ODF on the Move in France & Denmark

OpenDocument Format (ODF) is making news in Europe, again.

The French government has officially issued for public comment an interoperability framework -- Referentiel General Interoperabilite -- that recommends the use of OpenDocument Format (ODF) in its technical interoperability section (in French). The intial public comment period, which began in April, ends on June 15. The end of the entire comment process is September 2006.

This has been blogged about briefly in a few places very recently -- Groklaw, OpenOffice.org, Sun's Erwin Tenhumberg and here (in french) -- but I wanted to spread the news and a few more details.

Specifically, the RGI proposes 3 things:

Section RIT0025:

It is RECOMMENDED to use Open Document Format for exchanging semi-structured office documents (such as word processing, presentation and spreadsheet documents).

Section RIT0026

It is MANDATORY to accept every document in Open Document Format for exchanging semi-structured office documents (such as word processing, presentation and spreadsheet documents)

Section RIT0027

It is FORBIDDEN to migrate from some often used format inside an organization to any other format than the Open Document Format.
(Translation courtesy of Tristan Nitot)

So what does it all mean? It's not a tipping point, nor even a final decision in France. But it is another step forward for ODF. Another government has officially tabled ODF for consideration.

In Denmark, as blogged by John Gotze here, the Ministry of Science is taking an interim step forward with ODF, requiring that all online documents and communications be published in ODF for a six-month trial period. Why the half-step? Pressure, mainly from leading members of the Danish Parliament like Morten Helveg Petersen who tabled a motion to require open standards that was debated two weeks ago. Although it faced heavy opposition from the Minister of Science, mainly based on the issue of how much an open standards mandate would cost, there was enough momentum to force a trial period for ODF beginning September 1st.

The ODF movement is more than afoot. One thing it could use now, however, is a strong quantitative analysis of the economic implications of open standards, and ODF in particular. Based on early returns from Massachusetts and Denmark, this is a crucial stumbling block for governments (other than intensive MS lobbying) -- understanding how much the move to open standards will cost.

OASIS, are you listening?

Net Neutrality in the New York Times

Just a quick post to share a link to today's op-ed piece in the New York Times about net neutrality.

It's worth a read. The only thing I might add, which is implied in the article but not clearly, simply stated, is: Net neutrality has governed the Internet since Day 1. It is not a new regulation or a new market barrier; it is the principle that has allowed the explosive innovation of the Internet to happen.

The free market rhetoric of telco/cable industry front organizations would have you believe otherwise. But they never tell you this: the Internet and all its innovation to date have occurred under the umbrella of net neutrality.

Think of it this way -- net neutrality ensures that the barriers to entry for Internet content and services remain low. No premium fees for content creators just to "keep up with the Jones" in terms of speed of delivery. No exclusive deals between broadband providers and big content providers like Disney that keep little guys out. The Internet playing field remains somewhat level (for delivery of content), and that fosters competition and innovation.

The telcos/cables like to argue cost. Fair enough. Building tomorrow's superhighway costs money. Billions. But there are other options to finance infrastructure besides allowing the builders additional control over content. All those other countries with much higher broadband penetration (and higher broadband speed) have figured it out. Why can't we?

Net Neutrality FUDraker of the Day

... is Christopher Wolf, co-chairman of the Hands Off The Internet coalition. Chris wins for this fine piece of FUD:

“The fact is that Internet neutrality regulations would be a direct financial hit to consumers and stop cold the country’s progress in providing affordable high-speed options."

Fact? Interesting use of the word. Net neutrality would stop our country's progress in providing affordable, high-speed Internet access. Is that a fact?

Well . . . maybe in the US where a few companies essentially control broadband access for most Americans. But is it a "fact" in all countries? No. According to the OECD, there are 11 countries with greater broadband penetration than the US. Net neutrality has not been a problem for them, though it governs data packet delivery in all these countries. They have managed to invest in broadband (often delivering speeds much faster than available in US) and make it affordable for a higher percentage of their citizens.

OECD Broadband Statistics
December 2005

Country: Broadband Penetration (% of inhabitants)

Iceland: 26.7
Korea: 25.4
Netherlands: 25.3
Denmark: 25.0
Switzerland: 23.1
Finland: 22.5
Norway: 21.9
Canada: 21.9
Sweden: 20.3
Belgium: 18.3
Japan: 17.6
U.S.: 16.8
U.K.: 15.9
France: 15.2
Luxembourg: 14.9
Austria: 14.1
Australia: 13.8
Germany: 13.0
Italy: 11.9
Spain: 11.8

Source: OECD

For trying to blind people with his "facts," Chris Wolf is our FUDraker of the Day.

