The Internet at Risk: A Return to the Ma Bell Era
It's well known that Netflix downloads suck up a huge amount of bandwidth, as much as 20 percent of the country's total bandwidth consumption during peak periods. In turn, it's not altogether unreasonable for Comcast to expect some compensation -- but that's the very narrowest view of the dispute. In a larger sense, the real issue is the lack of competition in the broadband market. If Level 3 didn't pay and was cut off, the big losers would be Comcast customers who could no longer access programming they want and have paid for. (It's worth noting that Comcast already competes with Netflix via its Xfinity service, so there was some incentive to lean on Level 3 beyond the peering issue.)
In a competitive market, they could simply say good-bye to Comcast and sign up with a provider willing to give them the content they want. But in most parts of the country, consumers have almost no choice. If they have one cable company and one telco, that's often the extent of the market. In rural areas, there's often just one provider.
Bad as this situation is, it will get exponentially worse if Comcast owns NBC and becomes one of the dominant content providers in the country, as well as one of the major Internet service providers. Once Comcast has a vested interest in moving its own content to customers, the temptation to favor its traffic over that of its competitors will be huge. Imagine CNN's Web traffic being slowed while that of MSNBC is speeded up. MSNBC of course is partly owned by Microsoft, so perhaps Mac, Android, iOS, and Linux users would also find themselves "nonpreferred" users.
On the business/IT side, the additional danger is that Comcast would treat different types of applications differently. It could happen if the FCC doesn't approve rules guaranteeing traffic be treated equally.
Comcast as Ma Bell: No Zoom modem today, maybe no thin clients or iPads later
Unlike the Level 3 issue, Comcast's dispute with Zoom seems clear-cut. Attaching nonharmful devices to the network is the right of consumers and businesses. Comcast would, of course, prefer to make a huge profit by renting cable modems to consumers instead of allowing them to purchase one from a third party.
Zoom is a reputable company; there's no reason to suppose its modems would be any worse than Comcast's. However, Comcast sees it differently, and for the record, here's the company's position:
Comcast wants to make sure devices our customers purchase at retail will work well and are safe, and we have not asked Zoom to submit to testing that is any different than what we ask of every other cable modem manufacturer we work with. We even offered to let Zoom do the safety testing at their own Chinese manufacturing plants, but they refused this offer. As Zoom decided not to take advantage of the courtesy we offered to simplify testing, we will be more than glad to explain to the FCC as we have already explained to Zoom how their refusal to permit any performance or safety testing of its device will harm consumers.
I don't believe it.
"Both the Zoom and Level 3 issues are examples of Comcast using its unique power in the marketplace to disadvantage competitive service, whether its from independent content providers or independent device makers," said Aparna Sridhar, policy counsel for Free Press, a nonprofit pro-Net neutrality advocacy group.
She's exactly right. Comcast needs to be stopped. Otherwise, it will extend its control over what you and your employees may use to more than cable modems. You may find your thin clients, VPN-equipped PCs, VoIP devices, or iPads one day disallowed ostensibly because they cause harm but in reality because their use isn't to Comcast's own financial benefit.
This article, "The Internet at risk: A return to the Ma Bell era," was originally published by InfoWorld.com. Read more of Bill Snyder's Tech's Bottom Line blog and follow the latest technology business developments at InfoWorld.com.
The Internet at Risk: A Return to the...