Google/Verizon – Wireless is NOT Different
August 13, 2010 - (0 comments)
Many of us on the left side of the net neutrality debate, myself included, have gone more or less postal over the Google/Verizon announcement and its implications for the future of the open Internet.
Leading up to Monday’s “legislative framework proposal” from the two companies, I read, and was sent, a number of different speculations, including the interesting Robert Cringely piece in the Sunday NYT on data center cooperation between the two players. I still like the idea that Google is actually trying to better leverage YouTube in the event that the sleeping giants of media (Fox, Time-Warner, Viacom, NBC/U, Disney et.al.) decide to wake up and get intelligent about how to monetize their content in the new media world (instead of complaining about copyright and piracy).
The wackiest lob I’ve seen from the sidelines is the National Black Chamber of Commerce applauding the announcement ‘cuz they think this is somehow going to create jobs. LOL. OMG – how wrong they are! It’s amazing to me how people really just don’t get the ‘Net.
Digging into the actual announcement, the Trojan horse is this idea that somehow “wireless” is a different medium and needs to be treated differently from “wireline.” This is the rotten Easter egg in an otherwise smart-sounding proposal. Six out of their seven defined concerns – on the face of it – are right-on:
1. Equal access to content. They want to strengthen this in light of the Comcast decision. Check!
2. Prohibition of discriminatory practices against users, or to stifle competition. No prioritization of Internet traffic. This was the biggie that we were all concerned about. So: no blocking or degrading of content, no favoring particular traffic over other traffic. Check!
3. Enforceable transparency rules, for both wireline and wireless services. Both for consumers and for provider clients. Cool! Check!
4. Creating enforceable consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards with penalties and a complaint-driven review process. This also addresses some of the sponginess of the Comcast decision. Sounds good: Check!
5. Offer additional “differentiated online services.” This is pretty fuzzy and airy-fairy to me, but basically they’re reassuring everyone that they want to remain encouraging and supportive of innovation. Yada yada. Check!
6. Broadband access for all Americans! Sure – win-win for everyone. This is the core FCC policy deployment debate. No-brainer. Check!
But now we come to the final position, and this is the smelly one (actually, it’s buried in the number 6 position, where it’s hard to pick it out if you’re skimming the paper)…
Read the proposal. What they’re saying is: “You read and like the 6 other proposals? Well, forget about them because they don’t apply to wireless (except for the transparency ideas).”
Wrong. Wireless is just another version of “cable” or “DSL” or dial-up. It’s a way to get to the Internet. While the market in wireless access may be different commercially from the market for wired access, you have to separate out the marketing from the medium. This is a debate over access to content. How can you differentiate the Internet content that you interact with over your iPhone vs. the Internet content that you interact with over your laptop? It’s the same Internet!
This is like saying that the burger you get at the drive-through can be different from the burger you get at the counter.
I continue to have a very bad feeling about all this…
Google: Don’t be evil!
August 7, 2010 - (0 comments)
I’ve been pretty exercised over the reports that Google is about to cut a deal with Verizon that would change the Internet as we know it by allowing bandwidth providers (Verizon, AT&T, Time-Warner, Comcast etc.) to create tiers of service that would favor big/rich content providers over smaller/independent content providers – thus dumping them into what Moveon.org calls the “Internet slow lane.”
If you are happy with what you are seeing on TV, or at the movie theater, or even on YouTube, then I encourage you to sit back, do nothing and trash this email. If you have more questions, email me.
It is surprising that Google is taking this apparently anti-“Net Neutrality” position considering their previously stated position, and recent endorsement of the FCC’s Third Way policy. I personally believe the Verizon deal is a real and direct threat to the future of the open Internet. While it may seem like innocent pricing practices (“simply pay more to get more bandwidth”), it is really another way that providers with more cash will be able to “get above the noise” and provide faster-loading content that will squeeze out everyone else, discouraging independent creators/providers, limiting competition, and reducing consumer choice.
It is no coincidence that this development comes at a time when traditional media distribution channels are being challenged by the open and nearly universal access that the Internet provides to everyone.
If you are inspired and encouraged by the prospect of more independent storytellers finding a viable and sustainable opportunity to be heard around the world, then I encourage you to take a stand here, and to start by signing the Moveon petition below. I’ve included some links to the current press/blog reports/commentary, and some background information as well.
Here’s the Moveon link:
http://pol.moveon.org/google/?r_by=22383-315774-Xeqc8Rx&rc=mailto
Net Neutrality FAQ: http://www.savetheinternet.com/frequently-asked-questions?gclid=CMXdhLfpp6MCFRL4iAodKjU64A
NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html
HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/google-verizon-deal-the-e_b_671617.html
Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40668.html
Spreading the Digital Media Gospel in China
November 20, 2009 - (0 comments)
I spent the last 12 days of October in China as a guest of the Animaiton School at Communications University of China (C.U.C.), participating on the short film jury of their 4th annual AniWow International Student Film Festival, conducting a master class for students on the digital pipeline, and addressing a forum they organized on media education.
Additionally, they asked me to deliver a short speech at the opening ceremony of the Festival, and I thought I would post it below:
I have been asked to briefly say a few words on behalf of my fellow visitors, and thought I would take this opportunity to say a little bit about the future. The young filmmakers whose works we are going to see this week are about to enter a vastly different world from the one that many of us here entered a generation ago.
It is no surprise to anyone in this room that we are in the midst of a seismic shift in the art, practice and business of media and entertainment. These changes are greater than any previous evolutionary transition that we have witnessed before, whether it was the advent of sound, color, television or home entertainment.
Many of us are looking at these developments and trying to make sense of them. In service to furthering our ongoing conversation, and our unfolding understanding, I would offer today for your consideration three new paradigms from which to contemplate this new era.
First, rather than thinking in terms of Movies, TV, Video or the Internet, I would suggest we think in terms of Platforms and Screens. Platforms and Screens shift the perspective away from that of the Content Provider (the Broadcaster, Producer or Distributor), to looking at media from the experience of the End User: the consumer of content. From this perspective, we are receiving content in a number of different hardware and software venues – from the small screens of our phones and iPods, to the medium size screens of our laptop and desktop computers, to the large screens in our living rooms and bedrooms, to the theatrical screens in our cinemas, and in our stadiums.
In a world of Platforms and Screens, the sequential “windowed” distribution patterns that we have seen rigidly controlled by the Content Providers are giving way to a simultaneous availability of content that can be played or consumed at the discretion and under the control of the End User at the time of their choosing.
The second paradigm is the concept of Transmedia. This term was first coined, as I understand it, by MIT comparative media professor Henry Jenkins in his 2006 book Convergence Culture. Transmedia is defined as a narrative work that is made available on multiple Platforms. Further, as distinguished from so-called “derivative” works such as sequels or remakes, or “ancillary” works such as toys, games or books, Transmedia properties all add something to one another. Each version available on the different Platforms presents a complimentary narrative experience to the user. Taken as a whole, a Transmedia property creates a synergistic world, where the user can experience and interact with the property in different ways. Indeed, the user can even add to the content, and that User-generated content may become an integral part of the overall Transmedia work.
Transmedia changes the relationship between the content creator and the content consumer (or End User) from a one-on-one “binary” relationship, to a multi-point “network” relationship.
The third paradigm would be to anticipate a new era of content globalization. Over the last century, the U.S. has been the global driver of media storytelling and media culture. We figured out a language of cinema, and applied that language, refined that language and cloned that language to create movies, short films, cartoons, TV comedies, dramas and game shows, as well as music videos and computer games. But the world now knows that language. Indeed, it was artists and visionaries from around the globe who came to the U.S. over the last century to lend their talents to shaping that vision in collaboration with American filmmakers.
Now, everyone knows this language. With communication around the world more instantaneous and more pervasive than ever before imagined, everyone, everywhere not only has the means to create content through digital production technology and distribute it instantaneously to the entire world, they also have the same understanding of how this narrative language works, and can feel confident in their ability to compete globally for their voices to be heard. It is no coincidence that universities all around the world are adding media studies programs to their curricula, and that many countries, including and especially China, are providing serious incentives to spur the development of local media content businesses.
So this is the world that I believe we are handing over to the young filmmakers we will be celebrating this week, and to their colleagues and counterparts all across the planet. As someone who welcomes change, I think this is the most exciting time I have ever experienced in this business, and I am looking forward to being amazed and delighted by the new stories and storytelling forms that we will no doubt be seeing in the very near future.
Thank you!
Control vs. Collaboration – Siren Song of the Old School
August 21, 2009 - (0 comments)
Don’t be tempted to revert to what worked a generation ago. The past is full of lessons, but reviving old models to address new problems isn’t one of them.
The Economist ran an article earlier this year to the effect that companies may be considering a return to a Vertical Integration model to insure that supply chains remain steady. With many suppliers in danger of, or actually going out of business, companies are jumping in to buy up sources of parts and raw materials.
Bad idea. Take your eye off the ball of your core business, and you risk losing ground to competitors who remain fully focused on the marketplace you’re competing for.
We live in a networked world. Just because your supplier is shaky doesn’t mean the whole network is going down. Maybe there are other suppliers. Maybe you don’t have to throw the baby out with the bath water and assume their role.
According to The Economist, companies are fearful of losing control over their supply chains. This is typical reactive behavior: the tendency to pull back to what used to work in the face of change. And it is bad tactics.
Control is the key word here. Control is illusory. Go ahead: reach into the jar and try to grab all the marbles and pull them out in one handful. You can’t do it.
Companies need to surrender control as they promote collaboration. The article goes on to discuss Toyota’s strategic approach to supply chain management. They invest in working with their suppliers to insure that they are stable over the long term, developing working relationships that do not include ownership or control, but promote efficiency and mutual win-win results.
This is having your cake and eating it to.
STEM -> STEAM!
August 13, 2009 - (0 comments)
I’m heading to Columbus,OH to consult with the Chair and Faculty of the Media Studies Division at Columbus College of Art & Design. Like many art schools, CCAD is energized and inspired by how Digital has opened up opportunities both creatively and professionally, and is very smartly devoting time and attention to staying at the leading edge of this wave.
CCAD’s president, Denny Griffith, recently offered a commentary in the Columbus Post Dispatch that summarizes perfectly the dilemma that many academic leaders understand perfectly well, but that State, Federal and Industry officials understand poorly, if at all.
This is the STEM question. STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. It’s an acronym that is supposed to prioritize the U.S. education system towards making us more competitive in the global marketplace. Unfortunately, STEM ignores what is very arguably the single strongest component in maintaining the U.S.’ competitiveness, and that is the “A” for Arts. Two years ago, the Conference Board published a study called Ready To Innovate, which demonstrated that more and more companies are looking for skill sets in their new employees that are much more Arts/Creativity-related than Science/Math-related. Companies want workers who can brainstorm, problem-solve, collaborate creatively, and contribute/communicate new ideas. And, interestingly, the study shows that there is a dearth of well-prepared creative workers.
“STEM” should be amended to “STEAM,” an idea that has been kicking around with many people for a few years now (including Griffith), and became a key discussion point of the Americans for the Arts 2007 National Policy Roundtable that I attended at Sundance. (Read the summary report from that conference here).
The bottom line here is that we must integrate the Arts into everything we do, from education to commerce. Ideas and solutions pop into the spaces created in our consciousness by the alert relaxation that happens when we create and make stuff (dare I say “make art”…). In the fitness program metaphor for good Business Development, think of the Arts as the Yoga component.
Remember those silly IBM commercials with people lying on the floor in dark conference rooms “ideating?” They were made to seem so stupid and ridiculous. But men in short sleeved white shirts with pocket protectors aren’t making it happen, either! Remember IBM founder Tom Watson’s famous admonition? “Think!” Well, OK. I’m thinking. Now what? How about “Create!”