You are here
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2013-11-22 11:11
Kudos are due to FCC Chairman Wheeler for quickly announcing that “it is time to act with dispatch” on the IP transition, and putting that into swift action.
As the FCC refocuses on the IP transition, some important perspective is warranted.
First, the consumer-driven transition to IP in the marketplace is already three quarters complete.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2013-11-14 16:06
Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom Series
Part 1: Netflix' Glass House Temper Tantrum Over Broadband Usage Fees [7-26-11]
The Uneconomics of Data Cap Price Regulation and Legislation -- Part 14 Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom SeriesSubmitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2012-12-20 18:00
The latest attempts to subvert the competitive success of the current free market broadband Internet to advance the fantasy of abundance uneconomics and cost-less Internet commons is the New America Foundation's (NAF) white paper entitled: "Capping the Nation's Broadband Future? Dwindling competition is fueling the rise of increasingly costly and restrictive Internet usage caps;" and Senator Wyden's proposed "Data Cap Integrity Act" to have the FCC effectively price regulate broadband usage and ban traffic discrimination a la "net neutrality."
In a nutshell, the NAF paper argues competition, usage-based pricing and the profit motive ill-serve the broadband Internet consumer; thus the Government should prohibit the market-pricing model of broadband data caps.
In a nutshell, Senator Wyden's proposed legislation argues that broadband usage and tiered pricing harm consumers by discouraging Internet use, discriminating against high-bandwidth services, and inhibiting innovation because ISPs make money on heavy broadband usage. Thus the Government should price regulate competitive broadband companies to prevent extraction of "monopoly rents."
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2011-09-28 19:00
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-09-06 11:58
Netflix' continues to exhibit serious difficulties grasping basic economics, competition and value.
First, Netflix is lowering its value to customers.
Second, Netflix is shifting its costs to its customers.
Third, Netflix is chasing away the premium content its subscribers demand.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-07-26 17:44
Netflix continues to throw stones at the common economic practice of usage-based pricing, to which broadband carriers are naturally migrating, all while Netflix stands inside a glass house filled with mis-managed usage pricing practices.
Netflix as Stone Thrower:
In a concerted campaign for net neutrality regulation that would ban broadband usage caps or pricing, Netflix has generated a:
Netflix as Glass House:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2011-07-08 18:29
Netflix's General Counsel, David Hyman, hypocritically and deceptively blasted the broadband industry for its natural migration to usage-based bandwidth pricing in his fact-challenged WSJ op-ed: "Why Bandwidth Pricing is Anti-competitive."
First, it is both ironic and hypocritical that the largest subscription video provider in the United States by subscribers, Netflix, criticizes the normal economic practice of usage-based pricing as anti-competitive when other companies do it, when Netflix has long priced and capped its business offering based on consumer usage.
Mr. Hyman must have known Netflix would look self-serving and hypocritical if people knew:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2011-02-01 17:07
It appears as if Netflix' rocket stock and nosebleed market valuation has infected Netflix' CEO, Reed Hastings, with a bad bout of dot.com hubris fever complete with hallucinations that Netflix is somehow a needy online video provider entitled to new massive subsidies under the FCC's Open Internet order.
Alarm bells should be going off among Netflix' sophisticated shareholders.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2010-12-08 14:31
The extent to which Level 3's business is underwater is the untold story behind Level 3's regulatory "hail Mary" claim that its Internet peering dispute with Comcast is somehow a net neutrality violation.
Why is Level 3 seeking a de facto Internet regulation bailout from the FCC?
First, Level 3 is a financially-sinking business with no legitimate growth prospects.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2010-12-02 19:03
Level 3's bogus claim that longstanding Internet peering arrangements are now somehow a Comcast "toll booth" (at the very moment the FCC is proposing net neutrality rules), exposes the real hidden agenda behind many who claim to want net neutrality and an open Internet -- and that's the expectation of a free lunch.
Unlike the consensus around a net neutrality principle, which means no anti-competitive blocking of content or applications of a users' choosing, or no unreasonable discrimination, there is fierce controversy and opposition to unwarranted, unjustified and uneconomic Title II Internet regulation, where Government forces some to absorb the network costs legitimately created by others.
FreePress and the Open Internet Coalition are criticizing the FCC Chairman's proposed Title I approach as fake or not "real net neutrality."
Netflix is the quintessential example of this entitlement uneconomics view of the Title II Internet regulation crowd.