Net Neutrality – Why Filmmakers Should Care
- Image via Wikipedia
What is Net Neutrality?
Net Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. It ensures that all data on the web is treated the same, whether it is your independent film blog or the website of James Cameron’s latest 3D spectacular. It means that Internet service providers cannot treat certain kinds of content and online applications differently. It does NOT mean that you get the Internet for free or that you can’t pay more for faster and better service. It simply means that all data is treated equally.
Why is this important for filmmakers?
The web has given all of us incredible opportunities to show our work and communicate with each other without gatekeepers. We need to keep the Internet free and open so that it doesn’t become a place where big companies pay to play and the rest of us get squeezed out.
What can I do?
Go here for more information and to take action: www.savetheinternet.com
This is a really crucial time to get involved. Verizon and Google are involved in a pact to end the Internet as we know it. As independent filmmakers we need to stand up against a corporate takeover of the Internet. I don’t mean to sound overly-dramatic but this strikes me as one of the most urgent issues right now for those of us who value the digital access and freedom of expression that the web has given us. Filmmakers must make their voices heard.
Jonathan Poritsky August 12th, 2010 at 8:01 am
You are absolutely right! I was thinking the same exact thing, so I wrote a bit of a breakdown about what this could look like if we let things get away from us. Filmmakers have more at stake in this battle than we think:
http://www.candlerblog.com/2010/08/12/net-neutrality-for-filmmakers/
Samuel Michaelson August 13th, 2010 at 5:43 am
I have to say, there are two sides to this argument. Along with the freedom of expression and information comes the complete undermining of intellectual property, as well as something potentially more sinister. There are circumstances in which it’s wise, useful or just socially preferable to restrict some kinds of information – I’m talking here about what’s obscene or unusually abusive. Without any social agreement to that effect, we’ve walked blindfold into a culture where valuable freedom has been accompanied by deeply destructive and unpleasant material. It’s not an open-and-shut case.
John Le Brocq August 16th, 2010 at 8:17 am
If this were just a content provider, distributor or portal selling their pages to the highest bidder, it would be difficult (for me) to argue against their right to run their business how they see fit.
If Go-ogle and Verizon want to radically change their terms of service to prioritise the content provider with the highest bid (regardless of the nature of the content), they could do this by offering a free, restricted service ISP which clearly advertises limited content. And preferably one that states that the price you pay for a ‘free’ service is limited or controlled content.
If it’s a change of service from an existing supply, give an easy opt out or transfer option for existing subscribers.
If an ISP wants to prioritise ‘additional content’ (such as 3D) and has concerns about the data consumption impacting quality of service, then launch a 3D prioritised ISP (or option) and allow the already paying consumer to choose.
In either of these cases, I could simply choose whether or not to adopt them as my chosen window on the world. Should I choose not to be restricted to commercial fodder, I wouldn’t need to be.
However, that kind of choice is not what’s being proposed.
Strictly speaking they wouldn’t be able to call the end result the ‘world wide web’ anymore, it would have to be called something like… ‘subscription television’.
And, yes, I do know that the proposal doesn’t categorically deny an open access resource… it just chokes off the bandwidth. And, yes, I do see the business sense, get paid at both ends, nice. If one gets away with it, the business model will be adopted by other ISPs.
Make you wonder how long before we have to outbid Sony, Warners and Murdoch to be allowed access to phone a friend? Or maybe we’ll just have to put up with advertising before being connected?