Last week, Nine Systems announced a podcasting service to compliment the streaming they do. They're the first streaming company as far as I know that is venturing into the podcast space.

Nine Systems streams sporting events such as The Open Championships golf tournament. These are streamed broadcasts, which in the future could be available as video podcasts.

My question: Do they get it? Here's what they say they can do:

The podcasting solution allows content producers to control the podcasts that are made available to their audiences. Other features of the podcasting solution include publish of podcasts for on-demand streaming and download content and live streaming content and guarantee compatibility with iTunes and other aggregators with support for RSS 2.0, iTunes elements and Yahoo! Media RSS 1.1.0. The Stream OS podcasting platform also tracks podcast circulation, syndication, aggregator type and click-through with extensive reporting.

I read through this and wonder why streaming is so critical? Live sporting events? Sure, streaming may make sense but I'm not convinced people want to sit in front of their computer to watch a game. Financial institutions that need to be extremely diligent about releasing information see value in streaming. I talked to a chief investment officer with a large financial services company earlier this year who said for their annual events they have to stream the whole thing so as to keep in line with SEC regulations. But even in that case, I'm not sure that streaming is any better than podcasting. In fact, podcasting may be even better as people can take the information with them, free from the PC. Publicly traded companies use streaming for quarterly announcements. Streaming allows for live Q&A, etc. Even there, podcasts of the announcements seems like it should be required as they would be so accessible to people.

Isn't it far less expensive to make shows available as downloads than to stream them? And isn't it far less costly to do a recording and then make it available, perhaps in smaller segments? And what is the value in the tracking they provide? Most of this tracking they offer can be done with a service like Feedburner.

Further, all this talk in the Nine Systems press release of content and control makes you wonder about companies getting on the podcast train. After reading the announcement I decided to dive into Saving the Net: How to Keep the Carriers from Flushing the Net Down the Tubes , the long essay Doc Searls published last week. The essay covers a lot of ground. But it's insightful when you compare it to the language of the Nine Systems announcement.

A main theme of Doc's essay is about the power the big carriers want to wield by controlling access to their pipes. Doc plays out a scenario that asks: Who can afford to play in this web space if the carriers get their way and close down the pipes to all except those who can pay their tolls? The answer: Companies that subscribe to the language that the carriers have successfully spread into our vernacular. The carriers see the web as a system of pipes, not as a frontier or place where free culture is thriving. The carriers see the Internet in terms of packet transports. All those podcasts, blogs and other media are just cargo in containers. And if that's the case, then those containers are subject to inspection and can be stopped to be checked for offensive materials or whatever "illegal," possessions may be inside. The only ones who will be able to fill to these containers are the ones that the big carriers see fit to provide access. In that scenario, the "content industry," meaning big media companies, will be the natural partners for the carriers. And the consumers will only get what the content industry allows us to consume.

And in that case, it won't matter. We'll just have to take what we get. You may not agree with this line of thinking, but it does certainly raise questions how the language is being used to the favor of those with a big interest in making money off all those pipes and switches.

Doc explained this whole concept of "content," to me at the Syndicate conference last year. I had used the terms extensively in a panel presentation. After talking with Doc, I realized that content is a word that we have become used to using in our language and I should avoid it all costs. For me, part of it is just better word choice. Content is one of those words that is right up there with facility.

And this is why these monumental battles often come down to battles over linguistics. For it is those words that define our concepts and our culture.

As for me, I'm with Doc. I beleive the Internet is a place where the indiviidual has control, content is technical speak and people are never called users.

Users. Ugh, don't get me started.