While phone companies push for a rewrite of the 1996 Telecom Act, in part to ease their entry into the video business via a national franchising law, cable operators aren’t as eager for a legislative overhaul. If it must occur, the cable industry wants to make sure that local franchising stays intact, or at the very least ensure that telco-delivered IP video is subject to the same franchising requirements that apply to cable.
Speaking to the Washington Metropolitan Cable Club (video here), National Cable and Telecommunications Association CEO Kyle McSlarrow said the 96 Act has worked well. “So, did the ‘96 Act spur investment by cable operators and benefit the American consumer by reducing economic regulation? Absolutely,” he said.
But, he acknowledged, “our communications laws deserve continuing and careful examination” in light of rapid market changes. Moreover, “we need to ensure a regulatory climate” that continues to spur innovation.
Among the goals NCTA seeks in a rewrite is parity, or to use a hackneyed expression, a level playing field. “Like services should be treated alike and everyone should play by the same rules. What matters to consumers, and what should matter to policymakers, is not the technology used to provide services, but the services themselves.”
While NCTA warms to federal oversight of voice-over-IP, “many of the issues raised by IP video have no parallel in IP voice, so they haven’t been part of the debate over the proper framework for voice offerings,” McSlarrow said, laying out the industry’s view on why a national policy for IP video may be premature.
In a separate white paper released with McSlarrow’s speech, NCTA states:
Local regulation, as implemented by the franchise agreement, may be the most appropriate way to implement and enforce those obligations that involve local circumstances – such as the prohibition on redlining and management of public rights-of-way to protect health and safety.
If, however, phone companies win in their bid to remove the franchising underbrush blocking their path to multichannel video over IP-based networks, cable wants the same treatment. McSlarrow said in his speech:
Existing providers and new entrants should be treated alike in this regard. And if newcomers are subject to less restrictive requirements, or granted longer service terms, such lighter regulation ought to apply to existing franchisees, too. The government must avoid picking winners and losers by imposing regulation based on the particular mix of technology a video provider deploys.Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 3:44 PM | Print | Comments (0) | TrackBack
In Parks Associates’ latest “People & Technology” newsletter, analyst Harry Wang asks the question “what should be done…about Desperate Hollywood, Reckless Pirates?” Wang’s piece points to a dilemma summed up nicely in Siva Vaidhyanathan’s 2004 book, The Anarchist in the Library: How the Clash Between Freedom and Control is Hacking the Real World and Crashing the System, which cast the battle as one between P2P-enabled anarchists pitted against control-seeking media oligarchs, with the rest of us caught in the crossfire of the two groups’ escalating techno-warfare.
Wang urges Hollywood to move beyond its current defensive stance, which many believe will never be wholly effective and, in some respects, may be counter-productive (i.e., the more studios focus on the goal of control vs. ease-of-use, the more motivated and numerous are the pirates).
Why not be innovative with new online movie delivery models? Why not be creative in supporting movie downloads to portable devices? Why not start experimenting with superdistribution over the P2P networks?
Wang observes that BitTorrent and P2P in general, “fit nicely into consumers’ lifestyle and usage patterns. Such a good fit means outside forces are unlikely to uproot or alter them.” He also notes that heavy users of file-sharing services are also heavy purchasers of CDs and that 27% of Internet households currently download videos from the web on a monthly basis, with 20% of U.S. consumers admitting to having used file-sharing services at least that often.
“How to play the convenience card? ” Wang asks rhetorically. His answer, with some numbers to back it up is:
It is about more choices, more delivery models, and more flexible pricing. Parks Associates has tested different delivery models on Internet users, and the data came back encouraging. Nearly one-fourth (23%) of U.S. Internet households are highly interested in spending $15 to burn an online movie; 15% are willing to view commercials as part of an online movie in exchange for free burning; and 8% are willing to sign up for a monthly subscription service at $15 per month (similar cost compared with Netflix’s or Blockbuster’s offers) for unlimited movie burning.
“The point,” says Wang, is that “there will be huge opportunities for online movie distribution. Don’t miss it,” he cautions content owners, “and don’t spoil it.”
Posted by Mitch Shapiro at 3:31 PM | Print | Comments (0) | TrackBack
At the recent 2005 Broadband World Forum in Yokohama, Japan, Aeon Digital International (ADI) introduced a set-top box that combines DVR and DVD-burning and can record and burn both broadcast and broadband-delivered TV content. To help deliver content to its new box, the company, which has offices in Los Angeles, the Bay Area, Shanghai and Montreal, will launch its own Internet delivery platform, dubbed Aeon Digital Network (ADN). ADI says the new set-top, which will be priced at $299 and available through “select OEM’s” will be available in September. In addition to video, the device also supports MP3 music, Internet radio and digital photos.
According to Informitv, the ADI set-top and service are based on the Microsoft Windows Media 9 format, with ADN users “able to choose between instant playback of streaming video, or high quality downloaded material.”
Posted by Mitch Shapiro at 2:43 PM | Print | Comments (0) | TrackBackFrom today’s Online Media Daily:
Michael Cornfield knows why George W. Bush won last year’s presidential election. Bush’s camp, said Cornfeld, used the Internet to find volunteers and then gave them information to spread—via any medium at hand—to friends and neighbors. “The Bush campaign married software to Tupperware,” Cornfeld, a senior consultant with the Pew Internet & American Life Project, said Monday at OMMA West.
A 33 page Pew report entitled “The Internet and Campaign 2004” is available here, and a commentary by Cornfield on the same subject is here.
Posted by Mitch Shapiro at 12:53 PM | Print | Comments (0) | TrackBackAs P2P video file sharing gains steam, are scams cropping up on the web to fool would-be file sharers into paying for “unlimited downloads of the latest movies, TV shows, sporting events and more?” We came across a P2P site, one that seems too good (from a file sharer’s perspective) to be true, called DownloadTVNow. According to the website
UltimateTVshows.com gives you access to the broadest P2P network on the planet. Start searching and downloading for your favorite series (even old time favorites), specials, sports events but also get access to unlimited movies, music, MP3s and much much more… With over 5 million users at anytime – you get access to the largest network on the planet! Never miss an episode
A demo provided on the site claims that the system has over 500 million files for users to choose from, although it’s not clear if these are all video files. DownloadTVNow claims that it will provide users with information on “how to stay legal” once they join — for a fee. The fee amount, however, is unclear, because users must complete the registration process before finding that out.
A search of WhoIs fails to turn up the owner of the site — the company registered in February 2005 through DomainsByProxy, which promises anonymous registration of web sites. However, the registration screen at DownloadTVNow carries the copyright of marketengines.com, a Canadian company that specializes in generating ecommerce revenues from web sites by, among other things, funneling traffic to the sites.
Perhaps to avoid charges that it is generating revenue from the copyrighted works of others, DownloadTVNow claims that its membership fee covers the cost of “the online help and support and the online tutorials for the lifetime of the membership.” In what also seems to be legal cover of some kind, DownloadTVNow claims that “the purchase of a membership, however, is not a license to upload or download copyrighted material. We urge you to respect copyright and share responsibly.”
With so many free P2P sites out there, we wonder what members get for their DownloadTVNow fees?
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 10:48 AM | Print | Comments (0) | TrackBack
As the phone industry warms in the spotlight provided by Supercomm in Chicago, SBC and Verizon, at least, have to be even happier that the powerful Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Ted Stevens (R-AK) is rooting to give them relief on the franchising issue. Speaking at an FCBA lunch yesterday, Stevens said “we need to think about some sort of national franchise” for the bells, according to National Journal”s Technology Daily.
Stevens support came on the same day that Verizon’s chief lobbyist Tom Tauke spoke on the very same subject during a Supercomm panel. Tauke called for a national policy that promotes telco competition in the video marketplace, and specifically asked for help on eliminating the hassles of obtaining cable franchises in the 30,000 localities across the U.S.
“We already have the authority to deploy the network, and we are entering the video market as a new player in a competitive marketplace. Applying the cable franchise rules to us is unfair and simply delays the day when consumers will have a choice of video providers,” Tauke said.
He also called for the Bush Administration to move quickly in filling vacant FCC commissioner slots. “It is hard to make bold policy when you have one vacancy and two lame ducks,” he said.
Speaking on the same panel, SBC Group President Forrest Miller echoed Tauke’s sentiment, according to Reuters. “Video franchise processes were designed in an era in which cable companies had absolutely no competition and virtually guaranteed returns,” he said. “New entrants have no guarantees, but we do have every incentive to compete.”
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 9:26 AM | Print | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Nebraska’s Governor has signed into law a bill that prohibits municipalities and public power utilities from providing both wholesale and retail broadband, Internet, telecommunications or video services. Unlike other states that have placed various conditions on muni-broadband initiatives, the Nebraska law appears to be a total ban on such projects (though it does appear to grandfather existing networks).
A few other things are worth noting about the Nebraska situation:
Even as it implements what may be the nation’s most complete ban on muni-broadband, the Nebraska law mandates the creation of a “Broadband Services Task Force” that will study the implications and advisability of allowing municipal broadband networks to be built and, if so, on what terms and conditions.
One might wonder, “why implement a total ban before even studying the matter?” The answer might have something to do with the fact that Nebraska ranks first in the nation in terms of the number of public power utilities and the percentage of its population they serve. In fact, more than 98% of the state’s total residential power customers are served by public power providers.
But while more than 35 of the 153 total public power companies serving the state have some telecom capabilities, only a handful currently use their networks to provide external services. The rest use telecom strictly for internal functions like network monitoring and automatic meter reading.
The ban may have been a move to preempt any broad movement by this potentially large-scale competitive force at a time of growing national interest in muni-broadband, to give state government officials more time to figure out if and how public power companies should be allowed to enter the telecom market.
Now that the ban is law, however, it seems likely that it would take a strong push by the public power contingent to get a second law passed to reverse the ban. On the other hand, these entities already have a customer relationship with nearly every home and business in the state and, given this, probably also have a fair amount of clout in the state capital.
All this makes Nebraska a state worth watching in the ongoing muni-broadband battle.
Posted by Mitch Shapiro at 4:01 AM | Print | Comments (1) | TrackBackEven as the music industry continues its battle against web-based piracy, legal forms of web-enabled activities are posing new challenges to the record companies, and perhaps also some potential benefits.
The mainstream media are starting to take notice. MySpace, a 20-month-old social networking site focused on music, is the subject of a recent Business Week article, while a 6/6 New York Times story looks at Music for Robots, one of a small but growing number of music-focused blogs that in some cases, have helped catapult garage bands from obscurity to MTV.
According to Business Week:
Thanks to its addictive appeal, MySpace has become one of the hottest properties on the Web. Only 20 months old, it already has 14 million unique visitors a month, according to market researcher comScore Media Metrix. That makes it far and away the most popular of what are known as social-networking Web sites.
Bands can create home pages, with photos, tour dates, and as many as four songs — all for free. Marquee names like the Black-Eyed Peas, My Chemical Romance, and ex-Smashing Pumpkins leader Billy Corgan joined. That pulled in fans and their friends, who all found that MySpace offered loads of options that other sites lacked. Now, MySpace has become something akin to the hottest bar in town, teeming with musicians and models.
So effective is the site at connecting with fans that some musicians think MySpace and sites like it could change the dynamics of their industry. Record labels have been essential because they know how to market and promote their artists. But these days, why should bands bother with the middleman? They can post their tour dates on MySpace, put up music samples, and correspond via e-mail directly with fans. “Now that MySpace is here, bands don’t necessarily need a label to be heard,” says Corgan. Labels could end up pursuing musicians, rather than the other way around. In fact, Britain’s Engineer Records tracked down and signed The Moirai specifically because of their popularity on MySpace.
The alternative music scene is also helping drive grassroots video-publishing projects. Slashdot points to videoblogger Steve Garfield’s interview with Holmes Wilson of the Participatory Culture Foundation, whose recently released open source platform, Broadcast Machine, is intended to make web-based video publishing—including the use of BitTorrent—as easy as using blogging software. Later this month, PCF expects to launch an open-source Internet video player designed to work with Broadcast Machine.
PCF says its mission is to “enable and support independent, non-corporate creativity and political engagement.” It was founded by Downhill Battle, which describes itself as “a non-profit organization working to support participatory culture and build a fairer music industry.”
From the Downhill Battle web site:
Five major record labels have a monopoly that’s bad for musicians and music culture, but now we have an opportunity to change that. We can use tools like filesharing to strengthen independent labels and end the major label monopoly.
How do musicians get paid for downloads? Simple: collective licensing lets people download unlimited music for a flat monthly fee ($5-$10) and the money goes to musicians and labels according to popularity. This solution preserves the cultural benefits of p2p, gets musicians way more money, and levels the playing field.
According to a 5/24 PCF press release:
Nicholas Reville, Co-Director of the Participatory Culture Foundation, says, “If someone told us in 1998 that web journals could compete with print media, we would have thought that was crazy. But now we’ve seen that easy, affordable tools can decentralize media and give everyone a voice. Simple, flexible platforms like Broadcast Machine can have huge social consequences.”
It may be tempting to dismiss entities like PCF and Downhill Battle. But the larger point is that there are many such small creative sparks out there, trying to catch fire in the volatile web mosh pit where music mixes with multimedia, blogging and social networking. And while many may fade in the twinkling of an eye, others, like MySpace, may blaze brightly—at least for awhile…and perhaps long enough to survive on their own, or become part of Google, Yahoo or some other major player in the broadband space. And even those that don’t survive can provide useful pointers into the future of web-based services and user demand for them.
Posted by Mitch Shapiro at 3:15 AM | Print | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Blogs We Read
