3 posts tagged “network”

As technology provides new platforms for video distribution, advertisers should start to ask the same question - why does sending my data over these (broadcast) pipes cost so much more than these other (internet, DVD, etc) pipes? In a way, channels 7,9, and 10 are a lot like the mobile phone operators, in that their market position allows them to charge premiums (in this case for advertising) because up until now they have been the only game in town. New platforms will allow advertisers to think strategically about where they put their money:

$XXXXX = the Australian broadcasting rights to a season of a prime time show.
$XXXXXXX = how much the show brings in from advertising per season.
$XXXXXXX = Unilever advertising spend (per year).

New strategies may involve buying the rights to a show and distributing it yourself. Myer could buy the Australian rights to Desperate Housewives and distribute the show over the internet with just a Myer watermark and maybe a quick 'top and tail'. (See "Piracy is Good?" video) Johnson and Johnson (Clearasil) could buy Home and Away, chop it into segments and distribute it over mobile phones.

Alternately, advertisers may want to build their own show instead of an ad. Ferrari could build their own informational car show to appeal to enthusiasts.

These may be terrible ideas, but they illustrate the point that the market for content will go from being a simple linear chain in which channels buy shows and sell advertising space to a multi polar world in which different companies may invest in content for a multitude of different reasons and at varying price points.

The fact that Net Neutrality has become an issue is itself quite interesting. It seems like it could be the first real attempt of the technology companies to enlist public support to scare off prejudicial changes to their regulatory environment. I'm not sure what I'm basing that on, or whether it is right but a hint that I'm on the right track is that no one is talking about solutions. At some point someone will need to build more capacity -  hence the intractable debate - but something can be done in the meantime to make the internet more efficient.

One of the main issues is 'network shaping'. Using this process, an ISP or teleco (often the same entity) would be able to detect certain types of network traffic (bittorrent, youtube video etc) and slow those bits down while giving priority to other bits which carry their own proprietary content. Some reports suggest this is already happening to varying degrees.

The rationale for such behaviour is that there is not enough room on internet backbones for everything. New services are very bandwidth hungry and are chewing up all the space - so it makes sense to build some intelligence into the network so that it can discriminate between bits and everyone still gets their email.

The problem with this, is that it goes against one of the founding principles of the internet - the idea that the network should be dumb, and that innovation should happen at the edges. One of the reasons that there has been an explosion of new businesses and services on the internet is due to the fact that anyone can build a website, plug it in and it will work - there is no need to ask permission from anyone. Contrast this to the dearth of new services on mobile phone networks where a new service would need to be enabled by a central authority.

So, assuming this bandwidth crisis is real - what can be done?

1. Internet pricing plans should be changed to reflect the realities of how expensive bits are to get to the user. Stop calling plans 'unlimited' when they are not. If it costs more at certain times of the day, have that reflected in the pricing. If it costs more to send big chunks of information very quickly, allow the pricing to discriminate between this type of use and slower transfers.

2. Give users more control over how they use their own bandwidth. A lot of the services that the telcos are complaining about do not need to be sent at peak usage times in big fast chunks. An RSS feed that is drawing down a video podcast every day could easily be programmed to hit the server at a specific 'off peak' time or to download the file over the course of 10 hours rather than 10 minutes. The end result to the user is the same - they get the file in time to go to work the next day - but the changes to the network if this were adopted en-masse would be huge.

I think:

There are some really innovative elements. In particular the fact that it is hooked up to a cellular network so you always have access to download a book but that you DON'T pay a subscription model for the cellular connection. In a way it points to the proliferation of great new services and ideas that could eventuate if the network providers were forced to go 'open' and allow any device to run on their networks.

It is ugly. People have praised the great interface, but to me it looks ridiculously clunky and inelegant. The idea is that you conserve power by making the big screen non-interactive, but that is such a step backward in UI. The keyboard in particular is an odd choice - it takes up so much space in something that is meant to be a 'book' replacement. "Touch" would be a much better fit - slide your finger across the screen to 'flip' to the next page.

The premise of being able to carry all your books with you at once is cool. For a minority of the market it will be cool enough to require them to carry a dedicated device. Possibly a bigger opportunity lies in increasing the screen size, resolution etc of an iPhone type device to the point where e-books become easily readable. That way you're not carrying an extra device, it comes with built in access to the internet (and can thus purchase new books on the fly). The drawback may be that it needs to be charged more often, but you're used to charging your phone anyway.