ManyMedia

Defining the term “broadband” is hard enough, given the various competing interests working to have the FCC see things their way. But defining the term by identifying exclusionary uses is, well, AT&T. Ars Technica was on top of this filing, and wrote up their concerns in AT&T to FCC: gaming is not “broadband,” but an added service. Specifically, AT&T is instructing the FCC to disallow certain uses of your Internet access, specifically online gaming, as part of the defining what “broadband” is.

They WHAT? That’s right, their testimony advises the FCC that AT&T knows best what we should do with our Internet access.

In testimony submitted to the FCC, AT&T advises that they (by way of the government) need to define what we can (and shouldn’t) do with our Internet access:

Specifically, the Commission must first define the discrete set of applications and online capabilities that must be made available to all Americans to achieve the Recovery Act’s goals.  As discussed below, for residential customers those services should include basic web-browsing capability, email, and online services ….  Thus, the task at hand really is not about “defining broadband” in the abstract.

The testimony continues (with my emphasis):

There are a host of aspirational broadband services that are beginning to emerge in this country, as well as myriad sophisticated applications involving streaming video, real-time voice, and the like.  All are no doubt “broadband” services.  But for Americans who today have no terrestrial broadband service at all, the pressing concern is not the ability to engage in real-time, two-way gaming, but obtaining meaningful access to the Internet’s resources and to reliable email communications and other basic tools that most of the country has come to expect as a given.

So AT&T wants to be free to deliver itty-bitty “broadband” to the rural folks.  AT&T is redefining “access” to meet a more traditional incumbent monetizing strategy: set sites low by defining a bare minimum, then find “aspirational” uses that they can bill extra for. The Ars article is worth a read. However, lessons can be learned from gamers that benefit corporate boardrooms as well. John Hagel and John Seely Brown wrote an article in last January’s BusinessWeek: How World of Warcraft Promotes Innovation. The article describes how various elements of online gaming can benefit the business mindset.

Companies seeking to thrive in a world of increasing uncertainty and accelerating change will need to foster this disposition among their own executive team and employees. They would be well advised to take a closer look at World of Warcraft, both in terms of the approach taken to foster this disposition and as a potential recruiting ground for employees who can bring this attitude and approach into the company.

AT&T isn’t looking broadly at providing access to the Internet. This is an example of Not Neutrality. AT&T has a plan, and your dreams may not be part of it.

Content, Life, Network, Policy access, ATT, broadband, definitions, FCC, Internet, Net Neutrality, online gaming, Policy

The National Broadband Plan hasn’t been completed as a draft or even bullet points, but the ax is already coming down. The Plan is likely to disappoint us, says Business Week in their article National Broadband Plan: Why Consumers May Be Let Down:

Defining broadband is an important effort (so is mapping out where broadband is), but consumers are likely to be disappointed by the National Broadband Plan, because the divide between what the American people want and how the government works means a lot of consumers’ desires will fall into the chasm between.

There’s no “likely” about it. American citizens who are hoping for better access to the Internet–or any access at all–will most certainly be disappointed to find out that nothing will change except for the increasing cost. I’m not surprised, but wish it wasn’t costing taxpayers so much.

Telecom lobbyists are paying less and getting more for their campaign contributions these days. I don’t see a reason to believe that things will change, given the current perspective and dialog. More importantly in this article, the notion of “broadband” (the means of getting access to the Internet) is being framed as the end game. Broadband is not the end game.

Make no mistake: Broadband is NOT the same as the Internet. Broadband is a poorly defined speed, a pipe, the means by which we access the Internet. It’s a marketing term used by the telephone and cable companies to describe their paltry offerings, which have resulted in the United States being ranked 17th in the world (and falling). A significant problem with using “broadband” as our national goal is that the FCC has not defined or measured it, or assessed its distribution (PDF). Of course the telephone and cable companies know, but they aren’t telling. And they’re effectively in charge for now.

