Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Blasted by MPAA Bosses
proudhawk writes "The LA Times is reporting that the MPAA's Dan Glickman has taken another swipe against net neutrality at his recent ShoWest appearance. 'Glickman argued in his speech that neutrality regulations would bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to prevent piracy. That's what some studio lobbyists have been telling lawmakers, too, in their efforts to derail neutrality legislation. And depending on how the regulations are written, they could be right.'"
The studios stand to make a lot of money selling streaming content through certain ISP portals rather than leaving it to the internet to find the most efficient way to distribute it without the MPAA anywhere in the picture.
Pandora's lid is already off the box, the studios just want to make a couple bucks at the spigot while they still can.
DRM has failed because it annoyed publishers as much as pirates, if not more.
The RIAA and cohorts now change strategy: make massive amounts of bandwidth expensive.
They're trying to take out the mules for software groups, who spread around the warez, and the people who hoard and distribute music and movies.
This is more likely to succeed. Although most Slashdot readers know how bad connectivity options are in the USA, very few people who limit themselves to YouTube and e-mail have any idea.
They won't notice if they get low bandwidth caps, but they'll shriek when their kids run up the bill for $500 of overage.
And of course, a bill that large warrants an investigation by the ISP.
technical writing / development
It won't matter. If Obama wins the democratic nomination, then both presidential candidates will be pro-net-neutrality. There just isn't a popular platform for "yes, let's cripple the Internet so that corporations can profit more," and for once politicians have realized it.
Ah yes, so that when Comcast cuts a deal with Yahoo and slows your connection down to 56k, and they're the only high speed provider in your area, you'll feel so much better that the government isn't attempting to protect consumers.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Face your daemons!
They're against net neutrality because it doesn't give them an advantage. In the current way, they are the top dogs who get to control when and where you see a product and how much you pay for it. Under the neutrality rules they are no longer the gate-keepers per se, but have to compete with other factions that can offer more available and cheaper "products." They're using this argument because they want to tighten the strangle hold that they have, and possibly make ties with the ISPs who would control the tubes without any sort of neutrality rules. This is just another example of them treading water in an area that they can't control, yet still whine about this imaginary loss of revenue. Go to hell MAFIAA.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
...is "waaaah... we won't be able to get the ISPs to do what we want!" Is there ANY other utility industry where a third party can inflict rule over the utility for the good of the third party? Gas? Electric? Water? An ISPs job should be to supply the Internet... thats it and thats all. It should NOT be a gatekeeper where, in the interest of other parties, things are or are not filtered. If the MPAA gets their way, I want all ISPs to filter my social networking and blog sites except for the people that I deem appropriate. If one organization gets to do it, everyone should get to do it.
Crackin' Wise - Blogging about whatever we want
Steve Jobs is successful where the RIAA wasn't because he learned how to compete with free with better instead of with whining. Another argument against neutrality is that you can't pay to have ISPs allocate more bandwidth for your torrent service.
If the crooked abusers of both networks and the law are demanding Net Blackmail be allowed to further their enterprise, they are evidence that we need Net Neutrality to protect us from invading our privacy and hijacking our free speech.
--
make install -not war
Look, I realize that some of the traffic on the internet is actually illegal copies of their stuff. However, it's not my traffic, and it isn't the majority of people's traffic.
But, some of the traffic on the roads is probably carrying illegal drugs and what have you. In the real world, we wouldn't accept widespread intrusive checking of the contents of our vehicles to try to stop that kind of stuff. I see no reason why we should accept it online.
The MPAA/RIAA expect the entire world to adapt their infrastructure to police their interests -- it doesn't work that way.
Hopefully, before long someone will firmly remind ISPs that if they want common carrier status to remain in effect, they must act like they're a transport mechanism. You're either safely responsible for none of it, or you're responsible for policing all of it.
Sadly, I fear they may get what they want because the lawmakers are far too beholden to the lobbyists and don't understand the actual issues surrounding technology.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to prevent piracy
It's not the ISP's job to prevent copyright infringement, nor should it be.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
It's funny how companies that benefit from past and present public servitude and spectrum exclusive franchises only complain about regulation that requires them to live up to obligations they accepted to gain advantages. Ask them about open spectrum and public servitude and you will see some interesting changes in skin tone.
