Dana Blankenhorn

The Death of Cable (and what comes after)

On March 25 Apple announced the death of the cable television model.

What replaces it is, in a word, the Internet. Streaming services, yes, but with far more interactivity than cable or broadcasting ever offered. True integration between audiences and programming, whether you need news, sports, or entertainment. Available wherever you happen to be. All you need is a mobile phone.

This is the entertainment model of the future.

Sounds great. People are now paying $200-250 per month for bundled Internet and TV service, with the TV taking up two-thirds of that bill. They’re paying another $60 or so for mobile Internet service, with calling bundled in.

There’s a lot of money at stake.

I covered the birth of the present world. I covered it twice.

World War III, The Internet War

World War III is an Internet war. It has been ongoing for over a decade.

When the conflict was between countries like Pakistan and Ireland, or Ukraine and Russia, we could afford to ignore it.

Then it came to our own shores. November 8, 2016 was this war’s Pearl Harbor.

Yet we still haven’t reacted, because once the enemy is in the tent the media thinks going after them is friendly fire.

There’s nothing friendly about it.

Sure, there are efforts underway at Google and Facebook to boost “real news” and dissuade “fake news.” Yes, there are efforts underway in Congress to control online political spending. Yes, there is the Mueller probe.

But these are nothing. We still see the Internet War as something we can stop with higher firewalls, or bigger budgets.

We can’t.

The Streaming Crash of 2019

For the last several years, a lot of companies have been trying to fit through a very narrow door.

That door is streaming.

The success of Netflix, and of podcast stars like Marc Maron, has caused a heart attack in the entertainment world. Suddenly everyone, and every company, is aiming for a taste of this action.

They can’t all get it.

There aren’t enough hours in the day to listen to a fraction of the podcasts available now. I have a half-dozen in my phone, and I can’t get to all of them. Long-haul truck drivers can get to a lot, and people who work as security guards may listen for 8 hours per day. But a single Joe Rogan podcast can run 4 hours. Maron does 3 hours every week.

CBS, NPR, the BBC and others are hitching their wagon to podcasts. Spotify plans to spend $500 million on podcasts, an industry that generates $700 million in annual revenue.

These numbers make no sense.

Common Carriers

A key to understanding 2019 will be the issue of common carriers.

In just one decade the “Cloud Czars” – Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Facebook – have replaced the telecommunications and broadcast industries with a new system, using their infrastructure.

We don’t make overseas calls anymore. We Skype. We don’t watch TV. We stream.

The cloud was built without government subsidy or interference, in a competitive free for all in which the winners invested while the losers did not. The industries replaced by this infrastructure were built as monopolies, under systems of regulation controlled by the Federal Communications Commission and, when necessary, courts.

This made sense, in terms of both capital preservation and technology, at the time.

Democracy's Business Model Problem

When I started as a reporter, 40 years ago, there was a strict separation between “data” and “service.” There was usually just one layer of data.

The service was a phone call. The data was the time, duration and number called. The data was used to generate a bill for service. AT&T still mails customers this data.

There was also another layer of data, hidden beneath the services data, namely the content of the call. This was only available to law enforcement, with a warrant. A number might be tapped or (when technology permitted) a subject might have all the numbers they used tapped. This data was secured. It could only be used in criminal investigations. Civil cases could be tossed if this data were misused.

In print, there were similar splits between service and data. Editorial was the service. Subscriber lists were the data.

Facebook and the Fall of Free

Facebook has no friends.

Mark Zuckerberg thought he had billions of friends. He was wrong.

That’s one of the clear lessons of the Facebook scandal.

The way competitors, celebrities and the media are piling on Facebook is something to behold. I said they were vulnerable to something like this at the start of the month.  I was right.

Facebook is uniquely vulnerable because it has no customers. It doesn’t sell anything to people. Amazon sells stuff to people, and so when Trump goes after Amazon, Jeff Bezos sees his customers defending him. The same thing is true of Apple, which is why Tim Cook didn’t hold back on attacking the heart of the Facebook business model when given the chance on MSNBC.

Microsoft and Google have (so far) kept quiet about Facebook’s troubles, and for the same reason. Both run services supported by advertising. Microsoft has been backing away from this throughout the century (the MS on MSNBC is like the Cheshire Cat’s smile as it disappears). Google has been trying to diversify into products and autonomous cars. But their dependence still exists.

There’s one more important point to make about all this.

The Facebook Scandal

Facebook could disappear. 

This is the difference between Facebook and the other “Cloud Czars,” as I call them. (Picture from the excellent blog of Lisa Vanengen.)

We don’t need Facebook. Not the way we need, in the 21^st century, the information search capability of Google. Or Microsoft’s software. Or Apple’s devices. Or Amazon.Com.

Facebook, by contrast, is entirely optional. Not only is the main service optional, but so are Instagram and Messenger. We can get along very well with Snap and WeChat. The mass move can happen by word of mouse. There is a price below free, and if we don’t want to pay it we don’t have to.

This is something people like Jim Cramer don’t yet understand. This makes what is happening, or not happening, at Facebook different from what happened at Target or even Equifax. Add to that Facebook’s enormous capital budget – it’s putting $1 of every $4 it collected last year into new cloud data centers this year – and you have an existential problem.

Fencing the Internet Content Wilderness

Political leaders have finally recognized something I’ve been saying here for some time.

If the owner of a medium won’t take responsibility for it, someone else will. And they won’t have your interests at heart.

What happened at Facebook was easy to predict. It didn’t take a genius to figure out what was going down, just someone willing to follow the clues. 

The Web made it possible to separate the delivery of information from its value, and we have been running with it for 20 years. This brought us to the era of the Cloud Czars, companies that invested billions in the infrastructure of information delivery and nothing in the information itself.

The Era of Systems

Every decade since I began writing has delivered a new era in technology.

The 1970s was the start of the PC era. The 1980s saw the local networking era. The 1990s saw the rise of the Internet. The 2000s was the decade of mobility. This decade has been that of the cloud.

The 2020s will be the era of systems.

We have been talking around this for years. We talk about the Internet of Things. We talk about artificial intelligence, adding it to the cloud to create FOG computing. We talk about blockchain.

We talk about these technologies as silos, but that’s not the way technology works. As I have been writing since publishing Moore’s Lore  in 2001, the exponential improvements driven by chips go into many directions. They pile atop one another, they reinforce one another like electric waves.

PCs combined chips with a user interface. Local Area Networks combined PCs with techniques derived from telephony. The Internet takes these LAN techniques global. Mobility again combined chips with new user interfaces, eliminating peripherals. The cloud era is built on open source software, standardized chips, and the same networking used in the Internet.

On Net Neutrality

If you have been reading this blog for any length of time, you no doubt believe that I’m a radical. A liberal. A fanatical criminal. 

In some ways this is true. On foreign policy I’m an internationalist who believes in peace. On social policy I believe people should be free to love who and what they want, and to kill themselves in any way that suits them.

This is not true in economic policy. I still consider myself a liberal here, but business was always a liberal force before the Nixon era. Progress is a business word, still often used in advertisements to denote the aims of oil companies and manufacturers, as well as tech outfits.

My economic beliefs are based on those of Adam Smith, who saw wealth inclining the wealthy toward the common good. I consider Trump and his acolytes to be Nietzscheites. (Ayn Rand is just Nietzsche in a skirt.)

More to the point, I consider them Fascists, and resent that I can’t use the word in public without being condemned.

So, when it comes to the subject of net neutrality, I’m sure you’re thinking, Dana is going to tell us that the FCC is wrong, that Democrats are right.

I’m not.