Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Sen. Franken: Telecoms WANT Netflix OUT Of BUSINESS Entirely

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Segami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:20 AM
Original message
Sen. Franken: Telecoms WANT Netflix OUT Of BUSINESS Entirely
Edited on Thu Mar-17-11 10:39 AM by Segami



:smoke: :smoke:

The gatekeepers are making their move to control the message and every last choke point.




" AT&T 'moving in a direction consumers don't want to go,' Netflix tells Raw Story


Appearing in a recent panel discussion at the South by Southwest music, film and technology festival in Austin, Texas, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) warned that net neutrality, or the treatment of all data on a network as equal, was under threat by Comcast and other telecoms. But the immediate prize for a company like Comcast especially, he cautioned, is "to put Netflix out of business entirely" by making it too costly to compete with the network owners' video service.


Franken also discussed the recent scrape between Comcast and Level 3 Communications, which is an intermediary that works with Netflix to deliver video. Comcast demanded that Level 3 enter into a reoccurring payment agreement with them, or face being cut off from all Comcast subscribers. And that type of corporate behavior is precisely what Franken repeatedly warned the SXSW crowd in Austin on Monday night.


"I came here to warn you the party may be over," Franken said. "They're coming after the Internet hoping to destroy the very thing that makes it such an important for independent artists and entrepreneurs: its openness and freedom." He warned that pay-walls may soon be erected to enhance the content of wealthy interests, ensuring some voices are heard over others and removing the level playing field of today's Internet. Franken called this a new business model that telecoms like Comcast were keen on implementing, purely in the interests of making money.


Franken's whole speech to SXSW was available on UStream. An embed appears below.

http://www.livestream.com/theuptake/video?clipId=pla_4cc380bc-71ef-4c6a-ab8e-360c3ba40cd2



cont'

http://www.livestream.com/theuptake/video?clipId=pla_4cc380bc-71ef-4c6a-ab8e-360c3ba40cd2


.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread, Segami.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
2. L3 will scream loud and hard before this happens
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
3. Last night, my I-Phone had a text from AT&T, advising me that I had expended 65%
of my data plan. I haven't used more than I ordinarily use. If I go above my quota, it'll cost another $15.

Is this related to AT&T's new policies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KeepItReal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Not related. You must not have the original unlimited iPhone data plan
In an unadvertised loophole, AT&T has allowed subscribers who have had an unlimited data plan in the past to switch back. That includes anyone who had an iPhone before June, when the limited plans took effect.

Jose Argumedo, of Brentwood, N.Y., says he and a friend were switched to an unlimited plan recently after they called AT&T's customer service. Both have iPhone 4s, and previously had earlier iPhone models.

The company has allowed iPhone and smart-phone users with unlimited-data plans to keep them when upgrading directly to a new phone. It's the option to return to an unlimited plan after going limited that's been secret.

Another iPhone subscriber on a limited plan called AT&T to see if he could switch to the unlimited one, but was told he couldn't because he hadn't previously had the unlimited version.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-20029689-233.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
4. Tying net neutrality to netflix is a great political move.
Most people love their netflix and would never want to give it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthside Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Little did I know ...
... that watching hour after hour of Netflix would become a radical, anti-corporate statement.

Cool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #9
42. Bonus: Netflix has tons of documentaries. I watched 'gasland' on monday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
5. "stuck listening to the Black Eyed Peas"
love ya, Al
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jmaxfie1 Donating Member (707 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
24. I know, that statement made me burst out laughing! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
6. It would seem a conflict of interest to let companies own their own streaming business
While providing Internet service. Why isn't congress addressing that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TygrBright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Because Netflix's bribe capacity--excuse me, 'lobbying budget' can't match the telecoms' n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Segami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #10
41. LOL!!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
prairierose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Conflict of interest? seriously....most of the members of Congress...
have a conflict of interest. They take money from their corporate masters to do their bidding but they are elected to represent actual people who get forgotten when the corps show up with bags of money.

Conflict on interest seems to be a quaint old term that has no meaning in today's corp controlled political universe. These pols have no shame and do not care about the people. Forget what they say, watch what they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
8. Franken is turning out to be the Wikileaks of Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Modern_Matthew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
12. Yeah, but he still supported COICA and I hope his Senatorial career is short. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazzgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. It won't be.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monmouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Short??? I'd like t o see him a presidential candidate someday...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #12
39. Thats too harsh
and Franken's understanding of why he supported the bill may be different than yours...

Thank you for contacting me about the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

I believe that intellectual property enforcement is extremely important. We must protect American jobs from piracy, which has become rampant on the Internet. We don't tolerate shoplifters in stores, and we should not tolerate them online.

COICA would give the Department of Justice an expedited process for cracking down on websites whose primary purpose is to sell pirated goods. Right now, if a company finds that its products are being pirated or counterfeited online, its only recourse is to sue in civil court, a process that can take years, during which time the offending website continues to do harm. Under COICA, the Justice Department gains jurisdiction over off-shore infringers- - something that is extremely difficult under current law -- and can use expedited legal procedures to stop the worst of these offenders.

I was initially wary of COICA, but there have been some important improvements that have addressed my concerns. The most controversial provision of this bill, sometimes called the "Internet Blacklist," originally directed the Justice Department to publish a list of offending websites and encouraged Internet service providers (ISPs) and other relevant parties to shut down the listed websites without a judicial process. This provision was clearly wrong, and I was glad to see it removed prior to the bill's consideration. I also worked with Chairman Leahy to narrow the definition of an infringing site to include only sites where copyright infringement is "the central purpose" of the site, not sites which may be engaged in copyright infringement incidentally but are also devoted to other purposes.

This bill has also been amdended to protect net neutrality. In the initial version of the bill, ISPs were given legal immunity to voluntarily enforce the bill's provisions and block access to websites. This provision had been removed. As it currently stands, this bill won't allow a fast lane and a slow lane of Internet traffic. It will not affect net neutrality, which has always been about protecting users' access to legal content.

It is unlikely that this bill will come to the floor of the Senate before the end of the year. This means that it must pass through the legislative process again in the next Congress. I look foward to working with Chairman Leahy to further improve the bill next year.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please don't hesitate to contact me again on this or any other issue that may be important to you.

Sincerely,
Al Franken
United States Senator



http://activepolitic.com:82/blog/2010-11-24a/Al_Franken_on_COICA.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
13. Exactly how are they going after Netflix? Is there a way we can act
to protect this service? How do we counter this - congress does not seem to take any of this seriously. Except my senator Al Franken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
16. Thanks, Minnesota, for making Al a Senator...
The interests of Netflix in this actually do reflect the interests of users, artists, and everyone but the telecoms. Al says it so well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
17. Logic problem: Netflix is ALSO out for one thing: to make money
Net neutrality = Netflix's profit potential? :shrug:

Netflix, Inc. (NasdaqGS: NFLX )
Last Trade: 214.83
Trade Time: 2:34PM EDT
Change: 2.28 (1.05%)
Prev Close: 217.11
Open: 221.25
Bid: 214.81 x 300
Ask: 215.04 x 100
1y Target Est: 213.13
Day's Range: 212.28 - 223.37
52wk Range: 69.55 - 247.55
Volume: 7,186,450
Avg Vol (3m): 5,606,860
Market Cap: 11.36B
P/E (ttm): 72.58
EPS (ttm): 2.96
Div & Yield: N/A (N/A

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. In what way is it a logic problem?
The profit motive needs to be constrained sometimes to fit human needs, that's all.

Companies that make a profit in a circumstance that's beneficial aren't as pernicious as ones that want to constrain human freedom to increase their profits. It's not hard to understand, you just have to get over the "the profit motive is natural and should never be constrained" thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Inasmuch as Netflix and Comcast are BOTH wealthy corporations.
Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 05:40 PM by Romulox
As between the two of them, there is no "fairness" argument that one should be able to profit at the other's expense.

"Companies that make a profit in a circumstance that's beneficial aren't as pernicious as ones that want to constrain human freedom to increase their profits."

Comcast provides the infrastructure that makes Netflix's business model possible. Both companies provide a beneficial service.

"ones that want to constrain human freedom to increase their profits."

If I don't pay my Netflix bill, my account is deactivated. Netflix is a for profit entity. I don't have any "human freedom" to use Neflix's resources for free. Neither does Netflix have that right as to Comcast.

"It's not hard to understand, you just have to get over the 'the profit motive is natural and should never be constrained' thing."

Which applies to all mega-corporations, including both Neflix and Comcast. Why shouldn't these two companies work it out amongst themselves?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. You just don't get it.
You're behaving as if being profitable is some kind of pollution. Netflix, right now, is providing a service that a lot of people want to use, and it's doing it in a way that mostly doesn't harm anyone's freedom. That is, it doesn't harm the freedom of real humans, as opposed to pretend people like Comcast. If you're concerned about Comcast's freedom, you may be hopeless. The economic sphere is not natural, it's cultural.

We the people should decide what to promote, not pretend citizens like Comcast and Netflix. Look it up - in the early history of the U.S. corporations were highly constrained in the scope of their action. You are implying that it's unfair to constrain one of these corporations differently than the other, as if the actions of corporations in choosing their behaviors should have equal moral status to the freedom that humans have. Nope, they don't need to. That's what you don't get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jmaxfie1 Donating Member (707 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. "as if being profitable is some kind of pollution." I agree with you...
Corporations are out there to make money. I don't consider this a bad thing or good thing, but an evolutionary thing. People are mostly self-interested, we may wish it wasn't so but it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Again with the assertion that people are "naturally" mostly self-interested.
This assertion has been pushed by many, many decades of indoctrination. It's not the result of "evolution".

You also conflate corporations with people. You should stop. They are not people at all, they are fictions. They are pretend people at most.

Most actual folks are pretty cooperative, that's why negative behavior is news. You're unconsciously, I hope, promoting the "selfishness is natural" meme that conservatives base their entire philosophy on. It has a shaky base, and needs to be confronted. Confront it in your own thinking, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Netflix is a FOR PROFIT video streaming business. Not a cooperative. Hope this helps!
:silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Corporations should be chartered, or regulated.
So they stay harmless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. By definition, corporations are both chartered and regulated.
I sense that you and I are not engaging with this issue on the same level! :silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. So *our society* should choose to promote Netflix?
That's silly. If "we the people" are promoting a streaming video service, it damn well better be NOT FOR PROFIT.

"You are implying that it's unfair"

"Fairness" ain't got a thing to do with it; it's two multi-billion dollar corporations duking it out. To choose which corporation wins and loses is just folly in a case like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. False
Edited on Thu Mar-17-11 12:18 AM by bigmonkey
It's not folly to invoke fairness if the alternative is to let these two pretend people's conflict tie up resources that they have no right to command. You'd be a corporatist if you believed that we humans should "naturally" just be bystanders. Letting the more powerful of two bullies boss the rest of us around because they "won" the fight with the other over resources that we hold in common is cowardice and cringing victimhood. I'm afraid you may have a lot of thinking to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. That's just it--these aren't "resources we hold in common"--it's private infrastructure
If our government choses to promote a video streaming service, it should be not for profit--what you describe, a world which is "privatized", but in which the government choses the winners and losers from a cadre of crony capitalists is no alternative. It's just another variant of pay to play government.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
19. K&R for net neutrality
that's what this is REALLY all about - Netflix is just an example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OwnedByFerrets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
21. HUGE K and R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
22. i love my netflix
love it. i don't have tv any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuelahWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #22
34. I shut off my cable too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jannyk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
25. Kick & Rec!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
toddwv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
27. Lol...and a netflix banner automagically appears next to the OP.
Just thought that was funny for some reason...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuelahWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
33. Not just Netflix but Hulu and other services that offer streaming video
Not to mention internet radio stations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cerridwen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
37. So?! Jayzus! WTF is the problem?!
It's just business. That's what businesses do; they play in the "free market" while trying to destroy the free market for everyone but them; and as has been noted here; businesses have the RIGHT, the RIGHT I tell you, to make a profit.

No big.

/sarcasm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 12:56 AM
Response to Original message
38. Yep. K + R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 04:47 AM
Response to Original message
40. Kick nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC