[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