Netflix

The Internet has long had multiple speeds. And it constantly gets faster speeds via technological and commercial innovation, competition, and investment.

The Internet also has long met people’s diverse needs, wants and means for speed, with different technologies, pricing, and content delivery methods, and it will continue to do so.

Net neutrality activists’ latest rhetoric that opposes the FCC’s court-required update of its Open Internet rules, by implying that there haven’t been “slow and fast lanes” on the Internet before, is obviously factually wrong and misleading, both for consumers receiving content and for entities sending content.

Many in the media have fallen for this mass “fast lane” deception without thinking or questioning it.

First, isn’t it odd that those who routinely complain that the Internet is not fast enough oppose genuine FCC efforts to make the Internet faster?

Moreover, isn’t it ironic that the net neutrality activists -- who have long criticized the FCC for the U.S. falling behind in the world in broadband speeds, and long advocated for municipalities to create giga-bit fast lanes for some communities -- vehemently oppose FCC efforts to create “faster lane” Internet for those entities that need it and are willing to pay for it?

Please don’t miss my new Daily Caller op-ed: “Online Video Competition’s Tipping Point Has Tipped.”

It pulls together how regulatory developments, much faster wireless networks, and several new entrants with deep pockets are converging to create a tipping point for over-the-top, online video competition.

It is Part 25 of my Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom series. 

***

Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom Series

Part 1: Netflix' Glass House Temper Tantrum Over Broadband Usage Fees [7-26-11]

Please don’t miss my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “Diverging US-EU Internet Trade Visions.”

It spotlights that starkly diverging US-EU net neutrality and data protection policies complicate negotiations for the nascent and pending Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) trade agreement.

This is Part 6 of my “World Changing the Internet” research series.

***

World Changing Internet Series

Billionaire Netflix CEO Reed Hastings objects to Netflix having to pay anything at all for Netflix’ gorging on 30% of the Internet’s North American bandwidth. In a Netflix corporate blogpost billionaire Reed Hastings rails against the perceived injustice of Netflix paying Internet usage-based pricing like consumers do.

At core, Mr. Hastings now derides traditional consumer-defined net neutrality, which ensures consumers the freedom to access the legal content of their choice – as “weak” net neutrality.

Meanwhile, he is attempting to rebrand his new self-serving, corporate-defined net neutrality, which ensures the largest corporate users of the Internet pay nothing for their largest usage of interconnection bandwidth -- as “strong” net neutrality.

Mr. Hastings’ position clearly prioritizes corporate welfare above consumer welfare.

Please see my latest Daily Caller op-ed: “The Narrowing Net Neutrality Dispute.”

• It puts the recent positive Netflix-Comcast IP interconnection agreement into the broader net neutrality context.

It is Part 24 of my Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom Series.  

***

Broadband Internet Pricing Freedom Series

Part 1: Netflix' Glass House Temper Tantrum Over Broadband Usage Fees [7-26-11]

Part 2: Netflix' Uneconomics [9-6-11]

Please view this four-minute video by Mike Wendy where I explain what to expect from the D.C. Court of Appeals decision in Verizon v. FCC.  

I explain:

• Why there won’t be much change for consumers as a result of the decision;
• Why Title II reclassification is very unlikely;
• Why neither side is likely to appeal to the Supreme Court; and

• Why there is a chance for more reasonable cost sharing of Internet infrastructure costs that would be to the benefit of consumers.

Thanks to Mike Wendy for the video.

Netflix’ defensive reaction to the Appeals Court Verizon v. FCC decision in its recent shareholder letter speaks volumes about Netflix’s unique and extraordinary net neutrality regulatory arbitrage. It also begs much more scrutiny.

This analysis exposes: how deceptive Netflix has been to its investors about its regulatory risk; how critical Netflix’ misrepresentation of net neutrality to investors has been to its entire economic model; and how relatively wasteful and irresponsible Netflix is in its utilization of the Internet’s bandwidth.

Yet another major obstacle to net neutrality activists’ call for the FCC to reclassify broadband as a common-carrier service is the President’s 2011 Executive Order on “Improving Regulation.”

By way of background, just weeks after the FCC passed its Open Internet Order (3-2) the President issued Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.”

Recently the leading public voice of Title II reclassification of broadband, Harvard Law Professor Susan Crawford, asserted “All the FCC has to do is change their mind and say, ‘We got it wrong.’ [The FCC] has ample political congressional authority to do that, this is just a political battle. The FCC is concerned that if it acts to carry out this administrative relabeling, it will lose half its budget and half its staff.”

The FCC did not get it wrong. Professor Crawford and supporters of reclassification have it all wrong.  

There are three key problems with Professor Crawford’s reclassification position:

For those who want to hear some of the best arguments and rebuttals for/against Title II reclassification of broadband, please listen to the 13 minute back-and-forth between Professor Susan Crawford and I today.

• Harvard Law Professor Crawford is the leading proponent for common carrier regulation of broadband.
• Click here for the audio stream.

It’s a good precursor of the debate ahead. 

• It is also part 8 of my Title II Reclassification Research Series

Title II Reclassification Series