The National Journal has an excellent indepth overview of the current state of DTV spectrum and how we got here from February 2005 by Drew Clark (Spectrum Wars). Must reading. via Freedom to Tinker Dashlog
Business Week's Blogspotting has some interesting evidence of the failure of the closed network model for cellular service (Mobile Internet: a Story of Stagnation).
What can we gather from this? The mobile industry, which has been breathlessly awaiting revenue growth from mobile data, has utterly failed to provide Internet handsets and services worth our time and money. Significantly, the one area of growth--wireless email--developed largely on services and handsets that came from outside the phone industry, from Research in Motion's Blackberrys and PalmOne's Treo.Gee, I wonder if they opened up their networks, someone more clever than the cellular service companies might come up with the killer app for mobile data?
Prof. Susan Crawford continues her excellent notes on the history of telephony with another couple of great posts (History of Telephony and When Old Technologies Were New).
For an entire generation after the telephone was introduced, the Bell system managers resisted its use for social purposes. Yes, there are memos and reports from the early years saying that managers were trying to get people to stop gossiping on the telephone. The president of Bell Canada, in 1890, complained he couldn't stop trivial conversations, and a manager in Seattle in 1909 wanted to limit use of the telephone for purely idle gossip. [emphasis in original]Good stuff. Previous post here: Crawford's Notes on the History of Telephony.
via SCOTUS Blog:
In a 6-3 ruling, the Court decided that cable operators offering high-speed Internet access have no legal duty to open their service to customers of all Internet service providers.Will update when the decision is available.In the cable case, the Court upheld the decision of the Federal Communications Commission that broadband cable moden companires arfe exempt from mandatory common-carfrier regulation. That, Thomas wrote, is a lawful interpretation of the Communications Act, and thus is due deference.
Public Knowledge is first out of the gate with a statement from their president, Gigi Sohn:
The Court's decision today raises the question of whether Congress, in tackling its next revision of the Telecommunications Act, should act to ensure that communications, content, and applications are allowed to pass freely over the Internet's broadband pipes. We believe Congress should do so, because "net neutrality" is a worthy goal that not only will promote free speech and creativity on the Internet, but also will benefit those who provide broadband connectivity by making that connectivity more valuable.
Where I'll be reading about the decision:
This post will be updated ...
Prof. Susan Crawford is doing something that I've always wanted to do: delve deep into the history of telephony. Good stuff ... hope she uses her blog to keep her notes (Telephony and We're Keeping Guard Over Your Loved Ones).
In advertisements spanning the years between 1907 and 1958, the Bell System used emergencies as a key sales point to get people to buy telephones. Much of the usefulness of the telephone, as advertised, was that it was there, that it was watching over you. You weren't so much interacting as being guarded. The telephone, that magnificent instrument, was silently keeping you safe. ....
The ties to the E911 controversy I've been focusing on are obvious. An important part of joining the telephony network was gaining the ability to tell other people when you were in trouble. [emphasis in original]
The EEJD Blog does a great job rounding up various news and commentary links on the municipal wi-fi friendly Community Broadband Act of 2005 [the bill is not yet in Thomas] (Community Broadband Act of 2005 Introduced by Lautenberg, McCain). Read it while its hot.
Prof. Michael Madison points to the debate over Brand X that is starting on Picker MobBlog (MobBlawg LiftOff). [Btw, Picker calls his site MobBlog. I like Madison's MobBlawg better.] Michael agrees with one of the MobBlawggers that Brand X may ultimately be a more important decision than Grokster. Furthermore, Michael points to a Dec 2004 post of his that looks at the conceptual connections between the two: they both are means of regulating communication (On Grokster and Brand X). Abso-posi-lutely! It's all about the distribution man! It's freedom of the press, it's telecomm, it's copyright. It's Network Law. It's All About the Distribution, Stupid. It's Freedom of the Press, Stupid. We're going to need analytic tools that work similarly in all these areas of law and treat them as one whole system of regulating communication.
