Should Government do something about technology fragmentation?
A tweet came in today - it was suggesting that perhaps to help spur innovation in the digital content industry governments should proactively legislate to ensure agnostic consumer controlled content supply chain configuration.
So for example irrespective of what configuration a potential audience chooses to engage with digital content (iPad vs Galaxy, ConnectedTV vs Linear TV etc) no one route should be preferential to any other (i.e. content should be equally available across all permutations).
Should formal government enforced standardisation of the supply chain thus giving consumers (and viewers) control over what consumption path works best for them be a priority?
Group audience:
Comments
Cameron, this looks
Cameron, this looks potentially interesting. Do you have examples of any countries doing this? Maybe also in a different context?
I'm not fond of legislation
I'm not fond of legislation or regulation, unless there is a very good reason for it. I don't see this reasoning or argumentation in your statement. Why should this be handled through legislation? What is hindering the market to develop such an offer?
Hi Johan
Hi Johan
Like you I'm not a fan of legislation for legislation's sake however as new markets, technology and cultural shifts struggle to emerge from their shell it's important that a guiding hand is available to ease transition for the general audience.
As with the introduction of TV Broadcasting technology back in the early 1900s the UK Government took proactive steps to legislate into existence the BBC and indeed, in 1954, and Independent Authority to help balance the market. From there bodies such as OFCOM have grown to play a pivot role in guiding technology application and expression to ensure consumer protection and choice.
As is the case now should something not be done, for example, to formalise the introduction of Connected Device standards? As we've just completed an Analogue to Digital switch over (again legislated) isn't it reasonable to think that in the future we will encounter a Digital to IP switchover once infrastructure is in place?
On that matter as well is enough being done at the EU level to ensure the roll out of the infrastructure needed to ensure a level playing field? The Digital Britain Report started the good work in the UK but now lacks legislative enforcement and risks being wasted for not.
Across the entire supply stack formal (and parliamentary) recognition that the future of video content consumption will be alwayson, distributed and across any screen is needed.
Legislation is not always the Anathema to innovation. In fact properly applied it can spurn new markets to reach unimaginable heights.
If the EU wants to lead the way in the future of media, a cornerstone to this Information Age the political will needs to be proactive and not reactive in this case. Legislation is the most powerful weapon available in the arsenal.
With the emergence of multiple codecs, streaming protocols, platforms, devices, access points and markup languages the fragmentation is in danger of becoming too great.
A framework that has a mission solely to ensure that consumers (viewers) always have the power of choice is definitely needed.
-- Cameron Church
Dear Cameron
Dear Cameron
As for the multiple codes, streaming protocols, platforms, ... I believe this fragmentation is both necessary for an innovative environment as well as it prohibits existing giants to claim / take the market.
On the other hand, I follow your reasoning concerning regulation easing the transition. With OTT TV the most important issue is the one of net neutrality.
I heard someone compare the large Telco's to the railway companies in their glory times almost a century ago. They now have it all - infrastructure and almost all services running on top of this infrastructure like telephony, internet and TV.
"Liberalization" of this market - allowing all market players to offer services over the existing infrastructure in a "neutral" way - is the next step going on right now. I do agree that legislation should support this move and not hinder it.
End users - European citizens - will, as you stated in your last paragraph, only benefit from initiatives taken in this way.
Johan Camp
The questions to answer
The questions to answer regarding public authorities intervention would be: 1) points in the value chain(you mention codecs, streaming protocols, platforms, devices, access points and markup languages...); 2) reasons for intervention (e.g. competition bottlenecks, low economies of scale, lack of interoperability...); 3) ways of intervening (legal obligations, soft guidance, competition law, subsidies...). Not always issue to answer those questions in the case of emerging markets.
I have to say that when I
I have to say that when I read that "governments should proactively legislate" someting in technology and "enforce standardisation ... thus giving consumers ... control" over something I am not sure whether to laugh or to cry. Let's look at the track record to date. How exactly do we propose the goverment will "pick a winner" and "enforce" anything in the open market of worldwide media?
Channel virtualisation
Channel virtualisation
Interesting - this is closely related to Empowerment as the choice of channels should be purposespecific and receiver-controlled in order for the channel NOT to be identifying in itself.
The root issue her is to avoid channel lock-in and ensure net neutrality to avoid infrastructure pricing will depend on what you use infrastructure for or providing personal/customer data.