Slashdot Mirror


Musicians Demand the Internet Stay Neutral

eldavojohn writes "124 bands — including R.E.M., Sarah McLachlan, and Pearl Jam — and 24 music labels are sending a clear message to keep Net traffic neutral. The Rock the Net campaign wants all traffic to be equal instead of allowing providers to charge a fee for certain pages to load faster than others. These musicians are the latest to join the Save the Internet campaign, which has the chair of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet in its camp. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., spoke at the campaign's kickoff. I think it's obvious that musicians (especially independents and small labels) will find themselves with the short end of the stick if they are asked to pay a fee to have their music streamed as fast as larger bands or even corporations."

6 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. Well, if REM by moseman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, if REM says so, then it must be a good thing. That really helped me solidify my stance.

    --
    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to think "profiling is worse than the slaughter of innocent people..."
  2. CNN.com... by lilomar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think one of the best things I noticed about this article is the news site it is taken from. Not Wired online, not the Register, not any of the usual, tech-oriented news sites. CNN is read by the technoelite and the public in general. The entire Net Neutrality issue needs to be in the public view-space.

    --
    The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
    1. Re:CNN.com... by Spudtrooper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed - the cable companies have been running anti-neutrality ads trying to convince the public that the average consumer will be the one footing the bill for net neutrality. It's good to see the pro-neutrality camp finally showing up to the public discourse in the mainstream (i.e., non-geek-oriented) media.

  3. Re:Well then it's settled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.

    -Mohandas Gandhi

  4. Re:Because spam and viruses must be allowed... by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apples and oranges. Botted systems represent a security risk to the ISP and to other customers and are not providing a commercial service. (Incidentally, it's also probably against their Terms of Serivce to run a botted system, but TOS is only pulled out when it benefits them...) Net neutrality is ISPs charging companies to use the faster lanes which ends up getting passed to the consumer and is nothing more than a money grab.

    Should someone sending spam be given equal priority to the 'net as someone trying to send emails to colleagues?

    Oddly, if you QOS port 25 the spam goes through just as fast as the legit email. Incidentally, this is an argument for quarantining systems, not net neutrality.

    Net Neutrality means throwing up our hands in the air and allowing the Internet to become a useless mess of spam and viruses since the power to handle them would be stripped from ISPs. It means giving up on streaming video and audio. It means giving up on VOIP. ...like ISPs do anything about spam and viruses now to begin with. They'd claim common carrier and do nothing like usual.

    Plus it's not giving up on video/audio and VOIP...it's giving up on third party streaming video and audio and VOIP. Why should Verizon allow Vonage's VOIP (yea, i know the patent issues, bear with me) to travel as fast as Verizon's VOIP solution? Without competition, Verizon has no reason to improve their service either.

    Net neutrality = competition allowed to exist = better for consumers.

  5. Re:The definite article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's the way you do it! You play the guitar on the MTV!