You Are What You Share

We live in a world where web 2.0 and massive technological innovations have created unprecedented potential for collaboration with no regard for geographical distances, or any of the traditional divisions of humanity.

Check out this clip from the Us Now film project- a succinct synopsis of our rapidly changing methods of communication:    



Matthew Taylor of the Us Now film project said it best:

"The state needs to understand the potential of these new forms of collaboration and give them the kind of non-intrusive support that they need to grow. "

Sponsored Link: Earn big money by sitting in your car trunk!

I've grown weary of sponsored links littering the web but I thought that advertising had earned a permanent home on the Internet. Or has it?

Wharton Professor Eric Clemons made a controversial claim recently: that Internet advertising will ultimately fail. His article elicited a strong response and even a full rebuttal from Danny Sullivan.

Regardless of where one stands in the debate, Clemons makes three excellent points about advertising in general:

First he realizes that "consumers do not need advertising." Consumers spend time researching products and then making purchasing decisions based on recommendations and reviews. His observation affirms the common assertion that product excellence is the best form of advertising.

Second he argues that "Consumers do not trust advertising". Common sense kicks in: one cannot trust a company as a source of information on its own products and services because a company is inherently biased in favor of its own products! Recommendations from friends or trusted reviewers have more impact. I'm amazed that social networks have not yet found a way to profit from friend to friend recommendations and the resulting commerce.

Third, he notes that "Alternative models for monetization are available". That is a refreshing statement: advertising is a lazy man's revenue stream and a cliched business model. The Internet must not rely on a single revenue stream and I would love to see more variety in how start-ups attain profitability.

Doing business with the World Bank

Doing Business reports on the ease and openness of starting a business in 181 countries by providing reports and information on a variety of select indicators.

A useful resource for all young entrepreneurs.

Can e-readers save newspapers?

An interesting article caught my eye this week concerning the sagging newspaper industry: the Hearst corporation plans to use e-readers to electronically distribute newspapers and magazines. An industry suffering from stale ideas desperately needs this type of innovative thinking. E-readers promise to increase subscriber numbers (and thereby subscription revenue) while simultaneously reducing margin-killing distribution and printing costs.

The CNN article states that media ownership is "increasingly looking to devices like e-readers to lower costs while preserving the business model that has sustained newspapers and magazines."

Hmm. "Preserving the business model" is not a viable path forward for the print industry. Newspapers currently survive on advertising dollars, and an e-reader can't change the fact that a newspaper is a blunt and inefficient advertising tool. In the long term, advertising dollars will continue to migrate to the internet where technology provides highly targeted advertising with measurable statistics. Newspapers need to find new revenue streams outside of advertising dollars to survive and I doubt that increased subscription revenue combined with lower costs can save the industry.

I'm also skeptical that print subsribers will embrace e-reader technology. E-readers offer a superior reading experience that eases eye strain, better portability when compared with laptops or even print newspapers, and instantaneous access to content via wireless network connectivity. However, the Hearst product will launch 12-18 months late to market after strong Kindle sales. Will customers want a specialized 8.5 by 11 inch e-reader just for periodicals when they may have already bought one for books?

Anyways, if Steve Jobs is right, newspapers are facing far more serious problems than declining revenue ...

The politics of network neutrality

(See Part 1: Free speech and open access provisions are unrelated to the core net neutrality debate. Outright blocking of a competitor’s product or service by a broadband carrier violates net neutrality.)

Another more controversial (and subtle) aspect of net neutrality concerns tiered service, or how fast the internet delivers content from a source to the end user. Tiered service means that packets of data could arrive at the end user much faster depending upon which tier they traveled along. Tiered service does not necessarily violate net neutrality, though the method by which a broadband carrier offers tiered service has significance.

A broadband carrier can offer tiered service with pricey high-bandwidth packages. Essentially, purchasing bandwidth works this way now: a company like Google can plow money into a bigger data pipe that connects to the Internet. Companies with more bandwidth can deliver data faster. This doesn't violate the spirit of net neutrality. A packet can arrive faster with a higher bandwidth connection, but no single data packet is discriminated against.

A broadband carrier can also offer tiered service by explicitly shaping the packet traffic across the network. Traffic shaping refers to the fact that an internet service provider (ISP) can prioritize packets according to certain criteria and thereby improve the delivery speed of the packet. Here's how it breaks down:

The good

• Applications with stringent data delivery requirements work better when prioritized. For example, voice over IP applications (VOIP) like Skype need quick packet delivery in order to support conversation with no lag.
  
• Traffic shaping tends to create a better experience for the end user at a lower cost because ISPs can more effectively manage congested data pipes . Cox Communications is experimenting with this technique now in several markets by prioritizing certain applications over others.

The bad

• A carrier can promote its own services over a competitor’s by surreptitiously slowing traffic (The WSJ reports that outgoing FCC chairman Kevin Martin has accused Comcast of doing exactly this).
  
• ISP's can extort companies by artificially slowing the traffic of those who don't pay for premium service. For example, certain websites could load faster than others if the owners made special deals with the carriers. Tim Wu, a Columbia law professor and network neutrality expert, calls this the Tony Soprano business model.

People disagree whether prioritization with the goal of improving the user experience violates net neutrality. Even with the positive benefits of traffic shaping, it's unclear whether broadband carriers should rely on this technique. I'm apprehensive about ISPs (and more so, Congress) "picking winners", or applications to prioritize. Also, network operators may rely too heavily on congestion management rather than increasing the capacity of their networks.

A high capacity network diminishes the need to prioritize traffic. But as more data floods the internet, providers will need to improve capacity and costs will rise. Instead of exploiting their position of gatekeepers, ISPs should pass the costs onto consumers. Not an ideal situation, but a lesser evil than active meddling.

(photo from ccarlstead's photstream)

Network Neutrality: a two part primer

As Obama takes office, network neutrality likely will take a back seat to more pressing issues, like a sinking economy and the upcoming (I hope) transition to digital television. But the appointment of a new Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman may elevate the issue once again. Rumor has it that Barack Obama will appoint Julius Genachowski to the role. Genachowski went to Harvard Law School and has worked for several Internet companies, including Expedia and Hotels.com . He's a strong choice: he'll bring both intellect and business experience to the administration. From reading Obama's Technology and Innovation Plan, to which Genachowski contributed, one gets the impression that the new FCC head comes out strongly in favor of network neutrality.

However, I hope Genachowski contemplates network neutrality carefully before pursuing any regulation, because it's a technically complex and poorly defined issue that leaves much room for legislative missteps. Network neutrality is essentially an umbrella phrase that takes on a different meaning depending on the context. The definition from Wikipedia is indicative of this vagueness: “network neutrality is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams .”

Through this post, I hope to clarify the network neutrality debate by decomposing the issue into four distinct components and analyzing each piece.

Free speech

Some argue that free speech necessitates network neutrality. Free speech advocates fear that broadband carriers or, more likely, the state will filter online content based on political or moral ideology. China does this now by blocking access to politically sensitive websites. While I agree that information should flow freely and unfettered from the internet (while taking reasonable precautions against material such as child pornography), I do not agree that free speech should drive the network neutrality debate. The suppression of free speech is an unrelated but legitimate cause for concern. But, in reality, no company or government entity could get away with this restrictive behavior within the US, as the public would react strongly and swiftly against such actions.

Open access data networks

Net neutrality also refers to open access data networks, though less frequently. For example, during the auction for the 700Mhz wireless spectrum (previously occupied by analog television signals), the FCC stipulated that whoever owns block C must allow any hardware device capable of supporting the appropriate protocols to connect to the wireless data network. Block C will support any compliant hardware, leaving consumers with more choice and freeing hardware makers from the restrictions of the carriers. I rather like this requirement because I hate how carriers (ahem, Verizon) restrict consumers to use certain cell phones on their cellular networks. Again, this aspect is important but unrelated to the core net neutrality debate and is more of a side discussion.

