Andrew : February 2008 Archives

Trackbacks have reappeared on the Google Blog. I wonder if the time I spent on the phone with a C|Net reporter had anything to do with it, or if they have a real explanation.

Update - they're back up on the Google Blog, but it seems like they aren't letting us link to them from here. Also, the trackbacks are still disabled. Here's the same cut-and-paste as earlier. The images come up now, but they don't come up in the post from yesterday Now click on the link to the entry...still no trackbacks!

Here is a screenshot deeper in the application:



We're proud of the product that we've designed and are continuing to build, but recognize that we are just at the initial stages of our "launch early and iterate" strategy. We look forward to the feedback we will receive from our Cleveland Clinic pilot, from all of you, and from the initial users of our service when we make it publicly available in the coming months.

Did anyone notice that they've disappeared from the Google Blog? Only the original press-releasish blog post remains. Did they put it down the memory hole? Have they invented one?

Are they backtracking now that people have heard about this privacy nightmare of a product? They should know you can't just make it go away.

Still waiting, Google...

Patrick Ruffini sent me to a wonderful, wonderful study examining the email strategies of the six major candidates this year (Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Huckabee, McCain, Romney). The results are not encouraging. The candidate who used email the most effectively was...

 

...71 year old John McCain.

 

The Results
After examining the email programs and grading each candidate, 24 total points equaling a perfect score, no campaign's email program received a passing grade.

Here is the final tally:

While Sen. McCain scored the highest of the six with 16 points, each candidate's campaign missed multiple opportunities toward full email optimization. As the election steamrolls through the summer toward Election Day in November, each of the remaining candidates needs to critically look at his or her campaign and make sure each marketing effort, including email, is being maximized to its full potential

 

I suggest checking the study out.

 

I'll be covering the 2008 Politics Online conference right here in Washington next Tuesday and Wednesday. One of the keynote speakers is CV favorite Drew Clark, of Broadband Census and I should have coverage of a bunch of really cool panels on technology, democracy, and their intersection in Washington.

There is alot of attention focused on "Social Networking" for politics. I'm interested to see what the DC chattering class and the so-called "technologists" have to say about it. To some degree it looks like alot of bunk, and just another money-raising tool. I have at least one person I plan on talking to about it on Tuesday.

The schedule is posted here. Please let me know if there's something you want to see or a speaker you want me to talk to.

Only two days after that I head to Austin for SXSW Interactive. Again, reader suggestions on what to cover are appreciated, otherwise all you'll have is what I think is cool. While that may be great for some, I think those of you not there should have some input on what you get to hear about.

If you're going to either and you'd like to meet up, feel free to drop me a note.

Broadcasting & Cable is reporting that Meredith Baker, acting head of NTIA, and the public face of the DTV Converter Box program, is leaving. This is only four months after her predecessor  John Kneuer quit last November.

"Given ongoing concerns about the converter box coupon program, it is important that there be continuity of leadership at NTIA, I'm pleased Ms. Baker is committed to remaining at NTIA until a replacement is confirmed and urge the President to nominate a well-qualified replacement who is knowledgeable about the transition and whose arrival will not cause any disruptions at this critical time in the transition."

So one of my regular reads is the Google Blog. Recently, I've been writing about some of their entries, and it's been driving some traffic this way since they link to posts that link back to them.

Today around 10:30 am I read a post on Google Blog about their new Google Health product that described it and showed some screen shots. I thought "wow, that's a bad idea" and I so I took a lunch break, threw together my thoughts and posted them here on this site. The post went live at 12:00pm EST.

Now, I had been busy at work, but earlier (around 9:45am EST) I had checked the Google Analytics for the site and the visitor count was low since neither Alex nor myself had posted anything new since last night (2/27/07). Maybe an hour after I posted I went back and was a bit shocked, the visitor count had gone through the roof. I looked at the Google Blog, and out of all the links shown on the "Links to This Post" list, mine was the only one with a remotely critical title, "Google Health is Frightening." The rest were either simply linking or re-reporting with various degrees of fawning and praise going on. Yet, there was my post on how I thought it's a horrible idea, and that any doctor would be insane to use it, and that there were probably legal issues that hadn't properly been considered.  It was maybe the 5th link in the list.

Around 4:00PM EST I noticed the hit count slowing. I went back to the source (the original Google Blog post), and lo and behold, the post had every single link/trackback deleted.

Not only that, but they turned off the trackbacks for every single post on the blog, but didn't remove the presence of the feature from their front page template! Look! Straight-up cut-and-paste job from their front page as of 10:30PM EST:

Here is a screenshot deeper in the application:

We're proud of the product that we've designed and are continuing to build, but recognize that we are just at the initial stages of our "launch early and iterate" strategy. We look forward to the feedback we will receive from our Cleveland Clinic pilot, from all of you, and from the initial users of our service when we make it publicly available in the coming months.

Permalink Links to this post

Labels: healthcare

Now, when I went to click on the "Links to this post" link, I got a blank space. Nothing. All the  trackbacks are kaput.

So, it's ok to link to the Google Blog in order to shower them with praises and talk about how revolutionary and wonderful they are...but criticize them or suggest they are heading down a dark path? They'll make you disappear. At least that's what it looks like. Now, I know a lot of tech types don't get Washington, but us Beltway locals have a saying: "the coverup is worse than the crime." You may have heard that before.

Hey, Google Bloggers: want to tell me why you turned off trackbacks? If you give me a real reason, I'll even apologize to you. Heck, I'll fly out to California and buy you all a round of your preferred beer.

But only if you can prove to me that you're not so scared of criticism based on your own blog that the second someone does, you stop linking back.

Your corporate motto is "do no evil" but honestly, this looks like something Steve Ballmer would do. I'm just too far away from the Googleplex for you to throw chairs at me.

So come on, Google Bloggers. Turn them back on, or explain on your blog why they are gone.

I'll be reading. And I'll be writing, too.

Sun Microsystems missed the boat in a huge way. They ignored Linux until it wasn't cool to ignore Linux anymore, and by then they were almost as deep in as Silicon Graphics, which barely exists anymore. Remember them? I always wanted to own a SPARC or an O2, but Linux was so much better, and it ran on hardware that I could afford. We know where that battle ended.

McNealy still thinks he's smart, and so he says that telcos need to serve up content or die, as opposed to say, providing services in accordance with their FCC licenses issued under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which amended the Telecommunications Act of 1934:

"I have explained to every telco that either you become a destination site, or the destination site will become a telco...I think the telcos have to make sure they don't get marginalized to just being bit providers and bandwidth providers"

Um...did he miss the FCC hearing Monday, when one of the Commissioners (I forget who) noted that if Comcast didn't offer Video on Demand service, that their restriction of Vuze's BitTorrent-based video content would have not been an issue?

Telcos have much to gain through R&D, competition, and being honest brokers. In fact, by law that's what they are. McNealy obviously knows very little about communications law, policy, or the history such concepts as the common carrier, Stratton-Oakmont v. Prodigy or the recent Net Neutrality debates.

Oh, yeah. Speaking of too-little, too-late:

"During a speech earlier in the day, McNealy slammed the U.S. government for not being interested in adopting open-source software. McNealy said the farther he gets from Washington, the more governments get interested in open source."

Thanks for finally jumping on the bandwagon, Scott. You recieve no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

...is a Sacrement in the Ritual of Public Humiliation performed before on the altar of the Church of Washington over and over. First, the Gaffe. It takes many forms. It could come in a hearing, statement, news conference, speech, or any off the cuff remark in the age of YouTube.

Next, the Outrage: Druge, newspaper websites, blogs, cable news,  network news, local news, next day headline, editorial, "expert," and if it's really bad, Nancy Grace.

Then, finally, the Apology. The Politico's Ben Smith notices a curious pattern that has developed over the past year:

In the course of the primary campaign, and perhaps in a preview of the fall election drama, Senator Barack Obama has accepted the apologies of three United States senators, a former senator, CNN and various lower-level supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton.

Isn't it great? And it's not even the general election campaign yet. Here's a preview:

On Tuesday, a talk radio host, Bill Cunningham, introduced McCain to an Ohio crowd by attacking Obama, and dwelling on his little-used middle name, Hussein.

McCain swiftly responded. "I regret any comments that may be made about" Clinton and Obama, he said. "I will take responsibility in any offense that was inflicted."

The next day, there was a different culprit, but the same offense: the Tennessee Republican Party sent out a press release dwelling on Obama's middle name.

And again the spotlight turned to McCain, who was asked about it at a San Antonio press conference.

"All I can say is that I have made my position very clear and I have made it time after time and I made it yesterday," he said.

I can't wait to see who becomes the next acolyte.

That's right. Google wants to host your medical records. Last week they announced a partnership with a clinic in Cleveland, OH. Now they're talking more about the product itself. Here's the scoop from Google Blog:

 

• Platform - One of the most exciting and innovative parts of Google Health is our platform strategy. We're assembling a directory of third-party services that interoperate with Google Health. Right now, this means you'll be able to automatically import information such as your doctors' records, your prescription history, and your test results into Google Health in order to easily access and and control your data. Later, this platform strategy will mean that you will be able to interact with services and tools easily, and will be able to do things like schedule appointments, refill prescriptions, and start using new wellness tools.

• Portability - Our Internet presence ultimately means that through Google Health, you will be able to have access and control over your health data from anywhere. Through the Cleveland Clinic pilot, we have already found great use-cases in which, for example, people spend 6 months of the year in Ohio, and 6 months of the year in Florida or Arizona, and will now be able to move their health data between their various health providers seamlessly and with total control. Previously, this would have required carrying paper records back and forth. With Google Health, the user can simply import the data from each medical facility and then choose to share it with the other facilities. It's advances in data portability like this that we think can really make a difference in the quality of healthcare. The clearer and more comprehensive the information regarding your health becomes, the better your care will be.

I'll be clear. I like Google. I think they mean well. They've got a ton of smart people there. On the other hand, the idea that my medical records are stored somewhere central, indexed and made available to anyone who can get access to the machine (as opposed to my doctor keeping his own records and sharing them when I tell him to) goes completely counter to my sense of privacy. Some things are best kept difficult. Sharing confidential records of any short should be one of them. To be honest, I think anything you want to keep secret or confidential should be on paper. My doctor, who is a pretty young, tech-savvy individual, uses a tablet PC to take his charts, and he's been kind enough to print his notes and stick them in a paper file.

Why do I ask him to do this when I don't have anything to hide? When there is no paper, there is no paper trail. If I know that only my doctor has my records, if they show up anywhere else, I have a pretty good idea of where they came from. If they're hosted on Google's machines, I have no idea who is doing what with my data.

Would this extend to mental health records? Imagine if you went to a therapist, marriage counselor, rehab, whatever, and those notes and records were online for "easy access." I want it to be a total pain in the neck for anyone to get them. I want it to be difficult for me to get them sent to anyone.

I switched Dentists this year. To transfer my charts and X-Rays, I had to call my old dentist, have them fax my new dentist a release form, which I signed in their presence, which they faxed back to my old dentist, who put my charts and X-Rays in a tracked, signed for FedEx envelope. It took some time and it was annoying, but my privacy was protected. Remember, there are many medical conditions that are illegal to disclose in the U.S. Imagine if a misplaced setting on this Google Health inadvertantly released people's genetic records or HIV status? I wonder what Andrew Sullivan, the Internet's favorite HIV+ pundit has to say about this.

People's medical records contain all kinds of things that are nobody's business but their own. Any doctor or hospital that would outsource their record-keeping, which is one of the most important things that a doctor can do for a patient (keep a good chart), is abdicating their responsibility and calls into question whether they value convenience over ethics. The doctor-patient relationship, including medical records, has long been considered sacrosanct. For a company like Google to actually want to offer this as a service says more about their arrogance than the system itself does about their capacity to innovate, and for any doctor or hospital to buy or use it would, to me, be a violation of trust.

There are those in Washington and around the country (Paul Krugman is one) who believe that electronic, portable charts are the key to universal health care. Krugman regular cites the Veterans Administration as an example, since they use some electronic records. The big difference is a) they keep it in-house, and b) they are a single organization. If I wanted to send my VA records to a private doctor, I would have to jump through way more hoops than just telling Google it's OK...and I should have to. Hillary Clinton regularly throws out "e-charts" as the solution to all our problems, and more centralization of records was a big part of her failed 1993 "Hillarycare" plan that she is so loathe to discuss now.

This should not be easy.

Google should be commended for trying to simplify health care record keeping, but this is an arena where they should keep their mitts off. If they want to sell a "black box" turnkey solution for internal record keeping, go for it, but I will still insist on paper. Host my records for me? Go away.

Two gems today before I head to the office. First is from B&C:

NBC is working with Pando Networks, a peer-to-peer content-delivery-technology company, to revamp its NBC Direct service...

...

The NBC Direct Service lets users download high-resolution, ad-supported versions of NBC shows including 30 Rock, The Office, Heroes, American Gladiators and Late Night with Conan O'Brien. The service -- currently only available for PCs using Internet Explorer -- uses P2P technology to quickly and efficiently download the shows, which are automatically deleted after viewing or after a viewing window has lapsed. Taking a cue from TiVo, the service lets users "subscribe" to their favorite shows, automatically downloading new episodes when available.

NBC will use Pando technology to improve the efficiency of its P2P-delivery system, as well as protecting it through encryption and digital-rights management, including "hash-matching, digital-fingerprinting and content-watermarking technologies," according to Pando.

If you read this space last week, you'd remember that NBC filed comments with the FCC against Vuse, making an uncited assertion that "at least 50% of broadband capacity is taken up by a small minority of users (about 5%) using peer-to-peer networks to traffic in pirated music, video and software." It is a bit interesting that so soon after Monday's hearing that they have announced their intention to use P2P technology to distribute their lawful content, presumably with the expectation that it will not be throttled or blocked by ISPs, especially ones with competing Video On Demand service.

I guess you need a network TV weatherman to know which way the FCC wind blows. Apologies to Bob Dylan.

Next up, the Senate joined their friends in the House of Representatives yesterday in passing legislation giving cable and VOIP providers like Vonage equal access to 911 systems, so that operators can determine the physical location of a call. To their credit, the differences between the bills should be easily fixable, according to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI). In a statement yesterday, Dingell said:

"I am confident that we can resolve the minor differences between the House and Senate legislation in short order...and present a final measure to the president."

With GPS becoming more common on mobile phones, hopefully this will pave the way for more confidence in the 911 system, and faster responses to emergencies for all, no matter who you get your phone service from. Kudos to the FCC for leading the way, and to Congress for putting more teeth behind the initiative. Sometimes these guys really do get things right for the right reasons.

Ok, so I've been reading Slashdot since 1998 or so...I have a 4 digit user ID (9848, if you must know), so I've seen alot of stuff pass through those pages. I remember meeting Jeff "Hemos" Bates and the infamous Jon Katz at The Bazaar (a one-off Open Source trade show/love-in where I helped run the Debian Linux booth) and doing some contract work for the company that bought Slashdot (Andover.net, which became OSDN, which got bought by VA Linux, which became VA Software, which I think is now SourceForge). They've broken some interesting stories and were one of the first "must-read" blogs before there was such a word.

They've even acquired enough a patina of credibility through longevity that they can get celebrities and the occasional politician to participate in their "interviews." On the other hand, as they've grown more popular they've had less and less original editorial content, and really have been reduced to a "gatekeeper." They won't link to commentary, even when it's original, only the source story. I've submitted things only to have them pull my words out, put them in the "firehose" where noone sees them (or my work) and just write their own summary and link to the story I found them.

And occasionally they link to total sensationalist trash like this. A former FBI agent named Patrick J. Dempsey has made a startling discover: criminals can use networks to cover their tracks.

Although the Internet may be considered the greatest achievement of the past 50 years, the technology behind it has created a sanctuary for various types of computer criminals. The unfortunate and ugly truth is that the Web is providing a brand new "world" where international cyber criminals can thrive, and the world's numerous criminal justice systems just aren't ready to address these crimes in their entirety.

Cyber criminals don't necessarily need to leave the comfort of their homes to commit their crimes. Today, for example, bank robberies can be committed in Southeast Asia via a computer that's being controlled by an individual in Russia. Identity theft is achieved through a complex network of individuals residing in North America, Europe, and Africa, all effectively working together on the Internet to profit from shared information. And organized crime has ties to spam campaigns, identity theft, denial-of-service attacks, and organized hacking rings.

Is this a joke? This guy's job is "Chief Information Security Officer" at Janney Montgomery Scott, a financial services firm. He has also apparently been living in a cave since 1999 or so. On the other hand, Osama bin Laden lives in a cave and probably knew that the Internet had unsavory elements back when he was using it to plan attacks.  The fact that he's using the term "cyber-" anything makes him horribly dated.

Also, tying organized crime to "spam campaigns, identity theft, denial-of-service attacks, and organized hacking rings?" Did he get his education in Information Security by watching Sandra Bullock in The Net? Also, why is he a "former" FBI agent? Did he retire, or was he fired? Does he have any experience in investigating computer crimes? Does he know anything about computers? I'm curious as to his credentials, because it sounds like he has no clue what he's talking about, or he's using a really outdated Buzzword Bingo card.

But the problem with investigating international cyber crimes and capturing criminals on the Internet is not necessarily due to lack of cooperation among international law enforcement bodies. The issue has much more to do with the fact that the legal systems throughout the world vary greatly and take a very long time to change. These two facts make it extremely difficult for law enforcement to cooperate, investigate, capture, and ultimately prosecute the cyber criminals today.

Oh, so it's not that you can't cooperate, it's those pesky laws...or does he mean lawyers? Maybe Mr. Dempsey was one of those guys that wanted to throw Phil Zimmerman in prison for writing PGP back in the '90s. One more thing. Investigating crimes and prosecuting them are two completely different tasks. I am guessing this man has no law degree, and knows very little about prosecuting criminals.

Either way, Mr. Dempsey has come up with a solution. We need a "new" "more secure" Internet where people will "register" with some kind of "authority." What, like old style AOL? Has he heard of Kerberos or Virtual Private Networks?  All those things allow "registration" with "authority." There's a difference between registration and monitoring...

He throws around terms like spoofing and InterNIC (which by the way hasn't existed since ICANN took over running the world's domain registration system) and talks about "managing a more secure Internet." Whether or not he has a clue what he's talking about, I don't know. It doesn't look that way. His article looks like a cut and paste job from a bunch of sensationalist puff pieces from the Bubble pre-2001 era.

If Mr. Dempsey had done any research he would understand and be able to articulate the Internet is built on 1970's technology designed to survive a nuclear war, that operates based on open protocols and a degree of trust between systems, and requires skilled network managers to keep running. When he talks about a "new internet" he means a more tightly controlled network with systems built in for monitoring and controlling its' use.

The fight against international cyber crime is going to take a concerted effort from large and small corporations, law enforcement in all countries, as well as the governments and legislative bodies of those same countries. Most importantly, the average end user will have to join the fight to bring about change on the Internet, or create a "new" Internet using the lessons we've learned.

What does that mean? Governments and legislative bodies? You mean there is a difference? The biggest change that needs to hit the Internet is adoption of IPv6. If he wants some kind of ubermensch system to keep bad things from happening and bad people from using networks, he's going to have to go back in time or move to China.


I don't think I'm going to read Slashdot as much anymore.

Maybe after being inspired by NFL Hall-of-Famer Steve Largent's appearance before his subcommittee on behalf of CTIA today, Chairman Markey (D-MA) has scheduled a hearing for next Wednesday, March 5th at 9:30am which has been titled: "Competition in the Sports Programming Marketplace"

We know that Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), a well-known Eagles fan, has been "all up in Roger Goodell's grill" about the NFL's ham-handed attempts to get Comcast (which is headquartered in Philadelphia) and other cable and satellite operators to carry the NFL Network on their main tier. Remember the Patriots-Giants game that was simulcast on 3 networks? That was done because the game was originally scheduled months before to air on NFL Network alone. This was before the Patriots began to do that whole undefeated season thing, and it happened that they would be breaking the 1972 Miami Dolphins' single seaon win record against New York. One problem: not everyone would get to see it, because not all cable subscribers get NFL Network.

You see, many operators keep NFL Network on a "sports tier" and only pay the NFL for customers that choose to get it, rather than pay the NFL more money per regular subscriber. The NFL does not like this, and has engaged in a rather crass advertising campaign to get customers to harass their cable companies.

Obviously, as a Patriots fan, Chairman Markey could have been bothered by this, seeing as Congress has granted the NFL limited antitrust immunity for the purpose of selling the broadcast rights to their games. This was done in 1962. Now, the NFL wants to keep more games to itself and rake in both the subscriber and advertising revenue (although I think there are more commercials for NFL Network on NFL Network itself than for anything else...).

There is also that pesky matter of Sunday Ticket. The NFL only offers it through DirecTV. However, not all consumers can recieve DirecTV signals. Could it be that Markey's Washington residence doesn't have a southern exposure and couldn't get DirecTV? Did he miss a Patriots game? Senator Specter has made a point of criticizing these exclusive programming agreements. I detect a pattern.

The hearing is next Wednesday, March 5th at 9:30am, in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. No word on a good location for tailgating.

I'm watching a live feed of the House of Representatives, where they are debating an Energy bil which would increase taxes on oil companies and subsidize clean and renewable energy.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) is offering a motion to recommit which would insert the "Protect America Act" (aka the Spy on America and Grant Retroactive Immunity to the Telecoms Act).

With his typical charm and wit, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-MI) raised a point of order against Hoekstra's motion. Point of order sustained. Hoekstra appeals. The House is now voting on the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair (today it's Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)).

While I don't have much time to write at the moment, I'll point out two things:

• Big Telecom wants this immunity because they've been investing billions into systems to divert and copy fiber optic traffic for the purposes of data mining and spying at various peering points. They also stand to risk billions in judgements and legal fees (and jail time for executives?) if they're not granted immunity, because they've been complicit in a conspiracy to illegally wiretap the entire country.

 

• While renewable energy may not be great for Detroit, the technological investment and R&D for developing truly renewable fuel and energy sources would help the economy. There would be jobs for smart people to think about these things and develop solutions, as well as jobs for the labor needed to implement stuff.

 

• Here's a question: wouldn't Google have an interest in developing energy sources to power their massive data centers? Who do they buy their power from? More importantly, how much does fuel for their backup generators cost? Hey, Larry and Sergey! It doesn't matter if you own your own seperate backbone if there isn't any juice to run your data centers. If you want to be self-sufficient, be self-sufficient. Or, you could always invade a country.

The NPD group, a market research firm, reports that not only did legal downloads increase in 2007, they grew to the point where Apple is now only second fiddle to Wal-Mart in the distribution of music.

Legal music downloads now account for 10 percent of the music acquired in the US. Reflecting the growth in that sector of the market, Apple's iTunes Music Store became the second-largest music retailer in the U.S. after Wal-Mart, based on the amount of music sold during 2007 (based on a 12-track CD equivalency for music track downloads).

Twenty-nine million consumers acquired digital music legally, via pay-to-download sites last year, which is an increase of 5 million over the previous year. Sales growth was largely driven by consumers age 36 to 50 - a segment that was aggressively acquiring digital music-players in 2007.

"The continued growth in legal download sites is encouraging, yet the industry struggles to improve the value of each digital customer," said Russ Crupnick, entertainment industry analyst for The NPD Group.  "With so many baby boomers and gen-Xers entering the market, there are certainly opportunities to sell more digital albums, promote older catalog titles, or create bundles that will raise revenues. In the near term that's going to be the best means available to narrow the gap on dwindling CD revenues."

Seeing as their success as a retailer rests entirely on the goodwill of those who operate the network infrastructure, you really have to wonder why Apple is keeping their mouths shut on Net Neutrality. 

For their sake, I hope that no broadband provider wants to partner with Wal-Mart to deliver a music library via set top box. iTunes traffic might suddenly take up too much bandwidth and need to be "managed."

Here's the Wikipedia entry on Icarus, if you're not up on your Greek mythology:

Latin: ?karos, Etruscan: Vicare) is a character in Greek Mythology. Icarus' father, Daedalus attempted to escape his prison, the Labyrinth, in which he was imprisoned at the hands of King Minos, the king for whom he had built the Labyrinth (Labyrinth is derived from the Minoans word for a ceremonial axe). The Labyrinth's original purpose was intended to hold the horrible creature, the Minotaur, a beast that was a product of one of the King's mistress's affairs with a bull. The Minotaur was born to King Minos and his wife instead of a son because the Gods were angry at them. Daedalus was imprisoned on the island with his son Icarus. Daedalus, the master craftsman, was imprisoned because it was he who built the faux cow for the queen to climb into such that she could copulate with the bull. As the Minotaur grew up it became violent and dangerous, so they had to imprison it in the Labyrinth. Daedalus fashioned a pair of wings for himself and his son, made of feathers and wax. Before they took off from the prison, Daedalus warned his son not to fly too close to the sun, as the wax would melt, nor too close to the sea, as the feathers would become sodden. Overcome by the sublime feeling that flying gave him, Icarus soared through the sky joyfully, but in the process he came too close to the sun, which melted his wings. Icarus kept flapping his wings but soon realized that he had no feathers left and that he was only flapping his bare arms. And so, Icarus fell into the sea in the area which bears his name, the Icarian Sea near Icaria, an island southwest of Samos.^[1]

Think of Wal-Mart and any single telco as the sun...

Remember a few years back, when at the urging of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin (R), Cable Television providers started offering "family tiers" of service? When certain groups complained about not being able to get rid of channels with content that offended them, they demanded the ability to "unsubscribe" from them, or purchase the ones they wanted "a la carte."

Obviously, the cable companies did not like this idea, so they compromised. Comcast, Time Warner, and Cox, the "big three" of cable television, started offering "family tiers," or packages without the channels that some considered too racy. In effect, they gave customers the option to "opt-in" to having the selection of channels they received be censored.

Yesterday, in this space, I wrote about a Utah legislator's proposal for "family-friendly" Internet service. I thought it was a good idea that parents, or anyone who wanted content-filtered service (schools, some businesses, etc) could have the option of paying for it instead of filtering software that is often questionable in effectiveness.

Just two days ago, the FCC held hearings on Comcast's alleged throttling of BitTorrent traffic. One of the issues raised was that of transparency, that when people buy what they think is "unlimited" service they are really agreeing to Terms of Service that let the ISP do certain things to manage the network.

Whether or not what Comcast did was proper is up to the FCC to decide. On the other hand, if the cable companies can offer "family tiers" and Utah can have "family" broadband, why can't the broadband providers offer a "tier" of service that is truly "all-you-can-eat" for the power user? Much was made of the need for "full disclosure" of restrictions on bandwidth by broadband providers. I agree that this is true. You should know what you are buying, and you should get what pay for. If a small percentage of users really does use such a large percentage of bandwidth, they should be offered the option of paying for the ability to truly use as much as they want.

Network management is reasonable. Full disclosure is reasonable. Paying a premium for guaranteed maximum bandwidth is totally reasonable. The market for "all you can eat" broadband exists.

If you build it, they will come.

In 2004, the EU did what the US DOJ suddenly lost the courage to do after the Bush administration took over and fined Microsoft 497 million Euros for abusing what was then a 95% monopoly on desktop software.

Microsoft paid the fine, and simply kept doing the same thing, keeping Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer "in the box" and even further integrating them into their operating system. In the EU, this is an illegal business practice. They knew this, and didn't care, because I guess some accountant figured that they would still make a profit if they paid the fines while crushing competition.

In 2007, they were fined another 280.5 million Euros for non-compliance, which Microsoft appealed, and lost.

This latest penalty is the largest amount of money that any company has had to pay, and the first time a company has been able to treat such penalties as "the cost of doing business." That's right, normal corporations learn their lesson. Microsoft? Not so much. Money quote, from Reuters:

"Microsoft was the first company in 50 years of EU competition policy that the Commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an antitrust decision," Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said in a statement.

For years after the decision Microsoft said it was making every effort to comply with the Commission's orders.

"Talk is cheap, flouting the rules is expensive," Kroes said. "We don't want talk and promises. We want compliance."

I wonder if the much-ballyhooed "interoperability" announcement and release of some binary specs is an attempt to avoid further fines, now that it appears they will continue to get bigger and bigger. The fines, I mean. Not Microsoft.  

Eager to nail a corporate head to the wall in the mold of his predecessor Elliot Spitzer, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has (according to AP, via The Register) has issued a subpoena for traffic data for Comcast's New York subscribers, despite the company's relatively small footprint in the state.

Cuomo may be a small fish for the company to worry about. When FCC Chairman Martin says things like

"While networks may have reasonable practices, they obviously cannot operate without taking some reasonable steps...but that does not mean they can arbitrarily block access to certain services."

you know you might have a problem. Martin (R), whose tenure at the FCC has been known for fines as massive as his love for deregulation, may join fellow Commissioners and usual suspects Michael Copps (D) and Jonathan Adelstein (D) in issuing an official order and possibly fining the nation's largest Cable TV provider and ISP for their throttling of BitTorrent traffic and subsequent attempts to cover-up or obfuscate the issue.

Martin has indicated his unwavering support for competition in all arenas, and although one would suspect he would naturally side with the business, the fact that Comcast operates a "competing" Video service throws a wrinkle into what would otherwise be a clear-cut "reasonable network management" practice. Also, Martin and several of his colleagues were adamant in their desire to encourage more disclosure and transparency in broadband subscription limitations.

 

Meanwhile, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has sued the U.S. Department of Justice. Again. They're curious to hear about discussions, negotiations or conversations between Google and Jayne Horvath, who was USDOJ's first "chief privacy and civil liberties officer" in 2006, when Google fought off a subpoena for a massive amount of search records. In an extreme cross-country case of "DC revolving door," Horvath is now Google's senior privacy counsel.

According to EFF counsel David Sobel, "

Google has an unprecedented ability to collect and retain very personal information about millions of Americans, and the DOJ and other law enforcement agencies have developed a huge appetite for that information...We want to know what discussions DOJ's top privacy lawyer had with Google before leaving her government position to join the company."

I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, and I'm certainly used to revolving door type moves like this. I can understand the EFF's concern, but perhaps they doth protest too much?

They've filed a FOIA request about this, six months ago. Given the DOJ's normal FOIA time lag, maybe it would be better to just ask Google. Heck, if you want a bigger headline, sue them! At least it would be more than EFF's business as usual.

Another gem on the beauty of open standards from The Google Blog:

Google supports open document standards and the Open Document Format - ODF, the recognized international standard (ISO 26300). ODF is supported and implemented across the globe, and its communal creation and iteration has helped ensure the transparency, consistency and interoperability necessary in a workable standard.

Currently, the technology industry is evaluating a proposed ISO standard for document formats. Given the importance of a workable standard, Microsoft's submission of Office Open XML (OOXML ) as an additional international standard has caught the attention of many. In September 2007, the original request to ISO was defeated. After further technical analysis of the specification along with all the additional data available on OOXML, Google believes OOXML would be an insufficient and unnecessary standard, designed purely around the needs of Microsoft Office.

We join the ODF Alliance and many other experts in our belief that OOXML doesn't meet the criteria required for a globally-accepted standard. (An overview of our findings and sample technical issues unresolved are posted here.)

As ISO Member bodies around the world work on possible revisions of their vote previously submitted, the deadline of March 30th approaches fast. I invite you to pay close attention, and heed the call of many for unification of OOXML into ODF. A document standards decision may not matter to you today, but as someone who relies on constant access to editable documents, spreadsheets and presentations, it may matter immensely in the near future.

I used to really hate MS. I used Linux, and WordPerfect for Linux. I have not touched Windows outside of my public school education (that is to say on my personal machine) from the age of 14, when I switched to Linux, to 2001 when I purchased my first Macintosh, and with it, Microsoft Office X.  I don't hate Microsoft anymore. What I hated was Windows.

I use Word all the time. It's the industry standard for my day job, and it's useful for composing long blog posts. For mail, I have a BlackBerry smartphone. I use Entourage/Exchange at CapitolValley to stay in contact with my compatriot on the left coast, and Outlook/Exchange at my day job to keep calendered and in touch with an organization over 200 people. Sometimes Microsoft, (like those Utah GOPers who want to let parents choose filtered ISPs) gets things right. On the other hand, when it comes to international open standards they should simply admit defeat and adapt their admittedly useful software to use ODF. They have everything to gain by getting more people to use Office. Really.

Embrace the standard, and you'll gain generations of new customers. Maybe not on your operating system, but does it matter?

Give me better software and I'll buy it.

Call your Congresspersons. Make your voice heard. Open standards last. Crappy ones don't.  

...because Madeleine Albright apparently works as some kind of stewardess now.


