12 ms·

While many are seeing this as bizarre, it is not. This is a programmatic and verticalization play. Verizon has been investing in adtech companies and provides t

by lxchase 11y ago

While many are seeing this as bizarre, it is not. This is a programmatic and verticalization play. Verizon has been investing in adtech companies and provides the means of distribution. The deal allows them to now own the content as well. As someone in the advertising agency, Verizon has been one of the few telecoms that have enabled advertisers to utilize their data. This deal furthers their ability to tie mobile data with content for targeting and reporting purposes. You also have to remember Verizon is a TV content distributor that may pave way to AOL content distribution and allow true ROI measurement on Linear TV.

tw04 11y ago
It's not the least bit bizarre, but it is EXACTLY what people are (or should be) afraid of. The people who own the pipes should NOT own the content, or they will be incentivized to leverage their monopoly on our computer screens to provide unfair advantages to their content. The FCC should have drawn a line in the sand and been done with it before the Comcast deal was allowed to go through (but of course the head of the FCC at that time mysteriously took a cushy job at Comcast after completing her tenure). You want to own the pipes, that's all you own.
- chii 11y ago
  or mandate that pipes should have universal access, so that it becomes like a utility (i'd compare it to electricity). If you decide to sell your own brand of toasters, you cannot be allowed to send 'cleaner/better' electricity to your own toaster than to your competition's.
- pyvpx 11y ago
  if so, then why should the pipes be privatized at all? in that case, the pipes should be built out and maintained at a governmental-level and leased back at a uniform/standardized price to all providers.
  - jmngomes 11y ago
    It makes sense to me that the government should own "the pipes", and then lease them to competing firms, as these are a vital communication infrastructure.
  - allendoerfer 11y ago
    Because, you want the pipes to grow.
    - sliverstorm 11y ago
      I wonder if that really matters all that much. It could be my limited perspective talking, but fiber seems pretty future-proof. Nothing is faster than light; the only conceivable improvement would be cables that can handle wider spectrum of light. (The nodes on the other hand, of course, are continually improving) Ethernet cable is a similar story. NICs have advanced tremendously, but Cat5 (defined in 1991) is still usually all you need.
      - nly 11y ago
        Fiber is future proof but most people don't have it. The process of getting it is called growth. If it's the case that making the "pipes" a public utility would have hindered growth, then you would never have got fiber. And 100M ethernet over Cat5e is pretty useless. Standard WiFi these days is 150-300 Mbps. I regret not running Cat6 in to my extension just to be safe.
        sliverstorm 11y ago
        I would run Cat6a if I was building a house, because it's the latest spec and not much more expensive, but Cat5e is still great. Standard WiFi never gets anywhere close to those speeds, is simplex, and I find a 10Mbps Ethernet (powerline) link handily outperforms a 100Mbps WiFi connection for networked file system access. (Probably either an issue with the simplex or dropped packets) P.S. Cat5e can still do 1Gbps, just not over quite as great a distance as Cat6. Although Cat5e definitely isn't rated for 10Gbps (nor is vanilla Cat6 for that matter)
- rhino369 11y ago
  Why not apply that to other things? Why is apple allowed to sell hardware then dictate who can sell apps for that hardware after it is sold? Why can google use its search engine monopoly to push chrome, android, maps, etc. etc.?
  - SlalomStallone 11y ago
    Neither of your examples are even close to monopolies.
- javert 11y ago
  The way to do it is to create an essentially non-profit organiation with a very limited charter, which is to provide internet infrastructure only. Then we and huge companies all invest in it (it would still charge for access). It would cost billions of dollars but it would pay off in the long run. So it would be profitable, but it wouldn't be like a company that has to maximize shareholder value and can expand into any business activity. Because of the charter, it could never be used in a way that is not "net neutral." Or, you know, we could get a bunch of guys with guns to MAKE us do things according to the demands of special interest groups... and see how that turns out...
- dtjones 11y ago
  Comcast owns NBC, another content provider. I don't think there are any unfair advantages there.

by lxchase 11y ago

tw04 11y ago

It's not the least bit bizarre, but it is EXACTLY what people are (or should be) afraid of. The people who own the pipes should NOT own the content, or they will be incentivized to leverage their monopoly on our computer screens to provide unfair advantages to their content. The FCC should have drawn a line in the sand and been done with it before the Comcast deal was allowed to go through (but of course the head of the FCC at that time mysteriously took a cushy job at Comcast after completing her tenure). You want to own the pipes, that's all you own.

chii 11y ago
or mandate that pipes should have universal access, so that it becomes like a utility (i'd compare it to electricity). If you decide to sell your own brand of toasters, you cannot be allowed to send 'cleaner/better' electricity to your own toaster than to your competition's.
pyvpx 11y ago
if so, then why should the pipes be privatized at all? in that case, the pipes should be built out and maintained at a governmental-level and leased back at a uniform/standardized price to all providers.
- jmngomes 11y ago
  It makes sense to me that the government should own "the pipes", and then lease them to competing firms, as these are a vital communication infrastructure.
- allendoerfer 11y ago
  Because, you want the pipes to grow.
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    I wonder if that really matters all that much. It could be my limited perspective talking, but fiber seems pretty future-proof. Nothing is faster than light; the only conceivable improvement would be cables that can handle wider spectrum of light. (The nodes on the other hand, of course, are continually improving) Ethernet cable is a similar story. NICs have advanced tremendously, but Cat5 (defined in 1991) is still usually all you need.
    - nly 11y ago
      Fiber is future proof but most people don't have it. The process of getting it is called growth. If it's the case that making the "pipes" a public utility would have hindered growth, then you would never have got fiber. And 100M ethernet over Cat5e is pretty useless. Standard WiFi these days is 150-300 Mbps. I regret not running Cat6 in to my extension just to be safe.
      - sliverstorm 11y ago
        I would run Cat6a if I was building a house, because it's the latest spec and not much more expensive, but Cat5e is still great. Standard WiFi never gets anywhere close to those speeds, is simplex, and I find a 10Mbps Ethernet (powerline) link handily outperforms a 100Mbps WiFi connection for networked file system access. (Probably either an issue with the simplex or dropped packets) P.S. Cat5e can still do 1Gbps, just not over quite as great a distance as Cat6. Although Cat5e definitely isn't rated for 10Gbps (nor is vanilla Cat6 for that matter)
rhino369 11y ago
Why not apply that to other things? Why is apple allowed to sell hardware then dictate who can sell apps for that hardware after it is sold? Why can google use its search engine monopoly to push chrome, android, maps, etc. etc.?
- SlalomStallone 11y ago
  Neither of your examples are even close to monopolies.
javert 11y ago
The way to do it is to create an essentially non-profit organiation with a very limited charter, which is to provide internet infrastructure only. Then we and huge companies all invest in it (it would still charge for access). It would cost billions of dollars but it would pay off in the long run. So it would be profitable, but it wouldn't be like a company that has to maximize shareholder value and can expand into any business activity. Because of the charter, it could never be used in a way that is not "net neutral." Or, you know, we could get a bunch of guys with guns to MAKE us do things according to the demands of special interest groups... and see how that turns out...
dtjones 11y ago
Comcast owns NBC, another content provider. I don't think there are any unfair advantages there.