<div>Sorry for the typo--I meant to say Murdoch/MS alliance in the third sentence, as it appears below.</div>
<div>-frank<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Frank Pasquale <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:frank.pasquale@gmail.com">frank.pasquale@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div><font face="verdana,sans-serif">I think Tom Matrullo's idea of the utility model coupled with micropayments is a very good one. I'd add on a few thoughts about the layers of the internet highlighted by the Murdoch move. </font></div>
<div><font face="verdana,sans-serif"></font> </div>
<div><font face="verdana,sans-serif">The potential Murdoch/MS alliance echoes an earlier proposed joint venture called "ClearWire". As of 2008, <span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">Google had co-invested with Comcast and handset manufacturers to develop a new network. </span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">In return for its participation, according to one news story, “Google's search engine [will] get[] its own button on the phones.” (This may still be in the works, I'm not up to date on it.) </span></font><font face="verdana,sans-serif"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">Another proposed deal would “make Google the default search provider on Verizon devices and give it a share of ad revenue.” </span></font></div>
<div><font face="verdana,sans-serif"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></span></font> </div>
<div><font face="verdana,sans-serif"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">As the landscape of internet competition rapidly shifts, we should expect more vertical integration of all layers of the internet. Etiolated antitrust and competition laws have very little purchase on this type of conduct. </span></font><font face="verdana,sans-serif">So what layers can integrate, and what are the implications? <span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">Jonathan Zittrain (in <i>The Future of the Internet--And How to Stop It, </i>available free online) described a physical layer, the “actual wires or airwaves over which data will flow;” an application layer, “representing the tasks people might want to perform on the network;” a content layer, “containing actual information exchanged among the network's users;” and a social layer, “where new behaviors and interactions among people are enabled by the technologies underneath”. </span></font></div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><font face="verdana,sans-serif"></font></span> </div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><font face="verdana,sans-serif">Is there anything more disturbing about, say, a search-hardware-carrier alliance (ala Clearwire) than a content-search alliance (ala Bing and Murdoch)? I don't think so, and that's one reason why there are growing calls for "device neutrality" and "search neutrality" to complement "net neutrality." The libertarian internet theorists have been among the first to understand this development, as this piece by Berin Szoka and Adam Thierer shows: </font></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><a href="http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2009/ps5.11-net-neutrality-MAD-policy.html" target="_blank"><font face="verdana,sans-serif">http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2009/ps5.11-net-neutrality-MAD-policy.html</font></a></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><font face="verdana,sans-serif"></font></span> </div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><font face="verdana,sans-serif">But where they see "mutually assured destruction" of business entities <br>(each trying to use vestigial regulators (like the FCC) to handicap rivals), I see a small glimmer of hope that regulation in the public interest can be achieved. </font></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><font face="verdana,sans-serif"></font></span> </div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"></span><font face="verdana,sans-serif"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"> As a purely <font face="verdana,sans-serif">economic matter, vertical integration makes a lot of sense for the entities involved and perhaps for many disadvantaged consumers (who may well get phone service for free in exchange for pervasive marketing-driven monitoring of conversations, just like gmail is supported by computerized scrutiny of one's email). But there is more at stake in the delivery of content than getting the most bits out to the most people at the cheapest price. Jerry Kang has argued (in Race.net Neutrality) that other key <span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">concerns include the importance of media diversity, independent gatekeepers, and “distribution of communicative power and opportunities among private actors.” Top to bottom control of a communications network by a vertically integrated company only increases its temptation to unfairly prioritize its own content, hand off personal data to government in what Elkin-Koren and Birnhack call the "invisible handshake," or curry favor with politicians that can grant it favors. </span></font></span></font></div>
<div><font face="verdana,sans-serif"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"></span></span></font> </div>
<div><font size="+0"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"></span></span></font><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><font face="verdana,sans-serif">As Preston Galla noted, <span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">“The Center for Public Integrity compiled a list of the top 100 money-givers to Congress between 1998 and 2005, and telcos dominate the list: Verizon Communications: $81,870,000, SBC Communications: $58,035,037, AT&T Corp.: $53,349,499, Sprint Corp.: $47,276,585, BellSouth Corp.: $33,732,827, Qwest Communications: $24,523,480.” Imagine the "synergies" of political influence these behemoths can offer once they are "harmonized" into larger conglomerates of media, search, and applications providers. </span></font></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"><font face="verdana,sans-serif"></font></span></span> </div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"><font face="verdana,sans-serif">I've done a series of articles on some of these topics; these two are a good introduction: </font></span></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"><font face="verdana,sans-serif"></font></span></span> </div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1134159" target="_blank"><font face="verdana,sans-serif">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1134159</font></a></span></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=888327" target="_blank"><font face="verdana,sans-serif">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=888327</font></a></span></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"><font face="verdana,sans-serif"></font></span></span> </div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"><font face="verdana,sans-serif">And, on the utility theory, a co-authored piece: </font></span></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"><a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1002453" target="_blank"><font face="verdana,sans-serif">Federal Search Commission? Access, Fairness and Accountability in the Law of Search</font></a></span></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"><font face="verdana,sans-serif"></font></span></span> </div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"><font face="verdana,sans-serif">But overall I am beginning to worry that we don't even have the regulatory infrastructure to understand the types of alliances now being crafted, much less influence them. A monitoring system will be the foundation of any future accountability in this field. And I fully expect the law of trade secrecy to pose an extraordinary barrier to the effectiveness of that regime...just as the law of state secrecy has undermined the potential for democratic control of law enforcement and national security. </font></span></span></div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"><font face="verdana,sans-serif"></font></span></span> </div>
<div><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'"><font face="verdana,sans-serif">---Frank</font></span></span></div>
<div><font face="verdana,sans-serif"></font> </div>
<div><font face="verdana,sans-serif"><font face="verdana,sans-serif">Frank A. Pasquale<br>Professor of Law, Seton Hall Law School<br>One Newark Center<br>Newark, NJ 07102<br>(973)-642-8485 (w)<br></font>(201)-988-5774 (c)</font></div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5">
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Tom Matrullo <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matrullo@gmail.com" target="_blank">matrullo@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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/" target="_blank">http://interimtom.blogspot.com/</a></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div></div>
<div>On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Mark Andrejevic <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:markbandrejevic@gmail.com" target="_blank">markbandrejevic@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>
<div></div>
<div>
<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></div></div>_______________________________________________<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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">matrullo@gmail.com</a><br>
<br></div></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" target="_blank">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></div></div></blockquote></div><br>