Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

News Corp. Shuts Off Hulu Access To Cablevision

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-fox-for-you dept.

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.'"

71 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. Oblig. by negRo_slim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And nothing of value was lost...

    --
    On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    1. Re:Oblig. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hey now, Fox has, in the past, had decent programming; Firefly comes to mind. Of course, Fox also has a habit of killing off cool series, though I guess withholding access to their entire network from millions of people is a new level entirely.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Oblig. by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, and whenever they find themselves in the odd position of having genuinely engaging material, they cancel it as soon as they can. Or they put it in a bad time slot, like after sporting events or move it all over the schedule.

      Quality programming for them is pretty much accidental and a failing on the part of the execs to properly kill it.

    3. Re:Oblig. by FoolishOwl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One explanation of Firefly I'd heard was that, while Fox didn't like Joss Whedon, they knew he was too good to allow the competition to have him. So they got him on contract, then ran the show in a terrible slot for its demographic, messed up the order of episodes, and generally, did everything they could to submerge the show without outright killing it.

    4. Re:Oblig. by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would a corporation sacrifice profit to screw with Joss? No. It was an incompetent TV exec that wanted to give priority to shows appealing to the female tween market. Just look at the line up now from all the networks except for CBS and NBC. How many vampire or metro-sexual 90210 wannabes do we have to have?

      Tweens rule the broadcast market...

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    5. Re:Oblig. by fermion · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Fox has no interest in keeping viewers happy. Many of you may not know it, but The Simpsons was not the show that allowed Fox to enter, literally, the prime time game. It was Married with Children. Married got the rating that allowed Fox to charge the advertising rates that allowed other shows, such as The Simpsons to flourish. No one knew that Fox existed back them, except for Married.

      And how did Fox reward the show that made the network and the reward the fans. By Canceling it without a goodbye episode. Experienced networks knew not to do this. Fox, however, even after all this time, is still an adolescent vunerable to tempter tantrums.

      Firefly was a good show with a good concept. It was certainly the amateurish Fox executives that kiled it. Futurama the same thing. I must give them credit for Dollhouse. It was not a long term concept, and the two seasons were long enough to tell the story.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    6. Re:Oblig. by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe the term, when applied to 30+ year old adults, is murder.

      You just need to be a little more generous in how you apply the term limit.

    7. Re:Oblig. by CodeBuster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It was an incompetent TV exec that wanted to give priority to shows appealing to the female tween market.

      You know, its funny that you should bring that up that because I mentioned Firefly to one of my coworkers last year and, after watching a few of the episodes on Hulu with his tween daughter, they liked the show so much that he bought the television series and Serenity on DVD as a birthday gift for her. Firefly was, to paraphrase Leonard Nemoy, one of those "lightning in a bottle" type shows that come around only once in great while and the executives at Fox still managed to frak it all up because they can't tell good programing from a re-run of Survivor: Idiots' Canyon.

      Tweens rule the broadcast market

      And yet the executives have no idea what they really want to watch. They think they know and they try to market programs to them by telling them what the *should* "like", but they end up appealing only to stereotypes instead of giving tweens what they really want to see.

    8. Re:Oblig. by nacturation · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe the term, when applied to 30+ year old adults, is murder.

      You just need to be a little more generous in how you apply the term limit.

      Anything up until the 150th trimester is fair game?

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    9. Re:Oblig. by nacturation · · Score: 2, Funny

      I mentioned Firefly to one of my coworkers last year and, after watching a few of the episodes on Hulu with his tween daughter, they liked the show so much that he bought the television series and Serenity on DVD as a birthday gift for her.

      I am strangely persuaded by your sample size of one.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    10. Re:Oblig. by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is not about programming this is about censorship. Basically if you used their cable to access the internet, the censored your connection whilst they entered into negotiations with a supplier and used that loss of customer access to leverage the negotiations in there favour.

      Their customers were of course just screwed over and used as nothing pawns to barter with to Fox's advantage

      This is forewarning of exactly why net neutrality is required and why the executives who did this should go to jail. This is exactly what corporate controlled internet access will run like, random blocks and slowdowns, competitors shut out from customers, customer decision forced upon them as they have no choice, political control with unfavourable politicians web sites censored out of existence.

