Slashdot Mirror
Disney Strikes Against Net Neutrality
1 a bee writes "Ars Technica is running a story by Matthew Lasar about how Disney's ESPN360.com is charging ISPs for 'bulk' access to their content. According to the article, if you visit ESPN using a 'non-subscribing' ISP, you're greeted with a message explaining why access is restricted for you. This raises a number of issues: '... it's one thing to charge users an access fee, another to charge the ISP, potentially passing the cost on to all the ISPs subscribers whether they're interested in the content or not.' Ironically, the issue came to the fore in a complaint from the American Cable Association (ACA) to the FCC. A quoted ACA press release warns, 'Media giants are in the early stages of becoming Internet gatekeepers by requiring broadband providers to pay for their Web-based content and services and include them as part of basic Internet access for all subscribers. These content providers are also preventing subscribers who are interested in the content from independently accessing it on broadband networks of providers that have refused to pay.' So, is this a real threat to net neutrality (and the end-to-end principle) or just another bad business model that doesn't stand a chance?"
They're experts on charging everyone for content, whether they want it or not.
(Whatever happened to all those proposals for 'ala carte' cable?)
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
ESPN's Play To Make ISPs Pay http://news.slashdot.org/news/09/02/06/1444258.shtml
Could using proxies like Tor assist getting around blocks based on your ISP?
These companies seem to be stuck in the TV mindset, and view web sites sort-of like internet channels. Web site owners like ESPN want to be able to sell their "channels" to cable companies, and cable companies want to charge their users extra for "premium content." They're trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. My worry is that they'll manage to do it, via monopoly pressure or government legislation, and end up making my internet service about as convenient as my television service (that is, not at all).
I really wish companies would learn to adapt instead of trying to shoehorn everything into their existing business models. Why do we pay CEOs these ridiculous salaries again? It sure isn't because they're visionaries.
Do they then become more responsible for what it is they are allowing through?
Compare it to cable companies, where some individual cable channel broadcasters get paid by the cable companies for their content, and the cable companies then have some responsibility over what gets presented.
Get off my launchpad!
Isn't Disney a mickey mouse outfit anyway?
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Someone needs to hit Disney hard where it hurts!! How's that Mickey Mouse copyright doing???
Obviously. There is really no distinction between charging an ISP for service and forming a partnership with them to provide content. Both are just an agreement between two parties.
This is just another reason why CONTENT providers should be prohibited from making any kind of business deals with SERVICE providers. This is a perfectly reasonable anti-trust regulation and one that I've even seen written up in the editorial section of the WSJ, of all places.
This was before net neutrality was such a hot-button issue, and the article made the point that deregulation would have been much more effective if it had been done in a way to encourage competition instead of prevent it; by preventing this partnership, competition between providers would be enabled. This makes sense even without considering there higher-minded principles behind net neutrality.
If a web site want's to be subscriber based, that's fine.
If your customers are ISP's, then it's no different then any subscriber based site; However, when this is done outside of a specific site, then we ahve some serious issues.
Hmmm. OTOH the more I think about it, the less I like it.
Must ponder more.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
When you visit the site, you get a message blaming your ISP for not being able to use the site. I assume this is done so that you will call your ISP to complain.
ISPs could then block the site completely to prevent their users from seeing this message. Then no one will ask for that content. ISP doesn't have to pay, and customers aren't unhappy because they don't know what they are missing.
Yes, I understand that ISPs blocking sites is a VERY bad idea and a slippery slope, but if the site can block a user based on ISP, then why can't a ISP block a user based on site. It seems equally fair (or unfair) in this case.
Guess they want some feedback on this topic:
http://espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/feedback
It's called the WORLD-WIDE web for a reason.
Good luck trying to push your fees on all the ISPs of the world.
No access to Disney content resulting in lower ISP charges? Win-Win! How do I sign up?
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
Now isn't ESPN360 the actual channel that just happens to also have a website? espn.com is not being blocked, content that hasn't been paid for is, as well as they can do without plugging into ISP's databases and figuring out if you've paid to watch the ESPN360 channel.
I subscribe to a magazine that keeps it's archives online but available only to subscribers. I don't see how this is any different.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
I have relatives that worship Disney. They go to Disneyland 4-5 times a year, buy up every DVD they put out, and one of them even has their bathroom painted to look like a Dalmatian, with little Dalmatian statues scattered about everywhere. It's scary. That being said I hope this blows up in their face. I hope that people realize that the good wholesome fantasy world Walt set out to create is dead, and what's left is just a giant faceless corporation with their tentacles raping our society like a scene out of a Urotsukidji manga. It would be nice to see a boycott over this.
leap off of Magic Mountain. Seriously, ISPs: Don't pay them shit!
Selling to the ISP, not the user, was ClariNet's model too (see ).
Write Only Memory: Another pointless blog.
Lousy place to ask, but do any of yous go to their site? Last time I did was three years ago to watch World Cup.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
The problem at the bottom of all this is the existence of local broadband monopolies. If local broadband markets weren't monopolies, there'd be no problem. Disney could try to extort money from ISP #1, in order to force all of 1's customers to pay an ESPN tax, regardless of whether they wanted to view ESPN via the internet or not. If there was a second ISP, then ISP #2 could position itself as the no-frills ISP in the area, not offering ESPN, and people like me who aren't interested in ESPN would go with ISP #2. In this competitive economic environment, Disney's business plan wouldn't work. All they'd accomplish would be to create a class of users, the customers of ISP #2, who wouldn't even have the option of paying to view ESPN if they wanted to. Disney would recognize that, and wouldn't try this business plan in the first place.
Find free books.
as an Earthlink subscriber through Time Warner in Los Angeles. http://imagebin.ca/view/Zt9dp58.html
ESPN loves to milk tons of money out of cable systems, and in fact, their channels are amongst the most expensive for cable providers, mostly because Disney insists that they be on the "basic" tier. Funny thing is the more ESPN channels they add the worse their programming seems to get, and my days of making sure I didn't miss SportsCenter are LONG gone thanks to the Internet, but I digress.
So, I'm not surprised that they are trying the same thing with ISP's. I don't think this is going to work out that well though. Getting to see broadcasts of games online won't be more than a niche until much faster broadband is available and wireless broadband is more ubiquitous. ESPN was one of the first to start charging for web content in the first place, which is where I'd think it'd be appropriate to sell subscriptions to their video service, but it seems to me that they want to force the ISP's to pay, hence forcing every SUBSCRIBER of that ISP to pay for it as it will be passed on, thus netting them cash from people who don't want their video service and won't use it.
Given how they've been larding up their website with screaming video ads that start playing immediately I've been going to it less and less. They really are living on past reputation only as their content has really gone down hill the past couple years. I certainly don't want my ISP to pay and pass the charges on to me.
Corporatism != Free Market
Usenet vs. Disney 360
How many people did not use usenet but everyone was paying for it? Discuss how this is different.
Trollish yes but most devil's advocates are.
It seems like Disney, along with the other media giants, have become bean counters instead of creative thinkers. One would think that with all their experience and finances they would be able to come up with an innovated business model. Instead, they come up with uninspired plans that mirror their vapid and insipid media products.
If I were a media company, I would be giving revenue shares to ISPs who signed up individual subscribers to my service. Get my ISP to offer an ESPN / Fox sports / MLB or NFL bundle that gives access to all three sites and offer them a cut of the revenue.
Simple solution: Boycott their content completely. Do not need DO NOT WANT.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
are two important concepts. First, the 'Net was built to route around problem areas. Second is human nature wanting things for free (or as close to free as possible). Combine these two, and what you have is a business opportunity for some enterprising entrepreneur to bypass The Mouse.
This is just another reason why CONTENT providers should be prohibited from making any kind of business deals with SERVICE providers.
You have just refactored a dozen specific pieces of legislation into one simple concept. This simple rule addresses monopoly problems with telephones, cell phones, cable TV, electricity, gas stations, net neutrality, ... Basically, service oligarchies have found a way around some of the basic principles of capitalism, and this concept fixes it at the core.
I can imagine several ways to work around this "issue" through IP packet forwarding and other related methods to get around this sort of blocking and fee schedule. I would imagine that to do this would result in legal actions of various sorts and regulating how you can access stuff like this through "terms of service" agreements that are draconian.
The big issue here... and hit squarely on with the original /. posting here... is that this is a business model for getting somebody to pay for content. They are certainly free to try different business models, but IMHO it is flat-out wrong for the government to guarantee that a particular business model will work. If folks can find a way to work around this and ensure that this particular business model isn't profitable, it shouldn't be tried.
I could say the same thing about P2P networks, and in a funny way it is. Forwarding content of this nature would merely be another "service" provided by P2P networks, as just one more example of how this could be worked around. Disney is trying to find a technological solution to a social problem... which never works in the first place.
indeed. fuck disney.
I like this trend.
One of the biggest things I love about america is the buffet, the free refills of coke and water.
I know they aren't really free, that someone is paying for them.
But, the convenience, and not having to think about money for that choice of getting more soda is great.
I don't want to have to put in my credit card information everytime i want premium content on the net...
I am willing to splurge a little, even be wasteful in the amount of content i have access to, if its one bill at the end of the month.
Now it would be really nice, if this concept extended to blogs, and something like wordpress joined...
Then, even the little bloggers could get into the action.
While I love opensource, and release 99% of code i write, not everyone has the luxury of coding or creating entertainment for a hobby.
Maybe welfare will cover your internet costs someday if you can't afford decent entertainment... Then as the isp's pass the cost down to you, you can pass it down to the tax paying media corp...
I am making a wild guess that this service is one fanned-out locally by an ISP instead of fed individually to all users from a central source. (NBC did something like that for the olympics.) ESPN is offering this as a service to ISP's who would like to provide these live feeds to their customers. I see no difference between this and an e-mail provider offering to provide e-mail services to a particular ISP. This looks no different than any other subscription service, only in this case the subscribers are ISPs instead of individual users. Given the bandwidth live content requires, this makes perfect sense.
SirWired
If an ISP pays them for content, what are the chances he will pay a competing network for similar content? Or a small startup? This is simply a ploy to limit competition.
there are other websites out there that stream live sports, it's not like espn360 is unique in the content they deliver. this is just extortion at its base level, from a company that has the legal muscle to do pretty much whatever they feel like doing. if you want to watch a live baseball game, MLB has a pay per view site. if you want to watch tennis, there's a pay per view site for that too. in addition to at least one free site that i've used for all sports, www.myp2p.eu
Basically, the reason Disney can do it is because they can tie paying the internet license with their TV Content. Just how they forced all the cable companies to make Disney Channel(s) a required basic cable package channel (raising everyone bill by a couple bucks a month to boot). Because they can force the cable companies to pay for it that will put large Telco based ISPs at a disadvantage. That will hurt the few independent ISPs still out there in each market.
Agreed, ESPN is terrible, especially Tommy Smythe :) I canceled my cable and rarely miss it. Hulu does a good job for most of the mainstream content, but I subscribe to Setanta Broadband and FSC Broadband for my football (soccer) fix. Now that Setanta is seemingly no more I may be facing having to go back to cable since only FIOS carries 360 around here (Cablevision country). ESPN will get to bid for the US rights formerly owned by Setanta and no doubt put it on 360 if they win. Or I can go back to the dodgy Chinese broadcasts :)
just another bad business model that doesn't stand a chance
If the ISPs feel it isn't a good investment or feel that it's unfair: they shouldn't pay for it. If they do think it provides enough value: they should if Disney asks them to.
Yes they will pass those costs on, but they can only put their prices up so high before they lose value to their customers and they walk. And yes even cable providers and ISPs have a threshold to their value beyond which the price ain't worth it.
If enough of their customers want Disney, they'll continue, if not they'll buck the deal.
Think about it: if Disney and other majors cost the ISPs too much, the ISPs may well tier their services for consumers; if consumers feel the extra price to access Disney is worth it more power to Disney and the ISP. The extra value will be worth it... I suspect on the Internet people would find other content (maybe even non-Disney content, shudder) rather than pay a premium. If ISPs don't offer enough service for price, people won't buy the service.
Going to the FCC or trying to steal the content isn't going to solve anything and ultimately punishes those that create the value.
There was another ISP/company that did the same thing as these media company's are trying to do today. They are trying to erect a wall around some parts of Internet access, to protect their precious. More power to Disney and these other shit heads. The last company that tried to erect a similar wall was AOL, and now they are a worthless company.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
to spite your face. Disney thinks that people will pressure their ISP into paying? Fat chance. There are too many other things to look at on the web.
Once upon a time, when I was your age, we were able to go anywhere on the internet that we wanted. Then the websites realized they couldn't make any money that way and started packaging themselves together and selling access rights to ISPs just like cable tv does. And guess what? The websites made money, and people payed more money to the ISPs for access, and all the corporations rejoiced. Thus died the golden age of the internet which we now just call 'interactive cable'
The excuses they use in opposition to Net Neutrality have viable compromises/work-arounds. It seems like they can still be evil to the consumer in a Net Neutral World. It's just harder to but a barrier to competition, so that consumer would have alternatives. The only reason I can see is that they are trying to be anti-competitive which is, well.. monopolistic/evil/illegal.
Suppose Net Neutrality were there accepted rule:
Would it be in violation for a website to offer a faster experience to premium users? I don't think so. I think it's okay for a site to throttle their out-going traffic. This has nothing to do with shaping traffic en-route.
Would it then be in violation of Net Neutrality to run a promotion with Comcast, say: "Sign up now and get a life time pass to the ESPN Express Lane (TM)". I don't think so. They are not restricting access by messing with the Tubes.