FUDrakers on Net Neutrality

I propose a new, honorary title for the purveyors of net neutrality FUD on behalf of the telco/cable companies -- FUDrakers. It refers to those who throw FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) into the net neutrality debate.

Today's top FUDraker ... Tom Tauke, Verizon's Executive Vice President of
Public Affairs, Policy and Communications.

Here's a choice sample of his FUD delivered while testifying yesterday before the Senate's Commerce Committee hearings on telecom legislation:

"Radical net neutrality proposals would chill the investment climate for broadband networks, deter and delay broadband rollout, and lock in today's Internet architecture and levels of performance ... Now is not the time to adopt new regulations that throw sand in the gears of the fast-growing and changing broadband marketplace."

Is there a single person not in the pay of a telco/cable company who believes that the Internet's development over the past 20 years--during which net neutrality has been the governing rule since Day 1--has been anything but rapid and endlessly innovative?

For that matter, other countries like Iceland, South Korea, Netherlands, Denmark and Switzerland have achieved much higher broadband penetration than the US. They are the world's Top 5 in broadband penetration according to OECD data. The U.S. is #12.

Think that's bad? In 2000, the US ranked #3. In 2001, it dropped to #4. At the end of 2005 it was #12, all according to the OECD.

Less penetration, but we're faster right? Wrong. Top cable modems in the US deliver five megabits per second. Broadband connections in countries like Japan and South Korea are often 20 times faster.

Net neutrality has not stopped these countries from bringing faster broadband to their citizens, at speeds much higher than commercially available in the US.

Do Korean companies simply have more money to invest in broadband than Verizon and AT&T? Or is there something else going on here?

Talk to me FUDrakers. I've got my digital FUDflap in place.

Net Neutrality Bill OK'd by House Committee

Breaking news ... the House Judiciary Committee approved the Sensenbrenner bill in a 20-13 vote -- 14 Democrats + 6 Republicans voted in favor. Roll call noted by Raw Story here. Full text of bill is here. Pertinent provisions:

Sec. 28.(a) It shall be unlawful for any broadband network provider--

(1) to fail to provide its broadband network services on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions such that any person can offer or provide content, applications, or services to or over the network in a manner that is at least equal to the manner in which the provider or its affiliates offer content, applications, and services, free of any surcharge on the basis of the content, application, or service;

(2) to refuse to interconnect its facilities with the facilities of another provider of broadband network services on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms or conditions;

(3)(A) to block, to impair, to discriminate against, or to interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband network service to access, to use, to send, to receive, or to offer lawful content, applications or services over the Internet; or

(B) to impose an additional charge to avoid any conduct that is prohibited by this subsection;

(4) to prohibit a user from attaching or using a device on the provider's network that does not physically damage or materially degrade other users' utilization of the network; or

(5) to fail to clearly and conspicuously disclose to users, in plain language, accurate information concerning any terms, conditions, or limitations on the broadband network service.

(b) If a broadband network provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, it must prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type (regardless of the origin or ownership of such data) without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or enhanced quality of service.

We now have a turf battle within Congress between different committees, all claiming jurisdiction over the net neutrality issue, and all keen to keep themselves in the game on an issue whose political profile is rising.

The driver for the Judiciary Committee's effort is the antitrust impact of removing net neutrality, which has defined the Internet for the past 20 years. Net neutrality has been the status quo for the Internet, and has proven to be highly pro-competition as witnessed by the endless websites, e-commerce, P2P communities, blogs and e-services that now exist.

In the beginning, there was net neutrality. And it was good.

Can anybody seriously argue that net neutrality has not been a key element of the growth and competitiveness of Internet activity?

FUD Master or Fool?

As readers of this blog know, I rarely if ever get personal or confrontational about the technology issues discussed here. But occasionally an exception is needed to prove the rule ...

Today that exception is Steven Titch, Senior Fellow for Information Technology and Telecom Policy at the Heartland Institute (another one of those manipulative, Orwellian, heart-rendering names).

Mr. Titch writes about The Dangers of Dictating Procurement for the June issue of IT&T News, a newsletter on technology issues targeting state legislators and regulators.

Titch begins by describing Massachusetts' decision about OpenDocument Format as a decision about "open source software format." He then proceeds to talk almost exclusively about the evils of open source software. Sadly, he stubbornly repeats the mistake here just yesterday. All of which begs the question: Is Steven Titch a fool or merely a proliferator of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt)?

Simply put: Mr. Titch, do you know the difference between a standard and software?

