Last Wednesday was the deadline for followup comments on Ben’s Part 1 application, more accurately described as a complaint. In the text below you’ll find the main body of my intervention, minus the top and tail. I wrote about Ben’s original filing back in November: Ben Klass asks CRTC to stop Bell’s deliquency on Mobile TV. As of today, Ben’s current filing hasn’t yet shown up on the Commission’s site: I’ve uploaded it here. Of the other interventions filed this past week, two were especially critical of what Bell is being allowed to get away with. Teresa Murphy starts her comments by suggesting that Bell’s whole argument is founded on a phony distinction (para 2: her pdf is uploaded here):
It makes no sense whatsoever to treat competing services differently when the underlying technology and distribution method is the same. This is allowing vertically integrated companies to behave by one set of rules, and allowing them to treat their competitors differently, and frankly unfairly.
Partial map of the Internet cloud. Each line joins 2 nodes representing IP addresses.
Pew setup question
The evolution of embedded and wearable devices and the Internet/Cloud of Things – As billions of devices, artifacts, and accessories are networked, will the Internet of Things have widespread and beneficial effects on the everyday lives of the public by 2025?
The visualization of the Internet you see above, while pretty dense and complicated, captures only a fraction of a certain class of networks as they existed nine years ago (i.e., less than 30% of the Class C networks reached by the Opte Project in early 2005). In the intervening time, the number of Internet-connected hosts has increased from less than 400 million to over one billion. But you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.
This past year marked the mainstreaming – in the public consciousness if not in our actual lives – of devices that are not only a) smart so they can compute, and b) small so they can be worn or embedded, but also c) networked so they can all communicate over the Internet. Judging by press coverage, I’d say the splashiest recent entries have been Google Glass and smart watches. Continue reading →
Screen grab from Pew/Elon survey questionnaire, January 2014
The Pew survey included a question about tech firms that was set up a little differently than the others. As the screen grab above shows, participants were asked to rank the long-term success, or lack of success, among the Big 5 as listed, as well as among other firms of our choosing.
Although it’s about 10 years too early to say “I told you so,” the news over the last few days provides some support for conclusions drawn in my response. As you can see, I’m calling for Amazon and Apple to become “More important”… Facebook and Microsoft to become “Less important”… and Google to “remain the same.”
Apple: too big to be successful any more?
A recent financial piece in the New York Times (Trying to See Apple From a Different Angle) says the stock market “doesn’t know quite what to make of Apple.” Two general reasons are adduced. One is cyclical: the company has had problems with sales of its cash cow, the iPhone. The other is structural: Apple has the largest market cap of any multinational, as well as the highest brand rating on the global Interbrand survey (all that engineering brainpower finally knocked a syrupy, dark-brown soft drink off its throne). Oh, and the $159 billion in cash it has lying around. Apple’s now so big and so successful that it’s scaring off growth investors who want to see a hit product every six months. Continue reading →
“We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.” — Roy Amara (d.2007)
In January, I participated in the latest edition of the experts survey on the future of the Internet, brainchild of the Pew Internet Project and Elon University’s Imagining the Internet Center. Some takeaways from grappling with the latest survey:
It’s been increasingly difficult from year to year to think through the tangle of issues associated with online life (I answered only 5 of the 8 questions on this survey);
Trying to look ahead a decade made me think a lot more about the present-day than the future.
My mood was pessimistic, and the theme that kept coming up was the inevitable fragmentation of the global public Internet.
The Pew-Elon Survey on the Future of the Internet, now in its sixth edition, collects responses from 900-odd participants around the globe on eight questions (originally 10), focused on the leading controversies of the day. The participants comprise a motley collection of thought leaders, technologists, entrepreneurs, futurists, academics, axe-grinders and experts of many stripes. The first edition of the survey was launched in 2004. Continue reading →
It’s shaping up to be a tough year for network neutrailty.
In its disposition of Verizon v FCC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled yesterday that the FCC’s Open Internet Order is mostly null and void. Not because of the substance of the debate – that end-users need to be protected from the incumbent ISPs – but because of a jurisdictional flaw. The case was brought by Verizon, which now that they’ve more or less won, is saying they actually support an open Internet. When you read the policy blog post in question (“Verizon reiterates its commitment to the open Internet“), you have to marvel at Verizon’s capacity for managing self-contradiction. Continue reading →
“What do [Canadians] think of this country’s ‘television’ system? Do they feel that the public interest is being served? I speak of ‘television’ for lack of a better word, because technology has outpaced language.” –JP Blais on pending CRTC review of TV policy
In his speech at the Banff Festival on June 12, Chairman Blais indicated the CRTC plans to undertake a top-to-bottom review of how to manage “television” in the digital age. The Chairman brings a tremendous amount of credibility to this exercise, which he’s earned in his first year at the CRTC helm (a Globe editorial called his speech “very promising” and “visionary”). But even this well-placed friend of the consumer is going to have a difficult time rescuing Canadian broadcasting from its current state of arrested development.
“It is absurd to suggest that, in today’s highly competitive video marketplace, obtaining some level of exclusivity is anticompetitive.” –Time Warner’s response to recent charges of anticompetitive behavior
“They are not paying for exclusivity. They are saying you can sell to X, to Y and Z, but you are forbidden from selling to this new class, called A.” –Richard Greenfield, market analyst, BTIG Research
In my previous post, from way back on June 8, I tried to explain some features of the Netflix value proposition, along with the battle that’s developed between Netflix and our conglomerates. That battle revolves around two topical points of contention: the Bell-Astral baloney about needing ever more concentration to fight off the American demons; and the outrageous use of data caps by the conglomerates to protect their legacy video businesses. I then said:
In Part 2, I’m going to add a few more comments about why the Netflix value proposition isn’t just about content, and challenge the idea that it’s going to need ”a lot of exclusive shows” (Pete Nowak’s take).
So here goes.
Nope, content isn’t always king I hear people say they’re not interested in subscribing to Netflix because much of its library consists of old movies and TV shows. But Netflix isn’t a poor man’s version of cable. If it were, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. “Old” content does not necessarily make an OTT streaming service any less original or innovative. Continue reading →