Michael's Insight

Just as I thought...give 'em as much as they use!

I mentioned yesterday that I was suspicious of Robb Topolski's definition of acceptable network management practices.  Well, just as I suspected, Robb justified my concern right here in a comment to my post yesterday.

Yes, I approve of Network Management – the old fashioned kind – the kind that says you stay ahead of demand by upgrading your networks on time and you don’t oversell your bandwidth beyond all reasonableness. 

Willner's epic distortions? Hardly the case.

In a recent post, I mentioned to you that I was in Washington last week.  Little did I know that my efforts would cause a Defcon 5 call-to-action by the P2P Defense League.

I met with officials at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to discuss the issue of network management.  One aspect of that discussion included the impact today's peer-to-peer applications have on network resources. After reading the ex parte letter that was filed by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) on my behalf, Karl at Broadband Reports took issue with some of the comments I made during those meetings.

If you want to read the whole thing, you can download a copy of the ex parte letter.

You can read for yourself what Karl wrote in its entirety but first, here's a longish summary of what NCTA reported that I said...

The truth about net neutrality and the big money behind it

Finally, a truthful article was published on Wednesday about the little known fact of who really invented the debate about net neutrality.  When you finish here, click on it -- it's a must read.  The story was published in a most unlikely place too - The San Francisco Enquirer - the big hometown newspaper serving the Silicon Valley.  And guess who they identify as the inventor of this hot political debate...

Initially, network neutrality was the demand that network carriers ignore the Internet's fundamental inequality. Google had good reason to advocate this, because it is advantaged by a status quo in which money buys privilege. Any move by carriers to selectively boost speeds for fees dulls the advantage Google has secured for itself by building huge complexes of hundreds of thousands of computers.

There you have it.  Net neutrality, and all the puff about fairness, equality and openness is all about "money buy[ing] privilege."  And this time, I didn't say it, Google's own hometown paper did.

Bad news for consumers as a-la-carte lawsuit proceeds

A federal lawsuit challenging cable operators and programmers on the issue of a-la-carte programming has managed to rise from the dead, as a Los Angeles-based federal judge has is allowing the case to proceed after originally dismissing it. Multichannel News recently reported that District Judge Christina Snyder ruled late last month that the case would move forward.

Snyder had originally dismissed the plaintiffs case against several cable operators and programmers in March, but later reinstated it after they amended their claims.

Judge Christina Snyder, in a June 25 ruling, decided that the cable operators, direct-broadcast satellite companies and studios that were sued had not proved their arguments. Those companies alleged that the lawsuit, filed on antitrust grounds, did not adequately demonstrate that consumers were injured by the business practices of the defendants. In written and oral arguments on June 16, they also questioned the standing of the consumers to sue.

Attention all blog readers! You must see this!!

I think this may be a first in the Blogosphere.  It's a front row seat to a debate between two top level telecommunications policy leaders. It was so good and so timely, I couldn't wait until Monday.

In this corner (wearing the white hat) ;-) is Kyle McSlarrow, President and CEO of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.  And in that corner (wearing the black hat) is Tom Tauke, Executive Vice President - Public Affairs, Policy and Communications for Verizon. 

I posted a link to the debate below but first, a brief explanation. 

Confessions of a Network Manager (Part 2)

I promised more on Network Management following my Part 1 post a few weeks ago.  Today, I'd like to discuss downstream management.

Why Do We Have to Manage Downstream Usage?

We, at Insight, go to great lengths to handle network management fairly.  We recognize that the Internet is a shared network, and that all network managers, ISP's and backbone providers alike, first should provision responsibly and then make sure their networks don't get clogged up. 

A New ISP Business Model

Argo recently asked,

(Why shouldn't) a cable company offer a platform to other media outfits and charge them for maintenance and overhead rather pass that cost to customers."

Great question! 

Let's look at one example of a new business model. 

Netflix recently announced a set-top box to deliver movies directly to a set-top box via the Inernet. It's a very exciting idea that adds great value to their service and they will save a ton of money in postage, a good thing for them. 

Their plan will use an enormous amount of Internet bandwidth which can cause additional congestion along the way.  To prevent this from happening, ISP's and Internet backbone suppliers provision for increases in usage. 

Confessions of a Network Manager (Part 1)

Okay, I confess.  It's true.  I'm a network manager.  I manage networks.  Not directly, but I approve policies that authorize our technical people to do just that.  I can't help myself.  There, I said it.

What is network management?

Simply put, network management is a series of rules that network managers put in place to ensure the smooth operation of their networks, thus maximizing customers' experiences.  I'm not sure why, but network management has become a debate. 

Why do we do this?

Cable A-La-Carte - A Great Idea, or Is It?

I know it sounds like a great idea to offer all the cable networks individually and to allow consumers to pick and choose the ones they want. 

But is it really? 

I have no doubt that consumers will suffer if cable operators, by law, had to offer their channels a-la-carte.  It sounds good at first but, when consumers face the reality of their new choices, they will discover that they are facing the prospect of having to choose far fewer channels than they have today or pay much, much more for them.

Why?