The Comcast Ruling, Net Neutrality: What's Really Best For Musicians?

Last week, the courts ruled that Comcast answers to no one. Comcast, which owns the fiber optic cables in the ground that bring the internet to our computers, can now legally limit, deny, slow down, or speed up web content as they see fit. Here's an example of why this is a terrible ruling: Comcast is in the process of acquiring a majority stake of NBC. It would not be surprising then, if NBC web streams were to speed up dramatically, and while they're at it, why not slow down Youtube, and block CBS entirely? I hate the idea of powerful entities controlling what I have access to, and the miracle of the internet is that I have come to expect something different. 20 years ago, we chose between radio, newspaper, and network TV. Now we choose between those things and countless other resources that all stream to us at lightning speed over the internet. Youtube competes directly with NBC for our attention.

The Comcast ruling brings to light a massive conflict of interest between consumers and major media. For the most part, I think consumers want fast access to infinite variety, and they don't want Comcast limiting the available options and siphoning them off into "prioritized" websites with greater band width and higher speeds. There is evidence to bare this out. In his book The Long Tail, Chris Anderson notes that nearly half of online music retailer Rhapsody's revenue comes from selling niche and back-catalog music. Stuff you would never find at Tower Records. Major media outlets however, want to corral as many people into one stream of information as possible to create advertising revenue. In the past they have done it by buying radio towers, satellites, and printing presses that only they could afford. Now anyone with an iPhone has access to those things. The Comcast ruling opens the door for major media to once again use massive budgets to buy out the delivery infrastructure.

Musicians are caught in the middle of this. We want free access to millions of listeners via the internet, but we also want to make sure people are actually listening. In a market where listeners have infinite choices and get their music from dozens if not hundreds of sources, how do you reach them? Just uploading your music to every online service does not produce results. Developing artists now have a huge conundrum: no obvious battle to pick.  Chris Anderson uses a nice little metaphor to describe the media markets of the 20th century. He compares them to islands jutting up from a vast sea. An island might represent a radio station with all the hit songs of the day clustered above sea level. What the internet has done with its unlimited storage capacity and fast and accurate search-ability is lower the water level revealing fossilized remains, fresh garbage, a lot of dirt, and the occasional hidden gem under the surface. So this is good, there is exposure now where there wasn't before. But before, the goal was so simple: just make it to an island. In today's market we have to figure out how to leverage the exposure we have. And we are competing not only with those in our immediate community, but with every other band across the country and the world.

When I was 17, touting Shawn Fanning as a hero, I neglected to notice that all my favorite CD's were from major-label artists. The irony of this was lost on me. Like the food on my table, and the clothes on my back, I took a lot for granted in my youth, and just didn't get it that if everyone starts downloading music for free, I could kiss my major-label CDs goodbye. In many ways that's exactly whats happened. Major labels still sign bubblegum-pop-artists, (I put Lady Gaga in this category, yes bubblegum has become a lot more "scandalous" in its old age) but that's pretty much the only thing they take a risk on because it's the only consistent seller.

Major labels used to actively search out, sign, and develop musical acts of a higher artistic standard. Really. (Lady Gaga you're definitely an artistic lady, but your music is the least artistic part of your act.) When the Red Hot Chili Peppers released Blood Sugar Sex Magik in 1991, they were signed to Warner Bros. Records. In terms of labels, it doesn't get much bigger than this. The album peaked at #3 on the billboard and sold over 13 million copies (according to wikipedia). But the Chili Peppers were the farthest thing from pop music. They didn't sound anything like Michael Jackson, or Madonna, or Lady Gaga. At the time they were combining funk and punk, creating a pretty unique sound. An executive at Warner saw what they were doing, thought it was musically awesome, and took a massive risk on them. Back then, labels decided what we heard and didn't hear. If they wanted us to hear a band they would spend millions promoting, getting it on the air, and into record stores. Labels had a choke-hold on the distribution streams, which they have completely lost in the internet era. With the latest Comcast ruling maybe they can get it back.

If you time-warped the Chili's from the early 90's to today, I strongly believe that they would never be signed, no one would ever hear of them, and they would be languishing in obscurity in LA, counting the hits on their Myspace page. This is because it takes a massive industry to take something new and edgy and turn it into a household name.

So the question I'm posing: Where's the happy medium between a massive industry that decides what you hear, and totally free access for both musicians and listeners?

Tags:  Comcast NBC Youtube Chris Anderson Long Tail Rhapsody Tower Records Shawn Fanning Lady Gaga Red Hot Chili Peppers Blood Sugar Sex Magik Warner Bros. Records Michael Jackson Madonna