Original topic on Net Neutrality:
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=493365

I totally called it way back in 2007!

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/cable-group-turns-net-neutrality-around-over-isp-access-fees.ars

Quote :

"The American Cable Association has asked the Federal Communications Commission to stop Internet video content providers from charging ISPs wholesale access fees to their sites "at discriminatory rates, terms and conditions." Although the above quote uses the plural, the ACA filing cites only one media giant that it says has actually adopted this practice: the Disney-owned sports site ESPN360.com. But indeed, when Ars went to the site, a pop-up announcement cheerfully told us that "your internet service provider offers ESPN360.com" and that it is "powered by AT&T," one of almost 60 ISPs that feature the online live sports network."

As I suspected, internet service provision may turn out to operate just as cable television provision does: the network providers (Road Runner) paying content producers (Disney) for access to the content, with all that implies.

6/18/2009 12:03:51 PM

Can you quote your comment from that thread, not interested in reading it all over again.

6/18/2009 12:27:55 PM

AT&T is a fucking blood-sucker scum company

6/18/2009 12:50:35 PM

And just like with cable, i would absolutely love if I could get rid of every disney owned channel so i didn't have to pay for them.

6/18/2009 12:55:55 PM

no espn?

6/18/2009 12:57:56 PM

For Fail Boat, me in 2007:

Quote :

"Well, there are several ways the market could play out. There is the customer model and the content model. I was addressing one, you evidently only care about the other. It is possible for it to work out as the cable television industry has, but oddly enough it is exactly the opposite of what you seem to theorize. Time Warner pays Disney $1.3 billion so its customers can access Disney's TV channels. Why do we think it would work out the exact reverse for access to its internet content? It sounds to me like the real worry is Google walking up to Time Warner and proclaiming it will block all Time Warner IP addresses if it does not pony up a million dollars in "access fees" to Google. If my picture is fuzzy or if the channels I want to watch are not available on my cable service, I call a satellite provider. Similarly, if Google takes forever to load at my house, because my cable company has blocked them or vise versa, but load instantly at my neighbors house, because they have Fiber, then my cable provider loses. Since the market power seems to be vested the same way in both instances, I believe we should expect the cash flow to also work out the same way."

6/18/2009 1:37:59 PM

Not bad. But you could have said "capitalists are going to want to get paid one way or the other" and you'd have been right no matter who the counterparty was, service provider or content provider.

6/18/2009 1:40:59 PM

And low and behold, with my Road Runner connection, when I try to access ESPN360:

Quote :

"How to Get Access to ESPN360.com ESPN360.com is available at no charge to fans who receive their high-speed internet connection from an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider. ESPN360.com is also available to fans that access the internet from U.S. college campuses and U.S. military bases. Your current computer network falls outside of these categories. Here’s how you can get access to ESPN360.com. 1. Switch to an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider or to contact your internet service provider and request ESPN360.com. Click here to enter your ZIP code and find out which providers in your area carry offer ESPN360.com 2. If you already get ESPN360.com at home and activated remote access, sign in using the myESPN link in the upper right hand corner. In order to activate remote access, you must sign in through your ESPN360.com affiliate Internet Service Provider. 3. For Verizon Customers Only: Sign-in using remote access if you already get ESPN360.com 4. For Comcast Customers Only: Great news! ESPN360.com will be free with your Comcast High-Speed Internet subscription beginning August 1st. Click here to sign up to receive ESPN360.com newsletters and updates"

6/18/2009 1:41:38 PM

Quote :

"no espn?"

espn is terrible. For the small amount of sports I watch, there is a regional channel (NESN) and their Redsox comentators are fantastic.

^If i were Time Warner Cable, tommorrow I would be offering cable tv/internet without disney related channels/websites for $10 less.

6/18/2009 2:08:38 PM

This is a very old story, we have decades of evidence telling us how that will work out. And it does not work out to Time Warner's favor; that is because Disney is not stupid. It knows that if it lets Time Warner make ESPN360 a premium package then they are sunk; therefore, Disney will demand an all or nothing contract, prohibiting Time Warner from doing what you just suggested. As such, the only hope is for either ESPN360 to be a flop with customers or for the FCC to prohibit it under network neutrality rules. If these fail then it is inevitable, a portion of all our internet access payments will be going to Disney, whether we watch ESPN or not.

6/18/2009 2:46:39 PM

Couldn't TWC get the pages relayed to them via some other means so Disney would have no way of knowing who was requesting it? Oh yes, they can, it's called a proxy. If all the service providers get together and decide they will route each others traffic through their own networks to Disney and back, then Disney would have much less bargaining power, all the way to none.

6/18/2009 2:56:04 PM

If that would work, then why didn't it work for Cable Television? Afterall, Comcast can given Time Warner the ESPN signal. But wait, if Comcast did that, then Disney would cut them off for breach of contract.

This is not to say a person cannot get around this. If your friend is on Comcast then you can get access if your friend is willing to proxy for you, but I doubt their uplink is fast enough to make it worthwhile, and they could certainly only do that for one person.

6/18/2009 3:18:46 PM

What I don't get is why ESPN is doing this at the ISP level and not the end user level? I'd like to see the numbers but just how many people are going to jump from one ISP to the next if they don't provide 360?

6/18/2009 3:50:48 PM

what i was suggesting was that time warner would offer the same price for existing service + disney channels/websites. Im talking about the entire bundle, disney, espn, whatever.

Then for those of us who dont want them charge us less than the normal price. Time warner obviously cant offer channel by channel picks, but if they let us pick by content provider I think we'd both be better off. Time warner would take a hit since i'm paying them less, but it might get through to disney that the amount they charge is too much. IIRC espn and related channels are the most expensive part of the basic cable package. They're not worth what im paying.

6/18/2009 3:51:21 PM

And as I said, if TW tried that then Disney with pitch a fit and cut all TW customers off with a message suggesting TW customers switch providers.

6/18/2009 3:54:26 PM

thats fine with me if thats how they want to do it. I'd stick with time warner. also, the only option for other carriers for most people would mean sattelite.

6/18/2009 3:59:45 PM