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

The Last Mile

[The Redwin]

I was under the impression that the backbones where these routers are used was never the "bottleneck" for streaming video and such. Isn't the connection from each user's home to the ISP more the issue? I mean its great to triple the backbone bandwidth, but is it really accurate to say doing so is going to make it easier for the average user to download movies?

Same meme different author

[guruevi]

Same thing we have been saying for years: Technology advances, get over it, find a better business model or quit. Buggy whips!

The problem is, the current market doesn't need the middle man anymore. The middle man makes the media crappy and monotone to appeal for a large audience so they can make a quick buck, people want better stuff. Eventually the pendulum is going to swing back as 'indie' filmmakers trying to make a quick buck are going to be distributing their own stuff overloading the consumer with crappy, monotone media - the consumer is going to start looking at a more centralized source which will aggregate several of these media sources and filter out the bad stuff until they see the need to make a quick buck by overloading their loyal customers with crap again.

Eventually it all comes around but for now we don't need the middle man anymore. Just as we don't need buggy makers anymore but we have wanted fossil-fuel-powered buggy makers for the last few decades and the next few decades we're going to need electric-powered buggy makers. All-in-all, we need buggy's, it's just that the type and kind has changed.

bandwidth costs

[CAIMLAS]

So does this mean that we'll be able to have less expensive bandwidth and/or pipe costs in the near future? No? I didn't think so.

I find it highly unlikely this will do much more than shave the costs of operation a bit for larger organizations which might actually need something like this: hosting providers, pipe providers, colo providers, and the like. I'd say the chances are slim that the common man would gain much benefit from this change.

embrace the pain

[bugi]

If it improves the situation for indie filmmakers, then it can't be bad for the film industry. It may be painful for the entrenched interests, but they should be embracing that pain as a learning tool rather than amplifying it and passing it on to innocent bystanders.

Re:Nothing new

[commodore64_love]

>>>The 1000s of garage bands connected to the internet have yet to put a dent in the old guard.

I wouldn't say that. Radio is on the verge of death, and more and more young persons are listening to songs I've never heard of before - stuff they pulled off the internet. There's definitely a "dent" there.

And the biggest sign things have changed? MTV stopped playing videos. That model survived until the 2000s and then died, because it was killed-off by the instant access of Youtube. Another channel called "TheTube" tried to revive music television, but it went bankrupt in 2006.

The interactive nature of internet is slowly-but-surely killing off passive forms like TV and Radio.

Re:sweet

[HornWumpus]

Until company 2 manages to get monopoly pricing, then everybody wants a slice.

The facts don't match your theory.

Most urban places already have 2 sets of 'sufficient wires' (DSL over copper phone lines and cable). They were each deployed for historic sufficiency in different markets so don't directly discredit your argument.

Many areas are currently getting a 3rd pipe with lots of head room for 'sufficiency' (fiber to the house).

Also available are somewhat mixed performance wireless packages.

A final option is always a directional antenna and a local coffee shop hot spot.

The simple fact is there are multiple definitions of 'sufficient'. Competitors chasing these different markets invariably piss in each others punch bowl. The only 'natural monopoly' that remains is for the highest performance network.

Data isn't the same as power, cable TV or old school phone lines. Those might have been natural monopolies although I can point to historical cases where they extracted monopoly pricing and created competitors for themselves. Yes I'm talking about parallel power grids existing in early days of electrification. Sometimes 3 competitors.

Re:sweet

[spun]

Good points, and an illustration of the classic counter argument to the theory of natural monopoly. Technological change breaks natural monopolies, the railroad breaking the canal monopoly being a classic example.

But this competition is only happening in the larger markets. And it doesn't seem to provide solutions that match what other, more regulated countries have managed to provide their citizens in terms of broadband access. Broadband penetration in the US started to lag behind many other countries about the time we overturned the rule requiring large carriers lease their wires at their own internal rates. Coincidence?