Now that net neutrality is history, will OTT TV survive? The way I see it, all forms of ISPs what to put an end to OTT TV. Cable companies want to retain or even gain TV customers, so they'll be the first to sabotage OTT. Many phone companies now offer their own TV service, so same as cable. Mobile providers already don't like OTT because it bogs down the networks they don't want to spend money upgrading. And finally, there's satellite internet, I've never found a truly unlimited internet plan over satellite so I suspect they don't care for OTT either. Even if you can get DSL from a phone company that doesn't have their own TV service to sell you, they'll probably try to bundle you with satellite TV. And if you get your DSL from AT&T, you know what they'll be trying to sell you. I can't think of any ISP that doesn't profit from breaking OTT. Where does this leave OTT TV?
The End of OTT TV?
- Thread starter Jackonearth
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 22
- Views 3K
It’s not going anywhere. The title of this thread reads like a fake news clickbait story.
There are multiple issues at play. See this article from the US Chamber of Commerce: Myth v. Fact: What’s the Truth about Net Neutrality?
Once cable companies start doing something similar to Spectrum choice with a full cloud Dvr, it will kill OTT.
It was the complying with the onerous regulations that cost them money
Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
I point out that for the time being, Net Neutrality remains the order of the day.
Given the state of "cable TV" programming, will anyone care?
I assume you are joking, unless you mean the regulation preventing them from overcharging people just because they could is onerous, in which case, that is a matter of opinion. Honestly, the existing provision that allowed zero rating seemed like it was all they really needed. No one was telling them they couldn't cap data usage or charge big consumers more. The US version of Net Neutrality is/was so neutered (see what I did there?), the only reason it seems like they fought NN was because they thought it was something they should do, not because it was costing them any money, or preventing them from building and managing their networks. It is as if the people ultimately responsible for the Internet at this point have no clue how it actually works. All they understand is some kind of feudal worldview.
They claimed they didn't want to be regulated under Title II. Fine, give back all those billions of dollars in Title II money you took to build your networks, and we'll give it to someone who is willing to not prioritize traffic for money.
No..they were regulating it like traditional phone service..creating tariffs and other taxes...end result would be subscriber paying more for less service
Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
With so many lawsuits and states passing their own net neutrality laws, nothing will ever come of the repeal of net neutrality before a new administration appoints new FCC commissioners that reinstate NN (assuming Congress doesn't act before then).
Besides, ISPs are already charging $50-$100 for basic internet service (increasing prices at a rate that leaves cable price hikes in the dust), banking on the continued growth of OTT TV, which includes all streaming platforms, such as Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, Prime, which aren't going away any time soon.
Besides, ISPs are already charging $50-$100 for basic internet service (increasing prices at a rate that leaves cable price hikes in the dust), banking on the continued growth of OTT TV, which includes all streaming platforms, such as Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, Prime, which aren't going away any time soon.
Exactly, the only reason to spend the time and money going to court is because they know they can profit (at our expence) from the end of net neutrality.
The lawsuits are against the FCC, not the carriers.
Surely the carriers are filing amicus briefs like they were going out of style but thus far, there's been no real showdown that the carriers are party to.
expense has no c in it.
Title II allows states and municipalities to assess taxes on the service (i.e. to us customers), yes, but that does not equal less service (broadband investment and last-mile speeds actually increased after NN went into effect). The FCC however, had imposed no taxes or tariffs, nor did they express any intention to do so.
If the telcos had said we don't want to be regulated under Title II, then they never should have accepted the government handout to build their networks in the first place. That is kind of how things are supposed to work with government and public money, by the way. The government collects taxes, which they they use to make things better in some way for the populace (building the Internet in this case) by contracting companies to do the work per the standards and specifications the government decides on. It isn't like Verizon and AT&T just decided to do this all on their own. The initial capital costs were too high. We paid them to do it, and everything was fine until they got greedy and decided to throw out decades of established procedure for dealing with bandwidth increases at peering points to extort money from Netflix and others (who were already paying their ISPs for their bandwidth BTW), that NN became necessary for the FCC to require. Before that, it was the defacto standard. It is the effing Tragedy of the Commons all over again.
No, I don't want a suit in an office deciding that I have to pay more to get Netflix than DirecTV Now or what have you just because of why my ISP might be. Getting rid of NN doesn't result in lower prices any more than having NN raises prices. The only thing that can be done to keep broadband prices low is competition.
I happen to be lucky and live someplace where I can get broadband from 3 different providers, each for less than $50/month (no contract). That same service elsewhere without competition costs more just because they can, not because it costs the ISPs any more. Of course, incumbent ISPs do their best to make sure there is no competition in their markets. I wouldn't be surprised if an investigation one day shows collusion between ISPs to stay out of each others' markets.
You know one of the side effects of NN? It makes it easier for new companies to get into the broadband market because they are guaranteed to get interconnects from the incumbents, with their traffic treated the same as everyone else's traffic traversing the existing networks. This is exactly the kind of thing the big telcos don't want to happen because it encourages competition.
People ask, "why should the big telcos allow competitor traffic to traverse their network without charging a premium?" The answer is simple. When the government invented the Internet, along with those same telcos, that is how it was designed. If they didn't want it setup that way, why did they build it that way?
One thing I forgot to mention. I don't think Title II is the answer to the NN question, but it was all the FCC could do under the rules they have to follow. I'd be perfectly happy with a NN solution that didn't include Title II, but that requires Congress to pass a bill and get the President's signature, so, in the mean time, Title II would have sufficed.
Actually, while the original ARPANET was a government funded and developed project, the internet today is mostly due to the hard work of members of the IEEE standards committees, particularly the 802 working group. This is made up of a collection of commercial, government, educational and private members.I thought Al Gore invented the internet
BREAKING NEWS: Senate votes to overturn Ajit Pai’s net neutrality repeal
Unfortunately, the thin margin means it has little chance in the House.
Unfortunately, the thin margin means it has little chance in the House.
Similar threads
