Beta

×

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!

Net Neutrality Blasted by MPAA Bosses

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the nothing-good-about-that-statement dept.

The Internet 222

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.'"

cancel ×

222 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FUD begets FUD (3, Interesting)

Meor (711208) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739560)

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.

Re:FUD begets FUD (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739626)

Ah yes, so that when Comcast cuts a deal with Yahoo and slows your connection down to 56k, and they're the only high speed provider in your area, you'll feel so much better that the government isn't attempting to protect consumers.

Thanks for your own FUD (0, Troll)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739810)

Show me the locality where that is happening.

Show me the trend to decreased bandwidth.

It looks to me that the trend everywhere, under light regulation, is toward increased bandwidth.

But if you can show me, I'll be happily disabused of that.

Re:Thanks for your own FUD (5, Informative)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739928)

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 [slashdot.org]

Re:Thanks for your own FUD (0, Troll)

Meor (711208) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740032)

Monopolies are created by regulation. Cell phone monopolies were created by a 2 provider per area limit back in the day which was facilitated by the government regulating all EM spectrum. "Municipalities" "Regulate" cable layers and create all these other broad-sweeping ancillary problems.

You're right though, remove the regulation, remove the monopoly.

Remove what regulation? (3, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740092)

"Municipalities" "Regulate" cable layers and create all these other broad-sweeping ancillary problems.

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.

Re:Remove what regulation? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22740398)

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.

Those are not regulations. Those are contracts with the cities. That's a huge difference.

Re:Thanks for your own FUD (-1, Troll)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740100)

So they're lowering P2P traffic bandwidth. GOOD. P2P is a cancer.

Re:Thanks for your own FUD (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740216)

"They could be right"
What? Of course they're right- net neutrality legislation is made to protect peer-to-peer traffic.

Re:Thanks for your own FUD (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22740622)

After last night's South Park, I believe you meant AIDS.

Re:Thanks for your own FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22740748)

Comcast is a monopoly here in Springfield.

There are 34 Springfields in the United States.

Re:Thanks for your own FUD (1)

Chutulu (982382) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740932)

are you the comic book guy from The Simpsons?

Decreasing bandwith goes hand in hand with filter. (4, Interesting)

gnutoo (1154137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740122)

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.

Re:Decreasing bandwith goes hand in hand with filt (1)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740490)

Bandwith is worthless if it can't be used the way you want.

But I have that. I don't use P2P. When I want something, I download it.

The P2P model presupposes an Internet the way it should be: everyone should have multiple bandwidth providers/partners. In fact, almost everyone is a leaf node, and P2P sucks leaf bandwidth dry. Add the mathematics of fan-in, and no sane ISP would allow unfiltered P2P.

Re:Decreasing bandwith goes hand in hand with filt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22740794)

Why shouldn't I be able to use my leaf bandwidth however I want? Didn't I pay for it?

If an ISP sells N customers service at a promised bandwidth of X bps, and its network collaspes any time its total leaf bandwidth in use exceeds N*X*0.1, then isn't the ISP overselling? Isn't that fraud?

I should have some guaranteed bandwidth I can use constantly without my ISP's network collasping. Perhaps that means ISPs need to distinguish between the bandwidth they are guaranting you and the higher bandwidths you would typically experience because not everyone uses the network at once.

Or are you saying that there is no practical way for ISPs to plan and monitor their networks in enough depth to be able to guarantee any minimum bandwidth whatsoever?

www.hopelesscase.com

Re:Thanks for your own FUD (2, Insightful)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740396)

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.

Re:Thanks for your own FUD (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740642)

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.
They cannot be stripped of what they do not have. ISPs are generally NOT common carriers today. I don't see any lawsuits yet.

Re:Thanks for your own FUD (1)

quanticle (843097) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740704)

Show me the trend to decreased bandwidth.

While bandwidth isn't decreasing, it certainly isn't increasing either. Despite what the advertising for broadband claims, we've still all got pretty much the same amount of bandwidth we had in 2000. Increased competition could certainly help here, as the larger number of providers would certainly provide some incentive for everyone to give more bandwidth.

The more pressing concern is that, because of their vertical monopoly, carriers could block services (e.g. VoIP) that competes with services they provide, or content that they disapprove of. Having competition would certainly be a blessing here, since on could use the lack of content filtering as a marketing point when selling one's product.

Re:FUD begets FUD (1)

Meor (711208) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739848)

I don't know why you're trying to get the government to protect you. In democracy 51% tells 49% they're wrong. The vast majority of people don't need fast internet connections. You should be scared of what the majority will do to you because if you're a high bandwidth user, you're the minority and your opinion means squat.

We need to remove the tools of power that regulate to protect ourselves from the stupid majority.

Regulation needed to eliminate incumbent advantage (5, Insightful)

inTheLoo (1255256) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739898)

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.

Re:Regulation needed to eliminate incumbent advant (3, Insightful)

Meor (711208) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739964)

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.

Open Spectrum. (2, Informative)

inTheLoo (1255256) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740432)

See, Reed [reed.com] , Bose, and The Prometheus Project [prometheusradio.org] for a sensible way to end government control of a public resource that's not really scarce.

That should not relieve incumbents from their regulatory burdens. The money and power they have was gained by government protection and for the last 20 years it's been done against better technical advice. At the very least the public servitude should be protected from vandalism and other crimes. At best, their infrastructure should be considered public so that others can connect to it without fear. Open spectrum will kill the economic advantages of land lines but we must not allow incumbents to continue owning those few places there's a good business case for it.

Re:FUD begets FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22740148)

if you grant power to the government to be responsible for protecting you.

then you've also granted them the power to fail you, or worse, to harm you.

once you've granted that power, it's never returned.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

--Benjamin Franklin

Re:FUD begets FUD (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740272)

What liberty is lost by forcing monopolies to behave? Be specific here.

Re:FUD begets FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22740464)

the u.s. government has never accomplished any real enforcement. and any version of the u.s. government that could actually get the job done, would be more of a threat then the monopoly itself.

if you show me a single instance of u.s. government action against a monopoly that had any meaningful effect, what you'll be showing me is a lie.

your belief in what the government/large corporation relationship should be, and how it differs from reality is so great, it reveals your fundamental beliefs in people, life, government....your re-education via a slashdot post would be laughable, it's not possible. But there are other people who read your post, and then read mine, and they will nod their heads "yep".

Re:FUD begets FUD (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740528)

Look, Ron Paul lost. Get over it.

Re:FUD begets FUD (2, Informative)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740764)

"f you show me a single instance of u.s. government action against a monopoly that had any meaningful effect"

Never heard of Ma Bell and the phone monopoly they used to have? That's right, the entire US used to have only 1 phone company. Your choice was use them, or don't have a phone.
Hell in the old days, you couldn't even OWN your own phone - they were all considered "rentals" from the phone company.

Re:FUD begets FUD (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740890)

But there are other people who read your post, and then read mine, and they will nod their heads "yep".


If you are so sure you are right and stand by your opinion so strongly...why post it as a coward?

Re:FUD begets FUD (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740382)

We aren't trying to grant the government to be responsible for protecting us...we are trying to get the government to bitch-slap misbehaving monopolies because we as individual citizens don't have the money or the realistic possibility of legal avenues to make the changes ourselves.

I'm all for keeping the government out of our daily lives, but there are instances where government intervention is necessary. Or do you have millions of dollars, top-notch lawyers, and the legal ability at your disposal to slap the likes of Comcast in the face hard enough that they stop bullying everyone else on the playground?

Re:FUD begets FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22740982)

if your complaint is valid, then there should be a lot of other people in your area in the same boat.

form an action group. complain online, complain to the city, complain to the local news channels.

document your complaint. add ever increasing numbers to your group.

before you tell me that it will take "too long" to do that, you better look at how long government pseudo intervention takes and corporate litigation.

try years.

if internet is important to you, more then a luxury, then you need to do something NOW. move.

to my parents, a job was important. you can bet your bottom dollar that if they needed to, they would move to follow the work.

quit being such a pussy.

Proof at last (1)

samuisan (142967) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740484)

Just in case you weren't sure, now you *know* that net neutrality is a good thing.

Re:FUD begets FUD (1)

duguk (589689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740800)

Isn't it kind of the point that a net neutral ISP would not be able to watch data over their network and prevent piracy*?

It's kinda like saying if we let the Royal Mail read ever letter, we might catch a few criminals. If we don't, we'll have to catch them in some other more complicated and convoluted way.

Seriously, if its a criminal matter, I've not got too much of a problem with the GOVERNMENT watching our downloading. There's a possible reason behind it. Plus (usually) it'd go to a criminal court. If its just any company checking to see if I've just listening to 30 seconds of some other artists music, is it really their right to be able to use my own ISP against me without any proof?

