arstechnica.com — Small cable operators say they worried about content providers charging ISPs "discriminatory" access fees, which they say Disney does with ESPN360.com. They want the FCC to stop the practice before it spreads, turning the arguments about net neutrality in the other direction.
Jun 11, 2009 View in Crawl 4
w1cked1Jun 12, 2009
Yes, but only insofar as they aren't allowed to get a deathgrip on access by making backroom deals with providers like they're doing, thereby gaining immunity to the "free" market, as their profit grabbing will be made illusive to the users who think they got it for free, but didn't. Once said deathgrip is complete, they will then be able to sell you "packages", just like on cable now. Really, this content is piggy backing onto "free" information super highway, and trying to hijack it outright. This can't be allowed. It's the second front of the RIAA/MPAA debacle, and where they're now concentrating efforts.
keviniskoolJun 12, 2009
However, Billy Mays sells ESPN 360, therefore, this is not a problem.
atomic1fireJun 12, 2009
hulu is a website,Not a crappy cable provider,Not a crap channel filled satellite provider.Not overly expensive and still holding advertisements.its a website,It can't suck your brains out (ignore the commercials)it can't destroy your internet,It's just a website.no one makes you use it,The internet is for the most part, open to anyone,its not the equivalent of timewarner or some other big cable/internet companyas it only distributes shows and hosts them on its own website with advertisements,you act like that is a bad thing, especially when other websites do the same thing.
Closed AccountJun 12, 2009
not but you can torrent one just 1 hours after it has been shown so it isn't all bad.
ddaydawgJun 12, 2009
I think you complete missed the point of the story. The tenets of Net Neutrality are that the net must remain free and transparent. Now, there is nothing at all wrong with charging subscribers, these are businesses and they have to make money, but what ESPN is doing is more like blackmail than a business model. They are going to the service providers and charging them to allow packets from their network to see the site. This is the EXACT same packet shaping process that Comcast was using it's just on the other end of the route.Then they advertise the hell out of their programming forcing ISPs to pay this blackmail so that the relatively small group of people who subscribe can get to the site. In essence they are forcing all of us to subsidize their service so they can keep the service free for those who use it. I don't know about you but I don't want to be forced into paying part of some jackasses ESPN360 subscription. If the ISPs don't pay up they get cut off and then their customers complain causing them increased costs in lost subscriptions and customer service calls.If the providers want the internet to be truly neutral then they have to do their part as well. I think that Disney should lose this fight, the FCC should bring the hammer down on them just as hard as they did on Comcast. I'm a big proponent of Net Neutrality but we have to hold the line in both directions for this to work out.
emotecontrolJun 12, 2009
I'll take option 3, thanks. Proxies are always slow.They could be streaming to me and making me watch their ads, but instead they force me to just download the stuff and they don't get any ad revenue from me. How does that make any sense?
gigitrixJun 12, 2009
noone should!