Network neutrality advocated by...cable operators?

Cable operators -- representatives of the industry that has spent the last several years arguing that they should be able to charge net-video providers for the right to send data to their customers -- are now arguing that video companies should not be allowed to charge them for the right to send video to their customers.

"Media giants are in the early stages of becoming Internet gatekeepers by requiring broadband providers to pay for their Web-based content and services and include them as part of basic Internet access for all subscribers," an ACA press release on the issue warns. "These content providers are also preventing subscribers who are interested in the content from independently accessing it on broadband networks of providers that have refused to pay."

Cable group turns net neutrality around over ISP access fees

[#1 posted by mackenzi, June 11, 2009 12:37 PM]

Must be ethical on the Net, right? How else will you see the values? I'm a quark.

[#2 posted by Clemoh, June 11, 2009 12:54 PM]

They're smart enough not to shit where they eat. They are making huge profits the way things are, why would they want giant media conglomerates dictating to them how the infrastructure that cablecos created and maintain are used? Seems like a better idea to come down on the side of the customer and show a united front to media companies trying to horn in on their action.

[#3 posted by Anonymous, June 11, 2009 2:14 PM]

HI-LARIOUS!

[#4 posted by Midtownhipster, June 11, 2009 7:18 PM]

This headline is misleading. The ACA does not represent mainstream cable companies (comcast, cox, at&t). Oddly if you look at:
http://www.americancable.org/aca_associate_members
the membership consists of cable content providers (hallmark, discovery, TBN) and sellers of data transmission equipment.

There is obviously more to this story. But it is not about cable operators previously advocating against network neutrality suddenly shifting to a pro-network neutrality position.

[#5 posted by digitalcole, June 11, 2009 10:45 PM]

The stupidity of big business.

Let me get this strait. The ISPs wanted to charge networks for delivering/carrying their content. Now the networks deiced that no, we want to be paid by the ISPs to have our "premium" content delivered to the ISPs customers?

I have a bad feeling about this.

[#6 posted by wizardofplum, June 12, 2009 12:27 AM]

Ruck Fogers!The best move I ever made was to dump
that source and switch to internet.I have a vintage steam driven P.C. and I get more vital and
creative input from youse guys than I could ever
get from the pablum spewed by the networks.Cudo's to Cory and Xenia et al,to takuan and troofseeker
thanks for the ?

[#7 posted by novex, June 12, 2009 12:41 AM]

ahhh this is pure gold.

isp: we want to charge you and/or our customers more to access your service.

vid sites: we want you isp's to pay us or we will block access to your customers. how you like that net non-neutrality ?

[#8 posted by Takuan, June 12, 2009 12:44 AM]

http://groundstate.ca/digitaltv

[#9 posted by morat, June 12, 2009 9:31 AM]

Am I missing something here? I don't see how this is about network neutrality; it's not the network that's making access decisions, it's the content provider.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that network neutrality requires everyone who provides content to provide access to it to everyone equally, and to everyone for free (and if people start claiming that it does, I look forward to my equal access to their bank account information...)