March 2008 Archives

Much ado is being made of this Times Online article which talks about the CIA buying Google's search technology and using Wikis to sort and share information on potential suspects.

Google has been recruited by US intelligence agencies to help them better process and share information they gather about suspects.

Agencies such as the National Security Agency have bought servers on which Google-supplied search technology is used to process information gathered by networks of spies around the world.

Google is also providing the search features for a Wikipedia-style site, called Intellipedia, on which agents post information about their targets that can be accessed and appended by colleagues, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

The contracts are just a number that have been entered into by Google's 'federal government sales team', that aims to expand the company's reach beyond its core consumer and enterprise operations.

Why can't people just be glad that we're still buying American? This is not a big deal. Chill out and save your energy for making tinfoil hats. Please.

I'll admit it. Arrington and I don't agree on everything. I'm probably a blip on his radar.

London's Times Online reports on a creepy Facebook app called SNIFF, which tracks your location upon request of...anyone, once you opt-in. 

Husbands who are not where they are supposed to be could soon be in danger of being "sniffed" out by a mobile phone service that gives suspicious partners an electronic map showing the location of their spouse.

The Social Network Integrated Friend Finder (Sniff) is a new application, accessed via Facebook or mobile phone, which could bring an end to frantic "Where r u?" text messages.

The service, popular in Scandinavia, promises to provide users with a detailed map of their friends' locations, any time and anywhere. However, there are fears that Sniff could be abused by employers to remove the last vestiges of privacy from staff.

Useful Networks, the American company behind Sniff, promised that only consumers who gave their permission could be electronically tracked by the service, which operates across all mobile carriers. The company plans to charge users about 75p for each location "sniff", with the results for mobile customers sent by return SMS. But "sniffing" could become addictive.

Let's contrast this to Loopt, shall we? Loopt allows you to turn the service off and even spoof your location. This is totally the opposite. Once you're in, you're in. Oh, yeah. They're going to charge you per use! 

It will be the first Facebook application to apply premium charges to customers' mobile bills. The heaviest users in Sweden are wireless-connected members of the social networking site, who have integrated the application into their personal profile page.

No, it's not an endorsement. Trust me, folks. On the other hand,  David All, GOP New Media guru has pointed me towards an article in the The Washington Times, a publication which I normal ignore but for some reason has a really good take on how Senator McCain doesn't just dismiss bloggers as "bloggers," as in HRC's "The Blogs were going crazy" video.

"It gave him a microphone when others had already left the building," said David All, one of the Republicans' Web pioneers who runs Slate Card.com and who said Mr. McCain has benefited from Mr. Hynes' ties to bloggers. "That very much symbolizes the role of bloggers: We don't have editors to report to, and there isn't a big meeting with editors every morning. What that comes down to is personal relationships."

I saw over at the Reuters that Sony Pictures is going to have its own channel (called PIX) on AT&T's MediaFLO when it launches in May.  According to Sony, it will feature a number of films at launch, including Ghostbusters.

 

While I admit that MediFLO is cool (it allows you to watch TV on your mobile phone) I've never thought about using it for an extended period of time.  I had MobiTV on my Treo 650 back "in the day" but don't think that I was ever in front of it for more than 20 minutes.  Total.  Between the small screen size and lack of opportunity to watch, I never really saw it as a must-have feature.  Ok, so I can watch a little TV if I have some down time or if I'm riding a bus.  Awesome, but I don't have the kind of time throughout my day to watch an entire episode of Friends, much less a whole movie.  Most people do their TV watching at home, and I'd be hard-pressed to find someone who would use their phone as opposed to their TV.  I mean, maybe if you don't want to miss your favorite contestant on "Idol" when nature calls...

 

Eric Berger, the VP of Mobile Entertainment at Sony Pictures Television had this to say

 

"We recognize that people are on the go with their mobile phone and coming and going," he said. "This isn't for people looking to view a movie for the first time. It's OK to miss the beginning."

 

Miss the beginning, the end and probably most of the middle too?  PIX seems really cool on paper but it feels more like AT&T is just looking for something to differentiate its MediFLO from VZW's, which has been around for over a year as opposed to looking for a really innovative new feature.  I just don't see a lot of people being too thrilled about being able to watch 3 minutes of a movie on their mobile when they have some downtime.  Not even if it's Ghostbusters.

 

 

Full article at Reuters.

Shel Israel, who has a far larger of number of Twitter followers, friends, etc, than I do, has a rather straightforward Twitter following policy which he has posted on his blog, Global Neighbourhoods.

• If I do not know who you are, or what you look like, or where you are coming from I will not follow you.
• With very few exceptions, I will not follow brands, candidates, causes or company names. I wish to talk with humans, not brand icons, neither surveys nor bots. If you are a real person & you are passionate about your work, then I embrace you. If you are a Direct Marketer using Twitter to push you brand into my forehead, I will block you.
• Even if you are a real person, I may not follow you. I need to see that you are talking either about topics or people I care about.
• If you disagree with me, do it under your own name and I will respect you. If you personally insult me, I will block you. If you are consistently unpleasant or just boring, I will unfollow or block you.
• With extremely rare exception, I will not follow anonymous Tweeters.

I'll give him props. This is possibly the most brilliant articulation of a philosophy which, as a longtime Internet user, I have adhered to for as long as I have been online (which has been almost half of my life). Despite the warnings from doomsayers to "never give out personal information online," I have always posted under either my real name, my initials (see my Twitter username), or with some kind of link back to my real identity (Andrew Feinberg), location (whether it has been Washington, DC, Madison, WI or Philadelphia, PA) and other information allowing people to know who is behind whatever is being written. 

1. When I write or participate in an online community, I know that my words can be linked back to me. This is not self-censorship, but self-respect. I have enough respect for my name (or as Gary Vaynerchuk would say, my legacy) that I am willing to stand by my words and opinions. One of my main questions for social networking privacy or PR reps is how to deal with the "audit trail" you leave behind as you participate on communities or discussions. I think the middle ground that I can agree with many of them on is that honesty is the best policy, and that anonymity should be used when needed. The default should be to stand by your name.
2. I am easy to find and I have a reputation to protect. I make it a point to respect people because I never know when someone will want something from me, want to help me, or want me to help them. By putting my name and identity on the line, I allow myself to be more helpful since if someone likes what I do, they can ask me to help them. Case in point: last week, the guys at Mashable wanted some help covering TPS. Although it didn't work out in the end, they were able to get a hold of me because my identity is no secret.

London's Sunday Independent reports that a yet another mobile phone study has found that using one of those helpful little gadgets will kill more people than smoking or asbestos.

Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take "immediate steps" to reduce exposure to their radiation.

The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks.

It draws on growing evidence - exclusively reported in the IoS in October - that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.

I guess if they're right, the answer to "where you at" will be "in the hospital, fool!"

Yesterday, Verizon Wireless (which I'll be referring to as VZW, as per usual) announced that it will begin offering Loopt service to its customers for $4 per month.  This is a huge, huge, huge announcement for Loopt because this is only the second distinct carrier to offer their product.  Loopt was originally (and is still predominantly) offered by Boost mobile.  Yes, it is now available to Sprint's CDMA users, but Boost is the iDEN prepaid network which is owned by Sprint.  Also, VZW has a lot more subscribers than Sprint and Boost combined (Sprint is at about 53.8 million subscribers, Boost about 4 million and VZW at about 65.7 million).

For anyone who doesn't know what Loopt is (if this is you I should probably also say "Welcome to Capitol Valley!"), it is a location-based service (LBS) that allows you to use your mobile phone to share your location with your friends.  I'm pretty sure you've seen the ads with the very round people asking each other "Where you at?"  That's Loopt.  Some other guy wrote about them too.

Some people bring up the privacy issue, but Loopt is 100% opt in.  It can be purchased directly from your handset, but it (and most services that you can subscribe to via the handset) would be almost impossible to sign up by accident.  It's a really cool service that's been really well marketed and implemented.  Also, Andrew interviewed their chief privacy officer, Brian Knapp.  The fact that they have a chief privacy officer and that they send him apparently everywhere shows an amazing self-awareness of the fact that a lot of people could look at them as a privacy cluster-fudge.

That self-awareness coupled with a great product is why Loopt is now offered by both major CDMA carriers and available to over 100 million subscribers.

Not too shabby for a three-year-old.





Here is VZW's press release.

Here's "some other guy"'s article.  Actually, it's CongressDaily's Andrew Noyes.

And here is our Andrew's interview with Brian Knapp.

Wired News has picked up on something disturbing: "Griefers" on the Epilepsy Foundation's message boards intentionally posting links to animated gifs, videos and javascript designed to trigger seizures.

Internet griefers descended on an epilepsy support message board last weekend and used JavaScript code and flashing computer animation to trigger migraine headaches and seizures in some users.

The nonprofit Epilepsy Foundation, which runs the forum, briefly closed the site Sunday to purge the offending messages and to boost security.

"We are seeing people affected," says Ken Lowenberg, senior director of web and print publishing at the Epilepsy Foundation. "It's fortunately only a handful. It's possible that people are just not reporting yet -- people affected by it may not be coming back to the forum so fast."

The incident, possibly the first computer attack to inflict physical harm on the victims, began Saturday, March 22, when attackers used a script to post hundreds of messages embedded with flashing animated gifs.

This may be a first, a 'net based attack which inflicts physical harm. Sadly, the story is a few days late in breaking. I'd love to have seen this brought up in the child protection panel, I can easily see things like this being a "new direction" for cyberbullying and whatnot. Seriously.

...because I'm still getting over my jet lag. We've got some stuff ready to go into the tubes though.

So, my question to Jonathan is--to quote the great philosopher Rodney King--Why can't we all just get along? Isn't a sign of progress that we now have different models that appeal to different types of users? After all, those supposedly "sterile" applications like the iPhone and Tivo are loved by millions. Even calling them "sterile" seems a bit silly to me. After all, those devices have "fostered innovation and disruption" just like PCs and the Net have, just in a different way. Regardless, does Jonathan think all those people would really be better off if they were forced to fend for themselves with completely open iPhones and TiVos? Should the iPhone be shipped to market with no apps loaded on the main screen, forcing everyone to get them for on their own? Should TiVos have no interactive menus out-of-the-box, forcing you to go online and find some homebrew that someone whipped up to give you an open source guide in all its blocky ugliness?

It was brought up on the podcast last night, so I thought I'd mention it.  There are a lot of rumors floating around about the BlackBerry 9000 series coming out later this year.  A lot of people seem to think that it'll be a touch-screen iPhone killer, but if RIM wanted a touch-screen device they'd probably have one by now.

 

I'm not much for speculation on the subject, but here's my wish list for the 9000 series -

 

• Bigger Keys, Please -  Some of the rumors (the ones that still include a keyboard) do show us a BlackBerry with larger keys than the current 8000 series.
• More Resistance from the Pearl - I'd like it if the pearl (the little scroll-ball that was introduced on the 8100) weren't quite so easy to roll.  Too often when I'm trying to click on something with it I end up clicking on something next to it, below it, above it...
• Streaming Video - Whether it's YouTube or Hulu, I'd love to be able to pull it up on my BB when I'm not in front of the computer.
• Easier Memory Card Access - The Curve and Pearl series have the memory card slot externally for easy access and hot swapping (sounds dirty).  The 8800 series (I have an 8830 and Andrew has an 8800) have it under the battery cover.  On the 8830 you can access it with the battery intact, so it's just annoying that I have to semi-dismantle the phone to change memory cards.  If Andrew wants to?  That battery's coming out.
• Camera - Aside from being fun, cameras can be used for business applications.  For instance, some Samsung phones have a business card scanner.  The camera will actually pick out the contact info and add it to your addressbook.  That'd be super cool on a BlackBerry. 
• More Screen - I'd like a little more size to the screen even at the expense of a larger overall size for the unit.  If the new BB were thinner it would be very easy to deal with a little extra height and/or width.

 

I think those could all very possibly be features of the next series of BlackBerry.

 

Now, who has an extra $600 that's weighing them down?

Hmmm...

According to a Media Bureau release published today, the FCC has set a due date of April 10th for the first set of reports on DTV Transition consumer education efforts.

On March 24, 2008, the Order was published in the Federal Register. On March 27, 2008, the Commission received OMB approval for enforcement of the rules. On March 31, 2008 the Federal Register is scheduled to publish notice of that approval. Thus, the effective date for the Order and rules will be March 31, 2008. The first quarterly consumer education reports must be filed no later than April 10, 2008.

 

 

Oddly enough, I haven't seen an FCC response to the CBA lawsuit we wrote about yesterday. Well, there's always Monday... 

Back safely ensconced in the Eastern Time Zone, I can finally say a few things and "exhale."

 

1. Do not Red-Eye if you can help it. If you must, follow Andrew Noyes' lead and take VirginAmerica. I know I'm going to check it out.
2. Conferences are much more fun to cover when they are focused. I enjoyed the networking and atmosphere at SXSW in general, but in terms of things to write about, the guys at Tech Policy Summit put on a great event. Pretty much every issue that I care about and I try to bring to you, the loyal and stalwart readers, was touched on in some way. I can't wait for next year's. Not only is it in the Bay Area and closer to many of the players, it means I can crash on Alex's floor.
3. So far the great wireless experiment has been great. All those photos you can see on Flickr have been uploaded without the use of a single cable, in almost real time. The Eye-Fi isn't without problems, but my set-up has allowed for some cool things. I'll do a better write-up on it this weekend since several people asked about it.

 

A few shout-outs. Natalie Fonseca and Marc Licciardi at TPS arranged my getting there and helped me out while I was covering their great event, along with Cathy Rought from Dittus Communications, who was invaluable in putting me in touch with some great people to talk to. Mozelle Thompson and Alec Ross were great sports about getting back-to-back questioning in panels, and Jon Taplin was his usual fantastic self.

Special thanks go to my interview subjects, including Jim Williams, Brian Knapp, Prith Banerjee and Gary Fazzino, as well as the incredible Craig Newmark.

Andrew Noyes gave some good placement to our photo coverage at Tech Daily Dose, and Adam Theirer was so impressed with our coverage he didn't even bother to do any blogging himself.  Plus, he had possibly the best, brightest green sport jacket I've ever seen yesterday. We have proof!

If I missed you, yell at me appropriately. Back to work.

Here's the "Best Of" Andrew's photo coverage of Day 2 of the Tech Policy Summit.

Tonight we'll recap Day 2 of the Tech Policy Summit over at Blog Talk Radio.

So head on over to www.blogtalkradio.com/Capitol-Valley  at 9pm Pacific/ 12am Eastern and listen live.

Even better idea?  Call us at 347-945-5989 and let us know what's up.

Charles Cooper looks at Facebook's latest round of venture funding and asks if MarkZ and friends should look behind them...

But there's an interesting discussion around a Twitter versus Facebook faceoff looming. In a video post making the rounds, Gary Vaynerchuk riffs about the quickness of Twitter becoming a factor--at least among the early adopter crowd.

"The instant gratification. The world is moving so quickly. That the fact that we can get that response so quickly. Look AOL Instant Messenger--still around and strong, right? So is Twitter taking a lot from Facebook?"

As a Twitter user and a supporter of all things Al3x I can't help but be pulling for 'em.

Go Twitter, Go.

Left to Right: 

Left to Right:

 

Talking with Declan McCullough, Ashwin Navin scored a few cool points.

Reuters (in an article devoid of links to scary websites) broke the news that Comcast is working with BitTorrent to rework its network management policies to be more neutral.  While it will still reserve its right to curb a super user's bandwidth if it starts to decrease the usability of the service for others, it won't take in to account what that super user is using the bandwidth for.

 

Here's a snippet from Reuters

 

Comcast's announcement on Thursday drew a tepid response from Martin.

The FCC chairman said in a statement he was "pleased that Comcast has reversed course." But he questioned why the company was not moving more quickly to end the practice of blocking some applications.

"While it may take time to implement its preferred new traffic management technique, it is not at all obvious why Comcast couldn't stop its current practice of arbitrarily blocking its broadband customers from using certain applications," Martin said.

 

In April the FCC will have a meeting at Stanford University (home of Professor Lessig) to try and define exactly what in the heck constitutes "resonable network management."

 

Finally.

 

 

Here's Comcast's official press release.

Kara Swisher of AllThingsD.com is moderating a panel called "Personalization and Privacy: Deciding Who Does What with Customer Data"

Five days ago I posted in reaction to an article at CNN.com about, among other things, using your mobile phone as a modem.  I was upset that they didn't mention the potential for data overages or service interruptions.  They didn't even advise consulting your carrier before trying it.  I felt that the article, while well-meaning, was also a little misleading.  Not intentionally, but misleading still.

 

Skip ahead to today, when I was reading a really neat article about Benjamin Heckendorn.  He modifies video games, doing things like taking apart an Atari 2600 and refashioning it into a handheld unit.  Although not linked to, Heckendorn's personal site is given in the article.  As soon as I finished the article I decided to check out his site.  This is a pretty standard procedure for me.  If a website is mentioned in an article I'll usually check it out.  As soon as I tried to navigate to the site my virus monitoring software went crazy.  So crazy, in fact, that when I tried to close the warning window so I could kill the site the warning would repopulate in about...instantly.  Luckily, a reboot was all I needed and there was no harm done, except for our IT guy (at the day job, of course) probably thinking I'm a colossal douchebag.  What upset me so much is that it never should have happened.  I would have to imagine that Reuters has some sort of anti-virus software running.  I can't imagine that if the author had visited the site, at least on their work computer, that there wouldn't have been some sort of notification that a virus was detected.  It seems pretty clear to me that the author didn't visit the site before including it in their article, and that's terrible.  Even if, as the author, you couldn't care less about your readers being overwhelmed by a virus you should at least be visiting the sites you mention to see if they work.  Had the author done this, they (or the IT folks at Reuters) would have identified the site as harboring a virus and never have included it in the article.

 

I could go on and on, but I'd just be saying the same thing over and over with a decrease in coherency and an increase in profanity.

 

My bottom line is that, barring some sort of disclaimer, when you mention or link to a website your readers are going to assume that it's safe to visit.  There's a certain level of trust between an author and a reader and it is an astounding breach of that trust when an author's lack of follow-through endangers the reader.

 

Here is a link to the article, in which the virus-y site is mentioned.  The article, as far as I can tell is safe to view - I've never had any problems with the Retuers site.  it was only when I loaded the subject's personal page (mentioned on page 2 of the article) that I had problems.

 

IF YOU VISIT THE SUBJECT'S PERSONAL SITE, DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK.

I WOULD ADVISE NOT VISITING IT AT ALL.

I arrived late to this talk because I was finishing out an interview, but as I walked in Mr. Lynch is noting (correctly) that Verizon's mission is to be "at the forefront of customer demand." This, he says, is the reason behind Verizon's Open Access initiative. 

We've taken a break from discussing spectrum and stuff and moved on to good things the Internet is used for. Up there, we've got Craig Newmark of Craigslist. 

Bonus Round! Craig was nice enough to talk to me for a few minutes, and here he is...

Former FCC Commissioner and California Public Utilities Commissioner Rachelle Chong moderated a panel on the future of Wireless, but started by asking for comments on the Comcast-Vuze settlement.

Well, no live video, but we're about to get going. Leading off is FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell (R). On deck are some luminaries in Wireless like Loopt's Brian Knapp, Former FCC Commissioner Rachelle Chong, "The" Craig Newmark of Craigslist, Verizon's Richard Lynch, and more.

Scroll through, because we have 3 new shows up -
Coverage of the Future of Wide-Area Public Broadband panle and CongressDaily's Andrew Noyes interviewing Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA).  Also, the "Best of" of Andrew' sphoto coverage of the Tech Policy Summit, Day One.

We just wrapped up our BlogTalkRadio podcast.  We went over a little of the goings on at the Tech Policy Summit.  This podcast was special because we were joined by Mark Hopkins of Mashable.com.  For those of you who aren't down with Mashable, it's a blog with a focus on all things Web 2.0.

As is the norm with our podcasts we had a wonderful road map of where we were going to take it and then went wildly off course.  The most notable and, I think, interesting topic that we talked about was the ability of blogs to target niche audiences as opposed to old media outlets like newspapers and magazines who need to appeal to a lowest common denominator.  I mean, when's the last time you picked up a magazine or newspaper and read every article?  While most blogs won't attain the sheer number of visitors that a major media outlet site might they tend to generate a higher quality of visitor.  They type of visitor who visits the site multiple times per day.  The type of visitor who has to has to has to take in all of your content.  That also got us talking about how good content is the key.

Another topic we talked about was focus.  How, for instance, ads on web sites aren't really as targeted as they'd have you believe.  Sure, an ad on Facebook will shove products that you should like because your friends bought them, but if you were really interested in that product you'd seek it out on your own.  How often have you seen an ad on a website and actually bought a product that, until seeing that ad, you weren't really aware of.  Another focus issue is the direction your site or company takes.  Look at Twitter vs Facebook - Twitter does one thing and does it really, really well.  Facebook seems to have something new going on every 10 minutes, most of which have an update or a fix coming out the next day.

Tonight's podcast is here.
For all of the Capitol Valley podcasts check out blogtalkradio.com/Capitol-Valley.

Alex and I are in the same time zone! You can listen here and even call in at (347) 945-5989!

We still haven't received our DTV Converter Box coupons yet, but at least one attorney is glad we haven't. Peter Tannwald of Fletcher, Heald & Hildredth, attorney for the Community Broadcasters Association, which represents "Class A" and Low Power TV broadcasters, is the lead counsel in a lawsuit filed this week against the FCC, which alleges that the converter boxes made available illegally prevent consumers from receiving Class A and Low Power stations, which aren't required to convert to Digital next February. 

...the majority of stations providing over-the-air television service to the U.S. public 

are not "full-service" stations.  As noted above, of the 8,881 broadcast television licenses issued  and outstanding, only 1,759 are "full-service" stations subject to the mandatory DTV transition on February 17, 2009.  The remaining 7,122 television stations are Class A or LPTV or TV Translator stations for which a digital conversion deadline has yet to be established.  The vast majority of those thousands of lower-power, non-"full-service" stations will not be converting to  DTV operation in February 17, 2009, or anytime soon after that, and will continue to broadcast their programs in analog format. 

So, if the law says that devices need to receive all signals, and 7,122 out of the 8,881 TV signals that will be broadcast after February 17, 2009 will still be analog, you would think any of the the converter boxes that I can get with that coupon that I haven't received would still let me get that analog signal, just like the law says, right? Nope. Only SIX of them allow a so-called "pass-through," according to the Associated Press: 

Host Steve Wildstrom is introducing them, and I'm going to take pictures, but I will liveblog as I can. Here we go:

I walked into this panel expecting a redux of a Politics Online keynote. Instead, some interesting insights from this panel:

Another great panel I got to late (since I was at the last one). 

I'm in a fantastic panel on using Social Media for policy, both corporate communications and for public policy issues and transparency. Panelists (from R-L when I get the picture up, my setup is balking because I'm so deep in a metal building) are:

The Community Broadcasters Association has filed a lawsuit asking the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to halt distribution of boxes that don't allow consumers to receive low power TV signals, which do not have to switch to DTV next February.

This panel (a good one) is about how much tech policy will influence the next President. Panelists include:

This is a straight-up keynote speech. He's going to talk about what the threats to both IP and Innovation are.

Here's some awesome photo coverage of the Tech Policy Summit in Los Angeles.  As always, Andrew's talent with the camera is mind-blowing.

Paul Jacobs is talking, I'm a bit late, but I've stumbled into a discussion on patent reform.

Here's the scoop from Reuters

...

Verizon said consumers should be able to switch from cable as easily as they can change phone companies. Phone companies accept cancellations from rival providers, but many cable companies require consumers to submit disconnection orders themselves.

"The process to switch video providers is more cumbersome for consumers," Verizon said in a petition to the FCC.

...

 

Is it really that big a deal that a customer would need to call their cable provider to cancel their service as opposed to the cancellation being processed by Verizon?  I understand that it would eliminate a step for the customer, and that's great, but I just don't see it as that big a deal.

7:32 - Prith Banerjee (HP Labs) feels that they have sharpened their focus to transform innovation at a large IT organization and bring it to market. 

...it's the 2008 Tech Policy Summit. We're opening with a roundtable discussion on "Accelerating Innovation: How Enhanced COllaboration and Smart Policy Fuel Economic Growth."

As I've mentioned before Robert Scoble had his Facebook account deleted a while back for trying to export his contacts to Outlook. When he asked CEO Mark Zuckerberg about it, he got a non-answer about spam. 

Of course, the big news today (besides my going-going back-back to cali-cali tonight) was the reaction to the Justice Department's antitrust green light on the XM-Sirius merger.

On the surface, this could be cited as another example of runaway government capitulation towards big business interests and media consolidation, like the FCC's recent revision of the newspaper-TV cross-ownership rules, which significantly tipped the scales towards less consumer choice and more commoditization of media.

One could easily say this about XM-Sirius. In fact, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) issued a rather...pointed statement which highlights his anger at "this administration's blatant disregard for the public interest" in the media ownership realm."

Dorgan went on to further criticize (rightly) the trend of consolidation in media, and brings up the original conditions of the licenses the FCC issued more than ten years ago:

"There seems to be no limit to the mergers this administration will approve. These two companies were issued licenses a decade ago to provide competing national satellite radio service. Their license approval included a clause that prohibits them from merging into one company...Now the Justice Department has decided the contract they signed can't stand in the way of consolidation. That doesn't make any sense to me."

Well, Senator, it should make sense if you realize that the DOJ's antitrust division reviews tons of mergers and approves or denies them based on their potential to harm the market and not the conditions of their FCC license terms. That part is up to the FCC, which, because it has the combined powers of all three branches of government, can do whatever it pleases, until a court tells it to stop.

When you said that the licenses were issued a decade ago, did you notice that the licenses were issued a decade ago? I realize that's a long time, even longer than a Senator's term in office, but did it ever occur to you that the competitive landscape might have changed, and that there might not be much of a competitive market for two companies that offer pretty much the same product and have hugely expensive operating costs, since you know, keeping satellites in space takes lots of money. Remember Iridium, the Sat-Phone company that the government had to be bailed out to keep their network running so government agencies could use them?

You might also remember when EchoStar and DirecTV tried to merge? It was denied, and those two companies are still lobbing pebbles at Comcast, when (hindsight is 20/20) a combined DBS provider could be offering twice the HD channels at less cost than cable. Instead, they're still competing with each other at pretty much the same price, but not causing any shake-ups in the Cable market. Too bad that merger was denied, huh? Great for Cable, bad for us.

It's pretty clear-cut, Senator. We don't need two Satellite radio companies. We do need more choices in media, though. How about you stick to focusing on why so many terrestrial radio stations have the same owner, serve up the same canned music and news (ever hear of Jack FM?) and well, pretty much suck? At least Satellite Radio plays new music and pushes the envelope. I can hear Bellman Barker or Bob Mould on XM. I might catch the latter on NPR once every few years. Commercial radio? No way. They're too busy playing the latest crap that people won't even pay for.

On the other hand, Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) has one helluva clue. From CongressDaily's Andrew Noyes:

Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., said he was pleased that DOJ determined the merger does not pose significant competition concerns. He believes the new company will bring numerous benefits to consumers, including the elimination of duplicative programming, which will free up spectrum.

Boucher also lauded the companies' intention to offer multiple post-merger subscription packages. "This unprecedented approach will provide subscribers with more choices and lower prices and will pave the way for a form of content acquisition based on the individual programming preferences of listeners," he said.

 

So, a company that will offer better programming, with more choices at lower prices. Very anticompetitive...if you're Clear Channel.

...not really, but the headline pulled you in, didn't it?

 

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet (Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman) does however, have a hearing scheduled for next Tuesday, April 1 (I am not making this up) entitled "Online Virtual Worlds:  Applications and Avatars in a User-Generated Medium".

We're still waiting on that report from Dan Miller, Senior Economist for the Joint Economic Committee's Republican Staff (and avid gamer) on taxation of virtual worlds. Miller has previously said that existing tax code could in theory enable the IRS to levy taxes on virtual earnings, although an October 2006 press release from the JEC says that this is extremely unlikely.

The hearing is scheduled to be in 2123 Rayburn HOB, which means it will be webcast (and possibly live-blogged). No word yet on whether or not simultaneous hearings will take place in other realms, or if the witness list includes avatars, bots, or unicorns.

 

Google, along with several other technology companies (including Microsoft, HP, Dell and Intel) want to have access to the "White Space" between channels on the soon-to-be-vacated 700MHz spectrum.  If the access is granted it could allow for a slough of wireless broadband devices that could access the Web at speeds never-before-seen on a mobile device.

 

Opening up access to this swath of spectrum is mainly opposed by users of the non-white space (or the actual channels) who are afraid that White Space devices would interfere with their devices.  The FCC is currently testing devices to see if they can operate safely.

 

The opening up of White Spaces doesn't really excite me as far as its use for handheld devices.  I mean, do you really want to carry your mobile phone and a separate device for on-the-go internet access?  Sure, some people do, but they're the minority.  How many people do you know who ran out to by a Sony mylo?  I'm more excited to see White Spaces used for other purposes.  For instance, a new breed of laptop aircards.  Heck, even a new breed of laptops that would replace their Wi-Fi technology with White Space.  Another possible application would be to use White Spaces for home alarm systems, many of which were rendered useless when analog cell networks were shut down.

 

So am I looking forward to buying a White Space PDA to surf the web with?  Not at all.  Am I looking forward to seeing White Spaces used for other consumer purposes?  You bet.

 

Details at Reuters.

Is archived here!

Mike Arrington at TechCrunch doesn't think so.

Clearly Facebook is a little tired of beating questionable developer tacticts away with a stick. So now they will try the carrot approach as well - by rewarding developers who play by the rules and build useful, popular applications. The new program is being called the Preferred Application Program.

This isn't related to the recent CBS/March Madness issue where Facebook allowed a (paying) partner to play by different rules than the others. From what we've heard, Facebook is not going to be asking developers who are chosen to participate to pay in any way for this privilege. Classification as "preferred" will be merit based...although so far no one seems to know what the requirements will be.

Nor do they seem to know exactly how Facebook will reward these developers. One way is to have different rules, like allowing application users to invite more than the normal number of friends per day. That would be very attractive to developers, but the recent backlash over the CBS incident shows that the rank and file won't stand for that.

But there are an almost unlimited number of other ways that Facebook can promote preferred developers. Preferred apps can show up higher in search, for example. And Facebook can give them a badge or other sign of endorsement that they can add to their application pages. A more subtle, but possibly more powerful benefit, may be to change the rules on how and when user activities through these applications can show up in the News Feed. Finally, new Facebook users could be presented with a set of default third party applications to add when they create an account, perhaps tailored to their stated interests.

Facebook hasn't yet responded to a request for comment on the new program. From what we hear this is still in the planning stages and at least a month or so from being launched.

If they get this one right, I'll be the first to admit it and give MarkZ and company some props.

Yes, that magazine has noticed what I've been pointing out for a while, that your data on Facebook is theirs for the purpose of selling it to third parties, and they don't want you to have it back. 

The opening of social networks may now accelerate thanks to that older next big thing, web-mail. As a technology, mail has come to seem rather old-fashioned. But Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft and other firms are now discovering that they may already have the ideal infrastructure for social networking in the form of the address books, in-boxes and calendars of their users. "E-mail in the wider sense is the most important social network," says David Ascher, who managesThunderbird, a cutting-edge open-source e-mail application, for the Mozilla Foundation, which also oversees the popular Firefox web browser.

That is because the extended in-box contains invaluable and dynamically updated information about human connections. On Facebook, a social graph notoriously deteriorates after the initial thrill of finding old friends from school wears off. By contrast, an e-mail account has access to the entire address book and can infer information from the frequency and intensity of contact as it occurs. Joe gets e-mails from Jack and Jane, but opens only Jane's; Joe has Jane in his calendar tomorrow, and is instant-messaging with her right now; Joe tagged Jack "work only" in his address book. Perhaps Joe's party photos should be visible to Jane, but not Jack.

This kind of social intelligence can be applied across many services on the open web. Better yet, if there is no pressure to make a business out of it, it can remain intimate and discreet. Facebook has an economic incentive to publish ever more data about its users, says Mr Ascher, whereas Thunderbird, which is an open-source project, can let users minimise what they share. Social networking may end up being everywhere, and yet nowhere.

I'm going to give them another chance to tell me what happened to their "export contacts" feature and just come clean. Then I'm going to start talking about something I'm going to start using in the daily content here. It's a really cool technology.

It's been less than a week since the 700mhz auction winners were revealed, but already Google is making its' next move, and treading close to territory that Microsoft has stepped in before and failed: that of so-called White Spaces, the signal "between" the new DTV channels. 

The focus of Google's latest lobbying effort is the so-called "white spaces" portion of the TV spectrum, the unused slivers that lie between regulated TV signals. A coalition of US technology companies, including Google, has argued for some time that those pieces of spectrum could be assembled to support a new high-speed wireless service.

Technical challenges have hindered that effort and reinforced claims by US broadcasters that a new service would interfere with the surrounding TV signals.

Most embarrassingly, a Microsoft device failed FCC tests last year, although the software company said later that part of the machine had been broken and a repaired version had operated adequately.

Google proposed Monday what Mr Whitt called a "belt and suspenders" approach to the technology. Along with the controversial "spectrum sensing" approach used by Microsoft and others, which tries to identify which parts of the spectrum are in use to avoid interference, it backed a Motorola plan that would prevent a device from transmitting on a particular wave length until it had received a specific "all clear" signal from a local transmitter.

Google also went further in suggesting that parts of the spectrum should be off-limits entirely.

Could the two giants get along on this issue? We'll see...

XM-Sirius is APPROVED.

The merger was approved without conditions despite opposition from consumer groups and an intense lobbying campaign by the land-based radio industry.

The combination still requires approval from the Federal Communications Commission, which prohibited a merger when it granted satellite radio operating licenses in 1997.

The Justice Department, in a lengthy statement explaining its decision, said the two companies compete not just with each other but also with other forms of radio and entertainment. Customers must buy equipment that is exclusive to either XM or Sirius, and subscribers rarely switch providers.

"People just don't do that," an assistant attorney general, Thomas O. Barnett, said in a conference call with reporters.

The government also appeared to endorse the argument of the companies that they compete with other forms of audio entertainment, including "high-definition" radio, Internet-based radio stations and even devices like Apple's iPod

Good for USDOJ for rejecting the idiotic arguments of the National Association of Broadcasters. If anyone remembers, they claimed that Satellite Radio was a totally different animal from the nationally-syndicated, homogenized terrestrial radio behemoths and that XM and Sirius competed with each other, but not against AM and FM. 

Truemors reports (thanks to Guy Kawasaki) on some patents that Apple has applied for, namely transparent touch screens

 

Rumors of Apple's tablet-type notebook have circulated for a while, sparking interest, debate and discussion in Mac circles, but recent patent applications take the tablet idea in a different direction. Avoiding the whole twisting screen concept used in other previous tablet notebook products, Apple instead implements a transparent touch display in place of keyboard (or a customized interface for different applications) when open. When "closed," the computer lays like a flat tablet without the weight or bulk of a hidden keyboard. Needless to day, the MacBook Touch could make the MacBook Air look bulky.

At a robotics conference in Amsterdam technical universities from around the world unveiled, wait for it, wait for it, robots that reach new levels of human/robot interaction.  The robots were built using Lego robotics parts and run software from National Instruments.  The first place winner was the Phobot, built by students at the University of Amsterdam.

Here's a little more about the little Phobot from the Washington Post

When first exposed to a fear-inspiring object - in this case, a menacing larger robot - the Phobot retreats and then spins in circles. It overcomes its "fear" by getting comfortable with small robots and working its way up to large ones - mimicking the psychological principle of "graded exposure."

The idea is that the robot could help people, probably children, to overcome their fears by having a robo-buddy going through it with them.  Personally, I like the idea of seeing a robot run away in fear of something seemingly inane.  Like pickles.

The second place robot was the Korean Pot Bot, a little robot who lets you know when your potted plants need water and where you can find the best light for them.  I know what you were thinking - Amsterdam, Pot Bot...sorry to let you down.

While cowardly robots are all well and good, I'm still waiting for my R2-D2.  I mean, who wouldn't want a sassy little robot who can fly a spaceship, do repairs, unlock doors and serve drinks?

The Washington Post reports today that a laptop containing "sensitive medical information" on more than 2,500 patients in a NIH study was stolen last month, potentially exposing seven years worth of data, including names, diagnoses and heart scans to...people who would want to bore themselves to death reading that kind of thing.

What is more interesting is that the Post reports that the data on the laptop was not encrypted, a clear violation of Government security policies. And to think I was worried about Google Health. 

Here's a question. Why is this data, which is supposed to be encrypted and kept under the highest confidentiality and security, kept on a laptop computer which any bloke could simply walk away with? I don't know about you, but if I wanted to keep data secure, I'd keep it on an encrypted external hard disk, which I'd disconnect and keep under lock and key when not in use, with the keys on a separate flash drive under separate lock and key.

It's great that the Government requires patient data to be encrypted, but that doesn't do me much good if the machine it is encrypted on is readily accessable, and the keys aren't secured somewhere else.

At least they're learning...

Nabel, in her statement, said that since the NIH incident, "we are ensuring" that all the institute's laptop computers are encrypted and that staff members will be required to take regular computer security training. She also said "patient names, other identifying information, or identifiable medical information" will no longer be stored on laptop computers

I'm sure everyone has heard that R.E.M. is letting people get to the premiere of their new album, Accelerate via the iLike Facebook Application. 

...digital opened up many new ways the record companies can take their music to fans and this is one example. this is through a service called iLike and music is a social thing, people define themselves by it and it is one of the things you talk about with your friends and sharing it is a great way to do it. this is a way of sharing music legally with other friends and you can post it on your blog or Facebook and do other things with it... 

...this is a new model for record companies to take music out there. can they make money out of it? this is a licenceed legal service and what the music business is trying to do against a backdrop of most music being available for free illegally, the record companies are trying to licence as many new services as possible to give music fans an option, because that's what we want. we want more ways for music fans to get their music. that's what the record companies would like. that's the message they would like to send out. nobody really knows. once it is available, it is available and you are trying to convince people to pay for it...a lot of artists realise you don't need a record label, you can say ""i can make it available myself."" 

very few artists can do this. rem have done this through their record company. record companies and artists can do these things and use the new digital services. what does it mean for music? do you think it is good for a band that doesn't have a label, can go out and get people listening to their music?

I see some sad double-talk here. On one hand, the labels wants to allow streaming over the 'net when they see fit, but when 'Net Radio took off, they rushed to extract every dollar out of it because they saw it compromising their existing distribution networks. Not illegally, but in the sense that in that world, they lack their traditional influence in what gets pushed to the top of the DJ's "record stack." So, with the help of the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office, they want to replace 'net radio, especially independent stations and services like Last.Fm and Pandora (which actually drive record sales by pushing new music to consumers based on their tastes) out of business, because it imperils their vertical model of middle-manning that has been in place for the past fifty years. 

Just a reminder, we have a lot to talk about tomorrow, Monday March 24th at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. 

We have an absolute ton of stuff to talk about.  Everything from customer service experiences to Kyte.tv to the 700MHz auction and VZW's voluntary Open Network initiative for its current CDMA operation.  I'm sure there's plenty more that I just can't remember right now too.

Don't forget that we'll be podcasting through Blog Talk Radio, so you can call in and talk to us live, on the air (so to speak).  The number is (347) 945-5989.

So tomorrow, 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific we'll be podcasting live and waiting for your calls.

...if your job title is something like:

1. Social Media Consultant
2. Social Media Manager
3. Online Talent Manager

Rubel makes the point that alot of these jobs are simply extensions of existing professions in advertising and public relations. I tend to agree. In fact, I see these "online niche" positions migrating to a bigger role in the public space. 

It's Larry Lessig's Change Congress badge. I support his overall effort, and three of the four specific points of his campaign, except one.

Rod Adams, of the Atomic Insights Blog, wrote us a nice letter about our piece on Dr. Patrick Moore from earlier this week. On the other hand, I am not sure that despite proclaiming himself an expert on the issue, he is fully aware of the history of Nuclear Power, and perhaps he didn't even listen to the entire interview. Here is an excerpt:

...As you pointed out, MySpace, Facebook and other interactive media
 efforts get bombarded by mainstream media with stories about their
 potentially negative impact on the young. Of course those same media
 properties air programs that portray hundreds of murders and other
 violent acts every week while trying to attract the same eyeballs that
 are moving to more interactive, arguably more educational uses of
 their time in the online world. In other words, FUD happens.
 
  From a human security point of view, the battle against nuclear power
 was probably the worst example of all. The visible Luddites in that
 case hid behind the mantle of selfless Environmentalism, but the real
 power probably came from the richest enterprise the world has ever
 known. Though there is a lot of money in Silicon Valley, the total
 revenues of all technology companies combined pale when compared to
 Exxon-Mobil. Last year, that single company sold more than $340
 BILLION worth of product and banked more than $40 BILLION in net
 profit. That company, however famous, only has a 2-3% share of the oil
 market, which itself is only about 1/3 of the total energy market.
 
 Take a look at the people who control energy wealth in Texas, Saudi
 Arabia, Russia, Dubai, Iraq, and Iran (not an exhaustive list) and
 compare the way that they live with the way that most energy consumers
 in the world live. They have tremendous motives for loosely organizing
 to fight against the only real source of power that can help displace
 our collective addiction to fossil fuel. In his talk with you, Patrick
 Moore mentioned the forward looking master plan of Exxon-Mobil and
 Shell International for new energy sources in the US, but please
 understand that the energy business has had long term master planning
 in place for many decades - there are plenty of books on the subject...

Tomorrow! Live! Via Blog Talk Radio! 

Readers know I'm not a total fan of big-money collegiate athletics. That's not entirely true. I bleed Cardinal Red (the shade of "Red" associated with the University of Wisconsin-Madison) and love and support student-athletes everywhere. What I despise are the coaches, administrators, and officials who turn them into a money making machine and steer those kids who may be first-generation college students, towards easy classes and "bird" majors to keep them eligible to play football and basketball, which rake in huge sums of money, while promising a future of leaving early to turn pro with no safety net, and no compensation for the millions the Universities receive from marketing the students' images, likeness, and televising their efforts on games 

When the University of Michigan dedicated its new academic center for athletes in 2006, the building's namesake reinforced expectations for the university's athletes.

"I am very pleased to help provide a top-notch learning environment in a new facility where these student-athletes and others can study and receive academic support," said Stephen Ross, a New York real estate developer and Michigan graduate. "The 'leaders and best' not only refers to the athletes on the sports field, but also to the students in the classroom."

But three former employees of the athletic department's Academic Success Program, now housed in the Stephen M. Ross Academic Center, said that academics often take a back seat to sports.

To achieve that goal, Academic Success Program employees appear to have found an unofficial path through the university, one that isn't written on any Web site or manual, but is evident in statistics, transcripts, interviews with athletes, faculty and in a 2007 audit conducted by the university.

That path has included:

? Encouraging athletes to pursue a bachelor in general studies degree, on the grounds that other majors are too inflexible and will interfere with sports.

? Telling athletes which classes to take, which has resulted in clusters of athletes taking many of the same psychology, Ojibwe - a Native American language - classical civilization and education courses. Many of these choices are "non-traditional" or non-classroom courses, such as independent study, directed readings, practicums or mentoring.

? Recommending athletes take the minimum number of credits required to stay eligible for sports, a practice that runs contrary to the Academic Success Program's stated principles.

? Using athletes' passwords and log-ins to enroll in classes or make changes in schedules, a violation of university policy.

As part of a seven-month investigation into athletics and academics at Michigan, The News spoke with Academic Success Program co-director Shari Acho about these issues, as well as the program's mission, challenges and policies.

Acho said Academic Success Program staff do not direct students to majors or classes.

"No, not at all," said Acho, the program's co-director since 2002. "Each individual student will sit down and decide what their interests are and what works for them, and follow the right channels to do that."

Athletic director Bill Martin, who declined to be interviewed, told a university publication in spring 2005 that he wants academics to be the department's foremost focus.

In speaking with 87 current and former athletes, athletic staff, administrators and faculty on academics and athletics at Michigan, The News encountered cynicism about whether that goal can be met.

"Michigan, or any big-time program, they try to say that, and I think they do believe it," said Steve King, a former Michigan football player who later worked in the Academic Success Program. "But at the same time, too, as long as it doesn't interfere with the ultimate objective, which is to win football games, or to win in their sport."

Daniel Horton, who played basketball at Michigan from 2002 to 2006, was more blunt, laughing at the suggestion that academics came ahead of sports.

"There are consequences immediately if you don't show up for practice," Horton said. "The next day, you have to run or aren't going to play or something like that. There's no immediate consequences for not doing your homework or not studying that night.
"It's a farce for the NCAA to say that academics should come first. It's good in theory. ... But it's not really like that, not just at Michigan, anywhere."

Not true. At Wisconsin, we had people in tough majors. It was simply understood that the class came first. If we were out at 5:30am and a player had to make an 8:30am exam, we were done by 8. Coaches understood that. From Pat Richter, who was the AD at the time, and now under Barry Alvarez, I believe they care enough about making sure that student-athletes get a real, Wisconsin education. 

I start law school this August, in the evenings. If I can end up as 1/10th the lawyer, or 1/100th the person this man is, it will be worth it.

I saw an article at CNN.com/technology that got me a little...well, a little annoyed.  One of the "tips," the first one, worried me a little.

Here's the tip:

Boost your browsing

If your mobile Web browsing experience leaves something to be desired, you're not alone. Unless you own an Apple iPhone, which many experts say offers more user-friendly Internet capability, small screens coupled with tiny keyboards can make Web surfing frustrating.

But if you have a laptop and a phone, you may be able to use them together to the best advantage, says Chris Silva, analyst for Forrester Research, a technology and market research firm.

Tethering -- or plugging in -- your laptop to your mobile device will allow your computer to use the phone's connection for the Internet.

It's a tool that often gets overlooked, Silva says, but it can connect you at speeds comparable to a DSL or cable modem line.

First off, they didn't mention that if you connect to the EDGE network (most GSM phones) or the 1xRTT network (some CDMA phones) that the speed won't really be anywhere near DSL or cable.

The other thing that they didn't mention is that with exception of a Blackberry data plan (which includes tethering at no extra charge) you usually need a phone-as-modem plan for your device to use it in the manner described in the tip.  Sometimes the carrier will suspend your internet access if they see a spike in usage indicative of modem usage.  If you have pay-as-you go data access using your phone as a modem would be a spectacular way to find an amazingly high bill in your mailbox at the end of the month.

Now I'm all about tips for better use of your mobile phone, but for those of you giving the tips, please don't leave out the details.  Or at least mention that the user should probably contact their carrier before trying certain things.  Especially things that could cost someone a bunch of money.

I'm making my way through Professor Zittrain's book as carefully as I can, and the more I read the more I get how dialed in he is to what is happening to the state of the 'Net these days and how we're so blinded by these "gee-whiz" technologies to see what is happening to our world.

No sooner than do I note that both Larry Lessig and Jonathan Zittrain take pretty huge swipes at Facebook's closed architecture, API, and lack of data portability (something I'm working on a post about) that I notice that TechCrunch has blown up over the Weapons Grade Fail of their CBS branded March Madness app.

I swear, I'll chill on the music for a while.

Those of you who have met me at conferences or events have probably noticed the Timbuk2 messenger bag over my shoulder. It's been a staple of my school, work, and other travels since 1999. 

Ok, by this point we all know that Verizon and AT&T wont the lions's share of the 700 megahertz auction.  AT&T actually dominated regional and local licenses while VZW scored the big fat national license.

 

What I think it funny is the number of people who say that Google lost the auction.  Did it not occur to these people that Google never wanted to win?  Well, at least not in the traditional sense.

 

Eric Auchard, from Reuters, seems to agree with what we (especially Andrew)  have been saying for quite some time, which is that Google didn't want the license for themselves.  There was all sorts of talk and rumors about Google rolling out its own wireless network but it doesn't make sense.  Auchard points out that Google's current profit margins blow wireless carriers out of the water.  Aside from jumping into that arena there's the fact that they would have to spend billions upon billion upon billions of dollars to not just build the network, which Verizon will now need to, but to basically start a new wireless carrier.  Who in their right mind would really want to do that?

 

Google did exactly what they set out to do:  they ensured that the C Block of the spectrum (the block won by VZW) would be an open access network.  Google will now have much more capability to get its content, products and advertising to mobile customers.

 

Now, because Verizon is going to be tasked with building and maintaining the network and hardware manufacturers will build and sell the actual handsets...Google is going to gain an incredible foothold in the mobile browsing marketplace with an absolutely minimum investment.

 

Love Google or hate 'em, it was a brilliant (and ballsy) move.

 

Also, as we posted yesterday, Verizon Wireless' current Open Network initiative seems to almost be an open access test run on its current network.  It gives them a great way to work out the kinks of how to handle open access on their own terms before the C Block network launches.

In Australia, an 81-year-old Englishman killed himself.  Sort of.

Details from Times Online

An elderly man has killed himself by programming a robot to shoot him in the head after building the machine from plans downloaded from the internet.

Francis Tovey, 81, who lived alone in Burleigh Heads on the Australian Gold Coast, was found dead in his driveway.

...

Notes left by Mr Tovey -- who was born in England -- revealed that he had scoured the internet for plans before constructing his complex machine, which involved a jigsaw power tool and was connected to a .22 semi-automatic pistol loaded with four bullets. It could fire multiple shots once triggered remotely.

For now, they're content to kill us when we ask them to.  When they start killing us because they want to, make sure you're insured so that your passing isn't a burden to your loved ones.

I promise I will improve this when I get a few spare moments, but before I hop on the subway I wanted to summarize the "big picture" for you.

Here's the Kyte Show with photo excerpts from the Future of the Internet event.

 

Here is the breakdown of what's going on at the Google DC event that we just posted on.

A detailed summary/wrap up will be posted later on this evening.

For now...enjoy.

 

5:24pm 

Lessig:

There is a plan for an iPatriot act:

Give gov't authority to examine all data at all times. Privacy is a zero sum game.

What will the future look like:

A) protect privacy and security
B) let the government do it.

Answer? Prepare.

If privacy is like copyright, recognize that both are out of control.

No. You can protect copyright (and privacy) in other ways without destroying the internet.

Privacy fighters need to find the same thing: alternative theory of privacy.

Can privacy nuts live without the blocking gathering of data?

"Tracable anonynymity"

System is insufficienty secure...need to make it it more trustworthy...

Government must be accountable if we give up some "rights."

 

5:17pm

Lessig talks about Zittrain saying the piracy and copyright have the same problem: data out of control.

Tech used to help control privacy and copyright because breaking both used to be expensive. Responses are public and private:

Privacy) for privacy self protection for copyright DRM.

Public) copyright - massive legislation, privacy not so much...

 

5:05pm

More good people can beat a few bad people...still Zittrain.

 

5:00pm

Closed platform era: iPhone and Facebook platform...

 

4:55pm

Tech makers can change stuff you own:

Example - TiVo v EchoStar, echostar had to disable their DVR...why can manufacturers have a window after sale?

Example - OnStar sued against making their in-car mics spy on people. Also, normal mobile phones...available without warrants.

California wanted remote control thermostats for climate control by government..

 

4:51pm

Zittrain sees the end of the "generative" technologies...

Instead, "information appliances" like mobile phones, no third party code...

IPod, iPhone, Kindle, etc. Steve Jobs says consumers want lockdown.

 

4:44pm

Zittrain talks about botnets and trust..."Made for TV after school special"

 

4:40pm

1) From generative back to sterile: blogs

Starts as silly - cats that look like hitler...

Gets serious - josh marshall at talking points memo, people in myanmar and kenya etc

 

4:37pm

"Hourglass Architecture" for both the Internet and the PC

 

4:33pm

Still Zittrain: talking about CompuServe - network AND content provider.

That changed when the internet became commercial...

 

4:29pm

Apple II killer app: visicalc.

 

4:26pm

Zittrain:

In north korea, radios can only be tuned to 3 stations. South Koreans want to send them solar powered radios.

Part 0: in 1880, Herman Hollereth invented punch cards for the census bureau. Cut the time for Census to 2.5 years. Rented them to the US Government. Became IBM.

IBM machine could do anything, but you needed to go to IBM to get it programmed. "Sterile technology"

 

4:20pm

Vint Cerf: intended to be an open system, allowing anyone who wanted acceess to get to it. It is important that it stay that wat because the economic success has allowed new experiments "without permission."

That openness has made it an interesting environment, despite potential for abuse.

Internet does not see international boundaries.

Cerf sees 3 ways to prevent abuse;

A) technical, doesn't aleways work.
B) detect and respond, difficult to trace source, but next natural step.
C) education - like gravity...en mass very powerful.

Because the 'net is global in scope, means of mitigation requirew common agreements of values despite cultural norms and business practice. Need to go after abusers on an international scale (treaties, etc).

Compares to the "law of the sea" in the long run...

Here's a little of what Vint Cerf had to say at Google's Washington office in an ongoing talk about Net Nutrality and the Future of the Internet.

 

The Internet is intended to be an open system, allowing anyone who wanted acceess to get to it. It is important that it stay that wat because the economic success has allowed new experiments "without permission."

 

That openness has made it an interesting environment, despite potential for abuse.

Here are 3 ways that Cerf thinks we can fight back against abuse on and of the internet

 

A) Technical - doesn't always work.
B) Detect and Respond - difficult to trace source, but next natural step.
C) Education - like gravity...en mass very powerful.

 

Because of the international nature of the Internet, Cerf believes that rules and regulations need to be agreed upon at an international level, perhaps even by way of treaty.

 

More updates from the Future of the Internet event as they become available.

Here's the Capitol valley kyte.tv channel.

As we have new pictures and video content we'll post the "best of" to the kyte channel.  Also, photo content will be religiously uploaded to flickr as well. 

 

Verizon has won the FCC auction for the 700Mhz spectrum.

Because Google helped get the bidding high enough the spectrum will be open access.  The revelation that VZW won the auction makes their recent action to push forward with their Open Network initiative seem a lot more relevant.

 

Not only does it give them various advantages (as covered in our previous post on the subject) but it now allows them to test the waters of open access while they work out the details of and build out their 700Mhz network.

 

They can work out the kinks on their current network, where the open access is allowed at their discretion so that they can have a smooth system for device certification and rollout of standards when they roll out the new network, which will be open access by virtue of the auction terms.

 

Very smooth move, VZW

Has anyone else noticed Tom Friedman's absence from The New York Times recently? He's been on "book leave" it seems.

I hope he's writing a new book this time. I don't think I can stomach another "new and updated" edition of The World is Flat, his ubiquitous paen to globalization which for some reason makes people believe he is really, really smart, and by repeating some of his inane book or dropping his or the book's name often enough, they are, by extension, just as smart.

In Friedman's flat world, we are more efficient and productive through use of offshoring, just-in-time production and being able to recieve services 24/7 via a networked world. Sounds great, right?

In his opening chapters, he talks about his visit to the Dell factory and how he saw his laptop being built. Well, what about the time my brother spent $1,000 on a new Dell laptop and got an empty box? Sealed, delivered, and empty. When he called Dell, they simply sent him another machine, because it's apparently normal for some machines to disappear in transit. Some never make it into the box. Some are stolen. Who knows? They don't care. Meanwhile, they take no measures to disguise that their 24/7 support is based mostly in India. Actually, this isn't a bad thing. The amount of competition for these jobs and the fact that it's an english-speaking nation makes India a perfect economic partner for keeping operations running 24/7.

Now, I've got no problem with offshoring. In a conversation with Alex the other day, I noted that an Indian Institute of Technology graduate in a call center could possibly be more qualified to do either of our jobs than we are. It's pretty incredible the calibre of people they can choose from over there.

On the other hand, what happens when offshoring to cut costs leads to bad experiences?

On Monday, I decided to cut my DSL and go with Sprint EvDO broadband. It costs around the same and I don't have to pay for hotspot usage at airports and other public places. So, Monday evening I called Sprint's new activation line. I requested the "web special" pricing and a certain piece of equipment, etc etc. Now, this call center was in Buenos Aries. While I've dealt with Dell's support before with no problem, the Sprint reps obviously were having a hard time. Having worked at helpdesks and call centers, I know when I'm being read a script.

I also can tell when I'm dealing with someone who is having a hard time communicating. Quite simply, these guys were not up to the job of communicating in English and getting everything 100% accurate. So, after two disconnects and a 20 minute hold, I finally got the account open...except where I had been promised overnight shipping, the rep put in for the standard 3-5 day. Useless.

I quickly called back and was bounced around and around until I got to a supervisor, who was barely any better. They dispatched a 2nd order and canceled the first. However, yesterday, i found out that they sent the order to the wrong address. I repeated that address maybe 8 or 9 times. The Sprint rep simply didn't understand what I was saying.

Meanwhile, UPS dropped the ball, too. Their driver didn't unload the package, either, and despite 4 phone calls, I never recieved a call back about my package's location. So, around 5:30pm I walked the 3 blocks to the 18th Street Sprint Store.

25 minutes later, thanks to a helpful rep, I was up and running. Despite the call center's protestations that the store wouldn't honor the web price, they were happy to do it. Very nice people. I plan on going back.

What does this have to do with tech policy? Well, a large amount of our infrastructure is supported by people in other countries. When so much of our security depends on our ability to communicate with one another, shouldn't we trust the administration of those systems to people who are best equipped, not just the lowest priced?

A flat world still has corners you can hit your head on.

Oh, special event coverage after my doc's appointment today. Live, with photos.

Anyone watching tonight's Daily Show catch John Hodgman pulling out an iPhone at the end of his appearance?

FYI, the Sprint Store is way better than dealing with anyone on the phone. 20 minutes, in and out. Web price. Done.

Verizon Wireless released some more information about it's "Any Device, Any App" or "Open Network" initiative.

 

Verizon (often abbreviated as VZW) announced earlier this year that it would allow outside manufacturers to make wireless devices for activation on their network.  The device will need to adhere to certain network specifications which VZW will provide.  I'm using the word "device" instead of "phone" because it doesn't have to be a phone.  It could be an mp3 player similar to the iPod Touch.  Just instead of using WiFi to go online to surf or buy songs you'd connect over VZW's network.  Another possibility would be a GPS tracking device that would use the internet connection to report data to a website or a monitoring device. 

 

As far as phones are concerned, what may be most appealing is that the devices can be activated, online through VZW, without a contract. 

 

Here's a little more from Reuter's Sinead Carew

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Verizon Wireless, the No. 2 U.S. mobile service, plans to support a "few hundred thousand" devices linked to outsiders this year through its open network initiative, Chief Executive Lowell McAdam said on Wednesday.

...

Under the new project, device makers could sell their products independently of Verizon Wireless, with the option of having the phone company bill customers at the same rates as Verizon Wireless charges its direct customers.

But unlike most Verizon Wireless customers, who commit to a contract for a year or two in exchange for a discount on the price of the phone, the customers of these third party devices would not sign a contract or receive a device discount from Verizon Wireless.

 

The Open Network initiative is an amazingly smart move. VZW is giving its customers (and potential customers) an almost limitless device catalog without increasing their own costs.  They don't have to worry about over-buying the next big handset only to have it flop.  They don't have to spend time educating their sales reps about the new phones because the manufacturer/distributor will be responsible for that.

 

I know there are probably some people thinking that Verizon will lose money by not selling as many phones.  The thing is that most of the phones sold directly by a carrier are sold at a heavy discount in exchange for signing a contract.  The carrier isn't making their money off of the handset, but off of the service.  Open Network device or not, you're still buying the service, the money maker, from VZW.

 

Because the Open Network devices can be activated sans contract with a rate plan identical to what a contracted customer would have, it's a move that takes a huge leap into the territory outlined by the Wireless Consumer Protection bill that's currently in draft status.  Verizon's customers will still have the option to get a phone with a contract at a discount or get a full-price Open Network device and go contract-free. 

 

I've mentioned it before, but I really think that customers will be a lot more comfortable with signing a contract to extend or start service if they know that the contract was a choice instead of the only choice.

 

A few months back, Sprint also announced that it would allow non-Sprint CDMA devices to be activated on their network, but a timeline and details do not exist yet.

 

Michael Arrington at TechCrunch has a fantastic rant up about the influx of VC to "blog networks" and the recent (well, 2 years recent) tendency of bloggers to be looking for the VC infusion smoothie or to get in on the big networks.

This comes at a time when people ask me "how do you plan on making money with this thing?" and "where are the ads?" They assume I want to get into an ad network or get someone to invest in my writing looking for a return, they assume that is the way I see a payoff for my efforts.

They're wrong. On the other hand, Michael has it right:

So what's the point of this rant? Well, all this money flowing into the blogosphere is disrupting the complicated and emotional, but also stable way things are done. Bloggers with money and employees and health care programs and boards of directors and shareholders have to play politics with a whole new group of people, splitting them away from what they do best - Fighting the Blog War. Their behavior can become erratic as they have to decide to tone down their writing to get a certain type of sponsor on board, which in turn lets them make payroll. Investors want to see growth, so more and more blogs are launched, but perhaps without the right talent to grow it into a long term business.

In short, I believe the money is being, for the most part, wasted.

If a VC hands you a check, their intention is not to hang around for 20 years while you build a nice lifestyle business for yourself. What they want to see is an exit, preferably a 10x or higher exit, within 3-4 years. But something tells me that few of these networks are going to be able to grow quite as easily as they think and reach those liquidity events. The talent is, increasingly, locked up. Even when new talent is discovered or trained, every niche has serious heavyweights already there with page views and advertising dollars to back them up for a long fight.

I'm just going to print out his post and carry a laminated copy with me to show people next time I get asked "the question" and keep the URL handy to forward and pass around.

His (quite timely) point is that there are things that are worth investing in over the long term, by putting in time to develop relationships, content, style, etc, and then there are the "bubble" investments, where some believe that throwing Other People's Money and advertising around is the solution.

Last week I sat in on a panel where Robert Scoble  (correctly) pointed out that he doesn't run ads (except for his book) because the truth is, good content is king. Arrington takes this a step further and explains why he's been shying away from Other People's Money:

What I'd like to see, and even be a part of, is the blogger equivalent to the 1992 U.S. Mens Basketball Dream Team. That team could take CNET apart in a year, hire the best of the survivors there, and then move on to bigger prey.

Just the thought of being a part of something like that has held us back from raising any outside capital at all. I believe we have the beginning of a team that can play a role in this new Dream Team.

He's so right I can't even begin to get at it. I've been trying to explain it to friends, to family, to people I meet at conferences, and this guy just nails it.

I'd be happy to be the last guy off the bench on that Dream Team, because the content would blow the current "A-List" paid networks out of the water.

Content is king. Bubbles burst.

Well said, Michael.

...by which I mean I'm ditching the DSL. I have a Sprint EvDO Rev A USB modem and a Personal HotSpot router on the way...which mean, I can carry my broadband wherever I go. Wireless. Cordless. I can give you live photostreams or even (good god!) streaming video if I decide to go that way. Maybe some audio. 

It's done. As of 5:14 PM, the 700mhz auction is over.

Unlike yesterday, TechCrunch has a good summary of Facebook's announcement of new privacy features, which took place at their headquarters today. Also, Facebook is launching an internal chat function, which is in-browser and useless because it doesn't allow third party development or API access. Walled garden blah blah.

What I want to mention is the privacy controls. Basically, what Facebook has done is allowed you to whitelist different people for different kinds of data, so your work friends can't see your drunk college spring break photos. You can also be someone's "friend" and decide what info to give them, etc etc. Your ex can be your friend but he can't have your new address. Stuff like that.

Facebook's Chief Privacy Officer (wtf kind of title is that, anyway?) Chris Kelly took a few questions, and noted that by using Facebook you consent to letting them possibly use your profile and image to promote the site. I assume it's in the TOS.

This brings us back to the 300lb Facebook Gorilla in the room: who owns your data?

Robert Scoble tried to find out a few months ago and famously found himself kicked off Facebook. When he asked founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg about it last week, he got a weak non-answer about preventing spam and an "appeals process" which, since he is Robert Scoble, was unneccessary.

Some background: Robert wanted to put his Facebook contacts into his Outlook address book. Facebook allows you to import your contacts to make them your "friends" using the ubiquitous CSV format, but does not allow you to spit that same data back out.

See, that's funny, because when I joined Facebook in 2004, that was an easy thing to do. I even exported my friends into my Apple address book. I know because an archived version still has some that didn't list their phone numbers, just their "@wisc.edu" email addresses.

Sometime in 2005, that feature disappeared, and has been gone ever since.

I asked Mark Zuckerberg a question at the Developers' Garage event, but not that one. I'll be asking around though, because when I emailed Facebook support, they pretended the feature never existed.

Who owns the data? We'll find out.

AT&T has launched a new website to act as a one-stop-shop for customers, developers and media groups who need information about the company or its services.

 

The site is www.att.com/choice .  There are areas where developers can learn about system and network requirements and reporters can get corporate info as well as access to phone pictures and logos.

 

What I think is really impressive is the amount of information available to customers.  Some of it is a little advertise-y, but that's to be expected.  Even so, the site has a feeling that says "help" more than "sell."

 

My only gripes are that the layout still appears to need some tweaking (it is brand new) and it's very Flash-heavy, so it may load a wee bit on the slow side.

 

Most companies are trying to push customers to their website for assistance because it's cheaper than having you talk to a person.  AT&T's Choice website seems to adhere to a philosophy of "Hey, if we're going to send them to the web for information, let's make it super easy and super useful."

 

That thinking is super rare and super refreshing.

Ok, so this is total nonsense, but I think it fits into the "whatever else the editors think will make you laugh, cry, or think during the work day" part of the mission statement here...

 

 

Believe in Your Dreams

We all know about roaming fees.  They're terrible.  For anyone who has never dealt with roaming, here's a brief rundown.

When you're in an area that is not covered by your mobile phone carrier you can generally "roam" onto another carrier's network.  Roaming is made possible because of agreements that carriers have with each other to connect calls for each others' customers.  Sometimes one carrier pays the other a fee for this.  Sometimes they reach no fee agreements.  Sort of a "We'll let your customers roam over here if you let our customers roam over there" deal.

 

Currently Sprint (who is a struggling number 3 in the Big 4*) is trying to expand into new areas controlled by AT&T.  The reason that the issue is going all the way to the FCC is that Sprint wants to do so for free.

 

Here are some of the details from the AP's Dibya Sarkar, courtesy of Yahoo! Finance

 

AT&T and rival Sprint Nextel are in a bitter dispute over fees to use one another's voice networks. The nation's largest phone company doesn't want Sprint expanding a no-fee deal to nearly half the country. So it's taken the fight from the states to the Federal Communications Commission.

If AT&T doesn't get its way, Sprint can go fee-free into 22 states and potentially cost its rival millions in annual revenue.

 

When AT&T was trying to get its merger with BellSouth approved they had to accept certain conditions from the FCC.  One such condition would allow Sprint to carry over roaming agreements reached in one state to another.  It is this provision that Sprint is trying to use in order to increase its roaming coverage (which it doesn't charge customers for, by the way) for free.

 

AT&T, by being the "Big Dog" of American mobile phone carriers, is catching heat from an unlikely cadre of Sprint allies.

 

"Our worst suspicions about AT&T have come true," said Sprint spokesman John Taylor. "They just said whatever they needed to say in order to win approval of their merger with BellSouth."

 

A lot of other major players seem to agree.  Metro PCS, Charter Communications and cable super-heavyweight Comcast all seem to be worried that AT&T is trying to back out of its agreement with the FCC.

 

Even Verizon is backing up Sprint.  Verizon is in a tough spot, though.  On the one hand, they don't want to make it easier for AT&T to get out of roaming agreements.  Verizon makes those agreements too, you know.  From that angle, it makes perfect sense for Verizon (number 2 in the Big 4) to support Sprint.

 

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks differently.  There were rumors floating around that Sprint's merger with Nextel was to avoid a Verizon buyout of Sprint.  The rumor was bolstered by Verizon trying to buy itself back from Vodafone (Verizon Wireless is a joint venture between Verizon Communications and Vodafone Group).  If Verizon sat back and let AT&T fight or even went as far as to support AT&T things would get more expensive for Sprint.  That, in turn, could weaken Sprint's already rock-bottom stock (last traded at $5.71/share as opposed to Verizon's $35.04/share) enough for Verizon to try a buy.  Verizon would then be the only major, national CDMA carrier and would also leap into an incredibly dominant 1st place in the Big 4, which I guess would become the Big 3.  Based on subscriber numbers, a merged Sprint/Verizon would need to lose about 50 million subscribers for AT&T to get back into 1st.  That would essentially mean that all but 3.8 million of Sprint's customers would have to go elsewhere post-merger.  Admittedly, customers more concerned with price may try and go to another carrier (Verizon isn't known for being cheap), but the customers who are sticklers for quality probably wouldn't mind being taken under the umbrella of the self-proclaimed most reliable network in the country.

 

If Sprint's "Simply Everything" plan doesn't help to retain and create customers and they don't make some serious changes to their customer support (perennially rated as the worst customer support in the country) a Verizon buyout could make the jump from possibility to reality.

 

*"The Big 4" refers to the 4 largest mobile phone carriers in the U.S. -

AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile

Remember when I wrote about WashingtonVC and Grassroots.org? I talked to one of their people today, Angela Siefer. She answered some questions, and I'm slightly less skeptical.

 

 

I'll follow up on this.

The Ann Arbor News continues its fantastic reporting today on the disgusting state of the University of Michigan's treatment of "student-athletes"  with a report on a major that only 3% of the thousands of undergraduates at UM take, but 49% of those taking are athletes.

Yes, I'm talking about "General Studies."

You may ask yourself, what the heck does that mean, anyway? You tell me. I have no idea. Someone who does know, is former UM president James Duderstadt, who wrote a book called "Intercollegiate Athletetics and the American University."

Duderstadt asks the question,

"Where else can athletes with weak academic skills be accommodated in a university with competitive academic admissions and rigorous academic programs? This, of course, is a question many leading universities face, from Michigan to Berkeley, and Duke to Stanford...

Since these soon become well known to coaches and academic advisors, student-athletes with weaker academic skills are steered toward these safe harbors. Since one can rarely find enough cupcake courses to comprise a true major, some universities have actually created degrees such as a Bachelor of General Studies to facilitate such a strategy."

He calls it like he sees it.

Something else the News has picked up on is Shari Acho, an "academic counselor" whose job seems to consist of keeping football players eligible without regard to their lives after Michigan football.

Acho remains in a Michigan football player's academic life from the time he officially visits campus as a recruit until he leaves the school. She discusses possible academic tracks with him, keeps on top of course enrollment, monitors class attendance, verifies progress toward a degree and serves as a counselor about school and, sometimes, personal matters.

But the precise part Acho plays in an athlete's decision to enroll in general studies seems to be subject to interpretation.

Acho said if a visiting football recruit is interested in LS&A - the largest of Michigan's schools and colleges - then she'll ask someone from LS&A to come and talk about general studies. In interviews, players said Acho encouraged them to pursue the degree.

"I don't think encouraged is the right word," Acho countered. "I think every student decides on whatever degree program they want to go into. And just as I said before, we'll ask the questions - what might you be interested in?"

"I wanted to do all of the film and video classes, but it was just that the times conflicted with football, and you know football's paying the bills." - Pierre Woods, former Michigan linebacker.

Branch told The News he wanted to be a history teacher. Former Michigan wide receiver Steve Breaston - Branch's teammate with the Arizona Cardinals - said he wanted to major in English. New England Patriots linebacker Pierre Woods, another player on Michigan's 2004 team, said he wanted to be a film and video major.

All three ended up in the general studies program.

Acho said she can't explain why so many athletes congregate in general studies, other than to say that "the flexibility in the program has allowed them to create programs of study that really interest them."

She's either lying or just plain stupid.

Can anyone explain why the NCAA is tax exempt?

I'm pretty sure this is a joke...

 

...but these days you never know.

The NYT says it's getting there: 

Now, with 80 percent of passengers using these self-service options, the next step is electronic boarding passes, which essentially turn the hand-held devices and mobile phones of travelers into their boarding passes.

At least half a dozen airlines in the United States currently allow customers to check in using their mobile devices, including American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Southwest and Alaska.

But so far, Continental is the only carrier in the United States to begin testing the electronic passes, allowing those travelers to pass through security and board the plane without handling a piece of paper. Their boarding pass is an image of an encrypted bar code displayed on the phone's screen, which can be scanned by gate agents and security personnel.'