I Support Web TV and I Vote!

If you’re familiar with the history of Revision3, you know that the company’s roots go back to the pioneering cable network ZDTV, through its transition to TechTV, and then out of cable network G4, which bought TechTV in early 2004. And G4 itself is owned by Comcast. Revision3 founders Kevin Rose and David Prager both worked at TechTV, I was on the launch team as the top content exec, and almost half of our current employees worked there at one time or another.

And that’s a big part of the reason why I’m so concerned about how the courts have removed the FCCs ability to police net neutrality across broadband ISPs. Left to their own devices, it’s only natural to expect large cable operators, including Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T and Verizon to start favoring their own cable networks and services, and slowing down competing services.

Heck, it happened back in 2007, when Comcast was ratcheting Bit Torrent traffic down, which negatively impacted us – as we used to distribute all our shows via BT.

But now, three years later, we’re an even bigger thorn in the side of traditional TV. Our shows are getting audiences that rival some of the best on cable TV, more and more people are abandoning traditional cable services for web-delivery of Netflix, independent TV, Hulu and other video sources, and new devices from Roku, Boxee, Syabas and others offer even more freedom of choice.

But today that choice is threatened.

READ THIS NOW: my latest post at GigaOm details Why We Cannot Let Neutrality Fail.  And get involved too. Write your representatives and tell them you don’t trust the big ISPs to protect your interests.

Tell them you watch Web TV… and you Vote!


Steve Dave April 9, 2010

The argument is based on the huge non sequitur that if ISPs are allowed to reduce the appeal of their products they will. It is not “only natural” to expect this; we have been just fine for the last 15 years without letting Washington police ISPs. If you want to introduce major legislation you have the burden of proof, hand waving just does not cut it. The best example you can find is Comcast throttling P2P traffic, which mind you would be legal under the proposed net neutrality legislation. You do not even stop to consider why they won the appeal. Basically the FCC was exercising powers that had never been granted them, i.e. they operated without legal support in a completely undemocratic manner.

Net neutrality supporters tend to point to how there are only one or two broadband options in a given area and that this is why ISPs would suddenly start limiting internet access attempting to score a quick buck. While, again, this is a non sequitur, limited competition is due to utility regulation, not because they are natural monopolies. Look at Sweden for example, where there is no utility regulation and consumers are free to choose between dozens of broadband suppliers, or look at NYC before utility regulation was introduced; there were dozens of phone companies in NYC at that time.

If you think limited competition is a problem then fight the cause of the problem, not the alleged symptoms. Stop net neutrality and repeal utility regulation. Keep the internet free!

Howie at Sky Pulse Media April 9, 2010

This is a very complex issue. I agree with the folks who spent billions it is their network. BUT they have had so little competition. Where I live it’s one cable, one phone, and one satellite. So how do we achieve the goal of net neutrality in a way that is economically fair?

Obviously if the Tax Payers paid subsidies to the networks this won’t encourage competition or innovation. I personally feel if we require the networks to not own any content providers and have them compete on delivery high speed, high quality access and increase competition. BUT unless we go to cellular to create new networks hard wired would take so many years and so much cash who will make the effort?

larry seltzer April 11, 2010

I have to agree with Steve above. Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. All the proposals I hear would dumb down network management to the detriment of service for everyone except those who would hog as much bandwidth as they could get away with.

The really fair and neutral way to manage public networks is to prioritize applications inversely to their bandwidth demands: games and VoIP and other low-bandwith/lantency-sensitive apps should get high priority. BitTorrent and other such high-bandwidth latency-insensitive apps should get low priority.

Tolstobrov September 1, 2010

ТС молодчина

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.