Podcasting and the battle for Net Neutrality
I just read a post over at MacMikeNews.com about Podcasting. Now, I’ve been building sites for folks who are podcasters, in fact we’re launching a hot new one soon. But since I’m not a person who is much into audio or video stimulation, I haven’t been paying a whole lot of attention to it other than as it affects my work and my business. But reading this post about how people are into podcasts and why, it really hit home why the Telecommunications Corps. and the Cable and Media outlets are scrambling to trash Net Neutrality. They’re majorly running scared. They’re LOSING THEIR AUDIENCE.
Many people who are downloading podcasts are using it as a replacement for radio, and are starting to use it as a replacement for television. Think about this– podcasts are commercial free, for the most part. Podcasts are downloaded and can be heard or watched at the convenience of the downloader. And since the technology is easily accessible ANYONE can, with just a bit of learning and some inexpensive equipment, create and upload a podcast. So there are podcasts about all sorts of subjects– health and exercise, cooking, crafts, Harry Potter, music, news, business, technology, religion, education, comedy, etc. etc. etc. I just sampled a few, and though on some the quality was a bit uneven, I’d say that many of the most popular are pretty damn good. Even better, the quality of the CONTENT is much better than the “lowest common denominator” crap that either commercial tv or radio stations think we want to view or listen to.
It’s funny, a couple years ago I was acquainted with an oldies radio personality, and he told me of his frustrations with the media. He had to constantly fight with management over the playlists, since they wanted to cut it down to only a certain number of songs, and play that list over and over and over again. The station had paid huge bucks for a few market analyses put out by PR firms and media consultants that told station management that this was the right thing to do to target an audience and sell product, and in typical corporate manner, if they paid big bucks for the results, then those results must be right, right? But the DJ’s audience told him over and over that they weren’t, and that more people would listen if the playlist was bigger.
According to the comments on the MacMikeNews post, this is what’s happening. People are fed up by the commercial offerings of commercial radio and TV. They don’t want to watch or listen to three minutes of nasty commercials for five minutes of tepid content. And even those who are technologically less sophisticated are picking up on the buzz. So they’re turning to podcasts to listen to in their cars on their commute, and they’re turning to podcasts to watch on TV, instead of tuning in to commercial fare.
Now, think about this. If the Telecomms succeed in scuttling Net Neutrality, they can sidetrack all the podcast content onto the dirt roads, in favor of their own crappy offerings that’ll be put on the fast track. End of threat.
Now, let’s take this a step further– the political scene. If any smaller and less well financed candidate were to be able to take their message directly to the people via podcast, that candidate, if he or she was charismatic and had a good platform, just might scuttle some big money big party candidate campaigning via traditional means. I’m sure the Republicans are shaking in their shoes at the very thought, and big media would stand to lose in the future, unless this trend were to be scuttled before it could take off.
One further step– what do artists and musicians need big media companies for if they can take their offerings directly to the people and CUT OUT THE MIDDLEMAN?
And another– You have a great product and you’re an inventor/small business person. Why do you need big media to sell it for you if you can get the word out via podcast?
Apparently there are some people in big Media who are paying attention. One of the more popular Podcasts is “Lost” from ABC TV.
How popular are podcasts? YOU be the judge, based on this small sampling of what’s out there.
- Yahoo Podcasts
- NPR Podcast Directory
- Podcast.com
- Podcast Alley
- Podcast.net
- Podcast Tag at Technorati
- Podcast Pickle
- del.icio.us Podcast Tag
- Odeo
To me this is damn near the whole issue in a nutshell– they stand to lose billions of dollars if the internet remains free. They will be cut out of the income loop if people don’t need them as a media delivery device. For years, they were the only game in town, and they want to stay that way. This is why the big Media and Telecomm Corps, along with their pals in Congress and the FCC, want to scuttle Net Neutrality.
Don’t let them.
Technorati Tags: Net Neutrality, Podcast, Commercial TV, Commercial Radio, Big Media, Telecommunications
October 1st, 2006 at 5:58 am
[…] Podcasting and the battle for Net Neutrality I just read a post over at MacMikeNews.com about Podcasting. . . . it really hit home why the Telecommunications Corps. and the Cable and Media outlets are scrambling to trash Net Neutrality. . . . They’re LOSING THEIR AUDIENCE. […]
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:27 am
Sure, ISPs could scuttle the traffic, but they could do that now, too. They don’t, and they won’t.
Honestly, too many people overlook the power of voting with your dollars. Your ISP blocks access to your favorite podcast? Call em up, tell em where to stick their service, tell em why, and call their competitor to sign up for their service. They’ll have access opened back up so fast you’ll hardly know it was gone, because management will realize that they’re losing customers, and that means losing revenue.
Check out another side of the net neutrality debate at my coalition’s website: http://handsoff.org
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:51 pm
You overlook one simple fact– people can’t vote with their wallets if they only have one or two choices for broadband. Your regulatory whore telecomms have made sure of that. Funny how you’re all shouting against regulation now when in the past it made you fat.
And for any of you reading this, Hands off the Internet is an astroturf group sponsored by the telecommunications industry. They do NOT have consumers’ best interests in mind.
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Hands Off The Internet makes no attempts to hide who our supporters are. You can see for yourself on our website: http://handsoff.org/hoti_docs/aboutus/members.shtml
There are more ways to access the internet than ever before. Multiple dialup options, broadband, DSL, even satellite connections–and that’s just for a PC.
Fact is, providers know better than to block access to websites. They know as well as you do that it would only take one blockage for every blogger, email list and message board out there to pick up the story and spread it across the country, and that ISP would forever be remembered as the first one to purposely block access to a website. It would be a PR nightmare, and would damage their brand’s reputation.
The ISPs are out to make money, just like any other company in any other industry. You don’t make money by smearing your own brand name.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:08 pm
You just refuse to admit that most people don’t have options for broadband. If you only have two options, and both have all the video traffic in the fast lane and have regular internet traffic in the slow lane, which blogs are we going to access to find out the truth? And how long will it take us to load those sites?
The Telecommunications Companies lied, cheated and stole from the US taxpayers before, to the tune of over 200 billion dollars, I’ll be damned if I’ll let them do it again.
The internet has worked WONDERFULLY with Net Neutrality in place. Why fix what isn’t broken?
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:48 am
You’re fooling yourself believing that the internet is currently neutral.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71012-0.html
“”I don’t think the internet has ever been perfectly equal or neutral,” says Khaled Nasr, a partner at venture-capital firm InterWest Partners. “There has always been some level of inequality.” Seconds Matt Tooley, CTO of broadband optimization firm CableMatrix: “I don’t think it’s as egalitarian as people would like to think it is.”"
That said, I think the internet works just fine right now. Where the problems will come into play is when we turn the controls of the internet over to Washington DC bureaucracy and expect them to be able to handle the extremely fast-paced development of the internet. It’s simply foolish to think that Washington will be able to keep up, nevermind to expect that we won’t see a continuing trend of what has happened with the FCC since the Janet Jackson debacle at the Super Bowl. Do you really want to go to sleep at night knowing that a flood of phone calls from some special interest group could shut down your favorite sites because said group finds the sites offensive? Turn the internet over to the government, and that may be just what you get.
Your first point, tiered internet, is a slightly different idea entirely. The idea behind it is that as more and more content is shared and streamed over the web, we will eventually reach a point of critical mass where all service is degraded. The proposal is to create separate “lanes” of traffic for different types of content. That way, when I go home and night and log into World of Warcraft and fire up my Ventrilo server, I don’t notice lag that would severely impact my enjoyment of said services, and when I open my email up, it might take a split second longer, something I’ll never notice, but can save precious bandwidth for the higher-demand services such as VOIP, online gaming, video streaming, etc. It would mean that my neighbor, who never uses the web for anything besides reading the newspaper and her email, could pay a little less for her service, and I could pay a bit more for more bandwidth and priority for my video streaming and gaming. As it stands now, she and I pay the same, which means at the end of the day, she’s subsidizing my internet access, and I’m getting a bit of a free ride off of her.
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:52 am
That’s funny, the network types I’ve read and communicated with have ALL said that prioritizing traffic the way you describe would actually eventually degrade the performance not just on the “slow lane” but also on that fast lane that your Telecomms are planning on charging a premium for.
Not only that but it might result in even higher levels of REGULATION from the FCC than just reinstating the Net Neutrality regulation. Here’s one example of that, and there are many others (probably a hundred or so just on slashdot, if I could dig them out):
Susan Crawford Blog
I’d also like to know, with all the lies the industry has been handing the US Taxpayer over the years, why should we believe you now?
Broadband Failures
Why is Congress considering such anti-consumer telecom bills?
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Well, let’s start with your first comment, about what prioritizing traffic would do to the internet. From Richard Bennett’s blog (he co-invented ethernet technology, and is here responding to some “facts” from Free Press that somewhat mirror your comments). I’ve moved them out of order a bit to address your comments. They’re all worth reading; link’s at the bottom.
“PSEUDO-FACT #3: Network discrimination will undermine innovation, investment and competition.
REAL FACT: All networks discriminate, that’s how they manage traffic and prevent overload. A richer service space frees innovation by providing it with the necessary support in the network for new things.
PSEUDO-FACT #4: Network discrimination will fundamentally alter the consumer’s online experience by creating fast and slow lanes for Internet content.
REAL FACT: The Internet has always had fast and slow lanes for content, that’s why the round-trip-time to the nearest Yahoo! portal is so much faster than for a generic web site. The two main tiers today separate the consumer Internet from the commercial one. COPE narrows the gap, and Free Press wants to increase it. Key point.
PSEUDO-FACT #1: Network Neutrality protections have existed for the entire history of the Internet.
REAL FACT: Actually, there is no legal precedent at all for the anti-QoS provision of the Neutrality regulations, and many commercial Internet customers use QoS today. Even the Internet2 Abilene network tried to use it.
PSEUDO-FACT #2: Network discrimination through a “tiered Internet” will severely curtail consumer choice.
REAL FACT: How can the expansion of service plans be a curtailment of choice? The QoS plan doesn’t affect web surfing, it’s something that opens broadband up to alternate uses, as the Cable network has for ten years with Triple Play.”
http://bennett.com/blog/index.php/archives/2006/06/12/facts-vs-fictions/
By the way, on the topic of competition, Scott Cleland on his blog has made some interesting arguments worth a read:
http://www.precursorblog.com/node/175
http://www.precursorblog.com/node/178
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:44 pm
I’m so glad you posted these links. It shows exactly how you’re trying to spin this, but the FACT is this– Most people don’t have more than one or two choices of broadband. Period. You keep talking about choice and market forces. Yet most US residents have only one or two choices for broadband. That is the FACT. And it’s really the only important fact. Until there is real competition then network neutrality is a necessity just to keep the Telecomms “honest” (now there’s an oxymoron for you.)
That push poll Your Pet Senator Stevens has been crowing about that was paid for by Verizon brought that out bigtime, even though it was meant to show that people wanted lots of free tv instead of the evils of government regulation.
Turning the Internet into the Home Shopping Network and Infomercials isn’t my idea of a good choice.
Which brings us back to the point of this post– PODCASTING and Big Media’s LOSS OF THEIR AUDIENCE. Your continued visits makes me realize that I must have hit a nerve really hard to make you work this diligently to try to get your so-called side of the story down here. If network neutrality is voted in you won’t be able to control what happens. You won’t be able to control CONTENT, which is what this is all about. And it’s what it’s been about since the beginning.
October 4th, 2006 at 10:14 am
[…] I’ve had some of the Hands Off Trolls pushing their snake oil on this blog’s comments, and it amazes me that they’re still using “Competition” and “Enhancement” as their way of pushing their odious brand of bull manure. I did an informal poll of all my friends and internet friends and the results were pretty much what Net Neutrality folks have been saying right along. Most people only have one or two choices for broadband. So if their one broadband choice is discriminating against their VOIP provider, what are these folks going to do? Who are they going to switch to? The Hands off trolls are right that people want choices. I just don’t think they want to hear what those choices are that people want. […]
October 4th, 2006 at 10:16 am
Competition varies regionally, so it’s really hard to nail down that issue. Where I live, I have 2 choices for cable broadband that I’m aware of, 2 options for DSL that I’m aware of, at least two that I’m aware of for satellite internet, and several options for dialup. I wouldn’t exactly call that limited–I have less selection on pizza delivery and I live in the suburb of a large city. Granted, if you live in rural America, your mileage may vary, just like it will for most services–I highly doubt that your options in Temple, Texas will compare to your options in downtown Houston for almost ANY service, including internet service.
As for Senator Stevens, he is a prime example of exactly why we do not want Congress legislating the internet. I’m sure you’ve seen his nonsense about how he believes the internet to work. Do we really want people like him writing legislation that will forever change the way the internet works? I know I certainly do not.