Anyway, for a very nice discussion of how to frame some of these issues, see Randy Picker's post, Framing Openness and the response from Phil Weiser here: Making Sense of Openness.
In response to, or perhaps, just going off on my own tangent I would like to bring in the traditional concept of common carriage as part of the openness conversation, as that is yet another way we've framed openness issues in the past.
For example, Picker makes an interesting comment:
I am comfortably in the camp of those who believe that an author should have some rights associated with her work and indeed don’t believe that even most of the copyright left favor eliminating all of the attributes associated with copyright.Well, airlines are common carriers. But advocating common carriage for airlines doesn't necessarily mean that one wants to completely socialize airlines. I see the copyfight similarly.
Weiser notes:
Notably, in some cases, there will be alternative platforms (such as cell phones or video games), creating powerful incentives for some providers to voluntarily provide "open access" to their platform.Heck, yes. But I'll note in reply that in the case of common carriage, we apply it despite the fact that there are many alternatives. There may be many airlines servicing a particular airport, some even duplicating routes, but we still regulate them as common carriers. Furthermore, airlines have competition from trains and buses. One might say "there are alternative platforms" for airlines, so why regulate them as common carriers? Yet, we do. Interesting, that.
Just some random thoughts on a beautiful Friday afternoon.
Democracy in Media harshes on satellite for being inherently a closed network (Why Satellite Isn’t Compatible With an Open Network World). Read the whole thing. There is certainly some truth in the claim (i.e., two-way communication is a bitch). And though I'm a fan of open networks, not every network is going to be suited for openness. I'm far from convinced that satellite is one such, but even if it is, it can still play a valuable role in our communications ecosphere. As long as our primary communications are open, closed networks can supplement.
BusinessWeek has an an interesting article about radio for your cellphone (Dial R for Radio on Your Cell).
Chances are radio services will be a hit with the 2 billion wireless subscribers worldwide. "Mobile phones are always with you," explains Nancy Beaton, a general manager at telco Sprint (FON), which became the first carrier with a commercial cell-phone radio service in December. "Because customers are familiar with how the phone works, adding radio can be very intuitive," says Beaton.Radio on phones is a good idea. I could see that it would be very useful. However, a couple of questions ... many related to my rant yesterday (Die Cellphone. Die! Die! Die!).And many users want that addition. According to surveys conducted by America Online, a unit of Time Warner (TWX), more than half the respondents say they would listen to the radio on their phones. AOL is in talks with wireless service providers to offer its online radio stations on mobile phones within months.
First, why the heck does AOL (or any other cellphone radio service) need to be in talks with wireless service providers? Why couldn't they simply be in talks with, you know, customers? The closed networks of the cellphone providers are really limiting competition and innovation (not to mention increasing the price).
Second, despite Miss Beaton's claim about ease of use, why the heck do we have to get the radio via a cellphone? Why not get the radio via an MP3 player? Why not let the MP3 player have basic connectivity for this purpose? A cellphone is great in some circumstances, but not necessarily all.
Radio service also could spark sales of other wireless content. "Since radio is how people discover new music, I'd look at radio as the trigger that would create follow-through sales of [popular content like] ringtones, ringbacks, and music downloads," says Lewis Ward, an analyst at IDC. If users hear a song they like on their cell-phone radio, they'll be able to immediately buy a related ringtone via their cell. That should accelerate the growth of the $500 million ringtone market, as well as sales of ringbacks and music downloads.Of course, one reason the cellphone service providers like their closed networks is so that they can make more money via associated services. I still can't believe that people pay as much for ringtones as they do. Open up the network, let people buy ringtones without paying the cellphone service provider tax.
Most cell-phone radiocasters, though, plan to use existing wireless networks, but to varying extents. Motorola's iRadio, expected to cost $5 a month, will let customers download hours of radio programming via a PC. New radio-ready Motorola phones are expected to be unveiled this fall. Motorola plans to insert snippets of breaking news into these broadcasts as they're downloaded over its wireless network.Downloading hours of radio programming via your PC already has a name. It's called "podcasting". Still, perhaps Motorola will share some of their technology, or help work on an open standard, for mixing breaking news with less time-volatile content. Would be useful.
On Monday, Adam D. Thierer, Senior Fellow and the Director of PFF's Center for Digital Media Freedom (CDMF), wrote an essay on media ownership for Tech Central Station (What Ever Happened to the Big Media Boogeyman?). The article bashes those who were fearful of too much media concentration, pointing out that many of the major media companies are splitting up rather than consolidating. To a certain extent this is true. However, the article goes too far in its claims.
Regardless, this is an example of a well-functioning, dynamic marketplace at work. Media critics seem to think that any merger or acquisition is all just part of some sort of grand conspiracy to destroy democracy or competition, but in the end, things sort themselves out and we end up with an ever-expanding universe of media options at our disposal. Indeed, ask yourself a simple question: Do you have more media options and outlets at your disposal today than you did 5 to 10 years ago?This is not a well-functioning market. It is a highly distorted one. I agree with Thierer that media ownership rules are foolishness. However, I don't look at our currently regulatory structure and think it is a "well-functioning" market. Is it well functioning when SBC has to beg local communities to provide television service? Is it well-functioning when VoIP providers have to meet stricter E911 requirements than cellphone companies? Would the broadcast flag be an example of a well-functioning, dynamic market? I don't think Thierer thinks so:
The real danger here in not just that asymmetrical FCC regulations will doom old media players to an early extinction, it is that -- in the name of fairness and "leveling the playing field" -- the old rules gradually come to incorporate new media outlets and technologies as well.Well, if that is the case, then isn't there a problem with current media ownership? It isn't a product of a well-functioning market, it is the product of asymmetrical FCC regulations that seriously distort the market.
Those who argue in favor of more media ownership rules may have the solution wrong, but they're right that the current ownership structure is seriously flawed and distorted.
via PFF Blog
WIRED reports on an interesting technology that is being rolled out for porn, but I think has some potentially interesting marketing possibilities (Porn Stores Turn Into Clip Joints).
Vivid Entertainment, one of the leading suppliers of adult entertainment, has licensed a system that will let shoppers preview racy trailers on their camera phones just by scanning the bar code on the box. Now that's handheld entertainment.I'm not sure why this should be limited to pornography. Why not bar codes on movie ads in newspapers, magazines, or the street? You could download clips of the movie, of course, but why not ring tones? Screensavers? Minigames? People would actually look at the advertisements. It wouldn't be limited to movies, either. You could do it for music, television, videogames ... basically any sort of mass produced content. There could be special codes for Happy Meals. What can I say? I like the idea. Cellphone companies should too.
Paul Resnikoff of Digital Music News muses about the future of the iPod in a world where cellular phones have increasing music carrying capabilities (Resnikoff's Parting Shot: The Future of the iPod). He doesn't think the iPod has much to worry about it, yet.
This is a variation of a question that is always asked. Will mobile gaming devices be swamped by cellphone/game consoles? Will digital cameras be made irrelevant by cellphones/cameras? Will MP3 players be made irrelevant by cellphone/MP3 players? No. No. And No.
Why not ask instead, will the cellphone be able to survive domination by combination game console/phones? Will cameraphones be made irrelevant by cameras with phone capability? Will MP3 players that let you call out destroy the market for phones with MP3 capability?
Cellphones aren't going to go away, but they're only a tool for communication. There is nothing particularly special about them that makes them the only form factor for communication. At base, they're a commodity device. Why are cellphone manufacturers so darn busy creating things to do with a cellphone other than communicate? Because, otherwise, there isn't much to distinguish the darn things.
My life doesn't revolve around my cellphone. My life is about the other things I do. I want to have a digital camera that takes good pictures, a game console that is designed to play cool games, and an MP3 player designed to handle thousands of songs, playlists and podcasts. And, oh yeah, I want connectivity. I don't want a "cellphone."
Stop pretending to sell me cellphones. Honestly, the cellphone companies aren't really selling cellphones. That is just the sales pitch. The cellphone companies are essentially selling commodity connectivity and trying hard to hide that fact with fancy cellphone capabilities.
Data is data. Sell me connectivity and let me pick my own darn devices to take advantage of it.
That's right, I said "devices." I'm paying for the connectivity, so why should it matter how many devices I can use to take advantage of that connectivity? Sometimes I want to take my camera to the park. Sometimes I want to take my game console when I anticipate a wait at the doctor's. And I want to take my MP3 player for the workday commute.
Used to be that you could only get your landline phone from AT&T. They decided what equipment you could use on their network. We got rid of this foolish requirement and the internet was able to bloom.
Why do we continue to tolerate similar foolishness for cellular?
Jeff Jarvis discusses the ongoing controversy over severe cuts in the federal budget for public broadcasting and offers his own solutions (Saving Public Broadcasting). I'm not so sure many of them would work, but I do agree that we need to rethink public broadcasting:
: Reexamine the mission of public broadcasting in an era when the public can broadcast.
: Reexamine the mission of public broadcasting and when cable provides so much more value, like historical and educational programming (and I'm sorry that 11 percent of the country don't get TV via cable but, hey,We really should reexamine the mission of public broadcasting, not only in the context of cable, but in the context of the internet and the coming of broadcatching. Perhaps we may want to figure out how to democratize distribution, rather than subsidize flawed distribution schemes.
So, there I was, sitting in hot standby to blog the heck out of decisions in Grokster and/or the Brand X case, but the Supreme Court has held those decisions once again. From SCOTUS Blog (Court Decides Six "Second Tier" Cases):
The Supreme Court, on a day on which it issued six decisions, released none of the major controversies still to be decided -- the Ten Commandments displays cases, music and movie downloading and copyright, government seizures of private property for private re-development, and access to cable companies' broadband lines for high-speed Internet connections.
Techdirt has a nice collection of links regarding the many outdated state requirements that every municipality must approve the provision of television services in their communities (IPTV Saga: Verizon Sticks With Good Ol' Lobbying, Adds Cash Incentive). Can we get some regulation not designed for the 1800s around here? Is that too much to ask? Instead of making life difficult for television providers these cities would be better off figuring out how they're going to replace cable tax revenues when broadcatching takes off.
Prof. Susan Crawford has two good articles on the FCC's order requiring certain VoIP providers to have E911 service. One deals with the FCC's jurisdiction, or lack thereof (The Jurisdictional Swamp). The other is a cynical and depressing look at the reasons behind the decision (The Victims' Panel). Scrivener's Error also looks at the jurisidictional questions (It's All Speech in the End?).
Digital TV Design Online reports that television manufacturers are removing analog tuners from their televisions, rather than add digital tuners to them (Tuning Stripped Out of Rear Projection CRT TVs). Why?
However, it was later found out that by eliminating all tuning, the sets bypassed the FCC tuner mandate for all TVs 36-in. and above, which goes into effect on July 1st. And, as a bonus, the company will be able to offer the sets at much lower prices. The 57-in. widescreen model " 57HC85 " is priced at $1,599.99 (list), which means that it will sell for about $1,300-$1,400 (street).Apparently this is a trend. Technology360 explains the significance (Eliminating Tuners):
By not having any tuners in their sets at all (e.g., having consumers rely on cable and satellite set-top boxes and on DVRs and DVD players) the manufacturers can lower the cost of their sets. ¶ Impact: even fewer off-air DTV receivers, increasing reliance on cable (and perhaps ultimately on satellite local/local) for reception of broadcast DTV stations.)
BusinessWeek has a good look at the many challenges facing radio and music promotion oligarch Clear Channel Communications (Antenna Adjustment). Jupiter Research analyst David Card says the article is a "stiletto in between the ribs" that cuts Clear Channel "with a few telling details and by letting the execs damn themselves" (Warning: Gratuitous Clear Channel Bashing). Both are well worth reading.