      This is not the time for joking, this is the time for an FCC investigation and possible prosecutions.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    11. Re:Oblig. by bhtooefr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except it wasn't the ISP that did it. They're allowing full access to Hulu.

      It was Fox, who runs Hulu, because another division of the ISP rejected a rate increase from Fox.

      In this case, you're arguing for being unable to drop China at the firewall protecting your web server, for instance - that would violate your definition of net neutrality.

      Alternately, the only other way that would work is that literally everyone that wants to get paid for access gets paid what they want to get paid, and if you don't pay someone, you get shut down. That's a disgusting thought.

      Real net neutrality means that you can access any site without your ISP blocking or slowing down access, and there's no signs that that's been breached here, as Cablevision isn't blocking Hulu for Cablevision customers, HULU is blocking Hulu for Cablevision customers.

  2. But of course.... by cpux · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Fox content at Hulu was restored when they realized they didn't have the capability to block only Cablevision customers in the area. All of the NY/Philly area was blacked out, when their beef is only with one ISP.

    1. Re:But of course.... by pavon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Did they really do that? Idiots. It isn't hard to get a list of IP blocks allocated an ISP.

      To me this brings up another example of how the general idea of net neutrality is simple, while the details are not. Most of us would agree that this behavior is anti-competitive, but where do you draw the line? Many sites block entire countries, because they don't have the legal right to serve the same content in all regions. Many sites ban entire countries or IP blocks due to spamming and/or other malicious behavior that has come from those blocks. Is that acceptable? If so, given that you can find malicious behavior coming just about every IP block (botnets), does that mean that it could be used an excuse to ban whoever you wish?

    2. Re:But of course.... by Peeteriz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They care about their local laws and business contracts.
      Let's suppose I'm in USA and have an agreement with a company in USA that allows them to distribute my content only within countries A, B and C. If they I see them distributing it worldwide with no restrictions at all, then my lawyers start counting money already.

    3. Re:But of course.... by Gerald · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think this is as easy as you think. Search for "Cablevision" and you're suddenly in a maze of twisty little /24s, all alike.

    4. Re:But of course.... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:But of course.... by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most of us would agree that this behavior is anti-competitive, but where do you draw the line? Many sites block entire countries, because they don't have the legal right to serve the same content in all regions. Many sites ban entire countries or IP blocks due to spamming and/or other malicious behavior that has come from those blocks. Is that acceptable?

      The line is drawn at anticompetitive behavior.
      Leveraging your power in one market in order to influence a related market is anticompetitive and it's what Fox just did.

      Not having [regional] rights to air something & banning malicious network blocks are completely unrelated.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:But of course.... by blincoln · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When some site management discovers a DOS attack is coming from Belgum and does nothing for two days, then runs across a very odd unconfirmable rumor that the attack originates in an African nation and starts a blanket block of all of them within the next half hour, then hears another rumor the attack comes from a North Korean group and blocks NK, China, Hong Kong and Tibet (of all things), what more do you need to take a claim of racism seriously?

      It's hardly racist to make decisions based on how likely legal remedies are going to work based on the source of some network traffic. If someone was DoSing your network from Africa, North Korea, or China, would you even know who to contact to attempt to address the problem? Are you suggesting that *anyone* in North Korea cares if someone is launching a DoS attack there? They've got bigger problems to worry about, like not starving to death or being forced to appear in bizarre private action films at the behest of their dictator.

      Back when one of my sites had a monthly traffic limit, I blocked access to it from several of the biggest Russian ISPs. Was it because I suddenly decided to hate Russians? No. It was because someone in Russia with multiple dynamic IP addresses was being a jerk and downloading the same big file hundreds of times per day. I never found out why. I don't have time to play detective, and it took about ten minutes to block those IP ranges. I felt badly for the people in Russia who *weren't* abusing that site, but if I'd had the ability to press a big red "block all of Russia" button to avoid paying any more monthly overcharges, I would have done it in a second.