In its decision about OpenDocument Format (ODF), Massachusetts was addressing the choice of document formats, and chose to migrate to an open standard for them. This is a decision about standards, not software. It is not a decision that dictates open source software over proprietary software. Massachusetts is not mandating any kind of software.

In a nutshell, the difference is that open standards are a technical specification (or blueprint) while open source refers to software (which uses those blueprints, like other software can). It isn't that difficult. Anyone, any company, any solution can use a truly open standard. That is the point of having an open standard.

There are serious issues to debate on standards, and ODF and Microsoft's XML format. This blog has not been shy to highlight weaknesses, for example, of ODF here.

It is worrisome that decision-makers within state governments are getting such awful, misleading and short-sighted advice from a so-called "analyst."

Net Neutrality and FCC Politics

To date, what little authority exists behind net neutrality has been held by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). However, the FCC is a political creature, and net neutrality is tangled up in its politics.

Right now, the FCC is evenly divided between Democrat and Republican commissioners. By political necessity, companies needing FCC approval for mergers must negotiate with both sides of the FCC, and net neutrality has been at issue. Last year, approval of the SBC - AT&T and Verizon - MCI mergers included a requirement that net neutrality remained in place ... for two years. Why only 2 years? Verizon lobbied aggressively to ensure that net neutrality would sunset after 30 months.

Now we start to understand why this year telco/cable CEOs began signaling their intent to eliminate net neutrality and begin discriminating among content, delivery and pricing in Internet services. Next year they will be free of their net neutrality "chains."

Other than adding limited net neutrality conditions to merger approvals, the only other FCC "authority" behind net neutrality is a set of non-binding principles. Hardly comforting since FCC Chairman, Keven Martin, disfavors regulating the issue.

That cold comfort gets downright frigid when you consider industry statements. While certain cable/telco CEOs pledge not to block or degrade content, other telco representatives argue that those sunset provisions were only meant to address "anomalies" arising during the merger. Translation: net neutrality has been an anomoly that will be "corrected" shortly.

So where does that leave net neutrality at the FCC?

Many suggest letting the FCC deal with the issue on a case-by-case (merger-by-merger?) basis. But the FCC has thrown net neutrality only a 2-year life line. And time is running out, as the telco/cable companies intended.

The blatent weakness of current net neutrality guarantees is now recognized in Congress. Witness the bi-partisan bills on net neutrality in the House and the Senate. Apparently, it is also dawning on some at the FCC that net neutrality is a serious issue of fair competition. Yesterday, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps pubicly stated that the FCC should issue enforceable regulations guaranteeing net neutrality. Copps called net neutrality rules "essential." Former FCC Chairman, Reed Hundt, agrees.

Net neutrality looks like an antitrust issue. Is bundling content with Internet service delivery (when content providers cut exclusivity deals with Internet service providers) so different from Microsoft bundling its browser with its Office Suite?

Both effectively squash competition. For the Internet, other content will still be delivered, but much slower. In the Microsoft case, other browsers could still be used (maybe), but they would not work as well or as fast.

Tomorrow, the House Judiciary Committee will vote on a bi-partisan bill that would punish net neutrality violations under federal antitrust laws. We shall see how far net neutrality has come since the last Congressional committee vote on the subject.

Is Your Technology Dying?

It's often a bad bet that the technology you rely on will be around in 20 years. True, good technology can last a long time. Typewriters. Record players. They lasted, even dominated, for a long time. But they're gone now. Floppy disks and cassette tapes -- not quite as long. Betamax and 8-track tapes. Hardly at all. For that matter, how much longer will VCRs be around?

The point? New content keeps coming. But the technologies, especially the formats, for transmitting it come and go. Something that has seemingly been around forever is suddenly gone, obsolete, unusable (or unrepairable).

Although it does not speak about formats for documents generated on computers (a topic I blog about regularly), this article from Wired does remind us of the issues and often impermanence of the things we create, and the formats we create them in ... despite what Microsoft and Apple and Sony might want us to believe.

Is Tim Berners-Lee Crazy?

If you believe the telco/cable cabal, he must be. Why? Because Tim Berners-Lee supports net neutrality.

Tim Berners-Lee is no government bureaucrat, politician, rock star or cable company CEO. He is simply the creator of the World Wide Web. His words on "net neutrality" are worth hearing:

Twenty-seven years ago, the inventors of the Internet designed an architecture which was simple and general. Any computer could send a packet to any other computer. The network did not look inside packets. It is the cleanness of that design, and the strict independence of the layers, which allowed the Internet to grow and be useful. It allowed the hardware and transmission technology supporting the Internet to evolve through a thousandfold increase in speed, yet still run the same applications. It allowed new Internet applications to be introduced and to evolve independently.

When, seventeen years ago, I designed the Web, I did not have to ask anyone's permission. The new application rolled out over the existing Internet without modifying it. I tried then, and many people still work very hard still, to make the Web technology, in turn, a universal, neutral, platform. It must not discriminate against particular hardware, software, underlying network, language, culture, disability, or against particular types of data.

Anyone can build a new application on the Web, without asking me, or Vint Cerf, or their ISP, or their cable company, or their operating system provider, or their government, or their hardware vendor.

It is of the utmost importance that, if I connect to the Internet, and you connect to the Internet, that we can then run any Internet application we want, without discrimination as to who we are or what we are doing. We pay for connection to the Net as though it were a cloud which magically delivers our packets. We may pay for a higher or a lower quality of service. We may pay for a service which has the characteristics of being good for video, or quality audio. But we each pay to connect to the Net, but no one can pay for exclusive access to me . . .

To actually design legislation which allows creative interconnections between different service providers, but ensures neutrality of the Net as a whole may be a difficult task. It is a very important one. The US should do it now, and, if it turns out to be the only way, be as draconian as to require financial isolation between IP providers and businesses in other layers.

The Internet is increasingly becoming the dominant medium binding us. The neutral communications medium is essential to our society. It is the basis of a fair competitive market economy. It is the basis of democracy, by which a community should decide what to do. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true.

Let us protect the neutrality of the net.

Telco/cable companies (and the pundits and politicians in their pockets) tell you that supporters of net neutrality are crazy or intellectually dishonest. But you never see them explain their rationale for eliminating the Internet's current net neutrality in plain english. All they give you are ad hominum attacks, empty labels or populist jingoism.

Ask them to answer one simple question: Has the Internet operated under net neutrality since Day 1?

Net Neutrality Ghost Towns

You want to know what telco/cable industry FUD (or b.s. in the vernacular) about net neutrality sounds like? Here it is uncut and uninterrupted, courtesy of Jason Wright of the Institute for Liberty (a name which could only be inspired by "Brave New World" or a post-9/11 bill in Congress):

A conservative-leaning colleague from a previous life emailed today and asked if I could break down the dicey net neutrality issue in the simplest terms possible. "Sure," I replied, "it stinks." This complex issue has been simplified in recent weeks to this simple question: Who do your trust?

Do you trust MoveOn.org and their celebrity network tech experts including Moby, Alyssa Milano and rockers REM? Of do you trust every free-market and limited government advocate including think-tanks and associations?

Do you trust pro-regulation liberals like Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) or do you trust economists that have studied the issue ad nauseum and are united in their opposition to any efforts to impose government-defined net neutrality?

It's just not that complicated, fence sitters. `Net neutrality is unnecessary government tinkering in the private sector. It's an effort to wrap the web in a regulatory mess that gives Congress and the FCC the keys to its future. Excuse me, but I'd rather consumers determine what the next decade holds, not professional bureaucrats.

See how FUD works? Divert attention with labels. Celebrities vs. free market. Liberals vs. economists. Bureaucrats vs. consumers. Easy call, right? We know which ones feel right. When you see someone throwing that many labels at you, watch out ... and grab a shovel because a snowjob is coming your way.

I've blogged about the pros and cons of net neutrality. And yes, I've mentioned celebrity supporters. But don't let their celebrity distract you. Think of them as Content Creaters. Just like the people who write blogs, post photos, build websites, write articles, post comments. The difference is that these high-profile Content Creators have a lot at stake, including money. Ironically, REM and Moby would likely make more money without net neutrality. Their "content" is valuable and has huge audiences. You can bet that telcos/cables will stream their music and concert video at top speed. Why? Because millions of people are willing to pay for it, and already have. They don't need net neutrality. I do. You do.

This blogger and most people will not pay the premium price to have their non-commercial, homemade content delivered at top speed. We will be coming to you on the slower road. And people's natural instinct is to avoid the slow road. This blog will be the small town that the information superhighway passes. You could get off and visit, but most likely you won't. You'll keep going until you reach the big rest stop with all the well-known fast food places and gas stations.

And let's be clear about one more thing: Net neutrality is how the Internet has worked since Day 1. All that innovative content--websites, blogs, P2P, community spaces, photo sharing, search, streaming videos, news feeds--was created under the umbrella of a net neutral Internet. It is not new. It is not a government imposed "regulatory mess." It is the status quo, and it's worked brilliantly.

The only reason people (including legislators) are talking about net neutrality is because telcos/cables want to change how the Internet works. They want to charge extra for bringing you rich multimedia content, like movies. They are after more money, which is fine. But their desire to squeeze more revenues out of their ownership of broadband networks will have a serious impact on how the Internet works.

And it will create a whole lot of ghost towns on the Internet. Maybe even this blog.

Hillary Clinton Backs Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is about to get another high profile backer -- Senator Hillary Clinton. According to The Raw Story, Senator Clinton will issue a press release announcing her intention to co-sponsor a net neutrality bill in Congress. It's something to sing about. But . . . net neutrality is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. It is more important than political partisanship, which is why it is encouraging that the latest effort on Capitol Hill is a bi-partisan bill.

Net neutrality touches every person who uses the Internet, whether they know it or not.

Surf the Internet, search for things, buy music, read news and post blogs. We never notice that net neutrality defines the Internet as we know it. It's true. You type a website address -- ANY website address -- and it loads as fast as your Internet connection can load it. That website you want does not load slower than others simply because its owner did not pay the telco/cable company an extra fee for fast delivery. All websites are treated equally. Google's search, the BBC's news, MySpace.com, even my blog -- all load equally fast. That's net neutrality.

One key issue, implied but not explained in Senator Clinton's statement, is that net neutrality is perfectly consistent with the growth of broadband. Telco/cable arguments to the contrary are specious. Net neutrality has been the status quo since the Internet began. It has not obstructed or slowed broadband in any way. Yes, we have a broadband problem in the U.S. -- penetration should be higher and prices lower. But the problem is not net neutrality. The problem is that broadband is basically controlled by an oligopoly in the U.S. Look at South Korea. Highest broadband access in the world, and net neutrality has created no obstacles. Rather, broadband is treated like vital public infrastructure.

This is how the U.S. (and other countries) should see it. Broadband networks are the infrastructure of innovation for the 21st Century. We cannot afford to allow a handful of companies divide content, websites and service providers into classes based on the prices they pay these network owners.

Nobody knows where the next transformative innovation will come from. Not me. Not you. And certainly not Verizon or AT&T. And so, we should do everything possible to maintain the Internet's open, non-discriminatory architecture. This will allow innovative content and web services to launch, grow and find customers, whether it comes from Google, Microsoft, AOL or two students in their dorm room (who might not be able to afford the premium fees that telco/cable commpanies plan to charge for delivery of content in the "fast lane").

Rock stars (from music or politics) backing net neutrality helps raise its profile. But more people need to join the debate and understand the stakes involved for all Internet users. We already got Moby, which leads to the obvious question . . .

Where's Bono?

R.E.M. -- Losing My Neutrality?

Apparently net neutrality appeals to artists from Athens, Georgia. Add R.E.M. to the list of "lunatics" who support the idea that the Internet should remain open, non-discriminatory and content neutral. The band posted a message on their website asking fans to get behind net neutrality.

Even high-profile "content creators" see the value of ensuring that all content -- from unknown bloggers to multi-platinum rock bands -- should be accessible to consumers on an equal footing. Consumer choices of content should not be dictated or shaped by the companies who own the networks.

The latest industry FUD about net neutrality is here, an artful piece of propoganda funded by cable/telcos that attempts to convince people that net neutrality represents some new, heavy-handed government regulation of the Internet. In reality, net neutrality has been the status quo since Day 1 of the Internet. Nobody controls content. Consummers decide what they want to see on the Internet . . . and all of it loads equally fast. That's net neutrality in action.

For R.E.M., net neutrality should be Automatic for the People.

Lunatics Running the Net Neutrality Asylum?

If you listen to CEOs from the telcos/cable companies, that's who net neutrality advocates are -- believers in UFOs, Elvis sightings, unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster.

A good friend shared the following on net neutrality. It comes from the CableFax Daily (May 11, 2006), the cable industry newsletter (keep in mind this is the cable industry speaking here)...

Net Neutrality Nellies: Comcast VP for External Affairs, Joe Waz, proposed a “cooling-off period” for net neutrality. “Apparently Senator Commerce Chairman [Ted] Stevens [Republican - Alaska] feels the same way. Rather than shoot first and ask questions later, Sen. Stevens wants to get the facts,” Waz said [at a meeting this week].

Referencing AOL and Earthlink’s open access arguments of 1990s, Waz said: "Had open access rules become law, it would have upended the business model that made our broadband explosion possible . . . just as network neutrality could do today."

A "cooling off period" could work for US Internet Industry Association President/CEO David McClure, who described all network neutrality supporters as "intellectually, morally and technologically dishonest."

