During discussion this past Tuesday in Kathy Gill’s Net Economics class at the UW MCDM, my breakout group went over the subject of Comcast’s bid for NBC Universal.  Now, when I first heard about the news a few months back, my mind went straight like a bullet to the word “anti-trust”, like so many other people apparently did.  The implications alone for net neutrality didn’t even have to trigger such larger concerns for me – because the idea of the biggest cable provider in the US owning one of the biggest media content producer/distributors in the world just stank to high heaven on its own.  Granted, Time Warner is number two in the cable game across the country and has a massive cadre of cable nets itself, but a juggernaut in the form of Comcast NBC Universal was a daunting concept regardless.  Of course, in adding net neutrality to the discussion, knowing that if the Right gets its way and the Internet becomes a deregulation playground, the thought of a top-to-bottom Comcast MSO* experience, from the consumer’s vantage point, one which throttles its competitors’ content and makes it impossible to get away from 30 Rock and Jim Carrey, well, that becomes a frightening thought indeed.

Then it hit me… or the gist of it hit me and I have finally formulated it all (and I have my discussion mates and Kathy to thank for spurring this on, of course)…  if you want to save the Internets and preserve network neutrality, let Comcast buy NBC Universal. Heck, let MSO’s buy whoever and whatever they want.  It’s time for daddy to give the big content producers away and let them get married to all those big infrastructure providers who have come-a courtin’.  But, before you scoff at this, allow me to explain.Is this ludicrous? Maybe.  But here’s why it would work… and the only drawback is that only a handful of companies will outright control the media the world over.  Oh well.  But this is the best way to get the AT&T’s of the globe to swallow net neutrality.  Plus, this plan will satisfy both sides of the aisle.

Take the regulatory paws off of these kind of media mega-mergers while at the same time writing Net Neutrality in to US code.  It’s been a little over a decade since the DMCA, and convergence continues to blur the lines between TV and the Web, so it’s time to place the interests of a free and clear Internet towards the common good (the way we’ve protected the airwaves) while also letting the bells of true blue American capitalism ring loud and proud.  But wait, Matt, how does that fly?  Well, it’s simple.  You enforce net neutrality but allow MSOs to vertically integrate as much of the content they’ll own and essentially be providing as they possibly could want to.

When you get done laughing, read on.

It sounds bad, but it would work with a few more major changes.  One of my classmates brought up the problem of a Comcast NBC Universal or an AT&T Disney giving special attention to their new content babies while leaving their competitors’ content at the end of the dial.  It wouldn’t matter on the Web with neutrality in place, but on your cable box it would.  With cable packaging the way it is today, this packaging issue becomes a hot one indeed – though it’s in the best interest of the MSOs to provide popular choices from their MSO brethren, one would assume this problem would arise.  A NewsCorp-AT&T MSO, for example, won’t want to leave ESPN in the dust despite how much it loves it’s own Fox Sports nets, but probably would try.  Nevertheless, packaging as it stands is problem number one.

Thus, the solution to problem number one is three-fold:

1. Heavily regulate subscriber fees.  Sure, an ESPN or a TLC can charge carriers three or four dollars a pop, but don’t let them go any higher.  Besides, under the next bit, they won’t want to.
2. Make “à la carte” the law.  It’s about time we let customers decide which individual channels they want to subscribe to.  Preferential treatment won’t matter any more, and smaller channels can die the deaths they’ve sorely been deserving for years anyways.  Want MSNBC but not Fox News?  You got it.  Plus, without fail I trust that the crowd will help filter and spread the word about any smaller competitors deserving our attention.  The Web has proved that already.
3. Provide common carrier and open up the last mile (thanks, Kathy, for mentioning this).  À la carte and competitive subscriber fees just not enough for you?  Still sick of how your Time Warner handles things?  Switch to someone else.  And I’m not just talking DirecTV.  How about a Google MSO?  Microsoft?  Sony?  Qwest?  Who cares!  Unlock that last mile and let communities decide how many or how few fiber lines their soil will need.

This would work. It makes the right and the left happy and provides greater choice for the consumer while still making the little guy accessible.  As the line between what defines a web service and what defines a television network continues to blur, the most common sense answer, in my book anyways, is to graft the old in to the new.  And the coolest end result of this all would be that content producers could make their money off of access and infrastructure instead of selling individuals SKUs which cost them nothing to reproduce and which don’t deserve the prices we currently pay for them anyway.  Because infrastructure is the only real way to make money in the networked information economy.  I’m all for three or four or five big media conglomerates with their own pipes, assuming we can enforce net neutrality and free up the last mile in to the home.  Content will drive consumer choices because MSOs will need as much good content as possible!  And content will be free because we’re making it free anyways.

I really think this would work.  And I never would have thought that cable television would provide the answer.  Thoughts?

———–

* – Multiple Service Provider (e.g., a Comcast or Time Warner offering phone, Internet, and television)

Email

Print

Share

Reblog

Tweet