Once or twice a year, a cable company and a TV network start brawling over "carriage rates"—the fees that the cable company pays to the broadcaster to feature its programming. These fights are tedious for everyone involved. While each side puts on a PR offensive to convince the public that it has the moral high ground, millions of customers see several channels go black. This week, the combatants are News Corp., which owns the Fox network, and Cablevision, which offers TV service to 3 million customers in New York, Philadelphia, and Connecticut. Since Saturday, when Fox pulled its channels from Cablevision, subscribers have missed, among other things, a New York Giants game, two baseball playoff games, and an episode of House. Oh, the humanity!
Before we become overwhelmed with grief, let's remember that carriage fights don't have to be as onerous as they once were—if you miss House on TV, you can always watch it on Hulu, right? Indeed, when Time Warner Cable battled Fox last year, it encouraged customers to connect their computers to their TVs and watch blocked shows online. Perhaps that's why Fox decided to take tougher measures in its fight with Cablevision: In addition to pulling its shows from cable lines, the network ordered Hulu—which is co-owned by News Corp.—to block Cablevision's Internet customers from watching Fox shows online. Now this is something I can get worked up about: The fight over cable TV has now spilled over to the Internet, the one medium that was supposed to be free from such pay-to-play disputes.
Fox's Hulu block didn't last long. As word spread online and among lawmakers, Fox quickly changed course, and within a few hours Cablevision customers could once again watch House on Hulu. But even though it was short-lived, Fox's move raises several interesting questions about how we'll access media online. It seems to raise the scary possibility that the Internet could become beholden to the same sort of deal-making that determines what we can and can't see on TV. And there probably isn't much the government can do to stop it, either.
Many observers immediately labeled Fox's block a violation of the principle of "network neutrality"—the idea that Internet service providers should allow subscribers to access all legal content online. Neutrality rules have been the subject of fierce debate in Washington, and activists are constantly on the lookout for perceived anti-neutrality maneuvering.
If Fox's move violated "neutrality," though, it wasn't in the way we've long defined that term. Advocates for net neutrality rules have mainly been concerned about the power that cable and phone companies can exert on the Internet. The theory is that in most local areas, broadband companies exist as monopolies or duopolies—you can get the Internet from your phone company or your cable company—and, therefore, are in a position to influence online content. What if, for instance, AT&T demanded that YouTube pay a surcharge every time a customer watches a video? To prevent such abuses, the Federal Communications Commission imposed Internet "openness" guidelines (PDF) in 2005, and since then regulators and lawmakers have been arguing about how to make those guidelines both permanent and enforceable.
But this Fox-Cablevision-Hulu scenario turns the neutrality debate on its head. Here, it wasn't the broadband company—Cablevision—that blocked customers' access to content. Instead, it was the content company, Fox, that imposed the ban. Why is that distinction important? Because while it's easy to think of justifications for imposing neutrality regulations on broadband companies, it's less clear how we should feel about imposing rules on content providers. Telecom companies are regulated by the FCC, and there's a long history of the government forcing "openness" rules on public communications infrastructure. If the government can prohibit phone companies from deciding whom you can and can't call, shouldn't we have a similar rule preventing ISPs from deciding what you can get on the Web?
For a host of legal and economic reasons, we haven't traditionally regulated content companies—a category that includes not just studios like Fox but also record labels, newspapers, and Web sites like Google and Facebook (not to mention Slate). In general, content creators are allowed to distribute their products however they want—it would be absurd for the government to force the Washington Post to sell its paper on newsstands in Boston, say, or for the Feds to require the Beatles to offer their music on the iTunes store.
TODAY IN SLATE
Ben Bradlee Dead at 93
The legendary Washington Post editor presided over the paper’s Watergate coverage.
The Congressional Republican Digging Through Scientists’ Grant Proposals
Renée Zellweger’s New Face Is Too Real
Sleater-Kinney Was Once America’s Best Rock Band
Can it be again?
Whole Foods Is Desperate for Customers to Feel Warm and Fuzzy Again
I’m 25. I Have $250.03.
My doctors want me to freeze my eggs.
Forget Oculus Rift
This $25 cardboard box turns your phone into an incredibly fun virtual reality experience.