I think the real reason they wouldn't do something like this is because it wouldn't stop a newcomer for providing a better experience for free. It's clearly an intent to squeeze out the competition and limit choice for consumers.
The irony of it being a cable organization complaining about this is cable (and satellite) companies do the *exact same thing* with cable programming like ESPN...the large expense (ESPN is one of the more expensive programming packages) of a cable system getting ESPN is passed on to almost all of their subscribers, whether they want to watch it or not. And in some cases whether they even subscribe to a tier that includes ESPN programming or not. Its kind of funny to watch them get a taste of their own medicine. This is one of those proverbial pot and kettle situations.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
The site in question seems to work fine from Europe. That was actually my guess beforehand: indeed, how could Disney make deals with all the ISP from overseas...
So it seems that Disney has chosen to only close it to 'some US citizins', ie those of certain ISP's.
(Those which are not one of their choosing).
Guess Disney should be glad to be in the States, and not somewhere in Europe where our Dutch Neelie could get at them ;-0
(See e.g. http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/31/1328249 ).
I am not sure about all ISPs, but I know ATT is required by the federal government to offer basic DSL for cheap. I should think that bundled ESPN != basic, so it would be illegal for ATT to charge for ESPN on this tier. That means either ATT gets no ESPN, or Disney is forced to allow some consumer choice whether to go with this scheme.
I would love to see that happen, and then enough people downgrade to the Disney-free tier that ATT notices the loss in profits, and kills the contract ASAP. I doubt that could happen given how Americans treat sports...
My webcomic
fsck you. And when their customers complain about their limited access, tell them to take it up with the broken website they are trying to visit.
a rate proportional to the IQ of the visitor.
If the average consumer of Disney stuff online had a choice between multiple comparable ISPs, then their gambit might make sense. But most Americans don't have such a choice.
For example, if Comcast refuses to pay, subscribers aren't going to switch in droves to something else, because for many Comcast subscribers, there effectively isn't anyone else.
Disney will lose far more business with this move than any ISP will. It's not like there is a shortage of sources for Disney content. People will just keep getting it elsewhere.
Disney is the content provider, not the mechanism I use to get to the Internet. I think it's the latter point you make - a stupid "monetization" idea. This is all the better. Less people will have access to worship to the golden mouse.
Not that I'm against dupes that invoke a good discussion, but here's the last one:
http://news.slashdot.org/news/09/02/06/1444258.shtml
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
its very different for a service to filter connections than a backbone. the real threat to end-to-end and neutrality
would be if transit providers start charging for traffic involving certain endpoints (which is how this discussion
got started)
endpoints can make whatever restrictions they like, even if they are as idiotic as trying to get access providers
to handle their sales and billing.
of course it would suck if i couldn't get internet access without also paying for some 'content plan', but thats a
different issue entirely
Ok, let me see if I understand this:
Disney's against Net Neutrality while Slashdotters like Net Neutrality.
But Disney = Pixar, which Slashdotter's like.
And Pixar = Steve Jobs.
Some Slashdotters don't like Steve Jobs.
But Steve Jobs = Apple.
Slashdotters like Apple.
Oh man, I'm confused.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
On the subject of legality: is there legislation that makes this illegal? Who do we contact to get a suit in motion (attorney general, FCC..)?
I assume something should make this illegal (or at least I hope), but we need to know what to refer to when submitting complaints to get the government in motion on this.
My webcomic
I'm in Canada and I tried to access the site. Naturally, I got the pop-up telling me that my ISP wasn't supported. When I tried to enter my Canadian postal code, it wouldn't let me enter letters.
This is the same kind of U.S.-only mindset that hulu has. Hell, I even tried to access that block through an anonymous VPN and it still blocked me.
This kind of stuff really makes my blood boil:
1) Promote the hell out of website or service.
2) Tell me I don't have it.
3) Tell me I don't get it.
4) DO NOT profit.
The gall of them...telling me to switch to one of their ISPs just to view their crappy site.
This is enough to make me go out of my way not to give money to Disney.
Yeah, I know somebody will reply about my sig and point out that Steve Jobs is Disney's largest shareholder. It's weird, because it's most definitely against Apple's interest as a content provider and a computer vendor to allow one ISP to be favoured over another.
This space left intentionally blank.
These corporate companies greed is pathetic. Let em go ahead and try to charge for the content. When no one visits their pathetic web sites they will have a choice of going back to free content or disapearing from the net altogether and with a business model like this they should go away. With the economy the way it is you shouldn't be trying to squeeze people for more money. Most people can do without the website and just watch TV. Than people can put up blogs with the information that people can continue to access for free. Doesn't Disney make enough money off their movie and theme parks?!? The cost of a Disney vacation takes the average family 3 to 5 years to save up for these days as it is!!
I just went to espn360.com for the first time ever hoping my isp is not paying for their crap, but alas what do I get?
A slideshow about their Bass fishing and Poker tournament coverage. But no message saying that my isp refuses to be extorted :(
Now I want to call my ISP and tell them to tell disney to fsck off.
01:36AM up 426 days, 2:46, 1 user, load average: 0.14, 0.11, 0.05
Here's three screaming kids. Your move.
I lead with a DVD of DreamWorks' Shrek. And if they ask for specific titles of public-domain fairy tales that happen to have been filmed by Walt Disney Pictures, I have plenty of comebacks for those.
This is just another reason why CONTENT providers should be prohibited from making any kind of business deals with SERVICE providers.
While I agree in principle, I'm not completely opposed to an Internet subscription model where I get to choose between Package A (basic Internet with no frills) and Package B (basic plus ESPN.com). If I don't want that crap then I don't have to pay for it.
Seriously, who's to say that it wouldn't be a reasonable business move for AT&T to offer Internet Plus that comes with built-in subscriptions to Wall Street Journal, New York Times, ESPN, etc., for a fraction of the cost of subscribing to each individually. I don't consider that a challenge to Net Neutrality as long as the option exists for me to subscribe, at will, to those services like we do today.
Right now, however, the Internet providers aren't particularly interested in giving me any choices, including choices between different providers (Time Warner is the only provider in my area in the middle of freaking south Austin -- we can't even get DSL). In the rush to provide the illusion of "more" in order to raise prices, nobody seems interested in providing "less."
The issue of net neutrality is about carriers requiring payment for some types of content. This is problematic because content sources that are not large enough to negotiate favorable deals with carriers are adversely affected, which is why it is a big deal. ESPN charging (or trying to charge) some carriers for content is an unrelated problem except that it potentially creates problems for some categories of ISPs. I don't see the problem. It's ESPN's content and they can charge for it however they want. Me, I'll go out of my way to find an ISP that doesn't pay extra for it.
Just checked this out and I'm glad to see that I don't have access to espn360.com because my provider isn't a subscriber. Now I only hope they stay in business.
