The content providers are so worried about “piracy” that they will impale themselves on the stakes of AT&T and Comcast, who will extract usurious fees.

Make no doubt. These folks will lose far more than someone download a star wars movie if the telcos and cable companies are allowed to go through with this.

Will H’wood take a stand on Net neutrality?

Congloms may be forced to choose as telcos fish for fees
By WILLIAM TRIPLETT

“Net neutrality” may sound like something only a Web geek could love, but at some point showbiz, largely indifferent to it so far, will have to start declaring an interest — perhaps passionately.

Why? Because Net neutrality — or, as some call it, Net regulation — has the potential to affect content protection, otherwise known as Priority No. 1 of the entertainment industry.

Access to online content, itself no small concern, could also be at stake.

Even the term “Net neutrality” is the source of some controversy. Is the issue “neutrality” or “regulation”? It depends on who’s talking.

From its inception, the Internet has always delivered information on a first-come, first-served basis, whether it’s your music download, your neighbor’s porn or your office’s email.

Thus the Net has always been “neutral.”

But there’s no rule that says it has to be that way. If you get your Internet from Time Warner Cable, for example, there’s nothing to stop it from sending you content from Time Warner sites first and doling out content from the competition with whatever bandwidth happens to be left over.

Nor is there anything to keep an Internet service provider like Earthlink from taking fees from Disney or NBC Universal to give some sites priority — and to block other sites altogether.

That would give Web sites with deep pockets behind them a new advantage in getting their content in front of Web users, while sites that can’t afford those fees could be kicked to the virtual curb.

Those who value the current “neutral” state of the Internet are seeking legislation to protect “Net neutrality.” Many of the companies involved, though, see an opportunity to make money. They, along with those who generally favor free markets, condemn such legislation as “Net regulation.”

Fears that the current Net neutrality could be lost erupted at last year’s Telecom Next show after AT&T topper Ed Whitacre (who retired June 4) was quoted as saying that Google and other content providers were getting a free ride.

He told Business Week, “The Internet can’t be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes free is nuts!”

Whitacre later backtracked, noting that customers would desert any provider who blocked some sites, but it was too late. The push to protect Net neutrality is on.

Given the potential for chaos if some content gets priority to some customers but not to others, as the pro-NN faction calls it, you’d think the entertainment industry would be all for passing laws that enforce Net neutrality.

You’d be wrong. Very few industry companies have publicly taken a position on NN to date, preferring a wait-and-see approach to the volatile issue.

How volatile? Only one industry exec agreed to be quoted by name on the subject.

“Intellectual property protection is our litmus test,” says Rick Cotton of NBC U, who could easily be speaking for the entire content industry.

As one industry lobbyist notes, showbiz tends to favor the side of the broadband providers, who oppose any mandated Net neutrality, because the providers can help identify and pursue online bootleggers and pirates.

…