Commentary
Franken Asks Netflix To Weigh In On Comcast-Time Warner Deal
- by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, April 16, 2014
Netflix recently agreed to pay Comcast an interconnection fee, which allows the video rental company to connect directly to Comcast's servers.
That deal allows Netflix's movies to be delivered significantly faster than in the past to Comcast's subscribers. But Netflix's CEO Reed Hastings has made it clear that he's not happy with the deal. He recently complained to the Federal Communications Commission that “strong” net neutrality rules would prohibit Internet service providers from charging separate interconnection fees to companies such as Netflix or intermediaries, like Cogent, Akamai or Level 3. “The essence of net neutrality is that ISPs such as AT&T and Comcast don't restrict, influence or otherwise meddle with the choices consumers make,” he wrote.
Now, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) -- among the most visible opponents of Comcast's proposed acquisition of Time Warner -- is asking Hastings to express his concerns to the Senate. “As a popular provider of Internet content that competes directly with Comcast, Netflix is uniquely positioned to gauge the risks posed by the deal,” Franken writes.
He goes on to ask Hastings whether he believes that a merger between the two cable companies will increase Comcast's ability to “extract payments from non-affiliated entities as a condition of access to Comcast's broadband Internet consumers.”
Franken also takes the opportunity to criticize interconnection agreements, arguing that they can harm both consumers and content producers. “My understanding is that Comcast's consumers and the press documented problems streaming Netflix videos over Comcast's broadband networks and that Netflix ultimately had to pay Comcast an undisclosed sum to resolve the issue,” he writes. “If incidents like this become the norm -- as I fear is more likely if Comcast is allowed to acquire Time Warner Cable -- it would have serious implications for consumers.”
Franken goes on to predict that the increased costs will make it harder for new content producers to reach consumers. What's more, he says, those costs will probably be passed on to consumers. He adds that if Comcast can throttle traffic, it will be able “to undermine consumers' viewing options, steering them from competitors' offerings to its own.”
Wendy Davis is a Senior Writer at MediaPost. You can reach Wendy at wdavis@mediapost.com
Yes, because as Sen. Franken knows, the economic cost of delivering a 1080p video stream is exactly the same as delivering email.
What a load of merde.
Comcast is no more inappropriately "throttling traffic" than it is killing sparrows. When thousands of people in a headend turn on their Netflix at approximately the same time, you're going to get network congestion. And as a network provider, you're entitled to allocate bandwidth to support all classes of users, so the video users don't slow the web experience to a crawl.
If lawmakers and the publishing industry want to prevent carriers from abusing content providers, the definition of "Net Neutrality" should be "your video bits shall not be prioritized over my video bits". But instead of adopting that definition, the loonies insist on a much more arcane process that is more of a scorecard than a lucid description. Why do they do this? As far as I can tell, this tactic allows lobbyists to milk the situation. I say it's high time to agree on a simple, easy-to-understand definition.
It doesn't take a merger to harm consumers. It only takes the already monopolistic behavior of carriers today. We are already to the point where ISPs need to be treated as common carriers and the price of service pushed down to a reasonable $5.99/month for 1GB bandwidth. When the current players don't want to play then nationalize them and immediately privatize them again.