Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,

[Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>]

On 9/21/2010 8:12 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
> Finally, there's a risk that this double-edged sword could slice back
> at service providers.  Content networks often raise funds through
> advertising.  What happens when one day, some network (*cough ESPN360*),
> decides that a *SERVICE PROVIDER* should pay for the privilege of
> getting access to their content?  I mean, after all, two can play at
> the game of holding the ISP's subscribers hostage, and in many areas,
> subscribers do have a choice between at least two service providers,
> in case their first choice sucks.  I don't think we want this, but it
> could be a natural backlash.  What if Google came to you and said "you
> will pay us a dollar per sub per month, or we will route all your
> traffic through a 56k link in Timbuktu"?  Would most eyeball networks
> even have a realistic *choice*?

Yeah, wish that was illegal. The size of the provider determines the 
cost per capable subscriber, along with other perks, so it's a better 
deal for the AT&T and Verizons of the world, and sucks for the "We have 
13 independent ILECs and each has to have a separate deal." Word is, 
they designed it with their current cable customers in mind, not the 
traditional ISP, so it pushes people towards the cable company.

I'd accept any ISP net-neutrality arguement for content providers to 
stop doing that crap and support per user subscription fees. The whole 
beauty of the Internet video is people can pick and choose and not have 
to pay for things they don't use (ie, for espn3, I have to account the 
per customer charges into my bills and pester my customers with espn3 
advertising in their bills even if they hate sports or don't watch 
video/tv/movies).


Jack