McClure’s quotable quotes were the brightest part of a ho-hum net neutrality panel. Our favorite was his description of the 3 groups supporting net neutrality legislation. First are the content companies, who are the “most honest” since they’re looking to get out of paying. The 2nd group is “Bell-bashing” attorneys and advocates. “For them, this is the last opportunity not to become irrelevant because we are marching steadfastly toward a deregulated telecom market.” And finally, there is the "Coalition of the Deranged" — those are the people that believe Elvis is still alive and in alien abductions.”

How do you argue with that?

I'm not a content company. I'm not a lawyer/advocate fighting AT&T. So, according to the cable industry, I must be . . . crazy.

Call me crazy to suggest that consumers might not want to pay for bundles of internet content chosen by cable companies. Maybe they would, but maybe not. And apparently only a deranged person would suggest that we consider whether internet infrastructure should be treated more like public infrastructure, given its increasing importance to our economy and society -- which means we must be prepared to pay for non-discrminatory access to content. Is it so crazy to say that I prefer not to have the Internet look like current pricing schemes for telephones and cable which are complicated and opaque? I don't want to spend endless hours comparing tiered pricing and weighing which websites I want at high speed and which I want at normal speed.

But wait . . . wasn't that Elvis who just walked in?

Dumping on Open Source

Sitting here in Bangkok at a Regional Conference on Open Standards organized by Thailand's national IT agency, NECTEC, I was struck by two statements made by a senior executive from a major, global IT company:

"Open source is neither necessary nor required for open standards."

"Open source simply is a development methodology and a business model."

It makes me think that too many companies have a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hype approach to open source software, open standards and everything else open. Everyone loves to be "open," but hates the idea of someone else using "open" to compete with them. So . . . my "open" is good but yours is not.

What's driving this? Control. Companies cannot control open source. Often they can have significant control over open standards through their participation in standard organizations and the hundreds of meetings at which a standard is developed (many only open to those who pay to play). You want a seat at some standards bodies, great . . . for $1 million you get a seat, plus the cost of attending all those meetings. When one of those companies says (as it did just now), "Open standards is in our DNA," does that give you comfort?

So, back to those quotes - who do you think said it?

Microsoft?

No. Guess again . . .

Internet Wise Guys

Tony Soprano isn't the only wiseguy in Jersey who knows how to profit from a little leverage.

So does this guy . . . Ed Whitacre, AT&T's Chairman and CEO.

And he intends to squeeze money out of AT&T's position as one of the owners of America's broadband infrastructure.

Other people counter that there is choice in broadband access, so if a telco or cable gouges customers with expensive packages or discriminates against content that customers wants at high speed, then customers will walk and the telco will lose business. In short, the market will correct any problems.

But, the vast majority of Americans (and probably other countries) have either zero, one or two choices for broadband access. It is a highly concentrated market, and with cable it is a government-created oligopoly.

Concentration of power, as Tony Soprano will tell you, creates multiple opportunities to muscle in on business and extract money from companies afraid of having delivery of their content somehow degraded. That's the name of the game, whether it's construction, trucking or the Internet.

So, are Ed Whitacre, Verizon's Ivan Seidenberg and BellSouth’s CTO Bill Smith future Internet Wise Men or just Internet Wiseguys?

Disappear (with a little help from Microsoft)

Microsoft can make you disappear. I'm not talking about science fiction. Disappear in real life. In many ways, your life is a matter of public record. Or public records, plural. And if access to those public records disappears, you disappear (at least if you need something from government).

In the U.S. (and probably most countries), not enough attention is given to securing public records for future use. Paper records are bad enough. The situation is worse for electronic records.

The issue: long-term access to public information

The problem: governments are not doing enough to ensure future access to documents that created electronically and do not exist on paper.

Maybe you are thinking . . . so what?

Imagine that some government agency replaces a computer system or an IT company decides to change the software it sells to that agency, and "suddenly" one future day a civil servent helping you discovers that he/she can no longer access records on your social security, taxes, an application for a license, or a birth certificate. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe it's 10 or 20 years from now. There is no paper record. Only an electronic file that cannot be opened by that civil servant's computer, or anyone's computer. You have a problem.

Still not worried? Join the club. Neither are most governments. And this presents a huge risk to all of us. Governments create thousands of digital documents (and videos of public hearings and speeches) every day. Fortunately, a few people are thinking about it. Doug Robinson, the executive director of the National Association of State CIOs (NASCIO) spoke yesterday about the failure of most U.S. states to address protection of digital public records.

One answer: open data formats. Did I just get too technical for you? It's not that hard.

