“Future of Music Coalition” on Preserving the Dynamism of the Internet
July 1, 2006 by Mary Wynne-Wynter
Yesterday I posted that the rejection of net neutrality made me fearful that a rush to a decision and the pols' ignorance of the issues could result in the internet going the way of radio. I once lived with radio...24/7 when I could. I have not listened in 10 years and I really miss it. This well-written opinion validates my fears. Here's an excerpt. Its a long but worthwhile read.
Opinion by Michael Bracy and Jenny Toomey of the Future of Music Coalition, an organization pressing Congress to halt the efforts to redefine the fundamental structures of the Internet.
The vote makes the Future of Music Coalition think of the old adage, those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it. The Future of Music Coalition (FMC) was created in 2000 because traditional structures for producing, promoting, and selling music basically did not serve musicians and fans. Unfair record contracts, rampant consolidation of record labels and radio stations, and the questionable business practice of payola led to a dysfunctional structure where signed artists were subject to lopsided deals and unsigned artists were locked out of the major distribution and promotion channels. Because of this artificial scarcity and control, the vast majority of working musicians labored in poverty, while fans were presented with narrowly tailored radio playlists and a handful of videos on high rotation. These videos and playlists were crafted by major record labels in collusion with consolidated commercial radio and cable music television channels.
By the time FMC started, the traditional vehicle providing access to the music market, local radio, had imploded. 1n 1996, Congress tried to meet the needs of radio broadcasters in much the same way that they are trying to accommodate the telecommunications industry today. The result was a historic transformation of the industry where massive consolidation gutted the traditional regulatory principles of localism, competition and diversity. The effort to appease broadcasters, who complained of harmful competitive forces and the urgent need to take advantage of "economies of scale," backfired. While a handful of radio station conglomerates profited, the era of radio deregulation has resulted in fewer owners, fewer listeners, cookie-cutter playlists, and a widespread payola scandal.
Commercial radio has been allowed to self-destruct, thanks to a lack of reasonable regulation and an obsession with seeing a return on investment. This is exactly the same future we see if Congress allows cable and telephone companies to manage a tiered Internet.
At the heart of the recent debate is the basic question of "network neutrality." While this may be a new and unfamiliar phrase to many, it codifies a core concept that has existed since the creation of the Internet. For years, FMC has argued that technological innovation will trump spectrum scarcity, as long as government doesn't move in to shelter old business models with industry specific regulations. Without clear network neutrality provisions, the Internet as we know it runs the risk of being transformed into a proprietary high speed data network controlled by a few phone companies, cable companies and wireless providers. Essentially, what happened to radio could happen to the Internet.
The telecommunications industry and their shameless fake consumer groups are telling Congress and consumers that this is a debate between AT&T/Verizon/Comcast and Google/Microsoft/Yahoo. This mischaracterization is as insulting as it is misleading. This is a debate about the future of our democracy and our culture.