If Facebook decides to offer 1/8 bitcoin to its users who spend 30 minutes a month watching video ads, is that net neutrality or free market value exchange? Yes it is different and not equal. It is a value exchange not net neutrality.
Same for zero rating. Same for any company that makes the risk investment to optimize their streaming or website.
At the end of the day, if the content is not popular it will not be watched even with zero rating- just look at a 500 channel cable package.
Stage 3 and the pound of flesh being extracted is already here. It is called Retransmission fees. The growth in broadband subscribers has been subsidizing the growth in retransmission fees (cable carriage) which is expected to double the next 4 years despite declining payTV bundle subscribers. As a NYC Time Warner Cable subscriber I only have one provider because the NYC landlord only allows one provider in the building so they can take their % share of the revenue. Further I'm paying $65 for 12-15mps when TWC states its providing 100mps yet they advertise my same broadband service with payTV for the same prive $65. Basically giving TV away for free but they are really not- broadband is subsidizing retransmission fee growth. Which begets the question of net neutrality and fast lanes then what is retransmission fees doing here?????? The elephant is already extracting its pound of flesh silently and deeply.
Simple math and follow the money: Retransmission fees are being subsidized by the growth in broadband subscribers. PayTV bundles subscriber growth at best is flat and the cable cos have been bundling VOIP and other data services to prop up the bundled PayTV subsctiber model. Keep in mind that broadband is not a telecommunication service contrary to all the various types of telecommunications that flow over WiFi which then flows over the fixed broadband line connection. Which begets the question of how retransmission fees which are directly linked to payTV subscribers is projected to double their growth over the next 4 years. The simple math and answer is growth in retransmission fees is being subsidized by broadband subscriber growth. Put another way, retransmission fees have created their own fast lane but its not tied to capacity but to the revenue generated by other providers that use that capacity. If one is to have meaningful net neutrality this needs to be LOUDLY addressed as it is the biggest elephant in the room no one sees- the linkage of payTV subsidies to broadband.
in the end it takes $$ out of the consumers pocket in return for what? here the consumer clearly pays for the cost and profit of the cable company's last mile connection. charging the product the consumer requested over that same connection, is double billing- it's a methodology for a company to receive revenue for certainly not the cost of the service therfore a private company tax on consumer. Definition of tax is also a strain or burden which this clearly is.
Nasch, When a private company takes public subsidies, yes its double taxiation. When a private company takes double dipping of revenue for the same service, it should fraud. If I charge you for a service and then I go further and charge the products you use which are part of the original service, it seems quite be institutionalized corruption and fraud when one puts this into law. btw these companies are public companies last I checked.
Wheeler is going full press with the incentive auctions yet when Verizon lobbied and achieved passage of a bill in 2002 declaring wireless broadband is not telecommunications, Net Neutrality has no standing, classifying them as �information services� not subject to Title II of the Communications Act.
Why would Wheeler rush to auction these licenses until the Net Neutrality is in place. Wireless broadband is telecommunications.
Folks, NYC landlords get revenue from TWV or VZ Fios when they let them in the building. To date you will find one or the other. Therefore although there may be dozens of fiber lines under the avenues, the last mile to the consumer in New York City is usually ONE PROVIDER. The part that is tragic for consumers like myself is TWC has raised broadband prices thye last 4 years from $40 to $60 (50% increase) and the coaxial cable in my apartment is greater than 20 years at least. It is insulting to an intelligent consumer paying $60 for 9mps broadband connection when my friend in Mexico City pays $70 for a 300mps broadband connection. My freinds the U.S. economy depends on broadband and this type of last mile manipulation does not help the country.
NAB president Gordon Smith states before Congress: "Today, broadcasters compete with wireless companies, pay-TV providers and over-the-top services for eyeballs and advertising."
Last I checked, retransmission fees are a corporate subsidy granted by Congress which needs to be eliminated so that this statement could be truthful. The broadcasters were given the over the air spectrum by Congress to provide Americans with Universal Access to their content (FREE) and quite frankly, the broadcasters have decided not to innovate and provide Universal Access in order to protect their retransmission fees and payTV model which certainlt is not free markets.
Most of the spectrum the wireless carriers have is configured as FDD, at a time when voice was paramount, the requirement that the capacity for uplink and downlink be equal made sense. Most of the capacity constraints today are video which is primarily on the down link. What that means if a carrier has 40MHz of LTE spectrum, reality is only 20MHz is available for the downlink. Sprint is the only carrier advocating TDD which is dynamic allocation, uplink or downlink where the capacity demand occurs at the cell site. This is why there are data caps- the network is limited in flexibility because of FDD.
Add insult to injury, factor in the number of NFL stadiums that have received government/municipal financing and tax breaks, then perhaps your story would be more comprehensive.
The post by Mike Masnick is extraordinarily naive.
LTE is entirely IP. You can test all you want and find nothing today.
The one thing tests will not find is what future software migrations and upgrades may bring or trigger. No testing in the world can find this. Logistically impossible to implement testing insitu.
The fundamental question is can you trust a China company with your Core? Answer: NO.
Most of the Tier-1 carriers have significant government enterprise business and the risk of installing Huawei "Cores" is like giving the Navy's Carrier Nimitz to China and asking China to provide maintenance and other logistical services.