* (read as: be forced to sue their customers on behalf on a organisation that doesn't stand for its members)

I know a lot of you won't agree with this petition [pm.gov.uk] that I set up on the Downing Street site (and I don't expect it to do anything), but please read it and offer your criticism and comments, I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Re:FUD begets FUD (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740860)

Only removing the tools of power used by governments to regulate the internet at all, will make it neutral.
The idea of our government is that it's of, by and for the people. Removing the power of government to regulate the internet is giving away our own power to make sure the internet serves us instead of the other way around.

I'm ashamed to see so many otherwise bright and technologically sophisticated people so misguided on this issue of Net Neutrality. We've got a small window of opportunity to save the internet as a tool of social benefit instead of just another shopping mall. Unless some effort is made to separate the hardware and structure of the internet from the content of the internet, we will lose everything that's so valuable and special about the internet.

We are currently seeing the social benefits of having a public medium for information that is not filtered by the Princes of Commerce. Believe me, those same Princes are desperate to destroy that public medium as fast as possible, because it threatens their hegemony.

Please, if you don't see the importance of Net Neutrality right now, take a little time and look the matter over again. Once a free (as in speech) and open (as in doors) internet is gone, there will be no getting it back. In fact, it's only by accident that we ever had a free internet to begin with, and the rich and powerful are scrambling to lock it down ASAP.

Corrupt organisation... (2)

adpsimpson (956630) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739562)

Corrupt organisation seeks to further own aims.

Film at 11.

Re:Corrupt organisation... (3, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740008)

This problem of the movie industry trying to stop the evolution of new technology has been occurring not only during the internet age. The advent of home-recordings was one, the television another. They seem to forget that they can't succeed by rejecting new technology - they must embrace it and not try to inject peculiar provisions.

At the moment the MPAA, RIAA and similar organizations are alienating themselves from their customer base, which just means that the potential customers will continue to select different sources just to keep away from them.

Re:Corrupt organisation... (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740944)

I am begining to wonder if Valenti is still running that joint from the grave. Either that or their phonograph is skipping.

that may be true, but... (0)

gravesb (967413) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739576)

That may be true, but does prevention of piracy really outweigh my privacy concerns with having an ISP look that deeply into all packets? If my representative thinks so, then he has last my vote.

Re:that may be true, but... (5, Insightful)

ajs (35943) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739612)

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.

Re:that may be true, but... (-1, Troll)

GeneralPayne (1252500) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740002)

Another "Drone" spouting the gloriousness of his highness, the mighty BARACK OBAMA. When are people going to realize that whether he gets office or not, he'll follow the money just like every other friggin politician that takes an office. JEEZ NET NEUTRALITY as a whole will be a battle fought not by by politicians but the citizens who demand their privacy and who also demand the services they pay for without the worry if someone is watching our every move on the net. I don't want the government, RIAA,MPAA, MAFIAA, MEDIA SENTRY or any other organization for that matter. What I do with my home computer and net connection is my friggin business and the politicians with the lobbyists on their asses can just kiss my ass

Re:that may be true, but... (2, Insightful)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740612)

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...

Re:that may be true, but... (4, Interesting)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740028)

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.
Well, over the years presidential candidates have learned a few interesting tricks. For instance, a candidate could potentially say they're going to do something, and then, once elected, do something else. Or, they could actually say what they're going to do, but say it in such a way that people don't catch on that it's not what they want. For instance, consider the following possible statement. The figures in it are fictitious, of course...

"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.

Re:that may be true, but... (1)

Cainjustcain (782020) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740300)

Legislation that benefits corporations to the detriment of the general public goes on the books all the time. Let's see, you have the 2005 amendment to the bankruptcy code seriously shifting protection to creditors. The S&L bailout which you are still paying for (and probably soon to be followed by the sub prime mortgage bailout). And don't get me started on the success of the insurance and drug lobbies in pushing through bad legislation. Face it, corporations have more power in America today than any time in history. If they want to make this happen they have the machinery to do it.

Re:that may be true, but... (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740500)

Did you ever stop and wonder what would have happened if the bailouts had not occurred? That wasn't done to save the banks (because in many cases the banks failed/went out of business), it was done for the customers of the banks and the economy as a whole. The potential sub prime mortgage bailout... well, hopefully it won't happen, as it was brought about primarily through customer 'want it now' mentality.

Re:that may be true, but... (1)

EddyPearson (901263) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740574)

How wonderfully naive. Wait for the campaign contributions to come in and then watch as the worm turns.

McCain Opposes Net Neutrality (3, Informative)

Kuma-chang (1035190) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740746)

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 [slashdot.org] , 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...

Fuck the MPAA. Spam em at massjunk@gmail.com (1)

massjunk956 (1237948) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739580)

Fuck the MPAA. Spam em at massjunk@gmail.com

Re:Fuck the MPAA. Spam em at massjunk@gmail.com (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739950)

Why do I get the feeling you will be harvesting all the email address replies?

Not the real reason... (2, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739584)

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.

The MPAA doesn't distribute movies (1)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739924)

There's noting to cut them out of with P2P. The MPAA is the industry's lobbying group, and exists to advance the interests of the various studios.

What schmuck modded that insightful?

Re:Not the real reason... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22740124)

They will not.

For most current combinations of network and streaming architectures the costs do not compute.

It is a classic case of "You should never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of backup tapes" (in this case DVDs).

The cost of streaming (not downloading - streaming with guaranteed QoS) of a movie at DTV broadcast quality is above 5$, DVD quality or HDTV quality are simply out of the question. This is way higher than rental through the post. Only some fiber architectures come close to matching the costs but even they cannot hit the right numbers for the time being.

DRM failed, so change strategy (5, Insightful)

athloi (1075845) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739590)

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.

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy (3, Insightful)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740110)


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.


And as a free bonus, it means that only THEY will be able to afford to do the digital music thing. Bye bye Indy Digital Music Labels, bye bye Indy Internet Radio, bye bye Radiohead-style "Download it and pay us directly what you want", etc.

Brilliant. Dirty as all getout, but brilliant.

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy (5, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740420)

You have it exactly right. It's about money, not fairness, or legality. Legality changes when they can pay enough legislators to make their business model look fair and legal.

Glickman, the **AA, and any of their illk has a conflict of interest when they talk about net neutrality and filtering. He has only greed for motivation, not doing things right or even fair.

When he starts talking about how to get EVERYONE higher bandwidth AND better Internet experiences without filters or DRM... then and ONLY then are they worth listening to. They are not trying to help anyone but themselves, and perhaps that is how it should be, but we need to make sure that our legislators do NOT believe that he speaks for the average user, ISP, or Internet based business.

The guy dressed like jesus on 49th street wearing a sandwich board declaring the end is near can be spotted by anyone as a crank. Glickman is a different kind of crank and the writing on his sandwich board promises huge sums to those who would enact laws in his favor, not just eternal bliss in the afterlife.

The way I feel about it, every municipality should operate their own WAN/infrastructure and sell access on it to cable companies and ISPs so that even little guys can compete. The monopolies granted to large corporations in various areas are completely hobbling the fight for net neutrality. When they no longer have an infrastructure to claim as their problem, they cease to have any say. yes, I know this idea is fraught with problems, but leaving the infrastructure in the hands of monopolists (successful ones or not) is the way to net non-neutrality. The **AA are trying to hold on to their choke hold of distribution and cable companies currently have a choke hold on broadband distribution. When infrastructure ownership is neutral, so will the net be.

Re:DRM failed, so change strategy (1)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740898)

"The way I feel about it, every municipality should operate their own WAN/infrastructure and sell access on it to cable companies and ISPs so that even little guys can compete. The monopolies granted to large corporations in various areas are completely hobbling the fight for net neutrality. When they no longer have an infrastructure to claim as their problem, they cease to have any say. yes, I know this idea is fraught with problems, but leaving the infrastructure in the hands of monopolists (successful ones or not) is the way to net non-neutrality."

The only problem is that you'd be taking the infrastructure out of the hands of one monopolist and handing it into the hands of another. When the government owns industry and communication that's called communism. I don't like the current system. There HAS to be SOME way to make a level playing field on the infrastructure so that small start-ups can come in and offer competition to the big guys. I just don't like the idea of government regulation doing that. It's the antithesis to free market. It's a band-aid. It's socialism. It's government control.

I don't have any answers either. I just don't agree with handing control of the infrastructure over to the government. I don't really believe in handing control of anything over to the government.

Why *prevent* piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22739596)

...when you can get relief ($$$) from actual copyright infringement?

Ignorant about how this would backfire (2, Insightful)

von_rick (944421) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739628)

"neutrality regulations would bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to prevent piracy"
Seems like he's missing the point. Glickman would be all for neutrality when some of the movie websites would be blocked by certain governments or schools or such institutions all because of the 'emerging tools' that ISPs would've implemented.

New glasses needed (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739630)

I can't stop reading that sentence as "...bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to prevent privacy."

That's not a dumb move at all (1)

siddesu (698447) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739650)

Sounds to me like the * Ass. of A. are looking for new partnerships. They toss something to the ISPs in exchange for support for whatever measures the Ass. is interested in getting passed. I guess we'll see a lot more of the same in the coming months -- it'll be interesting which ISPs will they be talking too and how far it goes.

Levels the playing field (2, Insightful)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739674)

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.

Re:Levels the playing field (3, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739722)

Yup. The internet provided the entertainment distributors with its worst nightmare: a cheap channel where everyone can be a distributor. The RIAA/MPAA wants to return to the good old days of one-directional pipes. A smart network is the first requirement for this. Everything else is secondary. I hope the current organizations die out before they can push this through.

Re:Levels the playing field (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740346)

The internet provided the entertainment distributors with its worst nightmare: a cheap channel where everyone can be a distributor.

I'm sure they wouldn't care, if not for the fact that its the copyrights of their member companies that are being violated. Were it truly being used like Slashdot espouses, with new and innovative businesses distributing their works (and only their works) I'm sure they'd have exactly zero room to breathe.

But they've got ammunition, and LOTS of it.

Piracy/Privacy (4, Funny)

AaxelB (1034884) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739712)

I read that as:

'Glickman argued in his speech that neutrality regulations would bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to prevent privacy'
I was somewhat impressed how they were coming right out and saying it! But no, just more bullshit.

Re:Piracy/Privacy (4, Funny)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739936)

It's no more a job of the ISP to prevent piracy, than it is the job of highway builders/maintainers to make sure that their road isn't used to ship stolen goods.

P.S. If I get modded down for using the word "stolen" as a part of my analogy, I will join the other side.

Re:Piracy/Privacy (1)

z0idberg (888892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740472)

...but a good one.

Admins, whoever mods this post down is an *IAA member trying to turn TheMeuge to the dark side! Ban them!

P.S. whoever mods this down because I used the incorrect article before *IAA is a grammar nazi of the very worst kind.

Re:Piracy/Privacy (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740082)

Haha, I read it the same way. The misreading really highlights the real point of the argument.

The MPAA & RIAA would like Net Neutrality if.. (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739752)

The MPAA & RIAA would support net neutrality if:
1. Each ISP pays them $5000 per month for each album they see transferred across their lines (in either torrent, iTunes, or any other legal format).
2. MPAA & RIAA get to monitor the pipelines and send the ISPs bill (Much like AT&T Vaccum Cleaner).
Then you would see a sudden change of stone-cold hearts of these bitches to support neutrality since this gives them an edge over what consumers can see and hear.

Re:The MPAA & RIAA would like Net Neutrality i (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22739870)

Somewhere in CONNECTICUT a village is getting back its idiot in 2009. God save it.
FTFY

Re:The MPAA & RIAA would like Net Neutrality i (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739920)

Somewhere in CONNECTICUT a village is getting back its idiot in 2009. God save it.
What the fuck does that mean?
Who's from CT in first place? Obama? Lieberman?

Re:The MPAA & RIAA would like Net Neutrality i (1)

Ioldanach (88584) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740166)

George W. Bush, actually.

Though its somewhat of a technicality, because he was moved to Texas at age 2 and spent most of his formative years there.

W is from CT (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740218)

Somewhere in CONNECTICUT a village is getting back its idiot in 2009. God save it.
What the fuck does that mean?
Who's from CT in first place?
President Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut [wikipedia.org] .

Re:W is from CT (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740470)

Is it??? Oh damn. The state that has produced such scholars from harward is also the birth place of this single-digit-IQ man???
Wow!
No wonder he feels at home in Texas ranch talking to single-digit-IQ ranch animals like bisons, etc.
I seriously hope, New Haven does not throw a welcome-back party to this moron.
They would instantly become the untouchables of the country.

Re:The MPAA & RIAA would like Net Neutrality i (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22740452)

The Bush family, asstard. Listen to GW Bush speak before 1978 (after he lost the congressional election in TX and adopted his "folksy" accent) and it's abundantly clear.

All I am hearing... (2, Insightful)

the4thdimension (1151939) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739774)

...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.

Re:All I am hearing... (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740112)

I've always thought it should be treated like phone service. How would people feel if the phone company or some other organization listened in on their phone calls, much less degrading the quality if they didn't like what you were talking about. A government organization with proper warrants should be able to do it but that's about it.

Misuse of ISP tools by RIAA/MPAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22739788)

And depending on how the regulations are written, they could be right.'

Not really. At least, not in any meaningful sense. The tools affected by net neutrality are affected because they can be misused. So, do not misuse the tools. Then the ISP's are still able to go after content copied without the permission of the copyright holder, if that is what the ISP's really want to be doing. I sort of think the ISP's should be acting as a common carrier and not as an agent for the RIAA/MPAA. But that's just me.

boohoo (2, Insightful)

fpgaprogrammer (1086859) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739790)

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.

MPAA Argues *For* Net Neutrality (3, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739796)

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.

The internet is not all about the *AA's content .. (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739818)

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

bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to (3, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739868)

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.

Its this (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739886)

everyone owes us money and everyone with an internet connection must be stealing our music/movies bullshit thats made me not buy anymore new music (I buy used cd's from pawn shops) and now I'm at the point where I'd rather take the $60+!!! for a family movie day and take everyone to the zoo or go cart racing.

I'm pretty sure my way of thinking is doing more damage to the movie industry profits then some 14 year old dowloading a movie they would never have watched in the first place.

By the way I buy dvd's at pawnshops also for $5-8,so eat me.

Changing The Distribution Game (4, Interesting)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739890)

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 [amazon.com] , 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.

that's crazy (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739904)

people who don't play fair don't like rules about fairness and equality?

i can't believe it

USPS (5, Insightful)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739914)

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!

Re:USPS (2, Funny)

TimTheFoolMan (656432) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740344)

Don't you realize this is why the USPS is so slow? They're just limiting the bandwidth of your mail. Too much and the truck would break down, so they have to intentionally "drop some of those packets" at the local office. - Tim

E 4! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22739990)

shAre, this /news

Ok, let's do some hacktivism (4, Interesting)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740068)

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."

Re:Ok, let's do some hacktivism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22740356)

If they start really fucking with the internet, I can guarantee you that all anon cowards, myself included, will be actively engaged in warfare to save it. I can also guarantee you that we will win.

Legion is real. Don't forget it. Resistance is futile.

In a word, yes (1)

asuffield (111848) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740174)

Net neutrality all comes down to this question:

Are carriers allowed to treat packets differently without the explicit direction of their own users?

A neutral network quite obviously cannot be used to enforce the will of some third party against the will of the network's users, so yes, it does explicitly prohibit ISPs from doing the MPAAs dirty work. That is what it is supposed to do.

(Buying a faster/slower/cheaper/more expensive/whatever service is explicit direction from you to the ISP to treat packets differently. Being told by your ISP that you must accept this new set of rules or be disconnected is not)

Announcing the Internet Security Administration! (1)

Dreadneck (982170) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740208)

I can't wait for the day we get to see the online equivalent of security officers shaking down little old ladies in wheelchairs while the priviledged few sail by unmolested.

"Excuse me, sir, but has anyone tampered with your PC without your knowledge?"

But the question is how do I get my PC to take its shoes off? Nothin' says lovin' like having a leash shoved up your bum!

War is peace, slavery is freedom, ignorance is strength.

A similar issue -- spam (1)

oneiros27 (46144) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740312)

I've been against legislation for the various 'Net Neutrality' acts, as lawmakers typically have no clue what the actual issues are.

Yes, in this particular instance (screwing with larger downloads / file sharing), it hurts some of their customers, and I hope that in our capitalist market, people would _switch_providers_. (The bigger problem is that many people don't have a choice in broadband providers ... and claims of 'unlimited' service which isn't)

But if the requirements for Net Neutrality are written so that all traffic has to go through (no 'blocking' of 'signals'), we're opening a massive can of worms -- Virus filtering? Illegal. Spam filtering? Illegal. Parental filtering? Illegal.

As part of the 'CAN-SPAM' act (of course 'can' is translated as 'have permission to' or 'preserve' not 'to cancel or abort'), they defined what _wasn't_ spam (including information on how to be removed from the list, non-forged headers, etc.) If someone were to actually send what I'll call "legal spam", and the ISP blocked the message from getting to its recipient, would the "spammer" be able to sue the ISP?

I think it's an important test case to consider when looking over any proposed laws regarding "net neutrality". Also, consider the ISP's ability to block botnets, viruses and other infected systems to keep them from adversely affecting their networks, their customers, and the internet as a whole.

Disclaimer : I used to work for a small (~2k user) ISP, and was active in some spam-filtering groups.

God Complex?? (1)

twakar (128390) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740358)

I really wonder where this guy and his cohorts get the idea that they are so fscking important. I mean really, they produce entertainment, with a bit of information thrown in for flavour.

The quote that really fries my onions is this one:

Glickman argued in his speech that neutrality regulations would bar the use of emerging tools that ISPs can use to prevent piracy

He's certainly making some wild assumptions, and stating them as fact. For example:

  1. Thats it's the job/duty of ISPs to protect/monitor their content.
  2. That the ISPs even care,except for where the media company and ISP are one in the same.
  3. That internet users will accept a crippled, corporate internet. note: They may at first, but when Joe Sixpack and Sally Housecoat start seeing the negative effect, the shit will hit the fan.
  4. That government (the U.S. in this case) wants and/or should protect their revenue stream. The piracy they are worried about is already illegal, and there is no reasonable expectation for anyone but themselves to protect their Jurassic business model.

Eventually being so clueless and Darwinism will take hold and these self-serving megalomaniacs will die a slow and painful (figuratively speaking) death. I mean how stupid, blind and closed-minded do you have to be not to see that these groups..the MAFIAA I mean are sitting on the forefront of a revolution. Give the people what they want, at a reasonable price, unencumbered by artificial restrictions, ie: DRM, Windows Only, self-destruct after 24 or 48 hours, and almost ZERO distribution costs to a global audience, and the world (literally) will beat a path to your door. You people could be having orgasms instead of heart attacks. Also remember, people will STILL buy the DVD. So some people may not pay, but you still get so much more exposure than you could ever hope to buy. It pains me that I have to share this planet with so many cranially challenged people.

Get a clue, or get the fuck out of the way. Sheesh

The "stolen" analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22740468)

...has got to end. Shared music is not stolen; it's shared.

So let's change this highway analogy. Throttling bandwidth to prevent sharing music isn't anything like banning cars because some people traffic drugs; it's more like banning cars because some people carpool.

Always Avoid Alliteration (1)

Teflon_Jeff (1221290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740618)

Net Neutrality is a need. We can't trust companies to do the right thing (Enron, MCI/Worldcom, Comcast P2P)

I'm more worried about some large company buying preferred bandwidth. Or blocking sites. Sure, it hasn't happened yet, but it could, and it's a slippery slope. Any Company with large enough Coffers could buy "preferred speed" rights, so you get to their site faster. The videos on their site stream faster. Their E-mail client loads attachments faster. That's pretty easy to imagine happening.

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. That's how Fascism took power. People saying "It'll never get that bad"

The crookeder they deals they try to pull (1)

crovira (10242) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740652)

the better podcasting looks.

They want to restrict us to downloading packets in the gaps between theirs, so what?

We can afford to wait because we're not trying to be broadcasters who absolutely need the bandwidth or the user experience goes to shit and they get calls into tech support.

Screw em. Fuck 'em where they breathe.

Good Lord, these people are short-sighted (1)

hobb0001 (989441) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740684)

You'd think that net-neutrality is exactly the thing that the MPAA would want. As a content creator, you'd want to be able distribute your content over the internet without paying extortion fees to the ISP monopolies.

... but then again, maybe paying extortion fees is standard practice for the MPAA.

Postal System? (1)

xoundmind (932373) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740702)

So the US Postal System should start scanning all packages in case they might contain bootleg DVDs?

That would be a logical extension of the "ISPs must have right/ability to restrict the distribution of pirated material" argument.

It doesn't matter! (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740768)

ISPs (carriers) should not be controlling content (censorship) anyway! Anymore than telephone companies are responsible for what is said over the telephone.

We really should get that part straight.

What about (1)

strikeleader (937501) | more than 6 years ago | (#22740870)

What's is the postal service doing to prevent piracy. Maybe the MPAA should be asking for a law to allow the inspection of all mail anytime the MPAA feels that the mail system contains pirated material
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>