. This sort of stuff, like usage caps and zero rating, is going to be seen as "creative" pricing.
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
Here, Comcast is just using a different mechanism (refusal to set up a simple authentication process) for the same end result (preventing users from accessing the content they want on their own hardware).
The definition of net neutrality is expanding as ISPs get more clever about seeking out said pound of flesh. Whether that's blocking Google Wallet on phones to give your own mobile payment service a leg up, or failing to enact authentication so users can access a common app you don't like, it's all part of the same conversation.
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Re: Re: I can tell you why
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Re:
In this case, Comcast was the only company that couldn't be bothered (quite intentionally) to get relatively simple authentication systems up and running. They're using authentication as an intentional obstacle, preventing its customers from accessing the content they want on hardware they own and bandwidth they pay for.
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Re: Re: not blocking tcp/udp
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Neutrality...
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Re: Re: This isn't a net neutrality issue
Just because Comcast is using the authentication process -- and not an outright throttle or filter -- to accomplish this shouldn't matter.
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Re: Re: Neutral networks
I absolutely think this falls under the net neutrality umbrella. It's Comcast getting in the way of people using their connections and hardware as they see fit.
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: I can tell you why
That strikes me as semantics for the sole benefit of Comcast. They refused to provide "necessary support" for Roku for THREE YEARS, the end result being people unable to use their broadband connection the way they'd like.
As the article notes it's clearly not a "purely technical issue."
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: The stand-alone HBO subscription can't come soon enough
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: Neutral networks
"We're uh, just negotiating and ironing out last minute business negotiations...suggesting this is any way a gatekeeper abuse of a dominant market position is the very height of absurdity!"
On the post: Comcast Blocks HBO Go From Working On Playstation 4, Won't Coherently Explain Why
Re: I can tell you why
On the post: Marsha Blackburn Rushes To The Defense Of Awful, Protectionist State Broadband Laws
Re:
On the post: Breaking: House Judiciary Committee Tells FCC It's Going To Block Net Neutrality Rules
Re:
On the post: Breaking: House Judiciary Committee Tells FCC It's Going To Block Net Neutrality Rules
Re: Title II does not create net neutrality.
Two, Title II is a framework, the actual rules will determine more specifically what is or isn't allowed, and we haven't seen them yet.
>So putting the Internet on Title II will not do what the backers thought it would do.
What backers thought it would do is put the FCC on more secure legal footing, and most people still believe it will do that.
On the post: Breaking: House Judiciary Committee Tells FCC It's Going To Block Net Neutrality Rules
Re: Re: Re: That's some mighty fine paranoia you've got there
On the post: Breaking: House Judiciary Committee Tells FCC It's Going To Block Net Neutrality Rules
Re: Re: EFF: "Details Matter"
The EFF's justly concerned about vague portions of the rules (I personally am willing to be the FCC does absolutely nothing about zero rating and very little about most interconnection issues), but that doesn't mean they oppose them.
On the post: AT&T's $30 'Don't Be Snooped On' Fee Is Even Worse Than Everybody Thought
Re: Re:
On the post: AT&T's $30 'Don't Be Snooped On' Fee Is Even Worse Than Everybody Thought
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: AT&T's $30 'Don't Be Snooped On' Fee Is Even Worse Than Everybody Thought
Re: Re: Invasion of privacy
Next >>