Skip to content

The Internet is Dead

Overstated, I think, but an interesting perspective – The Internet is dead: “…cable and satellite networks are now superior to the Internet as platforms for building complex, interactive services…Networks built by telephone companies, like Verizon Communications, and cable companies, like Comcast, do not easily talk to each other, stymieing development of services (like HD video) that require smooth, seamless transport of lots of digital stuff.”

3 Comments

  1. mrsdurff wrote:

    If that were indeed the case, I would not have read your post in my RSS aggregator, nor would I be able to click through to your blog, nor would I be typing these words in reply. Some ideas never die quickly enough….

    Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 10:19 pm | Permalink
  2. You are too kind to Cuban. As mrsdurff suggests, Web 2.0 is very much alive, and growing. For starters!

    Monday, July 30, 2007 at 11:39 am | Permalink
  3. Hi Lisa – good points. As mentioned, Cuban overstates “the internet is dead”. In fact, he states it from a very particular perspective – HD.

    Bryan – heh, just read your blog post on this about 5 minutes ago…I agree declarations of the internet’s death are overstated. What I found interesting, however, is the point of emphasis of services like HD video. Obviously, with Cuban’s background, the focus of the talk was on broadcasting…and the shortcoming of the internet to achieve a degree of consistent quality in relation to what cable networks are capable of doing with video. Cuban overlooks the social and information dimensions of the internet to focus instead on the (in)ability to handle a certain type of digital content…and the lack of communication between networks being built by different companies (i.e. telephone/cable) There are numerous angles to this, but two in particular stick out: the assumption that interoperability issues is going to favor one “network” over another, and 2) that media/entertainment is alluded as the deciding factor.

    While indirect, a networks value is not exclusively determined by what one party can push (as we’ve seen with the internet). True, cable is adding more interactive features, but the internet is built on two-way flow. To what degree will we accept reduced quality of content when the real question is access (i.e. we may be more satisfied with poor video image if it’s a choice between that and nothing else). And then there’s all that discussion of (free) public wi-fi. It’s far easier (and more marketable) for Cuban to say “internet is dead” than to put forward a nuanced consideration of the factors (such as I have NOT done here :) ).

    Monday, July 30, 2007 at 2:18 pm | Permalink