Over the weekend, Fox committed what should be considered one of the grossest violations of the open Internet committed by a U.S. company. Unfortunately, there was no one to call them on it.
Two media giants, Fox and Cablevision, are embroiled in yet another of those disputes (retransmission consent) in which the company with content (in this case Fox) wants to raise the amount of money to be paid to it by the company with the distribution network (in this case Cablevision, with 3 million or so subscribers around New York City and Philadelphia).
The two sides usually negotiate to find a settlement. If they can't agree, it gets nasty. There are no winners in this process. The losers are the customers of the cable or satellite company who through no fault of theirs, are deprived of access to the channels under discussion (for which they have paid, of course) while the big business deals are being cut.
There's an impasse in the Fox-Cablevision discussions, so Fox yanked its TV channels from Cablevision systems just as the National Football League season was entering its sixth week and the major league baseball playoffs are the league-championship series.
In this case, however, Fox went over the line. It not only pulled its TV channels, it blocked Cablevision subscribers from accessing Fox content online, from fox.com web sites or from Hulu. Even if a customer received only Internet service from Cablevision, and TV programming from another company like DirecTV or Dish, that Internet user trying to reach a Fox online was redirected to www.keepfoxon.com -- a Fox site that gives Fox's side of the negotiations and even has a couple of helpful links to Cablevision competitors like AT&T's U-verse, Verizon FiOS and DirecTV.
As Broadcasting and Cable reported, the theory behind the Internet blockage was to keep Cablevision subscribers from watching Fox content online, and thus taking away a Cablevision incentive to negotiate. Never mind that some Cablevision Internet access subscribers might want to do something else on the great big Internets. Keeping them away from Fox content was paramount.
Fox's Internet firewall on Oct. 17 lasted only a few hours before the company reversed position. Public Knowledge and Free Press protested the policy, and someone at Fox saw the error of their ways. (Cause and effect? Who knows?)
Until this spring, the 2005 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) policy statement held that Internet users had the right to access lawful content of their choice. There was no exception in that policy for customers who happened to have their Internet provider caught up in a nasty retransmission battle with a broadcaster.
Said policy statement that was struck down on April 6 by the U.S. Appeals Court, D.C. Circuit, when Comcast challenged the enforcement of the policy against the company for blocking users of the BitTorrent.
The policy statement was based on the assumption that if there were a bad actor in preventing the consumer from seeing online content, it would be an Internet Service Provider (ISP) blocking or otherwise inhibiting access to content. In this case, of course, it's the content provider that was doing the blocking. It's a moot point now, but it shouldn't matter who is keeping consumers away from the lawful content.
Chances are someone will use the "no harm, no foul" argument to say that because Fox restored access to its sites, there would be no need for any regulatory oversight. That's true if one accepts that access to the Internet is based on the whim of a private company. If one values the open Internet, however, there should be rules against that sort of thing, whether the blocking is done by the ISP or by a content provider.
Imagine a truly gigantic media conglomerate like, for example, Comcast owning NBCU. It boggles the mind to think of what leverage that megalith could bring to retransmission consent negotiations, and how it could play with access to any number of Internet sites, regardless of whether those sites provide video content that competes with, or complements, NBCU or Comcast content properties.
Yes, it would be nice if someone could step in and tell Fox that it is unacceptable to block Internet content. Unfortunately, there isn't that someone around to protect consumers. And that's truly the "harm" here, and why a referee is needed to call the "foul."
Any number of commentators from all sides of the political spectrum praise the Internet as a truly open medium, even as they differ on ways to keep it open. Leaving it to the discretion of Big Media, however, is a sure path to failure. This time Fox backtracked. Next time? Who knows? If only there were a Federal agency with jurisdiction over broadband service, or an agency that could enforce the rights of consumers online.
Oh, right, the FCC should be that agency. Unfortunately, the current leadership has not shown any inclination to protect consumers online from misbehavior by gigantic media conglomerates that view the Internet as just another property to be used as leverage. It would take an agency with jurisdiction over that type of thing to act boldly to protect consumers, and this FCC is anything but bold.
Follow Art Brodsky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/artbrodsky
Let me put it up front, straight:
By blocking free access to only one ISP, Fox violated a 2005 FCC Regulation.
This is not my opinion. The fact that Fox stopped doing it within hours is proof that FOX KNOWS THEY BROKE THE LAW.
Fox owns this content, they can decide who can and can't view it. My pictures on facebook can only be viewed by those I allow. This article makes it sound like all content on the internet should be allowed to be viewed by all.
Fox has every right to limit the content that it owns. If this was the other way around and Cablevison was to block access to sights that is different. They would be deny access to those wishing to view other sites. The owner of the content should have every right to block access to
anyone they would like.
Think of it like a night club, they have every right to restrict to access. They let in who they want and who they don't; not just those who can pay the cover. That is the content of a private website. Now if Cablevision decided to erect barriers around the entrance to the night club, that would be wrong, so if Cablevision was to block its customers access to Fox, that would be wrong.
If they want to block who has access to it, they can make it a subscription site, but Net Neutrality says that they cannot pick and choose the ISPs that they will deal with. That is Monopolistic behavior.
By limiting access to their web content, they are not harming the provider, they are directly attacking the consumer.
Don't like. Don't watch it. But it's Fox's. And if it's valued - by, let's say, a cable service provider named Cablvision - then it should be paid for.
I have blogged here about this: http://mediafreedom.org/2010/10/keep-the-government-umpires-out-of-fox-cablevision-property-contract-dispute/)
Bottom line is - We live in America still (not Venezuela or Cuba). Art Brodsky can't force companies like Fox into indentured servitude, or expropriate their content just because it touches the almighty Internet.
Access to the internet should be unfettered, nobody should be able to block or impede your ability to view legal content except the owner of that content.
The days of the “company store” are long gone. When employees were given script for their wages. Redeemable only in overpriced outlets, run by those same employers. The users of these services could, if organized and of a mind, drive such profiteers into receivership in short shrift. Even if only partially effective, rates would be driven up for those who remained with a provider. Thus encouraging them reallocate their custom. If not for conscience, then for cost considerations.
Look, they could block channel access - that is okay, but they cannot block access via the net to any url that is open to the rest of the world.
I don't watch television at all so didn't notice, I am not interested in any FAUX content so didn't notice, I have a hokey little wireless co for internet connection, slowish but ok and cost effective.