Post by gmandam on Jul 25, 2014 12:12:42 GMT -5
Even if broadband providers had an incentive to degrade their customers’ online experience in some circumstances, they have no practical ability to act on such an incentive. Today’s Internet ecosystem is dominated by a number of “hyper-giants” with growing power over key aspects of the Internet experience—including Google in search, Netflix and Google (YouTube) in online video, Amazon and eBay in e-commerce, and Facebook in social media.
If a broadband provider were to approach one of these hyper-giants and threaten to block or degrade access to its site if it refused to pay a significant fee, such a strategy almost certainly would be self-defeating, in light of the immediately hostile reaction of consumers to such conduct. Indeed, it is more likely that these large edge providers would seek to extract payment from ISPs for delivery of video over last-mile networks.
If a broadband provider were to approach one of these hyper-giants and threaten to block or degrade access to its site if it refused to pay a significant fee, such a strategy almost certainly would be self-defeating, in light of the immediately hostile reaction of consumers to such conduct. Indeed, it is more likely that these large edge providers would seek to extract payment from ISPs for delivery of video over last-mile networks.
So, in the world of the cable companies, art can threaten that which art resides upon. Almost as if effect can extract concessions from cause in their universe. Next up from them I expect them to argue that black is white, good is evil, surveillance is privacy.
Admittedly, they are in theory correct. It's possible for them to do so, but ironically the American system prevents such a thing by having duoplolies or monopolies. Their theory can only hold up in systems that operate in Europe, where it's easier for a consumer to swap over to another last mile provider but there's only one google or amazon. As I've yet to hear about about them doing so in Europe, so I can't help but think that such a system is unlikely to occur until any one site gains a much larger share. Something that's very hard to do in such a competitive market as the internet (second irony of the day, this is the very thing they are trying to get rid of).
Third irony of the day, they more or less make a net neutrality argument with such an example. Because net neutrality rules would prevent Netflix and Google from doing to them, what they are doing to Netflix and Google.
TL;DR: - By making something that sounds rational, but really isn't if you think about it longer than 5 seconds, the telecos are just bullshitting again trying to ruin the internet.