I disagree and am probably going to get tarred and feathered for this, but they kinda have a point. However they are doing it wrong.
ISP's are nothing more than distributors of content. They don't create or provide content, they just distribute it.
Disney is a large scale content provider. They make the content which an ISP then distributes. Disney has every right to charge for that content. If they decided not to put their content on the internet who would pay comcast or verizon or whomever for non-existent content?
What I mean by they are doing it wrong is that they should put a bid out to ISPs to distribute their content at a byte or GB distribution level. So comcast could offer to pay Disney $1.00 per GB to route their content, comcast can then charge other ISPs $1.10 per GB for their content. Verizon would then have to charge $1.20 to its customers for internet access on top of whatever monthly fee. Comcast could charge $1.10 to its customers since it had the premier content.
Then Verizon makes an offer to YouTube for $1.20 per GB to distribute its content... and the cycle continues.
Not only that but since every node on the internet is potentially a content provider contracts can be set so that whatever content you upload you could get paid for. Anything you download you pay them for and the costs are passed to the actual content provider.
Using this model the itunes store could distribute music for "free" although it would be charged at the per GB rate. Market competition should keep the costs down.
Hosting content isn't free. Distributing content isn't free. The internet isn't free... right now a lot of companies are providing their internet content at a loss. This type of model would fix the newspaper mess. An ISP would pay big bucks to host the WSJ, a small town newspaper would also benefit from this method. This is the answer to the question "How do you make money on the internet." Now we just have the means to pay the content providers directly.
With this kind of distribution method the 2 million+ Joss Whedon fans could have been directly supporting his program and theoretically firefly could still be being produced.
With this kind of distribution there is no reason for conglomorates to own all the media, the directors and producers have a direct line and business model that would work to support their production costs.
It would limit the pirating of software since it would still cost you to torrent, when you could just get the content directly for the content owner. I mean if you could just go to the artist website and download the song "for free" and they earn money from it wouldn't everyone be better off? If it cost you $3 do torrent a movie from TPB or $3 to download it from http://www.transformersmovie.com/ wouldn't you rather have your money support the actual content providers?
Yeah, I'm going against the grain, again.
Think about it as a subscription TV provider who knows *nothing* about the Internet tubes. The average American pay TV subscriber/mobile phone user is more than happy to pay for bundled services.
Now, the commodity ISP will sell, more or less, like the one-way sh!t pipe the media conglomerates want in a package that consumers can understand and most importantly, Disney gets to retain total control of the distribution of their media. The 'free' part of the Internet just dies away. See usenet's demise for an example.
Mission accomplished!
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Yes.
Just because it may be a bad business model does not mean that Disney is not powerful enough to force it down consumers' (and ISPs') throats. The problem is, by removing themselves from a direct relationship with the end consumer, they protect themselves from any "market" penalties. What's a consumer who doesn't want to pay for ESPN or an ISP do? Unlike the mythical "free market" there really isn't a way for one party in the transaction to influence the other without hurting themselves. Often, they won't even know that they're paying more for ESPN, so how could they make an informed decision even if they wanted to?
It's a lot like the current insurance-industry controlled health care system we have in the US. How could it ever be a "free market" since the consumer/patient (us) have our relationship with our employer, who then has a transaction with the insurance company, who then has a transaction with the provider (our doctor or hospital). If there's something we don't like about our care, who do we complain to? Our employer? No, because they don't have a direct relationship with our provider. Do we complain to the insurance company? No, because we don't have a transaction with the insurance company, our employer does, and since we're only one patient, what are the odds that we can convince our employer, who's just trying to hang on themselves, to break their relationship with the miserable fucking insurance company, who's only interested in collecting profits, not treating patients.
This plan, of companies putting themselves out of reach of consumers, is becoming very popular in our pseudo-capitalist system. We get fucked and they get rich. Disney, HMOs, Telcos, what's the fucking difference? They're all hostile to us.
I'll wait and see Up when it shows up on TPB.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's quite common for large document archives like LEXIS-NEXIS or JSTOR to sell subscriptions to IP ranges, which are typically bought by universities, corporations, or public libraries. To access it from a non-subscribing IP address, you need your university ID card/employee ID card/library card number.
IMHO, net neutrality means that your ISP doesn't filter anything. If a website wants to filter what comes OUT of their site by IP address, that's another thing.
Of course, then it turns into a battle of what it's OK to require a subscription to. If LEXIS-NEXIS started extorting money from ISPs for access to their site, they wouldn't get very many takers. Disney, on the other hand...
Now I'll be able to let them know how I liked their sites better when the Konami Code worked!
Yeah, I've long been a proponent of the idea of breaking up the vertical monopolies that are causing a lot of these problems. However, I think the key thing to break up is that the infrastructure providers should be prohibited from being service providers or content providers.
So, for example, if Verizon is laying the fiber and hooking up the routers to provide the internet, then they should be forbidden from being an ISP or providing voice service or acting as a "cable company" (providing video services). They should be required to openly license their infrastructure to basically any service provider at a set price (no special deals). Cable companies (like Comcast, Time Warner, etc) should be required to cease providing video services themselves, and allow some method of allowing customers to choose their own video providers from a free marketplace.
This would mean that everyone looking to provide services, whether they be web hosting, voice, or video (including original content) would essentially be on equal footing. No one would be able to use special access to the infrastructure as leverage to squeeze out competitors.
Why do they not want me to see their programs?
On the off-chance that i wanted to see this all the web pages in the world saying my ISP should buy it is not going to change anything. Unless they have some really awesome payment plan per subscriber with no minimum or base amount i suppose it is possible, but a suitable pricing plan is unlikely. I can ask the ISP all i want but i can't imagine them buying it for their (only/dozen/few dozen) residential customers.
Not offering me a way to get it would sure reduce any qualms about finding my own source...That doesn't feel like the best idea.
*ISP is a Qwest reseller that has not been on the reseller list for years. For all i know i am the only residential customer left although i could imagine there may be a few. Tech support is the usually the same guy that is programming their routers, not that i have called him in years :)
Why can't the Disney channel be like HBO like it used to be where you only pay for it if you want it.
I want to have ESPN and the other networks and drop Disney Channel, Disney Channel West, and Disney XD.
If ISPs don't offer enough service for price, people won't buy the service.
For many people, having an ISP is better than not having an ISP, and the ISP---because there often is only one---has to be very expensive and/or crappy (in terms of bandwidth and/or AUP/restrictions/caps/ads/etc.) before people say "No, I'll rather not have Internet access."
If Microsoft don't offer enough software for price, people won't buy the software.
Guess what, Microsoft has tried (and probably still is trying) to make it so you don't really (you know, in practice) have a choice if you want to use computers.
Making market-based arguments should be reserved for the cases in which the free market actually works. Dealing with (unregulated) monopolies is the first example of the opposite in my Microeconomics 101 textbook.
