![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
via http://twitter.com/publicaddress/ , a piece on The dysfunctional internet. There are a couple of good points I'd like to pull from it.
That's a twist I hadn't run into before. Compare Sky TV, Free to Air TV and the Internet.
I pay Sky, they pay the content networks. Theoretically the content networks pay the content creators.
Advertising (and some of my taxes) pay for Free to Air TV. Free to Air TV pays the content networks for syndicated programs (as above) and also commissions local content (theoretically paying the content creators).
I pay my internet provider, but none of that gets passed to the content creators. Instead they have to merchandise, scrabble for ad clicks, beg for donations or provide something that is so far above all the 'freely' available content out there that people really do see the value of paying for a subscription. It's the worst of both previous models.
This cutting out layers of middlemen is often touted as a strength of the internet, allowing both the consumer to pay less and the creator to get more. But it's also something of a weakness. Instead of a few networks who are good at what they do collecting the money from the consumer and distributing to the creator, every content creator and service provider essentially has to go it alone.
And it seems we still have a middleman in the system, happily getting rich without actually having to give anything back to the content creators. The comparison isn't perfect, because ISP's don't (usually) source the content, but without it there would be no reason for them to exist.
I'd actually be happier about the amount I pay for internet if I knew it was going somewhere other than Telstra's profit margin. As it is I'm a fan of donating to webcomics when I have a bit of spare cash and actually paying for cheapware that I find useful. I'm not a fan of clicking on ads, except occasionally the useful contextual ones google serves up when I actually do a search. That's theoretically how they get paid for the service they provide me, after all.
...
The "stupid publisher" notion has gained wide currency. It stems from the view that the internet is very different and "old media" publishers are set on bringing old media thinking to it. But the main piece of old thinking that publishers like Colman are trying to bring to the internet is the idea that publishers should be able to pay people real wages to create content.
...
Contrary to popular belief, people already pay for content. The trouble is, they mostly pay their ISP who presently remits almost nothing to the content creators.
...
That's a twist I hadn't run into before. Compare Sky TV, Free to Air TV and the Internet.
I pay Sky, they pay the content networks. Theoretically the content networks pay the content creators.
Advertising (and some of my taxes) pay for Free to Air TV. Free to Air TV pays the content networks for syndicated programs (as above) and also commissions local content (theoretically paying the content creators).
I pay my internet provider, but none of that gets passed to the content creators. Instead they have to merchandise, scrabble for ad clicks, beg for donations or provide something that is so far above all the 'freely' available content out there that people really do see the value of paying for a subscription. It's the worst of both previous models.
This cutting out layers of middlemen is often touted as a strength of the internet, allowing both the consumer to pay less and the creator to get more. But it's also something of a weakness. Instead of a few networks who are good at what they do collecting the money from the consumer and distributing to the creator, every content creator and service provider essentially has to go it alone.
And it seems we still have a middleman in the system, happily getting rich without actually having to give anything back to the content creators. The comparison isn't perfect, because ISP's don't (usually) source the content, but without it there would be no reason for them to exist.
I'd actually be happier about the amount I pay for internet if I knew it was going somewhere other than Telstra's profit margin. As it is I'm a fan of donating to webcomics when I have a bit of spare cash and actually paying for cheapware that I find useful. I'm not a fan of clicking on ads, except occasionally the useful contextual ones google serves up when I actually do a search. That's theoretically how they get paid for the service they provide me, after all.
