Over the course of the past year, I've been interviewed a bunch of times about the "peer economy" or the "sharing economy" (Fastco, Wired, NY Times, PBS Newshour), with most of the focus on the public policy considerations of all this, specifically public safety regulations and the impact on labor. A question that comes up every time is: "aren't all of these new independent workers missing out on the stability provided by full-time employment?" (e.g., healthcare, steady work, etc). My answer has been: yes, for the moment. BUT, there is an emerging wave of networked services which will provide this stability to independent workers, albeit in a different form than we're used to seeing. My colleague Albert describes this as the "
Over the course of the past year, I've been interviewed a bunch of times about the "peer economy" or the "sharing economy" (Fastco, Wired, NY Times, PBS Newshour), with most of the focus on the public policy considerations of all this, specifically public safety regulations and the impact on labor. A question that comes up every time is: "aren't all of these new independent workers missing out on the stability provided by full-time employment?" (e.g., healthcare, steady work, etc). My answer has been: yes, for the moment. BUT, there is an emerging wave of networked services which will provide this stability to independent workers, albeit in a different form than we're used to seeing. My colleague Albert describes this as the "
unbundling of a job
" -- the idea that many of the things that have traditionally been part of a job (not just steady money and healthcare, but also sense of purpose, camaraderie, etc.), will in the future be offered by a combination of other organizations, services and communities. Albert takes the idea
than I will here, where I just want to focus on some of the more immediately practical developments. Thus far, this idea hasn't gotten a lot of press attention, as the number of visible services providing this kind of support has been small. But it is growing, and I expect we'll see at least a small handful of these kinds of services gain traction in the next year. The oldest and most venerable organization doing this is the
. New Yorkers will recognize their subway ads that have run for decades, advertising their programs and member benefits. Freelancers Union's roots are in the pre-networked era, focusing largely on independent creative types in NYC, and their scope has grown dramatically over time, growing nationwide and adding services like insurance and
. What we expect to see a lot more of are services that are tailor-made to support independent workers who reach customers and deliver their work through web and mobile platforms. For example,
, which is essentially Freelancers Union for the peer economy. So, what kinds of services are we talking about exactly? Here are a few of the kinds of services we've been noticing and think we'll see more of:
Insurance: One of the biggest challenges in this space has been how to insure it. We're seeing established firms consider how to address the space, as well as brand new insurers that are tailor-made for it.
Job discovery & optimization: Many networked, independent workers make real-time decisions about what kind of work to do (e.g., driving vs. assembling furniture), as well as which platforms to use (uber vs lyft). This is currently a manual, non-optimized process. Increasing discoverability and lowering switching costs will also be an important competitive vector to ensure workers' interests are being met by platforms. (e.g., sherpashare)
"Back office" - taxes, accounting, analytics: Dealing with paperwork is a huge headache for busy independent workers, and we're seeing a bunch of saas-type offerings to help people manage it all (e.g., 1099.is, Zen99, Benny)
Healthcare: Gotta have it. This is a topic in its own right, and not expressly specific to the indie economy, but we are seeing massive experimentation and innovation in how independent actors can buy healthcare (e.g., teladoc, medigo to name 2 of many)
I suspect that by the end of 2015 we will not only have a much longer list of example issues and services, we'll see that some of these have gotten traction and started to make a difference for independent workers. So, if you're a reporter covering this beat, I think this is an interesting angle to pursue. If you're a lawmaker or policymaker, I'd think about this as an important and growing part of the ecosystem. And if you're an entrepreneur working in this space, we'd love to meet you :-)
There has been a lot of debate about how to protect Internet Freedom. Today, Senator Ted Cruz has an op-ed in the Washington Post on the subject, which starts out with an eloquent and spot-on assessment of what we are trying to protect:
Never before has it been so easy to take an idea and turn it into a business. With a simple Internet connection, some ingenuity and a lot of hard work, anyone today can create a new service or app or start selling products nationwide.
In the past, such a person would have to know the right people and be able to raise substantial start-up capital to get a brick-and-mortar store running. Not anymore. The Internet is the great equalizer when it comes to jobs and opportunity. We should make a commitment, right now, to keep it that way.
