The race is finally on! IINET delivers IPTV

Can I firstly say, this is something I have been looking forward to since the concept was first floated in early 2008 and now that it is finally here, I believe it to be one of the most important turning points in the Australian broadcasting industry.

So why am I more excited about this than any other announcements made by the likes of  Foxtel or Telstra? well its simply because iinet does not suffer the industry curse of cross-channel ownership.

The Australian broadcasting and entertainment industry has been for to long been held back by the monopoly concerns of cross-channel ownership and the need to protect or support existing media revenue streams.

As we all know Australia is a very small market place and having only a few real players in the entertainment and broadcasting space has meant a snail’s pace when adopting new platforms, services or approaches to delivering media content delivery into the home.

So Iinet is in a very unique and powerful position as a new entry to the Australian (TV) broadcasting market place, not only does it control the conduit for delivery it now owns and can sell the content directly to the consumer without the concerns of protecting existing business models.

For this reason and many others iinet has placed itself very much in the driver’s seat when it comes to the potential explosion of real interactive and live IPTV services in Australia.

An ISP offering potentially un-metered high quality (FTA style) content on a three channel solution (internet, phone, TV) into the Australian home under a single billing solution! … this could be seen as the single biggest threat facing established broadcasters and telco service providers in a very long time.

So yes I am excited!.. After so many years and so many tentative steps and some very half ass attempts to enter in the IPTV space, I think we are now about to hear the real starters gun and it is going to one hell of a race for market share.

I look forward to watching the race and will secretly be cheering for iinet to get out in front early on..

(This just in.. Bendigo group to form first dedicated IPTV channel 🙂 way to go Bendigo)

Mandatory Filter Madness

Leaving aside the belligerent and digitally challenged (some would say, fact and logic challenged) Mr Conroy. I would like to discuss a point I think is being somewhat over looked concerning the proposed mandatory internet filter.

Conroy: “Wants to apply the RC list to the internet, as it is currently applied to all other forms of media”

Leaving aside the fact the internet is not like all other forms of media and is actually a real-time communications platform, more similar to a mobile telecommunications network than a newspaper.

All print media, photos and or video content producers and distributors can “choose” to produce and or distribute “both” non RC and RC listed or related content.

The government’s job is to apply the RC list to already “published” or “distributed” content across all of the mediums Conroy mentioned, and if there is a case to be answered or action to be taken this is done after the fact and a process of law is undertaken.

Further to this the publishers of the content have the “right” to defend themselves in a court of law if accused of distributing or publishing RC content if they feel the content was “not” in fact RC related or in violation of Australian law.

This further applies to anyone found with or consuming the material or content that was published, if indeed it is illegal to own or consume said content.

What I am trying to get to, is that there is firstly a “right” given to all to choose to commit a crime… which comes before the “penalty” of committing that crime is applied …..  and in the middle there exists a fair and agreed process of “law”.

The point: The “MANDATORY” filter removes the rule of law and the due process of applying that law in a free and democratic state.

As such the mandatory filter is in itself in violation of the law and must surely been seen as illegal, as it provides no avenue of recourse or a direct accusation of wrong doing.

(Note to Conroy: I put mandatory in capitals to once again remind you that it is the Mandatory and secret nature of this proposal which is in focus and not the existence of an internet filter)

Example:

Applying the RC list to Newspapers:

To my knowledge newspapers currently do not on a nightly basis send all of their copy, photos and other content to a government department  or body “prior” to printing.

They do not seek approval or authority to publish anything and more importantly they do not do this before that content is then shown to the wider society!

Which means that newspapers have the “right” to decide to print RC related content and the people have the right to view, read and consume that content if they so wish without government interference.

They also have the right to complain about and /or object to the content being shown, or in the case of many right-wing christians not read it at all and just complain on the basis that even the idea of such content existing should be removed.

(They! as do we, all have the right to do wrong, it’s just as important or even more important than any other right we have and many people have died for us to have that right!)

The current proposed “MANDATORY” filter would treat the internet “differently” from all other forms of media including newspapers when applying the RC list.

As it would remove content “pre” publication and not provide the any method of recourse to the publishers or the potential viewers of that content regardless of if they have broken the law or not.

(Note to Conroy: the internet is a continuous publication platform just incase you missed that point, Further newspapers and all other forms of media are unregulated concerning the RC list “pre publication” meaning you can only take action to remove not block content from being published)

Consider applying this to digital photos in personal digital cameras, the government is proposing a mandatory software filter in all cameras to ensure that once a photo is taken it is then instantly scanned for RC content and if found would be promptly deleted for fear it could be shown to a minor or later put in a magazine.

This In effect is removing the process of “law” which requires an accusation, an opportunity to mount a defence and then a prosecution or punishment if required and finally the removal of rights.

Everyone has the right to commit a crime, I have the right to run down the street naked or poke someones eye out.. yes our rights include truly evil things as well as nice things like liberty and justice, they include our right to object or our right to view RC content.

I may expect to lose my rights only after I have committed an act which is against the law and further have been found guilty of that act after been given the right to mount a defence.

By implementing a mandatory filter pre content publication which is secret and applies unquestionable rulings (regardless of the content type) the government is removing one of our most important and some would say God-given rights.

“Our right to do wrong!”.

Is the Internet an Industry Killer?

First it was the Music industry losing CD sales and taking on the likes of Kazaa and Napster, next the Film industry started circling its wagons and spending big on ad campaigns about theft.