The MPAA, of course, is an enemy of all kinds of freedom. They enjoy government protection in the form of patents, copyright and cable regulations. Exclusivity is not about the promotion of excellence, as anyone can see by watching the high grossing films of last year's best year ever for the MPAA, it's about locking others out. Network and software freedom will destroy their ability to lock competition out. Cost of production has vastly declined in the last 20 years. You have to ask yourself why there's only one or two film companies begging for yet more government protection.
No calls now, I'm
While we're at it, maybe we should make changes to the US Postal Service as well. I bet there are all kinds of shady documents, products, letters, checks, etc sent through the mail everyday. I mean, friends could be sending each other burned CDs or DVDs!!! USPS should read everything sent by everyone - just in case!
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Finally, someone who's thought this through.
I'm thinking remove their incumbent advantage instead of adding another layer. Open them up to free market forces. Land, mineral right, and time, all pseudo tangible ownership objects are traded on the free market and do just fine. EM spectrum and cabling can be done the same.
At the moment the MPAA, RIAA and similar organizations are alienating themselves from their customer base, which just means that the potential customers will continue to select different sources just to keep away from them.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
We aren't trying to grant the government to be responsible for protecting us...we are trying to get the government to bitch-slap misbehaving monopolies because we as individual citizens don't have the money or the realistic possibility of legal avenues to make the changes ourselves.
I'm all for keeping the government out of our daily lives, but there are instances where government intervention is necessary. Or do you have millions of dollars, top-notch lawyers, and the legal ability at your disposal to slap the likes of Comcast in the face hard enough that they stop bullying everyone else on the playground?
Living With a Nerd
I do not believe the throttling issue will effect the end users from a budget standpoint. I believe what they are trying to do is charge the content providers (google for example) a higher rate then they would say a partner like yahoo, and in that case when the end user goes to yahoo, the link will be fast and unimpeded, but when the end user goes to google who refuses to be extorted, the link will drop in speed to modem rates...
Thats what I think they are trying to do.
My opinion on the matter, let the ISPs do what they want, if they remain a strict pipe and do nothing else to impede or interfere with traffic, thats great, but allow them the choice.
Should those same ISPs decide to mess with traffic (say filter or block VOIP and pushing their own services), let them, but strip them of all common carrier status and regulate them in such a way, let the lawsuits flow.
I think if the above happened, their interest in filtering and pushing their own services over competitors by using traffic shaping will disappear. I hope anyways.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
While the parent is modded as troll, he is correct in one aspect, no matter who wins, they always follow the money, period, no questions asked.
Look at every election in the past (I have not, but I am pretty sure there is a trend going), how many presidents have followed through with any of their campaign promises, I would hazard to guess... not a single one. Politicians all spout the I work for the people blah blah blah.. but what they really mean is they give major tax breaks to corporations in their districts who donate craptons of money to said politician...
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
I'm ashamed to see so many otherwise bright and technologically sophisticated people so misguided on this issue of Net Neutrality. We've got a small window of opportunity to save the internet as a tool of social benefit instead of just another shopping mall. Unless some effort is made to separate the hardware and structure of the internet from the content of the internet, we will lose everything that's so valuable and special about the internet.
We are currently seeing the social benefits of having a public medium for information that is not filtered by the Princes of Commerce. Believe me, those same Princes are desperate to destroy that public medium as fast as possible, because it threatens their hegemony.
Please, if you don't see the importance of Net Neutrality right now, take a little time and look the matter over again. Once a free (as in speech) and open (as in doors) internet is gone, there will be no getting it back. In fact, it's only by accident that we ever had a free internet to begin with, and the rich and powerful are scrambling to lock it down ASAP.
You are welcome on my lawn.
YEAH! Every broadband subscriber should only be allowed to communicate with fully accredited and licensed Content Delivery Servers! None of this "talking to any other computer on the Internet" bullshit!
Your nick might be "RealProgrammer" but you talk like a "RealAuthoritarian".
How can you not see the exceptions to this? Are you seriously claiming Microsoft was created by regulation?
If you think we would even have functional cell service without that regulation, you're deluded. What's to stop one cell company from "accidentally" causing massive interference for a competitor's network? Do you really want five times more cell towers than are needed (and radiation to match), just because of competing providers? What happens when they start boosting their signal to guarantee they have clearer calls than their competitors (and, coincidentally, interfering with their competitors' systems)?
Back to the issue at hand: ISPs have a physical monopoly. Laying ever-more cable and fiber everywhere is going to cost a lot, is wasteful, and isn't always an option.
There are some things the free market can't solve.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!