      I have to agree with other peoples' comments that using "racism" in situations like this only waters down the term, to the point that people will ignore *actual* racism, because they associate it with arguments like yours. *That* is the real danger here.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    7. Re:But of course.... by Gerald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You've missed the point. How do you properly vet the IP being compared? There are a truckload of blocks associated with the name "Cablevision". Do you block them all? What if the SWIP info says "Cablevision" but the addresses are being used by someone else (which happens a lot more than you would think)?

    8. Re:But of course.... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't abuse the racism charge, lest it gets watered down and becomes worthless.

      If you don't think it already is, you haven't been paying attention for the last twenty years.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    9. Re:But of course.... by Alsee · · Score: 4, Informative

      Many sites block entire countries, because they don't have the legal right to serve the same content in all regions.

      Note that we should not confuse copyright with idiotic contract terms attempting to manufacture a licensing model.

      Obviously a website (or a TV broadcast antenna, or a book manufacturer) has to obey copyright law at that location. Obviously they have to license any relevant copying or distribution rights, at that location.

      The website *is* licensed to serve the content. The issue is contracts that require websites to block IP address ranges in some warped attempt to simulate licensing of the person at the other end.

      A TV show can license a TV broadcast antenna that happens to be in the US, but there is nothing "regional" about licensing. The copyright holder is not licensing the people who receive it, he is licensing the broadcast antenna. Someone in Canada does not need any license at all to turn his TV to that channel and receive it. The most the copyright holder can do is get the antenna station to sign a contract promising to point the antenna away from Canada. There is nothing "regional" about any of the the copyright licensing itself. The station has the licensed right to transmit. If someone in Canada, or even Japan, has a really good TV set and can pick up the signal that is not a violation of any license.

      A book author can license a book manufacturer who happens to be in the US, but there is nothing "regional" about licensing. The copyright holder isn't giving any sort of license for "regional readers". The copyright holder is not giving any license at all to any readers, because under copyright law there is no such thing as a license to read. People without licenses can just plain read, regardless of any permission the copyright holder wants to grant or deny. The most the book author can do is get the book manufacturer to sign a contract promising not to willfully mail the book out of the US themselves. The manufacturer is licensed to print copies. There is no license violation if someone in Japan buys the book secondhand from someone in the US and reads it. The person reading the book in Japan doesn't involve any sort of "regional licensing" because they don't need any license at all to read it.

      The same goes for websites. A copyright holder can ask the website to sign a contract promising to block various IP-ranges, but is just an effort to manufacture or simulate some sort of regional idea. Aside from the contractual promise to block certain IP addresses there is nothing actually regional about any of the copyright or licensing. And is is false and stupid to try to use IP addresses in that manner. Yes, IP addresses are usually pretty accurate at telling you were the other end is located, but it is a grossly flawed assumption. Hopefully the increase of proxies and advancing internet technology will make it increasingly obvious that an IP address is not a location, and that trying to us IP addresses to limit websites to national borders is impossible and stupid.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  3. Access Denied to Fox? by Torinir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know... I think that denying access to Fox's website and Hulu feed could be considered a public service, but that's just my opinion.

    1. Re:Access Denied to Fox? by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have a point, however, there is a bit of this which is definitely public service. It demonstrates to a couple significant markets and several ISPs that a lack of net neutrality can hurt them as well.

    2. Re:Access Denied to Fox? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 3, Informative

      This isn't censorship. If Cablevision or Hulu had blocked fox, THAT would be censorship. Fox stopped broadcasting.The effect may be the same, but no one blocked anything.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  4. Not exactly... by DeadDecoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Not a new dimension by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ESPN already does this, and we have already criticized them for it.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Not a new dimension by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Not a new dimension by Dahamma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ESPN produces content, and if they want to charge for that content they have a perfect right to do so. To suggest anything different makes no sense.

      There are millions of sites already doing this. Just like TV channels, some use an ad-supported model, and some use a subscription model. Either way, they exist in order to and because they can make money off their business.

      Also, to the GP: Hulu is *not* free to all, they also have a subscription model (Hulu+) to stream content more conveniently (ie to a TV) or from providers who offer "premium" content (ie. want to charge more than the ad model will support). And there is no guarantee Hulu will remain free... they have already been removing some free shows and making them subscription only; if their subscription model takes off, they will probably continue that, or even stop the free service...

    3. Re:Not a new dimension by zeroshade · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Clearly you must be new to the internet because porn sites charge the consumer not the ISP. No matter what ISP I use, I am able to access any of the porn sites and can pay to have a subscription. However, if my ISP decides not to carry ESPN, then I don't get a choice at all.

  6. We'll know nine months later what the effect was by PatPending · · Score: 5, Funny

    No TV? No Internet? What are we gonna do?

    The effect of this will be manifested about nine months later...

    --
    What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
  7. Re:Net Neutraility? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    using the government to force private businesses

    use government to force individuals

    How many times do we have to go over this? Look, I'll make it simple for you: businesses != individuals.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  8. Re:We'll know nine months later what the effect wa by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought the whole "more babies are born 9 months after a blackout" theory was debunked...

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  9. Torrents by dark42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think this is a really stupid move on the part of News Corp, now they're just gonna deprive themselves of the advertising revenue that Cablevision customers brought to Hulu. Meanwhile, torrents still exist, and the downloaded shows tend to have the ads cut out...

  10. Re:Net Neutraility? by IICV · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah! How dare we force businesses to serve both white and black people! You can give it a fancy name, but it's like all other Progressive measures designed to use government to force individuals to do what you want.

    Or maybe, when you run a business, it's okay for the rules to be different?

  11. Not *network* neutrality by klapaucjusz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not *network* neutrality by dachshund · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't be fooled by the apparent dissimilarity of the two problems. At a fundamental level they're very much related. You have large, entrenched organizations that own content and, in some cases run broadband networks -- facing off against large entrenched organizations that own broadband networks and, in some cases, produce content. The two nearly identical sides are running an experiment, trying to use their market power to try to force each other into favorable business terms.

      In both cases the customers are being treated like an asset to be sold, or held hostage, while the corporations use them as a bargaining chip in their real business decisions. Sure, the negotiations can go either direction, but eventually it's the smaller players who are going to get locked out of the game.

      In fact, this kind of thing is directly related to the net neutrality argument, because it presents a terrific counterargument for the ISPs. If the ISPs are required to be neutral, but the content providers aren't, then we're essentially going to take away one of the ISPs only weapons in what is really a two-sided business war. I don't love this argument, but I believe it could be persuasive.

      At very least you need to understand this as one skirmish in a much broader conflict.

  12. Re:Net Neutraility? by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When you run a business that uses public property to operate you agree to give up some control. If they don't like it, you could always stop using the public right of way and stop operating across state lines. That would keep the intrusions mostly out.

    Of course for an ISP to only be able to service a single block and be unable to provide anything beyond that, it would be significantly less useful than the BBSes of old.

  13. Re:We'll know nine months later what the effect wa by precariousgray · · Score: 2, Funny

    You mean the porn stored on my hard drive can get pregnant? Oh shi--

    --
    not much, just being forced to manually insert line breaks into my comment
  14. Dennis Potter had it right by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I call my cancer, the main one, the pancreas one, I call it Rupert, so I can get close to it, because the man Murdoch is the one who, if I had the time - in fact I've got too much writing to do and I haven't got the energy - but I would shoot the bugger if I could.

    -- Dennis Potter (source)

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  15. News Corp/Fox is out of control by Brad1138 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work in the satellite dish industry. We are dealing with and fairly informed on the News Corp/Dish Network dispute. On the CableVision side, News Corp is trying to raise their rates from $70 mil to $150 mil, over a 100% increase. With Dish Network, they are trying to force Dish to include the Fox Sports regional networks into the lowest package, which would raise that package $5/month ($40 to $45). News Corp is trying to tell Dish how to run their business. There are plenty of people that don't care about sports and don't want to pay the extra money for it. The reason News Corp wants their Sports channels in the lowest package is to increase (the perceived) viewership numbers so they can raise their advertising rates.

    A lot of the Dish Net/Cablevision customer won't see beyond "my channels are gone" and switch to a different provider. That is exactly the wrong thing to do. Dish Net/Cablevision are fighting to keep our rates down, but they can't do it if everybody jumps ship. Dish won the recent battle against Fisher Communications, they were trying to raise their rates 78% for over the air, tax payer subsidized "free" channels. Fisher Communications was already the highest paid among their piers, and wanted to nearly double their rates.

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    1. Re:News Corp/Fox is out of control by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ironically, videos delivered over the Internet should be rescuing us from this sort of behavior -- we should not have to worry about two large corporations that we really have no say in the conduct of getting into a spat and suddenly making videos inaccessible to us. Of course, we are, once again, relying on large corporations (Youtube, Hulu) whose conduct we have no say over to provide us with our videos...

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:News Corp/Fox is out of control by MicroRoller · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ironically, videos delivered over the Internet should be rescuing us from this sort of behaviorOf course, we are, once again, relying on large corporations (Youtube, Hulu) whose conduct we have no say over to provide us with our videos...

      What's ironic is that the Fox shows that cablevision dropped and are available via hulu are passing through people's bodies for free right now. A $40 antenna should pick up Fox in most markets. The HD picture is actually seems better over the air compared to cable. The only time I use my set top box now is for the DVR and for some channels that are only available through the STB. I'm planning on building a mythtv box to fix that. Unfortunately there's one channel I can only get through a cable/sat/fios provider that I need.

    3. Re:News Corp/Fox is out of control by nametaken · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...and switch to a different provider. That is exactly the wrong thing to do. Dish Net/Cablevision are fighting to keep our rates down, but they can't do it if everybody jumps ship.

      No doubt most of the people here understand what you're saying and agree entirely. Unfortunately, I'd guess News Corp knows that any strategy that depends on regular people being informed or showing some kind of conviction is a lost cause. That sucks. :(

    4. Re:News Corp/Fox is out of control by xda · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've worked for some cable companies and had this explained to me a few times, so I know it to be true. Cable companies even ask their employees to write letters to content providers asking them not to hike their fees.

      I think cable companies have it worse than Dish because they have to pay fees on "homes past", meaning they are paying a fee for every home that could potentially subscribe to the content. I've been told by multiple people "half your cable bill is ESPN, whether you wanted it or not".

      Cable companies have been trying to move to a la carte style where you only pay for channels you want... but they have been getting blocked by ESPN and others threatening to pull out. Cable company with no ESPN isn't going to work. I've talked to some upper management types at these companies and they claim if it wasn't for pay-per-view / on demand, they wouldn't be making any money. I doubt that though.

    5. Re:News Corp/Fox is out of control by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately, I'd guess News Corp knows that any strategy that depends on regular people being informed or showing some kind of conviction is a lost cause.

      Which explains why News Corp target the totally uninformed and easily swayed demographic...

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    6. Re:News Corp/Fox is out of control by socsoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your view is from the industry standpoint. As Joe User, both Dish and News Corp are losers and I am the third loser in this pissing match that I wanted no part of. I've now shifted my viewing patterns away from their shows with commercials and harbor animosity towards my provider. Now News Corp is warning that I may lose additional FOX related stations at the end of the month. Super! (yes I know about OTA, no I don't really give enough of a damn to buy an antenna for a local FOX affiliate)

    7. Re:News Corp/Fox is out of control by Brad1138 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your credibility is quite gone when you say "piers" instead of "peers"

      I would say your credibility is worthless in that most of your posts are modded 0 or -1.

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  16. Re:Net Neutraility? by Beelzebud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:Just matter of time till news corp gets sued by siride · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What does freedom of speech have to do with this?

  18. Solution by amaiman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My solution:

    1) Cancel my Cablevision TV service (their rates are way too high anyway). I've been thinking about it for a while, and I think this latest dispute is the last straw.
    2) Connect antenna to TV.
    3) Watch FOX.
    4) No profit for either of them.

    I can buy all of the shows that I want to watch from iTunes or Amazon and still come out way cheaper than my current cable TV bill. And that's ignoring the "torrent" option that many people will choice to use instead...

  19. Re:Net Neutraility? by Aquitaine · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My business is just me (technically) plus a few contractors. At what point are we and our interests no longer individuals? When I hire my first full-time employee? My tenth? My twentieth?

    As a disregarded entity (the technical term for 'I pay personal income tax on everything rather than corporate taxes') there is a lot of co-mingling between my personal funds and my business, mostly because I can wave my hand and decide to pay myself whenever I want, since I have to pay income tax on all of it anyway. Should I be restricted from spending some or all of that money on political contributions or PACs?

    Obviously, the larger my business gets, the more likely its interests will start diverging (or at least running parallel as a separate entity) to my personal interests, but that's perfectly normal. I still have to earn money, and once I've earned that money, why should anyone other than me decide what causes I can support with it?

  20. Re:We'll know nine months later what the effect wa by Missing.Matter · · Score: 2, Funny

    Right, because the only reason we're not having sex is because we're on the internet too much.

  21. Dish charging customers in the process. by AnonymousClown · · Score: 2
    I heard on the radio the other day on the Clark Howard show that Dish is still charging their customers full price for the News Corp channels that people paid for ( I guess you have to get a premium package or something to get them) even though they aren't receiving them, The caller stated that he paid for them and isn't getting them and when he asked the customer service rep for a refund or discount, the DIsh rep said too bad.

    It doesn't sound like Dish is the good guys here either.

    As far as I'm concerned, paying for TV is a rip-off - there are no decent providers.

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    1. Re:Dish charging customers in the process. by Brad1138 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I heard on the radio the other day on the Clark Howard show that Dish is still charging their customers full price for the News Corp channels that people paid for ( I guess you have to get a premium package or something to get them) even though they aren't receiving them

      It is early in the dispute. With the Fisher Comm. dispute, Dish customers were given $1/month off their bill for that lost channel. $1 doesn't seems like much, but the locals run $5/month for about 8-12 chans, so it was appropriate. Dish hasn't had time to make that kind of decision, but I think they will if this drags on longer. But you will probably need to call in and ask for it.

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  22. Re:Who are the good guys? by WillDraven · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's the same with all cartels, be they drugs, media, or internet service: the true bad guy is the government for failing to properly regulate the market.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  23. Predicted Path by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is what I have believed is the path this matter will take, and I (and probably many others) have been arguing exactly this. The following is the rational path:

    Big ISP threatens big content. Big content counter-threatens big ISP. Big ISP and big content reach an agreement to shut out small competition. General public does not know about or care about small competition. Small competition dies, oligarchs win.

    Oligarchy or net neutrality. Those are the only two outcomes. Net neutrality depends on an altruistic and long-term focused government. While it has happened before (telcos went through exactly this way back in the day, resulted in common carrier), I do not believe our current government or lackluster activism are capable of making it happen again. In short; oligarchy will win.

    I've been trying to think of solutions, not much so far, a few thoughts:

    1. Diaspora (or similar) farms that are big enough to buy a seat at the table.
    2. Oligarchs sufficiently overstep to incite popular revolution. (unlikely, they're not that stupid -- they know how bread and circuses works -- it is a cookbook to them)
    3. Diaspora (or similar) running over surreptitious channels.
    4. Indie mesh networks similar to ham operations.
    5. Geek revolt (ie: we realize we have all the power here, decide that our paychecks are not worth the price, and shut down the oligarchs before they gain unstoppable power)

    None of these seem particularly likely to succeed, to me. One thing seems obvious: The further we get down the road, the more extreme the solution will have to be. Well, make that two things: The short term gains to the oligarchs will be enormously outweighed by the friction, and hence loss, to our GDP growth rate -- punishing us all, including them, in the long run.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
  24. The fault in the Hulu Business Model by mbone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This has been the fault line in the Hulu business model since Day 1 - there is no way Hulu wanted to do this (block Internet users based on who they are affiliated with?), but they are a creature of their owners, who basically don't want Internet TV to succeed. It is a little surprising to see Rupert Murdoch do this so nakedly over such a comparatively trivial dispute.

    If you think you are going to "Cut the Cord" with Hulu, think again.

  25. Re:no one blames the fans? by JackieBrown · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dollhouse did suck. It only lasted two seasons as an apology for Firefly

  26. Re:no one blames the fans? by PotatoFiend · · Score: 2, Informative

    All of the characters except River and the Preacher could've been fed to the wraiths and the show would've been better for it.

    Wraiths = Stargate Atlantis. Reavers = Firefly. Something tells me you didn't pay much attention.

    --
    "Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power." -- James Madison
  27. Re:Net Neutraility? by sunspot42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When a 'business' murders someone, some individual(s) at the company murdered that someone. Those individual(s) are punished.

    Huh? I don't know about murder, but corporations certainly commit what amounts to homicide all the time, and seldom if ever do their executards pay any sort of legal price.

    Just look at all the bogus drug testing results big pharma used to have dangerous drugs approved for sale. Celebrex , Bextra, Vioxx - all approved for use on the back of fraudulent research. Assuming the crooks running Pfizer and Merck didn't know all along the research was a fraud, they certainly had the money to validate the results of said research before foisting the drug onto an unsuspecting public (it's not like big pharma is going around begging for money). Vioxx alone is thought to have killed around 60,000 people, which makes Osama Bin Laden look like something of an amateur in comparison.

    You kill 60,000 people and see if you get away with it.

    Well, maybe you would if you spent the estimated $2 billion on lawyers that Merck spent . . .

    And this is the reason why no corporation should be allowed to become so large it can't be drowned in a bathtub. Hundreds of corporations are now literally beyond the reach of the law. Which means they can - and will - do whatever they please. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The people running these huge corporations are on the whole no different from the power crazed psychopaths who ran the Soviet Union (into the ground, I might add, which is where our country is headed with these lunatics in charge).

  28. Re:no one blames the fans? by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Firefly has a 9.5 rating on IMDB. Very, very few programs have ever accomplished that. As for ratings, they are also affected by time slots, moving programs around, and showing the episodes OUT OF ORDER. And yes, the media blitz that was planned for Serenity was cancelled at the last minute by the studio, so it had to sink or swim purely by word of mouth. With DVD sales, it still managed to better than break even, although not by much.

    Yea, Family Guy had lousy ratings and was cancelled by Fox. Right before it set a new record for DVD purchases of a TV show. And they cancelled it yet again after that.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  29. Re:We'll know nine months later what the effect wa by Alsee · · Score: 2, Funny

    will be manifested about nine months later

    Ah yes, the great nerdling babyboom of 2010.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  30. Re:You all purport to hate and despise Fox... by toriver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Um, liberals despise fox NEWS. There is no despising going on regarding Simpsons, House M.D. etc. - i.e. all the non-news content they send.

  31. Re:Who are the good guys? by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  32. Re:And if you're a DirecTV customer . . . by luther349 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    well its up to the network to not fold to there demands. even if they pull there channels. there going to lose alot more then 44$ per subscriber. where talking millions of subscribers and billions in ads. any channel pull in the past has been proven to be ineffective. when they start losing the revinew from dish or cablevision guess what said network folds to dish and restores the channels. they stand to lose alot more money then dish will.

  33. net neutrality by luther349 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    perfect reason this is so dammed important. net neutrality would have prevented the network from blocking the internet stream. they can pull them from the tv all they like but not the internet. this is why corps fear it they lose control of the content on the net.

  34. Re:no one blames the fans? by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have you not watched Inception or Toy Story 3?

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  35. ISP's Take Note by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ISP's in favor of preferential access all seem to think they'll be able to charge providers big fees to allow their content to flow to the ISP's customers. For reasons this story should make clear, they're far more likely to end up making payments TO the content providers. There's a reason that every other medium in existance works that way.

  36. Too bad it wasn't Fox Noise that went dark by tunghoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fox Noise is a blight on humanity.

  37. Re:no one blames the fans? by Triv · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Dollhouse's plotting was more like a compressed Buffy and less like Firefly. The first 5 episodes or so were awful, the middle half of the first season was decent, and the last 1/4 of the first season and the entirety of the second season was amazingly good.

    I'm just sayin' - if you didn't stick it out for a bit, you're missing out.