Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Cocktail conversation on CES party circuit: Washington, tech policy

In a penthouse suite at the Planet Hollywood hotel in Las Vegas, a designer denim- and black t-shirt-clad crowd of online entertainment and video executives and developers shook hands and exchanged cards and Twitter handles. They also talked about how their future rests largely with the Federal Communications Commission.

The event was a party by Internet television provider Boxee on the eve of the Consumer Electronics Show. And while the guests came from Los Angeles, New York and Tel Aviv, many seemed well-versed in some of Washington’s biggest tech policy issues.

Tim Street is the CEO of Ape Digital, a Pasadena, Calif.-based company that produces online videos. He’s been watching the FCC’s moves to develop a net neutrality policy that he said is important to keep the Web open like it is today so that applications like his can thrive.

“I’ve been following because I know where my bread is getting buttered,” Street said. “I can see a scenario where the 200-plus lobbyists that are fighting against net neutrality can make it so that independent online video content creators won't be able to afford an entrance fee onto the Web.”

Street said he is concerned about trends in the cable and satellite industry to extend their current models onto the Web. He said he is concerned about TV Everywhere, a strategy by Comcast and other cable and satellite providers to bring online content to only their subscribers of Internet and cable service.

“This is a closed system and it’s unclear how new video can get on to this system,” Street said.

Steve Harnesberger, vice president of business development for Jaman, has been working in the streaming video industry for about a decade. Back then, it was difficult to get consumers to watch their videos over their computers. But it was also hard to get carriers to support such services from startups.

“We’re still fighting the good fight, but it's still the land of the giants,” Harnesberger said.

He said potential interest by carriers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast to charge by how much bandwidth a user consumes is bad for consumers and could slow demand for video, which consumes the most bandwidth.

Harnesberger said the business motivation is for cable and telecom carriers to get extra revenue from bandwidth usage that they would be losing from consumers who cut the cord of cable television services for only broadband Internet.

The only reason why more people aren’t cutting the cord for television services is because they want to get their news and sports over cable and satellite, he said. That’s why Comcast wants to own more content through its merger with NBC Universal, Harnesberger said.

But by putting so much content into the hands of the nation’s biggest cable and Internet operator raises concerns over how Comcast would treat its content over others and if it would treat unfairly competitors such as Netflix and Hulu by prioritizing their own online video distribution over theirs.

“This bears careful scrutiny,” Harnesberger said.

By Cecilia Kang  |  January 7, 2010; 7:00 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FCC asks Congress to extend deadline for broadband plan by one month
Next: Obama Girl spotted at CES party

Comments

Like so many of Cecilia Kang's writings for the Washington Post (which, IMHO, should dismiss her for conflicts of interest and violations of journalistic ethics), this posting pushes the agenda of Google -- whose ads and logos appear on this page -- rather than presenting the facts.

The fact is that Google, which makes money from advertising, stands to benefit if neither ISPs nor creators of content make money. Google would like ISPs to become profitless deliverers of its ads (hence, maximizing Google's revenues). Google would also like to ensure that content providers -- like Cecilia -- become wholly dependent upon it for their revenues. (Google, already has a monopoly on online advertising.)

At that point, Google would be the ultimate gatekeeper. It would able to determine -- via what it decided to sponsor -- what the public saw and what it did not, and which content creators succeeded and which ones failed.

In short, content creators have quite a lot to fear from Google, and very little to fear from ISPs, which would lose business to competitors immediately if THEY began to filter content.

Google's push for "network neutrality" regulation is part of its plan to achieve this gatekeeper status and to prevent ISPs from thwarting its drive toward control of the Net. This is why it's so disturbing to see that the Washington Post is doing nothing about Cecilia's constant bias toward Google's agenda in her postings and news articles. Could it be that the Post, most of whose online ads are supplied by Google, already feels that it dare not cross Google for fear of retribution?

Posted by: squirma | January 7, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company