Push's Tutorial


Push's treatise on compelling content and content distribution was well
thought and well presented.

It may take some time to convince organizations that spend as much time at
putting ink on paper and paper on driveways or shelves as they do in
generating the content itself, that there is no place for content creators
to participate in the distribution system.

Of course, this presupposes the development of a real Web data
architecture, as HTTP 1.1 evidences a direction. And it assumes that ISPs
will follow through and create adequate business models to allow compelling
content creators to buy distribution services easily and naturally. Push
shows he, for one, has been thinking about how to do this.

As an example, let us suppose that the NFL offers the ISP community a deal
on carrying SuperBowl XXXII content. The SuperBowl is a good example
(perhaps one of the best) of the web flash crowd phenomenon. But with the
right upfront work whereby the NFL offers its terms and conditions for
replication (for a fee) or caching (as a performance improvement), ISPs can
sign on to carry the program.

The NFL might offer ISPs a percentage of transactions if the ISPs carry the
SuperBowl shopping cart. The NFL might offer the ISP a piece of the
advertising space in exchange for carrying non-transaction content. The NFL
might also offer terms and conditions, as for example, web hit stats for
any ISP that wishes to cache certain SuperBowl content without remuneration.

It's not too hard to envision that ISPs might eventually make money on
content aggregation and delivery services and that many compelling content
companies will be glad not to have to worry about the distribution channels.

- - --Kent

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~
Kent W. England Six Sigma Networks
1655 Landquist Drive, Suite 100 Voice/Fax: 619.632.8400
Encinitas, CA 92024 kwe@6SigmaNets.com
Experienced Internet Consulting ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~

As much as I thought the tutorial on Content-driven economics was well
thought out, the reason that I am not entirely convinced is that I can
imagine an internet economy which is as much "consumer" driven as
Pushpendra's version is "content" driven.

Imagine is you will that a new ISP evolved along the principles of these
"free e-mail" services, except that it offered 100% free web access. It
could start out offering full access to the entire net, and amassing an
amazingly large comsumer audience.

Then, with the "value" inherent in having all these consumers involved,
it could announce to industry, that in order to be able to reach their
audience, content-providers would have to pay for this service. NSPs
could "aggregate" these transactions, such that a big NSP could
negotiate with the consumer-driven ISP for universal access for all of
NSP's customers. This would give the big NSP an advantage in the

Consumers connected to this ISP would then be able to get to only those
providers that would pay. Perhaps for a fee they could get universal
access, but if the ISP had enough of the market, content-providers would
be compelled to pay for access to the audience.

It all follows the "follow the money" principle. Content providers, who
make money either by advertising or by selling product, need an audience
to make their money. They're already paying now for half of the cost of
distribution -- why wouldn't they pay for the other half?