- Act Now
- Open Internet
- Promoting Creativity
- Open & Accessible Technology
Earlier this month, we asked you to share your cable stories, and an impressive number of you did. While many of your stories focused on a lack of competition among cable providers and rising bills, there are plenty of other factors that contribute to this frustrating state of affairs. Public Knowledge is working to solve these problems by proposing a vision of the future of video, with concrete recommendations for how to get there.
Your comments highlight the need for more competition and clearly show that change is vital. Here is a selection of what you had to say:
"I cut the cable last month. Went from $250/month for a UVerse service to $50/month for just Internet only. Now with a free-to-air antenna and my Apple TV together with a few monthly subscriptions I am saving a fortune and getting most of what I want to see.
We want to make sure that all of the people who were upset that the DMCA could prevent them from unlocking their phones get a solution that actually fixes the problem by changing the law, not just reversing the Library of Congress's decision and waiting for a do-over a few years from now.
This is the final post in our series explaining Public Knowledge’s five fundamental principles for the transition of our phone network to IP-based technology. We’ve already discussed service to all Americans, interconnection and competition, consumer protection, and network reliability. Today we’ll dive into the last (but not least) of the five principles: public safety.
Our country's absolutely ridiculous "retransmission consent" system continues to distort the video marketplace. This is the set of arcane rules that give local broadcasters (and not copyright holders) the right to decide whether cable systems (and IPTV and satellite providers) can carry their programming. A system that should be about connecting creators to viewers instead empowers middlemen who collect money from both sides. It's not that distributors and other kinds of middlemen have no place--far from it. But they should add value, and be compensated accordingly.
So why are we seeing simultaneous efforts to double down on enforcing a defective law?
3D printing means more people are becoming professional designers, creating and selling even more things. Although most of these designers are creating wholly original objects, it should not be a surprise that some are building off of existing TV shows, movies, and books. The result: the world of merchandising is about to confront a long tail that can't be monitored or controlled. How should rightsholders respond? By embracing it.
|STAY CONNECTED, JOIN OUR MAILING LIST|