Artists, particularly media and film artists, are at the mercy of this system since control of bandwidth is one of the few legal, effective approaches corporate media owners have left to enforce monetization of their products. This is how people access our work. We should be doing more than just demanding regulation or change, we should be actively seeking alternatives to the current broadband bottleneck. (And if my experience is anything to go on, 3G/4G wireless is not the solution).

Stockholders didn’t seem too pleased with the plan , as shares dropped on the news of the talks. That would probably have something to do with the unsuccessful Time Warner merger and the fact that NBC has been slipping in the ratings and ad revenue game as of late.

However, Comcast’s acquisition of a major content deliverer is right in line with the idea that that the cable companies may be the only eventual strongholds of copyright management. If Comcast owns the copyright of content and they also can control how much bandwidth you can access- and potentially manage that bandwidth through their own proprietary content access points, there’s more chance content can be monetized significantly online, at least until there is broadband access that is significantly competitive to cable/FIOS.

How you feel about this will depend somewhat on your ratio of desire to make money with content (especially existing content) vs. your desire to access things online for free.

If the web is allowed to go on unfettered, the argument goes, corporate interests will run rampant and take it over, just like my formerly gritty SoHo neighborhood. Get some cool stuff going on in that there internet and before you know it, the whole thing is a mall- a mall with mean security guards.

Such a scenario is not so implausible, and in the case of media, there does seem to be a strong possibility in my mind that service providers such as Comcast will partner with copyright holders like Disney and Warner Bros. to clamp down on the available means to access media except in proscribed and monetized ways.

In that regard, artists might be more interested in creating their own satellite network than trying to make semi-enforceable rules- for real. One of the main points of contention is that the network was publicly built, after all; perhaps that could be an interesting NEA project.

Bandwidth caps are one of the best ways for Comcast, Time Warner, etc. to keep a handle on what’s available on their network, and aren’t addressed by NN. A company is within their rights to expect people to pay more for greater usage. Net Neutrality will likely end the flat rate per-month broadband pricing for consumers. That may not a good thing for filmmakers marketing their films- people may become a lot more selective with what they are going to spend their bandwidth on.

The freedoms espoused in the Net Neutrality platform- and the ones added by the FCC- are awesome, theoretically. It’s a bit like a digital bill of rights. For my money (currently being flung around in Washington like rice at a wedding) I might take net neutrality, without regulation. It could be used for legal action but not be a reason for a bunch of regulators on retainer. Let the market control things in general, but individuals have recourse against egregious offenders. But his is probably not really feasible.

What are your thoughts on Net Neutrality? Do you think it’s good for content creators? Will it solve the problems you have with viewing/sharing media online?

It’s clear that at least some freedom must exist for online film markets to thrive- as Dave Zatz points out, even a non-P2P user easily surpasses the basic plans Time Warner offers in his market (40GB/month).  The question is, won’t other providers emerge that offer more reasonable plans and thus be more successful in the marketplace (i.e. simple free market economics?)

One problem with this approach may be that the challenge of entering the marketplace may be very high, so it would not be a simple matter of offering broadband itself at a better price- when Time Warner offers also cable services which are not available to other companies, or when the infrastructure of offering broadband is still limited to pipes owned by TW (or to DSL).

Obama has pledged to support Net Neutrality legislation.  McCain opposes regulations.  As far as I can tell, neither candidate has really addressed the pitfalls of their positions- nor is this enough of a hot-button issue to get Campbell Brown to take on their lackeys and find out.

Some links of interest:

Obama on MTV talking Net Neutrality

Discussion of Net Neutrality from Radio 4

Article from Wired about Net Neutrality and internet TV

One of the main issues on the list is Martin’s crusade to make cable a la carte. But he is just a little ahead of the market curve- with the increase in internet and VOD viewing, a la carte is going to be a consumer demand no matter what (why do you want to keep paying for those 50 channels you never watch if someone will provide you the option- on any platform- to just buy the channels you want)? That said, that such a thing would suggest a need for regulation speaks to the odd backwards-leaning mentality of cable.

In another example, non-proprietary technology such as true2way or the CableCARD might in the long run improve service in general (the premise being that open source technology has the potential to move more quickly and be more responsive than the mysterious voodoo stuff cable companies traditionally put in their boxes).  But it is understandable that cable companies like to maintain control- so people can’t “steal” cable and so they can charge fees for things and monitor what you watch, etc.  When revenue models are becoming increasingly polarized, cable/DSL/salelite companies want more control, not less.

‘What candidate would be better’ for the new world of online video seems like an almost fruitless question in its complexity- though I’d be curious about people’s responses. (It seems only Obama went to the Googleplex).  It somewhat depends on your perspective- as a rights holder, as a viewer, as a company trying to disseminate video online.  It isn’t straightforward.  Ideally things will get faster and cheaper and yet not filled with so much spam and poor-quality piracy that it’s not really worth wading through.  Ideally it will get cheaper and yet be a great place to make money.  Is that a red or a blue idea?