Innovation & Entrepreneurship

Resurrecting the National Broadband Plan: Why is Washington Fighting a No-Brainer?

by on November 18, 2010 · 3 comments

I published an opinion piece today at CNET, calling on all tech stakeholders in Washington to stop the pointless quibbling and sniping about net neutrality, reclassification, and other side-show issues.  (I’m too depressed to list them here—but see “Fox-Cablevision and the Net Neutrality Hammer” for an example of just how degraded the conversation has become.)

Instead, why not focus on a positive message, one that has the potential for win-win-win-win?  For example, the National Broadband Plan, issued in March, eloquently made the case for a U.S. commitment to universal broadband adoption.  Not as a matter of gee-whiz futurism but in the interest of giving Americans “a better way of life.”

Continue reading →

SHARE: 3 comments

Fox-Cablevision and the Net Neutrality Hammer

by on October 19, 2010 · 9 comments

When the only tool you have is a hammer, as the old cliché goes, everything looks like a nail.

Net neutrality, as I first wrote in 2006, is a complicated issue at the accident-prone intersection of technology and policy.  But some of its most determined—one might say desperate—proponents are increasingly anxious to simplify the problem into political slogans with no melody and sound bites with no nutritional value.  Even as—perhaps precisely because—a “win-win-win” compromise seems imminent, the rhetorical excess is being amplified.  The feedback is deafening.

In one of the most bizarre efforts yet to make everything be about net neutrality, Public Knowledge issued several statements this week “condemning” Fox’s decision to prohibit access to its online programming from Cablevision internet users.  In doing so, the organization claims, Fox has committed “the grossest violations of the open Internet committed by a U.S. company.”

This despite the fact that the open Internet rules (pick whatever version you like) apply only to Internet access providers.  Indeed, the rules are understood principally as a protection for content providers.  You know, like Fox. Continue reading →

SHARE: 9 comments

Don Tapscott on mass collaboration

by on October 12, 2010

On the podcast this week, Don Tapscott, writer, consultant, and speaker on business strategy and organizational transformation, and co-author of the bestseller Wikinomics, discusses his new book, Macrowikinomics: Rebooting Business and the World. In the book, Tapscott and his co-author, Anthony Williams, document how businesses, governments, nonprofits, and individuals are using mass collaboration to change how we work, live, learn, create, and govern. On the podcast, he discusses an Iraq veteran whose start-up car company is “staffed” by over 45,000 competing designers and supplied by microfactories around the country. He also talks about how companies are using competitions for R&D, and how mass collaboration can improve government regulation and universities.

Related Links

To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we’d like to ask you to comment at the web page for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?

SHARE:

Jamie Boyle & Paul Jones on the Open Internet, Generativity, and Competition

by on October 6, 2010 · 6 comments

Last week, I had the pleasure of discussing net neutrality with James Boyle, a Duke Law Professor and the co-founder of the Center for the Study of the Public Domain, and Paul Jones, the director of ibiblio, on WUNC’s The State of Things radio program. Our hour-long discussion touched on a number of important tech policy topics, and I highly recommend giving the show a listen (download the MP3 here) if you’re interested in hearing the insights of two very thoughtful scholars and critics of cyber-libertarianism.

I’m a big admirer of Boyle and Jones, who’ve both done a lot of excellent work studying copyright and public domain in the information age. While I don’t share their views on the merits of net neutrality regulation — or, perhaps, of government regulation in general — there’s much common ground between us on many issues, including intellectual property, free speech, and government surveillance.

For folks who don’t want to spend an hour listening to our discussion, I’ve typed up a brief summary of the questions we attempted to tackle in our discussion and the various arguments we raised. My apologies if I’ve mischaracterized any arguments or statements  — if you want to know what was actually said, go listen to the whole interview!

Continue reading →

SHARE: 6 comments

Facebook Was the ‘Next Google’

by on October 5, 2010 · 6 comments

Since I contributed $10 to the $23 million The Social Network grossed nationally this weekend, I see no reason not to blog some thoughts on the film.

First of all, the movie, which purports to be a history of the founding of Facebook, succeeds wildly as entertainment. As you may have heard by now, the film basically posits that if its founder, Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg, had not been dumped by his girlfriend for questioning the academic credibility of her school, Boston University, Facebook may never have existed at all.

Whether or not the film’s facts are straight on this is another matter. Nonetheless, it is not my purpose to comment extensively on either the film or its veracity, other than to recommend it highly as long as you ingest the story and characters with the copious grains of salt.

But some facts the film depicts are undeniable. The most significant for my purposes here is that the idea that became Facebook was germinated in the fall of 2003, just six years ago, and, as a website, was launched on the Harvard campus in February 2004.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 6 comments

Nick Bilton on how technology creatively disrupts society

by on September 27, 2010 · 1 comment

On the podcast this week, Nick Bilton, Lead Technology Writer for The New York Times Bits blog and a reporter for the paper, discusses his new book, I Live in the Future & Here’s How It Works.  In the book, Bilton examines how technology is creatively disrupting society, business, and our brains.  On the podcast, he talks about neuroplasticity and reading, a debate with George Packer about Twitter, innovators’ dilemmas in the porn industry, why many CEOs and movie producers bristle at how the future works, and “ricochet working.”  He also discusses effects of combining human curation with computer algorithms, hyperpersonalization, informational veggies, and serendipity.  He concludes with his theory about today’s news (and the reason he doesn’t worry about missing tweets): “If it’s important, it will find me.”

Related Readings

To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we’d like to ask you to comment at the web page for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?

SHARE: 1 comment

Open Video Conference, New York City, Oct. 1-2

by on September 2, 2010 · 0 comments

I’ll be there, speaking on a privacy-focused panel entitled: “We Know What You Watch.”

Spooky!

There’s an interesting agenda and, as conferences go, this one seems to be pretty well organized. For example, they have a page of badges they encourage participants to use in promotions like this one. (What do you think of the one I selected?)

And they suggest the Twitter hashtags #openvideo and #ovc10.

Once again, New York TLFers, that’s the Open Video Conference, Oct. 1-2 at the Fashion Institute of Technology.

SHARE: 0 comments

Google’s Lobby Shop Creates Need for Itself

by on July 14, 2010 · 1 comment

“Live by the sword, die by the sword.”

“Play with fire and you might get burned.”

Those are lines that sprung to my mind as I read this FT article noting how Google’s support for ‘net neutrality regulation has transmogrified into a push for “search neutrality.” Such regulation would be aimed directly at Google’s heart throat nuts business model.

(I was the first to discuss “search neutrality” here on TLF. Ignore Adam’s comment.)

But sloganeering is cheap. Let’s take a minute to try and understand why things like this happen to companies like Google.

First, I think, most executives—certainly executives in tech companies—don’t understand Washington at all. They have a gauzy impression that good people work for the betterment of public policy here.

Actually, that’s true. Just about everyone is good. And everyone is working for the betterment of public policy as they see it. The thing is, everybody sees the betterment of public policy as turning it to their own interests. Washington, D.C. is a war of all against all—each trying to grab the most stuff—using politics instead of clubs, knives, and guns.

Next, I think it’s important to recognize the incentives of the people who advise tech executives. They are people with families and mortgages. They want to have and keep a job. So what do they do? They encourage involvement in public policy. The public policy advisor who says “steer clear of Washington” may be giving better advice, but his consulting contract is small and its term is short.

The government relations/lobbying shop in a company like Google is part of a larger business, yes, but it is a small bureaucracy within the business. It doesn’t produce anything subject to competitive pricing, so (accounting practices notwithstanding) there is little way to measure its value. The fallback measure is activity—the more things happening, the more ‘valuable’ the lobbying shop. (Surprise me, Google, so famous for measurement, testing, and rigor in product development. Have you got a way to measure the true value produced by your lobbying shop, law department, accounting group, etc.?)

You see how the dynamics quickly get perverse. A public policy advisor or lobbyist makes him- or herself ‘valuable’ by getting the client into trouble.

Google is not in trouble. The FT story is premature, and it’s overstatement to say that Google has been “hoisted by its own petard.”

But imagine a controlled experiment in which another Google in a parallel universe didn’t draw attention to itself in Washington, D.C., didn’t push for conditions in the 700 MHz spectrum auction, didn’t advocate for ‘net neutrality regulation, and so on. That Google might not have created—or might have delayed—the need for a permanent lobbying/government relations cost center.

SHARE: 1 comment

The Seven Deadly Sins of Title II Reclassification (NOI Remix)

by on July 13, 2010 · 4 comments

Better late than never, I’ve finally given a close read to the Notice of Inquiry issued by the FCC on June 17th.  (See my earlier comments, “FCC Votes for Reclassification, Dog Bites Man”.)  In some sense there was no surprise to the contents; the Commission’s legal counsel and Chairman Julius Genachowski had both published comments over a month before the NOI that laid out the regulatory scheme the Commission now has in mind for broadband Internet access.

Chairman Genachowski’s “Third Way” comments proposed an option that he hoped would satisfy both extremes.  The FCC would abandon efforts to find new ways to meet its regulatory goals using “ancillary jurisdiction” under Title I (an avenue the D.C. Circuit had wounded, but hadn’t actually exterminated, in the Comcast decision), but at the same time would not go as far as some advocates urged and put broadband Internet completely under the telephone rules of Title II.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 4 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →