<a href="http://www.cryptome.org">Cryptome</a> published <a href="http://www.cryptome.org/mpaa-v-net-mg.htm">Coming Soon: Hollywood Versus the Internet</a> recently, detailing the players involved in the Hollings bill (also called the SSSCA), which has been submitted to Congress. The bill basically involves making it a felony to produce an information device that does not have government-approved hardware DRM (Digital Rights Management) built into it. A few years ago, Napster scared the hell out of the recording industry and Hollywood is moving to ensure that they get a jump on the next generation of file copying. In particular, speedier Internet connections, digital TV and devices like TIVO are worrying them. Under these laws, it would also be a felony to either create technology (software or hardware) that could be used to circumvent DRM or to even connect a machine to the Internet that is capable of circumventing DRM. However, the legislation is couched in terms of empowering users or consumers and providing better service: <span class="quote"><q>The theory here is this: consumer adoption of broadband services (like cable modems and DSL) has been slower than predicted. This means the cable companies and the phone companies have too small a consumer base to justify building out their broadband capacity very quickly or very far. But (the theory goes) if Hollywood could be assured that its content would be protected on the broadband Internet, they'd develop more compelling content and make it available on the Internet, which would spur greater consumer demand for broadband.</q></span> So the argument is that Hollywood is not creating compelling or even 'good' content because they're afraid that it will be stolen unless the government protects them from the lumbering giant of consumer theft. That's one explanation for all the crap that's emanating from the entertainment industry, I guess. Others argue that the reason behind the stunted broadband growth and adoption is the bungled deregulation of the industry. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45676-2002Jan14.html">Does Fast Internet Need a Push?</a> at the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com">Washington Post</a> places the blame on the large players providing awful service and customer support. Another reason the broadband boom suffered is that Napster was the original driver of both a faster internet and a huge increase in PC and CDR sales. Thankfully, that boost to the economy was legislated away and now we can enjoy the only PC sales decrease in history and an inexplicable lack of interest in broadband. <span class="quote"><q>Others argue that the way to ensure more broadband is for government to guarantee competition. ... "Monopolists have been allowed to control the pace of rollout," said Mark Cooper, research director of the Consumer Federation of America. Cooper said that subsidizing a small group of telecommunications giants, through tax credits or anti-competitive deregulation, is "the Soviet model for growth." ... Instead, he said, the government should focus on reducing prices and increasing choice, particularly when there is so much more broadband available than there are people who are signing up for it.</q></span>