
On Mon, 15 January 2001, Paul Vixie wrote:
> After all, in an actual "media", the content providers collect money from
> the networks who distributed their wares, and those networks then sell the
> eyeballs to the highest bidder.  Fortunately, the internet isn't a "media".

In the actual media, the government intervened multiple times in how many
local television stations a network could own, how contracts between content
studio providers and networks broadcastors could be structured, how much
marketshare a single cable company could have, and so forth.  Now we see
companies such as Disney using their "must-carry" power to strong-arm cable
companies to pay for things like the Disney Channel and put it on the standard
tier offering.  While AOL/Time Warner negotiates by disconnecting stations
like WABC/New York from their cable system.  In other cases, it is nearly
impossible for a new cable-only network to get on cable systems, unless they
sell part equity to the cable systems.  So you end up with companies also
owning their suppliers, and in part determining how much those suppliers
will charge themselves.  AOL/Time Warner then gets to tell the local
franchise board, Turner raised its rates again, we have to raise our
cable prices to recoup the extra cost.

Should the government intervene in the Internet the same way?

Should the FCC impose a "must-carry" rule for the Internet?  Or a "must-peer"
rule?





