Cisco's New Router — Trouble For Hollywood

Shakrai writes "Time Magazine has published an article about the impact of Cisco's new CRS-3 router on the business practices of the MAFIAA. This new router was previously mentioned here on Slashdot and is expected to alleviate internet bottlenecks that currently impede steaming video-on-demand services. Some of the highlights from the article: 'The ability to download albums and films in a matter of seconds is a harbinger of deep trouble for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which would prefer to turn the clock back, way back. ... The hard fact is that the latest developments at Cisco, Google and elsewhere may do more than kill the DVD and CD and further upset entertainment-business models that have changed little since the Mesozoic Era. With superfast streaming and downloading, indie filmmakers will soon be able to effectively distribute feature films online and promote them using social media such as Facebook and Twitter. ... Meanwhile, both the MPAA and the RIAA continue to fight emerging technologies like peer-to-peer file sharing with costly court battles rather than figuring out how to appeal to the next generation of movie enthusiasts and still make a buck."

Comments

sweet

[ldconfig]

THANK YOU CISCO!!!

Re:sweet

[courteaudotbiz]

But hey, before this actually results in having 1080p videos streamed directly to your computer, the price per downloaded Gb will have to lower a lot. At least here in Canada. You imagine, I am currently capped at 25Gb per month with my current ISP, and it costs me 65$ per month for my Internet access.

So I still rather go at the Blockbuster to rent a BluRay than download or stream the movie.

Re:sweet

[lorenlal]

You know how the price per GB drops? more competition.

FTFY

Re:sweet

[keefus_a]

Feel free to mod the parent up.

The odds that your residential broadband is limited by the technical limitations of your carriers backbone routers is slim to none. If you've seen the FiOS or uVerse trucks in your neighborhood, you've likely had the opportunity to increase bandwidth substantially. That would be because the "last mile" is why you can't get more than a few megs for a reasonable price. So unless that new backplane somehow mysteriously allows you to squeeze more juice through an infrastructure that is simply incapable, they've still got you by the balls.

Look around (I don't have time to find a citation, sorry) and you'll find plenty of examples of carriers (AT&T is a major offender) suing to prevent anyone else from fixing that piece. And as long as the courts say you can't fix it yourself, it won't get fixed.

If we allow municipalities to build out the updated infrastructure (last mile) and manage it like a utility, then there is the opportunity for competition to affect availability and rates. Let's make the LECs deal with US like the CLEC's had to deal with them.

Re:sweet

[spun]

How do you get more competition from what is essentially a natural monopoly? Would you require telecom companies to rent space on their wires, or would every company have to run its own wires? Hey! I know! Every mom and pop ISP that wants to get into the game could just launch their own satellites.

Nothing new

[ihatejobs]

Its not like this is anything new... MPAA and RIAA are QQing because they are just like the newspaper industry: Behind the times and refusing to change.

Re:Nothing new

[ihatejobs]

Nah, they really are refusing to change. If they had been proactive about this situation instead of trying to stick to their old and broken business model, they wouldn't be having any of these problems. They would have realized much earlier on in the process that the Internet is going to be the medium for media moving forward, embraced that fact, and used it to their advantage. Instead, they squander their resources with DRM and other useless garbage that just flat out is not going to work. Making your product more difficult to use is a great way to encourage piracy.

Re:Nothing new

[cgenman]

Sure, but a lot of those bands are Lady Gaga, Black Eyed Peas, Usher, etc. They're new and incredibly popular, but they're all housed under major labels.

A really popular independent musician can expect to make a hundred dollars a month or so on iTunes. Realistically, though, the money all goes to a few people with concentrated star power, all of whom are on major labels at the moment. Sure, CD sales have nosedived for iTunes, the radio is struggling to keep up with Pandora streaming, and digital home recording has taken over studio rental time. So the medium has changed. And a few bands like OK Go have stayed independent successfully. But OK Go is about as popular as you'll see an indie, compared to superstars like Tay Tay, Beyoncee, etc.

The playfield has changed, and the labels are struggling to make money in the same way / volume. But they still have the upper hand in terms of acts and cultural impact.

Time does blow hot air sometimes

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't buy the more bandwidth equals more piracy angle at all. We already have enough bandwidth to destroy Hollywood if we wanted or if that was even possible.

The one thing that has changed more that any new pipe size is that world governments are finally taking command and control of the internet. They will shutdown the whole thing at Hollywood's request. They will require the ISPs to provide point-and-click shutdown just like they enable point-and-click spying. Hell, they will require they build anti-piracy into the CRS-3, if they don't already. And internet anonymity will be made illegal and anyone who provides such services will be shutdown or walled off the internet.

How is this "trouble for Hollywood?"

[Happy Nuclear Death]

Not as long as ISPs offer most of us nothing better than high-latency 1.5 Mbit DSL, or low-rate cable. If we even get a choice of those two.

Oh, I forgot, the FCC is going to magically solve the last-mile (or last-500-feet) problem. Right, there you go.

Re:How is this "trouble for Hollywood?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone in the world is stuck in a backwards third world in denial shithole.

Re:How is this "trouble for Hollywood?"

[commodore64_love]

>>>the FCC is going to magically solve the last-mile

Yeah it's called "spend until you go bankrupt" and then wonder why it happened. Like those $7/hour McDonalds or Walmart employees who can't figure out why they lost their $250,000 homes. You spend beyond your means, even if you are the U.S. Government, and consequences will occur.

Re:How is this "trouble for Hollywood?"

[mjwx]

but at least we have McDonalds and Cable TV!

Hate to break this to you but I can get those in the third world these days.

No this doesn't stop them

[garcia]

What stops them is my 10000/1000 connection that I pay $100/month to get and the additional fees (like $10/month to Netflix) to get a small selection of movies on top of that because the MPAA refuses to allow direct competition with new DVD releases.

I guarantee you that if someone did some digging they'd find serious collusion with Blockbuster and the MPAA over Redbox and thus why Redbox isn't allowed to get the cheap new release DVDs it once did. God forbid we have cheap access to movies right away. If you have to pay $6/rental for them you'll think they're worth so much more money than $1/day.

Oh nevermind, this is why I no longer go to the movies either. If it's not on Redbox for $1 or Hulu for free I'm not going to watch it. Now if only I could get the rest of the world to do that too maybe the MPAA would really be worried.

MAFIAA

[wjousts]

I fail to see how childish name calling in the summary helps advance the debate.

Re:They are not worried

[BeardedChimp]

Oh didn't you know? The real reason the US broadband lags so far behind the rest of the developed world is because they don't have the latest and greatest cisco routers!

It's not like Sweden has been able to offer 100mbit connections for years without these new very expensive routers or anything...

"MAFIAA" Sure, You Want to be Taken Seriously...

[RobotRunAmok]

NetFlix is streaming online. So is Hulu. Downloads of audio and video are available from iTunes, and, increasingly, Amazon. Sure, there are some rights issues, region issues, changes won't be made over night (get over it), but they are clearly happening. The stagnation/fear that followed in Napster's wake is ebbing considerably.

For the most part, if you want to legitimately download/stream a popular bit of mass culture from/through the Internet, you pretty much can.

The problem is that too many people want to do that and not pay for it. To keep their self-righteous indignation and justification alive, they continue to bitch that "Hollywood is not delivering stuff the way I want to get it (so I'll just take it)"

that's a backbone router, stupid.

[porky_pig_jr]

the whole thing of "downloading DVD in a few seconds" is a complete nonsense. We're talking about a backbone router. You download speed is limited by the bandwidth of the either end point of your connection, whichever is slower. *That's* your major bottleneck, and not a bottleneck on a backbone.

Slanted Wording

[RAMMS EIN]

Dear editors,

I have been reading and posting on Slashdot for years. The reason I have stuck around for so long is that I appreciate Slashdot as a place where interesting discussions take place. There are many sites on the World Wide Web where everyone is free to comment, but Slashdot stands out from the crowds by making interesting and well-worded messages visible amid the quagmire of nonsense, insults, spam, and other noise people are bound to post to public fora.

The summary posted for this story, unfortunately, is full of slanted wording. Without wanting to defend the RIAA and the MPAA or their business practices, I will simply note that calling them "MAFIAA" or claiming their business models "have changed little since the Mesozoic Era" is not very conductive to having a civilized discussion. Since having or witnessing such a discussion is what I come to Slashdot for, summaries such as the present one are not up to the standards I like Slashdot to aspire to.

Let's have discussions based on rational arguments, so that we may all benefit from what everybody has to say. Insults buy us nothing. Moderators mod down comments that consult them, and I would like for the editors to not post summaries that contain them. If the story is interesting, someone can submit a summary without such or other noise.

Thank you for your consideration, and please keep Slashdot above the level of other fora.

Sincerely,

A Faithful Slashdotter

Re:Slanted Wording

[roman_mir]

Mr. RAMMS+EIN (578166), that is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.

(at this point you should say 'Thank you, sir'.)

Overruled.

Re:"MAFIAA" Sure, You Want to be Taken Seriously..

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason any innovation is being done with regard to selling copyrighted content to customers over the Internet or meeting their desires for how to use that content is that the pirates got there first.

Recall the attitude of Hollywood over fair use of DVDs (if you need to make an excerpt, do it from VHS.) Or that of the music industry with CDs (where it isn't entirely clear to them that ripping those CDs to MP3s is legal.)

If you like the fact that you can watch movies on your videogame consoles, or that you can buy DRM-free MP3s online, thank a pirate. Because without pirates you'd be paying twice as much and still be driving to the store to buy all your content on wafers.

Re:Not really

[crashumbc]

The less bandwidth costs your ISP, the less they have to charge you for using it.

That should read
"The less bandwidth costs your ISP, the MORE they WILL TRY to charge you for using it."

Time-Warner's Time Warns of Dim Future for Warner

[xee]

Isn't Time-Warner the single biggest member of both the MPAA and the RIAA? Why would anyone listen to their obviously biased opinion on this matter? The article is full of misinformation, fear, uncertainty, and doubt: just the kind of sensationalism we love here at slashdot.

First, consider the comparison made at the outset to describe the difference in scale between a home router and a CRS-3. Rather than using a neutral example, like car horsepower, an example is given which puts none other than the vicious T. Rex dinosaur in the position of the CRS-3. What is more understandable to the reader, the big violent dinosaur or the car with 1,000,000 horsepower? Of course both are equally understandable, but they give drastically different impressions.

"As it turns out, these megarouters sitting inside data centers of major telcos and cablecos are among the biggest bottlenecks of the Internet, because as bandwidth speed to end users has shot up in recent years, router technology has not kept up, resulting in traffic jams that can slow or freeze downloads."

You know you can trust TIME Magazine to report on the state of the art in core Internet statistical measurements. Need I say more? These bozos have the audacity to make such a bold claim, without even a hint of statistical data, without attribution to an outside study, without a quote by a recognized expert or even an industry insider. Am I supposed to take author Erik Heinrich's word for it? He's the guy who compares routers to geckos and T. Rexes!

The real story here should be Time-Warner's blatant use of the TIME publication to further it's corporate overlord agenda in collusion with the other members of the Big Media cartel. We'll see much more of this coming from all the usual suspects as we get nearer to a vote on ACTA.

Re:They are not worried

[Runaway1956]

Alright, I live here in Backwoods, Nowhere, not far from Bumfuck, Egypt. I pay my US$70/month for a phone and 380k internet connection, and that's what I've got.

Let's say next month, or next year, all the internet routers are changed over to these new ones. Is MY connection going to be any faster? Nope. Not unless I ante up the money for a full 1Mb connection. And, that's the fastest I can get - the ISP doesn't offer any faster, and they have no competition.

The only way I'm going to get faster connections, at a reasonable price, is if someone comes in, and gives my ISP some COMPETITION!!!!

Hell, a great deal of my internet content is delivered at least partway via optic fiber, now. That doesn't help my actual download speed, one bit. I need both that infamous "last mile", and COMPETITION!!!

Re:Yeah, right.

[Anonymous Coward]

So now the router is 3 times faster?

Sooooo...If I told you Intel just came out with a chip that was 3 times faster or the latest version of MS Windows or Linux was 3 times faster, would you be impressed? Or that your machine could get the new OS or chip without shutting down, would you find that impressive?

Gotta keep this in perspective. It's a pretty big deal.