As a result I made a small donation to Wikipedia around lunchtime then cursed it the rest of the day for failing me seven more times.

As for the SOPA/PIPA protest itself, I sympathize. But in my view what we have here is mainly a conflict of business models, dying industries, and really, really poor design that will work itself out over time.

Remember the record album — the LP?  Some were great, most were not. Too many B tracks if you ask me. The music industry has long had a problem of value.  The groups I liked sometimes didn’t have many good songs.  The record companies would put one or two good songs on an LP or CD, then throw in 10 more that weren’t so good.  There were no warning labels which matter to me now that I am a parent.  All we wanted were good songs at a reasonable price, which didn’t mean the 15-20 percent yield we were getting from albums.

Then came iTunes and all those problems went away.  iTunes did more than just sell the songs the record companies were pushing: they sold whole collections of music.  As a result, more, not less, music was sold, most of it the good stuff. Music — if not the recording industry — is better as a result. Steve Jobs proved thinking about the consumer is very good business.

Now we have SOPA and PIPA.  I would like to have the same ability to build an online movie library as I have done with music, but there are big problems with this, starting with Windows Media Center and, yes, even iTunes — pretty good products in their own right that protect the copyrights of stored content.  That part is okay.  But they have very little third party support.  Then there is the problem of content.  I can buy only a fraction of what I’d like to get and it is scattered over several suppliers.  If the movie and TV industries think I am going to subscribe to 5-10 services for $10-25 a month each, they’re nuts.

The movie and TV industries are doing now exactly what the recording industry did before iTunes.  SOPA and PIPA will die but they’ll be replaced with something just as bad because lawmakers are stupid and producers are afraid of the future — a future that’s coming no matter what the entertainment industry does.  For the money they are spending on lobbying, a design team could develop a new system that would make more money by exposing more content, not less, enabling new business models in the process.  At least that’s my take on it.

Changing subjects, Jerry Yang recently got his choice of replacement CEOs again (Jerry’s fourth CEO — fifth if you include choosing himself in 2007) then almost immediately bailed from his every Yahoo connection: what’s up with that?  I wish I knew, but I have some suspicions.  An intervention, perhaps?  Jerry was such an obstructionist to Yahoo moving forward in almost any direction that someone on the inside may finally have told him to sit down and shut up, which I am sure Tim Koogle wanted to do many times.

I can see Jack Ma making a preemptive move like that, saying he’ll pay $1 billion more for Yahoo’s Alibaba stake if Jerry takes a hike first.

Nah, sounds too simple.  More likely Yang finally got tired of playing the bad cop and decided to retire to his private golf course.  I’ll be very interested to see what his next career move will be.  Off the board and owning less than five percent of the company (no SEC reporting requirements) it could be trying to make money trading on what’s sure to be a wild ride for Yahoo over the next several months.

Another change of subject — remember my problem just after Christmas trying to upgrade Windows 7 Home Premium to Windows 7 Professional using one of those instant upgrade cards I bought at WalMart? Though I tried to do the upgrade every day, it wasn’t until this past weekend — two and a half weeks after I started — that the Windows Instant Upgrade website was no longer down for maintenance. I’m not making this up nor can I be the only person with this particular problem, yet run a Google News search and you’ll see I’m almost the only person to write about it. What’s with that?

Well it is certainly humbling for me: I’m clearly not the hotshot reporter thought I was or possibly use to be. But it also brings into question the whole idea of viral growth in news stories and why one story gets picked up and another doesn’t.  It beats the crap out of me why it happens.  One thing I don’t suspect, though, is any concerted effort by Microsoft to shape the news other than by simply ignoring me. I certainly felt no pressure from them.

Frankly, I wish I had been pressured by Microsoft.  That would have been fun.

And now that I have Windows RDP service to my thin clients from a brand new Windows 7 server, how is it working out for my trio of young users?  Terrible. Even elementary school gamers overload this system despite first 8 and now 16 gigs of DDR3 RAM. Thin clients (and thick — I’ve tried both) fail the FusionFall test.

