A debate over net neutrality

I received an email recently from a writer / director who is a big fan of net neutrality rules. It included a link to a video he had done which was designed to promote the net neutrality cause. I responded to him that I probably wasn't the best target for the video, as I opposed net neutrality rules, the reasons for which I summarized in my response. He then responded by explaining his position, followed by my response to him, with my comments interspersed with his. I thought the interaction was sufficiently interesting as to make a blog post out of it.

I'm leaving the individuals name out of this because I don't know if he wants to be cited. However, should he wish me to do so, I'll add it as an update to this blog.

Hi John

That's a strange statement. If, as you say, the major telcos are leveraged to the gills with debt and are facing imminent financial ruin, then you aren't going to get telcos to serve as a distribution pipe for your media, anyway, because they will go out of business. You seem to be saying that financially strapped companies shouldn't be allowed to do the sorts of things that make them less financially strapped.

As for cutting out the Internet Service Providers (ISPs), that's the nature of broadband. You aren't paying to access the Internet by dialing a company that owns a modem bank anymore. When you pay for service with a broadband provider, you are just connected, and that's it.

Last, do note that telcos aren't the only source of broadband. Cable is the other big contender, and if you are up to speed on events in the broadcasting market, they are getting ready for a battle royale that will inevitably benefit consumers. Furthermore, we have satellite broadband, wireless broadband (though mobile networks) and powerline broadband waiting in the wings for the fixed-line providers to try anything stupid - like jack prices up so high that there is an economic incentive for the others to compete with them.

But the scenario where telcos are supposed to stay afloat as profitable companies while not making enough money to support the load caused by video is a bigger pipe dream. I can't afford to do a book production run as big as Random House. Someday, pipes may be so fast and wide that you can have a computer sitting in your home and serve the world. We aren't there yet, but we are a LOT closer than we were 20 years ago.

They would, but they will have a much harder time because there are so many more avenues of distribution. Telcos are considering making it possible for independent film producers to distribute directly through their network. That means Comcast will do it, which means the mobile providers will do it, etc. Furthermore, getting fatter pipes for video content is cheaper than having a network of theaters and a distribution network for traditional films. Therefore, you'll get a lot more content companies to compete with Warner Brothers, simply because they can afford to do so in a digital world.

By that standard, Barnes & Nobles should be required to stock - and publish - books from everyone and anyone who wants to publish a book. That would be crazy.

The fact that distribution costs money is simply that - a fact. At the very least, though, the affordability slope is flatter, and grows flatter with every leap forward in technology.

That's a bit self-interested. Granted, I understand it. I'm screenwriter, too, and I've been involved in the production of two films. Right now, I'm working on an independent feature that is using Panavision's F900 HD system. I would like the world to give my productions a free ride, too.

I don't think that's justified, however, though I do admit, it sounds a lot nicer if I can wrap myself in the freedom flag.