Over the Top Television: Do Cable Alternatives Have a Sporting Chance?

So anyone still unclear as to whether Over the Top Television (OTT) alternatives such as Netflix or Apple TV represent a true competitor to cable need only try to access the NHL playoff games without a cable subscription.  Or March Madness.  Or pretty much any other major sporting event.  In the era of the cable alternative, sports remains one of the major challenges for anyone trying to cut the cord.  There are some OTT work arounds, but for the most part sports content requires some paid access, which is fair and necessary for a sustainable model. 

The  frustration is that those who already have cable subscriptions are finding they still need to pony up for access to certain games outside their home region.  It has long been the case that games were available regionally, but changes in technology and consumer expectations have served to make content more available while undermining the rationale and expectations regarding what should be accessible.  Ironically, as the NHL reaps the benefits of last year's $2 billion, ten year deal with Comcast's NBC Universal to televise every playoff game, many consumers with cable subscriptions still can't access the games they want.

Viewers are also increasing aware of differences between cable companies. Games that are available in the LA market (Sharks v. Blues) with the standard Time Warner cable package are embargoed behind premium sports channels by Charter.  Bundling NHL games with golf and car racing isn't necessarily attractive for those who already feel like they are paying enough. Adding another subscription service to get access to games friends and family in other comparable markets get included with standard packages rankles.

Ultimately, it's simply another example of the barriers facing cable alternatives such as OTT television.  Competition isn't guaranteed a fighting chance.   

The Politics of Space: Creating Community

 As an undergraduate at UCLA studying political theory I was fortunate to have a Professor for whom political theory meant engagement with the community.  He challenged us to consider how political  theory connected to the design and practice of physical space in the tradition of Jane Jacobs, Christopher Alexander, and the spatial and cultural organization of daily life.   When Aristotle describes man as a political animal, a declaration that arises out of human interaction and the establishment of society, how people come together to form communities becomes a central concern.  The act of how resources get allocated, how problems are defined and solved, or the nitty gritty of who gets what and why in the words of Laswell not only communicatively constitutes society,  but it does so in a manner where the arrangement of space and place matter.

I've come to realize that way of looking at the world is some what unique.  Many of those who study public discourse, public participation, and democracy overlook the role of physical arrangements.  A sense of community, ease of physical access to community assets, and barriers that get in the way of participation in the process matter.  Public discourse studies may recognize the role of the internet in facilitating online discussions, but affordable access to high speed internet, or the private ownership of online message boards that effectively serve as public spaces, introduce problems that often merit too little discussion.  In discussing regulatory policy, whether a community "owns" the infrastructure for cable, internet, and phone lines, or lends that access to companies for use matters.

The tradition of regulation in the US has long included a consideration of the public good.  Early media regulation utilized a system for granting access to public airwaves that recognized the public good in the form of programming requirements.  Yet we are moving away from the role of the public good toward pure market analysis. The intrinsic value of the public good is beginning to be ignored in favor of instrumental value, to the detriment of public space, public assets, and public participation.

It seems media regulation is one area we can fruitfully expand our notion of political theory to address questions of space and the public sphere. How these assets are used by and in turn shape communities seems a vital component of understanding how online and meet space communities get created, maintained, and undermined.

Encouraging People Friendly Communities

There are some interesting articles on Planetizen today that all grapple with the big challenge of how we as a society create communities people want to live in.

First, ever wondered where the global 1% live?  A current list of cities, as well as a projection for the top ten cities of the future 1% can be found in the Atlantic Monthly.  Most interesting are the reports on what those who can live anywhere want in their community.  Turns out they desire what almost everyone wants from their community: access to good education, safety and security (read stability, which gets a bit challenging in the face of all that inequality), and a rich cultural life. 

Slate has a great series running on the pedestrian, including an interesting critique of the term itself as boring, pejorative, and even alienating.  The language serves to divorce what is a natural element of the community, walking and experiencing the lived environment on a human scale, from itself. 

It's easy to get caught up in segmenting people--talking about the global elite, the city of the suburb, or the pedestrian city.  But the reality is that what we want is pretty universal--we may argue over which strategies are best for achieving those ends, but we have to remain focused on encouraging people friendly communities.