In 1959, Swedish-born photographer Christer Strömholm moved to the Parisian neighborhood of Pigalle. There, during the darkest hours of the night, he would comb the streets, not as a voyeur, but as a participant of the night’s activities. In time he would meet and form intimate relationships with the transsexuals of Place Blanche. At that time, France was ruled by General Charles de Gaulle, the man who led the Free French Forces during World War II, and his wife Yvonne, who were both devout Roman Catholics. Tante Yvonne (Aunt Yvonne), as she was known to the general public, held old-fashioned conservative views that created a puritanical atmosphere. As a result, Strömholm’s “friends of Place Blanche” found solace in each other, most having escaped a life of misconception. These friends, biologically born as men, were forced to flee their hometowns in search of a place where they could be at ease with themselves.

But life in Paris was just as difficult. It is a widespread belief that it was Aunt Yvonne’s influence on her husband that brought forth the reinstatement in of a 330-year-old draconian law that punished landlords who allowed prostitutes to work on their premise with the forfeiture of their property. There was no social security in Paris nor any chance of getting hired if the name on a person’s identification card did not match his appearance. Without the help of society, these ladies of the night had little choice but to sell their bodies in hopes of earning enough money to make it to the hospitals of Casablanca where they could physically be transformed into women.

The photographs in Les Amies de Place Blanche, a new re-edited version of the original book published in 1983, demonstrate the photographer’s compassion for these women and the intimate friendships he developed during the time he lived in Paris’ red light district. They do not reflect the cruelty that these women endured, perhaps because in their own world, life was that much brighter and hopeful. After spending all night working the street corners, Strömholm and his friends would gather at the brasserie on the place Blanche and order hot chocolate and walk quietly back to their hotel rooms. The next day Cobra, his next-door neighbor at Hotel Chappe, would knock on the wall to announce that coffee was ready just as dusk was breaking. Crumbs would fall into the creases of the sheets as they shared their thoughts in bed.

Is Netflix feeling buyer's remorse?
                        
                        Reed Hastings, CEO of the popular online video company, <a href="http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html">lashed out</a> at the top U.S. Internet service providers on Thursday for charging what he called an "arbitrary tax" on his company for ensuring that users receive good service. Hastings made his comments in a company <a href="http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html">blog post</a> one month after Netflix <a href="http://time.com/9373/comcast-netflix-deal/">struck a deal</a> with Comcast to directly connect their networks to improve service for consumers.
                        
                        Hastings's comments have provoked the latest skirmish in the multi-year battle over "<a href="http://business.time.com/2014/01/15/net-neutrality-ruling-paves-the-way-for-internet-fast-lanes/">net neutrality</a>," the idea enshrined in the <a href="http://business.time.com/2014/01/15/net-neutrality-ruling-paves-the-way-for-internet-fast-lanes/">now-defunct</a> U.S. Open Internet rules that major Internet service providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&amp;T shouldn’t be able to favor certain online services at the expense of rivals. Hastings' comments provoked a quick rejoinder from Comcast, which declared that no company "has had a stronger commitment to openness of the Internet than Comcast."
                        
                        The fundamental issue at stake here is whether paid-peering or transit deals, which are technical agreements between Internet content companies, bandwidth providers, and broadband service providers, should be considered a net neutrality matter. In its 2010 Open Internet order, which was <a href="http://business.time.com/2014/01/15/net-neutrality-ruling-paves-the-way-for-internet-fast-lanes/">stuck down</a> by a federal judge in January, the Federal Communications Commission made clear that this is not the case. The timing of Hastings's post was not arbitrary: Friday is the deadline for filing comments in the FCC's Open Internet <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/document/new-docket-established-address-open-internet-remand">docket</a>, which is designed to remedy the recent court defeat.
                        
                        The FCC’s order, which only applies to the “last mile” connection into consumers’ homes, <a href="https://twitter.com/samgustin/status/437771372442304513">specifically exempted</a> “existing arrangements for network interconnection, including existing paid peering arrangements,” which means that the <a href="http://time.com/9373/comcast-netflix-deal/">deal</a> struck by Comcast and Netflix is not covered by the rules. Still, some net neutrality advocates want to make paid peering deals a net neutrality issue, and Hastings appears to be appealing to that constituency.
                        
                        In his blog post, Hastings drew a contrast between what he called "weak" net neutrality, which is how he described the FCC's <a href="http://business.time.com/2014/01/15/net-neutrality-ruling-paves-the-way-for-internet-fast-lanes/">recently overturned</a> Open Internet rules, and "strong" net neutrality," which he said would prevent ISPs from "charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers."
                        
                        Internet service providers, Hastings asserted, "must provide sufficient access to their network without charge." That proposition is anathema to the nation's largest ISPs, which for years have expressed displeasure that they are obliged to deliver high bandwidth content — which often competes with their own video offerings — over the infrastructure that they have spent billions of dollars to build. By suggesting that the nation's largest Internet service providers connect Netflix to consumers "without charge," the online video service is asking for special treatment, the ISPs say.
                        
                        In his blog post, Hastings did not specify an actual policy solution to his company's problem. One option would be for the FCC to reclassify broadband as a “telecommunications” service, which would allow it to establish “common carrier” regulations prohibiting the broadband giants from discriminating against rival services. It's unclear whether this so-called "Title II" reclassification is what Hastings had in mind when he referred to "strong" net neutrality. A Netflix spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment from TIME seeking clarification.
                        
                        Hastings did say that Netflix is willing to pay ISPs for better service for consumers, at least in the short term. Neither Netflix not Comcast will disclose the financial details of their paid peering agreement, but industry sources tell TIME that the amount is in the $10 million to $20 million range on an annual basis. But that's just for Comcast. Netflix is concerned that now that it's struck a deal with Comcast, other ISPs like AT&amp;T and Verizon will demand a similar amount, which could add up quickly.
                        
                        Despite the fact that paid peering agreements have been a standard feature of the Internet's behind-the-scenes architecture for many years, Netflix wants to frame the issue in terms of net neutrality by using the metaphor of highway tolls. "Some big ISPs are extracting a toll because they can -- they effectively control access to millions of consumers and are willing to sacrifice the interests of their own customers to press Netflix and others to pay," Hastings wrote. "Netflix believes strong net neutrality is critical, but in the near term we will in cases pay the toll to the powerful ISPs to protect our consumer experience."
                        
                        For its part, Comcast bristled at the suggestion that it was extracting an unjust "tax" from Netflix. “The Open Internet rules never were designed to deal with peering and Internet interconnection, which have been an essential part of the growth of the Internet for two decades," David Cohen, Comcast's executive vice president, said in a statement. "Providers like Netflix have always paid for their interconnection to the Internet and have always had ample options to ensure that their customers receive an optimal performance through all ISPs at a fair price."
                        
                        Netflix's anti-Comcast outburst comes as <a href="http://time.com/9373/comcast-netflix-deal/">federal</a> and <a href="http://time.com/30616/comcast-time-warner-cable-merger-states/">state</a> regulators are scrutinizing the broadband giant's proposed deal to buy Time Warner Cable, which would create a broadband colossus with unprecedented market power. (Time Warner Cable was spun off from TIME parent Time Warner in 2009.) As part of the proposed Time Warner Cable deal, Comcast will extend the commitment it made during its NBCUniversal review to abide by open Internet principles until 2018.
                        
                        The latest flare-up between Netflix and Comcast underscores the ongoing shift in the physical and commercial architecture of the Internet as consumers use increasing amounts of bandwidth. It also highlights the growing leverage held by broadband giants like Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner Cable in negotiations with content companies like Netflix. After the FCC's Open Internet rules were <a href="http://business.time.com/2014/01/15/net-neutrality-ruling-paves-the-way-for-internet-fast-lanes/">struck down</a>, the nation's largest Internet companies were plunged into a period of uncertainty. It's now up to the FCC to decide how it wants to proceed, and whether paid peering deals like the one struck by Comcast and Netflix will be covered by its rules. (The fundamental issue is whether paid peering interconnection deals should be considered a net neutrality matter)
Is Netflix feeling buyer's remorse? Reed Hastings, CEO of the popular online video company, lashed out at the top U.S. Internet service providers on Thursday for charging what he called an "arbitrary tax" on his company for ensuring that users receive good service. Hastings made his comments in a company blog post one month after Netflix struck a deal with Comcast to directly connect their networks to improve service for consumers. Hastings's comments have provoked the latest skirmish in the multi-year battle over "net neutrality," the idea enshrined in the now-defunct U.S. Open Internet rules that major Internet service providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T shouldn’t be able to favor certain online services at the expense of rivals. Hastings' comments provoked a quick rejoinder from Comcast, which declared that no company "has had a stronger commitment to openness of the Internet than Comcast." The fundamental issue at stake here is whether paid-peering or transit deals, which are technical agreements between Internet content companies, bandwidth providers, and broadband service providers, should be considered a net neutrality matter. In its 2010 Open Internet order, which was stuck down by a federal judge in January, the Federal Communications Commission made clear that this is not the case. The timing of Hastings's post was not arbitrary: Friday is the deadline for filing comments in the FCC's Open Internet docket, which is designed to remedy the recent court defeat. The FCC’s order, which only applies to the “last mile” connection into consumers’ homes, specifically exempted “existing arrangements for network interconnection, including existing paid peering arrangements,” which means that the deal struck by Comcast and Netflix is not covered by the rules. Still, some net neutrality advocates want to make paid peering deals a net neutrality issue, and Hastings appears to be appealing to that constituency. In his blog post, Hastings drew a contrast between what he called "weak" net neutrality, which is how he described the FCC's recently overturned Open Internet rules, and "strong" net neutrality," which he said would prevent ISPs from "charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers." Internet service providers, Hastings asserted, "must provide sufficient access to their network without charge." That proposition is anathema to the nation's largest ISPs, which for years have expressed displeasure that they are obliged to deliver high bandwidth content — which often competes with their own video offerings — over the infrastructure that they have spent billions of dollars to build. By suggesting that the nation's largest Internet service providers connect Netflix to consumers "without charge," the online video service is asking for special treatment, the ISPs say. In his blog post, Hastings did not specify an actual policy solution to his company's problem. One option would be for the FCC to reclassify broadband as a “telecommunications” service, which would allow it to establish “common carrier” regulations prohibiting the broadband giants from discriminating against rival services. It's unclear whether this so-called "Title II" reclassification is what Hastings had in mind when he referred to "strong" net neutrality. A Netflix spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment from TIME seeking clarification. Hastings did say that Netflix is willing to pay ISPs for better service for consumers, at least in the short term. Neither Netflix not Comcast will disclose the financial details of their paid peering agreement, but industry sources tell TIME that the amount is in the $10 million to $20 million range on an annual basis. But that's just for Comcast. Netflix is concerned that now that it's struck a deal with Comcast, other ISPs like AT&T and Verizon will demand a similar amount, which could add up quickly. Despite the fact that paid peering agreements have been a standard feature of the Internet's behind-the-scenes architecture for many years, Netflix wants to frame the issue in terms of net neutrality by using the metaphor of highway tolls. "Some big ISPs are extracting a toll because they can -- they effectively control access to millions of consumers and are willing to sacrifice the interests of their own customers to press Netflix and others to pay," Hastings wrote. "Netflix believes strong net neutrality is critical, but in the near term we will in cases pay the toll to the powerful ISPs to protect our consumer experience." For its part, Comcast bristled at the suggestion that it was extracting an unjust "tax" from Netflix. “The Open Internet rules never were designed to deal with peering and Internet interconnection, which have been an essential part of the growth of the Internet for two decades," David Cohen, Comcast's executive vice president, said in a statement. "Providers like Netflix have always paid for their interconnection to the Internet and have always had ample options to ensure that their customers receive an optimal performance through all ISPs at a fair price." Netflix's anti-Comcast outburst comes as federal and state regulators are scrutinizing the broadband giant's proposed deal to buy Time Warner Cable, which would create a broadband colossus with unprecedented market power. (Time Warner Cable was spun off from TIME parent Time Warner in 2009.) As part of the proposed Time Warner Cable deal, Comcast will extend the commitment it made during its NBCUniversal review to abide by open Internet principles until 2018. The latest flare-up between Netflix and Comcast underscores the ongoing shift in the physical and commercial architecture of the Internet as consumers use increasing amounts of bandwidth. It also highlights the growing leverage held by broadband giants like Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner Cable in negotiations with content companies like Netflix. After the FCC's Open Internet rules were struck down, the nation's largest Internet companies were plunged into a period of uncertainty. It's now up to the FCC to decide how it wants to proceed, and whether paid peering deals like the one struck by Comcast and Netflix will be covered by its rules.
The fundamental issue is whether paid peering interconnection deals should be considered a net neutrality matter

Living side by side with these women, Strömholm perfected taking photographs at night. As these women got ready for work, so too did the photographer. With his Leica, Tri-X films and a pipe in his hand, he would walk down the boulevard from place Pigalle to place Blanche ready to capture fleeting moments of beauty.

Les Amies de Place Blanche, will be published by Dewi Lewis in the United Kingdom this February, and in the United States this March.

More Must-Reads From TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com.

You May Also Like
EDIT POST