Net Neutrality Debate a Reminder that Content Was Never King

Media consumers are usually too busy paying attention to content to consider the channels through which it arrives. Yet the nature of those channels and the rules governing them have historically had a huge, unacknowledged role in creating and shaping what we read, watch and listen to.

The motion picture business was founded by people who owned tiny movie houses; the future moguls knew nothing about making films, but they owned the exhibition outlets, and needed content to sell tickets for. So they learned, and they shot, and they founded the studios. Channel preceded content, and gave birth to Hollywood.

Channel control has long prefigured media development. In the electronic age, wherever the creative artists went, the engineers had gotten there first.

Broadcasting started out as the late 1920s brainchild of people who made and sold radio sets. They wanted to give customers a reason to buy their receivers, so they then began making programs and transmitting them over the air. First came the distribution channels, content followed.

FM radio languished for 30 years until the 1960s, when regulators told station owners they could no longer fill the high-quality FM band with the same programs they were putting out on scratchy AM. Suddenly huge bandwidth opened up, perfect for audio engineered for clarity — and the revolution in alternative rock was born.

And the feds’ 1962 insistence that all TV sets be equipped to receive signals broadcast in the UHF range – another 60-some channels on top of the four or five that most consumers received — broke the network stranglehold on TV broadcasting and started the industry down the road to the multi-channel cable explosion.

That brief history lesson goes some way toward explaining why today’s controversy over so-called net neutrality matters.

Net neutrality is the policy that has barred the companies that furnish Internet connections from playing favorites. It means Internet

Continue reading “Net Neutrality Debate a Reminder that Content Was Never King”

The myth of the free, unregulated Internet

Who regulates the Internet? If you answered “nobody”—because the government keeps its hands off—read on.

Earlier this month, The New York Times exposed a squalid online mini-industry that makes its money from posting photos taken of people who’ve just been arrested—not drunken celebrities at the rag end of a frolic, but ordinary people.

This is one media sector with an inexhaustible supply of fresh content to publish. Booking photos are public documents, and a lot of people get arrested every day.

But how does anyone make money from this? Do people pay to gawk at the mug shots? No, the sites—and The Times says more than 80 have sprung up over the past three years—charge the people who were photographed anywhere from $30 to $400 in exchange for not publishing the pictures.

This certainly seems like a despicable little shakedown. Worse, people who get arrested often are never convicted of a crime, and may not have done anything wrong. Moreover, once the photos are posted they’re likely to linger elsewhere on the Internet even after the originating sites remove them. For the unlucky arrestee, what might have been a fleeting embarrassment continues to hover and ache, like a bad hangover.

It’s not right. Several states have had a go at legislation compelling sites to take down the pictures of anyone who’s exonerated, or barring the cops from releasing mug shots to profit-seeking entities.

Press advocates, understandably, object to restrictions on access to public records. I’d say people have a right to control use of their images for purely money-making purposes even if the images are obtained from a public data base.

But admittedly, laws limiting access to mug shots or curtailing what can be done with them may be unconstitutional.

While the law dithers, however, the real regulators of the Internet can act.

Enter the privatized world of Internet regulation. It appears that after being approached by Times reporter David Segal, the paymasters who handle the cash that lubricates the online economy suffered spasms of conscience.

Shocked, they said, by what they now knew about their clients, MasterCard decided the mug shot sites were “repugnant,” and American Express, PayPal and Discovery announced they wouldn’t handle the money anymore. Visa asked the banks it uses to look into the legality of the sites. Big trouble looms.

Now, I wouldn’t weep if the mug shot sites went dark. But among the commentators on this affair, Kevin Drum of Mother Jones was one of few who asked the most significant question: “Should credit card companies get to decide who does business on the web?”

This sort of thing has happened before. In December 2010 those same financial companies—along with Western Union, Amazon and Bank of America—went after Wikileaks and suddenly refused to process donations to the anti-secrecy  Continue reading “The myth of the free, unregulated Internet”