TV blackouts are at a record high this year, as content providers try to squeeze more and more money out of cable bundle customers. The latest network to play the game is FOX, who are demanding a modest 114% fee increase from Cablevision. The cable company knows that customers are already cutting cable and switching to Internet, and the last thing they want is raised rates during a recession, so they’re refusing to play ball. So FOX has retaliated by refusing to let Cablevision carry any FOX networks.

On their side of the argument, FOX claim that it’s reasonable for them to demand a lot more money, because ESPN alone is $4 of your cable bill. That’s pretty clearly backwards, but it shows that each successful price hike by the content companies just encourages all the others to push for an even bigger price hike.

There’s a new front line in this battle, though: FOX have removed Cablevision Internet customers’ ability to watch FOX shows on Hulu. As the New York Times points out, this could be testing the waters for an attempt to restrict Internet TV to those who already pay to receive the channels via cable or satellite.

In the mean time, Cablevision subscribers are no doubt learning how to use bunny ears to receive OTA TV, or use BitTorrent, Amazon or the iTunes store for downloads–so who knows how many more might be tempted to cut the cord by this latest piece of extortion?

The ACLU has identified net neutrality as critical to freedom of speech:

In its report, the ACLU called on the FCC to apply longstanding “common carrier” rules that would bar network owners from halting, slowing or otherwise tampering with the transfer of data to Internet users. Common carrier rules included by Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 already apply to most forms of telecommunications but are not yet applied to broadband Internet service.

Full text of report.

Google has responded to the (pretty venomous) criticism of their joint proposal with Verizon.

Meanwhile, AT&T has come out in support of the proposal, which doesn’t make me any more keen on it.

The actual document that caused the rumors about a Google/Verizon net neutrality deal is now available for perusal.

The EFF analysis is probably worth reading.

Everybody’s talking about a rumored deal between Google and Verizon, that would allow Verizon to “allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege”.

If true, this would be the first major strike against net neutrality. Accordingly, people are setting up web sites to campaign against it.

However, both Google and Verizon have stated that there is no such deal. Google told The Guardian:

“The New York Times is quite simply wrong. We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open internet.”

The New York Times says it will stand by its story, and that the deal says Google will not publicly oppose Verizon’s imposition of tiered pricing for content.

Until I see some confirmation that Google are actually agreeing to pay fees for preferential access to users who have already paid for their Internet access–i.e. breach net neutrality–I’m going to assume it’s not happening.

Of course, if you want to write to Google to encourage them not to make any such deal, that wouldn’t be a bad thing to do. However, there are probably better ways to spend your activist time, such as writing to your representatives in support of allowing the FCC to enforce net neutrality.

Eight Democratic representatives for Texas signed an industry-written letter to the FCC calling for them to abandon attempts to regulate net neutrality.

Completely coincidentally, they were all recipients of tens of thousands of dollars of lobbyist money.

Now would be a good time to contact them and let them know that you want net neutrality.

Update: The anti-net-neutrality astroturfing campaign presentation was a class project.

The industry-backed web site, however, is sadly genuine. It states that it “opposes a government-run Internet”, clearly trying to imply that net neutrality advocates favor that. It all seems transparently dishonest to me, but perhaps it will fool someone.

Time-Warner’s nightmare is coming true: The Yankee Group is predicting that 1 in 8 households will drop cable or satellite TV in 2010. Will you be one of them?

A new report says that around 800,000 households have dropped TV service in favor of TV via Internet.

This is only 1% of the total customer base, but still, it’s an important trend that is likely scaring the hell out of the cable companies. Combined with last week’s decision that the FCC can’t enforce net neutrality, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Time Warner revive their plans to implement usage caps.