Sentences to envy

It's pretty rare that a blog makes me want to buy a textbook; I've just finished graduate school, have a pretty solid grasp of my subjects (at least I like to think), and am pretty broke to boot. But MR makes me reconsider with one pithy sentence. On cap and trade:

...To make progress against global warming, may require building a political coalition. A carbon tax pushes one very powerful and interested group, the large energy firms, into the opposition. If tradable allowances are instead given to firms initially, there is a better chance of bringing the large energy firms into the coalition. Perhaps it’s not fair that politically powerful groups must be bought off but as Otto von Bismarck, Germany’s first chancellor, once said,“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” We can only add that producing both laws and sausages requires some pork.

For some reason, I don't remember my 101 class being this exciting...but maybe that's because it was MWF at 9 am.

A revolution in the organization of human knowledge

Watch this introductory video and get excited about the future:

Introduction to Wolfram|Alpha by Stephen Wolfram

Practicing development: reason and results

Chris Blattman asks:

Why don't we write more about worst practices?

Well for one thing, agencies and consultancies that rely on government funds are loathe to air their dirty laundry when future funding is on the line. Even when they do screw up reports are written so as to subtly blame local partners and government participants. Just like politicians, development professionals and NGOs - meant to act in the long-term interests of their supposed constituencies - profit much more from acting in their own short-term interests (exhibit A - schools).

Well, what to do? We must incentivize frank admissions of errors. Those who openly and honestly declare mistakes and poor programs should actually be rewarded - at least to a certain degree. 

The World Bank already has an Independent Evaluation Group and randomized evaluations are all the rage among academics. For markets to be efficient (and yes, proposals for development funding indeed comprise a market), information must be freely available and accurate; let's hold development results to the same standard.

(Picture from Penguin Blog)

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. "

The Plugin Hybrid

As a technology nerd, I am excited about the prospect of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV). General Motors recently sponsored a Society of Automotive Engineers task force to develop a standardized power connector for recharging electric vehicles.  Several major auto makers have agreed to adopt the technology.

Beyond standardization within the industry, environmentalists and techno-nerds alike have reason to be excited about a bright future for cleaner transportation.  First, one can expect that PHEV's won't single-handedly overload the power grid: the Energy Information Administration's 2009 annual energy outlook predicts "Plug-in electric hybrid vehicles are not expected to reverse the trend of slowing growth in electricity demand, which increases by only 0.1 percent for every 1 million PHEV-40 vehicles in operation." Second, batteries from PHEVs will minimally impact the environment.

However, one long-term issue could diminish the environmental benefits of PHEVs. These vehicles shift most emissions from gasoline to electric power plants.  The US needs to make its electricity sources look more like this, instead of this.  Coal provides the U.S. with half of its power, and no, clean coal is not a viable solution. Strip mining and the disposal of coal ash wreak havoc upon the environment.  Society must not trade its problems, but one can hope that the mass adoption of PHEVs encourages a cleaner power generation.

We need a book deal

I (and my mountain of student loans) really need international political economy to go viral.

I can has liberal democracy and economic liberty, right?!

(Photo from Philonoist)

Game Show Network: Your days are numbered

As media providers like Hulu continue to offer highly customized and unbundled entertainment options, Rob Pegoraro writes a timely article on a la carte cable pricing.

I agree with Pegoraro, and his argument for a flexible cable pricing model highlights an important trend that affects many industries.

The decomposition of a product or service into discrete parts, or what many call the “great unbundling,” developed recently in modern business. We have all witnessed traditional bundles: a music CD, a newspaper with many sections, and a cable package with hundreds of channels. Implicit in these bundles is the decision about what gets bundled together in the first place. Rob rightly notes one bundle does not fit all. I don’t like the style section in the newspaper, I don’t like the game show network, and I don’t like the 13 songs on a CD that aren’t the hit single. Fortunately, successful enterprises such as Apple’s iTunes have discredited this anachronistic approach to product bundling.

Unbundling has a powerful implication: personalized aggregation. Examples of personalized aggregation include Google reader for news, Boxee for media consumption, and Amazon MP3 and iTunes for music. With these tools the consumer assembles a custom package of content, cobbled together from a variety of sources. Personalized aggregation empowers the consumer to pay for only what one chooses to consume. The cable industry should note that companies which honor this philosophy will ultimately thrive.

P.S. – Let's not be rash and unbundle the Oxygen channel. Hidden Gem.

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.

Buying bras shouldn't be this complicated...

One of the irony's of Saudi Arabia's gender segregation is the way in which women shop for lingerie - uncomfortably and inappropriately.

As a result of labor policies aimed at preventing women from dealing with male customers, women are not employed as salespeople. This means that in lingerie stores men end up talking to women about bras/thongs/etc and checking out their bodies to determine cup sizes. On top of that, fitting rooms are banned in the kingdom, since women undressing in the close vicinity of a man is unacceptable.

Not only does this not make sense in ANY way when you consider the conservative nature of Saudi society, (in a gender-segregated society, why would men not be banned from lingerie stores?), but even in the US and Europe, men typically do not sell lingerie to women. Well, as they say in the Arab-world, HALAS! Enough!

A group of Saudi women have launched a boycott of lingerie stores until they employ women. The women are not asking to work WITH men. Far from it - they are not demanding any major shifts in Saudi culture - in fact, they are supporting it. They don't want men to be involved in this type of intimate purchase at all. They want men completely removed from the process, as you would think conservative leaders would agree with.

The boycott was launched on Tuesday by approximately 50 women who gathered at the Al-Bidaya Breast-feeding Resource and Women's Awareness Center in Jeddah, run by founder Modia Batterjee. The aim of the boycott is to pressure the government to IMPLEMENT a law that has been in existence since 2006, which mandates that only women can be employed in women's clothing stores. Reem Assad, a finance professor at Dar Al Hekma College in Jeddah says: "We are raising awareness and calling for the implementation of the law." Assad started a Facebook group which now has 1,680 members, and posted an online petition which has at this point been signed by 1,700 people.

Since only a few Saudi papers have written about the boycott, it has depended largely on word-of-mouth and the internet. The women who launched this campaign knew how to leverage online communications and social media to disseminate their message quickly and effectively. The impact of the campaign remains to be seen, but I am curious to see how else Saudis will chose to utilize new and social media to initiate these types of activities in the Kingdom.

Mobile education

I went to New York this past Friday and someone yelled at me on the bus for making a phone call. In the spirit of our age, it immediately inspired me to write a blog post on the topic (ok, ok - I was in the process of writing it already, but it seemed especially serendipitous).

For those of you who may chide me right away for my public chattering, read the whole post. But for those of you too lazy, here is a (long) excerpt.

The use of mobile phones has been used for all types of initiatives that typically fall under the umbrella of development work. Text messages have been used to monitor elections and share market prices for milk. As long as mobiles continue to improve daily life, their importance will grow. If monitored correctly, governments can harness this trend to garner another source of foreign and domestic direct investment to gain desperately needed capital. Doubly productive, the explosion of mobile technology also acts as a "leap frog" technology preventing governments from needing to expend huge sums for the development of traditional infrastructure needed for analog phones and land lines.

Despite all their benefits I would argue that cell phones are still underused in the developing world. In areas where education of youth is prevented either by conflict, distance or terrain, or simply a lack of time due to hours spent working, mobile technology can help provide educational materials and resources that may traditionally be unavailable.

It may sound a little unusual, but radio technology was used throughout Australia in the 1950s and 1960s to educate children where Outback distances prevented collective schooling. If countries are really going to ensure universal primary education by 2015, then governments may be better off distributing cell phones than laptops.

All this and more at Youthink!, the World Bank blog where I'm a regular contributor.

FT Energy Source

It has been a particularly busy beginning of the week, so instead of my usual fare I thought I'd draw your attention to another blog offering really great coverage of the energy/commodities markets.

I recently discovered FT Energy Source, and it is already one of my regular reads. It brings together all the best energy coverage from around the web and the newspaper itself, while also providing terrific original analysis and behind-the-headlines insight. Its coverage this weekend of the OPEC meeting perfectly illustrates the access and insight it offers.

If you are looking to build on the energy/commodities coverage of zzzeitgeist, I recommend checking out FT Energy Source. After us, of course.

Facebook goes Arabic

Facebook currently operates in 40 languages- from Afrikaans to Greek... but no Arabic... until now. 

Although Facebook has been available throughout the Middle East since it expanded beyond the US college network in 2006, it will now be fully functional in Arabic.  According to an article in the Guardian, "50 million of the world's 250 million Arabic speakers already use the internet, but Arabic only makes up 5% of global web content."

