Comments on: Solution to the net neutrality debate http://nerdacumen.com/the-solution-to-the-net-neutrality-debate/2009/11/21/ Interpreting the Nerd Universe. Sat, 05 Nov 2011 13:14:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Matthew Stringer http://nerdacumen.com/the-solution-to-the-net-neutrality-debate/2009/11/21/comment-page-1/#comment-203 Matthew Stringer Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:05:44 +0000 http://nerdacumen.com/?p=437#comment-203 I think publishers are slowly being replaced by web services (or, if we're thinking about the Turk discussion last night, on-line "marketplaces" - think eBay, too). For example, the Web let's me self-publish on my own hosted platform if I want, but if I really want to reach the maximum potential audience, I really need to engage a sharing space. YouTube for videos, Lulu or Cafepress for books, MySpace for music, etc. So, something like a Hulu could replace a studio's Home Video division, in that content producers just contract out server space for their distribution platform. Middlemen, in the traditional sense, are on the outs, plain and simple. Web services are the new "publishers" for lack of a better word. I think publishers are slowly being replaced by web services (or, if we’re thinking about the Turk discussion last night, on-line “marketplaces” – think eBay, too). For example, the Web let’s me self-publish on my own hosted platform if I want, but if I really want to reach the maximum potential audience, I really need to engage a sharing space. YouTube for videos, Lulu or Cafepress for books, MySpace for music, etc. So, something like a Hulu could replace a studio’s Home Video division, in that content producers just contract out server space for their distribution platform. Middlemen, in the traditional sense, are on the outs, plain and simple. Web services are the new “publishers” for lack of a better word.

]]> By: Eseongj http://nerdacumen.com/the-solution-to-the-net-neutrality-debate/2009/11/21/comment-page-1/#comment-201 Eseongj Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:05:58 +0000 http://nerdacumen.com/?p=437#comment-201 Well to extend that thought how do publishers fit in? Well to extend that thought how do publishers fit in?

]]> By: Matthew Stringer http://nerdacumen.com/the-solution-to-the-net-neutrality-debate/2009/11/21/comment-page-1/#comment-199 Matthew Stringer Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:21:20 +0000 http://nerdacumen.com/?p=437#comment-199 Hmmm, let's rethink this question: does a book have all the power, or a reader? You can always choose what you want to read. I'd say this plan empowers consumers. Hmmm, let’s rethink this question: does a book have all the power, or a reader? You can always choose what you want to read. I’d say this plan empowers consumers.

]]> By: Matthew Stringer http://nerdacumen.com/the-solution-to-the-net-neutrality-debate/2009/11/21/comment-page-1/#comment-198 Matthew Stringer Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:19:01 +0000 http://nerdacumen.com/?p=437#comment-198 Emily, I think that there is a lot more money to be earned through low-cost competitive service - it wouldn't make sense for 5 biggies to ramp up pricing. If I can decide which MSO to sign up with in my home, no matter where I live, then you know that would drive down costs. There is still plenty of room for little guys to pop up and start offering service, too. Small ISPs could become MSOs if they could offer phone numbers and a la cart pricing for stations. I think a key component of any net neutrality law would be an open carrier enforcement clause of some kind. I talked at length about this solution with a friend over the weekend, and based on our conversation I think I would supplement what I've posted with the thought that if you're an MSO that's laying fiber as a public utility under such new laws, and the FCC requires that you act fairly as an open carrier offering up your pipes wholesale, then little guys could buy last-mile access from you just the same as your competitors. While this hasn't been the most successful model in the wireless industry (buying airtime wholesale and reselling it has not shown a lot of promise), I still think there would always be interested parties in giving such bulk purchasing a go. In any case, your product becomes less about the pipes and more about the actual service. You create a space for "cooperative competition". That, my friend, I think would halt the idea of an MSO behaving in a cost-prohibitive manner. If you charge too much your customers will just switch. As for content, again, I think these new MSO megacorps would make enough money selling service and adspace to cross-subsidize content creation, considering re-production of content presents negligible costs. Heck, like I said, they could just give content away as an incentive to purchase service. I think we're getting to a point where expecting people to pay for individual media SKUs is a boldly ignorant ideal. Besides, thanks to the web and net neutrality, if you don't like how the middle tastes you can always find a niche to feast from. The playing field is level. Basically, none of this works until we start treating the wires the way we treat the airwaves. Emily, I think that there is a lot more money to be earned through low-cost competitive service – it wouldn’t make sense for 5 biggies to ramp up pricing. If I can decide which MSO to sign up with in my home, no matter where I live, then you know that would drive down costs. There is still plenty of room for little guys to pop up and start offering service, too. Small ISPs could become MSOs if they could offer phone numbers and a la cart pricing for stations.