Restricting services or content from a competitor

Net neutrality proponents argue (and I agree) that the law should prevent broadband carriers from using their market position as Internet Service Providers to discriminate against competing applications or content. For example, Comcast would violate the spirit of net neutrality by developing a new weather service, and suddenly blocking access to weather.com. Again, in the presence of competition, a major carrier could not get away with this type of behavior. Customers would drop service quickly knowing that the ISP provided access to a walled garden instead of the Internet. But this is a straw man argument: few opponents of network neutrality would argue that carriers should exploit their position as providers to block a competitor’s service or product. More likely, a carrier would degrade a competitor’s service surreptitiously by slowing the data transmission. (more on this in the next post.)

In the next post, we’ll get to the true meat of the net neutrality debate: Tiered Service and Quality of Service. This is an important distinction with large repercussions in business and politics. I’ll explain these terms in more detail in the next post. Stay Tuned!

Facebook sparks controversy in the Balkans

In the last few weeks, two interesting stories made the press involving the social networking website Facebook and the Balkans. On December 1, the International Herald Tribune reported that police detained 22 year old Niksa Klecak – creator of the Facebook group "I bet I can find 5,000 people who dislike [Croatian Prime Minister Ivo] Sanader." Police questioned Klecak for three hours and searched his home and computer. Several defended the detention, claiming that the group included a photo montage of Sanader in a Nazi uniform - Nazi symbols are banned under Croatian law.

Others, including political analyst Jelena Lovric and Social Democrats leader Zoran Milanovic, claim it is a veiled attempt to quash growing dissent that pervades the internet. An earlier Facebook group in protest of Sanader already had 80,000 members. Klecak’s group has attracted more than 5,000, and in the wake of his detention, almost 3,000 joined a new group called "Search my flat, you Gestapo gang, Croatia is not a police state." Sanader might be disappointed to hear that "I bet I can find 7,000 people who LIKE Sanader" only brought together 19 Facebookers. Ouch.

Meanwhile in Serbia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reports that a Facebook group proclaiming that the massacre at the Bosnian town of Srebrenica is a model for "fighting Islam" has popped up and drawn some 1,000 members. An estimated 7,000 Muslim men and boys were killed at Srebrenica in an act of genocide. A group in Bosnia-Herzegovina is asking Serbian officials to shut down the page and to prevent the Internet from being used as a forum to promote hate speech. No action thus far has been taken. 

These cases bring to mind the usual questions. What is freedom of speech? Should there be limitations to freedom of speech? etc., etc. However, what must not be overlooked is that while both cases are controversial in nature, they are both being openly discussed in and out of country. While it is disheartening to see a man be detained for starting an opposition Facebook group, and it’s just plain disgusting to see so many people support what most consider genocide, we should be reassured that the citizens of these countries as well as international observers are informed. In stark contrast, over the weekend 90 people were detained in Russia for participating in an opposition rally organized by Garry Kasparov. You may have read about it; the Russian press (for some reason) has overlooked this story.

(photo by ManilaRyce)

Just google it

The news of a Google-Yahoo merger was floated some time ago but recent news that the Justice Department has hired special counsel to review the details of the case should not be surprising; in fact, it is more than welcome. The common view of our generation seems to be that Google is an enlightened despot, free to conduct themselves as they see fit due to the ease they have fostered in our daily lives. In a sense, their ubiquity has forced us to grant the company free reign to monitor, and target, our habits. 

But no matter how well they treat employees, or their corporate idealism, Google is still a company and their bottom line is what matters most. This is as it should be but regulators cannot lose sight of it. I don't know whether a Google-Yahoo deal would imperil competition but any such unprecedented corporate adventurism in new media such as the internet should trigger caution and excitement at the same time. The Justice Department is doing the right thing by excruciatingly checking the facts of the case. The internet will never be completely dominated by a company. There is always something new and room for experimentation - that is its inherent beauty. But the internet is still a media domain and we must realize the extent to which complete advertising control can stifle the expansion, not creation, of new entities. Google may have been the best thing to happen in a lot of years, but that doesn't mean something better isn't around the corner. Let's not shut the door too soon.

