Choice is Good: The Future of Digital Networks and Consumer Markets
While sipping my Firefox morning coffee, I came across quite a few articles discussing the future of digital markets. Personally, I’m not a huge fan of capitalism, though I accept it for what it is and what it does. Meanwhile, the issues of net neutrality and free markets are a giant capitalist mess, but I think these topics are both interesting and important. My quarrels with capitalist philosophy lie, for the most part, in the harm to individuals that stems from facilitating greed and corporations. While the issues of net neutrality and VRM are problems that need to be attacked from a capitalist perspective, both ideas strive to better serve the needs of people as individuals. That’s what makes these ideas so exciting.
* *
As a freelance software developer, the process of RFP, bidding, product development is second nature. As a web developer, Andrieu’s article got my creative gears moving as well. Sites like eBay offer bidding services to a huge number of individuals, but skip the RFP step. Public directories for requests for proposal, and more complicated bidding proposals will be needed as this style of market comes to fruition.
As an aside, I’d also like to say that a practical application (thatI acually care about) for formal RFPs makes it on the list of Why PDEng Doesn’t Suck.
* *
Moving on to my readings on network neutrality. I like Bob Frankston’s model for service providers. I like it a lot. The idea that consumers pay to invest in the transport infrastructure that they actually use, rather than for the services they receive, makes sense. For example, when a cable company provides you with basic instead of premium services, they’re essentially putting a little plastic filter on the coax feed that goes to your house. I.e. the expense to them of providing you with that service is an hour’s pay to a technician that drives out to your neighborhood and removes a piece of plastic.
One place infrastructure-based billing comes into play is in the new implementations of data over AC power lines. I’ve yet to research where this technology stands, but it’s a prime example of where it makes sense to pay (more or less) for service that is actually deployed in a different way, as apposed to paying for more “features” that should be available within the context of the infrastructure that the consumer is already paying for.
The one caveat here (for any network, not just cable television) is that if everyone shares the cost of infrastructure and services, chances are those who were paying for basic services before are now paying more. This could make certain telecommunications services too expensive for some.
A solution to this problem is provided the blog post “Daddy, What’s a Channel?”, where Tom Evslin discusses more advanced ways of deploying television service. The T.V. Industry is already taking a hit thanks to BitTorrent, websites like All Family Guy (which ironically hosts a wide variety of T.V. programs), and other media sharing technologies. Even some television networks now provide Internet streaming versions of their latest episodes before they are aired. Why aren’t telecos taking advantage of this technology too? Evslin postulates that they will, and that infrastructure-based billing will move to a bandwidth-capable model, where any service is available, as long as you pay for enough access to infrastructure to receive that service.
* *
I think the ideas highlighted here not only make sense, but can work together to move digital markets in the right—though some would say left—direction. Andrieu hit the nail on the head suggesting that manufacturers and providers should be taking advantage of technology to create products and services that give individual consumers exactly what they want. Frankston is right about his point against network neutrality fanatics. More providers dishing out the same services with no added value is a waste of money, and the last thing we need is government regulations creating such an environment. Finally, Evslin merges these ideas with his examples of how an infrastructure-centric paradigm can give customers what they want by making them pay for network access, and allowing the freedom to access any compatible services.
Digital markets, and digital networks, should be evolving towards facilitating unlimited choice to consumers. No more so-called “markets” and “industries” based on fictional services created by companies that exploit their monopoly and their customers’ limited understanding of technology. That means providing customers everything the could be getting, and making them pay for just that.
These solutions are affordable for both providers and consumers, they just require a shift in thinking. It probably won’t happen right away, but sooner or later, it will. All it takes is a for one provider to offer more choice, and the others will be forced to follow, because I think all consumers will agree that choice is good, especially when it’s affordable.
Technorati Tags: free markets, net neutrality, VRM, RFPs, RFP, PDEng, network neutrality, infrastructure, services