This is correct.
But if content creators want to make money from their content, then they should do so by CHARGING FOR THEIR CONTENT.
If that doesn't work because people don't want to pay, then too fucking bad. Getting my ISP to silently charge me for their content, which I apparently didn't want enough to pay for in the first place, is fuckery and ought to be illegal.
It looks like Comcast paid them. According to the ESPN 360 site Comcast customers will get access August 1st.
I suggest contacting Comcast and complaining. At the very least it will give Comcast ammunition to lower the price it pays.
http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/Customers/contactus/ContactUs.html
You seem to be proposing some other system that is very different from what Disney is trying to do, and also very different from the Internet as it is. It seems like your suggestion is to have the ISP charge per byte instead of a monthly fee, and then be responsible for paying a share of that charge back to the content owners, based on what was downloaded?
It's interesting, but I'm not sure how well it would work out.
My best friend was black!
Because it's ESPN, they may get away with this. Look at how sports fans are gouged at every event. They'll pay whatever it takes to see their heroes play. ESPN/Disney know this and that is who they cater to. "Serious" sports fans/addicts are also very vocal about their favorite events being available and some of these fans are politicians or the "mentors" of politicians. The cable companies catch a lot of grief when they don't offer some sports channel - like the Big 10 channel or NFL channel or what have you. I can imagine the complaints to the ISP's and their regulators. Look at how taxpayers end up paying for stadiums for these highly profitable teams to play in.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
I live in NYC so thankfully I can't get ESPN360 can't get DSL as i'm too far from the CO (and the copper is all degraded anyway), can't get Satellite as too many trees and high buildings and as it's NYC no other cable company is allowed to encroach on Roadrunners territory. please oh please RR don't cave in
ISPs don't make that much money to start with, they're either going to raise their prices or tell Disney to jump in the lake. ISPs that raise their rates will see their users telling *them* to go jump in the lake...
Disney's ethics died with Walt,..
Now it's just another shit company
What? No Hockey? Absolute barbarians, who would want to visit that site anyway?
ISP's are nothing more than distributors of content.
When you receive Netflix DVDs over snail mail, does it mean that your local post office is "distributor of content"?
I don't think so, and it applies just as well to ISPs. They don't sit down and think, "gee, how about we distribute some of Disney's content to our customers today". They merely provide me, their customer, access to some part of their fat pipe, so that I can go to the place of my choosing, and get the content I want. If the content provider wants money, they should ask me to pay, not the ISP.
Is soon to be extinct. The media companies run the show, hasn't everyone figured that out yet?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Don't forget that since all the mom and pop IPS's are pretty much gone, absorbed into the mega giants, most service providers are actually content providers too, so forget the 'partnership' idea, they are the same entity..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Take a look at River of Innocents once you're done with Uncle Tom's Cabin. It's the modern version, for slavery today. (Which is still a massive problem.)
I want to have ESPN and [...]
Shhhh! Not so loud! And not on Slashdot! Do you want a bunch of sports-hating psycho-geeks after your head?
That is almost exactly what I'm proposing.
I don't know how well it would work either, but it would be a way to direct revenue directly to content providers instead of to conglomerates, RIAA, MPAA, etc. It could actually save the newspaper business as well. If newspaper articles online made newspapers money instead of costing the newspaper money, would they still be in as bad a shape as they are? I mean they are creating the content.
Then again I also see modern newspapers dissolving since columnists would be paid directly based on downloads of their articles from their own sites. Aggregators would still exist, but they would pull the articles from the authors website (generating revenue for the author), but at the same time they would be supplying their own content as well also earning them income.
There would be no need to steal information from the content creator since you could just link to their information. You would make money since information was downloaded from you're site, but at the same time the information you provided linked to the original content owner who then is paid for their work.
The internet would still be "neutral" but finally the intangible price we've all been paying would finally have a value. People work to put this stuff together, it has value. At this moment in time the value I'm paying for it is $60 a month to Comcast, and the only one making money off of it is Comcast, not the people who are actually supplying me content. Comcast is just the middle man, the content provider should be earning something besides what they get from "advertising".
we should all just put blocks on Disney's IP ranges from accessing out websites. I'm sure someone can come up with a nice friendly message to show those IP address's.
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed.
-Buddha
Actually they are. They are charging you, I believe, $0.42 to distribute content to you. I imagine for a Netflix DVD it is a bit more.
That fat pipe isn't free either. It cost money to install the infrastructure. It costs money to power the equipment. It isn't a gravity fed system, the internet isn't a series of pipes, I don't care what Ted Stevens says. It also takes manpower to maintain all that equipment. It is a service, but a service without value if not for the content on the other side.
Has anyone calculated the cost to transfer a GB of information from point A to point B in terms of electricity cost? equipment cost? manpower cost?
I hate to use the stale "I have a black friend" interjectory, but I do have a black friend and asked her opinion of "Song of the South" and the whole Uncle Remus thing. She stated that it was a depiction and a snapshot of historical standards and expectations and should be considered as such.
Something like this happened in the "Black Like Monica" episode of "Touched By An Angel". In it a small city is preparing a celebration for someone who was part of the Underground Railroad with Rosa Parks as a guest. One white city councilman asks a black councilwoman if they should use a better term instead of "Negro preacher" and she says that in her historical research that was the term used and she was comfortable with it. At one tyme Negro was a neutral term and not racist.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
There would be no need to steal information from the content creator since you could just link to their information.
Well that's not entirely true. There'd be an incentive to steal information and post it on your own site so you're the one who gets a cut of the ISP's fee instead of the legitimate owner. It seems to me that, even if there were no other problems, it might still be difficult at times to know who should be paid for what. And what about the times when you're uploading/downloading non-copyrighted material? Who gets paid for that?
At this moment in time the value I'm paying for it is $60 a month to Comcast, and the only one making money off of it is Comcast, not the people who are actually supplying me content.
Well theoretically that $60 is just paying for the infrastructure and ISP services. If you think that's too high, I can definitely sympathize, but I wouldn't expect that your scheme would end up with you paying $60 but a big cut going to content providers. It's much more likely that you'd end up paying more than you currently do for your ISP+[cable+iTunes+(whatever other content you pay for)].
My point was that you pay to the ISP for the amount of date transferred (which we do today), and you pay the content provider for the content you get from them (which we do today). Why the content provider thinks it should also charge my ISP for the content that I have requested to be sent via their pipes is beyond my understanding. They are merely acting as a "courier" there.
It would be interesting to see if a standalone fiber infrastructure company could capture as much investment capital as Verizon is putting into fiber (exclusive access to that fiber must be at least part of Verizon's motivation...).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
So, is this a real threat to net neutrality (and the end-to-end principle) or just another bad business model that doesn't stand a chance?
This is the other boot dropping.
