Exploring the impact of broadband and technology on our lives, our businesses, and our communities.
Apple, as the company has in the past, has begun to upset, er, apple carts. With the announcement of the iPad, Apple also announced a book section in the iTunes Store, with a business model that is exactly the same as the hugely successful music model they use. For both books and music, Apple will collect 30% of the sales price of the item, and the publisher/seller collects 70%. The seller of the item sets the actual price. This is called the "agency model."
Whose apple cart is upset? Well, it is Amazon, who has insisted on setting prices for publishers that sell books for the Amazon Kindle. This has irritated publishers, who think that popular and fast selling items ought to be priced differently, and conversely, slow moving items should be able to be reduced in price. It is a simple, time tested model that helps keep supply and demand in balance.
Amazon got away with it for a while because they had the only popular ebook reader. But now that Apple has announced the iPad, publishers are likely to abandon the inflexible Amazon. Look for the Kindle to appear in supermarkets in a few months, mixed in with those remainder books for $4.99.
What does this have to do with community and municipal broadband? Well-designed open access, open services networks let providers set prices, and simply take a revenue share that helps pay for network operational costs. This approach encourages innovation and competition among providers. Insisting on fixed prices (the Amazon model) drives service and content providers away.
A coalition of New Hampshire towns and other interested parties are encouraging state legislators to give New Hampshire towns and cities the right to bond for telecommunications infrastructure. Unsurprisingly, the incumbent providers are not excited about the notion, even though largely rural New Hampshire has tens of thousands of residents still on dial-up and one of the providers is having severe financial difficulties. The towns see it as an issue of economic survival. Who wants to live in a rural community, no matter how great the quality of life, if there is no broadband or only "little" broadband?
The towns have correctly distinguished between "little" broadband (DSL, cable, wireless) and "big" broadband. They want big broadband, because that represents the future of economic development and the ability of these towns to retain existing businesses and to attract new ones. Here is an exquisite irony: a fiber cable manufacturer in rural New Hampshire can't get the bandwidth they need to do what they want to do to manage the plant properly.
In exchange for bonding authority, the towns have wisely agreed to only build open access community broadband networks, in which all services for businesses and residents would be sold by private sector providers. So in rural parts of the state where the incumbents are saying it is too expensive to build a private network, the towns are saying, "Okay, we get it. We will build a shared network and let you, Mr. Incumbent, use it to reach customers you can't afford to build to on your own."
Why would the incumbents be opposed to that? It opens them up to competition.
I receive a lot of inquiries asking for help understanding open access. The broadband stimulus funding has raised awareness of this business model, and I have written a short paper explaining how it works and why. The PDF is attached to this article, or you can visit the Design Nine Web site to download it.
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
![]() | 261.05 KB |
A short, good analysis of six industries that Apple's tablet computer could change. Apple is expected to roll out the device next week.
The Intelligent Community Forum announced their Smart Seven communities for 2010 yesterday.
One of Design Nine's projects, nDanville, was one of the ICF's Smart 21 communities this year, and got a mention for its success in attracting new jobs by building community fiber.