Considering the fact that there are currently over 300,000 Facebook users in Lebanon, and over 250,000 in Saudi Arabia- this should be an interesting trend to track.  Social networking is often used differently in various cultural contexts... it will be informative to see how Facebook is utilized throughout the Arab-speaking world. 

Reid Hoffman

Reid Hoffman is taking it to the streets and offers an entreprenuerial perspective on the current economic crisis. He has some valid insights, especially his idea on the highly politicized H-1B Visa.

Marketplace of Ideas

Following Kevin's post on the declining newspaper industry, I'd like to draw a somewhat unusual comparison: unlike the newspaper industry, "soft power" is highly compatible with the internet and stands to benefit greatly if leveraged correctly.

As Kevin stressed: "advertising dollars will continue to migrate to the internet where technology provides highly targeted advertising with measurable statistics."

That's the key. Advertising and newspaper debate aside, the internet provides users with MEASURABLE STATISTICS.

Beyond the typical business/marketing use of viral marketing and social media- the internet is a perfect way to to gauge the reception of all sorts of campaigns: health/environmental/social campaigns, development projects, community initiatives, etc... all over the world. Taking a message, including that of the US government, to the internet gives us an unprecedented look into the "success" of the message as well as the demographics of those receiving it.

Just a thought.

*photo from Dru Bloomfield's photostream

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 ...

Social media enters...

the O.R.?

That's right, Twitter is in a Michigan hospital.

Seriously?

I am among social media's biggest fans, but I'm pretty sure there is a time and place for media 2.0-ing... and I'm gonna go out on a limb and say: while removing a cancerous tumor from a man's kidney is neither the time, nor the place.

According to CNN, Dr. Craig Rogers (lead surgeon in the Henry Ford surgery) said the reason for Twittering was to "let people know that a tumor can be removed without taking the entire kidney."

Ok, Dr. Rogers... I understand that social media gives the general public the power to share their ideas with massive amounts of people instantaneously, but I'm pretty sure that you can share that information AFTER the surgery is over.

Another gentleman quoted in the CNN story "tweeted" his own varicose vein-removal surgery as it was happening because:

A) It minimized his nervousness

B) He felt like he had support

C) He wanted a "record for other people who might be interested in the same surgery"

D) It later allowed him to connect with others with the same issues

No comment...

I want to be clear: I absolutely support the use of social media in the most innovative ways possible. I just seriously question the judgement of a medical practitioner that sees value in twittering DURING a procedure, as opposed to utilizing the same forms of media AFTER surgery. Again- time & place...

Don't you people watch medical dramas? Doctors don't need any more distractions.

What do Google and Dunder Mifflin have in common?

Paper Mills. No, Google isn't making a foray into the forest products and packaging industry. The company will obviously use the defunct paper mill to house a massive data center.

This is an unremarkable story unto itself, but to me, it represents a symbolic transition of old industry to new. There's also a tinge of irony here. A company that categorizes and delivers knowledge to people electronically replaces one that profited from the delivery of information through an anachronistic channel: the printed page. (If you don't think that paper is outdated, may I remind you that your are reading a blog on a computer and that Amazon just launched the Kindle 2 this week.)

More importantly, this story illustrates the merits of creative destruction. One could draw the conclusion from Stora Enso's press release that Google itself may be partly responsible for the mill's "persistent losses in recent years and poor long-term profitability prospects". Even so, Google offers society exponentially more value in return. As our economy falters and businesses fail, I hope that our leaders (and opinionators) carefully consider actions (and words) that may impede transformative process of creative destruction.

We may never know the next great American car company if we artificially extend the life of the incumbents. So when you see an empty paper mill or idle auto manufacturing plant, think not of jobs lost, but imagine the next great product or service from a company that will take over that space.

New Secretary of State, new diplomacy

On February 5th Secretary Clinton held a Town Hall meeting for State Department employees... and to my delight, she addressed a question that has been on my mind for quite some time:

Does DOS plan to utilize new media in global public diplomacy initiatives, and if so, how?

On the security issue and on outreach and public diplomacy, we must figure out a way consistent with security to use these new tools. There is no doubt in my mind that we have barely scratched the surface as to what we can use to communicate with people around the world, and in fact, to use [new technologies] as tools ...to further our own work and to be smart about it. … If people have ideas about how better to use these tools, please let me know because we’re going to work very hard – we have some people already looking at this – to see what more we can do to stay in touch with the world, which is our job, after all, to try to do that.

Dear Secretary Clinton,

Call me, I looooove staying in touch with the world!

Love,
Emily

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!