FoxNow.com full access (and others) blocked by Cox

I am an INTERNET ONLY subscriber and Cox blocks access to FoxNow.com if you are not a TV subscriber.  I have verified this fact from 4 sources 1-Direct contact with FoxNow.com, 2- Your FAQ page that states "access is based on your TV subscription 3-"Chat session" with  customer service rep at Cox, and 4-Actually logging in to FoxNow.com, unlocking an episode successfully on the Fox site and receiving a "Your provider does not allow access to this site based on your subscription." message after validating credentials.  

I think it makes sense you don't get access to video content if you don't subscribe to video subscription. Cox isn't blocking the site, Fox is requiring login for access.I don't see this as net neutrality, but getting what you pay for. 

Health Edge,

I respect your opinion but I completely disagree and you are incorrect.  Cox is blocking access and they have admitted that they block access. The issue is as follows:  Data is data be it audio, video, text, etc.  Cox and other cable providers are SELECTIVELY blocking data from broadcast media sites based on negotiated settlements forced on broadcasters.  It works like this:  I'm a cable TV provided and we are coming up on contract negotiations.  I refuse to carry your station if you don't, A-Meet the price I demand to carry your signal, B-Assist in blocking/delaying the most current episodes of the shows you air.  Why do they do this?  To force consumers to continue to buy cable TV service for current media and to limit competition in the traditional market space of cable TV.

The SELECTIVE block is the issue.  For example Hulu, Amazon, and most of the content on Roku and AppleTV aren't blocked.  If it was just about access to video, these sights would be blocked as well.  They aren't blocked because they know that the litigation and their customer base wouldn't stand for it.  It is an unfair business practice that Senate Bill 1680 would outlaw. This is about the balancing act between what their customer base will "tolerate" and what they can get away with  a minimal of legal risk.

I respect your opinion but I completely disagree and you are incorrect.  Cox is blocking access and they have admitted that they block access. This is not a "rights" or copyright issue.  Remember, Fox is a traditional broadcaster with affiliate stations just like ABC, CBS, and NBC.  Federal mandate requires broadcast signals to be free and provided over the air and that's how I get the majority of my entertainment.  The issue is direct competition in a traditional market space for cable TV providers. Data is data be it audio, video, text, etc.  Cox and other cable providers are SELECTIVELY blocking data from broadcast media sites based on negotiated settlements forced on broadcasters.  It works like this:  I'm a cable TV provider and we are coming up on contract negotiations.  I refuse to carry your station if you don't, A-Meet the price I demand to carry your signal, B-Assist in blocking/delaying the most current episodes of the shows you air.  Why do they do this?  To force consumers to continue to buy cable TV service for current media and to limit competition in the traditional market space of cable TV.

The SELECTIVE block and data stream throttling of competing TV providers is the issue.  For example Hulu, Amazon, and most of the content on Roku and AppleTV aren't blocked.  If it was just about access to video, these sights would be blocked as well.  They aren't blocked because they know that the litigation and their customer base wouldn't stand for it.  It is an unfair business practice that Senate Bill 1680 would outlaw. This is about the balancing act between what their customer base will "tolerate" and what they can get away with  a minimal of legal risk.

Also HealthEdge, you may want  take a look at the bill (S.1680) currently before Congress.  At it's core it addresses the following issues:  https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1680

Prohibits ISPs, multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs), online video distributors (OVDs), and video programming vendors (VPVs), in various circumstances and in their relationships with one another, from engaging in unfair methods of competition, or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, that hinder significantly or prevent an OVD from providing video programming to consumers.

Prohibits MVPDs or OVDs from entering agreements (for periods longer than 30 days) that limit or prohibit a VPV from making its video content available to consumers for free over the Internet.

Permits VPVs to establish different prices, terms, and conditions that: (1) relate to substantial, real, and legitimate business concerns; and (2) are not used in an anticompetitive manner.

Prohibits broadcast television licensees or television networks from: (1) refusing to negotiate with OVDs for the carriage of television content, or (2) restricting an OVD's ability to make such content available to subscribers on any platform or device.

Prohibits broadcast television licensees from providing an over-the-air signal that differs from a retransmission of that signal provided to a MVPD or an OVD, subject to exceptions for certain commercial advertisements embedded in such signal when the variation is not used to increase overall advertising time.

Bill S.1680 was introduced by the Chairman of the Commerce, Science & Transportation committee, John D. Rockefeller.  Here is an excerpt from the committee's website:

“My legislation aims to enable the ultimate a la carte – to give consumers the ability to watch the programming they want to watch, when they want to watch it, how they want to watch it, and pay only for what they actually watch,” said Rockefeller. “Consumers must be able to benefit from online video’s promise of decreased costs, increased choice, and higher-quality video content. And I strongly believe that my legislation will help foster a consumer-centric revolution in the video marketplace.”

The full text can be found here: http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Legislation&ContentRecord_id=060460a1-5ef6-4c7b-8d52-c65ee5266d87

Nowhere does the bill say an organization can't charge for it's content but must be free.  It sounds like you, pkfrye, want to get something for nothing.  Even if this bill passes, you will still have to pay for the content you receive.  It will just stop providers like Cox from preventing you from using (and paying) alternate sources.  I'm all for this ... I would love an a la carte system where I only pay for the channels I actually watch.  I'm lucky if I watch 10% of what Cox provides and charges me for.

ChrisL, thank you for your response. I understand the network/entertainment provider's rights portion and I’ll stipulate that Cox is acting in full accordance with the consent agreement. I want to be sure that I understand you correctly with regard to the data interchange. I’m asking because FoxNow stated that Cox actually performed the "blocking/delay" based on the credential verification performed by Cox so I have received conflicting information and I'm trying to clear up which end of the data chain is the gate keeper. It seems that you are stating that while Cox verifies the credentials to ensure that a TV subscription has been purchased, Cox does not in any way impede access to the "new episode" data even if the user is flagged as a non subscriber.  You are stating that Fox's site is completely responsible for "blocking/deaying" access to new episodes based on data you send to Fox as a part of the credential verification. Is that correct?

BTW if someone has a better term than the word "blocking," I'd love to hear it since everyone is sensitive to the use of that term.

My thanks to everyone in the forum that responded and apologies to everyone in the forum for belaboring the point but I am interested in this technical nuance because of the pending Senate legislation I mentioned when I opened this particular thread on the subject.

Thank you Allen and while I agree that everyone usually wants something for nothing, I'm really not that guy.  I also support a "ala carte" system.