[IP] More on Congress threatening to stifle TV-over-fiber plans
------ Forwarded Message
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:53:20 -0400
To: <politech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Politech] More on Congress threatening to stifle TV-over-fiber
plans
Previous Politech message:
http://www.politechbot.com/2005/04/20/congress-threatens-to/
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Congress threatens to stifle TV-over-fiber plans
[econ]
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:22:55 -0700
From: Mike Roberts <mmr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@xxxxxxxx>
References: <42670CBB.60409@xxxxxxxx>
I think maybe we need to plagiarize JP Barlow's "Information Wants to
be Free," into "Bits Want to be Free."
There is considerable irritation among university Internet folks
about the notion that broadband access providers get to block ports
just because they want to for anti-competitive reasons.
But most people are on the sidelines until Supreme Court decides
Brand X, which among other things is a good example of the adage
about hard cases making bad law. We'll just have to see.
- Mike
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Congress threatens to stifle TV-over-fiber plans
[econ]
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:05:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Thomas Leavitt <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <declan@xxxxxxxx>
References: <42670CBB.60409@xxxxxxxx>
This discussion displays a remarkably out of date point of view...
My wife and I just downloaded and watched a 40 minute, semi-professional
video production, "Revealations" (a "Star Wars" "fan film"). Does this
mean Cruzio (my local ISP) has to follow all these regulations because it
provided me with the network connection that I used to download the video?
Perhaps SBC, because Cruzio resells their service? The private server we
downloaded it off of? No, we didn't use BitTorrent, although we could have
- whose responsibility would it be in that case? The production
company's?!?
Fast forward ten years, when I have a library of over a million pieces of
digital video available at my fingertips, and more every minute, and
you'll see how absurd the discussion is...
Trying to translate a regulatory framework designed for an
analog/broadcast era to a Internet-era video distribution service is
ludicrous. A decade from now, when video on demand over the Internet
rules, and the whole concept of a "TV station" or "network" or television
shows "broadcast" at a specific time is as antique and alien as
rebroadcast "kinescope recordings", readers will laugh hysterically at
this discussion.
Prohibit SBC and Verizon from offering "digital tv"? "Must carry" rules
for local broadcasters? Mandated "set top box" interoperability? "Public
access channel" requirements? "Indecency rules"?
They obviously don't get it: it's a stream of bits. Anyone can start
spitting them out, from anywhere on the planet, to anywhere on the planet.
The bits can be video, audio, text, photographs, interactive game data...
none of the items in the previous paragraph are operative. The only reason
Verizon and SBC are attempting to replicate cable and broadcast television
is a lack of imagination on their part, and a perceived lack of
imagination on the part of the viewers.
If people are doing "podcasts" of audio on a relatively wide scale today
(I'm going to call into one of these shows tomorrow at noon, my time), how
long do you think it will take before they are doing podcasts of video on
a similar scale?
Broadcast television, indeed "television" as we know it, with the whole
idea of a programming schedule, "channels", etc. no matter what medium it
is transmitted over, will vanish into the Ethernet in short order, along
with the entire regulatory framework designed around it. Any attempt to
promulgate that regulatory framework onto programming "broadcast" over the
Internet will only result in handicapping those few sources of video data
that happen to fall under it, with the natural result being that the
forces of free market competition will provide substitutes which aren't
constrained by these limits.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
------ End of Forwarded Message
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/