[PLUG-TALK] Netflix neutrality
Paul Heinlein
heinlein at madboa.com
Mon Mar 2 17:51:12 UTC 2015
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, Keith Lofstrom wrote:
> The airlines are a common carrier. But they won't let me bring
> along my car as luggage. Streaming movies is like moving a car
> compared to moving a purse - gigabits of data compared to the
> kilobits this email uses.
>
> What Hollywood and Netflix are asking for, and what the politicians
> want to give them, is displacing millions of purses so they can move
> thousands of cars.
OK, I'll bite.
Where is it written that sending e-mail is a more appropriate use of
network bandwidth than sending video content?
Without disagreeing with the obvious assertion that video consumes
more bandwidth than e-mail, I'd ask, so what?
How would you react to early pioneers in the realm of electrical
engineering complaining about, say, modern hospitals (they consume way
too much electricity!) while subtly asserting that, really, powering
lightbulbs is the most appropriate use of electrical bandwidth?
I know what I'd say: we've improved and magnified the infrastructure
that provides electrical power, and our uses of it have changed
accordingly.
I'd say the same thing about video over the Internet. We've moved way
past 1994. We aren't running 14.4 modems to ISPs connected to each
other via T1 lines. Our network infrastructure has improved and grown,
and our uses of it have changed accordingly. (That fact that *some*
people still rely on slow connections shouldn't obscure the reality
that broadband is readily available to a large percentage of
Americans.)
We can debate the pros and cons of those changes, but I would not take
seriously anyone whose debating stance was that last year's network
infrastructure should govern this year's network usage. As the
infrastructure grows, its usage changes.
> Netflix wants to feed impulsive customers who demand instant
> gratification. Hollywood doesn't want you to have a stored copy
> (like this email you are reading) on your computer hard drive, just
> a few buffered frames in your RAM. This is an expensive abuse of a
> limited-bandwidth packet network designed for different purposes.
Or, somewhat differently, this is a pragmatic response by people who
make their living producing entertainment to the threat of their
handiwork being stolen. (Dehumanizing all the people who make their
living in the entertainment field by labeling them as "Hollywood" is a
cheap rhetorical trick.)
Frankly, I like the subscription model much better than the purchasing
model. Most shows I like to watch once, perhaps twice. I have no
interest whatsoever in owning it on DVD. Subscribing to a service
meets my needs much better -- so the free market is doing its job.
> Want to displace thousands of political discussions and muzzle
> individual free speech so vidiots can watch the latest action movie?
I suspect this is at the moral heart of your argument, but the
discussion of the merits of trivial vs. political speech is something
different than that about network neutrality.
Disgust with panem et circenses has a long and noble history, and is a
debate worth having -- but on its own terms, not under the cover of
another issue.
--
Paul Heinlein
heinlein at madboa.com
45°38' N, 122°6' W
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list