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.
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.
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.
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.
I am paying my ISP for routing to the Internet. They had better not mess with that. If some web site wants to block me, that is their prerogative.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
If this is against net neutrality, then at least its the 'ethical' version. If they want to build AOL 2.0, then let them.
The difference between someone saying "you can't access my content unless someone pays" and someone saying "you can't see this content unless the content provider pays me to let you, even though you've alredy paid me" is vast.
ESPN360 is just a estoteric version of a pay site where the choice to pay is made by your ISP rather than you. If you don't like their choice, you have the option to complain to them or switch.
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.
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.
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.
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
Well, most of Disney. I think that Pixar's doing a pretty darn good job of keeping their spirit alive
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
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."
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...
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.
If you don't like their choice, you have the option to complain to them or switch.
If there were choices in broadband providers net neutrality would be a non-issue.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
I wouldn't let my kids watch that crap. It is nothing but potty humor.
No Spunge Bob.
No Chowder.
I let my kids watch the classics:
Thundercats.
He-man.
GI Joe.
Avatar (not a classic, but damn good).
Robotech.
GoLion (Voltron).
Transformers.
GoBots.
Johny Quest.
Jetsons.
Grape Ape.
Flintstones. (10million strong and growing).
Silver Hawks.
I'm sure I'm missing stuff, but anything is better than the drivel the networks are pumping to our kids these days...
Something with a plot that holds your attention for more than one episode or even 30 second punch lines...
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.
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
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
the ISPs.
The only thing to understand is greed.
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