Print 67 comment(s) - last by Reclaimer77.. on Apr 5 at 11:10 AM

The FCC won't allow net neutrality to regulate the way companies like Netflix connect to the Internet

Netflix was hoping for an end to internet tolls by calling to expand the scope of net neutrality, but the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) isn't having any of it. 
According to National Journal, the FCC denied Netflix's call to expand net neutrality so that it covered companies and their methods of connecting to the internet. 
More specifically, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings wanted the FCC to regulate the way companies like Netflix connect to the internet so that they wouldn't have to pay tolls to other companies (like Comcast, for example) to make sure its video gets to customers quickly and without any issues. 
"Peering and interconnection are not under consideration in the Open Internet proceeding, but we are monitoring the issues involved to see if any action is needed in any other context," said an FCC spokesperson.
Netflix agreed last month to pay Comcast to ensure that its movies and TV shows stream easily without traffic jams on Comcast's broadband network. While it's not clear how much Netflix is paying Comcast, the new deal will span several years and Comcast said it would connect to Netflix's servers at data centers operated by other companies. 
But Netflix wanted this to be a one-time deal until it managed to push laws in place that eliminated these tolls. 

Having to pay Comcast means Netflix could end up having to pay tolls to other providers like Verizon and AT&T -- and there's no way these tolls come cheap. The streaming company already pays high prices for content licensing from content providers, and having this extra fee on the table (and potentially from many big cable companies) would really put a damper on Netflix's cash flow. 

"Some big [Internet service providers] are extracting a toll because they can—they effectively control access to millions of consumers and are willing to sacrifice the interests of their own customers to press Netflix and others to pay," said Hastings. 
"If this kind of leverage is effective against Netflix, which is pretty large, imagine the plight of smaller services today and in the future."

Big cable got even bigger this year when Comcast acquired Time Warner Cable (TWC) in February for $45.2 billion USD. Comcast has about 25 percent share of the broadband market while TWC controls around 12 percent. As far as the subscription cable TV market goes, Comcast currently controls roughly 19 percent and TWC controls around 9 percent. Together, the pair would control about a third of the markets (37 percent of broadband; 28 percent of cable TV). 

Source: National Journal

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By titanmiller on 4/1/2014 3:18:07 PM , Rating: 2
My parents live in the country. The VERY best broadband option is 3G service from Virgin Mobile. They have a grandfathered unlimited plan that gets 5GB at 1.5mbps (ideally) and then 128kbps until the end of the billing cycle. How is it that we have cities with 1gbps access and all of our rural areas are left with nothing. Google is talking about providing internet with helium third world countries. How about filling in the gaps in the USA first!

By 3DoubleD on 4/1/2014 4:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
But why should everyone else have to pay to deliver non-essential services to people who live way out in the middle-of-nowhere? They don't even deliver water or sewage to homes outside city limits.

Living in the country versus a city or town is a choice (maybe not an easy one, but no one is forcing anyone to live there). If people in the country want 1 gbps fiber, they could theoretically pay for someone to install the lines to their house to the nearest telco connection point. Honestly, if I lived in the country I'd actually consider it, although being completely disconnected would have it's own advantages.

By snyper256 on 4/3/2014 12:34:20 AM , Rating: 2
Internet should be considered a Human right.

By Reclaimer77 on 4/1/2014 4:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
How is it that we have cities with 1gbps access and all of our rural areas are left with nothing.

That's like asking why cities have 30+ Starbucks Coffee's and rural areas have none or maybe 1.

Honestly was this a rhetorical question?

By kingmotley on 4/1/2014 4:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
And if rural parts of the country were willing to pay to get it run, it would be. The cost per person is higher than they want to pay.

By BuddyRich on 4/1/2014 5:20:28 PM , Rating: 3
Except when municipality's do it on behalf of its citizens when a telecom company won't (because its not profitable), yet those same companies lobby and try to get state ordinances banning municipal broadband...

Apparently working together for the common good is bad or something.

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki