Comments on: Net Neutrality = Food on SEM Plates http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/ Online marketing blog for advertising agency, in-house & PR professionals Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:32:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Full Coverage And Flashback!: Search Engine Strategies Chicago 2007 » PageTraffic Blog http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/comment-page-1/#comment-2365 Full Coverage And Flashback!: Search Engine Strategies Chicago 2007 » PageTraffic Blog Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:39:16 +0000 http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/#comment-2365 [...] Net Neutrality = Food on SEM Plates [...] [...] Net Neutrality = Food on SEM Plates [...]

]]> By: Marty Weintraub http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/comment-page-1/#comment-2325 Marty Weintraub Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:13:03 +0000 http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/#comment-2325 @ David: Cool. Thanks for stopping by. I enjoyed your talk. @ David: Cool. Thanks for stopping by. I enjoyed your talk.

]]> By: David S. Isenberg http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/comment-page-1/#comment-2324 David S. Isenberg Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:38:27 +0000 http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/#comment-2324 Thanks to Joe and Marty for the summary, the discussion and the support of Net Neutrality. I think Joe's right that the violation of NN would primarily disadvantage smaller and more innovative sites. That's a point I tried to make in my talk. But I'd like to take issue with one thing. Joe says (above, first comment): "Right now no one is really suggesting anything that will overtly affect SEO/SEM companies. This really is aimed at content providers." Actually, I think SEOs and SEMs will be affected directly, but subtly. If a telco offers company a better service than company b, and company a gets more clicks as a result, it becomes harder to say that users like company a better. The entire click stream, the whole set of end user behavior, that SEOs and SEMs depend on gets distorted, and it becomes harder to know what the end-user behavior really is . . . reduced knowledge of end-user behavior, reduced market discovery, reduced trust in the results . . . it is a slippery slope we do not want to start down. Hey, thanks again for the good notices! Thanks to Joe and Marty for the summary, the discussion and the support of Net Neutrality. I think Joe’s right that the violation of NN would primarily disadvantage smaller and more innovative sites. That’s a point I tried to make in my talk.

But I’d like to take issue with one thing. Joe says (above, first comment):
“Right now no one is really suggesting anything that will overtly affect SEO/SEM companies. This really is aimed at content providers.”

Actually, I think SEOs and SEMs will be affected directly, but subtly. If a telco offers company a better service than company b, and company a gets more clicks as a result, it becomes harder to say that users like company a better. The entire click stream, the whole set of end user behavior, that SEOs and SEMs depend on gets distorted, and it becomes harder to know what the end-user behavior really is . . . reduced knowledge of end-user behavior, reduced market discovery, reduced trust in the results . . . it is a slippery slope we do not want to start down.

Hey, thanks again for the good notices!

]]> By: SES Chicago 2007 : David Isenberg on Net Neutrality http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/comment-page-1/#comment-2323 SES Chicago 2007 : David Isenberg on Net Neutrality Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:12:16 +0000 http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/#comment-2323 [...] I’d like to think thank Kevin Ryan for bringing in this speaker and challenging the audience to think about this issue.  Marty has a great summary of the session. [...] [...] I’d like to think thank Kevin Ryan for bringing in this speaker and challenging the audience to think about this issue.  Marty has a great summary of the session. [...]

]]> By: SES Chicago Day 3: ADSDAQ by ContextWeb on Online Ad Exchange Panel http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/comment-page-1/#comment-2319 SES Chicago Day 3: ADSDAQ by ContextWeb on Online Ad Exchange Panel Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:17:53 +0000 http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/#comment-2319 [...] Net Neutrality = Food on SEM Plates, Marty Weintraub, aimClear Blog [...] [...] Net Neutrality = Food on SEM Plates, Marty Weintraub, aimClear Blog [...]

]]> By: Marty Weintraub http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/comment-page-1/#comment-2306 Marty Weintraub Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:56:02 +0000 http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/#comment-2306 Right Joe. We sure don't have to pay the electric company for services provided from appliances...say CAT SCAN machines. This is a very interesting dialog. Right Joe. We sure don’t have to pay the electric company for services provided from appliances…say CAT SCAN machines. This is a very interesting dialog.

]]> By: Joe Lucas http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/comment-page-1/#comment-2305 Joe Lucas Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:50:35 +0000 http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/#comment-2305 Actually, just to add one more thing. I mentioned cable bundling channels as a cause for the bandwidth crunch. Something else to push for is true IPTV and a la carte cable service. Right now you have hundred's of channels pushed to your set top box constantly. By switching to an a la carte model or a true IPTV model this would almost eliminate the bandwidth problems we're currently having. In this model, you would only have the current channel you're watching streamed to your house. Changing channels would be a little slower, however the benefits far outweigh the costs, IMHO. The internet 2 movement alongside semantic web technologies also offer a better infrastructure for all the content online as well. All of these are great things to support as well. Ok, I'm officially off the soap box now :) Actually, just to add one more thing. I mentioned cable bundling channels as a cause for the bandwidth crunch. Something else to push for is true IPTV and a la carte cable service. Right now you have hundred’s of channels pushed to your set top box constantly. By switching to an a la carte model or a true IPTV model this would almost eliminate the bandwidth problems we’re currently having. In this model, you would only have the current channel you’re watching streamed to your house. Changing channels would be a little slower, however the benefits far outweigh the costs, IMHO. The internet 2 movement alongside semantic web technologies also offer a better infrastructure for all the content online as well. All of these are great things to support as well. Ok, I’m officially off the soap box now :)

]]> By: Joe Lucas http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/comment-page-1/#comment-2304 Joe Lucas Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:44:31 +0000 http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/#comment-2304 Hey Marty, very good points. I do think that this would change the game for certain sites if this goes through, however it will really have a larger impact on smaller sites and startups. What gets lost in a lot of these discussions is how the telecom's blew the money that was given to them by the government to build out our network infrastructure a few years ago. However, they spent the money elsewhere and now they're looking for other ways to do so. Personally I view the internet as a utility similar to electricity. There's really no reason why our broadband adoption rates are lower than other countries. There's a few bright spots on the horizon though. The upcoming auction of the 700 MHz spectrum complete with open access mandates, Google's dark fiber, and Verizon agreeing to adopt open network standards next year. For every bad story you hear about, we're now finally starting to hear about a few good one's too. Hopefully the trend continues :) Hey Marty, very good points. I do think that this would change the game for certain sites if this goes through, however it will really have a larger impact on smaller sites and startups. What gets lost in a lot of these discussions is how the telecom’s blew the money that was given to them by the government to build out our network infrastructure a few years ago. However, they spent the money elsewhere and now they’re looking for other ways to do so.

Personally I view the internet as a utility similar to electricity. There’s really no reason why our broadband adoption rates are lower than other countries. There’s a few bright spots on the horizon though. The upcoming auction of the 700 MHz spectrum complete with open access mandates, Google’s dark fiber, and Verizon agreeing to adopt open network standards next year. For every bad story you hear about, we’re now finally starting to hear about a few good one’s too. Hopefully the trend continues :)

]]> By: Marty Weintraub http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/comment-page-1/#comment-2299 Marty Weintraub Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:02:52 +0000 http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/#comment-2299 @ Joe: Post amended: <em>he was talking very specifically about [content providers that fuel] search engine marketers and corporate applications.</em> Thank you. @ Joe: Post amended: he was talking very specifically about [content providers that fuel] search engine marketers and corporate applications. Thank you.

]]> By: Marty Weintraub http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/comment-page-1/#comment-2298 Marty Weintraub Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:58:57 +0000 http://www.aimclearblog.com/2007/12/05/net-neutrality-food-on-sem-plates/#comment-2298 Joe, THANK YOU. THIS is why I always ask you to write for our blog :) You're totally correct, however remember that SEMs USE YouTube and other content provider services that would be affected by the carnage. An attack on the applications we depend on will result in the tariffs (and that's what they would be) likely being passed down to us and our clients. Also, "new" SEO is all about recurrent content providers and trafficking optimized content in these channels. The premise is that an attack on YouTube is an attack on YouTube's users...especially SEMs who will ultimately absorb the costs. Google sure as hell is not going to pay. What do you think? Joe, THANK YOU. THIS is why I always ask you to write for our blog :) You’re totally correct, however remember that SEMs USE YouTube and other content provider services that would be affected by the carnage.

An attack on the applications we depend on will result in the tariffs (and that’s what they would be) likely being passed down to us and our clients. Also, “new” SEO is all about recurrent content providers and trafficking optimized content in these channels.

The premise is that an attack on YouTube is an attack on YouTube’s users…especially SEMs who will ultimately absorb the costs. Google sure as hell is not going to pay. What do you think?

]]>