| Net Neutrality issue??? Doesn't this in some way violate Net Neutrality? I know in the current political extent, Net Neutrality means ISP's not giving preferential treatment to or restricting any connection to various content. Content providers have been complaining that ISP's may start chargning them for their consumers accessing their content, which caused an uproar among content people. Now, a content provider wants to charge the ISP to deliver the content. No uproar from ISP's, WTH???? |
|
Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| NOPE! Why? Because its a PREMIUM Service that all providers have the option to carry. It is NOT Disney's fault that some ISPs do not want to carry it.
Net Neutrality only means charging the Content Provider extra for delivering content to the ISP's customer. In return the ISP is PAYING the Content provider, which they do willingly. |
|
|
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to anon
ESPN doesn't control the network. They are abusing their monopoly on certain rebroadcast rights, but that's different. Network neutrality violation would be Comcast telling their subscriber "you have to pay Comcast $1 to access ESPN 360 this month". ESPN could say "you have to pay ESPN $1 to access ESPN 360 this month" and it would be "OK".
It's the difference between a bridge troll and a dragon that took over a castle, I guess. |
|
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc:Net Neutrality only means charging the Content Provider extra for delivering content to the ISP's customer. In return the ISP is PAYING the Content provider, which they do willingly. Most definitions of Network Neutrality are broader than that, and include non-discrimination on the basis of source, destination, or application (or port in technical terms) of traffic. Since the end result is a service being blocked or degraded based on an IP address, a clear violation of Network Neutrality is taking place.
I bet the larger ISPs are kicking themselves for not thinking of this first. Or did they? Maybe they were thinking "If we can't implement favoritism to maintain a cable/cell phone like business model, let's have the content providers do it themselves." Of course, they've realized by now they can't be the ones to pull the trigger, so maybe some under-the-table dealing took place. That might explain why the cost is higher for smaller ISPs. |
|
