"Well for content that is ultimately true but every time a bigger newer pipe comes along there is also a market in who can be the first ones to get it?"
Agreed: there's another market in transport.
The question is whether we want to allow manipulation of the market in transport to create artificial scarcity of content. By creating scarcities, some content may never get to market at all, in some areas. Or, it may be practically unusable: like watching the Super Bowl at 56k.
To illustrate, imagine that you and everyone else is plugged into fibre. All available content can reach you, at a reasonable tariff: say, $40/month.
Then it's a free market. The only limitation on what content you see, hear or read is your decision.
The content provider (not carrier) can set what price you pay, over and above the transport tariff.
This fundamentally changes the economics of many existing practices in North America. That's the disruptive potential.
So instead, status quo players intervene at every level, through active intervention, delay, obfuscation, advertising, lobbying, and litigation to prevent creation of a free market in content.
Among the status quo players are transport providers. As soon as they relinquish control of content, they become simple bit carriers, competing in their own free market. Then, the only differentiators are QOS, and price: not content.
Their job is to provide capacity (not scarcity) and quality transmission. If they want to play the content game, then they should start making movies and sitcoms.
IMO, anyway...
Jim |
