Comments on: Comcast-NBC: The Road Toward Control Over What We Create http://mediactive.com/2009/12/03/the-road-toward-control/ Creating a User's Guide to Democratized Media Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:27:01 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Dan Gillmor http://mediactive.com/2009/12/03/the-road-toward-control/#comment-1078 Dan Gillmor Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:56:02 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=1063#comment-1078 No, not illegal. Time Warner runs cable franchises in several cities... No, not illegal. Time Warner runs cable franchises in several cities…

]]> By: Alexander Goristal http://mediactive.com/2009/12/03/the-road-toward-control/#comment-1076 Alexander Goristal Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:01:19 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=1063#comment-1076 The idea that Comcast or a conglomeration of cable and content companies can ever "own the internet" is preposterous. As has already amply been demonstrated, any content delivery controls put in place can be circumvented. The issue is the cost of the control to the consumer vs. the difficulty to that consumer of using the technology required for circumvention. More restrictions = greater cost = circumvention tech made more attractive & easier to use (the latter results from increased incentives to the creators of circumvention tech). That is a battle that the cable/content mavens are unlikely to win over the long term, just as RIAA and its ilk have been losing that same war on other fronts. However, there is a market problem expressed here. That is that (as always) government regulation is used as a club to batter competition. The cable companies are at a drastic competitive disadvantage vs satellite distribution because they need to run cable to new customers, satellite providers need only provide a dish and receiver. Regulation (in the form of tax structure) is the only reason that the cable companies still exist. If you want a market on the internet that is customer-driven, the best strategy is to oppose all government regulation. Government, stripped of its facade, consists solely of a monopoly on violence, and that monopoly belongs to whoever can buy it (by bribing politicians and bureaucrats) or seize it. Better not to have it at all than to trust that only those who are sympathetic to our individual interests will wield that power. -AleG anarchy means "no rulers", not "no rules" The idea that Comcast or a conglomeration of cable and content companies can ever “own the internet” is preposterous. As has already amply been demonstrated, any content delivery controls put in place can be circumvented. The issue is the cost of the control to the consumer vs. the difficulty to that consumer of using the technology required for circumvention. More restrictions = greater cost = circumvention tech made more attractive & easier to use (the latter results from increased incentives to the creators of circumvention tech). That is a battle that the cable/content mavens are unlikely to win over the long term, just as RIAA and its ilk have been losing that same war on other fronts. However, there is a market problem expressed here. That is that (as always) government regulation is used as a club to batter competition. The cable companies are at a drastic competitive disadvantage vs satellite distribution because they need to run cable to new customers, satellite providers need only provide a dish and receiver. Regulation (in the form of tax structure) is the only reason that the cable companies still exist. If you want a market on the internet that is customer-driven, the best strategy is to oppose all government regulation. Government, stripped of its facade, consists solely of a monopoly on violence, and that monopoly belongs to whoever can buy it (by bribing politicians and bureaucrats) or seize it. Better not to have it at all than to trust that only those who are sympathetic to our individual interests will wield that power.

-AleG
anarchy means “no rulers”, not “no rules”

]]> By: Tyler Hurst http://mediactive.com/2009/12/03/the-road-toward-control/#comment-1072 Tyler Hurst Sat, 05 Dec 2009 05:34:48 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=1063#comment-1072 Um, isn't it illegal to own both the bandwidth and the content? How is this okay? We freaked out about steroids in baseball, yet this is no big deal? Um, isn’t it illegal to own both the bandwidth and the content? How is this okay? We freaked out about steroids in baseball, yet this is no big deal?

]]> By: Karoli http://mediactive.com/2009/12/03/the-road-toward-control/#comment-1071 Karoli Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:05:34 +0000 http://mediactive.com/?p=1063#comment-1071 Indeed. I wrote on this a few weeks ago, too. Not only will they own the Internet, they'll own a significant body of content, artists, and live performance venues alongside the ticket vendors via their insertion into the Ticketmaster deal. It is absolutely the media consolidation issue of our time. http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/11/18/comcast-all-your-media-are-belong-to-us-your-internets-and-your-politics-too/ Indeed. I wrote on this a few weeks ago, too. Not only will they own the Internet, they’ll own a significant body of content, artists, and live performance venues alongside the ticket vendors via their insertion into the Ticketmaster deal. It is absolutely the media consolidation issue of our time.

http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/11/18/comcast-all-your-media-are-belong-to-us-your-internets-and-your-politics-too/

]]>