1. ISPs try to charge media companies for discriminatory access to their customers.
2. Media companies try to charge ISPs for content.
3. Big ISPs and big media discover that they can scratch each others' backs and put the cost on the independents.
We're on the first part of step 2. Step 3 is absolutely inevitable if we do not pass net neutrality. The Internet will become as inaccessible to individuals and small business as television, radio, and print.
"Freedom of the press belongs to those who have one." The big ISPs and big media will eventually realize that is a value proposition if they can buy enough power from the DC corrupt.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
If you want your cable company to let you look at whatever YOU want, regardless of how much of a "good deal" they can get on providing it for you, you need to fucking hunker down and support the tards who want to look at Disney content.
I see this as a twist on what broadband providers want. They opposed net neutrality because they wanted to be able to charge content providers fees for not slowing down content but now the content providers have turned it around and want to be paid to provide the content. People talked about how Time Warner or ComCast would try to charge Google, but now they won't want Google to charge them for providing searches. Now let's see if those who opposed net neutrality now come out in support of it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
the ISPs.
The only thing to understand is greed.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
And why can't Hanna Montana have more death and cursing in it, like the sopranos?
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
Sure, it is kind of a dick move on the NFL's part, but try going to visit the one guy you know who *does* get the station
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
I visited the afore mentioned site in this article, according to ESPN360 "comcast customers will have access starting on aug 1"
if i see so much as a penny added to my bill im switching to another ISP and telling them why.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
08:54AM: British Telecom is asking for more money for the bandwidth that iPlayer and video streaming sites eat up
07:29PM: Disney's ESPN360.com is charging ISPs for 'bulk' access to their content
Heh.
Does anyone know the approximate cost for an ISP to join this service? ISP's need to grow some balls and choose not to sign up.
Disney has a history of offering what it considers to be premium Internet content on a paid subscription basis, with certain ISPs picking up the tab for their subscribers as a way of differentiating themselves from competing providers (Comcast has offered its subscribers free limited access to Disney's ToonTown online game over the past few years). I would be very surprised if ISPs did not push back for the right to run ads alongside this content rather than having to eat the cost or pass it along to their subscribers.
It's not like Verizon wouldn't be in a position to make money. They should be able to set a price that allows them to recoup their expenditures.
I mean, let's assume that Verizon is doing everything at cost-- that given the amount of money they're spending on fiber and providing ISP service, they're just breaking even charging everyong $45/month. Now let's assume that the infrastructure portion of that $45/month is $30. They could instead charge other ISPs an amount that averages $30 per month per customer, and that leaves the ISP $15 per month to turn a profit or break even before consumers would see a price increase.
So now what about that $15 for the ISP? Well, for one thing, there would be greater competition between ISPs, so free market forces would kick in and force these companies to really compete. That $15 will go down if companies can find a way to bring it down.
But even let's image that's not the case. Let's imagine there's somehow not enough profit to go around, and Verizon needs $30 and the ISPs need $20 to break even. So the price goes up $5, which isn't so great, but on the plus-side, we now have a much more open data infrastructure with competition that will eventually bring costs down. There will no longer be a perverse incentive for Verizon to block new and innovative services that might compete with their own services. And instead of consumers having to battle an huge company to get decent service, lots of competing ISPs will all be battling Verizon to keep them honest.
Either way, I'm tired of companies like Verizon complaining, "But we have to abuse our customers and fail to provide good service! Building infrastructure isn't profitable! We need more subsidies!"
I say, "Fine, if building vital national infrastructure can't be made profitable, then it seems like a good argument that the government should handle it instead. We'll be taking control of your network by virtue of eminent domain." Let's see how Verizon likes that.
Of course, this is just a fantasy, as though the government weren't owned by big business. And of course, I'm sure there would be many unintended consequences. I'd just prefer a free market. I think free markets work better than situations where a single body is put in control of the market and gets to set prices. But that's just me.
My ISP used to give me free access to USENET. At first, they ran their own servers, then they outsourced them and paid another company for access to their USENET servers. Last year, thanks to Andrew Cuomo, they cut the USENET access all together, so now I'm forced to buy my own access (which I'm fine with).
But, USENET was a value added service just like ESPN360 would be. Should Road Runner have charged everyone for USENET access if only 5 or 10% of us even knew what it was, much less used it? I didn't get a price reduction when they eliminated the service, so it's not like the savings were passed on to me. It was certainly cheaper for Road Runner to buy USENET service for their customers in bulk than it is for individual customers to buy service themselves. The same goes for ISPs that provide some web/ftp space or even just email.
Now, obviously most people are going to want email... but how many use their ISP's mail service versus signing up for a gmail/yahoo/msn/whatever account? Should they be forced to subsidized the people that do use the ISP's email service? You probably don't want ESPN360 and despite being a fan of a couple sports, I don't want ESPN360. But ESPN360 isn't much different than the email, personal web or usenet provider your ISP might partner with. If you enact legislation completely separating the connection and the services/content provided on it, you're also going to get rid of the things people do use through the law of unintended consequences. And while you can make an exception for certain services today, do you know what services are coming tomorrow that could benefit the users the same way, and what a pain it can be to change legislation to enable access to a new service (after all, that's what providing content is, a service)? Will those services even have a chance to succeed to that point if they're banned by default?
The solution is to let the customers hammer it out with their ISPs. Yeah, it sucks that there are only two broadband ISPs in most places. I'd support carefully created legislation forcing that to open up more. ISPs would be forced to listen to what their customers want that way... the problem all along has been the monopoly/duopoly of broadband access.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
I don't doubt that a split between infrastructure and service would result in lower prices for consumers, I was speculating that the Minneapolis Regional Fiber Co. may not have the easy time Verizon has coming up with $1 billion (which Verizon can come up with essentially on a whim).
Part of what makes building plant attractive for Verizon is that, as the only provider on that fiber, they can charge high prices. External capital might look at the returns available dealing with competitive ISPs and balk.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
ESPN needs to put a password on ESPN.com's content to "protect it". I swear to God I will never access their content nor any of the mouse's content.
The party's over
Pixar is worth the money the rest the new Disney content is largely not even worth the time to watch it.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Thats, as described, doesn't seem like a net neutrality problem. That's just a business model that will succeed or fail.
As a content provider, it costs me money to serve content. (It also costs me money to make that content....). Cutting a deal with a large provider so all their subscribers get access for a fee is a perk of using that provider.... and probably also involves cheaper network access and whatnot for the provider/content provider as well. Fair play to them.
It's a stupid idea, though.
You do know that Steve Jobs is a majority share holder of Pixar/Disney, right?
Jobs became The Walt Disney Company's largest single shareholder with approximately 7% of the company's stock.[11] Jobs's holdings in Disney far exceed those of Eisner, who holds 1.7%, and Disney family member Roy E. Disney, who held about 1% of the company's stock and whose criticisms of Eisner included the soured Pixar relationship and accelerated his ousting. Jobs joined the company's board of directors upon completion of the merger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Pixar_and_Disney
http://www.losdisneys.com/
An open source conversion for your Linux, Mac or Windows OS.
