Los Angeles is going through the cable franchise reauthorization process and so we are in the heat of a debate over what the Broadband network of the future will look like. On the one side are the proponents of an IP TV universe who believe that the Internet can totally transform the media distribution universe dominated by big media. On the other side are the cable companies who quietly pushed through the FCC last year the deregulation of cable broadband from a Telecommunications service to an Information service allowing them to legally construct “The Walled Garden”. Although the four giant cable companies that control home Broadband service will seek to cast the FCC decision as a narrow question of whether they need to share their networks with rival Internet Service Providers, the real meaning of the FCC rule lies in whether companies like Time Warner can control what Broadband content their subscribers can reach and what devices their subscribers can attach to their Broadband connection. Whether the ruling is allowed to stand will decide the fate of the profound change in media distribution brought on by the arrival of the Broadband Internet.
The pure essence of that change lies in the word “scarcity”. Before Broadband, the economics of the media business were governed by scarcity. There were a limited number of film and record distributors; a limited number of cable and satellite distributors; a limited number of broadcast networks and so the holders of those franchises had maximum leverage with the artists and producers of content.
Now we are perched on the precipice of a profound disruption of that model of scarcity. As Broadband technology begins to become ubiquitous in the next three years, our ability to create a media universe of extraordinary richness and openness will increase. In this world anyone who wanted to “Publish” media would have no more trouble than putting up a web site today. They could sell their programming by subscription, “Pay per view” or give it away for free with targeted advertising. They would not have any “gatekeeper” determining who could reach their audience. Many of the worries about Media Concentration would be seen as the old paradigm of “Scarcity” as opposed to the Internet Protocol world of total abundance. While it is clear that the marketing power of major media conglomerates like Time Warner or Comcast would have huge power in the marketplace, it would be the power to persuade, not the power to control.
The cable companies will state that they will never block your access to a given site, but they do admit that they might “prioritize” the packets of their partners inside the walled garden. Translation: The video from “partners” would look crisp and clear, while content providers “outside the wall” would have to be content with “best efforts” (i.e. lesser quality video). One other scenario put forth by cable reps. Say you are about to buy a book from Amazon, but Comcast throws up a pop-up window blocking you from completing the purchase until you had considered a similar offer from their “preferred book provider” Barnes and Noble. This is not the Internet as it was designed and built by your tax dollars. This is a hijacking of the commons by greed-heads and it has to be stopped. When President Bush puts up a new FCC Nominee we have to ask one question, “Will he or she endorse the doctrine put forth by the retiring FCC Chairman: the Four Freedoms of Broadband?” As outlined in his groundbreaking speech in Denver last year, Michael Powell cited the Four Freedoms: Freedom to Access Content; Freedom to Use Applications; Freedom to Attach Personal Devices; Freedom to Obtain Service Plan Information. Although Powell refused to make this the law, the next FCC needs to follow through and enshrine the Four Freedoms for all types of Broadband.
Jonathan Taplin is an Adjunct Professor at USC Annenberg School of Communications.
Jonathan Taplin at 12:51 PM|Comments(1)
The issue about content delivery via cable boils down to whether they can say they deliver "Internet Access" and not allow all content (all TCP/IP protocols, all ports, and all packet types) over their network. It seems to me to be a deceptive trade practice to pretend to deliver Internet access and then not allow all Internet content. The market could solve this if customers viewed it this way, but as we know, many don't know the difference between AOL and the Internet. IP Democracy should perhaps begin educating people about the "real" Internet.
Posted by: Mike Gunter at June 29, 2005 12:28 PM
Blogs We Read