As for podcasting–I think it’s great. I subscribe to several myself. I’m not sure where you’re making the link to big media, however. Moreover, I don’t control the internet. I don’t control the content that appears on the internet anymore than you do–and probably less, as you’ve taken the steps to create your own blog and express your own opinions; more power to you. No one’s looking to control, censor, or change the content online–with the possible exception of some folks in Washington.
As for my “diligence”? Frankly, I appreciate a good debate, and I’m happy to have the chance to hold an intelligent dialogue on this matter–too often people resort to censorship when it comes to my opinions (ironic, isn’t it?), so it’s a treat when someone engages me in a discussion.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
LOL! I can’t say that didn’t tempt me a bit. Who wouldn’t be tempted to delete or censor a dissenting view? None of us are saints, least of all me. However, that wouldn’t truly serve the interest of this site, this blog, nor this debate, since the debate is in part about the potential for censorship online with the death of Net Neutrality.
Since you seem to have a wealth of choice in broadband provider compared to most people in the US, you may not realize that your thinking has been colored by that. I live in the Delaware Valley, and though my particular large town has more than one choice for broadband (I have four, two of which go through the same dsl switching station, and I chose against Verizon) most of my family and friends who live outside of town do not. They have one choice, an oversubscribed cable provider whose service has never been good and whose service during peak times is now often slower than dialup. Satellite doesn’t seem to be as available in those areas as it should be, and those few who have tried the one vendor who has offered it in a few of those areas have described outages of fairly significant duration every time there’s a thunder storm, something that is common three seasons out of the year in this region. They’ve also told me that the satellite company has no conception of what the term “customer service” means. You can’t very well consider a “service” to be one when it’s only up about half the time.
We’re not talking the heart of the Rocky Mountains, or any other remote area here. We’re talking a semi-rural area that’s approximately 50 miles from Manhattan as the crow flies, and is in fact an area enjoyed by Manhattan commuters.
Re who wishes to control content– okay, the “you” meant the people you seem to be speaking for, namely your friendly supporters in the Telecomms and Cable Companies. Media is being redefined by these many mergers and acquisitions. I don’t think the best interests of local people are served when control is taken out of the area. One size does not fit all.
There have already been problems. The State of Washington’s VPN could not easily be accessed through Comcast shortly after Net Neutrality was loosened, and employees had to be switched to another ISP.
As both a surfer and a content provider who makes my living pretty much solely off the web I can’t afford to trust the Telecomms to not screw me, especially given their past track record.
October 4th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Heh. Rocky Mountains, providers, and thunderstorms….
Well, let me tell y’all a story. I live 40 miles from a fairly significant pop base in southern Utah. Folks in town have a number of options, from 12 local dial-up providers, to several hundred non-local providers (all with free connect numbers) to almost a dozen broadband options, including cable, dsl, satellite, etc.
I, 40 miles away, have the following: 2 local dialup providers, who charge $40 per month for very limited access hours; about 30 non-local dialup providers who provide abysmally slow connections but free access numbers; untold numbers of non-free non-local abysmally slow dialup providers; and satellite broadband from WildBlue.
That’s it. I’m a web developer/designer/manager. So I’m paying WildBlue $50 a month for satband. Sounds good, right?
Get real. I live at 7000 feet in the mountains of southern Utah. We have a minimum of NINE MONTHS of iffy weather. Any time the weather’s anything but bright and shiny, I have spotty access. Like today, when we had a major “weather event” (read heavy rain, high winds, etc. due to a depression off SoCal).
So what to do? I have to pay for dialup through a non-local provider - the most reasonable one I can find - so that I can run my business even when the weather is bad.
Contrast this with most rural areas of Canada, where broadband (satband generally) costs about $12 a month, and they somehow manage to not have access problems even when the weather turns to shit. (Heh - yeah, I have friends in Alberta, BC, and Ontario…. all living farther out from “population bases” than I do…. guess what? They have access no matter what….)
I’m pretty sure that “Hands Off The Internet” doesn’t have MY interests at heart…. and nor do any of the bigbusiness folks like Verizon, Comcast, etc. And if s/he was really interested in “hands off the internet” s/he wouldn’t be spouting the sort of fog that the telecoms vomit on a regular basis.
October 11th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Hey, HandsOff, I don’t know whether you’ve seen The Dynamic Platforms Standards Project yet, but if you haven’t you should give it a read. First of all, the folks that put it together read like a list out of Who’s Who in America, very impressive creds. Secondly the technical information contained within is a very cogent analysis of what the internet is and what it is not. What you’ve been describing is what it is not. I hope very much that Congress pays attention.