I wrote a letter to my congressman today about Internet Neutrality, thought it might be a little food for forum thoughts. I mention my uncle in the letter, who's Torie on here-- he gave me permission to use his real name. He no longer cares if the world knows who he really is.
Torie told me to "just do it, write the f'ing letters." So if you guys agree after you read my letter, write your own congressmen and women
--
Robin Dunn, to:
Congressman John Campbell
1728 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515
April 16, 2009
I am a recent arrival in Orange County, staying with my uncle Stephen Dunn for the past several months, who has practiced law here for many years. He knows you from the Orange County Lincoln Club of which he was a member for several years (serving on its legislative committee). Even though he has become somewhat estranged from his own party, he thinks highly of you and enjoys your cheerful and informative commentary as a regular on the Hugh Hewitt’s radio show.
I am writing to you to ask you to seriously consider using your considerable influence to try to persuade your colleagues to resist caving into the MPAA active lobbying to shut down a free internet by eviscerating the net neutrality that we all have benefited from. The Internet Freedom Preservation Act is an important piece of legislation, and should not have its language diluted and compromised.
As an "indie" filmmaker working in an evolving marketplace where consumers will increasingly be able to download and purchase an immense variety of entertainment, I am particularly sensitive to the fact that efforts to put in place legal bottlenecks will only limit the number of voices that can be heard in the public square.
When we log onto the Internet today, it is net neutrality that preserves the ability for people everywhere to have their voice heard. Without net neutrality, if cable and internet companies can block, speed up, or slow down web content at will, then it will be all too similar to the old broadcast TV: a top-down, highly controlled model with a limited number of channels. Network Neutrality ensures you can watch and download anything you want. Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since its inception. Pioneers like Vinton Cerf and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, always intended the Internet to be a neutral network. And "non-discrimination" provisions like Net Neutrality have governed the nation's communications networks since the 1930s.
The end result of all of this is that the nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner -- would become 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.
Thus, with the stakes so high, 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.
I urge you to oppose the MPAA, and the cable companies, in their efforts to compromise Net Neutrality.
It is of course true that my own livelihood will be impacted by this: as an independent filmmaker, I will be unable to offer as many of my films for download if the Net eventually becomes non-neutral, and discriminates based on the origin of that video, as in who produced it, is it part of the Hollywood pipeline, or isn't it.
As you may be aware, part of the reason this debate is heating up is that there are new hardware devices called “torrent downloaders,” that can download video content from the web, and screen it on your TV. This technology is available now. MPAA and Verizon and the like will tell you these devices were designed solely to download illegal, copyrighted content. They fear this technology just like they feared videotapes back in 1977.
What is the appropriate policy to preserve internet neutrality while being cognizant that copyright holders deserve and should be paid for their creative endeavors? I suggest that Congress, in addition to passing a strong Internet Freedom Preservation Act, continue with its inquiry into the nature of tier-pricing of cable and Internet access.
A recent Communications Daily article quotes Wachovia analyst Marci Ryvicker as saying, “We view usage-based billing, or bandwidth consumption caps, as a significant impediment to not only ZillionTV but also to true over-the-top video providers.”
Gutting internet freedom legislation and instituting anti-competitive tier-pricing will ensure that Americans have fewer channels to watch. On the other hand, if there are a multitude of “pay per download” websites where consumers are able to download creative content for a user fee, and cable and internet companies don’t discriminate against them, everyone will benefit from those additional voices.
If people have a legal way to pay money for content, they will. The MPAA and the cable industry has its head in the sand. You can help drag its head out of the sand by making clear to them that they are other ways for them to profit from their copyrighted material without gutting internet neutrality.
In his “state of the industry” speech, Dan Glickman, Chairman and CEO of the MPAA, said:
“Government regulation of the Internet would impede our ability to respond to our customers 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.”
Unfortunately, the “innovative ways” of “responding” to consumers Glickman mentions seem to be to ignore their needs and the freedoms net neutrality ensures for them. Rampant piracy can only be solved, as it was with MP3, by providing a broadband, network-neutral, collection and payment system for music in the form of I-Tunes.
For video, independent content-producers across the world have already created a new I-tunes, in the form of youtube, and other content-downloading sites. All that is missing is the shopping cart link in the upper right, that could allow anyone to download the new Harry Potter DVD, or the new Robin Dunn film, for a reasonable buck or two, or for free, if the artist wishes. If network neutrality is gutted, that freedom of choice will not exist.
Thank you for your consideration and taking the time to read this letter. I greatly appreciate it.
Sincerely,
Robin Dunn
