newspeak

FCC boss clears way for internet TV and dismantling of cable bundles • The Register.

Bundling is excused with the argument that only by bundling money-losers with winners can the quality losers hope for existence. The same argument has been used for every other form of art in modernity. The unsold masterpiece subsidized by its more popular but less respected (critically, that is) brethren. There are some problems with this notion of valuation. For instance, in college, it’s almost always the esthetically valuable, if not commercially that is taught. Graduates are left ignorant of the actual impact that the things people actually read had. But they know their Joyce.

Unbundling could then end up tossing the unprofitable but supposedly aesthetically (or social, but yet unpopular) art into the dustbin of history. But not necessarily. For the same reasons that Wheeler would propose unbundling—the technology’s cheaper and more ubiquitous—so too can one imagine less expensive production and even distribution of works of art that have not been gilded with corporate dosh.

Or not. But then there are “community” or “crowd” funding mechanisms that are still evolving and that replace the work that was once done by government agencies tasked with distributing fairly and for the public good money accrued through taxes and other revenue sources. Neo-Libertarianism has voided society and government as the thing we are all in together in favor of the much less obligatory community. But it’s also provided the notion of crowdfunding.