First a look at BitTorrent, which ISPs love to complain about. Torrents are down to only eight percent of Internet traffic, but much more important is the fact that torrents have always been more polite than video streams. Here are two more graphs courtesy of Arbor Networks. First take a look at how web traffic varies over a typical 24 hour period: Now look at p2p traffic over the same period:The two are reciprocals of each other. This is by design, not coincidence. The nature of BitTorrent is to grab bandwidth not utilized by other services. So when web surfing declines in the late night and early morning hours BitTorrent increases.

Using only eight percent of Internet bandwidth and substantially less than that during peak hours, I think BitTorrent’s day as the Internet bogeyman are past, though I doubt the MPAA will see it that way.

Even more interesting is the rise of Internet video. Back in 2005 when iTunes users were downloading seven million three-minute music videos, readers of this column were downloading 2.5 million hours of NerdTV. I remember those downloads cost me $0.25 per gigabyte — ouch! In 2010 Netflix spent about $0.015 per gigabyte with an average 1.8-gigabyte movie download costing 2.7 cents to stream. Compare this to the average $1.00 Netflix spends to ship and receive every DVD and you can see their current business transformation from DVDs to streaming will lead to dramatically lower costs, freeing-up capital to buy more content.  It’s a virtuous cycle that Netflix (and all it’s competitors to be sure) will attempt to leverage into its own form of too big to fail.

None of this is big news, I suppose, but think for a moment about the implications it has for both future services and for the commercial value of the Internet. Streaming costs are going down, not up, so what’s cheap today will be cheaper still tomorrow. These lower costs will allow higher quality (1080p video, for example) and they’ll shortly reach the point where stream costs will be lower than over-the-air broadcast costs on a per-viewer basis, which in the longer run is an inevitable prescription for the death of broadcast TV. It’s not a matter of if but when this will happen.

Even Luddites will be sucked into the Internet age if they want to communicate.

Despite having spent billions to help along the recent digital TV conversion, I’m sure the Federal Communications Commission will be happy to see broadcast TV disappear since it will do so with a flurry of spectrum auctions bringing-in many more billions to the Treasury. And that freed-up spectrum will go into more data services as we move toward the all-IP all the time future for carriers I have long predicted.

As for Netflix, it is hard to bet against the company. Hollywood studios glower and hint that Netflix will be deprived of content as current content deals — specifically Starz — expire, but that won’t happen. Dropping DVDs completely would transfer $2 billion straight to Netflix’s content acquisition budget through a combination of an increased subscriber base at lower prices and no more postal fees.

That $2 billion will buy a heck of a lot of crow in Hollywood, where cash is king.

This column has a global audience so sometimes I have to defend my tendency to see things from an American perspective.  But I’m not sure there even IS a defense for this particular item so I’ll just jump into it, because I think even readers from Kazahkstan and Kuwait (my two big K’s) may ultimately find it interesting.  It’s about Apple and Hulu and the direction Internet TV is going in the United States.

It’s not headed where you think it is.

Hulu is the ad-supported video distribution site set up by NBC-Universal and Fox.  It’s where, in addition to the TV network pages, viewers can go to watch thousands of television shows, old and new, supported by commercials.  Of the four big broadcast (as opposed to cable) networks in the U.S., Hulu until recently had half of them with CBS hiding out at TV.com and ABC residing solely at ABC.com.  But now ABC, which is owned by Disney, has decided to join Hulu and the pundits think that’s generally a big deal, not only because of the whole three-to-one thing but because Steve Jobs is the largest shareholder in Disney and on the Disney board and this would appear to be a kick in the face to Apple’s iTunes, where people rent or buy the same shows without commercials.

Is it or isn’t it a big deal?  And what does this move mean for Apple?

There have always been two general methods of distributing Internet video — downloading or streaming — and three business models — buying, renting, or watching with commercials.  Conventional wisdom — what THEY say — has it that streaming (YouTube) is better than downloading (iTunes) and watching with commercials (Hulu and TV.com) are better than renting or buying (iTunes again).

No, they aren’t, at least not as businesses, not yet.

Business Week, among others, made a grand effort this week to present Hulu as a masterstroke that will hurt or kill iTunes rather than what it is — an expensive streaming service that doesn’t make money.

My wife and I last night watched an episode of Chuck on Hulu.  We started on nbc.com where I thought we might see the show in HD but that wasn’t the case.  And even the standard definition version at nbc.com didn’t play well despite our dual-core 2.4-GHz system with four gigs of RAM and an eight megabit business broadband connection.  So we switched to Hulu where the 480p version stuttered a bit so we dropped to 360p where it played fine except for having to rebuffer a couple of times during the show.

In contrast to this with iTunes you have to wait for downloading but then none of this performance stuff happens. If you want HD you get HD, but then again you are PAYING for HD.

We watched the episode (fun) and all but one commercial was for Rwandan relief.  There is no way Hulu or NBC-Universal were making a profit on that stream, and this was a very popular show.

When you buy an episode on iTunes everyone in the production food chain makes a profit.

Hulu and its ilk are money-losing services that rely largely on concessions in various guild contracts that pretty much keep the writers and producers and actors from sharing in profits that aren’t there anyway, at least not yet.

How is this a threat to iTunes?

Fox owns a big chunk of Hulu, yet American Idol performances are exclusively available on iTunes, not Hulu.  Why is that?  Because American Idol performances on iTunes make a lot of MONEY, that’s why.  Adam Lambert downloads alone make more money every week — a LOT more money — than do ALL the shows on Hulu put together.

So Apple is being criticized and seen as an Internet antique because it is making a profit?  I don’t get it.

I’m not saying here, by the way, that there is no room for commercials on Internet TV.  Nor am I saying that Apple won’t possibly move to commercials or streaming at some point.  This is not gratuitous Apple ass-kissing. What I AM saying is that it is a lot easier to move from paid to free than it is to go from free to paid.  Hulu can’t choose to emulate Apple and become profitable that way because viewers would flee.

As I’ve written over and over, Apple is moving slowly and steadily toward becoming primarily a content provider.  Microsoft is trying to do the same but without Apple’s discipline.  Apple is putting in place all the pieces it needs to make a run at dominating the future of TV, but they know it takes time to get all those bits where they need to be.

What’s needed are devices and services and bandwidth at a given price point where it all works smoothly not just from a technical but also from a commercial standpoint.  Apple is there right now when it comes to downloading and selling or renting, but not for streaming or commercials — the numbers aren’t right yet, nor is the mix of devices.  But the time is coming soon when it will be right, certainly in no more than two years and maybe less.

Now here’s the key for all the pundits who see Apple failing or faltering: you are looking in the wrong direction.  It doesn’t matter how many networks are part of Hulu.  In time they will probably all be there.  But Hulu will remain an artifact of network labor agreements and will be vulnerable for that reason.  Hulu can’t afford to PAY its way.

Follow the money.

Apple has at this moment just under $29 billion in cash and not many good ways to get a reasonable return on that money.  Only Microsoft has more cash than Apple and Microsoft is being pulled in a lot more directions so Microsoft doesn’t have Apple’s flexibility.

What will Apple do with that money?

Most of it will remain unspent is my prediction, but I’m guessing we’ll shortly see $3 billion or so per year go into buying Internet rights for TV shows — not old TV shows but NEW TV shows, shows of all types.

TV production in the U.S. is approximately a $15 billion industry.  An extra $3 billion thrown into that business would change its dynamics completely.  Most production isn’t done by networks but by independent producers who are hungry for revenue and risk reduction.  Three billion Apple dollars spread around that crowd every year would buy Internet rights for EVERY show — more than every show in fact.  Whole new classes of shows would be invented, sapping talent from other parts of the industry.  It would be invigorating and destabilizing at the same time.  And because it is Apple — a company with real style — the new shows wouldn’t at all be crap programming.  They’d be new and innovative.

And just as the artistic heart of TV shifted to cable with HBO in the 1980s, so it will shift to the Internet and Apple.

And where will be Hulu?

Nobody will care.