4 ms·
Absolutely not. Data carriers should not be able to supply any content over its pipes. There is already precedent restricting vertical integration -- see the Un
by jallmann 15y ago
Absolutely not. Data carriers should not be able to supply any content over its pipes. There is already precedent restricting vertical integration -- see the United States v. Paramount Pictures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pict...).
That would also seemingly invalidate most of the cable TV industry, but in that case, you're arguably paying for the TV feed (which just happens to be carried over cable), rather than the cable itself (which is what you pay for with Internet access). Same argument applies to the public switched telephone network. You're paying for voice service, not the infrastructure; that is why 'data' is a separate line item on your cellular bill.
- rabidsnail 15y agoVerizon already provides cable TV service.
- jallmann 15y agoAnd? As I said -- when you pay for cable TV, you're paying for the TV feed. Netflix is VOD carried over IP. The power company doesn't try to sell you energy-guzzling AC units.
- sukuriant 15y agoHonestly, I don't see the difference between Cable (video not-so-on-demand) over the FiOS wires and Video on Demand over an IP over the FiOS wires.
- jallmann 15y agoIgnoring the huge technical differences, it boils down to net neutrality. Other services could be throttled in favor of Verizon's, much as the carriers were screeching over VoIP apps few years ago.
- sukuriant 15y agoHow is that different from throttling all content-over-ip services in favor of their television service? I still don't see how, with regard to the grandparent's post, providing TV and on demand streaming is different.
- jallmann 15y agoThey already throttle, to some extent. Bandwidth and speed caps, which may or may not apply to a Verizon-owned Netflix. Then things like preferential QoS come into the picture. Also see the peripheral dispute between Level3 and Comcast, due to the bandwidth imposed by Netflix. I reckon things will get worse before they get better as more people start cutting all cords except for the Internet. I don't need phone service, I don't need TV. But I need the Internet. I would prefer if my ISP were simply an ISP (then it could compete solely on the merits ISPs should be judged by), but I will not tolerate it if they try to interfere with my access by squeezing more dollars out of me for services I'd rather get elsewhere.
- yuhong 15y ago>you're arguably paying for the TV feed (which just happens to be carried over cable), rather than the cable itself (which is what you pay for with Internet access). Same argument applies to the public switched telephone network. The main thing being that the associated transmission lines is is intended only to transmit a single type of data. Anyway, I hope the DOJ pays attention.
- jpdoctor 15y ago> Data carriers should not be able to supply any content over its pipes. So is Google not carrying data during its data rollout? or is search not content?
- jallmann 15y agoIMO, that would be questionable in the long term. From what I understand, Kansas City is a network testbed, a novelty in Google's business portfolio. There is no reason to invest in a multi-city network unless it directly supplements G's core business (search, ads) in a big way.
- jpdoctor 15y agoSo as long as content adds network as novelty, it's ok. How about when network as novelty? Is that also ok? You might as well face the issue: Google is exploring vertical integration, as are others.
- malkia 15y agoWould that be similar to the fact that AT&T was not able to sell UNIX back in the days? (Some kind of deal with the goverment to retain monopoly, but not go into different markets)