how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to funchords
ESPN360: Boycott and possible class action lawsuit While ESPN360's tactics are not a violation of anyone's definition of "network neutrality" (though this may change, because the "net neutrality" zealots seem to be expanding their definitions daily), they do have the same goal as "network neutrality" regulation: to shift costs from content providers to ISPs.
"Network neutrality" regulation -- which is not "neutral" at all because it favors content providers over ISPs -- does this by forcing ISPs to allow bandwidth costs to be shifted from content providers to ISPs. (See my testimony at »www.brettglass.com/FCC/remarks.html for an explanation of this, complete with graphics.)
ESPN360, on the other hand, is trying to shift costs to ISPs by forcing them to actually pay it money.
So, ESPN360's tactics and "network neutrality" have these things in common. They are both being foisted on ISPs by large corporations in an attempt to shake them down for money, and if successful will both cause broadband to become more expensive.
Robb, you're a "consultant" to the lobbying group Free Press, which is well known to be lobbying on behalf of the agenda of content provider Google. So, in essence, you're a shill for the content providers here. | |
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
3 edits | said by SuperWISP:While ESPN360's tactics are not a violation of anyone's definition of "network neutrality" (though this may change, because the "net neutrality" zealots seem to be expanding their definitions daily), they do have the same goal as "network neutrality" regulation: to shift costs from content providers to ISPs. Brett, get off of of the "shift costs from content providers to ISPs" motive. It's not only inaccurate, it makes you shrill. The NN team doesn't care about shifting costs. It cares about special deals and treatment. Feel free to bring it up as a consequence when appropriate, but you sound like a net.kook when you just throw around mud.
Since ESPN360 isn't "the network," then it cannot -- by definition -- have any bearing on its neutrality (small 'n' in this case). But, yeah, this NN stuff morphs because just as there can be non-neutral network behaviors there certainly can be non-neutral economic ones. That's where Net Neutrality leaves the technical realm. This is the part that seems to morph.
But, technical or economic, these are all framed in the context of carriage.
Would what a content provider does affect anything in the NN space? Actually, Yes, I worry that it could -- but you have to look at it from the other side of the contract: who's on the other end of the horn?
Think about it: whose the content provider making the deal with -- the ISP! So now there's an economic reason to prioritize (or protect) certain "premium" traffic. That stinks!
said by SuperWISP:Robb, you're a "consultant" to the lobbying group Free Press, which is well known to be lobbying on behalf of the agenda of content provider Google. So, in essence, you're a shill for the content providers here. I shill for no one. Hell, on this topic, I'm closer to your position than the other side! (And there you go again with your kooky accusations -- Google's support for NN doesn't make the NN-groups advocates for Google's entire agenda.)
I've been pretty outspoken about Viacom's New Year's Eve attempt to shake down Cable ISPs for their customers' access to its sites -- ESPN360's model is only slightly different, and regardless of any position of my clients (they've not taken one AFAIK), I'm not a fan of an ISP-based subscription model. That puts my views rather aligned with your interests (and that's not the first time).
And even though I share your disapproval of this kind of business model, I still think it's amazingly ironic that you, in particular, think ESPN360 ought to be forced to do anything with their private site. Now that's entertainment!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... | |
| Robb:
No one here should take your remarks seriously, since you have never been in the business of actually providing people with broadband service and obviously don't have the foggiest idea of what it entails. Cost shifting is a huge concern, especially when -- as is the case with P2P -- costs are not only shifted to ISPs but multiplied one hundredfold in the process.
You had your 15 minutes of fame when FCC Chairman Kevin Martin used you as a pawn in his vendetta against the cable companies. (He had you testify -- but not under oath and with no cross-examination, which would have demolished the many false statements you made -- and then quoted your network neutrality zealotry almost verbatim in the resulting order.)
It's time for you to quit your crusade to regulate ISPs, as you have zero actual knowledge or credibility in this field. You and the other jihaadists who are preaching regulation of the Internet should simply crawl back under the rock from which you emerged. All consumers will be thankful, and will have better and less expensive Internet service. | |
 kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | said by SuperWISP:Robb: No one here should take your remarks seriously, since you have never been in the business of actually providing people with broadband service and obviously don't have the foggiest idea of what it entails. Cost shifting is a huge concern, especially when -- as is the case with P2P -- costs are not only shifted to ISPs but multiplied one hundredfold in the process. You had your 15 minutes of fame when FCC Chairman Kevin Martin used you as a pawn in his vendetta against the cable companies. (He had you testify -- but not under oath and with no cross-examination, which would have demolished the many false statements you made -- and then quoted your network neutrality zealotry almost verbatim in the resulting order.) It's time for you to quit your crusade to regulate ISPs, as you have zero actual knowledge or credibility in this field. You and the other jihaadists who are preaching regulation of the Internet should simply crawl back under the rock from which you emerged. All consumers will be thankful, and will have better and less expensive Internet service. The fact that you show up here to practice very thing he just did to you sans providing evidence about his rotten morals - the way he did about you, BTW -, this action alone shows how badly we HAVE TO REGULATE YOU GUYS, in order to prevent your GREED-dictated ABUSE of the internet.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] | |
| reply to kamm
Re: ESPN360: Boycott and possible class action lawsuit Oh, I see. I'm obviously greedy and e-vile because my life's mission is to extend access to the Internet to people who would otherwise never get it -- and reap a very paltry reward for doing so (far less than if I'd invested my money and time in, say, real estate). And I must obviously be regulated out of business, because no ISP can ever possibly be good or even decent. NOT. | |
|
