Net neutrality passes in landmark FCC decision

[CanadianLoonie]

[CanadianLoonie]

So apparently Netflix might have realized government-enforced Net Neutrality isn't such a good idea...

A top Netflix exec is probably wishing he'd stayed in bed.

The company's chief financial officer, David Wells, told an investor conference Wednesday that Netflix isn't "pleased" about the Federal Communications Commission's recent vote on net neutrality, which slapped strong new rules on Internet providers.

It's a shocking admission for a company that led the charge on aggressive regulations for Comcast, Verizon and other broadband companies. Last week, the FCC handed Web companies a big victory when it decided to regulate Internet providers under Title II of the Communications Act — just like legacy telephone companies.

Given how vocally Netflix was advocating for Title II, it's surprising to see Wells suddenly throwing the regulations under the bus, as Variety is reporting.

"Were we pleased it pushed to Title II? Probably not. We were hoping there would be a non-regulated solution," said Wells, according to Variety. (A recording of the call is forthcoming and will be posted here.)

Opponents of the FCC's net neutrality rules were quick to pounce.

"This must be a storyline for a very bad Netflix movie," said Randolph May, president of the Free State Foundation. "I don't know whether it's a comedy or a tragedy."

Out of context, Wells's quote certainly sounds damning on its own. But Netflix spokeswoman Anne Marie Squeo denied that Wells was actually condemning the strong measures.

"David was simply trying to convey the evolution in our thinking," said Squeo, "and give some sense of how our initial position evolved over time from an industry agreement to a regulatory solution."

In short, Netflix is trying to say that it's not turning its back on net neutrality. It's a tough argument to make, however, in the wake of pieces inGigaom and the Verge that highlight a controversial deal Netflix just struck in Australia. That deal appears to violate the spirit of net neutrality because it exempts Netflix from user data caps — a practice that the FCC has said it would look at askance here in the United States.

In response to charges of hypocrisy by the Verge, Squeo said other content companies in Australia commonly struck such deals.

"We won't put our new members at a disadvantage to those of rival services," said Squeo.

In some ways, the Australian data cap deal is not unlike the way Netflix held its nose and signed a set of paid agreements with Comcast, Verizon and other U.S. Internet providers last year, said a Netflix official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the terms of the deal were confidential.

"We don't endorse ISPs having data caps or zero-rating [exempting content from data caps for a fee], but what are you supposed to do? Not launch in Australia?" the official said.

Even if Netflix's argument is that it's simply playing by local rules, the whole situation looks pretty bad for Netflix politically.

Wells's remarks Wednesday don't help matters. They simply add to the impression that Netflix secretly doesn't like the FCC's net neutrality rules.

But it's important to keep in mind the bigger picture. Netflix spent months arguing before the FCC that the agency should use strong rules — such as Section 201, Section 202 and Section 208 of the Communications Act — to regulate Internet providers. It explicitly called for broadband companies to be regulated with the same law used to regulate legacy telephone service. To think that Netflix was up to some head-fake play here doesn't make much sense.

From my own reporting, it's clear Netflix much preferred that the private sector come up with a voluntary solution so that it didn't have to pay Comcast, Verizon and other Internet providers a fee to send its videos to consumers. What it really wanted was something called "settlement-free peering": The transfer of its content with no money changing hands.

When it realized that that wasn't going to happen, it lobbied the FCC for regulation.

So is Wells really displeased about Title II? Insofar as he wasn't able to get his ideal outcome (industry self-regulation), sure. But that probably doesn't mean Netflix is somehow opposed to Title II now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/03/04/netflix-tries-to-explain-its-apparent-sudden-flip-flop-on-net-neutrality/

[TOMapleLaughs]

That's not really a flip flop. And of course Netflix is interested about it's own profitability.

I believe the future will see a complete elimination of data caps. Technology will simply make today's concerns about as relevant as the horse and carriage.

[Dral]

WTF are you talking about? The left has been championing net neutrality for years now.

Like avelanch, I'm taken aback that there are people who are against net neutrality. I would hope there's a logical explanation, but I expect the same empty right wing rhetoric, "thanks Obama".

