Friday, August 13, 2010

How They Might 'Nudge' Bloggers Out of Existence

The analysis below was written  as a comment by regular EPJ commenter, eFinancial, to my post which speculates on what Rupert Murdoch might be up to. I move the comment here to the top so that it may gain more exposure, as it is imperative to understand how the elite are attempting to neutralize the openness and non-mainstream views that circulate on the  internet:


Murdoch is persuing the old business model of the newspapers with new tech and a "nudge" from govt. regulation. This model is to control supply and limit access. I wouldn't hold out much hope of this succeeding given the tremendous capacity of the internet to facilitate competition, except for "net neutrality." If this becomes the law of the land, it will "nudge" content providers toward video which uses a lot of bandwidth at the expense of print. Bandwidth capacity is not infinite in the short-term and if video dominates, print will likely suffer. This might reduce bloggers to email status. In addition, since video is a bandwidth hog, the internet might end up with fewer content providers. Certainly fewer than the millions of websites and bloggers that now exist. This reduction in supply might make it easier to monetize (charge a fee). It would certainly invite govt. regulation to allocate the "limited" bandwidth. This is similar also to the ABC, CBS, NBC dominance of the airwaves pre-cable TV with the excuse that there simply wasn't room for more.
For those who want to read their news, Murdoch's Ipad might become one of a few outlets. Beware of "net neutrality."

4 comments:

  1. @eFinancial

    Can you amplify a bit more on why net-neutrality will 'nudge' content providers toward video?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  2. RW,

    Pre-empting eFinancial's response here, my guess is this:

    "Net Neutrality" is a price-fixing movement which seeks to force, via regulation, internet service providers to charge the same fee for all data coming over their wires. As video is more intensive than data/words to transmit, but would ostensibly be priced the same, it will choke out print and prevent the economization of bandwidth that would otherwise limit some video at the expense of print.

    Let's see if I have that right.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes - my understanding of "net neutrality" is that it will force carriers to charge the same rates to all users and I believe this could result in a crowding out of non-video data. However those in support of "net neutrality" argue quite the opposite.

    It has become politicized with commercial websites favoring "net neutrality" and carriers opposing it and favoring a two-tier pricing system. I think the key is that the carriers benefit from maximizing the number of end users who appear uninterested in limiting the number of websites they can visit. On the other hand, the commercial websites would prefer to limit their competition and have all traffic directed to them.

    So as usual the political name for this movement, "net neutrality" means something quite different than one might expect.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Net Neutrality" is a price-fixing movement which seeks to force, via regulation, internet service providers to charge the same fee for all data coming over their wires. As video is more intensive than data/words to transmit, but would ostensibly be priced the same, it will choke out print and prevent the economization of bandwidth that would otherwise limit some video at the expense of print."

    Yes, I believe you have it right. It is the reverse of Gresham's Law, 'bad money drives out good money'. In this case, video, which is more potent, more expensive, and more bandwidth intensive, would drive out print, which is much cheaper, has less impact, and uses far less bandwidth.

    I believe most Net Neutrality proponents do NOT see (or do not WANT to see) the consequences of this policy. Most people I know who want this are Left leaning. They think they are 'sticking it to the Man' (i.e. - business/corporations). It is fashionable to expound this. Much like owning an iPad. Whether they actually believe in it, well, is another matter.

    ReplyDelete