• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Net neutrality, restricting media file sharing.

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,027
Location
UK
#1
To the people who 'know' that MQA is of no consequence: have you never been caught out in the past over the disruptive power of technology and the internet?

I, personally, would never have dreamed of some of the things that are now mainstream. Would I have predicted that SMS would be a popular form of communication? Would I have predicted the rise of MP3? The rise of Twitter? That phone cameras would be better than the best 35mm camera? Absolutely not.

But there might be one thing that I did partly predict correctly: that there is no reason to think that the internet will stay 'free' forever. I was always sceptical of claims that the spread of pirated content across the internet would always be beyond the control of anyone. The idea of locking down hardware to prevent playback or recording of content without the right watermark was touted a few years ago, but thankfully went away again, but I don't think the fundamental motivation did.

What seems clear to me is that politics is now the vehicle through which the internet will be locked down, ostensibly to prevent the spread of dangerous ideas. Some previous advocates of net neutrality may now even be slightly less vociferous about it because they are so horrified at what the internet may have been responsible for politically - in their fevered imaginations, anyway.

I think we are seeing the possibility that the internet itself will be increasingly monitored for the wrong type of packets and packets that emanate from blacklisted sources, and lobbying from the corporations and mission creep will inevitably mean that this extends to pirated content. Rather than attempting to prosecute offenders after the fact, the internet service providers will (be required to) simply block content. I could imagine MQA being a ready-made authentication scheme that would be adopted for this purpose - something that maybe Bob Stuart himself didn't envisage just a few years ago, but something he would now vigorously pursue.

I don't think you can simply bank on the free market, commercial knowledge and experience to give you all the answers on this one.
 

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
4,418
Likes
4,319
#2
What seems clear to me is that politics is now the vehicle through which the internet will be locked down, ostensibly to prevent the spread of dangerous ideas. Some previous advocates of net neutrality may now even be slightly less vociferous about it because they are so horrified at what the internet may have been responsible for politically - in their fevered imaginations, anyway.
Agree that it would be naive to imagine net neutrality will endure. But disagree with this one specific statement. Do you have any indication/evidence that this is the case?

To my knowledge, commercial interests remain the only threat to net neutrality.
 
OP
Cosmik

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,027
Location
UK
Thread Starter #3
Agree that it would be naive to imagine net neutrality will endure. But disagree with this one specific statement. Do you have any indication/evidence that this is the case?

To my knowledge, commercial interests remain the only threat to net neutrality.
We have a lot of huffing and puffing about 'fake news':
https://www.parliament.uk/business/...rt-committee/news/fake-news-report-published/

The 'liberal elite' are unhappy about the internet being open to unscrupulous political influence:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...ms-promised-a-level-playing-field-for-all-the

Silicon Valley are perfectly happy to intervene. For example, recently there was a coordinated move to remove certain political accounts from all of 'social media'.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/06/apple-removes-podcasts-infowars-alex-jones

If the online world is already controlled by a cartel of corporations like Google all working together to impose their (as they see it virtuous) political control, the internet is already effectively non-neutral.

However, I think that special deplorables' social media platforms or deplorables' Youtubes might spring up to bypass those gatekeepers. They might even be foreign-owned (Russian? Boo hiss). Why wouldn't they? If so, I can't imagine the authorities allowing that to happen for too long.

In China they make no bones about internet censorship, thus showing that it can be closed down at ISP level if the authorities demand it:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/11/china-moves-to-block-internet-vpns-from-2018

Our Western governments might even be able to engineer it so the people demand a more restricted internet!

I think that the days of the internet 'Wild West' are numbered, and we will gradually get used to having all our online activity controlled. We will look back at the times when we could download raw, unrestricted digital material as a weird, heady, bygone age. How could the authorities have ever allowed it to happen?
 

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
4,418
Likes
4,319
#4
We have a lot of huffing and puffing about 'fake news':
https://www.parliament.uk/business/...rt-committee/news/fake-news-report-published/

The 'liberal elite' are unhappy about the internet being open to unscrupulous political influence:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...ms-promised-a-level-playing-field-for-all-the

Silicon Valley are perfectly happy to intervene. For example, recently there was a coordinated move to remove certain political accounts from all of 'social media'.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/06/apple-removes-podcasts-infowars-alex-jones

If the online world is already controlled by a cartel of corporations like Google all working together to impose their (as they see it virtuous) political control, the internet is already effectively non-neutral.

However, I think that special deplorables' social media platforms or deplorables' Youtubes might spring up to bypass those gatekeepers. They might even be foreign-owned (Russian? Boo hiss). Why wouldn't they? If so, I can't imagine the authorities allowing that to happen for too long.

In China they make no bones about internet censorship, thus showing that it can be closed down at ISP level if the authorities demand it:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/11/china-moves-to-block-internet-vpns-from-2018

Our Western governments might even be able to engineer it so the people demand a more restricted internet!

I think that the days of the internet 'Wild West' are numbered, and we will gradually get used to having all our online activity controlled. We will look back at the times when we could download raw, unrestricted digital material as a weird, heady, bygone age. How could the authorities have ever allowed it to happen?
Sure, I see all this happening. I think you're conflating two separate issues though. None of these developments relates to net neutrality, and support for net neutrality is not diminishing as a result of any of these developments.
 
OP
Cosmik

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,027
Location
UK
Thread Starter #5
Anyone who thinks that unrestricted raw media files will always be permitted to be sent over the internet can just ignore this conversation!

Sure, I see all this happening. I think you're conflating two separate issues though. None of these developments relates to net neutrality, and support for net neutrality is not diminishing as a result of any of these developments.
I think that net neutrality has assumed a de facto definition that is only a subset of what it really means. This article hints at the reality:
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...mp-internet-rules-why-explained-a8563616.html
What is net neutrality?
Net neutrality prevents ISPs from slowing down connections for people attempting to access certain sites, apps and services and blocking legal content.
That's a pretty broad definition and would cover the stuff I was talking about in my previous post. The article makes it quite explicit:
“An ISP could slow down its competitors’ content or block political opinions it disagreed with.
I think your interpretation of net neutrality is just one narrow element of it.

If I were interested in controlling audio content for commercial or political reasons, I would certainly be interested in MQA as an off-the-shelf format with a "digital imprint" that consumers might already be familiar with and already accept as the highest standard of audio. If, as an ISP I am going to be made liable for everything that passes through my portal, I am going to be looking for simple ways to filter out dodgy stuff. Something like MQA might easily be used as a secure way of validating audio content.
 
OP
Cosmik

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,027
Location
UK
Thread Starter #6
(Again, ignore this if you are only interested in MQA's audio quality!)
Rather than mitigating the undesired chilling effect, the “fake news” tide sweep all those due process concerns aside, enforcing an ISP obligation to act expeditiously and effectively, i.e. to block rather than ask further questions. Questions on the limits of free speech, artistic expression and the limits of hate speech have been difficult to answer for national and international courts – why would it be assumed that ISPs would have an easier time facing this challenge and would do a good job while tackling it? Yet, there we are. We are even allowing for this challenge to be taken to another, automated level, with ISPs introducing algorithms to help them fight hate speech, “fake news” and other “undesired” content.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyp...rnative-facts-and-the-era-of-minority-report/
 
Top Bottom