She wore a similar outfit on The Daily Show tonight while promoting her new book. Rest assured, her seatback is in the full and upright position.

(yes, I know what the pin actually is, it's just funny to look at, especially with the amount of flying I'm doing these days.)

Utah's State Legislature is considering allowing "pre-censored" Internet providers and giving them a special label, according to the Deseret News:

Utah Internet service providers could earn a state-approved "G-rating" for filtering content and insuring that users could not access pornography under provisions in a bill heard by a House committee on Monday.

HB407, sponsored by Rep. Michael Morley, R-Spanish Fork, would require the Utah Division of Consumer Protection to create a designation for providers who prevent access to "prohibited" material. After attaining the "seal of approval," providers would be subject for fines up to $10,000 for violating requirements.

"It's very difficult to figure out a way to monitor the internet," Morley said. "I think it's a positive thing for those who are looking for a site that is dedicated to fighting pornography."

The opponents are Google, Yahoo, etc. Obviously they'd see a decrease in traffic from some Utahn customers, but actually I see this as a good thing. While I'm not a fan of filtering, I do think that it's up to parents to choose what is appropriate for their children. If they want to leave it up to an ISP instead of having to constantly update software that their kids could possibly get around, more power to them. If the market is there for these kinds of "G-rated" ISPs, good for them. Let them make bank.

THE federal Government's plan to have internet service providers filter pornography and other internet content deemed inappropriate for children is going full-steam ahead.

Trials are to be conducted soon in a closed environment in Tasmania.

Today is the deadline for expressions of interest to Enex TestLab, the Melbourne company evaluating internet service provider content filters on behalf of the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

ISP-based filters will block inappropriate web pages at service provider level and automatically relay a clean feed to households.

To be exempted, users will have to individually contact their ISPs.The trial will evaluate ISP-level internet content filters in a controlled environment while filtering content inappropriate for children, Enex said. 

Utah wants an opt-in, market-based solution, while Australia thinks that everyone needs to be "protected" by default and have to go "waltzing matilda" to get out of the filtering system. I'm not so sure why Google and Yahoo! are opposing the Utah bill and not screaming bloody murder about the Aussies. Content providers should support allowing people to choose to not receive their content, that way they can realize how much they use it when it's gone. Let parents get frustrated with their filtered service until they cancel it. 

...and people thought PBS was just for Ken Burns. B&C has the scoop:

PBS will launch a consumer-awareness campaign starting next month aimed at educating consumers about the analog shutoff after Feb. 17, 2009.

The first two spots will feature Kevin O'Connor, host of This Old House, and master carpenter Norm Abram.

In October, PBS will launch phase two of the campaign, giving viewers more specific information about their digital-transition options. The informational spots will run in 30-second and 60-second versions.

Public television has reasons to be aggressive about reaching its viewers with the information. More than most networks, PBS reaches a wide audience of viewers who receive television over-the-air, including immigrants, non-English speaking, the poor and the elderly.

Sprinkle in a sizable number of PBS viewers who just don't want cable because they aren't avid viewers and the prospect of a better picture or more channels doesn't hold much allure. One out of five of PBS viewers receives television over the air, not via cable or satellite. Altogether, there are estimates that 21 million (out of 112.8 million) households use rabbit ears, some say that estimate is high.

It's nice to see PBS actually reaching out to their viewers instead of just assuming they'll get cable. Considering the FCC has done precious little to bring the issue to the forefront, and I still haven't gotten my NTIA coupon, something tells me there will people who will be pretty angry about missing March Madness next year.

Question for the "Major" networks: how come PBS has the money to do this and you don't? Get with the program.

Reading accounts of the technical presentations at today's FCC hearing in Cambridge, I kept having a reoccurring thought: We're stuck in the 1970's.

Consider this: I'm writing this on an Apple MacBook Pro, running OS X. OS X is based on Darwin, which is based on NEXTSTEP, which is based on BSD Unix, which was developed at the University of California, Berkeley by Bill Joy and first released in 1978.

You're reading this on a Web Browser, which operates over TCP/IP. TCP was first implemented in RFC 675 in 1974, while IP began development in 1977.

It's 2008. We're using 30 year old technology, developed during the Cold War, much of it in academic settings with government grants.

Today, one of the FCC Commissioners, I can't remember which, noted that we're going to switch off our analog TV stations - 1950's technology, in less than a year and that it will most likely be problematic. We're also running out of IP Address space. Fast. Does anyone really use IPv6? Government networks have to, but consumer technology? Please. It might be supported, but no one is using it.

Despite all the advances in technology, the "market" can't come up with anything better than this cold war relic of a foundation. It works because it was designed to be open. Closed systems have repeatedly been failures. BeOS? Dead. MacOS pre Darwin? Dead. Windows? Microsoft has crashed and burned with Vista trying to outdo OS X, which still has t