Alternative Film Guide

Dan Glickman is the current president of the Motion Picture Association of America, which represents the business interests of the big Hollywood studios which, for their part, are out there to defend the business interests of the megaconglomerates that own them.

At the film business Showest convention in Las Vegas, Glickman declared that "no one here needs a lecture on what happens when one illegal copy makes its way to the Internet and is instantly available to the world. Today, new tools are emerging that allow us to work with Internet service providers to prevent this illegal activity. And new efforts are emerging in Washington to stop this essential progress.

"This effort is being called by its proponents ‘Net neutrality.’ It’s a clever name. But at the end of the day, there’s nothing neutral about this for our customers or for our ability to make great movies in the future. Government regulation of the Internet would impede our ability to respond to consumers in innovative ways, and it would impair the ability of broadband providers to address the serious and rampant piracy problems occurring over their networks today … Government regulation of the Internet would be a terrible reversal of American innovation policy."

But would it?

What’s Net Neutrality?

Via Save the Internet:

"Network Neutrality — or ‘Net Neutrality’ for short — is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

"Put simply, Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination.

"Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It protects the consumer’s right to use any equipment, content, application or service on a non-discriminatory basis without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network’s only job is to move data — not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service."

Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?

Also via Save the Internet:

"The nation’s largest telephone and cable companies — including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner — want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won’t load at all.

"They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video — while slowing down or blocking their competitors.

"These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services — or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls — and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.

"The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk."

At CNET News, Charles Cooper writes:

"Don’t believe for a minute that Glickman’s as clueless as that [Showest] speech might suggest. He was a United States Congressman for Kansas’ 4th district from 1977 until 1995. … He knows his way around the corridors of power and how legislation gets passed in Washington. Glick’s doing what a smart hired hand representing any powerful interest group does: he’s exaggerating for effect.

"But here’s my rule of thumb: When you find a collection of billion-dollar interests — in this case content companies, cable operators, and telcos — lining up on one side of the issue, you know the fix is in. Glickman is purposely demonizing the import of the Net neutrality bill [the Internet Freedom Preservation Act] proposed by Reps. Ed Markey and Chip Pickering and now waiting in the queue before the House Energy and Commerce Committee."

In other words, Net Neutrality may be good for you and me and just about everyone, but it’s not good (enough) for the big — make that the huge — players, who wants to make billions more, at our expense, by taking over the Internet.

When the stakes are that high, if to get rid of Net Neutrality one must associate it with piracy and other types of illegal activities, so be it. If one needs to pour money into the campaigns of politicians so they’ll do as they’re told, so be it. (Glickman, for one, gets paid very good money to sell his rotten fish — which includes some highly dubious data about the costs of Internet film piracy.)

In sum, Glickman’s attack on Net Neutrality was in truth a sly attack on democracy and free speech.

At the Huffington Post, Jonathan Handel has a brief but interesting article on the currents threats to Net Neutrality.

The Motion Picture Association of America can be reached at (202) 293-1966 (Washington) or (818) 995-6600 (Los Angeles). Considering how important the issue of Net Neutrality is, it’d be a good idea to let them know your thoughts on the matter.

You may also want to let Reps. Ed Markey (202-225-2836) and Chip Pickering (www.house.gov/pickering/contact/ or 202.225.5031) know your thoughts on this crucial matter.

See also IFTA’s President Jean M. Prewitt on Net Neutrality

Technorati Tags: Net Neutrality, Dan Glickman, MPAA, Internet Freedom Preservation Act, Showest

US Movie Theaters Going 3D

Patrick Goldstein on New Line’s Bob Shaye in the LOS ANGELES TIMES

THE UNKNOWN WOMAN in New York City

Oscar Nominated Shorts at the American Cinematheque

Mick LaSalle, the Future, and Teen Pregnancies

LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN: Monday Nights with Oscar

FITNA Controversy Continues

Amy Adams’ Print Powder Puff

Nicholl Screenwriting Competition Underway

Thomas Doherty to Discuss HOLLYWOOD’S CENSOR

LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE - Awards and Nominations

Oscar 2008: "Falling Slowly" Remains in the Shortlist

Comments RSS