4 ms·

I'm not entirely convinced that the majority of internet users would really miss the rest of the internet if all but the 500 (or 1,000) top websites disappeared

by Smudge 12y ago

I'm not entirely convinced that the majority of internet users would really miss the rest of the internet if all but the 500 (or 1,000) top websites disappeared. I could see a world where if we left it up to the consumers, the majority of the long-tail Internet would stagnate and disappear because so few are paying for the packages that include those sites. It's not a perfect analogy, but I'd compare it to broadcast media. The barrier to entry for creating a new TV channel is absurdly high compared to that of creating a website. Imagine a world where suddenly creating a website meant negotiating with Internet providers to get included in the standard packages. It's just a huge step back, but the majority of consumers might not notice the difference. (At least not right away.)

XorNot 12y ago
Yes they would. This is an utterly classic failure to understand averages. The idea that people visit a dozen or so websites regularly doesn't remotely imply that those are the only websites they visit, or even that those are the most valuable websites for them. I can live without any of my most visited websites - they are not business important. But my business web site? The local calendaring etc? My mobile plan loses all value if I can't use those on the go.
elwell 12y ago
Those sites usually have links to less popular sites.
einrealist 12y ago
The average customer may not understand that when he buys the Twitter package, that she/he is not be able to open external resources on any Twitter feed. Watching the Youtube video your friend posted with a Tweet - not possible. This limitation will make such a package unattractive. Another reason for why these offers will fail is status. If you bought such a package, you better not tell your peers, because it lowers your status among them. Well, your peers will know it anyway, because you cannot just open this Youtube video they posted on their Facebook timeline. This is a bigger issue with Sprint's targeted customer: poor people and kids. It would be a good strategy, if Sprint compensates these offerings by also offering an instant access choice. If a customer with a Facebook package opens an external resource, she/he shall see a page where she/he can buy 24h Internet access for less than $2. --- If providers stop offering "undiscriminated" Internet access, others will fill this gap with new "Real Internet Access".
- Smudge 12y ago
  You're right -- they can't limit this service to ONLY Facebook or Twitter and expect it to succeed. They'd need to give you a big enough slice of the internet that most external links will work. Or, at the very least, they would need to provide a means for gaining access (i.e. watch this ad, or pay for temporary access, or buy this cheap add-on package). My point wasn't that the Internet would suddenly become a set of pre-packaged channels. It's just that, if you leave it up to the average internet subscriber, I can see a future where the desires of many price-conscious consumers ultimately how Internet service gets structured. I suspect my parents, for instance, would be willing to trade reduced Internet access for much lower prices. Sure, plenty of people would still go for the "Real Internet Access" option, but for a ton of consumers the Internet would cease being as open as it is today, and I'm not so sure they wouldn't be totally okay with that, if it meant paying a lot less.

by Smudge 12y ago

XorNot 12y ago

Yes they would. This is an utterly classic failure to understand averages. The idea that people visit a dozen or so websites regularly doesn't remotely imply that those are the only websites they visit, or even that those are the most valuable websites for them. I can live without any of my most visited websites - they are not business important. But my business web site? The local calendaring etc? My mobile plan loses all value if I can't use those on the go.

elwell 12y ago

Those sites usually have links to less popular sites.

einrealist 12y ago

The average customer may not understand that when he buys the Twitter package, that she/he is not be able to open external resources on any Twitter feed. Watching the Youtube video your friend posted with a Tweet - not possible. This limitation will make such a package unattractive. Another reason for why these offers will fail is status. If you bought such a package, you better not tell your peers, because it lowers your status among them. Well, your peers will know it anyway, because you cannot just open this Youtube video they posted on their Facebook timeline. This is a bigger issue with Sprint's targeted customer: poor people and kids. It would be a good strategy, if Sprint compensates these offerings by also offering an instant access choice. If a customer with a Facebook package opens an external resource, she/he shall see a page where she/he can buy 24h Internet access for less than $2. --- If providers stop offering "undiscriminated" Internet access, others will fill this gap with new "Real Internet Access".

Smudge 12y ago
You're right -- they can't limit this service to ONLY Facebook or Twitter and expect it to succeed. They'd need to give you a big enough slice of the internet that most external links will work. Or, at the very least, they would need to provide a means for gaining access (i.e. watch this ad, or pay for temporary access, or buy this cheap add-on package). My point wasn't that the Internet would suddenly become a set of pre-packaged channels. It's just that, if you leave it up to the average internet subscriber, I can see a future where the desires of many price-conscious consumers ultimately how Internet service gets structured. I suspect my parents, for instance, would be willing to trade reduced Internet access for much lower prices. Sure, plenty of people would still go for the "Real Internet Access" option, but for a ton of consumers the Internet would cease being as open as it is today, and I'm not so sure they wouldn't be totally okay with that, if it meant paying a lot less.