Nonetheless if I do not take Apple's deal of 30% plus their requirement that small artists need to go to an outside "aggregator" which takes another 30%-40%, so I have new business partners that are taking 70% of the upside, yes even if I do not take that deal, Apple's deal is a VAMPIRE deal and you do agree since you say just do not take the deal!
Peter willl be most happay when China hackers copy his code and sell "Happy Birds" to gloabl consumers underming his brand strategy and paying Peter zippo.
30% for Apple is too much commissions for an artist to have their songs uploaded and downloaded off the platform.
And Apple says you have to go to an "aggregator" which then takes another 30%-40% so now an artist is down to 30%.
Both Apple and "aggregator" do not pay for any of the upfront costs on music production or promotional materials like video, so its a "riskless opportunistic" transaction.
Realistically the 30% should be shared between Apple and any "aggegrators" they impose for simply uploading digital files to their platform.
Else there is a case for Applle being a Vampire!
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Leonardo.
Zero Rating is Not Net Neutrality, its Free Market Value Exchange
If Facebook decides to offer 1/8 bitcoin to its users who spend 30 minutes a month watching video ads, is that net neutrality or free market value exchange? Yes it is different and not equal. It is a value exchange not net neutrality.
Same for zero rating. Same for any company that makes the risk investment to optimize their streaming or website.
At the end of the day, if the content is not popular it will not be watched even with zero rating- just look at a 500 channel cable package.
Hidden Elephant in the Net Neutrality debate: Retransmission Fees
The BIGGEST Net Neutrality Elephant is.....Retarnsmission Fees
Retransmission fees are being subsidized by the growth in broadband subscribers.
PayTV bundles subscriber growth at best is flat and the cable cos have been bundling VOIP and other data services to prop up the bundled PayTV subsctiber model.
Keep in mind that broadband is not a telecommunication service contrary to all the various types of telecommunications that flow over WiFi which then flows over the fixed broadband line connection.
Which begets the question of how retransmission fees which are directly linked to payTV subscribers is projected to double their growth over the next 4 years. The simple math and answer is growth in retransmission fees is being subsidized by broadband subscriber growth. Put another way, retransmission fees have created their own fast lane but its not tied to capacity but to the revenue generated by other providers that use that capacity. If one is to have meaningful net neutrality this needs to be LOUDLY addressed as it is the biggest elephant in the room no one sees- the linkage of payTV subsidies to broadband.
Nasch you talk like a lawyer, reality is
tax, overbilling, legalized fraud, legalized corruption-
in the end it takes $$ out of the consumers pocket in return for what? here the consumer clearly pays for the cost and profit of the cable company's last mile connection. charging the product the consumer requested over that same connection, is double billing- it's a methodology for a company to receive revenue for certainly not the cost of the service therfore a private company tax on consumer. Definition of tax is also a strain or burden which this clearly is.
Re: Re: Your comments need to be directed to Wheelers FCC blog
When a private company takes public subsidies, yes its double taxiation. When a private company takes double dipping of revenue for the same service, it should fraud. If I charge you for a service and then I go further and charge the products you use which are part of the original service, it seems quite be institutionalized corruption and fraud when one puts this into law. btw these companies are public companies last I checked.
Net Neutrality over Wireless Licenses is nowhere yet Wheeler is rushing to auction these licenses
Why would Wheeler rush to auction these licenses until the Net Neutrality is in place. Wireless broadband is telecommunications.
Link to Wheeler's email on FCC site
Re: Re: Tell Tom
http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/tom-wheeler-mail
Re: Now what?
http://www.fcc.gov/blog/setting-record-straight-fcc-s-open-internet-rules
Your comments need to be directed to Wheelers FCC blog
http://www.fcc.gov/blog/setting-record-straight-fcc-s-open-internet-rules
Post your comments direct to Wheeler's FCC blog
It is double taxation on consumers to charge for a service the consumer already pays for.
Comcast Analysis is Faulty and Very Much Inaccurate
Broadcasters do not innovate and do not compete.
Last I checked, retransmission fees are a corporate subsidy granted by Congress which needs to be eliminated so that this statement could be truthful. The broadcasters were given the over the air spectrum by Congress to provide Americans with Universal Access to their content (FREE) and quite frankly, the broadcasters have decided not to innovate and provide Universal Access in order to protect their retransmission fees and payTV model which certainlt is not free markets.
Chris Morran's congestion analysis is FLAWED
NFL stadiums subsidized by Tax Payer's Dollars
Huawei CANNOT BE TRUSTED
LTE is entirely IP. You can test all you want and find nothing today.
The one thing tests will not find is what future software migrations and upgrades may bring or trigger. No testing in the world can find this. Logistically impossible to implement testing insitu.
The fundamental question is can you trust a China company with your Core? Answer: NO.
Most of the Tier-1 carriers have significant government enterprise business and the risk of installing Huawei "Cores" is like giving the Navy's Carrier Nimitz to China and asking China to provide maintenance and other logistical services.
Re: Re: iTunes is Vampire
(untitled comment)
Peter will be most happy then!
iTunes is Vampire
And Apple says you have to go to an "aggregator" which then takes another 30%-40% so now an artist is down to 30%.
Both Apple and "aggregator" do not pay for any of the upfront costs on music production or promotional materials like video, so its a "riskless opportunistic" transaction.
Realistically the 30% should be shared between Apple and any "aggegrators" they impose for simply uploading digital files to their platform.
Else there is a case for Applle being a Vampire!
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Leonardo.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt