Disney Strikes Against Net Neutrality 442
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?"
Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're experts on charging everyone for content, whether they want it or not.
(Whatever happened to all those proposals for 'ala carte' cable?)
They're stuck in the tv mindsest (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They're stuck in the tv mindsest (Score:4, Insightful)
"Why do we pay CEOs these ridiculous salaries again? It sure isn't because they're visionaries."
It's because they are all power hungry sociopaths that are charismatic & good at extracting money from us.
Is This A Threat to Net Neutrality? Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:3, Insightful)
A la carte cable would be the death of 75% of cable channels out there.
Yet nothing of value would be lost.
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:3, Insightful)
Disney is to culture what a faulty catalytic converter is to air quality
local broadband monopolies (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a big difference between "the ones I don't watch anyway" and "the ones nobody watches anyway."
As a Slashdotter you should very careful trying to apply your tastes to the population at large, because it's extremely likely you're nowhere near the norm in that regard.
Re:Block the site (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:5, Insightful)
OLD disney films were special.
otoh, to see the dark side of disney, check out the BANNED 'uncle remus' tales (aka 'song of the south').
due to PC pressure, disney self-banned that film. I got a copy on the bay. I grew up with that movie, as a youth, in the 70's. taken in historical context, there's nothing wrong with it. yet disney outright bans it and only released it to some countries.
they also manipulate their 'vault' for fake money reasons, not at all based on real supply/demand, but they try to artificially create scarecity.
the old films are worth stealing (yes, I said that). the new ones are worth nothing at all.
Re:I don't think this is net neutrality. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
No brain surgery here (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:They're stuck in the tv mindsest (Score:3, Insightful)
Campfire stories for your kids... (Score:4, Insightful)
A work-around to Net Neutrality for the Big Wigs? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:2, Insightful)
Clearly you do not understand the concept of 'Net neutrality then. If restriction of content you don't want to see doesn't bother your sensibilities, then the big Internet business will assume that you won't mind when they come for Slashdot.
Guess how much Disney I consume. None. This outrages me because if Disney content can be restricted in this way, ANY content can be restricted in this way.
Your attitude will kill net neutrality. 'Net neutrality goes both ways. 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.
Jayzus...
Proper response by ISP (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares. Disney is to culture what thyroid cancer is to metabolism. I wouldn't waste a 2400bps connection on their drivel.
If that's how you feel about Disney, then you absolutely should care, because if your ISP is a subscriber that means you are paying for content that you can't stand and will probably never watch. If you decide not to use any ISP that subscribes, you are being subjected to a reduction in choice in your ISP selection because of this. If a sufficiently popular site decides to go this route (and ESPN is popular whether you watch it or not), then you may be left with no choice in your area other than pay for this stuff or go without Internet access. This should matter to everybody.
not net neutrality (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:3, Insightful)
Guess how much Disney I consume. None. This outrages me because if Disney content can be restricted in this way, ANY content can be restricted in this way.
Also, if your ISP pays for Disney.com or whatever, the cost will be passed to you. I have no interest in subsidizing Disney watchers -- at least not under the proposed terms.
Re:I hate the disney cult... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:5, Insightful)
I recently got my kids some Loony Tunes, which had the episode where Elmer Fudd (as a Mounty) catches Bugs and has him in front of a firing squad. For his "wast wequest", Bugs breaks out into "I wish I were in Dixie", with the whole firing squad transforming into "black-face" minstrel singers, a la the old black minstrel shows.
Well, whoever compiled this DVD chose to blur the faces out, presumably for reasons of political correctness.
Now, I have a big problem with this, because it robbed me of a great 'teachable moment' for my kids... a chance to talk about the fact that just fifty years ago that sort of thing was perfectly acceptable and accepted, and why it was wrong. This happens all over the place... all the remnants of a horrible era in American history (slavery and Jim Crow) being gradually swept under the rug. How can we help forgetting when the purveyors of common culture are working so very, very hard to make sure that we forget!?! I mean... my father went to Little Rock Central High School, and graduated a year before they sent the National Guard in, but nowadays we act as if all that stuff is something from the distant past. It's not--and it could come back if we don't watch it like a hawk.
I'm fighting back though... my oldest (11) just finished reading (at my insistence) Uncle Tom's Cabin, and I plan to have him read the Autobiography of Frederick Douglas and watch Schindler's List as well this summer. (He's quite precocious. Most 11 year olds probably wouldn't be ready for this.) Later, we'll read together the works of Martin Luther King and similar writings. I've laid out an education program for my kids in my mind, to make sure that they at least know what a horrible thing racism (and it's cousins, racist nationalism, fascism, and National Socialism) is.
If only the schools would do the same, instead of white-washing everything and reducing the desperate fight of oppressed peoples against brutal oppression to a few names and dates, boring and bloodless.
Re:Is This A Threat to Net Neutrality? Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
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."
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, until all your neighbours complain and get a Disney Tax added to your internet bill... then it won't matter whether you access it or not, they'll make (your) money.
Re:They're stuck in the tv mindsest (Score:5, Insightful)
These companies seem to be stuck in the TV mindset, and view web sites sort-of like internet channels.
That is probably because TV makes money for them, and free Internet web sites do not make any money for video content producers right now.
I really wish companies would learn to adapt instead of trying to shoehorn everything into their existing business models
Losing money is not really a great business model...
Nothing new... (Score:1, Insightful)
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...
Re:Is This A Threat to Net Neutrality? Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:I don't think this is net neutrality. (Score:5, Insightful)
If there were choices in broadband providers net neutrality would be a non-issue.
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They're stuck in the tv mindsest (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:1, Insightful)
Here's three screaming kids. Your move.
"Get your asses outside and play, and don't come inside until dinner time."
Duh.
Re:Shrek != Disney (Score:2, Insightful)
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...
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize that people motivated enough to go to a whole nother continent to go to college are going to be a self-selecting group, right?
There is a mountain of irony in your speaking of American blacks as a single monolithic group.
Re:Is This A Threat to Net Neutrality? Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:3, Insightful)
Revisionists and racists mostly.
After all, it's much easier to try to say "all whites are evil for slavery" if you don't have to admit that freed blacks actually owned more slaves (on a per capita basis) than whites did.
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not taught in schools. It's not depicted in history nor in historical reenactments. It's a facet of history that is simply not commonly known and is conveniently omitted to suit various agendas. I suspect that in the distant past, it didn't serve the interests of those who would assert the supremacy of white people to indicate that some black people had ownership of any property at all, let alone other black people. In the more recent past and present, it is likely to serve the interests of those who prefer to exploit the current perception of that black people are disadvantaged and underprivileged minorities.
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, but you have to volunteer and/or sign up for Neilsen ratings. They are submitted lists of favorite channels by people who have an interest in getting their voice heard.
This would likely be the person that thinks they are saving the sanctity of TV by voicing their opinions on what people should watch. I'd venture a guess that a majority of their polls are female and probably highly religious.
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:3, Insightful)
You hit the nail on the head. It IS ok for Disney to charge INDIVIDUALS money for using their site. It is NOT ok to charge EVERYONE on an ISP for the individuals who use their site.
I don't even understand the argument for charging the ISPs.
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:5, Insightful)
My grandmother is racist and my father is a little racist (he's pretty good for the most part, but he still has a tendency to point a racial finger at people when something bad happens). My mother could care less if you were purple spotted and were made of jelly. She'd love you anyway. I think that was more influential than anything else. However, I really didn't meet many people that I actually thought were racist down there. Some people were a little skittish, but, for the most part, there wasn't a problem with anyone.
The first time I encountered a whole group of people who collectively were rather racist was when I moved up North. Outwardly, everyone was extremely politically correct, said the right things and were extremely "outraged" that I called people 'black' instead of African Americans (try calling anyone that in the 'hood' of town...I won't come to your funeral). In fact, there was no mixing of white people and black people at all...they were completely separated cultures and groups of people. The black people were extremely defensive and not open to making new relationships - I don't know whether they are just burned really bad or if it is just instilled in them that everyone hates them. Whatever it is. Everyone up North seems to be extremely racist toward everyone else - its kinda sad.
I'm more of the opinion that yes, there are definitely still some racists about, but I think, for the most part, it's turned into perception more than anything. We assume that someone's out to get us, so everything becomes self-prophetic and seems to support the conclusion that we assumed. Personally, I think that's crap.
I do disagree with the cultural "glossing-over" that has happened, but I also think its a bunch of bunk to try and hammer those lessons into the young. They are only going to learn to treat people as their equals if the people around them are doing so. Hammering into the young that they need to avoid the mistakes of the past only sharpens those lines that still exist - it doesn't magically erase them.
Racism is just some form of elitist thinking that's tied to being identified with a race. The same thing happens, for example, when people join gangs - their gang is better than the rest. It's a coping mechanism that exists in society. It's not something you can just educate away. Sometimes you can try to help a single person one at a time, but you can't just change people. It doesn't work. I would know. I'm lucky to have escaped my neighborhood alive - I could be caught up in the gang mentality just as easily as anyone else, but I managed not to. It doesn't make me better than any of my buddies who are still doing drugs, stealing, and killing people. It just means that I escaped the spiral.
I don't think that gangs, racism, or any other elitist thinking is something that can be "fought". being aware is good, I think. But I think that coming to the table thinking that you are going to 'do your part' and fight racism is really bringing a fight into something that's not. Racist persons are more people to feel sorry for than people to hate.
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not taught in schools. It's not depicted in history nor in historical reenactments. It's a facet of history that is simply not commonly known and is conveniently omitted to suit various agendas.
You evidently need better schools. We were taught all about the Malinese and Songhai empires with regards to the slave trade, in high school.
This has nothing to do with whether American blacks are disadvantaged minorities. Only a moron could conflate the issues.
Oblig. Quote (Score:3, Insightful)
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
The Other Boot (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I don't even understand the argument for charging (Score:5, Insightful)
the ISPs.
The only thing to understand is greed.
Falcon
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this relevant to anything? How many people care about continuing to drive a car after it gets run over by a bulldozer? How many peoples' cars even get run over by bulldozers?
The only thing possibly relevant here is how the occupants fared, not whether the car still runs.
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the ISP that's doing the buying. And they get nothing for their trouble, except a bigger bill to pass on.
Thanks so much (snark) (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Well, the cable industry should know. (Score:2, Insightful)
Slavery was bad, but the deep South was never anywhere close to Nazi Germany...
So Nazi Germany is the yardstick to be used? If it doesn't measure up to that, it's merely "bad"? Slavery was an appalling crime. The fact that people (white and black, as you state) thought it was alright to claim other human beings and their labor as property is an abomination. Just because millions were not thrown in to ovens, gas chambers, or shot does not mean slavery can be easily dismissed.
The so-called "history book" you learned from as a kid was a bastardized, sanitized, rewritten version of "history" that had about as much relation to the truth as a made-for-TV "based on a true story" movie.
How do you know what history books I learned from? Try A People's History of the United States [amazon.com] out; you may like it.