Imagine if a cable news network could get its website to load faster on your computer than your favorite local political blog. Imagine if big corporations with their own agenda could decide who wins or loses online. The Internet as we know it would cease to exist. That’s why net neutrality is the most important free speech issue of our time. Quentin Colgan
by Mark Sorensen
(Continued from articles shown below) But, the situation is even more complex and dynamic.
I’ll toss just one scenario into the mix. That is when content providers discriminate (block or filter) traffic from certain ISP’s. Why? Because the ISP won’t cough up with per subscriber royalty payments. Probably the biggest example is ESPN click link for more info. In effect, if you are an ISP not giving money to ESPN for access, then one day your subscriber may try to access certain content and be presented with a screen suggesting that they switch to an ISP who does cough up with the dough. In response, rather than loose paying subscribers, you start paying.
Yes, that is a gun to your head. An economic gun. The monthly fees become buried into the monthly costs for bandwidth. And those costs are buried there whether or not you ever access that particular content. Sound Familiar? IMHO it is exactly the kind of activity that made and continues to make cable and satellite subscriptions expensive, based on packages, and prevents you (the consumer) from choosing what you will and will not subscribe to on an individual basis (AKA: A la carte pricing). If you are a cable or satellite operator and you want to carry ESPN…. Then you will forward well over $3 per month per subscriber and you will carry ESPN in the most widely distributed program package (AKA: Base Package), or you wont carry ESPN.
It does not matter if your customer (the subscriber) wants or ever watches ESPN, you and the subscriber pay, and you have very few palatable options in the matter. It is this game played by content providers that created the “programing package” and resists per channel pricing. I see the same thing occurring with on-line content. And I think that it’s a bad thing.
I like the idea of “a la carte” pricing. I’d love to have that option for my health care insurance.
On the other hand I can understand the concept of packaging from a business perspective. Business survives and thrives by making agreements with those with whom they do business.
In some instances acquiring the rights to offer certain high profile content is dependent on also accepting other lesser content that would have trouble standing alone even though there is demand for it. I’m told movie theaters are in this position. Apparently they have to accept a certain number of “B” movies along with the big box office movies. I don’t have a problem with that as long as I am given the choice to attend or not.
I read an interesting article from CATO that gives some history on government regulation in other industries for anyone who might be interested:
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/beware-the-unintended-consequences-of-regulation
Cato Institute
Beware the Unintended Consequences of Regulation