I received an email from Verizon a few days ago, stating several FOX channels are no longer available because “Verizon refused to accept an agreement that contained rates that are not in our customers’ best interests“. Presumably, FOX wanted more than Verizon was willing to pay. (In cable TV, it’s customary for the cable TV operators to pay networks to carry their content.) Now, those channels are currently playing a looping video with Verizon spokespeople, urging subscribers to call Cox Media.
Contrast this with Verizon’s stance toward Netflix, where they want the opposite arrangement: Netflix pays to deliver content over Verizon’s network, citing “When one party’s getting all the benefit and the other’s carrying all the cost, issues will arise” (Other ISPs share this view and Netflix has entered such an agreement with Comcast & Verizon). This inconsistent situation is precisely and exactly why we need a neutral Internet. Payments flowing between ISPs and content providers distorts the market, introduces friction, and shifts control to the ISPs. Ultimately, it hinders innovation: compare the closed, legacy platforms (cable TV, pre-smartphone cell phones) with the enormous economic, quality-of-life, and strategic benefits of the new, open platforms (the Internet, smartphones). If standing up a new Web site was as hard as signing up cable TV providers for your new cable channel, or getting a carrier to carry your mobile app “on deck” (pre-smartphone), we’d be a fraction as advanced as we are today. Allowing business models for legacy, closed networks onto the Internet is a fundamental policy mistake. If we go that way, how long until: Verizon is sorry to inform you that {Netflix,Amazon,Battlefield,Youtube,etc.} will be unavailable (or available only at a reduced performance) because [content provider] refused to accept content distribution rates in our customer’s best interests.