Sorry, I forgot the diagram...

On 19/11/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 19/11/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Monday 19 November 2007 14:58, Dave Crossland wrote:
> > > GOODS THAT HAVE NO COST
> > > OF MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION
> >
> > Television programmes have zero cost? Crikey, I didn't realise people
> > were
> > so civil spirited. Incidentally, where can I get zero cost internet
> > connectivity with unlimited upload bandwidth?
>
>
>
> I think the phrase should be "towards zero cost", because it's clearly not
> ever actually.  But it is how certain companies got it into their heads to
> provide "free broadband".
>


because it's clearly not ever actually ZERO.


> It's an economic version of Moore's law, which is normally "doubles X
> every 18 months".  If you think of a mathematically, the reciprocal of this
> is the "cost of X".  If it's £1 per Mb at the start, then it's 50p in 18
> months, 25p in 3 years, 6½p in 6 years, 1½p by year nine, and 0.4p by year
> 12.
>
> So, if we consider the "lifetime of the licence fee", 10 years, what cost
> £1 at the start drops to .78p by the end.
>
> It's easy to see how this applies to distribution and storage, less clear
> about TV production.
>
> Here is an illustration, which shows Moore law working on a "nominal
> average" broadband speed.
>
>
>
> More seriously...
> >
> > Yes, businesses must change -- we all know that. Until you have a better
> > way
> > of funding it than the current model then you're demanding one thing:
> > less to
> > be made _at the same quality_ or lowering of quality. The current model
> > is
> > predicated on distribution being a scarce resource, remove that and you
> > eradicate or cripple the majority of current income schemes.
> >
> > Funding for commericial players comes from investors. Investors look for
> > a
> > return on their investment as income. If you can actively show they can
> > make
> > more money from a non-DRM world (which creates an artificial scarcity of
> > distribution), they'll fund it. Since also from *that* perspective the
> > aim of
> > DRM is to create an artificial scarcity that doesn't have to be perfect
> > it
> > just has to be sufficiently good to make a sufficiently good scarcity to
> > make
> > a suffiently good income.
> >
> > There is logically a time that will come when even a DRM'd world is no
> > longer
> > viable as an artificial scarcity, at which point the companies involved
> > will
> > either evolve or die. So as I say, if you can actively show they can
> > make
> > more money or even just equal money, given the long term view, from a
> > non-DRM
> > world, investors will bite your hand off to help you. (hmm, badly mixed
> > metaphor)
> >
> > If you can't, they won't. If you don't like that your only alternative
> > is
> > to legislate or wait. Stamping your foot in public without addressing
> > this
> > is simply wasting your (and everyone else's) time.
> >
> > Incidentally, I'd like to see someone address this because in the long
> > term
> > it is a real issue, and I would personally like to see quality
> > maintained
> > or go up, and the volume of stuff produced either stay the same or go
> > up.
> >
> > (It's also why the foot stamping is sooooo annoying since it's just
> > shouting
> > "IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!", without actually
> > offering
> > a *real* alternative that will actually move things forwards.)
> >
> > Richard Stallman could've stood and shouted "It's Bad!" about
> > proprietary
> > software for the past 23 years, but instead he decided to say "no,
> > whilst I
> > won't be a part of that world, I'll create a viable alternative". Surely
> >
> > that's more productive. (and yes, I know he's done his fair share of
> > shouting
> > "It's bad!" too, but if someone offers a realistic alternative they're
> > generally more worth listening to)
> >
> > Incidentally, it's probably worth observing that the key thing that
> > makes open
> > source and free software REALLY work is networked source control (well,
> > "diff" + the internet actully. Remove "diff+internet" and life gets real
> >
> > hard, real fast (you can do it of course)). The equivalent doesn't exist
> > for
> > media yet as far as I know. If someone REALLY wanted to make a change,
> > that's
> > where I'd start. You've probably got 20 years or more work ahead of you
> > if
> > you do though :-).
> >
> > Now to my mind, though, that'd be REAL innovation in the industry...
> >
> >
> > Michael.
> > --
> > (all personal views)
> > -
> > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe,
> > please visit
> > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  Unofficial
> > list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Please email me back if you need any more help.
>
> Brian Butterworth
> http://www.ukfree.tv




-- 
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
http://www.ukfree.tv

<<attachment: bb%20speed%20vs%20tv.png>>

Reply via email to