Making Innovation Flourish

Internet radio: how regulation could impact online innovation

Today internet radio stations in the US are observing a day of silence to protest the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB)'s decision to hike royalty fees for internet radio stations - a hike of 3-12 times the fees currently being paid by stations. Small stations have complained that the fees would be more than their annual revenue, and many pundits argue that this could effectively 'kill' streaming internet radio in America. Even non-profit radio, such as NPR (National Public Radio) would be severely hit by the hike.

Roughly 1 in 5 Americans listened to internet radio regularly in 2006, so the potential impact shouldn't be underestimated. For reference, on this side of the pond, the picture is much the same: BBC's internet radio doubled its listenership in 5 months, and a year ago reported over 32million hours of net radio consumption (I'm sure it's doubled again by now).

To me, the tragic irony in this story is the fact that the proposed royalty fee model could never have existed without the online medium itself. The fees are per song, per listener - something which could never be accurately measured in the old broadcast model, but suddenly is possible for online stations due to the trackable nature of streaming media. Net radio campaigners say this is an unfair model, as it penalises online radio unjustly compared to satellite or standard broadcast radio fees.

Internet radio is the epitome of The Long Tail at work: thousands of small, non-commercial niche stations sprang up as an alternative to mainstream commercial stations littered with ads, churning out the same playlist over and over. A thriving new business model emerged based on broadband penetration, streaming media technology and consumer demand; a perfect example of innovation at work.

Looking at the bigger picture, this is a case in point of how something like regulation could seriously impact the growth of an innovative business model. What nascent markets like these need is not overbearing regulation, but forward-thinking. Of course I'm not saying they shouldn't pay (fair) fees, but this was a missed opportunity for the CRB to demonstrate leadership in the way intellectual property should be managed in the digital age. Instead, they opted for an approach that exploits the nature of the new medium to line the pockets of the record companies: none of the proposed fees would go to the recording artists.

Net taxation could kill collaborative innovation

Soon the US government will decide whether the ban on taxation of internet access should continue or not. If the ban is lifted, Americans could be taxed per access or amount of bandwidth used instead of the current blanket per month fee for broadband. Not only is this a backward step for consumers (remember dial-up?), this clearly has societal implications, allowing only the moneyed classes to readily access high-bandwidth content such as video, or to stay online for long periods in Second Life or MMORPGs. But there's so much more at stake than missing out on YouTube or online games. The entire economy of the internet would change. Would you do your banking, grocery shopping or check-in for flights online if you had to pay extra to do so?

The rise of cheap broadband also opened the door to exponential growth in online social networks and collaborative tools such as Basecamp and Central Desktop, not to mention online meeting tools and VOIP. There are millions of people online every day, collaborating on projects and ideas, sharing knowledge in ways that weren't possible before, and just plain getting things done. People from oppostie sides of the world can collaborate in real time without ever leaving their chairs. Taxation such as that being debated could kill these kinds of online collaboration. Without cheap & easy access would projects such as the IBM InnovationJam thrive - or even exist?

If the US were to lift the ban, other countries could be inspired to follow suit - I only hope that those of us who live our lives online can make sure this doesn't happen. It also highlights the fact that many of the factors in creating a climate where innovation can thrive reach way beyond 'innovation policy' or personal  entrepreneurship.

Corporation tax

Northern Ireland's proposal to the Treasury that it should have the ability to reduce corporation tax is an audacious move.  If awarded (or even considered seriously) it begins a new phase in the development of regional innovation strategies, and one that may not be healthy.

EC proposals: an example of how regulation can drive innovation

The European Commission has proposed forcing carmakers to cut the CO2 emissions from new cars by 18%, by 2012. It says it is planning legislation to ensure that all new cars emit no more than 130g of CO2 per kilometre, compared with an average of 162g/km for cars sold in 2005. This has led to predictable uproar: car-makers say that the limit is “arbitrary” and will hurt their business; environmentalists say that it doesn’t go far enough. Both are missing the point.

Better emissions standards are of course better for the environment.  They will also cause short-term disruption to the lives of those in the automotive industry (although they must have known that they were coming), but from the point of view of innovation, this is a great example of intelligent regulation that could position Europe’s car industry for explosive growth when the rest of the world catches up with the Commission’s proposals.

As Luke Georghiou makes clear in Demanding Innovation, performance-based regulations like this can force the EU’s industries to develop world-leading technologies that can position them for rapid dominance when those technologies become more widely demanded. Correctly implemented, this move could prove a living case study of the impact of intelligent regulation on stimulating innovation.