This is absolutely what this is about. The ability for any person -- a teenager in Des Moines, a grandmother in Brazil, or a shop owner in Norway -- to get online and start writing, selling, streaming, performing, and transacting -- with pretty much anyone in the world (outside of China). This is the magic of the internet. Right there. By essentially a happy accident, we have created the single most open and vibrant marketplace in the history of the world. The most democratizing, power-generating, market-making thing ever. And the core reason behind this: on the internet you don't have to ask anyone's permission to get started. And that "anyone" is not just the government -- as we're used to asking the government for permission for lots of things, like drivers licenses, business licenses, etc. In fact, more importantly -- "anyone" means the carriers whose lines you need to cross to reach an audience on the internet. A blogger doesn't have to ask Comcast's or Verizon's permission to reach its subscribers. Neither does a small merchant, or an indie musician or filmmaker. Contrast that with how cable TV works -- in order to reach an audience, you need to cut a deal with a channel, who in turn needs to cut a deal with a carrier, before you can reach anyone. It is completely out of the realm of possibility for me to create my own TV station in the Cable model. In the Internet model, I can do that in 5 minutes without asking anyone's permission. What we don't want is an internet that works like Cable TV. So I agree with Ted Cruz -- his description of the internet is exactly the one I believe in and want to fight for. But where I think he and many others miss the point is that Internet Freedom is not just about freedom from government intervention, it's freedom from powerful gatekeepers, who would prefer to make the internet look like Cable TV, controlling and restricting the mega marketplace we've been so lucky to take part in. Let's not let that happen. p.s., I would encourage any conservatives pondering this issue to read James J. Heaney's powerful and in-depth case for "Why Free Marketeers Want to Regulate the Internet"
Over the weekend, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler sent a response to the letter that over 100 VCs and angel investors submitted last week. In the letter, we stressed the importance of an open internet as a foundation for the stunning levels of investment and innovation we’ve seen in the internet applications sector over the past decade.
You can read Chairman Wheeler’s response here (also embedded below). It reiterates high level support for an open internet and states that all options, including Title II reclassification of internet access providers, are on the table. The latter part is the key — with the FCC going on the record that a discussion Title II reclassification will be included in the upcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
This letter, combined with the reports over the weekend that the FCC may be revising its approach to open internet policy, are, at the very least, a step in the right direction and an opening in the conversation. But there is still a long way to go on this issue, and a lot of work to be done over this conversation continues over the next few months. The next step is the publication of the NPRM at this Thursday’s Commission meeting.
For those who are just jumping into the conversation, here is some good background reading:
* Tim Lee’s explanation of how payments for traffic on the internet work, and why what the ISPs are attempting to do disrupts the whole model
" -- the idea that many of the things that have traditionally been part of a job (not just steady money and healthcare, but also sense of purpose, camaraderie, etc.), will in the future be offered by a combination of other organizations, services and communities. Albert takes the idea
than I will here, where I just want to focus on some of the more immediately practical developments. Thus far, this idea hasn't gotten a lot of press attention, as the number of visible services providing this kind of support has been small. But it is growing, and I expect we'll see at least a small handful of these kinds of services gain traction in the next year. The oldest and most venerable organization doing this is the
. New Yorkers will recognize their subway ads that have run for decades, advertising their programs and member benefits. Freelancers Union's roots are in the pre-networked era, focusing largely on independent creative types in NYC, and their scope has grown dramatically over time, growing nationwide and adding services like insurance and
. What we expect to see a lot more of are services that are tailor-made to support independent workers who reach customers and deliver their work through web and mobile platforms. For example,
, which is essentially Freelancers Union for the peer economy. So, what kinds of services are we talking about exactly? Here are a few of the kinds of services we've been noticing and think we'll see more of:
Insurance: One of the biggest challenges in this space has been how to insure it. We're seeing established firms consider how to address the space, as well as brand new insurers that are tailor-made for it.
Job discovery & optimization: Many networked, independent workers make real-time decisions about what kind of work to do (e.g., driving vs. assembling furniture), as well as which platforms to use (uber vs lyft). This is currently a manual, non-optimized process. Increasing discoverability and lowering switching costs will also be an important competitive vector to ensure workers' interests are being met by platforms. (e.g., sherpashare)
"Back office" - taxes, accounting, analytics: Dealing with paperwork is a huge headache for busy independent workers, and we're seeing a bunch of saas-type offerings to help people manage it all (e.g., 1099.is, Zen99, Benny)
Healthcare: Gotta have it. This is a topic in its own right, and not expressly specific to the indie economy, but we are seeing massive experimentation and innovation in how independent actors can buy healthcare (e.g., teladoc, medigo to name 2 of many)
I suspect that by the end of 2015 we will not only have a much longer list of example issues and services, we'll see that some of these have gotten traction and started to make a difference for independent workers. So, if you're a reporter covering this beat, I think this is an interesting angle to pursue. If you're a lawmaker or policymaker, I'd think about this as an important and growing part of the ecosystem. And if you're an entrepreneur working in this space, we'd love to meet you :-)
There has been a lot of debate about how to protect Internet Freedom. Today, Senator Ted Cruz has an op-ed in the Washington Post on the subject, which starts out with an eloquent and spot-on assessment of what we are trying to protect:
Never before has it been so easy to take an idea and turn it into a business. With a simple Internet connection, some ingenuity and a lot of hard work, anyone today can create a new service or app or start selling products nationwide.
In the past, such a person would have to know the right people and be able to raise substantial start-up capital to get a brick-and-mortar store running. Not anymore. The Internet is the great equalizer when it comes to jobs and opportunity. We should make a commitment, right now, to keep it that way.
This is absolutely what this is about. The ability for any person -- a teenager in Des Moines, a grandmother in Brazil, or a shop owner in Norway -- to get online and start writing, selling, streaming, performing, and transacting -- with pretty much anyone in the world (outside of China). This is the magic of the internet. Right there. By essentially a happy accident, we have created the single most open and vibrant marketplace in the history of the world. The most democratizing, power-generating, market-making thing ever. And the core reason behind this: on the internet you don't have to ask anyone's permission to get started. And that "anyone" is not just the government -- as we're used to asking the government for permission for lots of things, like drivers licenses, business licenses, etc. In fact, more importantly -- "anyone" means the carriers whose lines you need to cross to reach an audience on the internet. A blogger doesn't have to ask Comcast's or Verizon's permission to reach its subscribers. Neither does a small merchant, or an indie musician or filmmaker. Contrast that with how cable TV works -- in order to reach an audience, you need to cut a deal with a channel, who in turn needs to cut a deal with a carrier, before you can reach anyone. It is completely out of the realm of possibility for me to create my own TV station in the Cable model. In the Internet model, I can do that in 5 minutes without asking anyone's permission. What we don't want is an internet that works like Cable TV. So I agree with Ted Cruz -- his description of the internet is exactly the one I believe in and want to fight for. But where I think he and many others miss the point is that Internet Freedom is not just about freedom from government intervention, it's freedom from powerful gatekeepers, who would prefer to make the internet look like Cable TV, controlling and restricting the mega marketplace we've been so lucky to take part in. Let's not let that happen. p.s., I would encourage any conservatives pondering this issue to read James J. Heaney's powerful and in-depth case for "Why Free Marketeers Want to Regulate the Internet"
Over the weekend, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler sent a response to the letter that over 100 VCs and angel investors submitted last week. In the letter, we stressed the importance of an open internet as a foundation for the stunning levels of investment and innovation we’ve seen in the internet applications sector over the past decade.
You can read Chairman Wheeler’s response here (also embedded below). It reiterates high level support for an open internet and states that all options, including Title II reclassification of internet access providers, are on the table. The latter part is the key — with the FCC going on the record that a discussion Title II reclassification will be included in the upcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
This letter, combined with the reports over the weekend that the FCC may be revising its approach to open internet policy, are, at the very least, a step in the right direction and an opening in the conversation. But there is still a long way to go on this issue, and a lot of work to be done over this conversation continues over the next few months. The next step is the publication of the NPRM at this Thursday’s Commission meeting.
For those who are just jumping into the conversation, here is some good background reading:
* Tim Lee’s explanation of how payments for traffic on the internet work, and why what the ISPs are attempting to do disrupts the whole model
