Zucker wants AT&T to filter their lines
Michael Gay October 3rd, 2007
NBC Universal’s president Jeff Zucker is asking that AT&T and other Internet service providers develop ways to filter their pipes of illegally distributed content. Broadcasting and Cable quotes Zucker as explaining that filtering technology is the “best shot at relieving clogged networks by keeping copyright-infringing content off the networks.”
13 Comments Add your own
1. Gorman | October 3rd, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Considering that AT&T has made posting criticism about them against the TOS, I’d say they’re already in the filtering business.
Unbelievable.
2. Dave | October 3rd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Found this blog post in response to Zucker’s speech:
“All right, Jeffie. Here’s what I want from my favorite TV Shows: I want to be able to watch them on any computer or TV or peripheral I own, I want there to be no commercials, I want the quality to be outstanding, and I want to be able to pause it whenever I want without disrupting the buffering process. If I like a show, I wanna be able to recommend it to my friends and give them a copy of it so that they’ll become fans too. What? You can’t do that because you can’t make money off it? Sounds like a personal problem, pal. You keep working on it, and I’ll stick with Usenet.”
Thoughts? I feel like saying to this guy, “You’re not going to have any favorite TV shows (at least like you have now) if no one is investing money in them because there’s no money to be made.”
LR-land help me out on this one…
3. Todd | October 3rd, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Sorry, but I agree with you’re guy’s quote, Dave. It’s where we’re headed. The content creators are no longer in control, the public is. It’s time to realize we’re selling whale oil and the electric light has just been invented…
4. invitedmedia | October 3rd, 2007 at 5:18 pm
with any luck nbcu will be the ones to design and launch this filtering technology.
their success with “gamechangers” like nbbc and hulu make it a natural.
5. John Proffitt | October 3rd, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Content has to be paid for somehow. Advertising, subscription models — something. The audience can be in control right up to the point that it’s all user-generated content and we’re entertaining one another.
I think most consumers are smarter than Mr. Usenet. Sure, we want to avoid commercials, but we’re willing to put up with some degree of that stuff to get to the stuff we really want. We’ve been conditioned that way and, deep down, isn’t it fair to give something in order to get something?
For some content, I’ll buy the DVD set to avoid the commercial breaks, the lower-third promos and all the rest of that stuff. For other stuff I’ll sit through ads. Still other stuff couldn’t get my attention commercial-free.
There’s room for everyone’s take on this. What’s messed up is Zucker’s megalomania. It’s a bad copy of the recording industry’s take on digital media. Stupid, stupid, stupid. You don’t have to control the pipes to make money. But you do have to make compelling content and offer it in a variety of methods at a variety of “price” points (cash outlays, time spent, ads consumed) that meet the needs of a variety of consumers.
And the idea that controlling distribution of copyrighted material will alleviate Internet traffic challenges is laughably stupid. How do these idiots rise to such heights?
6. Rob | October 3rd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Y’know a few days ago I was singing NBC’s praises here for airing all of their new fall show pilots on demand on Comcast. I go to Comcast now and the only net still offering on demand content is CBS. NBC has dropped off the radar again and with that I agree to an extent with the comment Dave posted.
People want their TV shows on so many different mediums - on TV, on the Internet, on Demand - and it shouldn’t be up to ISPs to stop people from sharing the content; rather the networks should find ways to cater to the masses and find ways to share their content while also monetizing it.
Maybe when Google buys NBC or one of the other networks this will happen.
7. Amanda E. | October 3rd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Mr. Zucker, I have two words for you. “Common Carrier”
AT&T, if they are responsible for copyright infringing material on their backbone, is a slide down the slippery slope of them being a __liable__ third-party to illegal traffic such as child porn.
Besides, one of the many hats I wear is network administrator. And take it from someone who has been fighting with horny teenagers trying to look up porn online for the past eight years - you can’t completely filter everything. Its a never ending arms-race.
8. ok | October 4th, 2007 at 4:20 am
Does Zucker really think NBC shows will be clogging internet pipes? Can’t imagine online demand for “Chuck” slowing down email service…
9. Adam | October 4th, 2007 at 4:37 am
I hope Mr. Zucker is still in favor of this idea when AT&T has the control he’s talking about and suddenly needs a little more money from NBC just to “make sure that his legitimate stuff doesn’t get filtered out by mistake.”
Mr. Zucker - you got pissy with Apple because you thought they had too much control. What do you think AT&T is going to be like if they were to have complete control over their “pipes?”
10. Safran | October 4th, 2007 at 4:37 am
I would also like AT&T to filter phone conversations about NBC shows, as they may infringe upon copyright of certain scripts.
11. Daniel | October 4th, 2007 at 9:47 am
If the internet providers start ‘censoring’ what is crossing their wires, where will it stop? The next step is to censor emails or anything else I upload or download because AT&T doesn’t agree with it.
12. Gorman | October 4th, 2007 at 11:17 am
OMG Safran, did you see this week’s Heroes? I thought it was cool that Peter
**************************************************************
This comment has been edited at the request of NBC due to copyright violations. You’re welcome.
AT&T. Your world. Delivered. *cue Oasis*
**************************************************************
ever did. I can’t wait for next week.
13. Safran | October 5th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Thanks a lot, Gorman. I’ve just been fined $350,735.
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed