Verizon has
joined the ranks of wireless carriers in the U.S. that degrade video screen resolution
even if nearby tower congestion has not occurred. See https://gizmodo.com/verizon-will-totally-start-throttling-customers-video-t-1798302947. Here are some questions that come to mind:
1) If ISPs have
a lawful claim to First Amendment speaker status, do content providers have a
similar, or stronger freedom of expression link when ISPs purposefully distort
and degrade the high definition video feed they receive and deliver in standard
definition or worse to broadband subscribers?
2) When, if
ever, can an ISP invoke reasonable network management as justification for
continuous and deliberate throttling of video traffic even when congestion has
not occurred?
3) Should the
FCC impose the same no meddling/no degradation of “must carry” content Congress
mandated the Commission establish for cable television operators?
4) While
arguably consumers may not see perceive much video presentation degradation on
their smartphone screens, will many wireless broadband subscribers in the
future try to “sling” video content from handsets to television sets where the
degradation would appear significant?
5) Is service pricing
on the basis of video screen resolution much the same as tiering on the basis
of bit transmission speed, or monthly data allowances?
6) Do wireless
carriers give with one hand and take with the other when offering conditionally
“unlimited” service subject to standardized throttling of video traffic? Is this reasonable marketing and puffery, or a
deceptive business practice?
7) Do wireless
carriers intentionally, or inadvertently bolster the video on demand market
share held by cable television operators when offering inferior screen
resolution?
In a future
post, I will provide answers, but for now I would appreciate your thoughts.
1 comment:
Thoughts on some of your items:
#1. I am a proponent of separating content and conduits for legal purposes, and am fundamentally opposed to network providers (conduits) claiming Free Speech rights when choosing which content to merely deliver. But of course the companies have expensive lawyers who can argue otherwise. As for content creators, they have a free speech right to get their "expression" out into the marketplace, but according to traditional First Amendment law I don't think there's a right to a certain level of quality.
#4. The discussion of #1 above leads me to wonder if the consumer has the free speech right to RECEIVE content, and if so, at what quality level?
#6. "Unlimited" is just a marketing gimmick from companies who don't expect consumers to read the fine print. It's at least puffery, possibly deceptive advertising.
Post a Comment