Senate deals blow to Net neutrality

TalkBack 3 of 65:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Thank goodness they did!

Why broadcast must have this.

There are a number of reasons this is required but I think the critical issue is that a contract between the public and the broadcasters exists. This is a social contract and it requires (by law) that the content broadcasted over "open air" in the US be done so in a manner that anyone can receive it. Specifically it can not be encoded and require you to buy/use hardware to decode it or pay a fee to watch/hear it. Cable, Satellite, even internet providers can protect their content. Broadcast on "open air" can not.

The big argument of course is "fair use". And it *IS* a good argument, to a point. That point is when the social contract demands change. There are millions of examples of this. Walking around with a gun was at one time considered "fair use" of the gun. The social contract we live under (being animals that build societies) required that fair use in this case was less important than the demands of the social contract.

Another is speed limits, as I drive down the interstate and look over at someone in a 20 year old pickup missing body parts, bald tires, smoking like a locomotive and we are both doing the speed limit I KNOW I could be driving 20 MPH faster and still be SAFER than him. But the social contract has restricted my "fair use" of my car in many ways. There are literally thousands of examples I could list.

Yes it is sad people will lose some existing rights. I do not argue that point one bit. The facts are that this was never an issue until the internet and the MASSIVE amount of "sharing" what no on has any right to share. In other words, AGAIN the criminal element (using technology) requires a change in the social contract just as outlaws did with guns and incompetent drivers did with automobiles. And for the record, it bothers me greatly that another freedom is lost for the actions of criminals. Many here cheered the pirating sites (knowingly aiding in distribution of copyrighted material) on and cried to high heaven when pirating sites where shut down. I tried oh so many times to speak up and say those that truly believe in fair use need to vocally challenge piracy. All to no avail... sigh...

They must adapt to the new technology.
Many here have said the broadcast industry must react to a paradigm shift created by new technology. I am certain they would love to do that!!! I am certain they too would love to be able to protect their content as their competition can. The social contract doesn't allow them to.

Well let them go broke and new tech/ideas/paradigms will emerge.
*IF* it was competition, *IF* people no longer held them to the social contract of free delivery, *IF* their highly valued content failed to attract users, *IF* they fail to manage profitably, *IF* they failed for any of the normal reasons I would agree they need to go broke. But to say they will be allowed to go broke from criminal actions is revolting!

The content companies business model is to invest millions of dollars in to their content, selling it is the ONLY way for them to recoup the investment, however the social contract demands that it be made available for free to all so they must sell the "distribution" of the content. The true buyers of all (free air) broadcast content are the advertisers', not you and me. They literally spend billions of dollars a year paying for our content for the right to advertise to us. That is the social contract. To suggest that these people will continue to spend these billions when the content is so easily "shared" and they lose the ability to control advertising is completely absurd. No advertisers', no free content, it's just that simple. And no, they aren't interested in trying to do it all with product placement, it's a dumb idea for the most part. (Like I pay attention to what soda the guy is drinking in the show. pffftttt..) If anyone thinks they can make product placement work and generate the income required then by all means I welcome and encourage them to try.

Again, if this social contract is failing for *legitimate* reasons then the industry will fail, but if it is failing due to *criminal acts* that is a very different issue and as a society it must be addressed and efforts to control it made. The only other reasonable alternative is to remove the restrictions placed on the broadcasters' by the social contract so they may also use technology to protect their property, something every business and individual in the world is allowed to do.

Personally, I would hate for that to happen.

Posted by: No_Ax_to_Grind   Posted on: 06/28/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• VMware Infrastructure: A Guide to Bottom-Line Benefits VMware Frustrated by the costs of maintain ever larger data centers?or building ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Iinfrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now