Most documents people create on their computers use Microsoft. They save it in .doc or .xls or .ppt. Those are the formats -- the envelope around the document you created. And, Microsoft owns that envelope (or format). They can change it, start selling a new format bundled with computers or whatever. And at some point that could leave you (or a government) with a computer unable to access your documents saved in the old format.

Now your documents have effectively disappeared. You have effectively disappeared, at least in terms of accessing public records needed to get public services, personal information held by governments or public records you might want or need.

Pure fantasy? Think how fast technologies change. Can you still use those old floppy disks? How about your 8-track cassette tapes? Punch cards? That electronic hotel key you forgot to return? Are .doc files so different?

Who Isn't Promoting Outsourcing?

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates is singing the praises of outsourcing, now that he's outside the U.S. Bill, in Hanoi yesterday, spoke about Vietnam's global outsourcing potential, noting its winning formula of high literacy, growth rates, young population and growing IT skills.

It caught my attention since I am now in Saudi Arabia (which explains the Photo of the Day on the right) working with its Ministry of Communications & Information Technology and e-Government Program to develop a framework for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in e-government.

Outsourcing and PPPs are hot, even in countries like Saudi that are flush with cash. Even where it is politically sensitive--like the U.S.--outsourcing is one aspect of the unstoppable force we call globalization. The question is: does it deliver the benefits expected of it?

The Case for Net Neutrality -- Part 2

Opponents of net neutrality had their arguments aired in my last post.

Now net neutrality supporters answer back ...

Part 2: Arguments for Net Neutrality

Let us be clear: The Internet will change profoundly without network neutrality. The question is: Will these changes be better or worse for consumers and innovation?

1. Money: Yes, companies have invested huge money in broadband infrastructure. No, net neutrality is not "internet socialism." Nor does it require a government taking of private property. We should treat the internet as basic public infrastructure and invest public funds in it, in this case to pay for the ability of all users to access any website on a non-discriminatory basis. This argument was made recently by Reed Hundt, former Chairman of the FCC (who also suggested to me that the FCC is best-placed to address net neutrality, if Congress will only let it).

Also, it is pure farce that the builders of the infrastructure are investing money without any return. The telcos and cable companies get paid every month by users of their broadband services. This will not change when new broadband is built. Users will still pay to use fast pipes, and they should still receive equally fast access to all websites on a non-discriminatory basis (even if monthly charges for broadband service rises). These companies simply want to take more money out of consumers' (and everyone else's) pockets. Oh, and those rights-of-way that the telcos and cable companies use to build their lines, they didn't pay for those. They were given to them free.

2. Market and Choice: It would nice if broadband were a truly competitive market. But it isn't. Choices are often limited to one or two providers, making it less free market and more oligopoly, characterized by intentionally complicated, opaque pricing. These companies are simply looking to migrate their oligopoly practices and profits to the Internet which is now killing the old telephone business and threatening cable's grip on video delivery.

When this happens, the current open, user-centric internet becomes a class system. Consumers will be hostages to access providers and their hidden prices. Innovators and young companies will also suffer. Premium fees for broadband will surely be a larger burden on them than incumbant companies.

Ask yourself this: could Google have grown its search services so quickly without equal access to customers? Would google be a verb if it had faced a world of tiered pricing from the beginning?

3. "Not Worth the Paper...": Verbal pledges by telcos and cable companies to avoid blocking or impairing competing services are not worth the paper they are printed on. It is comments by AT&T's Chairman, Ed Whitacre or those by Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, that clearly show true intentions -- to make companies pay extra for faster broadband service. They fully intend to turn the Internet into a multi-tiered world, and their "wait and see" attitude (backed by an army of lawyers and lobbyists) is only a tactic to buy more time before forcing tiered pricing onto consumers and companies.

4. Control: Eliminating net neutrality by definition puts more power over the Internet in the hands of telecom and cable companies. They own the infrastructure. They will have greater control over the "chokepoints" -- the pipes that deliver content and access to users. Telcos and cable companies will decide what standards should be used and how services (and content) are bundled. They will create complicated pricing options, forcing users and content companies to wrestle with decisions about content and prices.

"Pay one price" and the open Internet will be gone. Consumers will have to figure out what websites will be available with fast delivery and what will be accessed by the "slow lane." You want cheap access? Fine, but you only get content by Yahoo (thanks to some content deal between Yahoo and your cable company). Or only content on the slow lane. You want fast access to AOL content? Fine, pay more. And also Disney content? Fine, pay more. It will be a mess, unless you buy the full package (which won't be cheap).