If I could pull the plug on this well-financed debacle, I would in a heartbeat. Instead of focusing on the means (the pipe used to get there), let’s focus on the real goal: access to the Internet.

I propose that instead of pursuing this losing battle, we start talking about a Global Internet Plan for America. Why?

• We’re really trying to get access to the global Internet resources: everything that is available now and being created in the future. We want access to the global Internet. The Internet offers advanced information services and benefits to everyone, in many languages and many forms.
• The United States of America has unique political and technological resources, so this Plan is uniquely designed for Americans. Americans care about each other. We want our nation recover to economically. We want the best for our kids. We want all benefits to be widely available, in rural as well as urban settings. We don’t want our families, friends, or ourselves to be denied or limited access to the benefits of the Internet for any reason.

How do we get there? The current “debate” needs to be reframed to show priority for citizen-customer concerns and experiences. As the debate is framed now, it allows incumbent service providers to divide and conquer the conversation, the possibilities for change, and our future. Here are a few new ways to talk about this global Internet plan for America.

Decoupling access from delivery: The global Internet represents significant economic development benefits in the form of more competitive choices, lower prices, and faster performance. However, our service providers are increasingly serving as gatekeepers, choosing what information and how (devices, speed, etc.) we can or can not access it. Americans will realize the greatest benefit only if we decouple the Internet goods and services from the delivery pipe (broadband). This is called structural separation. For the greatest amount of benefit, we should be allowed to choose for ourselves what information to access, on our schedules and according to our needs, using our choice of hardware devices and software.

Monopoly rents as private taxation: Since the telephone and cable companies are the only game in town (where there is Internet access), they have considerable persuasive abilities when it comes to raising rates.  Citing Kushnick’s Law: “A regulated company will always renege on promises to provide public benefits tomorrow in exchange for regulatory and financial benefits today.” For instance, we’ve already paid $300 billion dollars in approved phone rate increases for telephone company promises that have never been fulfilled. One way of looking at this is as a private tax that takes in ever-increasing amount of our income. How often have you heard of local Public Utilities Commissions denying rate hikes? That doesn’t happen very often!

Coverage is not competition: Broadband service over telephone lines (DSL) has physical distance limitations, so is not available to all homes or businesses. Broadband over cable lines (cable modem service) passes a majority of homes in the nation, and is sometimes the only choice for access. In these areas, the price of access is high. What this means is that there are parts of the nation which either do not have access to the Internet at all, or have effectively one choice for providers. A Brookings Working Paper from 2002, The United States Broadband Problem: Analysis and Policy Recommendations (PDF), states the problem accurately:

Thus the effect of current industry structure is to generate a stable duopoly in residential Internet services, with continued monopoly control in most other markets – by the ILECs in voice and business data services, and by the CATV industry in residential video. Neither industry would logically be interested in provoking highly dynamic competition in open-architecture, high speed, and/or symmetric broadband services to either businesses or homes. Hence the slow pace of improvement in broadband services is not surprising. Unfortunately, however, it damages the economic growth, social welfare, and national security of the United States, and indeed of the world.

This means that any claims of nationwide coverage are suspect. As mentioned above, actual coverage and subscriber/customer data is not shared with the government, so the FCC doesn’t know how bad this problem is. However, there is no reason that access to the benefits of the Internet should be denied to any of our nation’s citizens. Keeping the data secret does not serve in the nation’s best interest. I want an Internet plan that works for all Americans.

There are more issues that can be properly described: problems inherent in the current state of the industry, and solutions that support ubiquitous access to the global Internet by all Americans. This is a plan I want to see come to life. This is the plan that will bring benefits to the entire nation. I am not alone in calling for this plan.

I welcome your additions in the comments below. Thanks go to George Lakoff for perspective on reframing this issue.

Content, Devices, Network, Policy choice, incumbents, Internet, self-determination, service providers

Civil emergency management is taking on a whole new life with social media networks. Various stories have cropped up about how news of the plane landing on the Hudson River, a Turkish Airlines crash, and other breaking news, were first spread on Twitter. Increasingly, state and local governmental departments are turning to Twitter, Facebook, and other social media tools to share news and service updates. A lot of people are using social media tools, and can easily be reached there. The Government Technology website reported in Emergency Managers and First Responders Use Twitter and Facebook to Update Communities that:

According to the research organization Compete.com, more than 300 million people visited Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr, Digg and Del.ici.ous in April 2009. The company only counted each visitor once in spite of repeat visits to the same site within the month.

Further breakdown indicates that:

104.1 million visited Facebook;
77.8 million visited YouTube;
55.6 million visited MySpace;
37.8 million visited Digg;
25.9 million visited Flickr;
19.4 million visited Twitter; and
520,000 visited Del.icio.us

Goverment departments take different approaches to public communications. The Los Angeles Fire Department, for example:

The LAFD doesn’t restrict its forays into social media to Twitter. The department has distributed video on YouTube, a video sharing site; posts updates on networking site Facebook, allowing users to share photos, videos, instant messages and other information with others over personalized networks; has a page on MySpace, another social networking site; uploads images of firefighters in action to image and video hosting site Flickr; bookmarks press releases, announcements and other communications on Del.icio.us, a site where people organize and categorize links; and belongs to Digg, a site for members to submit content that other members can rate in importance and comment upon.

The article continues:

Federal heavyweights like the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have Twitter accounts, but not specifically for emergency alerts. FEMA tweets news items like disaster recovery center relocations and closings, and the CDC tweets about press releases as well as breaking updates like the latest number of reported swine flu cases.

As for interacting with the public in an emergency, there’s nothing as efficient as crowd sourcing a problem. For example, following the 2007 shooting at Virginia Polytech,

“[People on Facebook] were able to identify the names of all the people who were killed before the officials released the names…”

The researchers followed discussion threads on the walls of various Facebook groups, and reprinted some of the posts from the “I’m ok at VT” group. On the day of the shooting, group members posted messages disclosing the names of victims, which posters discovered via their own knowledge or from other Facebook sites. The researchers used victims’ initials instead of their real names and gave pseudonyms to discussion participants. The report concluded that social media participants operated out of respect for the dead and traumatized, and produced accurate finding, not rumor-mongering.

Local, State and Federal governmental agencies are learning that it’s not only possible to work effectively with the public using social media, in some cases it can be very helpful. After all, it’s about the people.

Content, Life airlines crash, CDC, communications, emergency management, facebook, FEMA, first responders, government, Hudson River, social media, social web, twitter

One of the latest buzzwords in technology is cloud computing. In this scenario, the Internet is considered to be “the cloud.” The basic idea, roughly stated, is that we no longer need to rely on our local computer hard drives for everything–including software applications and storage. Now we can just log into various Internet-based services, use their applications, and store our documents on their servers.

Many examples of cloud computing are common and in use every day. On a personal level, MySpace, Facebook and LinkedIn help you manage your contacts and address book (friends, colleagues), and Flickr helps manage and display your photo collection. On a business level, Google Docs and Zoho offer a suite of tools for writing, accounting, and much, much more.

We all know that technology is not perfect. Combined with human interaction, we get a system that can be surprisingly fragile. Cloud computing is one example of this.

I have had the frustrating experience (many times) of using–and coming to depend on–GoogleDocs for group writing projects. I always found it frustrating when, without prior notice, Google would implement changes in the user interface that complicated our group work; or when Google Docs had a service hiccup and our group’s documents became unavailable for some time.

Similarly, others are documenting problems. I wrote about Digital Eviction (on Digital ID Coach) a couple of weeks ago citing Phil Wolff’s Data Portability article that’s timely and relevant to this post about having growing pains in cloud computing. Phil’s post offers six actions that might be appropriate to address the problems that cloud computing are likely to create. Briefly, those include:

• Intervention with a back-up service
• Prevent and educate on graceful exit strategy
• Commit to adding appropriate language to contracts (EULAs and TOSs)
• Insure your digital assets
• Advocate for the little guy
• Enforce with real laws and penalties

As we are increasingly dependent on cloud-based service providers, recognizing the vulnerability of these services makes it more important than ever to create back-ups of our work. One place might be on our local hard drives. I urge you to do it now.

Content, Network, Policy, Scenarios backup, cloud computing, digital assets, SAAS, service providers, terms of service

MuniWireless has a post called Find out if your ISP is a bad ISP with Glasnost in which author Esme Vos asks if your ISP is “playing funny games” with your Internet connection. She urges inquiry:

Simply go to Glasnost (appropriate name as it refers to a period in the 1980s in the USSR when there was a bit more openness and transparency). Glasnost is but one weapon in your arsenal for finding out the TRUTH about your broadband connection and your ISP. It is a product of Measurement Lab, founded by the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute, the PlanetLab Consortium, Google Inc. and academic researchers: “M-Lab was developed in 2008 after Vint Cerf and others at Google initiated conversations with network researchers to learn more about challenges to the effective study of broadband networks.”

Vos reported that her ISP came out clean. I can report (finally, after days of busy servers) that my ISP is doing well as of this post. However, all ISPs will not have such good reports.

As a matter of business ISPs will remind us that there are two sides to every story, in this case the service users and the service providers. To their credit, they will need to take steps to understand the user-side demand and manage their resources to provide the best services possible. I’d give them this credit if they didn’t “play funny games” in the process.

Content, Network Glasnost, Internet, ISPs, MuniWireless, service providers

eComm, “the world’s leading-edge telecom, Internet communications and mobile innovation event,” is being held in San Francisco, CA, at the San Francisco Airport Marriott Hotel, from March 3-5, 2009. This year’s theme is Defining the Post-Telecom Era, which the conference organizers will do in a series of rapid-fire talks from a wide range of speakers.

You can save $400 on registration fees by registering before the end of January. Additionally, if you wish to save an additional 20%, contact me for details.

Content, Events, Network, Policy communications, conference, Internet, telecom

Hoo-boy, have we been busy for the last couple of months working on Podcamp Hawaii. This is an un-conference of a sort. (Generally un-conferences have less structure ahead of the conference days.)

We have several tracks of presentations, including Business Uses for Podcasting, New Media, Podcasting 101, and the track I’ve organized, WordCamp.

The sponsor list is amazing, as are the speakers. Some of our speakers are coming from Boston, Portland, San Francisco, China, and elsewhere.

This is a FREE event. I hope to see you there!

Content, Events, Life conference, Hawaii, podcamp, wordcamp, wordpress

Friend and telecom Prosultant David Isenberg wrote an interesting post on this topic some time ago. He just published it on his isen.blog.

In the article, David reminded me that we are generally unaware of how our data is being “routed” to certain data centers where certain Three Letter Acronyms, arms of the U.S. Government, had access to everything that was passing over the network. What I found most interesting about this article was the candid way that David illustrated how things work:

I had one experience that indicates the potential success of such a modus operandi. I once got a call from a staff member of a U.S. Senator who somehow knew that I — a lowly Member of Technical Staff — was working on a project that included a facility in his state. The Senator needed a favor from AT&T. He asked me if I would help. I told my boss; a call from a Senator is a big thing. I don’t know who my boss talked to, but the Senator got his favor.

In this case, there wasn’t anything that smacked of corruption or illegality; all I’m saying is that things happened a lot faster than they would have if they’d gone through normal channels. I was a bit too skeptical to be classified as a “friendly.” Then again, this was an isolated incident, not a systematic program.

David ends his post with a very plausable Scary Scenario. It’s just a matter of time.

Content, Network, Policy, Scenarios ATT, illegal wiretapping, politics, telecom, US, Verizon, wiretapping

My colleagues said it so well before the words came to me. On the matter of technology policy statements from the presidential candidates, telecom prosultant™ David Isenberg said this about John McCain’s technology policy statement:

I was hoping that McCain’s Tech Policy would emphasize and extend the two McCain pro-Internet initiatives — the McCain Lautenberg Community Broadband Act and Spectrum Re-regulation, neither of which have yet seen the light of day — but it doesn’t. In the first case, it makes a vague nod in the direction of “market failure and other obstacles.” In the second, it treats spectrum policy as a done deal; now that we can surf the Web in coffee shops, we’re done.

David Weinberger’s take is more to-the-point:

Much of the McCain policy is the expected stuff about public-private partnerships, educating the workforce, and providing incentives to reach under-served populations, etc. But he shows his hand on three issues:

1. He’s flat against Net neutrality.
2. He wants to see copyright extended and enforced more vigorously.
3. He thinks the current infrastructure only needs a couple of tweaks.

In sum, our Internet policy should be the same as our energy policy: Hand a key resource off to big corporations whose interests are fundamentally out of alignment with ours as citizens.

Hmm. Not a surprise and not what I hope for. Reminds me of the early days of television: so much hope for the betterment of society and the world, but delivered to the strict commercial interests of several large corporate interests. Development of the dream and betterment of society? Not so much.

Compare McCain’s policies with Ars Technica’s thoughtful summary from last November of Obama’s policy statement:

The document begins with a set of policy goals that pretty well sum up the major areas that the proposals address:

• Ensure the full and free exchange of information among Americans through an open Internet and diverse media outlets.
• Create a transparent and connected democracy.
• Encourage the deployment of a modern communications infrastructure.
• Employ technology and innovation to solve our nation’s most pressing problems, including reducing the costs of health care, encouraging the development of new clean energy sources, and improving public safety.
• Improve America’s competitiveness.

This is closer to what I had in mind for my future.

Having said that, I realize (and everyone has touched on the limitations of each policy document) that it’s going to be very hard to bridge a gap between where we are now and where we should be in a more connected world.

Now I’ll be watching this race to see what kind of future we’ll really have.

Content, Network, Policy, Scenarios control, election, Internet, ownership, Policy, president, technology, telecom

O’Reilly recently convened the Web 2.0 Conference and Expo in San Francisco. I registered for the expo (a few pictures), attended a couple of sponsored sessions, and came away with two significant things: 1) I’m not missing much yet, and 2) a laser etching on my laptop (thanks Instructables!).

First off, the expo floor wasn’t all that crowded so it was easy to make my way around. Secondly, I wasn’t attending as an “enterprise” representative, which made my journey more strategic. Many of the booths on the expo floor were touting ways to “mash up” legacy systems to create new forms of data (e.g., reports previously unavailable) or to be the next “social” apps hosting platforms (e.g., hosting the corporate wiki). [Related post]

Here are my notes from crawling the expo floor. Note that I’m only commenting on a few of the companies that struck me. I missed a few, and avoided others. Such was my timeframe for this event.

• Springnote: online wiki-like notebook, uses OpenID.
• Rackspace: enterprise hosting provider. I was already familiar with them. Thanks for the pen.
• Blist: (pronounced BList, not B-list) I checked them out a while ago following their launch at DEMO. Intriguing database service, but s. l. o. w. I asked about this, and was assured that they’ve addressed their performance issues, and have added international characters and sharing capabilities. I need to check them out again.
• Camwii: Interesting screen-sharing app. Best described in their video. Good: lets me share the part of the screen that I want (via a “looking glass” frame), lets me see what my shared partners see (feedback loop), and can be “private labeled” for customized use (1:1 or 1:many). Questionable: is 100% flash, which means it works on most computers but is tied to Adobe proprietary format. Also uses your phone number as ID. Now that becomes a database with a good key value.
• Truvico: one of several companies that provided continuous data analysis (words, statistics, what’s happening on your site).
• Amusing side note: someone cut the lights on the expo floor for a few minutes (1:40pm). Something eerie about the whole space going dark. This happened on top of what many booths were reporting (and I was witnessing): s-l-o-w network access. Holy cow.
• Magnify360: a “behavioral targeting platform,” which was explained as real-time behavioral programming. This is about “targeting” and “personalizing” to “increase conversion rates.” I feel better already knowing that my every need is anticipated and provided for.
• Kapow: two things: buzz phrase kings (see photos above), and really, really expensive.
• ConfIdent: Weirdly, I didn’t learn what ConfIdent was about, and couldn’t really tell from their website either. What I did see was Vidoop: a system of gaining access to a site by using picture passwords. This was interesting. Passwords were determined by a set of images. The images are random-ish, but they fall into categories like food, travel, space, etc. I somehow would choose or have, let’s say, 3 categories so I would choose the 3 pics out of 9 shown that correspond to my categories. Vidoop is also an OpenID platform/service.
• Nokia: Nokia was one of the big sites on the floor. I went to the table/area designated as “Advertising” to find out what that meant. Nokia has partnerships with various vendors (no surprise) like Sprint. Nokia claims to be carrier and handset agnostic. They act as advertising middlemen, gathering all of the demographic data from Sprint that helps them target your desired audience. Let’s say you want to reach all of the moms, ages 24-35, living in a particular area and having a specific income. No problem, Nokia can serve that group. This was one conversation that made me want to wash my hands and face afterwards. No sign of a cluetrain at this station. Better not be on the tracks when Nokia comes through.
• Etelos: a platform for application deployment. They had several partners and clients represented in their booth.
• Spinscape: a hosted mind mapping tool (similar to The Brain?) that’s web driven, collaborative, extensible with Google Apps and Gadgets. This thing can “auto-discover” everything on your hard drive. In collaborative mode, you can have nodes and assign roles and responsibilities for various levels of collaboration.

That was a first pass at the expo floor. Next I ran to catch the OpenID sponsored session.

OpenID is promoted as a bridge to sharing. It’s being engineered for adoption at an ID layer. Question about open sourcing, noted that it works well with Novell and others. Why relevant, why only authenticating? OpenID has been around for three years, OpenAuth is brand new and needs to focus on what it can enable: integrating contacts. Concerns expressed about it being hard to grasp. Challenge: user experience not optimal.

I asked about how this is taking back control of our IDs when each silo has its data and can gather additional intelligence about us by partnering with other data silos. The answer was largely about the inability to get any hosted service site to delete info on request (once you register, it’s their data). Yeah, we know. Then how is it that openID will help me “manage” my identity?

The question remains. Back to the expo floor.

• Photobucket: claims they are the world’s largest repository of photos, video and more. (Somewhat similar to Flickr, which is limited to photos.) Photobucket has facility for doing minor photo editing. They do not have a search capability to find CC-licensed resources. Bummer. The best thing about Flickr is an unrelated site, compfight.
• Topix: a “top 20 news site.” (huh?) Shows news that’s local to you, as they determine where you are. You can also change locations of course. Extensive news forums, and users can edit stuff. They also offer commercial feeds.
• Yugma: collaborative desktop sharing with chat, conference calls. Java, subscription basis.
• Sprout: a web-based authoring platform for creating widgets: layers of stuff with links and functions. Can do limited mash-ups. Interesting: no sign-up necessary to create. This actually looked like it could be fun, but my old computer didn’t want to work at any reasonable speed with sprout’s programming.

At this point, the expo hall closed. We were all shuffled out. Many of us went to see O’Reilly’s keynote and the talks that followed. I have notes, but on re-read, they’re pretty boring.

Clay Shirkey was the reason I stayed. My notes fail in light of his post of that talk.

That was a great way to end Day One.

As for day two, nothing really struck me. The sponsored session on “Creating a Social Network, It’s Easy” seemed to be more about hiring the group than learning how. Afterwards I went to the women’s networking event. I wasn’t already part of the small leaning-together cliques and didn’t find a conversational way in. So much for networking.

Content, Events conference, IDmanagement, mashups, networking, relationships, self-determination, social web, web 2.0