-------- ISPs make completely arbitrary decisions about how much of their overall bandwidth is devoted to their own content offerings vs. the bandwidth made available to general-purpose Internet services (e.g. DOCSIS in the case of cable).
In both situations these days (VOD/PPV vs. Internet) the video is all in the form of MPEG data streams. For services like AT&T U-verse, there isn't even a real channel distinction. Despite attempts at artificial circuit virtualizing, everything in U-verse is effectively riding the same DSL-based data channels. It's true that data transiting to or from beyond the ISP network may be associated with higher costs. But since most ISPs consider their topology and cost structures to be proprietary, and there is obviously a lack of significant public oversight, we simply *don't know* what's really going on from a cost standpoint. We can't judge whether ISPs are allocating bandwidth and setting caps based on sound and fair criteria, or if they're engaging in calculated efforts in such allocation and caps decisions to make outside services uneconomical through anticompetitive practices that skew subscriber choices. ISPs aren't like other content services. They are also the only gateways -- and in most areas of the U.S. the competitive choices in this regard are very limited -- that users have to access the rest of the Internet. The combination of ISPs treating their operations as proprietary, while also demanding to operate without significant regulatory oversight, is unacceptable in the context of primary last-mile access services in an oligarchical environment. In plain English, when you own one of the few roads in or out of town and charge the public to use it, you take upon yourself special responsibilities to be transparent, fair, and responsive to public policy concerns, either voluntarily or (ultimately) by edict. --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator - - - > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > This is of course in direct competition with ISP PPV movie offerings, but > > unlike ISP-provided content, *will* count against the bandwidth caps and > > limits determined by the ISPs themselves. > > There is a lot of comparing apples-to-oranges in this statement. > > For one thing, Cable ISPs like Comcast use different bands (specifically, > DTV spectrum) for PPV and on-demand, which don't compete with IP traffic > for bandwidth. Also, the ISPs have a natural advantage in that they > can deliver content from within their own local networks and so don't > have to pay the backbone providers for the cost of transporting that > much traffic. > > Are you saying that companies who have invested in local infrastructure > should be prevented from using it to deliver video because it unfairly > competes with Internet companies who haven't? Or that video delivery > from places like Netflix should be exempt from bandwidth caps and limits > just because it happens to be the same type of content the ISP provides? > > This is a very slippery slope. If you really want network neutrality then > video content is no different than text when calculating usage against > caps and limitations, regardless of the ISP's other businesses. > > john- > >
