On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Steve Furlong wrote: > The point was, the "content providers" aren't providing the > entertainment. The daughters are talking (and talking!) to their > friends with no help from the big companies other than providing the > connectivity. I believe that was Olyzko's point in the first place, > that people are more interested in being connected with other people > (regular people, not entertainers) than in simply receiving > entertainment or other content from canned sites.
right, that's the basic point. > I'm not sure I agree with Odlyzko's point about connectivity vs content. > But your prior statement, "Bullshit, if there isn't content why do they > want connectivity? What is it they are connecting to?", misses the > distinction between the two. He backed it up with economic facts. There's $70 billion overall in the "entertainment" industry - movies, records, TV and radio. There's $250 billion in the telecom industry. So telecom can afford more lobiests than entertainment, but they have far more regulatory barriers to deal with too. Telecom doesn't really care about the platform, but if we can get them to care (i.e. if we can show telco/cable guys they make more money without paladium) then we'd have a very powerful counter acting force to hollywood. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
