Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality is Essentially Unassailable, Argues Billionaire Barry Diller (broadcastingcable.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Yahoo Finance:
The billionaire media mogul behind such popular sites as Expedia, Match.com and HomeAdvisor has a one-word forecast for traditional media conglomerates concerned about being replaced by tech giants: serfdom. "They, like everyone else, are kind of going to be serfs on the land of the large tech companies," IAC chairman Barry Diller said... That's because Google and Facebook not only have such massive user bases but also dominate online advertising. "Google and Facebook are consolidating," Diller said. "They are the only mass advertising mediums we have..." He expects Facebook, Google and maybe Amazon to face government regulation, simply because of their immense size. "At a certain point in size, you must," he said. "It's inevitable."
He did, however, outline one positive for Big Tech getting so gargantuan. Big Telecom no longer has the economic leverage to roll back today's net-neutrality norms, in which internet providers don't try to charge sites extra for access to their subscribers. "I think it's hard to overturn practically," he said. "It is the accepted system."
Even if the U.S. government takes moves to fight net neutrality, Diller told CNBC that "I think it is over... It is [the] practice of the world... You're still going to be able to push a button and publish to the world, without anybody in between asking you for tribute. I think that is now just the way things are done. I don't think it can be violated no matter what laws are back."
He did, however, outline one positive for Big Tech getting so gargantuan. Big Telecom no longer has the economic leverage to roll back today's net-neutrality norms, in which internet providers don't try to charge sites extra for access to their subscribers. "I think it's hard to overturn practically," he said. "It is the accepted system."
Even if the U.S. government takes moves to fight net neutrality, Diller told CNBC that "I think it is over... It is [the] practice of the world... You're still going to be able to push a button and publish to the world, without anybody in between asking you for tribute. I think that is now just the way things are done. I don't think it can be violated no matter what laws are back."
WTF does Barry Diller know about how net neutrality works? What qualifies him to spout about the subject apart from being one of the USA's anointed ones, i.e. a billionaire and therefore the press prints whatever shit falls out of his mouth?
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
It seems very naive to believe that tech companies will always back net neutrality. Once Google reaches critical market share providing home Internet service, either by deploying their own solution or buying up existing companies, their position on net neutrality will reverse.
Looking at it from another perspective, net neutrality favors startups. If Google and Facebook can work out deals with cable companies that will impede any startup that challenges their market dominance their concern for net neutrality will evaporate.
What companies is Barry Diller involved in that will benefit from the loss of "Net Neutrality"?
It looks like USA Network and Fox Network, both of which he helped found. AC/InterActiveCorp, and Expedia. What possible motive would someone whose billions of dollars are tied to such media giants gain from getting people to ignore the issues of Net Neutrality? What control by business lobbyists might be gained if an informed citizenry pays no attention to it?
I believe this also answers the question of "what does Barry Diller know". He knows that the loss of Net Neutrality can benefit his highly capitalized companies in which he has enormous personal investments: favoring particular, paying media companies over other Internet traffic is highly beneficial to his large, existing companies.
The price of housing never went down ... at least, not until people starting to go around endlessly repeating the maxim that the price of housing never goes down.
This issue is just a titch too important to relegate to cartoon physics with a broad wave of a feckless "what, me worry?" ostrich paintbrush.
For decades now China has poured money into hardware and software to control what people see and how they see it with their so-called "Great Firewall of China". This has created an entire cottage industry in specialized network appliances and software offering all sorts of content filtering, logging, monitoring and re-rerouting of traffic etc. It took time and billions of dollars, but China and other oppressive governments have managed to tame the Internet. Now that same software and hardware is available to private companies chasing more banal objectives, like charging you more for the right to watch Netflix vs their in-house streaming offerings. I don't agree with Mr Diller that Net Neutrality is unassailable. It's being assailed right now. The opening shots in this war were arguably fired by Comcast in 2007 with the spoofed TCP reset packet controversy. The tools now are both more targeted and more effective. The threat is real and people ignore it at their peril. The Internet as we knew it is slipping into history and has been for some time now. If nothing is done, the end result will be something similar to cable television with access to Facebook, ISP branded video streaming and not much else.
Big media needs to lock this shit down. Once the poor are back to read-only, things you read about will be better.
The telecomms already are charging companies for access, and the big companies like Google and NetFlix are fine with it because the cost for them isn't prohibitively high. That still leaves the small companies facing having to pay for access to end users, and it'll be harder for them because the precedent's already there that having to pay for access to your customers is OK.
The billionaire media mogul behind such popular sites as Expedia, Match.com and HomeAdvisor
All of those are now mostly obsolete, their business models completely disrupted by new players. I'm not sure that guy is a reference when it comes to predicting the future.
lucm, indeed.
That also worked for ABC, Parmount, and Fox. He will make a fortune if net neutrality goes away. Ignore the "just give it up" message.
It won't be Big Tech vs Big Telecom. It will be Big vs small.
IMHO the internet always was second to an improved Fidonet or something similar. Considering the internet "free" always seemed a little naive. It's 2 decades ago that commercial online services controlled access to the web, you had to be always online, it was hideously expensive and slow and E-Mail has always been a shitty non-private service, as has the usenet.
These days Google and Facebook have taken over the position of AOL and Compuserve for a larger part of the population. Plus we all now that three-letter agencies are observing the internet in its entireity. Since Snowden this is no news.
What I do find scary about china is not their control of the internet, but how it shows how control of the internet expands into society. That's the real deal, if you will. They've basically got Brave New World + 1984 going, big time. It's all out cyberpunk where we are headed for and the China you described is one part of the puzzle, that much is true.
My 2 eurocents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
...has a one-word forecast...
He sure uses a lot of words in his one-word forecast.
Sig?
I don't think it can be violated no matter what laws are back.
He should have just ended the sentence with "I don't think".
I think it is pretty obvious that net neutrality can and is being violated by many parties already.
Since Net Neutrality is a manifestation of free market economics and his background in business and broadcasting he probably does have an informed perspective. That doesn't make him right, but his perspective and credentials are on the table.
American public puppets. Watch the show. Enjoy the ride. We will not discuss the internet backbones, and what rules and regulations they run under. No, only the last mile, that's what is important. Debate that, look at the shiny. DNS, caching, edge networks...no no...net neutral net neutral
Because Chris planned on retiring on his Amazon affiliate spam he shitposted here daily. He legitimately thought he was going to extrapolate his coffee money into a million dollar empire.
He originally claimed to be a highly-valued member of Slashdot through the quality of his submissions. His last submission was tagged "spam" and I think it sent him over the edge.
https://slashdot.org/submissio...
Chris also has a tremendous ego out of proportion to anything he's achieved, yet paradoxically he also has a very thin skin.
You can see this here: moderators were OK as long as he had positive karma, but as soon as Slashdot got tired of his nonsense, you get AC posts like the OP.
You can also see his personality disorder at work when he writes a Python scrip to cumulate all his imaginary karma points over his posting history. What kind of person does this? An insecure person with a fragile self-esteem.
All your moderators are died to us.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
That's easy for him to say, but those norms will change with coordinated effort. If all the telecoms start charging what's everyone going to do? They're going to pay. Because to not pay means you don't get your content and no one is going to accept that (or at least not enough that it will make a difference). Choice doesn't matter when all the choices suck. We'll all piss and moan about it, but we'll never collectively hit them in the wallet where it would really matter.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
I disagree. I'm not even close to a liberal, and I think the end of net neutrality would be a very bad deal for the general consumer.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.