Tear down this firewall

Given my co-author's recent discussion of authoritarian capitalism, I found the NY Times' recent discussion of media coverage of the Olympics to be particularly interesting. Expecting a furious backlash from the international community over Chinese stances on human rights and political dissent , NBC's decision to broadcast the games was seen as an extremely risky move. The network met, and vastly exceeded, industry expectations.

What I think is interesting about this success is not the high TV ratings; the hype of these games plus their perfect translation into prime time was a recipe for success. More impressive is the network's deft handling of internet coverage. Vast media conglomerates have a poor track record when it comes to embracing web technology (think of any business deal revolving around a social networking site - virtually none have turned a profit).

I believe traditional business models partly explain this lack of success. They lack the inherent creativity of new internet ventures that cater to the individuality and tastes of their users. Personalization and customization are hallmarks of the web and NBC hit the nail on the head by allowing users to essentially construct their own content rather than be force-fed packaged network sob stories. It's an unnoticed (but seemingly significant) contrast that the Olympics held in the one of the most authoritarian, collectivized countries in the world also saw the most success for the most open and individual domain of our generation. 

It's too bad the Chinese populace was not able to celebrate this unexpected success. 

You have 1 new voicemail

Academics are increasingly interested in how technology restructures social networks and relationships. While areas of academic research tend to be as trendy as skinny jeans, the seemingly endless stream of information and access most certainly changes how we interact.

Today's NY Times reports on a service that represents just that. A new service called Slydial allows users to make a call that proceeds directly to voicemail.

While such a service is interesting (and hey, depending on your personal life, maybe useful) it reflects a growing trend of technologies that are marketed to our generation simply because we use technology differently, and more, than everyone else. It would be wonderful to see academics use such a broad societal shift as an opportunity to work across disciplines. The internet, and many other present and future innovations, offer an opportunity for anthropologists, economists, political scientists, and sociologists to work together rather than simply talk past each other.

I, for one, hope they don't miss this call.

The year of the two-faced internet

I've written about the importance of internet transparency before. It's an issue that does not get nearly enough attention; unless of course international reporters find themselves blocked from websites in Beijing.

Should we really be surprised that the Chinese reneged on their promise to allow reporters unfettered use of the internet? These games have been plagued by contradictions and abuses on the part of Chinese officials before they have even begun. But to say that "banned topics were not part of the athletic events and should not be of interest to reporters anyway" is simply beyond ridiculous.

Chinese nationalism is gaining power with assertions of economic independence and political obstinacy. Neither of these are bad things in themselves but when they inspire autocratic party officials to say anything for gain only to later reverse course then action is needed. Ignoring international opinion is one thing; to spit in its face is another. Continuing coverage simply increases the Chinese officials sense of entitlement and invincability. Print and electronic journalists should pull out and let the games flop on their own images.

Who wants to see choking runners anyway?

The Internet Can Can

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ruled today in Paris that any organization, company, or entity can now apply for an individual domain ending.  

The decision, while creating room for hackers and other internet improprieties, provides a unique laboratory to monitor how organizations value their internet property. How this move will affect internet culture remains to be seen. The expected explosion of requests will be monitored by the ICANN while an unnamed third party arbiter will handle objections and disputes. Unfortunately ICANN's power to regulate remains woefully inadequate for such a task. Nor can governments be trusted to ensure transparency and cooperation in global electronic commerce. Internet freedom remains a fringe political issue but one of great importance. 

What exactly does this spell for the average surfer? More streamlined advertising is a foregone conclusion. With monitoring techniques growing more sophisticated and advertisers targeting users, ads tailored to personal surfing habits do not seem far off. To facilitate this search engines must refine their business plans and technological capabilities. In their quest to open up and personalize the internet the ICANN may have boxed in users to a new generation of surveillance.

The possibility of restricted web names and generic copyrighting will undoubtedly spew legal challenges and corporate interference. But one thing is certain. The internet will continue to spur innovation and cooperation. In the end it will be the user who defines how new domain names will be received. Just as difficult as it would have been twenty years ago to imagine Google as a verb, perhaps .com will soon be a quaint relic of the 00s in an era of unsurpassed ubiquity.