Slashdot Mirror
News Corp. Shuts Off Hulu Access To Cablevision
ideonexus writes "Normally when we advocate Net Neutrality, we are talking about preventing ISPs from discriminating against content providers, but in this case, the content provider is discriminating against the ISP. Is this a new dimension in the Net Neutrality fight? From the article: 'Cablevision internet customers lost access to Fox.com and Fox programming on Hulu for a time Saturday afternoon — the result of a misguided effort on News Corp.'s part to cut off online viewing as an alternative in its standoff with the cable operator over retrans fees. Fox stations in NYC, Philadelphia, and New Jersey went dark at midnight Friday when negotiations between the two broke down.'"
And nothing of value was lost...
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
In this case, the owner of the content are deciding where/how they want it hosted versus net neutrality where ISPs can potentially act as the gate keepers to content and charge a toll for those accessing and those supplying content. The difference is that the latter prevents a neutral ground for competing or simply posting information up.
Network neutrality is about the network being neutral w.r.t. the content it carries.
This is about content providers being neutral, not about network neutrality. Please do not try to confuse the network neutrality discussion by mixing it up with other, unrelated debates.
Web sites aren't "channels". If we let them get away with turning the internet into another fucking channel lineup of large websites, all of humanity is fucked.
Being a private business does not give you a blank check to ignore laws and regulations set by the government.
Don't like it? GTFO.
Don't abuse the racism charge, lest it gets watered down and becomes worthless.
Hulu blocking other countries is a business decision. They don't have the distribution rights to transmit overseas, and they don't have an infrastructure to sell ads appropriate for overseas customers. There's no reason to show most US ads to non-US people.
To call this tantamount to racism is really twisted in my opinion. There's no reason to ask them to deliberately lose money to fulfill your sense of justice, especially over an entertainment medium.
Oh please, that is TOTAL bullshit! You know what happens with NO regulation? Mergers, that's what. The big ones would simply crush the little ones until you have one or two big ones crushing anyone who looks at the funny....kinda like right now! in my area there have been a couple of attempts at local ISPs since the big boys refuse to service much of the area, so what happened? The big boys let them play in the sandbox until they started to cost them customers for their shitty dialup or sub par DSL, and then they jacked the backbone charges (which they own, being big boys) until they couldn't afford to compete and told them "sue us, just try!". Hell my buddy worked at one. Their lawyer told them "You'll probably win, but it'll cost you about a million five in lawyers fees and it'll drag on for a decade or so" and needless to say they just closed up shop.
So please let that "invisible hand" crap DIAF already. We have had unprecedented DE-regulation since Reagan, and what has it got us? Clearchannel, Comcast and Cox cable, AT&T. A handful of major players OWN the entire market and can get together and screw you ANY time they feel like. Money is POWER folks, money crushes competition, money buys exclusive areas, money buys laws. All deregulation does is help those top companies concentrate that money to the detriment of us ALL.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Have you not watched Inception or Toy Story 3?
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?