Content Companies Demand Subsidies From ISPs... While ISPs Demand Subsidies From Content Companies
from the regulatory-silliness dept
It's sometimes quite amusing to watch how various economic ecosystems grow, where multiple companies have symbiotic relationships, and then start to freak out when they think that other companies in the ecosystem are somehow earning "too much." That, of course, is at the heart of many recent battles we've seen -- from net neutrality (where the ISPs think Google is earning too much) to the music industry (where record labels think ISPs and Apple are earning too much). But sometimes it leads to rather amusing contrasts. For example, up in Canada, the entertainment industry is complaining that ISPs earn too much, and therefore are pushing for laws that would require broadband providers to pay money to the entertainment industry to develop new content.But contrast that to the situation in the UK, where there's an ongoing push for content companies to pay extra to help subsidize the cost of broadband deployments. The argument there is that all the content that's being put online is creating a drain on broadband network resources. But, isn't that exactly what the content creators in Canada are saying is a "free ride" for the ISPs?
Basically, it's yet another situation where each side of the debate overvalues its own contribution. The ISPs think that it's the network that is the most important thing, and the content providers should be paying their way to use it. Meanwhile, the content companies think that it's their content that makes the networks valuable, so the ISPs should be paying extra to offer their content. In reality, they're both wrong. The two things work together just fine in a market where each side pays its own way and doesn't have to subsidize the other. Now, if we could just see such contrasting regulations proposed and passed in the same country, we could have an amusing situation where the cross-subsidies cancel each other out.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: content companies, isps, regulations
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes
Unfortunately, ISPs and internet creators are getting the brunt of the govt spending cuts and it reflects on their outlook on their business. We need to look further and realize that internet content creation will grow without borders if, and only if, the content is worthwhile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The two things work together just fine in a market where each side pays its own way and doesn't have to subsidize the other."
Yet you support massively P2P protocols that massively shift the costs of doing business from the content providers (torrent sites, companies using BT to transfer their content) to the ISPs, knowing that the ISPs are not in the position to charge true market value for thier connectivity. P2P distribution of commercial software is the ultimate in not paying your way. So how can you support it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm glad we are on the same page!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Besides, the P2P is not just the issue. Ever hear of HULU or any of the perfectly legal streaming media sites?
Weird Harold please either quit trolling, quit doing illegal drugs, or quit drinking and posting. Maybe see a doctor and get a prescription for real drugs like lithium or something to make you less crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The rationale is that Canadian Internet content producers cannot compete directly with U.S. content and need the financial assistance. If the CRTC could figure out how, they would mandate a minimum amount of Canadian content that would have to be passed by Canadian ISPs just as they mandate minimum Canadian content levels on broadcasters and cable companies.
The fun part will be watching how this ill-gotten booty is distributed. How do they expect to determine who is and who is not a worthy content producer?
This is not a case of market economics but rather a case of government meddling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick wrote:
I’m not sure it would be that amusing. The consumer would be expected to pay for both subsidies. Whether the elephants are making war or making love, it’s always the grass that suffers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I need one too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I need one too!
I'd have to get a dog and learn how to not kill all things green but you get the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I need one too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Result of the Separation of Content and Distribution
It would seem that both the paying of the ISP by the content company and the ISP paying for content is silly. Each needs the other - the relationship is symbiotic.
Wouldn't it be silly if a small record label has to pay a multi-billion dollar Internet telecommunications giant like AT&T because someone AT&T customers downloaded free samples of some songs the label produced from the music label's site.
It's also absurd that a huge media company like EMI would have to be paid by a small rural ISP that had a customer that connected to an EMI site and downloaded music samples from EMI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If BT feels as though they are short of money - perhaps they should recoup some cash from their overpaid exectives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snake eats its tail
And when you say they are "demanding subsidies" from each other, what they're really doing is "conspiring to raise prices on consumers".
Let's not mess around here: class warfare is real, and the corporate class has been perpetrating these acts of economic terrorism on us for years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pope Ratzo Nailed it.
Don't buy into the premise/rigamarole foisted on us by the fascist corporations. This is all about the top 5% using their control of the media to instill the premise that the rest of us should fork over even more of our livelyhood to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ISPs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reverse is not true: the tax payers are stuck with paying for this but at such low amortized amounts that fighting back is not worth the trouble. In effect, it’s like a million mosquitoes swarming around biting you. It’s not effective to fight all of them, you can’t win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]