Defining a problem is common engineering practice, but the approach is hardly limited to engineering. In the communications business, definitions have become weapons.
Aereo and broadcasters had warring definitions of what Aereo is, and the definition that got accepted was decisive.
Aereo was doomed the second the Supreme Court accepted the broadcasters’ definition that it is essentially an MVPD.
Worse is when companies deliberately obfuscate definitions for competitive advantage. “Network neutrality” is a beautiful example. ISPs correctly understand it to mean that they should not manipulate network traffic except for management purposes. Web-based video providers understand this perfectly well, but cynically encourage the common consumer misconception that ISPs must be the source of any compromise in video quality.
In other words, when ISPs do not manipulate network traffic, that’s evidence they’re manipulating network traffic.
The problem is compounded when definitions are open to interpretation. That opens them to endless argument.
Consider the concept of “competition.” Whether or not Comcast and Charter are allowed to carve up Time Warner Cable is likely to depend heavily on how “competition” is interpreted.
Comcast accurately notes that it doesn’t compete with TWC anywhere. But do you have a competitive environment for broadband if one company controls a third of all fixed broadband connections? Open to interpretation.
But wait – what if you count all broadband connections, fixed and wireless? Depends.
Is wireless broadband, measured in mere megabits a second, really competitive with fixed broadband, which now in some places is available at a gigabit a second?
For that matter, is fixed broadband at some minimal rate, X, competitive with fixed broadband at 2X? 10X? 100X? 250X? More unresolved arguments.
And if the FCC redefines (there’s that word again) what qualifies as “broadband” and chooses a speed higher than X – a speed faster than the least expensive fixed-line broadband tiers and what most cellular networks are even capable of now – will that end the argument that connectivity at X isn’t competitive with broadband at 2X / 10X / 100X?
Sorry, trick question. Nothing ends arguments about matters that are open to interpretation.
Ask Aereo, which now wants to be treated like the MVPD the Supreme Court says it is, but nobody else will listen. Engineers are right. Defining the problem properly is critical.
Filed Under: Industry regulations + certifications