×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cisco's New Router — Trouble For Hollywood

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the giving-pirates-a-bigger-pipe dept.

Networking 335

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

335 comments

sweet (5, Insightful)

ldconfig (1339877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511014)

THANK YOU CISCO!!!

Re:sweet (4, Insightful)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511538)

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 (1)

Again (1351325) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511744)

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.

I am also in Canada and mine is capped at 60 GB (plan here: http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/High-Speed/ [www.shaw.ca]) and I pay significantly less than 65$ a month. Do you live in a rural area?

Re:sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31511756)

You know how the price per GB drops? Faster routers.

Re:sweet (1)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31512060)

OK, during the last 10 years, my cap limit got from 10Gb to 25Gb. At the same time, the price of my link got from 50$/month to 65$ per month. So it got from 5$ per GB to 2.6$ per GB. Taking a yearly increase of 2% of the price to take inflation into account, I should be paying 6.09$ per GB, but I pay 2.60$ per GB. A 42% price drop.

In this 10 years time, the capacity of the Internet in general has increased by what, 10 folds? 100 folds? Sure the numbers are not proportionnal between router speed / price per GB.

Nothing new (3, Insightful)

ihatejobs (1765190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511028)

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 (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511462)

Exactly.

effectively distribute feature films online and promote them using social media such as Facebook and Twitter

This was written about music in the days of Napster, and again when Myspace was popular. Those changed distribution to some degree but they didn't do a lot for indie musicians. The 1000s of garage bands connected to the internet have yet to put a dent in the old guard. Instead of the major labels and WalMart its still the major labels and Apple.

Even people who don't want to pay for music prefer to pirate as opposed to download free indie material. This stays true even in the digital stores. Apple makes a handful of songs free every week, but they don't displace the label offerings on the popularity list.

No doubt faster downloads will change distribution to some degree, but I suspect independent artists are way down the RIAA/MPAA list of things to fear.

Re:Nothing new (4, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31512236)

>>>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:Nothing new (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31511610)

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.

Editor's note: "QQ" is internet slang for "cry". The little lines are supposed to be tears, while the O's are eyes.

Re:Nothing new (1)

ihatejobs (1765190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511656)

Thank you for mentioning this, I really should have included that as a footnote in my post... Ah well, can't win 'em all.

Re:Nothing new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31511782)

...or just include the extra keypress of "c" and spell "crying"

Re:Nothing new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31512022)

Shift should equal the balance, no?

Re:Nothing new (1)

ihatejobs (1765190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31512168)

Thats no fun! Besides, it wasn't used in that form as short form. Its more used as "internet form". Oddly enough most of the trolls on the internet understand it better than they do English. When in a place that speaks another language, the least you can do is learn it.

Re:Nothing new (1)

Magic5Ball (188725) | more than 4 years ago | (#31512144)

Refusing to change? Hardly.

They will be the first to embrace and support legislation to require ISPs to adopt Cisco's new deep packet inspection and traffic-shaping products to combat this development. They've probably already come up with new ways to make anyone but themselves pay for such changes, too.

First (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31511054)

Multicast

They are not worried (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31511060)

This won't increase speed to your or my house. It wont remove bandwidth caps. All this will do is relieve congestion at the main gates.

Re:They are not worried (0)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511200)

Well, it won't directly increase the speed to your house, but it would likely open the door for ISPs to offer cheaper and faster packages (Considering the cost of the uplink would theoretically be less). So while you wouldn't be putting one of these in your house, you would receive the trickle down effect from it...

Re:They are not worried (5, Insightful)

BeardedChimp (1416531) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511250)

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...

Re:They are not worried (1)

uncledrax (112438) | more than 4 years ago | (#31512026)

IWIHMP +1 Relevant, Insightful.
(I Wish I Had Mod Points)

I agree.. firstly 100mbit to the user isn't hard.. expensive, maybe.. depending on what existing plant and density you have going on.

The US broadband 'lag' isn't about "We can't do it", it's more about the cost to upgrade aging infrastructure that most companies want to continue to leverage since it's a massive sunk cost.
Given, persons in more rural and semi-rural areas would be prohibitively expensive to get to (there's alot of fiber you'd have to run to get some some people.. just how it goes), but persons in urban and semi-urban areas shouldn't be all that hard to get to... and it might be expensive.

I'm sorry kids, Ethernet is the wave of the Now.. lets actually start using it.. bring some fiber into a MDU, ring it, and put out some aggregation switches... and for the love of the FSM, learn to administrate the damn things.. or pay me and i'll do it for you.

There was an article a while back in Linux Journal (iirc) about a model done in .nl or somewhere that the building was the ISPs customer, and the building took care of fanning out from there.. True, you'll get alot of poorly designed/built/administered networks, but it'd prob up the count.

Re:They are not worried (1)

calibre-not-output (1736770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511962)

In theory, this means that the ISPs could offer higher speeds / download limits at the same price, since they no longer have to worry about the bottlenecks. In practice, they'll just keep the higher profits for themselves, and perhaps offer a symbolic increase to shut the customers up.

The wrong model. (2, Informative)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511074)

The MPAA and the RIAA continue to use the lawyer model. They are operated by lawyers for lawyers. Remember "I would rather fight than switch"?

Time does blow hot air sometimes (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31511116)

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.

Re:Time does blow hot air sometimes (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511188)

If this happens (which is entirely possible), I wouldn't be surprised if a "pirate" internet appears in some form or another.

RTFS (1)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511584)

I don't buy the more bandwidth equals more piracy angle at all.

Who said anything about "piracy"? If you read the summary (not even the article) you'll see this:

With superfast streaming and downloading, indie filmmakers will soon be able to effectively distribute feature films online

Re:RTFS (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511840)

That's the real point of the article, I think. Not "OMG PIRATEZ" but "kiss the corrupt, archaic, money-sponging, control-grubbing distribution mechanism good-bye."

Cut out the middleman once he's no longer a necessary evil. Get your films into moviehouses without paying your tribute and signing away your rights; bypass the labels and directly publish your tunes to the masses.

That said, the pigopolists will insist it really is all about OMG PIRATEZ. If buggy-whip manufacturers could have, I'm sure they would have insisted on toll gates on every highway, with a big cut going to them.

Re:RTFS (1)

Aeros (668253) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511908)

Who said anything about "piracy"? If you read the summary (not even the article) you'll see this:

There were a few more sentences in there other than this. Like this one:

"They will also need to figure out how to stop people from setting up clone video and music stores with pirated content."

Or there was this one in a comment...

"We are NOT going to have a wonderful new world when piracy and high-speed access make it possible to quickly download a production that someone put their asses on the line for to the tune of thousands or millions of dollars."

Re:Time does blow hot air sometimes (1)

Aeros (668253) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511766)

right people that pirate dont kill the connection if they dont get their data right away. They go away and make a sandwich, watch another pirated movie then come back when its done..rinse and repeat!

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31511120)

Isn't this router only three times faster than routers that previously existed? I wouldn't exactly call that a game-changing speed.

Re:What? (1)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511724)

Didn't verify your info, but 3x the speed is still a huge step when you are at that scale! [Car reference here] Going from 1mph to 3mph is not a huge improvement. Going from 10mph to 30mph is a correct improvement. But going from 100mph to 300mph is the hell of an improvement!

So (I don't know the real numbers) going from 10Mbps to 30Mbps is a not too bad improvement, but from 1Tbps to 3Tbps, damn, that's great!

Re:What? (1)

Aeros (668253) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511950)

really? Wouldn't you be happy if your savings account increased by 3x? I'm sure $3000 is nothing to sneeze at if you only had $1000 in there.

How is this "trouble for Hollywood?" (2, Insightful)

Happy Nuclear Death (911893) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511122)

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?" (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31511156)

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

Re:How is this "trouble for Hollywood?" (4, Funny)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511912)

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

Hey, our infrastructure might be falling apart, our education system is an intentionally inadequate rote memorization nightmare, and we recently had a bloodless coup by the corporations (which wasn't reported on much, cause our news all comes from corporations), but at least we have McDonalds and Cable TV!

AMERICA, FUCK YEA!

Re:How is this "trouble for Hollywood?" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31512124)

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

Hey, our infrastructure might be falling apart, our education system is an intentionally inadequate rote memorization nightmare, and we recently had a bloodless coup by the corporations (which wasn't reported on much, cause our news all comes from corporations), but at least we have McDonalds and Cable TV!

AMERICA, FUCK YEA!

You hear that everybody? A bloodless coup! And 9/11 was an inside job, and the mercury in your fillings is affecting the quality of your life, and homeopathy is a proven modality!

Obvious troll is obvious.

Re:How is this "trouble for Hollywood?" (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 4 years ago | (#31512142)

McDonalds and Cable TV are now available almost anywhere in the world.

Steaming? (4, Funny)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511126)

From the summary: "steaming video-on-demand services"

Does the new router dry-clean and iron the services, too? Or do they mean "steaming" as in "pile of stuff that my dog just left behind on a cold day"?

Re:Steaming? (4, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511196)

I think they mean 'adult material'.

Re:Steaming? (2, Funny)

dubbreak (623656) | more than 4 years ago | (#31512154)

I think they mean 'adult material'.

Man, I was hoping for chinese cooking shows.

How am I supposed to learn how to make dumplings from porn?

The Last Mile (5, Interesting)

The Redwin (837889) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511136)

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?

Re:The Last Mile (1)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511770)

Not sure what your experience has been, but my connection is 10mps down. The bottleneck is always on the server or server's isp -- it is very hard to find servers that can actually stream video at reasonable quality and speed.

Re:The Last Mile (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511874)

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?

I have a 20 mbps connection and on a good day, speed tests will show me in the 15-18 mbps range. 99% of the time I can't break 6 mbps, though. Maybe the backbone is my bottleneck.

Re:The Last Mile (1)

Lesrahpem (687242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511904)

Increasing the backbone bandwidth will allow for faster connections between ISPs and customers because there will be more bandwidth available between ISPs and their providers.

Not really (5, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511986)

Coaxial cable has loads of bandwidth (in the analogue spectrum sense). On a typical modern HFC network you are talking probably 1GHz of bandwidth to the home. Now DOCSIS 2 doesn't make real good use of that as you can use only 1 6MHz channel which gives you about 38mbits total effective throughput shared among all users on the segment. However segments are getting smaller as the fibre part of the network is built out, and there is the possibility of having different kinds of users on different channels.

All that isn't a big deal though, as DOCSIS 3 is up and operational. It can bond an arbitrary number of channels together to increase bandwidth. Currently, DOCSIS modems out there can do 4 or 8 channels giving you 152-304mbps.

Also, there's going to be a lot of that cable space available rather soon. Currently you find that most of the spectrum is taken up by analogue TV. 6MHz per channel, often as much as 100 channels. 600MHz of the spectrum can go to that. In the remaining 400MHz comes all the HDTV and so on plus usually a digital version of said analogue channels these days. So, get rid of that, you've got 600MHz of space for data.

That gives you in the realm of 3.8gbps per segment.

Last mile is capable of much more than we see right now, and can be scaled up even further. The reason you don't tend to see it is the bandwidth higher up. If a cable company suddenly switched everyone over to 300mbps DOCSIS 3 service they'd get slammed. Customers wouldn't get anywhere near their supposed service because there just isn't the bandwidth for it high up stream.

If you want more speed to the house, there's got to be more speed higher up. That's just how it goes with any network. Also the more a router can handle the less the bandwidth costs. If 10gbps takes up a whole line card on a router and the router can only handle a few of those cards, it is going to be pretty expensive. If 10gbps can be packed in by the hundreds of ports, it costs a hell of a lot less.

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

Re:Not really (3, Insightful)

crashumbc (1221174) | more than 4 years ago | (#31512216)

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."

Doesn't really effect bittorent (1, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511152)

The speed of most downloads is bandwidth limited by the computer it is being downloaded from, not by the network. This new router isn't going to make peer-to-peer networks noticeably faster. It's not going to make downloads from servers with thousands of concurrent connections noticeably faster either.

Re:Doesn't really effect bittorent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31512106)

You have no idea what youre talking about.

Confused (1)

TSIGabe (1735978) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511164)

I think you are confusing core network and last mile. Have Terabits in available backbone bandwidth does not translate to what's delivered to the customer.

No this doesn't stop them (5, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511186)

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.

Re:No this doesn't stop them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31511666)

Depends on what kind of movies you like to watch. If your viewing preferences run to Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield, then every one 'waiting' for the $1 Redbox rental is a good thing. If, on the other hand, you enjoy 2012, Pandora, or just about any movie with a 'big' star in it, then you'd be in for a surprise.

Re:No this doesn't stop them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31512074)

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.

+1 to you sir, but this should truly apply to the music industry as well.

The quality at the movies has declined immensely over the years and it's quite obvious the theatres basically cater to teenagers and other numbskulls (most teens, not all) as that's where the money is. But of course that's because of all the piracy, right.

Same meme different author (4, Interesting)

guruevi (827432) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511198)

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.

Government Mandated Middle-Man (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511650)

The problem is that the US government is so short-sighted that it only sees the current crop of services as the only way to move it's economy forward so you get things like ACTA. It's to the point that making unpopular decisions about how to lock everything up that might be a thought is a fricken' national security issue. Well, any government that let itself get into that position shouldn't be asking all their friends to lock-in to their mistake. Even when we don't it's not the end of the US, I still have faith that it's CITIZENS will always find a way despite its government aiming at foot and pulling the trigger.

Re:Government Mandated Middle-Man (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 4 years ago | (#31512246)

That's the same mentality that short-term managers have had for the last few decades and businesses are currently reaping the problems associated with it (Microsoft format/vendor lock-in, riding/investing on a bubble, offering long-standing companies up on the stock market altar to gain IPO money - then slowly dying).

As always, government is a few years behind on inheriting those business-processes so over the next few decades you'll see the government slowly killing itself while selling out to the highest bidder.

Yeah, right. (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511234)

The new router is just the previous model with plug-in cards that can switch 3x as much data. It's even possible to upgrade existing CRS routers without a shutdown, changing out the cards one at a time. It's a nice upgrade if you have a need for a router that big, but not that revolutionary. The revolution happened years ago, when routers got big enough that video streaming on a large scale was possible.

What a renaissance man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31511240)

First the thong song and now this. Amazing!

MAFIAA (2, Insightful)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511244)

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

Re:MAFIAA (1, Redundant)

ArcadeNut (85398) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511424)

It doesn't help the debate, it just makes it more likely to be accepted by /.

The more sensational the summary, the more likely it gets picked....

Re:MAFIAA (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31511442)

Asshole.

Re:MAFIAA (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511694)

I fail to see how childish whining helps do anything to further this debate...

Besides, everyone here with half a braincell already knows the MPAA/RIAA is evil. The 'debate' (really a discussion) is over whether or not this new router hurts them.

But hey, never pass up a chance to bitch about slashdot right?

Re:MAFIAA (1)

Hoplite3 (671379) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511726)

The name-calling helps people read the slashvertisment. It's actually a very well-written bit of guerrilla marketing.

Re:MAFIAA (1)

zero_out (1705074) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511954)

It's not really childish name calling, so much as it has become accepted as the name we all use for referring to the MPAA and RIAA, without having to refer to them both individually. What's easier to type, MPAA/RIAA or MAFIAA? MAFIAA has become so commonplaced, that I don't even recognize the dig against them anymore. Even if we did recognize it, the fact that they use organized, yet pseudo-criminal, methods for getting money from people is just that: a known fact. It's now beyond debate.

The term is similar to the way that the terms diva and brat have lost their negative connotations, and simply become the defacto name for those who love attention, and those who have a knack for influencing people to get what they desire, respectively. It's similar to a certain racial slur which has become common parlance for those in that group to refer to one another. Remember how it used to be considered embarassing if you were to have your pants pulled down and your underwear exposed to everyone? Some people now prefer a clothing style wherein they walk around with their pants on the ground.

MAFIAA isn't name calling. It's just who they are.

Accurate summary? (1, Redundant)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511256)

If so, it's interesting that mainstream media is seeing what the Slashdot crowd has seen for some time now.

"MAFIAA" Sure, You Want to be Taken Seriously... (2, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511266)

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)"

Re:"MAFIAA" Sure, You Want to be Taken Seriously.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31511608)

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:"MAFIAA" Sure, You Want to be Taken Seriously.. (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511848)

That's a nice router you got there, It would be terrible if something were to happen to it...

Re:"MAFIAA" Sure, You Want to be Taken Seriously.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31512010)

>>The problem is that too many people want to do that and not pay for it.

I agree with most of what you said, but take Netflix as you mentioned, I DO pay yet I still download movies online. I have the $16.99 a month plan (3 DVDs and unlimited watch instantly).

Here's the thing, I often download a new release rather than waiting for it in the mail. Sometimes the DVD is not available right away, but mostly because if I want to watch it tonight I have to wait for the mail.

If I want to watch that new-release, that I technically have already paid for, who cares/does it hurt if I download it and watch it before it arrives in my mail box?

I think that is a good example of people that do pay for unlimited access to all movies, but still have to spend their own time going to download them. Why does anyone care if I download it and watch it as opposed to if I wait for the disc in my mail box? I paid either way.

Childish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31511328)

Calling them the MAFIAA puts you on the same level as those that spell Microsoft as Micro$oft. People know not to take you seriously, it's just childish.

bandwidth costs (3, Interesting)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511340)

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.

that's a backbone router, stupid. (2, Insightful)

porky_pig_jr (129948) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511352)

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.

Re:that's a backbone router, stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31512014)

I think your first problem is "downloading a DVD in a few seconds"...I am going to go out on a limb here and say you will never be able to download a plastic cylindrical plate over a copper wire. The content of that plate, sure! :-)

embrace the pain (3, Interesting)

bugi (8479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511382)

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.

Music labels starting to get it right (2, Interesting)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511420)

I just bought DRM-free FLAC files of a new album from The Whigs [thewhigs.com], who belong to a sub-label of Sony. The music industry is slowly but surely starting to modernize and correct how they sell music. I'm sure we'll eventually see the movie industry do the same and start offering high-quality DRM-free stuff online. If anything, infrastructure upgrades like this router will just help that come sooner because their bandwidth costs will go down. I'm sure they're not happy about changing, but they don't really have a choice and I think they're finally beginning to realize that.

(Not to say I condone any of their lawsuits, privacy invasions, or other malicious shenanigans -- I wrote PeerGuardian for frak's sake.)

entitlement-business model (4, Funny)

xs650 (741277) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511502)

"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"

I read that as entitlement-business model the first time. Made more sense.

Bullcrap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31511558)

The only thing holding back streaming services is licensing, not technology. Content distribution networks are in every internet exchange and can deliver without clogging up backbones. The router in question is not last mile technology. The thing that would really spell trouble for Hollywood is multicasting. Think P2P, but instead of needing as much upload bandwidth as download bandwidth on average, multicast-P2P would need only as much upstream bandwidth as the fastest downloader can download to deliver the goods to all downloaders at the same time. Multicasting would also instantly make the likes of Akamai jobless. With multicasting, everybody could run a TV station from their home. Wake me when that arrives.

Slanted Wording (5, Insightful)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511582)

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 (1)

MtHuurne (602934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31512240)

I agree that "MAFIAA" does not belong in the summary. The "Mesozoic Era" is a quote from the article though, so that's not something the editor is responsible for.

Marketing Fluff (1)

macintard (1270416) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511604)

This is all marketing fluff, and Time gets sucked into it badly. Crisco is great at acquiring companies, but they hardly innovate much anymore. "The claim of 12 times the traffic capacity of the nearest competing system is based on a theoretical maximum of 72 interconnected CRS-3 chassis in order to achieve the 322Tbps total capacity -- this will likely never be deployed in practice due to space, power, and manageability realities," he said. "With its new T-Series chipset announced in early February, Juniper will deliver a four Terabit system in a half rack configuration while the CRS-3 requires a full rack to deliver four Terabits.' That's a real space and power savings for every unit deployed."

distribution... (1)

Fishbulb (32296) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511654)

The only problem here is that the companies that make up the RIAA and MPAA have put on a facade of being the producers of entertainment. It's a facade because they got into producing only after the fact, and usually what they produce can hardly be considered original or creative in any way. They are not artists.

Their original business model was distribution. The internet has opened up communication between any two people on the earth from the narrow confines of voice and fax to just about anything that can be digitized (music, images, etc, but not chairs, for example). Distribution has become a moot point, and the foundation of the business model of those companies has been yanked out from under them.

Fuzzy words (1)

omarius (52253) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511662)

If DVDs are from the Mesozoic, peer-to-peer file sharing is not an "emerging technology." The new routers and Internet speeds you're talking about are an emerging technology; P-t-P has pretty darn well emerged. Protip: if you're going to use hyperbole for a good semi-comedic/sarcastic effect, don't mush the meanings of terms in the "straight" part. :)

They must realize the new distribution model (1)

master_p (608214) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511670)

The film and music industry must realize that there is a new distribution model: the online distribution.

Make the movie bigger! (1)

sam0737 (648914) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511718)

Well, instead of HD, the MPAA should push for a 1920000*1080000 standard so it will be so large that it's not feasible to download from the line. How they are going to distributed it on disc media is a homework left for the reader.

Accept the fact MPAA! Newspaper didn't die because of the Internet, they just adopt and changes and now I see some newspaper are making money by providing access to the archive, or other link and analysis functions which is not possible with the deadwood media.
I believe you can do something more creative than suing people.

What's the business model again? (1)

boguslinks (1117203) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511764)

What is this business model that involves distributing movies for free via p2p and still making a buck? Selling t-shirts? It's slipping my mind right now.

I can't imagine a worthier party... (1)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511802)

Well, let's see here. The RIAA member companies, when they sign contracts with artists, typically promise some big up-front sum for a number of records to be cut in a specified amount of time-- turns out that this sum is just barely enough to cover expenses and often leaves very little for the artist/band to make a living, forcing them to recoup the difference on live tours (if they have a big enough audience) where the RIAA takes less of a cut. Meanwhile, the record companies take for themselves all reproduction and distribution rights (unless the artist was smart and insisted on keeping those rights), so they have a short leash on their artists while at the same time have the means to harass and financially destroy anyone who dares sample their wares without their express permission.

And that's the recording industry. It often gets worse in motion pictures, where big studios take the American insurance company method of cutting costs-- find every excuse known to man to avoid paying the very people who worked on their blockbuster titles.

These are the people who have the gall to say that they're losing money, and throw up bullshit numbers that essentially say "X downloads of our stuff means X*30 lost sales, therefore all internet downloaders are thieves who owe us X*30000 dollars." Really, you'd think that they'd figure out sooner that treating their own employees/contractors/customers like the filth and grime from Dirty Jobs wouldn't be such a great business strategy?

They picked a fight with a technology that can only grow stronger and faster with time. Honestly, with the new stuff Cisco and Google are putting forward, I can't help but think that this media cartel's comeuppance is here.

Don't even get me started on the authoritarian twits who run MLB and NFL...

Summary is wrong (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511822)

The ability to download albums and films in a matter of seconds

I can do that now.... from a datacenter.

The point being Cisco's new routing equipment is so far up the food chain consumers won't *ever* know the difference.

Given Cisco can bribe their way into any deal with a viable customer, I'm still interested to hear about the chances this device has in the marketplace and its competitors.

Low cost ISPs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31511828)

The trouble for RIAA and MPAA are the ISPs pushing the cost of bandwidth down.
That won't be ISPs using CRS-3s.

There is faster and cheaper gear than the CRS-3 out there.

Cisco (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#31511888)

Cicso, I'm still waiting for a giant TV that:

  - Sits outdoors
  - Is visible in direct sunlight
  - Has a built-in camera
  - Shows a live feed of another TV on the other side of the planet
  - Feeds it's own live feed to said other TV
  - Has both sides of the planet in broad daylight at the same time
  - Sends the feed using tachyons to get around that pesky delay

The first step is to TRY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31512098)

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

Fighting tech: dumb. Failing to try to get anything out of tech: dumber. Where can I buy non-DRMed high def movies? Oh, I can't; they aren't for sale at any price. Only pirates have them. What part of "not for sale at any price" meaning "$0 projected revenue" do they still fail to understand? What is even the point of fighting, if you don't yourself, want a piece of the pie? Yo, MPAA, are you sure you don't want to enter the market?

As long as these so-called "businesses" aren't selling, it's hard to see how this can "spell trouble" for them. When you have 0.00% marketshare, what can really threaten you?

No big deal... (1)

joelja (94959) | more than 4 years ago | (#31512122)

This is simply the product that needs to be able to support ongoing growth in the core. It is neither revolutionary nor in fact terribly new. Juniper t1600+TXmatrix is roughly the same class of router.

Big core routers have a service life of around 5 years and the CRS-1 was introduced in 2004.

The size and complexity of the forwarding table in these mainframe style distributed router platforms is at least as important as their throughput (and speed of the slot interconnects to a non-blocking fabric is the biggest part of that). and of course that's not the part that journalists have been covering since in layman's terms it's almost completely incomprehensible. These boxes are designed for 5-10 million routes spread across a number of VRF (virtual router and forwarding) instances which is going to have to last them until 2015 or so which is potentially a fairly iffy proposition.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...