Net Neutrality questions (I)
Let's say it from the very beggining: Net Neutrality is good. Well, at least is "the least bad". But is it sacred?
The Net Neutrality debate has been developed around the pressure telcos to manage the bandwidth to maximize profit and many other reasons. Supporters of the Net Neutrality appeal to freedom and too other many arguments you may find out there (see recommended readings).
I have some questions rised up by the cultural diversity debate.
My first question would be: is there a right by States to tax audiovisual Internet sites profits to promote "national" content?
The point is: if I set up an enterprise in
And the same goes to large free-to-consume audiovisual sites. Joost or Youtube make large profits from around the world but all profits goes to the same place.
I am aware most people would argue that thanks to NN it is possible to make the same thing from anywhere else in the world so it is a free-trade and open market that might promote cultural diversity. But it is clear that the cultural domination comes from the
Two elements to consider:
- The Net Neutrality is being undermined by the audiovisual industry through the rights management. We have recently seen the lock out of Pandora's site. But there are lots of others like Disney.com, blogtv.ca and BBC.co.uk (in the case of soccer matches, that affects me) which cannot be accessed from abroad.
- The Net Neutrality is already challenged in the gambling sector. Countries like
- Principles of NN (M Goldberg)
- No Tolls on The Internet, the Washington Post
- The Neutrality.ca is back (Thanks to Michael Geist)
2 comments:
this is though provoking
altough
- if you buy a movie at amazon.com, it's as if you made a trip to the states, bought a movie there, and then came back to canada.
- taxing websites like youtube is pointless because their main content is user-generated content, not from media companies. the bulk of videos are spontaneous, home-made. they have a 0$ budget and it's not as if they were looking for profit. in short, it's not as if there was an industry to support.
i think the web goes beyond national frontiers
Hi Heri,
Thanks for your feedback and the good question you're rising. I love provoking and i think it helps to debae and be more savvy when people argue against.
Yep, you are right. Internet goes beyong frontiers, but malheuresement, and as you know, rights do not. I am going to explain a case:
I have a friend from Senegal. Ousseynou loves spanish films (donno why but he does...). So he buy films from a spanish site. For me it is great, because the spanish company which sells films to Ousse, pay their taxes to the Spanish Gov so I take advantage from it (health, education, infraestrcutres,...). But, I am not pretty sure that if Ousse tries to enter Spain, he will be welcome, even though he has contributed to the Spanish wellbeing. Hundreds of his fellow citizens sadly experience this rejection everyday when taking a boat to reach the spanish coast.
I am trying to say that consumption is globalized, but there is no globalization of rights.
What is an exception (spanish audiovisual internet industry) it is not for the US's.
In the first case, you are posing, if you go to the states and you buy some gifts, at the border you can be refunded for the tax (duty-free). whereas it is not possible in internet shopping.
For the second case, you are right, youtube is user-gnerated content, but youtube-google make money of the consumption third pary (or the same creators) do upon the content. and they make huge profits!
In fact, in the last free-trade agreements the US are signing with "poor" countries stablish clearly that no duty will be applied to the e-commerce.
I am not trying to convince anyone, but to compare arguments.
thanks.
Josep
Post a Comment