Jay, you ask if the FCC could force AOL to permit others to allow ad content on their clickstream? I think that digital ad insertion is being done through various web based schemes already, on a fee per click basis. Entities like AOL have deals with 'net advertising companies to facilitate this. But I suppose you are referring to independent providers superimposing their own ad content in a free manner, independent of AOL's involvement and approval. That's a little, actually a lot, different, I believe, and would require some more thought on my part to formulate an oppinion. Others here may already be versed in the "law" on this matter, if said laws have been written yet.
"IOW, if we project the open access argument into domains other than pipes and boxes, where do we end up?"
I do wish the search function here worked better. About six months ago I discussed another aspect of this with Dave H. and others, in a slightly modified way. I had asked the question about whether the last mile "facilities based providers", namely the ILECs and the MSOs (and now the CLECs and ISPs I suppose should be added to this list), would be permitted at some point to superimpose content onto other ISP streams. In this instance I am referring to box intervention at the DSLAM and cable operator CMTS level to read and write packets.
And on the murkier, if not darker, side, whether they would be allowed to filter for content at the packet level for the purposes of monitoring usage, and gathering demographic information. Indeed, could the government themselves impose such requirments for the purposes of allowing a means for law enforcement the ability to perform surveillance on so called undesirables? Dum dee dum dum...
This is not too far fetched, if you think about it. LM providers already read information in a tacit and passive way, simply to manage the flows during normal delivery processes. What's to stop them from going the next step, delving into the content (indeed, at some point web switching technologies used for acceleration purposes demand this), as opposed to simply reading traffic protocol headers for routing and forwarding purposes?
While it may not be ethical for the last milers and other 'net infrastructure players to do this on the sly, it remains a capability that can be exploited by legitimate business interests --and law enforcement- given that the parties involved agree to it, and that such practices pass the rules of law. And on the law enforecment side, this is almost certain to be done, regardless of such criteria, by those guys and gals who wear the shades.
But the ordinary surfer's clickstream itself, as you call it, I believe is otherwise sovereign to the contracted entities. I could be wrong, and would very much like to read more about this.
Also, your original question also deserves further discussion. Are the clickstreams solely the "property" or legal right of the dominant provider holding the subscription from the end user, or can spare capacity within those streams be distributed, or ultimately adjudicated, to others who have a pizza to sell? Interesting questions.
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
