Right on the heels of a report that 80% of the public believes that internet access is a human right, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) laid out a plan to increase not only the availability of broadband access, but the speed of broadband access.
In addition to this, the plan also pushes to free up more bandwidth in the 'airwave spectrum' to allow better internet coverage and higher speeds for mobile devices.
While some may look at this as a "consumerism" move, it actually shows an adjustment to the incoming of "Millennial's", or the 2nd half of "Gen. Y". As the largest group of people since the baby boomers move into the professional and career realm, this generation has the dubious distinction of not knowing what a Card Catalog is - and why should they?
They were brought up in front of a computer (or a portable device), not the TV (like Gen X). If the first half of Gen. Y was knocked for the "Everyone gets a trophy" mentality that brought about a "I deserve it no matter what" work ethic, Millennials believe "I should have it all the time, no matter where I am".
Of course, this begs the question of how will the expansion of the online playing field affect business - specifically the dissemination of information. Think of this tid-bit: The FCC's plan requests the voluntary donation of Broadcast TV spectrum space to make this happen.
And if that doesn't work: "The FCC said it would leave open the possibility of taking action if broadcasters do not voluntarily give up spectrum."
Monday, March 15, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
Paying for online news - will it work?
It's been in the works for, well, since the internet started really. News sources, especially subscription based services such as newspapers and magazines, have been walking a double-edged sword when it comes to their online strategy:
- To be competitive, they need to offer their content online,
- But to remain a viable (profitable) business model, they need to be paid for their content
But today, some big names in the newspaper industry are announcing plans to charge for their online content.
The pay-for-content model in the online world has been relegated to more niche-industries where the content has a more 'evergreen' quality, so you pay for it and the value of your content purchase is still viable (albeit perhaps lowered) the next day.
But news content has 2 problems in the charge-for-content model:
- It has an expiration date of right-now, so today's news has no value tomorrow.
- News content is harvested from the public domain, so once it is released even to a single person, it can be re-sent (hopefully with source credit) to anyone.
Media Big-Guns are looking to models such as the Wall Street Journal, who charges for visitors to have full access to all online articles. But the WSJ is a very niche newspaper whose news has value regardless of what city you live in.
Can that model be implemented for local online news sources? Well, anything can be implemented, but believing that revenue from charging for online access to local news will resurrect the newspaper industry would be a mistake. And in my opinion, would be shooting the only good foot newspapers have left.
- To be competitive, they need to offer their content online,
- But to remain a viable (profitable) business model, they need to be paid for their content
But today, some big names in the newspaper industry are announcing plans to charge for their online content.
The pay-for-content model in the online world has been relegated to more niche-industries where the content has a more 'evergreen' quality, so you pay for it and the value of your content purchase is still viable (albeit perhaps lowered) the next day.
But news content has 2 problems in the charge-for-content model:
- It has an expiration date of right-now, so today's news has no value tomorrow.
- News content is harvested from the public domain, so once it is released even to a single person, it can be re-sent (hopefully with source credit) to anyone.
Media Big-Guns are looking to models such as the Wall Street Journal, who charges for visitors to have full access to all online articles. But the WSJ is a very niche newspaper whose news has value regardless of what city you live in.
Can that model be implemented for local online news sources? Well, anything can be implemented, but believing that revenue from charging for online access to local news will resurrect the newspaper industry would be a mistake. And in my opinion, would be shooting the only good foot newspapers have left.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Internet access considered a basic human "right" by 80% of people
According to Wiki, the basic human rights definition includes:
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
And in the information age, that now spans into the internet.
Internet access now considered to be a basic human right by 80% of people worldwide according to a recent poll.
When put into perspective with American rights protected by the Constitution, it makes sense - the very first amendment prohibits Congress from making laws impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech and infringing on the freedom of the press.
2 of these 3 elements are a major part of why the public accesses the internet (free speech and free press, specifically), add in the right to assemble/non-violent protest and you've got a pretty good argument on your hands as to why everyone should have access to the internet.
Maybe they'll even write the new amendment on Apple's new iPad
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
And in the information age, that now spans into the internet.
Internet access now considered to be a basic human right by 80% of people worldwide according to a recent poll.
When put into perspective with American rights protected by the Constitution, it makes sense - the very first amendment prohibits Congress from making laws impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech and infringing on the freedom of the press.
2 of these 3 elements are a major part of why the public accesses the internet (free speech and free press, specifically), add in the right to assemble/non-violent protest and you've got a pretty good argument on your hands as to why everyone should have access to the internet.
Maybe they'll even write the new amendment on Apple's new iPad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)