One of the great things about the web is how its content is universally accessible. If you find an interesting site, you can email the link to friends around the globe, and they can all access it just as easily as you did. With the exception of those living under governments like China's that impose oppressive restrictions on what sites you're allowed to visit, we're all able to access the same internet. Or, at least we used to be able to. More and more big-name sites are restricting access to the customers of certain ISPs, leaving you out of luck if you chose the "wrong" internet provider.

ESPN360 is a video streaming site that operates under this model. Each ISP that wants its customers to have access to the site needs to make an agreement with ESPN and buy access for its user base. Disney and the NFL have programs similar to ESPN's in place. While it's nothing new for sites to charge for premium content, the problem here is that you, the end-user, have zero control over that subscription. If you have an ISP like Verizon that has an agreement in place, you're fine, but there's no way for users of non-partnered ISPs to buy access just for themselves.

This strategy is very reminiscent of how cable companies negotiate channels for their lineups. You can't just subscribe to Animal Planet unless your cable provider already has agreed to carry it. That made sense for a distribution system like cable, that was one-way and very limited in bandwidth. With the internet and streaming video-on-demand, this all-users-or-no-users model doesn't make much sense; it seems antiquated, frankly. There are also concerns linked to net neutrality if this becomes more widespread. What if you needed to have a certain ISP to get access to Google? Here's to hoping this kind of partnering between ISPs and content providers doesn't pan out.

This story around the web: