NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] "Content Extortion" - Net Neutrality - and "The Simpsons"
"Content Extortion" - Net Neutrality - and "The Simpsons"
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000661.html
Greetings. Among the hard core of Internet Geekdom (of which, I must
admit, I'm a charter member) you'll frequently hear the phrase "Bits
are bits" -- often in the context that at the digital level, all
content -- Web pages, movies, TV shows, music, and so on, are composed
of the same fungible zeros and ones, at least theoretically capable of
flitting around the Internet with equal ease.
But in the real world, various forces work to channel and control the
flow of bits, in the furtherance of various goals. Many of the key
issues related to Network Neutrality are focused on a range of
controversies and conflicts associated with these efforts to manage
and monetize the movement of data around the Internet.
Most Net Neutrality discussions to date have focused on the ways in
which a few dominant ISPs, who in the U.S. control the vast majority
of Internet users, could use their leverage in ways that favored or
disfavored particular content, create anticompetitive situations for
outside Internet content vs. content affiliated with those ISPs, and
so on.
But we've very recently seen a saga that demonstrates another
potential aspect of the situation that could become important for
persons and organizations concerned about Net Neutrality.
In a nutshell, the question is this: Could Web services use their
popularity to "extort" payment from ISPs in exchange for continued
direct access to those services by those ISPs' subscribers? As an
alternative to directly charging users themselves for site access,
this might seem attractive to unscrupulous entities.
For example, could a popular social networking site, knowing that many
tens of millions of persons organized their lives around the site, go
to an ISP and demand, say, a buck a month per ISP subscriber
(regardless of whether individual subscribers ever visited that
particular Web service or not) -- or alternatively face that ISP's IP
addresses being blocked by that Web service?
Of course, such blocking would not be absolute -- subscribers in the
know would find a way to access the site via proxies and such. But
would an ISP want to risk the backlash from most subscribers who
suddenly found themselves unable to access their favorite site in a
conventional manner?
At first glance this entire scenario might seem like Fantasyland.
What content provider or other Web site would be so wacko as to try
"blackmailing" an ISP that way?
And yet, we've seen something rather like this play out just a few
days ago, when Time Warner Cable (TWC) subscribers were caught in the
middle of a battle royale ( http://bit.ly/672Tus [NNSquad] ) between
their cable company and FOX, specifically whether or not TWC could
continue carrying key FOX over-the-air channels on TWC systems in
major cities.
This was big news -- the thought of missing some football games or
episodes of "The Simpsons" drove many viewers into a flurry of
consternation and panic.
Battles over "retransmission" are not new, but this escalation, both
in terms of rhetoric and potential pass-through costs to cable and
satellite subscribers going forward, is very significant, since the
new venue is battles over traditional "free" locally transmitted
channels, not cable-only channels.
While TWC and FOX finally settled (exact terms moving forward not
officially released as far as I know) at the urging of the FCC,
subscribers in at least one other cable system were not so lucky at
the end of 2009, actually losing some popular cable channels when
other agreements couldn't be reached.
What does all this have to do with Net Neutrality?
Remember -- bits are bits. Television distribution is moving rapidly
toward Internet "IP"-based models. AT&T's U-verse is already an
"IPTV" system. The evolution plans for digital cable all appear to
lead ultimately to IPTV.
Meanwhile, content providers are beginning to offer TV programming
directly through conventional Internet sites, sometimes linked to
being a subscriber of particular cable systems.
This is convergence with a capital C, and the distinction between "TV"
and the "Internet" is already blurring. At some point down the line
the visible differences are likely to vanish completely as far as most
people are concerned. CBS? NBC? PBS? FOX? YouTube? Eventually --
and not that far in the future -- these will all be the same bits
feeding into the same boxes and displaying on the same screens in
people's homes.
And so we come back to the scenario in question. If FOX can threaten
to block Time Warner Cable subscribers unless TWC coughed up a dollar
per sub, could "MyTwitFaceSpace.com" do essentially the same thing as
a quickie or even long term revenue enhancer? And if they tried,
would it work? Would the money potential outweigh the backlash?
Could such a course be legal in the absence of Net Neutrality
regulations that prohibited such demands and actions?
When the technical distinctions between different modalities of
content delivery fall away, the possibility of particularly
distasteful monetizing strategies migrating across a range of
associated services would seem all too real unless moderating
influences -- or in some cases regulatory controls -- are present.
It's an issue at least worth thinking about.
After all -- bits are bits.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
- Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition
for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein