R2-D2, Campaign Finance, And The US Constitution

When the Star Wars movies were theatrically re-released in the late 1990's, George Lucas added strange new layers of CG effects, like a sliding Jabba the Hutt, who because of prevailing technologies, could not slide in 1977.

Modifications did not stop there. A Blu-ray release featured further accoutrements, like new rocks in front of R2-D2. 

Such changes are detailed thoroughly here: http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/star-wars-the-changes-part-one.html (source for images below)

original...

...and Blu-ray. Great.

Some relics form the past remain important, though, so Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford will return for Episode 7.

The point?

Star Wars, like the U.S. Constitution, is a living document.

Senate Democrats announced this week their intention to vote on a constitutional amendment that would expressly allow for campaign finance reform laws. The amendment would not itself contain new restrictions on campaign spending, but would give Congress and states the authority to pass such laws. That authority needs to be carved out because the U.S. Supreme Court has recently and repeatedly ruled that the Constitution, as written, guarantees the rights of wealthy people to have disproportionate influence on our elections, the rights of corporations to pursue happiness, and so on.

Achieving the necessary passage by supermajority in the Congress and by legislatures in 38 states seems unlikely. That's because campaign finance reform is, like everything, likely to be cast by politicians and media figures as a strictly partisan question. The American public may not see it that way, though.

In a Gallup poll from last year, "80% of nearly every major demographic and political group" supported a hypothetical limit on the amount congressional candidates could raise or spend in a campaign. That's a lot of people. But popular as this concepts is, such a spending limit would surely be ruled an unconstitutional limit on free speech. Hence the role of the amendment, which would also allow for limits on candidate spending and campaign spending by outside groups.

Of course, what people think should happen is not necessarily related to what their elected representatives will vote for. (See background checks, minimum wage, etc.) If voters remain in favor of fundraising and spending limitations though, Republicans' lockstep opposition to any campaign finance restrictions may prove untenable. People, somewhere, are realizing this, and will soon by trying to convince you that spending limits are a bad thing.

(Jar Jar Binks, "A clumsy, well-meaning Gungan outcast on Naboo," via starwars.com)

Hope For the Internet, Hopefully

Following a distressing announcement from the FCC last week that it wants to break the structure of net neutrality comes this piece from Ars, which suggests some reason for hope.

As a ((very) brief) background, net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers must offer equal quality of service to all legal content providers, regardless of their size or commercial affiliation. The absence of net neutrality could lead to (1) blackmail, where an ISP requires additional fees from a web content provider to deliver content at a speed or quality acceptable to consumers, and (2) silo-ing of web content to create a restricted environment which only includes content that serves the business interests of the ISP. (Your world will look like AOL, circa 1996.)

If neither of those possibilities seem scary to you, which they should, consider, at least, that the internet as we know it developed under the principle of net neutrality, and an internet without it will likely develop in a very different way.

Back to the hope.

Ars reports that Netflix is "researching 'large-scale peer-to-peer technology' for streaming." Peer-to-peer (P2P) streaming can currently be used to illegally stream live, copyrighted video online like live sports (if you're into that kind of thing), and for other legitimate uses, I'm sure. The relevant point is that applying the technology to Netfilx's product could mean a diversion of net traffic away from Netflix's servers and toward connections between Netflix users themselves. As the bulk of traffic became smaller-scale transfers between users, the relationship between Netflix and ISPs would become less important -- and less susceptible to blackmail.

That's all fine for Netflix if they end up using the technology in such a way. It would be good for consumers too, if it meant Netflix did not need to pass on any new fees to its customers.

The larger point about P2P transfers, though, is that web technology has the possibility to develop in a way that can attenuate the power of ISPs. This does not diminish the importance of net neutrality, but it suggests that future business models can (potentially) succeed online in new ways. Technology could circumvent any new capabilities of ISPs to discriminate in favor of wealthy and well-connected content providers, and a web based on more P2P connections could retain its democratic spirit and possibilities. Perhaps more importantly, P2P illustrates the possibility of new and yet unimagined technologies to be similarly disruptive.

What's Wrong

I was going to write a long and thorough argument for why media matters generally, but I think an example from this morning’s New York Times will suffice for now.

Headline: “In Poorest States, Political Stigma Is Depressing Participation in Health Law”

Anti-Obamacare stigma is generated in many ways, but one formidable source is the deluge of political advertising that attempts to tar the healthcare law and anyone associated with it. And lest you think the anti-healthcare ads run by Americans for Prosperity are contributing to democratic debate, consider the record for accuracy that they have accumulated. (It’s not good.)

Here’s the heart of the Times story:

“Health professionals, state officials, social workers, insurance agents and others trying to make the law work for uninsured Americans say the partisan divisions and attack ads have depressed participation in some places. They say the law has been stigmatized for many who could benefit from it…”

And in a heartbreaking/maddening example, a social worker described how “people who did enroll paused in their excitement to ask, ‘Wait – this isn't that Obamacare, is it?’”

We cannot know definitively what impact the anti-Obamacare ads have on individual attitudes, but this story illustrates the role of media in our political system and where some big problems lie.

First, corporations and wealthy individuals – with only their economic self-interest in mind – can spend unlimited amounts of money to impact political opinions (including, hideously, an individual’s decision not to pursue healthcare). These ads can be misleading or include blatant falsehoods – and since they’re aired with near-anonymity, accountability is limited.

Second, because such misinformation exists, we must depend on other media messages to counter it, but unfortunately, we can’t always depend on other media messages to do that.

For one thing, paid advertising cannot be countered by paid advertising when resources are unequal. The Times article notes that during the enrollment period in West Virginia, a network of healthcare providers aired ads encouraging signups, but these ads were outnumbered 12 to 1 by anti-healthcare ads from conservative groups.

Journalism should step in here to correct misinformation, which mainstream media institutions will do, to the extent they can while avoiding charges of bias. (For calling lies lies.) Even when that happens, though, journalists must reach a receptive audience.

How do we know this system isn't working? When, from the Times again, “literally, people thought there would be chips embedded in their bodies if they signed up for Obamacare.”

Making it an Amazon Night

A week after Dish Network Corp. announced that it would close the last of its Blockbuster stores, Amazon announced today that has partnered with USPS to begin Sunday delivery of Amazon purchases. USPS, seemingly stumbling forward, Blockbuster-like itself, is adding Sunday delivery.

Amazon has moved far beyond its original incarnation as an online bookseller and is now a prominent seller of digital content, but the deal with USPS suggests the continuing importance that people place on getting things and having them in their hands.

Unfortunately, we outside of Amazon cannot know just what it is that USPS will be delivering to Amazon customers on Sundays. As Farhad Manjoo has described:

We don’t know where Amazon expects to make money from in the future. Indeed, we barely know where Amazon makes money from now. The company refuses to divulge even the most basic stats about its business. Amazon’s earnings calls are a comedy of opacity and misdirection; you’d have a better chance getting a guard at Buckingham Palace guard to crack a smile than to get an Amazon exec to accidentally tell you about the company’s business.

So we don't know how many of these Sunday deliveries will include the DVDs that Blockbuster couldn't get people to rent anymore, or CDs or books or other physical media that have become technological underdogs. Is Sunday delivery a meaningful sign of their continuing relevance? Or is this really about people ordering toasters, or pet food, or any of the other thousands and thousands of products available via Amazon?

The announcement's proximity to Christmas shopping time suggests the latter. But as Amazon continues to build and improve its infrastructure for fast and cheap delivery of physical goods, it can help to keep physical media a practical alternative to their instantly acquirable digital counterparts.

Hulu Plus, Netflix ,and the Future of Online Advertising

Among its frequently asked questions, Hulu Plus includes "Why are there ads in Hulu Plus?" Hulu's frequently given answer reads, in part, "We have found that by including a modest ad load, we can keep the price for Hulu Plus under eight bucks, while still providing users with access to the most popular current season shows on the devices of their choice."

Those who aren't satisfied with the answer can climb into the Hulu discussions page, where complaints are registered in ALL CAPS. 

Hulu's official line on ads likely leaves many subscribers unsatisfied because the ads are a jarring contrast with the ad-free subscription content provided by Netflix, and for that matter, Pandora and Spotify.

Why, though, should we expect a paid subscription to fee us from commercial advertisements? Netflix, Pandora, and Spotify actually look like exceptions here, standing out against pre-web subscription media services. Broadcast TV stations and most cable channels that come with a cable or satellite subscription carry ads. So does satellite radio. And so do magazines. And don't forget that major daily newspapers, which carry a cover price, were so dependent on ad revenue for their survival that the decline in newspaper advertising revenues has driven many publishers into bankruptcy.

The easy answer to why Hulu includes ads with its paid subscriptions is that consumers are willing to pay for the service, even with ads. This, though, is not an answer that Hulu will include in its FAQ.

A more interesting question is what separates Hulu Plus from Netflix, Pandora, and Spotify. 

With its focus on new network and cable TV programming, Hulu's service is more like turning on a TV than is Netflix's service, which -- with its focus on movies and older TV content -- is more like popping in a DVD. For that reason, Hulu subscribers might be more willing to accept the television norm of ad breaks. 

Perhaps a better explanation is that while Netflix, Spotify, and Pandora were created by media outsiders, Hulu is owned by the corporate parents of NBC, FOX and ABC. These media titans are accustomed to selling ad time, and they benefited from the lessons learned by newspaper publishers, who were initially eager to put content online for free and have only recently begun wresting it back from spoiled audiences. 

In this sense, Hulu's ad-model is a stake in the ground for ad-supported TV content in its inevitable digital forms. As more content moves to and is consumed over the web, the prominence of old media organizations vis-a-vis  the new frontier of tech startups may determine whether consumers will continue to pay for ads online.

See? 3D Printers are Cool

I dropped into the Microsoft Store at a mall in suburban Chicago yesterday, which of course, looks and feels vaguely like an Apple Store. A key difference, which could have been a one-time-visit fluke, was that a sales rep kept asking me questions after I said I was just looking.

As in, "Are you looking for business or personal use?"

Neither. I just want to fold this laptop back and forth like on the commercial. And I'm kinda curious about the Microsoft Store.

Speaking of plastic replicates, Microsoft Stores across the country are demoing the Makerbot Replicator 2 3D printer. At the Woodfield Mall store, the machine sits inside a transparent case, where you can see it working, spitting out little plastic sharks. You can also handle the little sharks and a wrench and other products of the Makerbot.

With a sticker price of around $2,200, many, many more people will be trying to figure out what these machines are than will be buying them at the Microsoft Store. That's a big deal, though. Introducing 3D printing to consumers as something that really exists and can be seen and bought at the mall is a step on the road toward 3D printing being the disruptive communication technology that it can be.

And, hey, it also makes the Microsoft Store a place with something cool to check out.

Is Aereo a Major Disruptive Force in the TV Industry?

It seems that the broadcast networks are scared. Two, anyway, have proclaimed that they might give up their access to the broadcast airwaves and retreat to paid television models. What would lead networks to consider -- or more likely, threaten -- such a drastic move?

This, it turns out:

Image from Aereo press kit. (aereo.com)

No, not the dime, the television antenna that it is next to and smaller than. A service called Aereo has thousands of these tiny antennae and is selling remote access to them as a way to deliver television content over the internet.

Now restreaming and selling someone else's copyrighted content is generally illegal, but Aereo has employed some conceptual brilliance here. By dedicating a tiny antenna to each paying subscriber, the product being sold is more like a computer peripheral, linking a personal antenna to a device, than it is illegal resale, or public performance, of content. That logic prevailed with a federal appeals court last week, where a dissenting judge described the service as "a Rube Goldberg-like contrivance, overengineered in an attempt to avoid the reach of the Copyright Act and to take advantage of a perceived loophole in the law.”

The service is currently only available in New York City, and it seems like paid mobile access to broadcast channels would have limited appeal. After all, a lot of people don't bother to plug in antennas for free access to broadcast TV. The New York Times report on the court decision suggests that Aereo might see its future in deals with cable networks, like that penned with Bloomberg TV. If so, the service could develop into a paid TV provider, like a cable or satellite system for mobile devices. The success of such a system would limit broadcasters' own ability to profit from mobile distribution of their programming through services like Hulu Plus or Netflix.

Another major threat to the broadcast networks is the possibility of existing cable or satellite systems beginning to use technology like Aereo's for retransmission of network content. As the Times reports, these carriers pay to distribute network content, and they might be interested in an alternative that legally allows them to opt out of such payments. I'm not sure, though, how such a move would comport with must-carry restrictions. Cable operators are required by law to carry the content of local broadcasters, and it is through this system that payments are being made. It seems like an effort to circumvent that system could violate the must-carry rules.

In any case, we should expect broadcasters to be talking with Congress about Aereo soon.