Mutually-Assured Destruction: Postponed
On the eve of a new year, within minutes of the ball drop in Times Square, millions of Time Warner Cable customers found themselves pawned like the children of a belligerent divorce. “We’re not making the decision, it’s up to Viacom — call them,” said one flustered Time Warner representative when I called to confirm whether I would wake up Colbert-less in 2009. The consumer had now become the fulcrum of leverage between two conglomerates battling over twenty-three cents.
In the battle of content versus dumb pipe, we’re naturally inclined to side with the one who makes us laugh — and were it not for geographic monopolies and painful switching costs I would expect 90% of customers to acquiesce to Viacom’s demands. Yet, in this case, the advantaged party is attempting to turn us against our ourselves by prescribing higher fees for content that is, with a few stellar exceptions, unwanted and stagnant — an ambitious and rather myopic strategy.
Viacom may have gotten their twenty-three cents within seconds of the new year; but in doing so they have also heightened awareness of the ridiculousness of the system:
- Why can’t we subscribe only to the channels and content that I want? Must I support Nickelodeon if all I want is Comedy Central; or 24 hours of Comedy Central content on the back of the one hour I actually want and watch?
- Why can’t I watch said content on my schedule instead of yours? On-Demand is not a promotional opportunity, it’s the way we (your CUSTOMERS!) want our entertainment.
- Do you expect consumers to pay more for more of the same, or will this twenty-three cents actually better the other 95% of your programming?
- Why has capitalistic competition given way so easily to monopolies in what is one of the most vital infrastructure needs of an information economy for the century ahead?
- If content is king, then what feudal metaphor should be ascribed to the power who can silence the king with the flip of a switch?
- Most importantly: is this petty fight a sign of things to come if we fail to affirm net neutrality? Should we expect passive aggressive advertisements urging us to open our wallets so that Gmail can load 20% faster, or to spare multiplayer lag on XBOX Live?
Corporations acting like children is one thing; but when they move so aggressively toward mutually-assured destruction, and attempt to wield their customers like children in a feigned divorce it’s evidence of a much greater, systemic problem.
“designed to complement and enhance the traditional TV watching experience and bring content, information and community features available on the Internet within easy reach of the remote control. […] Watch web videos, track your favorite teams or stocks, interact with friends and family, and stay current on news and information by clicking on the compact, interactive apps that sit on top of your normal TV picture.”