Based on Bungie's Marathon 2 open source code.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
In academia this sort of setup is already quite common. My university (acting as my ISP) pays the journal publishers quite a lot of money so that I can access published papers. If they didn't, I would have to sign up on my own and pay out of my own pocket. Corporate research centers often have similar setups with the journal publishers. I think even sites like MSDN are sometimes set up the same way.
I agree with you that can be annoying (especially since the personal subscription rates are so high), and I wouldn't want a large fraction of the web to go that route. However, this isn't something entirely new, and allowing it sometimes makes life easier (e.g. it is in the employer's interest that its researchers have easy access to published papers). Personally I'm a bit torn on this issue.
Well one way or another, the Internet isn't going away. There's a demand, which means there's a profitable business model to be had, which means there will be investors. To be blunt, if Richie Rich doesn't think it's a big enough profit and chooses to invest in credit default swaps instead, then Richie Rich can go sit on it and spin.
By pushing the cost to the ISP instead of charging customers upfront, people don't see the direct cost of it, and will probably use the service more. Although their monthly bill will be higher, it will only be a few dollars.
It will only be "a few more dollars" until every other content providers wants "their dollars" too. When you have 10 content providers demanding ISPs pay them those few dollars become $50. That's more than I pay for my cable access. What about the other 90 in top 100, or 990 in the top 1000? Heck, with a plan like that I can post my own website and demand ISPs pay me a penny for each customer and become a multi-millionaire.
Of course it wouldn't work out that way, either everybody would do the same and drive ISPs out of business or ISPs would pass on the cost to subscribers so they end up paying thousands if not millions of dollars for access.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Wow. I ordered a cheeseburger, but didnt want pickles on it. I paid the same price as someone who did. Why am I paying for your ketchup!
I bought a car, it has a CD player in it. I have an Ipod. Guess what!? I still have to pay full price for the car.
If you don't like that your ISP is giving you ESPN360, change your ISP.
Ok, so any ISP that has a direct connection to espn360.com is not going to be paying this fee, right????? Since Disney is already paying for that bandwidth. Its just a matter of finding their AS number and sending them a little note to the effect that Disney wants free internet access...
Using this model the itunes store could distribute music for "free" although it would be charged at the per GB rate.
Then when every content provider demands "their pound of flesh" only the rich could afford access.
Market competition should keep the costs down.
There is no competition in broadband access. Many don't have an option to get broadband and most of those who do have access to broadband have either cable or DSL through one company. And that's how it's going to remain unless and until there is an open infrastructure.
An ISP would pay big bucks to host the WSJ
If I want I can already get an online subscription to WSJ. WSJ does not need to demand payments from ISPs. Other services do the same. Heck /. does. However I don't want a subscription and I don't want to have to pay more for my net access.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
It cost money to install the infrastructure. It costs money to power the equipment.
And I pay for my access to that infrastructure. Only I've paid more than once, I pay once when ComCast makes a charge on my credit card and I pay again when government takes taxpayer money and gives it to ComCast.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Wow, your foreign friends must be amazingly skilled sociologists, in order to draw such concise conclusions on such a large population. They must have studied the social patterns of the United States for many years, in order to make any such claim. Because most people would not dare to try to summarize the nature of a population of 36 million individuals in a three-word phrase. Why your sociologist foreign friends must be absolute fucking geniuses! Either that, or maybe they don't really know what they're talking about (that is if your friends really did say what you claim they did).
May I offer my summary instead: that some black folks are racist and some are not; some are dumb and some are not. But now it's not such a pungent little assessment, and applies to all sorts of groups.
Oh, I forgot, your friends are from Africa, so that gives them the right to make blanket generalizations about American blacks!
. . . and therefore it must not exist!
You need to meet more black folks, bro.
$META_SIG_JOKE
Comcast, who cut out included Usenet access late last year, and stood up to the NFL channel extortion, so I'm amazingly disappointed in them for giving in on this. This whole idea would be DOA if none of the big ISP's signed on. I'm on the phone complaining to them about this right now. If they hear about it from en
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
(*&^&%^%!!#%$^^& those *(&^%$$$$#!holes never give up! Turning the net into a combo of some cellphone plan and a cable TV package. They've been skunks and liars ever since they first lied about commercials on cable TV and got all their local monopolies, and disney, the original copyright until the sun goes supernova jerks.. And as a non sports watcher on either TV or the net, dang if I want to pay my ISP to subsidize that "access".
Here's a thought for all the couch jocks, instead of like WATCHING sports, why not actually go DO some sports instead, ya know, like in meatspace? Even at night you can go to some gym.
I just don't want to pay for the Disney carp so why can't I drop it? you use to be able to NOT PAY FOR IT and it was a $/m add on channel.
My initial knee-jerk reaction is to be against this and feel that something should be done about it... If nothing else, it feels like it sets a bad precedent for Net Neutrality.
However, after some thought, there are a couple key issues here which make this a fundamentally different issue from that of ISPs charging websites for preferred access.
First, ISPs have had a lot of help from government getting established, and thus I don't have a problem with government regulating them much more heavily. Disney's ESPN website is for the most part a standard commercial venture. I'm sure there are some "gotchas" in there about some minor government crap that's inescapable with a company as large as Disney, but it's minor compared to what the ISPs have.
Second, ESPN isn't a monopoly. In fact, it's practically an anti-monopoly. If Disney drives people away from ESPN, it costs them literally nothing in terms of time, money or effort to find an alternative provider. Relatively few people in the US have a choice of broadband ISPs, and of those who do the choice is almost always limited to just two providers.
So yeah, in this case, I think Disney's perfectly welcome (and perfectly stupid) to do this, and I think the correct response is for absolutely no ISP to pay them.
I would like to think that this move on the part of the content owners will be a massive failure without any intervention by government. If a typical computer user goes to a content owner's site and sees a message saying that the ISP has not purchased the "ESPN360" package and that the user will not be able to access ESPN360 videos, I expect that the user will just go download it via bittorrent or the like. Or just ignore ESPN360 and go to a competitor's site for the scores and highlights. So ESPN360 loses out on a potential sale (to the individual) either way.
I would understand if users from an ISP which did not pay for the ESPN360 access for its customers get a "give me your credit card info to see this video" page, whereas users from an ISP which did pay for access for its customers get to see the video free of charge. That might actually end up being a viable business model.
Of course, it's entirely possible that I don't know consumer behavior as well as I think I do. The foolish choices made by consumers continually impresses me.
Marnex Products
Net neutrality is ISPs not prioritising traffic based on companies paying them, thus THIS ISN'T A FUCKING NET NEUTRALITY ISSUE. I don't know whether people intentionally misuse the term for sensationalist reasons, or because they want to funnel the indignation the term causes onto something else but either way this isn't helpful.
I'm not crazy on the idea of ISPs buying content on users behalf, but that doesn't make it a net neutrality issue.
So no one gets access to disney content, and Disney gets nothing ... see who bends over first then. First 'obligation' any ISP has (like any company) is to its customers, so (unless you live in Belgium where you can choose between two ISPs only that happen to have the same price for the same limited-beyond-belief-bandwith) who would pay for it? If one isp charges for content you never want to see, and another doesn't that's a pretty simple choice imo. These 'ancient' companies will have to get with the program sooner or later. Look at the warez scene : any hollywood movie is released via a RUSSIAN warez site first, almost 80% of the time. What to do about that? Charge Americans more lol ? Have the CIA scan all collegekids computers to see if they've been hacking it with the commies ? roflmao indeed
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
This isn't against net neutrality, as I read it.
Net neutrality just means that you don't prioritise any source or destination outside your network's traffic over any other. Basically it means you can't intentionally slow anything except your direct subscribers. No slowing yahoo down in favour of google, but having a direct connection to google and an indirect connection to yahoo (making google faster) IS allowed; as is slowing the guy on your network who has reached the transfer limit in his contract.
You are allowed to peer directly with a company to get a better link to them, e.g. via a physical link. You are even allowed to set up terms with them that mean you can't relay their private addendum to the internet to anyone else. They are even allowed to provide a slower general service, requiring direct peering for any kind of speed.
I've already drafted a letter to my internet company, which happens to be one of the ones paying money to espn360, asking why they are driving up my rates by making me pay for content I'm not using. It will do nothing. If everyone who saw this ./ summery did this, it would do something.
Who's hoping that Disney's charge for the ISPs will cancel out the ISPs charge to ESPN360.com, and we can all go about our business. I mean, isn't this the exact opposite of the ISP's complaint the the big content providers are "getting a free ride"?
I agree. Its a stupid channel and we shouldn't be forced to pay. That's why I don't get cable anymore.
It would really suck if ISPs went the way of cable down the road, and charged you for x number of media outlets and websites, when most people likely wont ever intend to use those sites. I mean seriously, I only watch 2 channels on TV anyways.
ESPN's web site has a link that makes it easy for users to tell ISPs that they want ESPN360, but ISPs need to hear our point of view and know that they have plenty of customers who don't want their ISP to give into ESPN360's shenanigans. I posted the following onto my ISP's customer feedback page. Please feel free to clean up and use in any way that you see fit.
-----------
I just wanted to give my feedback about ESPN360. I prefer that Speakeasy continues to operate as a neutral ISP regarding ESPN360 and does not pay ESPN360 to get their content for Speakeasy subscribers. I believe that individual end users who want to access ESPN360 content should pay ESPN360 directly and not through their ISP, especially as there are Speakeasy customers who do not use or have even heard of ESPN360. As an entertainment web site, ESPN360 is not offering a service that is of general public value that would warrant ISPs instead of individual end users to pay ESPN360 for access.
I enjoy my Speakeasy service as it exists today, and I hope that ESPN360's plan to get ISPs instead of end users to pay for their content fails. If ESPN360 succeeds, other web site operators may attempt the same strategy and lead to service fragmentation on the Internet, which raises the barrier to entry for new ISPs and also raises the operational costs of existing ISPs. It's an attempt to impose a cable company business model onto ISPs, which could additionally lead to ISP responsibility of delivered content.
Please keep Speakeasy as a neutral Internet connection by turning down any attempts from ESPN360 to get Speakeasy to pay for ESPN360 access.
Thank you for your attention.
I'm not sure which states you consider 'North' versus 'South', unless you're using strict Civil War terminology. My family is from New England and I would strongly disagree with your assessment of the North. My anecdotal evidence - to offset your anecdotal evidence - is that the rest of my family moved to Virginia, married Virginians, yet they've all spent significant time up here. All of them say that race is more significant issue in Virginia than it is in New England, at least within the past few decades. They describe the situation as separate cultures that do not often mix, in stark contrast with their Northern experience. (Full disclosure: I do have some ex-in-laws that privately harbor racist attitudes, but I consider their ignorance the exception and not the norm.)
I'm guessing a Texan doesn't think Virginia qualifies as 'South'; but this New Englander doesn't consider Virginia 'North'.
You say you can't 'educate away' racism, and perhaps that is true. But look at the progress gay Americans have made. Attitudes have changed, and a lot has to do with younger, more accepting folks changing the landscape while the old, well, die off. I can't say it's been educated away, although I'd like to think so. Almost all of New England has legalized gay marriage (and don't forget Iowa!). This acceptance of gays is not built upon secret homophobia. So the portrayal of the North as being politically correct on race but secretly racist and "sad" doesn't wash for me.
Tangentially, African-American is term that gets misapplied to so many people who are not of African heritage (e.g., Haitians, Jamaicans, etc.) in the name of political correctness. I am perfectly fine referring to someone who self-identifies as an African-American as such, but I generally find these terms divisive instead of informative or enlightening.
Firstly, my ISP rebuttal is a bit higher in the thread. Rather than retype it here, comment prior to yours for reference.
For Microsoft. Of course they try, and largely succeed in precisely what you accuse them of. But once their prices exceed their value, they too will cease selling as many products and make themselves vulnerable to competitors that provide greater value for price. There are computer makers that sell computers only loaded with Linux; yes very small right now, but do you think people would endlessly look at those alternatives and say, 'looks great, but I have to buy a Microsoft loaded PC' if Microsoft wasn't adding value in a way that the marketplace desired?
As for your Microeconomics 101 text book, whether just a glib remark or not,... I wouldn't take it on faith. There are many economists micro and macro that are a bit too academic for their own good. Many of them are now in Government. I prefer the Austrian school of economics as they tend to be more right in practice about the workings of the economy (http://www.mises.org and http://mises.org/story/621 more specifically for a discussion on monopoly).
Definitely isn't likely to be a popular opinion but...
Net neutrality issue is about "man in the middle" controlling access, so when a consumer wants to see something and producers is willing to allow that, ISPs can weigh in and say "erm... no, not unless [blah]". That's the net neutrality issue.
Disney making deals with ISPs... can be a dumb business practice, can be sneaky, can be [fill in your opinion here] but it has nothing whatsoever to do with net neutrality.
PS IMO it isn't even that sneaky. ISP purchased additional content for their client. They want to gain advantage. If they were buying movie tickets once a year, would that be net neutrality issue too?
No, because AFAIK they never had common carrier status anyway.
I hope that a large portion of ISPs hold out for several months. It will be very instructive to see what happens when a category-leading site like ESPN walls out huge portions of its audience.
My prediction? Users/ad revenue will flow immediately to ESPN's competitors. It's a lot easier to switch sports websites than it is to switch ISPs. Let's find out.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)