I think a key component of any net neutrality law would be an open carrier enforcement clause of some kind. I talked at length about this solution with a friend over the weekend, and based on our conversation I think I would supplement what I’ve posted with the thought that if you’re an MSO that’s laying fiber as a public utility under such new laws, and the FCC requires that you act fairly as an open carrier offering up your pipes wholesale, then little guys could buy last-mile access from you just the same as your competitors. While this hasn’t been the most successful model in the wireless industry (buying airtime wholesale and reselling it has not shown a lot of promise), I still think there would always be interested parties in giving such bulk purchasing a go. In any case, your product becomes less about the pipes and more about the actual service. You create a space for “cooperative competition”. That, my friend, I think would halt the idea of an MSO behaving in a cost-prohibitive manner. If you charge too much your customers will just switch. As for content, again, I think these new MSO megacorps would make enough money selling service and adspace to cross-subsidize content creation, considering re-production of content presents negligible costs. Heck, like I said, they could just give content away as an incentive to purchase service. I think we’re getting to a point where expecting people to pay for individual media SKUs is a boldly ignorant ideal. Besides, thanks to the web and net neutrality, if you don’t like how the middle tastes you can always find a niche to feast from. The playing field is level.

Basically, none of this works until we start treating the wires the way we treat the airwaves.

]]> By: Michelle http://nerdacumen.com/the-solution-to-the-net-neutrality-debate/2009/11/21/comment-page-1/#comment-197 Michelle Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:35:02 +0000 http://nerdacumen.com/?p=437#comment-197 Interesting, how does power play into this scenario? Do you propose these MSOs or consumers to have all the power? Interesting, how does power play into this scenario? Do you propose these MSOs or consumers to have all the power?

]]> By: Eseongj http://nerdacumen.com/the-solution-to-the-net-neutrality-debate/2009/11/21/comment-page-1/#comment-196 Eseongj Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:54:05 +0000 http://nerdacumen.com/?p=437#comment-196 Matt, A few random thoughts. I'm still skeptical that this will solve more problems than it creates. Firstly, the idea of 4 or 5 Megacorps that control all mass media content seems terrifying. It seems it might promote these behemoths to continue in a race towards the middle with content, which benefits no one except those interested in being, reading about, or seeing mediocrity. In terms of allowing them to make money on infrastructure would they be making enough to make this a palatable compromise? Without doing any research I have no idea what the money boils down to; however, if it is a lot then it would seem they would be charging exorbitant subscriber fees. If this is the case how does this fit in with an argument about the cost of access? Even if the content in the pipe is moving freely, if the access to the pipe is cost prohibitive has there been a net gain? -Emily ps. Way to codify all your thoughts about this into a very coherent plan. I think this is a fascinating idea. Matt,

A few random thoughts. I’m still skeptical that this will solve more problems than it creates. Firstly, the idea of 4 or 5 Megacorps that control all mass media content seems terrifying. It seems it might promote these behemoths to continue in a race towards the middle with content, which benefits no one except those interested in being, reading about, or seeing mediocrity.

In terms of allowing them to make money on infrastructure would they be making enough to make this a palatable compromise? Without doing any research I have no idea what the money boils down to; however, if it is a lot then it would seem they would be charging exorbitant subscriber fees. If this is the case how does this fit in with an argument about the cost of access? Even if the content in the pipe is moving freely, if the access to the pipe is cost prohibitive has there been a net gain?

-Emily

ps. Way to codify all your thoughts about this into a very coherent plan. I think this is a fascinating idea.

]]>