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.'"
Both sides of this story are lying about their intentions. Extra regulation will not make the net more neutral. Only removing the tools of power used by governments to regulate the internet at all, will make it neutral.
Corrupt organisation seeks to further own aims.
Film at 11.
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
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.
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
What we have here is an organization that is losing in the distribution game. It used to be that casual piracy wasn't a big deal because it was inconvenient to try and copy a VHS tape. Now, it is super easy to duplicate *and* distribute it over the net.
So, instead of changing their business model where they can return the distribution power back their way *by adapting*, they're trying to inhibit or restrict the convenience of a high speed network. When are these people going to get a clue?
In the book Good To Great, Jim Collins points out one of the fundamental things that great companies have to do: the have to have the courage to face reality. The longer they ignore it, the more difficult it will be for them to turn things around. Some may say it's too late (I disagree), but they need a real culture change to transform.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
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.
Show me the locality where that is happening.
Comcast is a monopoly here in Springfield. Cable companies are monopolies about everywhere. Get some competetion and the market can take care of itself, but monopolies must be regulated to prevent them from running roughshod over the people who need the services only they can (and in most cases, their monopoly is protected by law) provide.
Show me the trend to decreased bandwidth.
Comcast Sued Again over P2P Throttling
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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.
"Presently there's a conflict going on with regard to how the internet is managed. Service providers are overwhelmed with the level of traffic they receive, and over 80% of that traffic is being generated by less than 20% of their clients. This results in slower connections for the rest of their clients. I support legislation that would allow these providers to manage their services in such a way as to ensure a good experience for all their clients."
That's the trick - not everybody is a filesharer, and not everybody has actually started using the internet in a way that demands the full speed of their connection. Appeal to the clueless majority - tell them that filesharing results in them getting lower speeds (never mind the fact that it's their service provider's responsibility to provide the speed they've promised, or the fact that many of these users aren't likely to notice the difference anyway) and... voila. Public support for throwing a bone to ISPs.
Bow-ties are cool.
If these guys are going to fuck with our internet and our culture, let's start fucking back. Which porn sites are they signed up on, preferred escort services, dealers, pimps, etc. Turn over their biggest rocks and expose the filth and muck to the light of day. Let the story change from "Why we need to destroy the net" to "Gee, honey, I didn't mean for you to find out about that tranny fetish of mine."
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
You're right though, remove the regulation, remove the monopoly. Remove the regulation that allows for easements for public utilities, and providers won't be able to pull their wires over or under non-subscribers' land.
You must have slept through the whole P2P block attack and congressional response. Bandwith is worthless if it can't be used the way you want.
The Collaps of At Home and DSL providers that has lead to the sad current state also saw a decrease in bandwith. The entertainment and telco dominated companies immediately established caps and port blocks.
That pushes the trend you are looking for back about nine years. In that time you have gotten some very minor improvements that far outweigh the restrictions put in place. The US has sank to 26th place in the world for network availability and international watchdogs rate the US as a chronic surveillance state.
"Light regulation" has provided the worst of all worlds. Both real regulation and real freedom would have provided fiber to the house by now, as it has elsewhere. Fake regulation has given you fake bandwith that mostly works to put money into MAFIAA pockets. Look for fake regulations to give you all of the freedom of broadcast TV in the near future.
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
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.
As reported right here on slashdot, John McCain does not support net neutrality. In case you hadn't noticed, there was a pretty big flap a couple weeks ago over a New York Times story reporting on McCain doing favors for telecom lobbyists (and possibly sleeping with one of them (talk about being in bed with special interests), although that part seems fairly dubious). Neither, as far as anyone has been able to ascertain, does Hillary Clinton support net neutrality. Obama is the only remaining candidate who favors it. And I do believe he is quite sincere about it, and takes his technology platform pretty seriously. Evidence can be found in the emphasis his campaign puts on his successful bill to promote transparency by making earmark information publicly accessible on the Internet and in Larry Lessig's association with the campaign. It would be really novel to have a federal government that actually supported some of our interests instead of trying to fuck us over at every turn...
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!
He is against net neutrality. Both Clinton and Obama are for it, although I suppose they are quite capable of doing a 360 on that. I found this helpful Matrix of their policies.