As Congress considers DTV transition legislation, Public Knowledge is pushing them to adopt a hard date for the return of analog spectrum. In other words, encourage broadcasters to support the transition by making clear they have to give up their analog frequencies by a fixed date. Sounds good to me. Read the press release: Public Knowledge Supports ‘Hard Date’ for Return of Digital TV Spectrum. Read the letter sent to the leaders of the House and Senate Commerce Committees: Letter in Support of Hard Deadline for DTV Transition from Public Knowledge.
Jeff Jarvis is attending the Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands' Institutions of Democracy and discussing the First Amendment and government support for media with mass communications professor Timothy Cook (Gov Giveth and Gov Taketh Away).
Various ideas were raised by respondents that made my spine shake: taxing ads to support publications with fewer ads, giving postal subsidies only to publications below a circulation threshold, government search engines.As Jeff responds, "Arrrgh."
There is insight here: the government shapes our communications environment far more than we realize. However, these ideas for direct subsidy seem to do both too much and too little. Too much in that they invite all sorts of governmental decisions about what sort of content and media should be subsidized and too little in that they don't address the structural and architectural elements of our communications infrastructure.
Telecomm (and I'm not talking about the distraction about "media ownership") and copyright law are the real powers that shape our communications environment. You want to talk about government helping media, that is where you have to look.
On the Huffington Post, Josh Silver has an interesting post about the financial background of Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), who has introduced a bill essentially banning municiple telecom (Another Corrupt Congressman from Texas: The Next DeLay?).
Sessions stands to gain as well. According to his "Financial Disclosure Statement for Calendar Year 2003," the former SBC executive owns $500,000 in SBC stock options and received more than $75,000 from SBC and it’s employees. It's no wonder he would sponsor legislation that is supported by nobody in this country except for the telecom and cable giants that punch his ticket. The Congressman's 2004 disclosure statement will be released June 15.Cynicism about our regulatory structure seems appropriate in this case, I think. Read the whole thing.
Prof. Susan Crawford blasts the FCC's E911 for VoIP ruling (AOL, MSN, Yahoo!, and E911).
No user of an IM client expects to be able to reach 911. There, I've said it. I don't, you don't -- we just don't. Even if we're calling familiar phone numbers. These online offerings are just not substitutes for phone service. They're much better. And they shouldn't be saddled with impossible, fantastical emergency response requirements in the absence of a clear Congressional statement. We should be very worried about a Congress that would be willing to make such a statement.UPDATE 2140PT: Jeff Pulver has more excellent comments (So What Does the FCC VoIP Order Really Mean for "Real" VoIP?).
Frankly, I was somewhat relieved that the FCC is not imposing technologically impossible E911 obligations on peer-to-peer communications applications that no one could reasonable consider POTS-replacement services. I, however am concerned over the FCC's tentative conclusion in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking attached to the VoIP E911 Order that might serve to extend traditional E911 obligations to applications that are primarily peer-to-peer, but might offer some limited access to and from the public switched telephone network. Devices and applications that a consumer should not expect to behave like a traditional phone service should not be stifled simply because they behave differently than traditional phone service.
The Progress and Freedom Foundation Blog makes the point (once again, but it needs much repeating) that all this recent talk of treating "like services alike" in the case of IPTV is pretty ironic given the balkanization of our current regulatory structure for telecommunications (Video Over Fiber: Rhetorical Ironies and Inconsistencies). Perhaps one day we will get real reform. Unfortunately, public choice theory says we probably won't.
Telepocalypse has an interesting idea for a Fisher-Price style child's phone that actually works, thanks to Skype (Baby Babble).
Up to five buttons, one for each person. When they’re online, the button glows green. When you’re talking to that person, it glows red. Press the button to connect and disconnect. Press multiple buttons for a conference call between all grandparents. Totally under the initiative of your kid, no parents needed. Incoming calls? Probably not, or at least a parent-selectable option (naturally, only from pre-approved buddies). Auto power-off after 5 mins of relative silence.There will be other limited-use phones developed as well. This seems a wide open area for innovation.
About Us |
Advertise |
Contact Us |
Privacy Policy |
Terms of Use
