Musicians Demand the Internet Stay Neutral 203
eldavojohn writes "124 bands — including R.E.M., Sarah McLachlan, and Pearl Jam — and 24 music labels are sending a clear message to keep Net traffic neutral. The Rock the Net campaign wants all traffic to be equal instead of allowing providers to charge a fee for certain pages to load faster than others. These musicians are the latest to join the Save the Internet campaign, which has the chair of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet in its camp. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., spoke at the campaign's kickoff. I think it's obvious that musicians (especially independents and small labels) will find themselves with the short end of the stick if they are asked to pay a fee to have their music streamed as fast as larger bands or even corporations."
Because spam and viruses must be allowed... (Score:2, Interesting)
Why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to implement QOS? Do I have to give up decent ping times on VOIP calls solely because the idiots next to me absolutely have to BitTorrent the latest episode of American Idol? Should someone sending spam be given equal priority to the 'net as someone trying to send emails to colleagues?
Net Neutrality means throwing up our hands in the air and allowing the Internet to become a useless mess of spam and viruses since the power to handle them would be stripped from ISPs. It means giving up on streaming video and audio. It means giving up on VOIP.
I don't think it's worth it. Why the hell shouldn't I be allowed to pay more to get a better connection?
Why the big fuss? (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Absolutely. (Score:3, Interesting)
Something like...
'Uncrippled Internet'
As in...
'Don't support a crippled internet!'
'Stop a crippled internet!'
'Verizon wants to cripple your internet!'
Re:Yeah, because gov't regs will "save the interne (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Because spam and viruses must be allowed... (Score:4, Interesting)
Google has to pay an ISP for service. now that ISP wants to not only charge google for data coming out of there services but also for giving that data premium bandwidth at the cost of something else.
Net neutrality is to prevent the AOL'ing of the Internet. the ISP's want to nickel and dime you to death to increase their revenue. Just like how when AOL, Prodigy and compuserv first came online you couldn't send email between them, unless you were a premium suscriber if at all. Now ISP's want to do that to IM's emails, videos, file transfers. If you want music from itunes but your ISP only supports Zune-live then your screwed and have to pay more per megabyte for a slower transfer.
That way only the rich companies could afford the bandwidth and premium charges to make them popular. Companies like Youtube wouldn't be able to even get started under such a situation.
re: time to stop earning? (Score:3, Interesting)
Quite a few bands were hugely successful for years, only to become completely irrelevant if they stopped putting out material and decided to live off their past success. Maybe R.E.M. and others like them feel that they need to keep putting out new singles and albums, because they can do more good with a constant revenue stream coming in than if they call it quits?
I agree that it might be a nice gesture for successful major-label bands to all dump their labels and go independent. But in the grand scheme of things, that might not really mean a lot anyway. The really *critical* change happens when the new, up-and-coming bands succeed despite never signing with those big labels!
This "threat" is nonsense. (Score:2, Interesting)
I think it's obvious that musicians (and too many other people) don't know how the Internet works.
Nobody "owns" the Internet. If some ISPs or backbone companies decide to limit bandwidth to certain sites, then they will simply lose business to the service providers who don't limit bandwidth.
And what would prevent musicians and their fans from using P2P techniques for distributed streaming?
The whole "threat" is nonsense.
Re:Yeah, because gov't regs will "save the interne (Score:3, Interesting)
it won't make it better, it will keep it the same as it was, which i personally feel is a good idea, as it just works.
Re:yeah, but what's their stance on the RIAA? (Score:3, Interesting)
You bring up a great point though. If your favourite band works for the RIAA then you are not their top priority, money is.
Re:Well, if REM (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Because spam and viruses must be allowed... (Score:4, Interesting)
You can choose to pay more for a faster connection right now. In our area, you can still buy dialup, multiple flavors of dsl, cable, t-1's, t-3's, fibre, WiFi.... and other choices that I have forgotten about. Each come with different prices and speeds. More remote situations are limited in connectivity choices, certainly. But in all cases, the contract between me and the provider involves connection speeds. I don't have to, and do not WANT to, have to pay more to use iTunes or BMG music, because it's not on the favored list.
Re:Because spam and viruses must be allowed... (Score:3, Interesting)
If google sends me some packets i've requested, I'm pretty sure that access of Comcast's network is already covered by the Arm and Leg I fork over to Comcast every month for the down portion of my connection.
And considering how much of the theoretical down bandwidth i have but dont use, its complete bullshit for them to even be contemplating double charging for the delivery of these packets.
Now, on the other hand, if they want to stop charging me for down bandwidth, and only charge me for packets i originate... well that would be something else, wouldnt it?
Of course, I'd be expecting a reduction in rate proportional to the percentage of bandwidth i was no longer responsible for. Hrm, lets think about this... 3.5 megs up... 128 k down... $60 a month. Why dont we call it $15 a month? I'm feeling generous.
Oh, but thats right, then they wouldnt be double-charging for the same service. My bad, nevermind.