Most recently the Newspapers led by Rupert are signaling they may join the fray and start charging for access to “valued” content.

Cable and FTA channel providers are rapidly deploying IPTV services like catchup TV while advertising themselves like crazy in an effort to stay relevant.

Even Microsoft are offering free access to Office products in 2010 in an attempt to stem the uptake of free open source and Google cloud services.

We have Telco’s threatening legal action to block the use of Skype services on Iphones while trying to decrease the uptake of VIOP services in homes.

Not to mention the Google book scanning project and the increased uptake of products like Kindle over traditional hardcopy publishing.

The Internet is steadily eating away at traditionally healthy revenue streams for all established entertainment and service based industries, while opening up traditionally internal markets to international competition.

“Yes” I believe the Internet has the ability to be an industry killer… but it doesn’t have to be that way! It is it a matter of companies fighting harder to protect their traditional business models, as some are currently doing now at great expense.

It is about realizing that the Internet is not going to go away any time soon and turning to quickly embrace new business models that will better position businesses in the long run to claw back some of the market share they have already lost.

Some industries have already moved (if very reluctantly) to embrace the “Smaller profit margins”, “Larger consumer audience”, “Less development & delivery overheads” business model which is available on-line.

After all would there really be a market for illegally copied films on-line if the film industry moved quickly to offer HD real-time steaming of all movie releases to the global audience for a fixed fee increase on your ISP bill?

If the Music industry has shown us anything it is that regular people just want convince and have no desire to steal or break the law. They are happy to pay for on-line access to content if it offers value for money and is not a hassle you only have to look at itunes (and that was somewhat hard to use at first).

So “No” the internet does not need to be an industry killer and I think with the right approach it can in many ways increase the value of traditional offline services and industries while opening up new opportunities for low-cost sales where they did not previously exist.

A Five Billion Tweets Kinda Day

As I grabbed my coffee and was reading the morning paper (The cafe downstairs has a few copies for communal usage, so I didn’t actually go out and buy one) it struck me that much what I had read yesterday on Twitter  and other social sites was now making up a large percentage of the articles in this mornings paper, and we are not just talking the big stories but the trivial ones as well.

One example was “Guy walks goat down George street” which was tweeted about a few times yesterday by people in Sydney who were actually on George street at the time and saw the guy leading two goats down the road.

The paper had given the story a full half page with a large photo and some relating copy about why he was walking the goats and that he did it “regularly!! ” and something about a crazy wife and naked cats. So I assume if he did this “regularly” the only way the paper picked this up as note worthy on this particular day was due to the social network chatter yesterday which I also read and noted as completely trivial and un-note worthy.. I may be completely wrong but hey it makes my point so I am running with it.

Anyway as today is the day we have reached over five billion tweets, I was thinking that maybe it is also the day that the tide has finally turned on the conventional press and they are now following “us” one of the largest publishers of media and text content on the planet rather than the other way around?!

So what can we make the papers talk about tomorrow.. I am sure if we get together we can come up with something trivial enough!

Online Brand Protection

Do you really own your brand? and what is a brand anyway? is it your logo, your business name or is it the feeling that someone gets when they talk about your business or product.

Many companies spend millions of dollars on brand awareness and creating the right brand emotion within their existing and potential customers. To give you a quick Idea about how powerful and important brand emotions and brand protection are I will share my personal feelings about Pepsi and Coke as brands.

I have a strong set of brand emotions surrounding Pepsi and they go something like this… it’s a cheap imitation of Coke, it’s not as good as the “real thing” which is Coke, and I can’t stand it when they serve me Pepsi after I asked for a Coke.. because Pepsi is not Coke!.

So I have a very strong brand associations that is not routed in how good or bad Pepsi is as a product, but rather how I feel about Coke as a brand, and how Coke is “My brand”. So if there where no Coke in the market place would I still feel the same way about Pepsi?.. maybe not!

Is it that Coke has done such a good job of positive brand awareness that from a very young age I have been groomed to be a Coke kinda guy not a Pepsi kinda guy. And if this is the case what are Coke doing to protect their brand and in my case… does it need protecting at all?

We are not all big brands like Coke and Pepsi, nor do we have the available spend or required resources to ensure that our brands are always seen in the most positive light by our potential customers.

With the advent and growth of social media and the ability to work within the tools and social platforms currently available, businesses are now more able to get involved in the conversations being had about their products, services and their brands and in effect become their own real time brand managers.

So is being involved in some form of on-line brand protection or brand monitoring essential for the continued growth of your business? in some respects I think the answer is definitely “yes”. Should all businesses be involved in some form of brand monitoring or brand protection on-line, I believe they should… as it is has the both the potential to increase positive brand sentiment and further improve your ability to increase referred sales.

A Social Media Playground

I can still remember my first day  at high school, standing at the edge of the playground and being overwhelmed by the noise of a hundred conversations, kids laughing, screaming and yelling at the top of their lungs.

Starting off in social media can be very much like your first day at high school, the same questions maybe going through your head.. who should I talk to? who’s cool? is that guy out to steal my lunch? and why did mum dress me like a complete dork!?.

Some people are naturals at making friends and finding useful contacts, while others seem to struggle to find an identity or voice amongst the noise. Then there are those who simply just like to observe while the rest of us play.

Lucky for us there are plenty of friendly people (choose wisely) and great sources of information to help us navigate our way through the school yard without too much trouble, and hopefully ensure that we play safe and play well.

Some quick links I found helpful: Social Media Etiquette, Tips & Tools,