November 2008

The Perils of Thinking of Broadband as a Public Utility

by on November 19, 2008 · 14 comments

Richard Bennett and Matt Sherman explain why it’s a bad idea. (And here are a few of my old rants on the issue.)

Bennett:

If we’ve learned anything at all about from the history of Internet-as-utility, it’s that this strained analogy only applies in cases where there is no existing infrastructure, and probably ends best when a publicly-financed project is sold (or at least leased) to a private company for upgrades and management. We should be suspicious of projects aimed at providing Wi-Fi mesh because they’re slow as molasses on a winter’s day.

I don’t see any examples of long-term success in the publicly-owned and operated networking space. And I also don’t see any examples of publicly-owned and operated Internet service providers doing any of the heavy lifting in the maintenance of the Internet protocols, a never-ending process that’s vital to the continuing growth of the Internet.

Sherman:

Pursuing a public utility model while also desiring competition are fundamentally contradictory goals. Utilities are designed not to compete. Do you, or does anyone you know, have a choice of providers for water, sewage or electricity?

My second question would be: is there anyone in the technology world who sees public utilities as a model for innovation? A 1.5 megabit connection (T1) was an unimaginable luxury when I started in tech in the mid-90’s. It was for well-funded companies only. Today, it is a low-end consumer connection and costs around 80% less. Has your sewage service followed a similar trajectory?

A public utility is designed to be “good enough” and little more. There is no need, and little room, for differentiation or progress. Your electricity service is essentially unchanged from 20 years ago, and will look the same 10 years from now. Broadband, on the other hand, requires constant innovation if we are to move forward — and it has been delivering it, even if we desire more.

SHARE: 14 comments

Jerry Yang: Bad at Business or Politics?

by on November 18, 2008 · 26 comments

Yahoo! has seen better days, but it’s still a profitable company with a market cap of $16 billion, something that many tech companies that began in the 1990s can’t say (mainly because they no longer exist).  Even though Yahoo! continues to be a profitable company, it is no longer viewed as an innovator, which is hurting its stock value immensely.  It’s also hard to say exactly what Yahoo! does, even its employees and executives can’t figure out what the company is all about.

All of this added up to yesterday’s resignation of Jerry Yang.

Yang’s tenure at the helm began when he stepped in for Terry Semel in June 2007.  Since that time Yang, one of the co-founders of Yahoo!, has been seen as the man who couldn’t do anything right.  He passed up an offer from Microsoft to buy Yahoo! for $33 dollars a share, claiming the company was worth $37.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 26 comments

Security Theater, Example #23,245

by on November 18, 2008 · 4 comments

Matt Yglesias gets through the TSA checkpoint with a Swiss Army Knife and the agents don’t bat an eye. But God help him if he tries to bring a can of shaving cream that’s more than 3 oz onto an airplane.

SHARE: 4 comments

Book Review: Blown to Bits by Abelson, Ledeen, & Lewis

by on November 18, 2008 · 20 comments

Blown to Bits coverI’ve just finished reading Blown to Bits: Your Life, Liberty, and Happiness After the Digital Explosion, by Hal Abelson, Ken Ledeen, and Harry Lewis, and it’s another title worth adding to your tech policy reading list. The authors survey a broad swath of tech policy territory — privacy, search, encryption, free speech, copyright, spectrum policy — and provide the reader with a wonderful history and technology primer on each topic.

I like the approach and tone they use throughout the book. It is certainly something more than “Internet Policy for Dummies.” It’s more like “Internet Policy for the Educated Layman”: a nice mix of background, policy, and advice. I think Ray Lodato’s Slashdot review gets it generally right in noting that, “Each chapter will alternatively interest you and leave you appalled (and perhaps a little frightened). You will be given the insight to protect yourself a little better, and it provides background for intelligent discussions about the legalities that impact our use of technology.”

Abelson, Ledeen, and Lewis aren’t really seeking to be polemical in this book by advancing a single thesis or worldview. To the extent the book’s chapters are guided by any central theme, it comes in the form of the “two basic morals about technology” they outline in Chapter 1:

The first is that information technology is inherently neither good nor bad — it can be used for good or ill, to free us or to shackle us. Second, new technology brings social change, and change comes with both risks and opportunities. All of us, and all of our public agencies and private institutions, have a say in whether technology will be used for good or ill and whether we will fall prey to its risks or prosper from the opportunities it creates. (p. 14)

Mostly, what they aim to show is that digital technology is reshaping society and, whether we like or it not, we better get used to it — and quick!  “The digital explosion is changing the world as much as printing once did — and some of the changes are catching us unaware, blowing to bits our assumptions about the way the world works… The explosion, and the social disruption that it will create, have barely begun.” (p 3)

In that sense, most chapters discuss how technology and technological change can be both a blessing and a curse, but the authors are generally more optimistic than pessimistic about the impact of the Net and digital technology on our society. What follows is a quick summary of some of the major issues covered in Blown to Bits.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 20 comments

Debate: Does Google Violate its “Don’t Be Evil” Motto?

by on November 17, 2008 · 28 comments

Tomorrow evening, I’ll be participating in an IQ2US debate arguing against the proposition that “Google violates its ‘don’t be evil’ motto.” The venue is Caspary Auditorium at The Rockefeller University, 1230 York Avenue at 66th Street, in New York City.

Jeff Jarvis, Esther Dyson and I will be debating Harry Lewis of Harvard, Randall Picker of the University of Chicago Law School, and Siva Vaidhyanathan from the University of Virginia. Jarvis’ blog post on the subject has gotten some interesting discussion.

As with any company, one can complain about the details of how Google does business. I think I call it like I see it with respect to Google, having derided their gaming of the regulatory system in the 700 MHz auction and lauding their generally good corporate citizenship on privacy.

You have to drain the word “evil” of meaning to apply it to Google. But even in the casual, slightly anti-corporate sense that the founders probably meant it, Google isn’t evil.

Though publishers and holders of copyrights protest (often from ignorance of the modern media landscape), Google makes their material more available, more useful, and more profitable.

Owners of trademarks may object, but Google AdWords brings new products and better prices to consumers.

Surely Google should avoid censorship on behalf of the Chinese government, but exiting China would abandon the Chinese people to government-approved information sources only.

Google Earth, Maps, Street View, and basic search challenge privacy, but Google has made itself a model corporate citizen by working to educate users, by making its products transparent, and by openly resisting government subpoenas.

Some say Google’s search monopoly makes it the most powerful company on earth, but it’s always one misstep (and one click) away from handing its customer base to a challenger.

Disruptive technologies and businesses always make life uncomfortable for the old guard. These complainers should be ignored. Google earns a rightful profit as it makes people around the world more aware, educated, and informed. Evil? Hardly.

Discuss.

SHARE: 28 comments

We Don’t Need to Mandate “a la Carte”… It Already Exists

by on November 16, 2008 · 4 comments

Wow, I am really blown away by CancelCable.com. Earlier today, I mentioned how I discovered it thanks to Mike Musgrove’s Washington Post story about how more and more people are canceling their cable and satellite subscriptions altogether and using alternative video platforms — Hulu, iTunes, Netflix, XBox, etc. — to watch their favorite shows. Anyway, if you go to CancelCable.com’s “Show Finder” site, you will find a complete inventory of all the major television programs you can find online right now. Go to the site to see the complete list, but down below I cut just the first 15 shows listed to give you a feel for how it works. And that list just continues to grow and grow in both directions — in terms of the number of shows and the number of platforms where you can get them.

OK, so why again do we need to mandate a la carte regulation for cable and satellite?

Network Show Hulu Other Netflix Itunes
Fox
24
 view view view
FX
30 Days
 view view view
NBC
30 Rock
 view view
ABC
According to Jim
 view view
Retro / Classic
Adam-12
 view view
Retro / Classic
Alf
 view view
Retro / Classic
Alfred Hitchcock Presents
 view view
Fox
America’s Most Wanted
 view
Fox
American Dad
 view view view
Disney Channel
American Dragon
 view view view
Retro / Classic
American Gladiators
 view view
20th Cent. Fox
Angel
 view view
Retro / Classic
Archie Bunker’s Place
 view view
Fox
Are You Smarter Than a 5th G
 view view
20th Cent. Fox
Arrested Development
 view view view
Retro / Classic
Astro Boy
 view view view

SHARE: 4 comments

Cutting the (Video) Cord, Part 2

by on November 16, 2008 · 12 comments

In an essay I posted here back in October called “Cutting the (Video) Cord: The Shift to Online Video Continues” (part of an ongoing series), I reflected on an interesting piece by the Wall Street Journal’s Nick Wingfield’s entitled “Turn On, Tune Out, Click Here.” Wingfield’s article illustrated how rapidly the online video marketplace is growing and noted that so many shows are now available online that many people are cutting the cord entirely by canceling their cable or satellite subscriptions and just downloading everything they want to watch via sites like Hulu and supplmenting that with services like Netflix. In today’s Washington Post, Mike Musgrove writes about these same trends and developments in a column entitled, “TV Breaks Out of the Box.” Musgrove notes:

This has been a big year for both Netflix and online video services like Hulu.com, where people can watch episodes of popular shows such as “The Office” for free, though users do have to sit through a few commercials. When Tina Fey debuted her impression of Sarah Palin on “Saturday Night Live” last month, more people watched the comedy sketch online at NBC.com or Hulu.com than during the show’s broadcast. Last week, YouTube announced that it would start carrying old TV shows and movies from the film studio MGM.

As for Netflix, it seems that somebody there has been busy this year. While most customers still use the online video rental site mainly for movie deliveries by mail, the company now has a library of online content available for viewing on your TV through a variety of devices. A $99 appliance from Roku that plugs into your TV set and connects to the Web has been popular among some folks dropping their cable subscriptions. A couple of new, Web-connected Blu-ray players from Samsung and LG Electronics also allow Netflix subscribers to instantly watch titles from the company’s online collection.

Musgrove continues and notes that it’s about more than just Hulu and Netflix:

Continue reading →

SHARE: 12 comments

Bogus Privacy Fears over Google Flu Trends

by on November 16, 2008 · 16 comments

Declan McCullagh, CNET News’ chief political correspondent, does a nice job debunking the privacy fears about Google Flu Trends that a couple of pro-regulatory privacy advocates have set forth. Flu Trends is a very cool application that uses search terms as an indicator of possible upticks in flu-related illnesses in various regions of the U.S.  Of course, it didn’t take long for some Chicken Littles to rain on the parade with their irrational fears about data privacy. As Declan notes, however, there is no personally identifiable information being collected or shared here. It’s just search term analysis. Moreover, if these privacy-sensitive advocates are really that paranoid about it, they should just just Tor or another anonymizer to cloak their searches instead of calling in the regulators to suffocate another technology while its still in the cradle.

Anyway, make sure to read Declan’s excellent piece.

SHARE: 16 comments

NYT Article on Age Verification & Schools

by on November 15, 2008 · 4 comments

In a big post two months ago entitled “Age Verification Debate Continues; Schools Now at Center of Discussion,” I noted that there has been an important shift in the age verification debate: Schools and school records are increasingly being viewed as the primary mechanism to facilitate online identity authentication transactions. I pointed out that this raises two very serious questions: Do we want schools to serve as DMVs for our children? And, do we want more school records or information about our kids being accessed or put online?

Brad Stone of the New York Times has just posted an important article with relevance to this debate. In it, he points out that:

performing so-called age verification for children is fraught with challenges. The kinds of publicly available data that Web companies use to confirm the identities of adults, like their credit card or Social Security numbers, are either not available for minors or are restricted by federal privacy laws. Nevertheless, over the last year, at least two dozen companies have sprung up with systems they claim will solve the problem. Surprisingly, their work is proving controversial and even downright unpopular among the very people who spend their days worrying about the well-being of children on the Web.

Child-safety activists charge that some of the age-verification firms want to help Internet companies tailor ads for children. They say these firms are substituting one exaggerated threat — the menace of online sex predators — with a far more pervasive danger from online marketers like junk food and toy companies that will rush to advertise to children if they are told revealing details about the users.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 4 comments

Sensible Khakis: An Entrepreneurial Anthem

by on November 15, 2008 · 6 comments

Entrepreneurs rock! You wouldn’t guess it, though, to listen to rock music. (Marc Knopfler’s, Boom, Like That, says something about the founding and rise of McDonald’s, granted, but it hardly casts the enterprise in a very flattering light.) So in honor of entrepreneurs everywhere—but especially those in the board sports industries, whom I thank for making some very fun toys—I offer Sensible Khakis:

Like Take Up the Flame, which I coughed up on YouTube last week, Sensible Khakis’ license leaves you free to play it just for fun. You can find the chords and lyrics—including the law-geek verse, not included in the video above, about the choices entrepreneurs face between sole proprietorships, corporations, LLPs, and LLCs—here. Like the terms attached to Take Up the Flame, any commercial licensees of Sensible Khakis will have to pay a tithe to one of my favorite causes—this time, Surfrider Foundation. That is not a likely scenario, admittedly, but I figure that the thought counts for something.

[Crossposted at Agoraphilia and Technology Liberation Front.]

SHARE: 6 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →