Carriers Hate Network Neutrality Because They Want to Double-Dip Revenue
Submitted: May 13, 2010 - 2:34pm
Originally published: May 13, 2010
Last updated: May 13, 2010 - 2:35pm
Originally published: May 13, 2010
Last updated: May 13, 2010 - 2:35pm
Source:
CBS Interactive
Author:
Erik Sherman
Why don't telephone and cable companies like network neutrality? Is it the lack of control over networks? Not a chance. This is a fight all about money and how many times the industry can charge for what is essentially the same service.
Telecommunications is a great bastion of financial double-dipping. When carriers say that they need control over their networks, they really mean they want the freedom to charge companies fees for access to their networks. When a company like Google transmits a lot of data into a network, it's because users on that network have requested the data. Those users pay their telecommunications carriers for both the traffic they send and what they receive. So a large traffic creator either pays a carrier on its end or, like Google, essentially pays for its own connections into the infrastructure. The user's carrier charges the user for the traffic received and, presumably, structures rates to pay for its operations, support, and to have enough money left over for profit. Trying to charge a company on the far end is simply trying to get paid twice for the same traffic: double-dipping.
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Ratings
Recommendation:
Informative:
Accuracy:
Login to rate this headline.
Comments
I really do think the FCC should classify Internet access as a communications service as opposed to an "information service." I see an "information service" as a publisher that compiles information and delivers it to the client, just as a newspaper does, or perhaps even cable television (since a CATV supplier selects which channels it is to deliver). Internet access, however, is purely the transmission of data with no "publisher" duties.
Looking at the "double dip" issue, of course ISP clients should be charged for the bandwidth they use. If they choose to watch lots of video, they should pay more than someone who doesn't. The video provider should pay for its access to the network, but not for the customer's end of the network.
It IS interesting, however, to compare Internet delivery to the switched voice network and its regulation. We don't want the ISP to favor its favorite content provider over others. But, looking at telephone, we DO allow telephone companies to favor one "content provider" over others through the use of 800 and other toll free numbers. While the transmission quality is not better, the customer is not charged for the call. In an Internet application of the 800 number, ISPs might charge end users for bandwidth consumed, but may also provide an "800 service" where they charge the (say) video provider for the bandwidth instead of charging the end user. In telephone, this is not "double dipping" since both ends of the conversation are not charged. It might be argued, though, that ISPs should be able to offer a very low cost limited bits per month service but allow "favored" content providers (those that pay the ISP, same as the owner of an 800 number paying a telephone company) to deliver unlimited content without impacting the user's bit per month limit.
So... does this parallel make any sense? How does it affect network neutrality?
Harold
FCC Rules updated daily at http://www.hallikainen.com .