Since November 30th, Level 3 has made five filings in the FCC’s Open Internet Proceeding in which it raised “net neutrality” concerns about the agreement it had previously reached to purchase connectivity from Comcast. Yesterday, Level 3’s CEO sent another letter to the FCC and the Department of Justice in which he urged the FCC to consider regulating broadband Internet access providers generally to deal with its concerns. The fact that Level 3 did not file its latest letter in the Open Internet docket (such a filing would be prohibited under the FCC’s sunshine rules) may indicate that Level 3 has abandoned its frivolous net neutrality claims.
In any case, this is a pretty remarkable call for regulation of Internet interconnection arrangements that have worked remarkably well without regulation. To try to justify this unprecedented regulatory intervention, Level 3 says that, absent regulation, ISPs can “coerce payments from broadband backbone and independent content providers” thanks to their “dominant control over access to their subscriber’s eyes and ears.”
Wait a minute. Up until now, last-mile ISPs have mostly been buyers rather than sellers of Internet interconnection services. If you ask me, there’s not much crazier in business than buying something that you could, according to Level 3, be selling. Apparently, ISPs have run up billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses that, in fact, could have been revenue. I understand how the buy/build dilemma works, but buy/sell seems like a no-brainer.
Unless, just maybe, Level 3 has left something out. What could it be? Here’s a thought. Perhaps Level 3 doesn’t think Comcast should be able to decide for itself, as every ISP always has, how to provision its transit needs. Up until now, the Internet has been a best effort environment, where no provider can guarantee performance on another provider’s network. Could it be that Level 3 has made a service level commitment to a customer (like Netflix) on the assumption that it could procure, at no charge, however much connectivity it might need from every ISP in the country to deliver on that commitment?
If that’s what’s going on here, Level 3 should come right out and say so. Without some explanation of why Level 3 does not simply require Comcast to access this content through Comcast’s transit arrangements, this controversy doesn’t make sense. And if Level 3 does need this connectivity to deliver on a commitment to its customer, why is it good public policy for the government to coerce other ISPs into providing it for free?
It is pretty obvious why ATT supports Comcast because you stand to lose some of your TV customers just like Comcast if they switch to IP TV. I have never been a fan of anyone being able to control whatever I want to watch when I want to watch it and how I want to watch it.
Netflix is a competitor to AT&T just like it is to Comcast so it’s no surprise that T is taking on this view.
The bottom line is that if Comcast or AT&T customer request Netflix content, then Level 3 shouldn’t be the one paying for it. Either Comcast needs to raise it’s rates for it’s customers, quit providing unlimited access for it’s customers, or eat the cost of building a network that can support the content it’s customers are requesting.
Comcast is trying to charge Level 3 for Comcast’s customer usage which is ridiculous. And it makes sense that, since Netflix IP TV and movies compete directly with Comcast Cable and AT&T U-verse offerings, why these two content providers masking as ISPs would try to make it difficult for the content to be provided.
Go Level 3 and Go Netflix!
The double standard on broadband classification has to end. For the purposes of government surveillance and wiretapping broadband is considered a telecommunications service but since the Bush Cheney Administration first entered The White House the FCC has considered broadband a Title I information service (after previously being classified a telecommunications service in the Clinton Gore years) what is needed now is FCC reclassification under Title II and they can exempt broadband providers from the line sharing and price control rules but use Title II for Net Neutrality.
The real reason we need Net Neutrality as President Obama once said as a candidate for office “I will take a back seat to no one in my commitment to Network Neutrality because once service providers begin to prioritize some websites or content over others smaller voices get squeezed out.” Corporations like AT&T should not be able to pick winners and losers — decide who gets to compete and innovate on the Internet. We need a participatory open Internet that enables free flow of information, communication, and commerce and rules to stop big companies from using their size and influence to discriminate.
In fact these rules should also apply to mobile broadband providers and wireless services as we should have equal opportunities online and open access for everyone regardless of how we connect to the Internet.
It is worth noting some of these big telecom companies who claim we should be able to do whatever we want with our private networks took Universal Service Funds (USF) funds to build their networks and have an obligation to use the money transparently and to provide open access to their services.
Also it is clear that Comcast is using extortion against Netflix by demanding these fees from Level 3. They want to make it harder for their cable TV customers with Internet to switch to cheaper Internet Protocol Television services enabling a la carte access to video programming as opposed to the force fed bundles pay TV providers force on their customers that have become more and more expensive each year because of new retransmission agreements. They want to inconvenience anyone trying to switch to a more affordable IPTV service and keep us locked to expensive digital cable TV bundles.
What is at&t’s view on the applicability of COBAK (Central Office Bill-and-Keep), as articulated by FCC Economist Pat deGraba to this debate? I recal that at7t generally suppoorted bill-and-keep; why is this differnet? (deGraba’s paper can be found here: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OPP/working_papers/oppwp33.pdf