Mark Andrejevic says: "Pipelines are useless without some kind of content "<div><br></div><div><div>Thereby releasing a hobby horse I must delurk to foolishly jump on: I have offered the similar thought that the separation of Internet into mechanical pipes and "free" content is simply untenable. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Bear in mind that the pipe owners fail to see that our willingness to pay for the delivery system only makes sense if content is there. Content creators fail to see that in paying high rates for "connectivity", we (end users) are persuaded we have already paid for "content."</div>
<div><br></div><div>A Murdochian system in which each content creator bills users separately would fail - few could afford it. Pulling out of search engines is merely suicidal. The ensuing despair might provoke a salutary reaction, however.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If the private corporate owners of the pipes are unable/unwilling to share money they make "on the backs" of content creators, their profits might be better employed if they were redirected into publicly owned or regulated facilities, on the creaky model of utilities - (or something more up to date).</div>
<div><br></div><div>In view of the looming possibility that the owners of the pipes will own Content (see <a href="http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=comcast+nbc+universal">Comcast's latest moves</a>), why not consider an alternative - a blind pool that moves funds via micropay from the profit centers of the pipe owners to help fund those who produce content. </div>
<div><br></div><div><div>- notes on this here:</div><div><br></div></div><div><div><a href="http://interimtom.blogspot.com/2009/07/haque-and-doc-on-news-evolution-and.html">http://interimtom.blogspot.com/2009/07/haque-and-doc-on-news-evolution-and.html</a></div>
<div><br></div><div><a href="http://interimtom.blogspot.com/2009/07/fuck-piper.html">http://interimtom.blogspot.com/2009/07/fuck-piper.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>elsewhere:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://interimtom.blogspot.com/search?q=big+pipe">http://interimtom.blogspot.com/search?q=big+pipe</a></div>
<div><br></div></div><div><br></div><div>Tom Matrullo</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://interimtom.blogspot.com/">http://interimtom.blogspot.com/</a></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
<div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Mark Andrejevic <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:markbandrejevic@gmail.com">markbandrejevic@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div>One of the things that I had hoped to bring up at the conference's final de-briefing session before we ran out of time was the fact that while both the notions of work and play got worked over fairly well, the third, featured term in the title got a bit less attention -- at least in terms of considering how it might continue to change in the near future. The internet itself seemed largely to function as a taken-for-granted platform in the way, that interestingly is no longer the case for the media that it has helped to transform, such as radio, TV, and newspapers.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It seems worth pointing out that the internet has changed quite dramatically in the past few decades and is likely to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The recent, seemingly jarring news from the disconcerting duo of Microsoft and NewsCorp (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/technology/internet/24soft.html?hpw" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/technology/internet/24soft.html?hpw</a> ) drives the point home, and was probably not so difficult to predict. Given the difficulties media outlets are having in leveraging their online presence into advertising revenues it's perhaps not surprising that the models that are making money in the new media environment such as that of the successful search engine may find themselves in the position of subsidizing content. In this case, I suspect the deal, if it goes through, is a misconceived one: the advertising model that works online is based on volume of users, and chopping up the pool of potential users looks like a losing proposition. It's a swipe at Google, but in the long run, it's a swipe at the logic of the search engine. Not to mention the fact that the Fox News/New York Post demographic is probably not the best demographic bet for online advertising. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the underlying logic that such a deal hints at might be a bit more robust: find the business model that works and use that to subsidize content. Newspapers have long been complaining that people aren't willing to pay for online content, but that is perhaps only part of the story. Consumers have demonstrated a growing willingness to pay for pipeline (at rates much greater than the cost of a daily newspaper): for monthly mobile phone subscriptions, pay TV, and broadband access. Pipelines are useless without some kind of content -- and an important part of the content, as the conference highlighted, has been provided by free labor of various kinds. When it comes to professionally produced media content, down the road, and legal hurdles aside, the obvious tendency would be toward the control of content providers by the companies that are making the money: those who own and operate the pipelines (perhaps also the major search engines?). The broader point is that the infrastructure and operation of the internet is dynamic and subject to transformations in accordance with commercial imperatives (challenging the principle of net neutrality, etc.) -- the functioning of the "platform" is in play -- along with the activities that it supports. It's not just what we mean by work and play that need clarification and exploration, but also what we mean, projecting into the future, by "the internet." </div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (<a href="http://distributedcreativity.org" target="_blank">distributedcreativity.org</a>)<br>
<a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br>
<a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc" target="_blank">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br>
<br>
List Archive:<br>
<a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/" target="_blank">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><br>
<br>
iDC Photo Stream:<br>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><br>
<br>
RSS feed:<br>
<a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc" target="_blank">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><br>
<br>
iDC Chat on Facebook:<br>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><br>
<br>
Share relevant URLs on <a href="http://Del.icio.us" target="_blank">Del.icio.us</a> by adding the tag iDCref<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Tom<br>==<br><a href="mailto:matrullo@gmail.com">matrullo@gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
</div></div>