Comments Off

Pai challenges the notion of government providing a free, open internet

Federal Communications Commission chairman Ajit Pai today laid out his vision for removing broadband access from under Title II regulations imposed in 2015 by a 3-2 Democratic majority on the Commission.  Two decades prior to the Commission’s net neutrality order that imposed Title II regulations, the internet was already free and open. Companies such as Google, Facebook, and Netflix came into being under a non-Title II regime. Title II was an archaic regulation designed in the 1930s for plain old telephone services.

Title II boiled down to a solution in search of a problem, Mr Pai further argued. Rather than energizing a demoralized Democratic Party base licking its wounds from the butt hurt of the 2014 mid term elections, Former president Barack Obama and the rest of his Title II proponents wound up disincentiving $5.1 billion in capital investment and dissuaded companies to not hire or lay off 75,000 to 100,000 laborers.

What particularly caught my attention in Mr Pai’s remarks was his highlighting the belief that Title II proponents have about government and freedom, namely that government was going to guarantee freedom on the internet. A close read of the American Constitution tells you that its framers were concerned about the natural propensity of government to squash freedom. This is why the document put in place checks and balances against attempts to usurp power over individuals. Net neutrality opponents and members in Congress who support continued imposition of the rules confuse “rights” with “freedom.” The rights issued by government are permission slips that say “a person can be, but only up to the limits we allow them to be” versus freedom which is innate.

This is not to say that freedom doesn’t have its limits. You can’t just violate another person’s spectrum without facing the consequences that result from moving into another person’s space. But how those consequences are managed should be left up to the individuals or in the case of broadband, the broadband access providers and their customers. Allow customers and access providers to define the limits, terms, and consequences of their relationship, including price and type of service. In the 21st century, this type of strategic partnership between customer and access provider is very possible.

Comments Off

Any regulation of zero rating is unnecessary market interference

Members of the wireless industry got together yesterday in Washington, D.C. to debate what the Federal Communications Commission’s next move on zero rating ought not to be. Inside Sources reported that the wireless confab included T-Mobile, Verizon, Facebook, and other parties. Zero rating allows wireless services subscribers to access certain content providers without that access being charged against the consumer’s data plan. T-Mobile’s “Binge-On” service is a recently deployed example of this type of service.

Pro-net neutrality groups like Free Press, Public Knowledge, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation believe that zero rating violates the Commission’s open internet order by throttling data streams while favoring certain content providers over other providers.  For example, under 47 CFR 8.7, a person engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service shall not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.

One issue will be whether a service like “Binge-On” actually throttles traffic pursuant to this rule. The Commission so far has opted to a light touch approach to zero rating-type services, which wireless carriers have likened to 800-number services where the 800-number customer or its telephone service provider ate the cost of a long distance call from a customer. The Commission should find that there is no throttling because treatment of data traffic will be the same for all content providers, whether access to their content is done via “Binge-On” or not. The Commission’s political constraints go beyond the letter of their rules.

The Commission has been fervent about its clear and fair “rules of the road”; that all traffic be treated equally, that it may not want to rock the boat with the pro-net neutrality posse or their alleged four million post-card writing supporters. There is a chance that the Commission may opt for the safety of saying no to “Binge-On” with the claim that its best to err on the side of caution and avoid having its net neutrality rules go sliding down a slippery slope.

A call against “Binge-On” and other zero rating services is a strike against investor interests especially for investors in smaller carriers like T-Mobile. If T-Mobile is to acquire more market share it will do so with bolder offerings like “Binge-On.” The service appears to be an effective way for promoting the company’s other offerings, so much so that T-Mobile is finding that some customers, having had free access to participating websites are opting for additional and more expensive service. If there is an opportunity for government to show how anti-investor some policies can be, treating zero rating as anti-net neutrality would be one of them.

Comments Off

How can the FCC help expand the broadband economy

Yesterday Michael O’Rielly provided a definition of the internet economy during remarks made before the Internet Innovation Alliance.

“Here is a simple truth.  The Internet thrives today on aggregating information for the purposes of increasing advertising revenues and the use of data analysis for multiple purposes.  Data and advertising are why Internet-related companies are valued so highly by investors and Wall Street, and why those companies that cannot monetize such activities face harsh realities and uncertain futures.”

In other words, regulators need to understand that the commercial internet is an infrastructure that facilitates data trade and that the regulations they implement can limit the type of data collected over the internet by internet-related companies.  Broadband operators are involved in this data trade.  For example, Comcast collects non-personally identifiable data that they may share with third-parties for the purpose of targeting advertisement.  This non-personally identifiable data may include IP and HTTP header information; a consumer’s device address; a consumer’s web browser; or a consumer’s operating system when using Comcast’s web services.  Where a Comcast subscriber is trying to personalize the use of Comcast’s web services, the consumer may provide to the broadband provider for storage the consumer’s zip code, age, or gender information.

The competition that gets ignored by regulators is the competition broadband providers face in the capture and sale of consumer data.  This competition includes cloud storage companies, content creators, and app developers.  It also includes companies in the internet, publishing, and broadcasting industry with familiar names like Facebook, Google, and Yahoo. According to Hoover’s, these companies publish content online or operate websites that guide information consumers to the content they are seeking.

Demand for this industry’s services is driven by consumer or business needs for information and other forms of content. Profit is created when these companies deliver relevant information to consumers while offering advertisers a targeted audience.  According to Hoover’s, sales of online advertisements account for just over half of U.S. industry revenue with 75% of advertising revenue coming from search and display advertising formats.

Comcast was hoping to make major inroads into advertising with its proposed acquisition of Time Warner.  Writing for Adage.com in February 2014, Jeanine Poggi wrote:

“Assuming the deal is approved, however, it will make Comcast become a more important partner for advertisers, said Ken Doctor, affiliate analyst, Outsell. Its expanded role as both a content producer and content distributor will make it all the more competitive for ad dollars with companies like Yahoo, AOLGoogle, and Facebook. “It will become more of an ad competitor as selling of TV [and] digital inventory blurs,” he said.”

Writing further, Ms. Poggi points out that:

“A merged Comcast reaching 30 million U.S. households, along with the national reach of DirecTV and Dish Network, creates an alternative to buying national advertising from the TV networks, said Jason Kanefsky, exec VP-strategic investments, Havas Media.”

Unfortunately for Comcast investors, the Federal Communications Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice bought into the pseudo net neutrality argument pushed by grassroots groups and Netflix that mergers such as Comcast and Time Warner would somehow thwart the average man’s ability to express themselves online and that a larger Comcast would be a detriment to competition in broadband access.  Allowing the merger it appears would have given advertisers, from large corporations to small entrepreneurs, alternatives for online advertising.  The economies of scale that a Comcast-Time Warner marriage would have produced may have lead to lower advertising rates especially for smaller companies.  The FCC’s new Title II rules for broadband companies may only serve to further foreclose such scale.

The issue is, under the current rules and statutes, should broadband providers be prohibited for sharing data with advertisers or other third-parties seeking to target ads at a broadband provider’s subscribers?  I believe the answer is no and investors should lobby the FCC to ensure that no such rules are drafted.

47 CFR 8 of the FCC’s rules for protecting the open internet provides no explicit prohibition on a broadband operator providing third-parties with subscriber data that could be used to deliver advertisement.  Section 8.11 of the rules, in my opinion, gives broadband operators an argument for providing customer data to third-parties, particularly edge providers.  Specifically, the rule says:

“Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.”

Section 222 of the Communications Act does not expressly prohibit use of consumer information for advertising purposes, but given that the statute is written for telecommunications companies, Congressional action would be needed to amend the section with language that reflects how broadband and other internet companies use consumer information.

If the FCC wants to help expand the broadband economy, it will have to persuade Congress to make these language changes lest leave investors in a state of uncertainty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments Off

Is FCC net neutrality policy forcing investors to play broadband providers off of video streaming services?

Do we regulate vans when used to deliver newspapers to grocery stores or pharmacies?  Do we ask grocery stores or pharmacies to disclose the contracts they enter into for displaying The Wall Street Journal or People Magazine on their shelves?  Renting a van to deliver magazines or striking placement deals with grocery stores and pharmacies is the cost of doing business that magazines and newspapers incur when distributing their product and I don’t see why online content providers like Netflix should avoid the same costs of business under a disingenous practice of open internet or net neutrality.

The Federal Communications Commission so far has successfully skirted this argument, having phrased net neutrality as a consumer’s rights issue versus what it truly is: a cost-of-doing business issue for content providers who would rather not pay Comcast, Verizon, or Time Warner a fee to interconnect opting instead for a “bill and keep” scenario.  But like any other media company, Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon should be responsible for putting together their own content production and distribution network.

On the content side these companies will hire their own staff to create content in-house or hire a production company to provide them a set amount of programming.  They will, in the case of movies or television, pay licensing fees that enable them to re-broadcast a television or theatrical production.

The distribution side is trickier.  Netflix depends on mid-mile providers like Cogent and last mile providers like Comcast to connect their content to final end-users or consumers.  To keep these distribution costs low, Netflix would prefer to interconnect at no costs with last-mile providers. In its latest 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Netflix describes risks related to its relationship with last-mile providers:

“We rely upon the ability of consumers to access our service through the Internet. To the extent that network operators implement usage based pricing, including meaningful bandwidth caps, or otherwise try to monetize access to their networks by data providers, we could incur greater operating expenses and our member acquisition and retention could be negatively impacted. Furthermore, to the extent network operators create tiers of Internet access service and either charge us for or prohibit us from being available through these tiers, our business could be negatively impacted.
Most network operators that provide consumers with access to the Internet also provide these consumers with multichannel video programming. As such, many network operators have an incentive to use their network infrastructure in a manner adverse to our continued growth and success. For example, Comcast exempted certain of its own Internet video traffic (e.g., Streampix videos to the Xbox 360) from a bandwidth cap that applies to all unaffiliated Internet video traffic (e.g., Netflix videos to the Xbox 360).
While we believe that consumer demand, regulatory oversight and competition will help check these incentives, to the extent that network operators are able to provide preferential treatment to their data as opposed to ours or otherwise implement discriminatory network management practices, our business could be negatively impacted. In some international markets, these same incentives apply however, the consumer demand, regulatory oversight and competition may not be as strong as in our domestic market.”

The irony of Netflix’s statement on the threats broadband operators impose on their streaming business is that a few paragraphs prior to this statement, Netflix describes these providers as partners, specifically when it comes to streaming over devices provided by cable and telecommunications companies:

“We currently offer members the ability to receive streaming content through a host of Internet-connected devices, including TVs, digital video players, television set-top boxes and mobile devices. We have agreements with various cable, satellite and telecommunications operators to make our service available through the television set-top boxes of these service providers. We intend to continue to broaden our capability to instantly stream TV shows and movies to other platforms and partners over time.

If we are not successful in maintaining existing and creating new relationships, or if we encounter technological, content licensing or other impediments to delivering our streaming content to our members via these devices, our ability to grow our business could be adversely impacted. Our agreements with our device partners are typically between one and three years in duration and our business could be adversely affected if, upon expiration, a number of our partners do not continue to provide access to our service or are unwilling to do so on terms acceptable to us, which terms may include the degree of accessibility and prominence of our service.

Furthermore, devices are manufactured and sold by entities other than Netflix and while these entities should be responsible for the devices’ performance, the connection between these devices and Netflix may nonetheless result in consumer dissatisfaction toward Netflix and such dissatisfaction could result in claims against us or otherwise adversely impact our business. In addition, technology changes to our streaming functionality may require that partners update their devices. If partners do not update or otherwise modify their devices, our service and our members’ use and enjoyment could be negatively impacted.”

The consumer-centric statement caters to the public net neutrality argument of supposed threats posed by broadband providers but the statement describing broadband providers as partners, in my opinion, captures the reality of the relationship between content providers like Netflix and broadband providers.  The way to look at how a seamless internet service experience is provided is to look at the components necessary for getting digital product to the consumer.  Netflix has to coordinate via contract the prodiuction of content and its distribution.  It has demonstrated that it can and has entered into the necessary agreements with wireline and wireless providers to get its content distributed to consumers.

As a going concern I expect Netflix to take initiative in reducing its costs of delivery but using government regulation as the method for mitigating costs eventually is not in the consumer’s best interest nor in investor best interests.  Broadband providers will pass on the increased costs of traffic delivery and net neutrality regulatory compliance to consumers.  Increased costs of broadband access will cause consumers to look for other cable or wireless platforms, including different tiers of service which will have a negative impact on broadband operator revenues in the longer run.  Netflix may see a temporary bump in profits but as consumers decide to downgrade service, access to Netflix may be one of those services consumers may end up doing without.

 

Comments Off

Net neutrality: An example of the progressive use of statism

Kevin Carson wrote a blog post on net neutrality for the Center for a Stateless Society last month where he describes the primary and secondary purposes of the state.

According to Mr. Carson, the state’s primary purpose is the organized political means to wealth exercised by and for the benefit of a particular class of people.

The state’s secondary role is to keep the barbarians from knocking on or knocking down the gates of the elite; to be a stabilizing or ameliorative force.

In carrying out its primary role, the state confers subsidies, special tax breaks, and other privileges upon corporate and other special interests via the political system.  Executing this role can have destabilizing impacts on society’s members who are not members of its economic or political elite, so the state may implement social welfare measures to ease the pain and keep the social contract between the elite and everyone else intact.

The state’s primary actions role increase the level of statism, the primacy of the rights of government over the rights of the individual, while its secondary action, according to Mr. Carson reduces statism.

So where does Mr. Carson see net neutrality?  Mr. Carson sees net neutrality as a bit of a shell game. All net neutrality does is place a restriction on the privileges and benefits that corporations receive from the state.  In this particular case, all the FCC has done is placed operational restrictions on broadband providers such as AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon.  The FCC’s action has not increased any welfare benefits for consumers nor has it extinguished the privileges received by broadband providers.  They still have, according to Mr. Carson, state-provided access to rights-of-ways, subsidies, and other privileges associated with operating as an oligopoly.

I would go one step further and say that as a statist primary action, the FCC intended to shift benefits not from corporation to consumer, but from corporation to corporation.  There was never intended for any benefits to accrue to consumers via a reduction in statism.  The four million commenters that the FCC and net neutrality proponents brag about never comprehended that the net neutrality argument was nothing but a “bill and keep” argument from the 1990s hyped up on 21st century steroids.  Content providers like Netflix, Facebook, and Google wanted a net neutrality world built on non-payment of traffic fees to broadband operators.  Hence the argument for a “free and open” #internet.

Net neutrality?  Nothing but a shell game played by progressives.