LoL - I had that same reaction for too many of the posters here.... we've gotta be being trolled

[CanadianLoonie]

That's not really a flip flop. And of course Netflix is interested about it's own profitability.

I believe the future will see a complete elimination of data caps. Technology will simply make today's concerns about as relevant as the horse and carriage.

Only if data-carriers see fit to invest in continued infrastructure improvements...what incentive would they do so with such restrictive government regulations in place?

[Dral]

Only if data-carriers see fit to invest in continued infrastructure improvements...what incentive would they do so with such restrictive government regulations in place?

Because those that don't will lose customers to those that do...

Aren't you supposedly a business owner?

[Hugor Hill]

You mean to tell me that a board of appointed (not elected) officials voted on and passed a 300+ page bill without releasing the bill to the public first? I guess they have to pass it to see what's in it... That sounds eerily familiar.

Just another day in this encroaching dictatorship here in the states.

I'm sure it was just a coincidence that the quislings in the media have been pushing the "the most dangerous weapon ISIS has is social media" story while this bill was in the spotlight. ISIS uses social media to recruit. Media runs with it and gets people scared. Net Neutrality (government takeover of the internet) is passed. 2 + 2 = 4. Classic case of fear mongering to gain support for a governments objective. One of the oldest tricks in the book.

"The medium is the message" ~ Marshall McLuhan. Those who control the medium (internet) control the message. This is legalized censorship in the works.

LOL!! You totally lost it!

Quality of Service (QoS), ever heard of it?

Perhaps someone would prefer to pay more for faster service, either on the content provider end or consumer end?

You mean a two-tiered system for the provider? No we don't want that. We embrace free market capitalism and fair competition. As for the consumer, you can pay more for faster service.

Interesting, because I see some having a daily sense of entitlement...

Fairness is not same as "entitled". Of course people who throw around the word 'entitlement' every time something doesn't go their way wouldn't actually know the difference between fair and entitlement.

You sure Netflix, Amazon, or Google were't lobbying against this?

They were. There are corporations out there we like, and then there are ISP's.

Only if data-carriers see fit to invest in continued infrastructure improvements...what incentive would they do so with such restrictive government regulations in place?

Provide a better service to beat out competition, I assume. That is assuming they are not in an oligopoly working with one an other carving out markets like drug cartels, which they are.

[CanadianLoonie]

Because those that don't will lose customers to those that do...

Government regulations have given us a de-facto cartel/oligopoly in the telco industry with high barriers to entry for new-comers so where are those customers going to go to...from one big restrictive network to another?

Aren't you supposedly a business owner?

Yes, and I've seen how an ISP is run and operated on a small scale so I have a bit of a clue on how things are like on the far side of the connection...

[Hugor Hill]

Government regulations have given us a de-facto cartel/oligopoly in the telco industry with high barriers to entry for new-comers so where are those customers going to go to...from one big restrictive network to another?

Yes, and I've seen how an ISP is run and operated on a small scale so I have a bit of a clue on how things are like on the far side of the connection...

That's a no.

[CanadianLoonie]

That's a no.

Don't you have taxes to pay?

[Hugor Hill]

Don't you have taxes to pay?

Yes I have seen how taxes are paid on a small scale so I have a clue on how the Canadian tax system works.

[vavoom]

Is CanadianLoonie trolling or just obtuse? What's so hard to understand here with net neutrality? As a consumer, you paid the a cable company to bring you the internet. The cable company then wants to decide what pieces of the internet you can access in an unimpeded fashion. Rules don't require require the cable company do anything really, just to honor the agreement of bringing the consumer the internet that they paid for.

[CanadianLoonie]

Is CanadianLoonie trolling or just obtuse? What's so hard to understand here with net neutrality? As a consumer, you paid the a cable company to bring you the internet. The cable company then wants to decide what pieces of the internet you can access in an unimpeded fashion. Rules don't require require the cable company do anything really, just to honor the agreement of bringing the consumer the internet that they paid for.

Over their network, their infrastructure, their interweb pipes that they invested the capital expenditure to build...aka their private property, subject to the terms and conditions of your service agreement.

What is so hard to understand about that?