Telcos and cable companies will control all options, and complicated business arrangements among telco/cable and content providers will dictate what's available, how fast and how much. Unless you are a small content company, in which case you may not be able to afford the price for fast delivery of your content to users. You and interested consumers will ride in the slow lane.

5. Innovation: Making the Internet more like cable TV is hardly the formula for innovation. How much has cable innovated in the last 20 years? Which has produced more innovation -- the last 10 years of the Internet or the last 20 years of cable TV? Innovation is best served by open access and the fewest market barriers (in price, technical standards, distribution, etc). Don't expect an increasingly consolidated telecom/cable industry to leave market barriers low for the internet.

Oligopolies love tollbooths and complex pricing schemes. And that's what will come for the Internet without net neutrality.

Level playing fields maximize competition and value for consumers. This is how the Internet has grown. This is how startups and upstarts have brought innovation to the Web and the world. And that is how the Internet should remain --- open and non-discriminatory.

Net Neutrality in the Trenches - Part 1

Before positions harden and trenches are dug, it's worth pausing to re-consider the net neutrality debate. The issue is drawing fresh commentary from all kinds of people -- former FCC Chairmen and maverick owners of NBA basketball teams. And it's about time. Certain technology issues demand public discussion. Net neutrality is that kind of issue.

To keep posts a reasonable length, let's do this in two parts. Pro and Con.

First, the Internet as we know it will change. Broadband, streaming video and multimedia content will bring new services and new user experiences. The flat Internet and its dumb pipes will evolve.

Part 1: Arguments against Net Neutrality

1. Money: Telcos are spending $15 billion a year on capital expenditures to build broadband networks enabling companies like Yahoo and Google to deliver video, voice, etc. to everyone who wants it. Why shouldn't these content providers pay for this? And why should websites that use little bandwidth effectively subsidize a company like Google, especially when it enjoys 50% profit margins?

2. Market: The Internet in the U.S. is a private, for-profit industry. The market has and should take care of these issues. People and companies will pay for services they want, and ignore services (and prices) they are unwilling to accept. With broadband, if a super "fast lane" is created, why shouldn't people pay for it, if they want it?

3. Choice: There will always be multiple ways of accessing the Internet. It is not like the cable industry, which is a government protected monopoly. So, consumers and companies will always have leverage to choose how (and at what price) they access the Internet. And competition is only expected to increase in the future.

4. Content Control: Content providers--especially those with rich multimedia content--will want more control over their property (e.g., videos), pricing and the consumer experience. The Internet is not built to distribute mass-market video. Partnering with cable companies to provide premium services (at premium fees) is the only reasonable approach. You can also call this the Mark Cuban Argument.

5. "If It Ain't Broke...": Cable and telephone companies have pledged not to block or impair the packet flow of competing services. This is the current situation, and that should be enough, especially if the FCC guards against anti-competitive actions.

6. Contract Hell: In reality, the Internet is a complex web of contracts among endless service and content providers. It is neither feasible nor wise to create inflexible rules that will force the revision of millions of contracts and risk major unintended effects, especially before any real problems have arisen.

Feel free to add any others you think are worth hearing . . .

Part II will lay out Arguments for Net Neutrality (including new comments from an FCC voice).

Net Neutrality: A Voice to be Heard

The former head of the Federal Communications Commission in the U.S., Reed Hundt, has something to say about "net neutrality." He is clear and to the point, and it's worth hearing his own words:

The purpose of competition is to create a bottleneck and extract rents... It should come as no surprise that the battle within the telephone industry is one where the proprietors assert a property interest in the network, they wish to create a private Internet, they wish to sell access and bundle on top of it content and conduit...

Access builders are not the proprietors of the Web, or the creators of the Web. They are just creators of pathways.

The debate we ought to have is this. From the perspective of the right national goal, do we want low cost, very robust high speed access to this public property or a very expensive limited toll booth?

Access builders say it’s private property, and they can charge high prices to the public park of the Internet. And maybe I should make it less appealing to participate in the public commons and more appealing to particiapte in the private commons I will create. It’s a less robust version of public property and more robust version of private property...

The rules and process [from the 1990s] were meant to empower users, to create a user-centric network where start-ups were subsidized by things like reciprical compensation, and the Internet was placed under the jurisdiction of common carriers...

The open net created by regulation and adjudicatory decisions was a revolution in society and a huge contributor to economic growth and rising wages. We have things now going in the other direction...

How would we like it if China had a non-neutral network? How would we enjoy it if China Telecom were to decide a highly discrimiantory approach was the right paradigm and American firms were not to get equal access, in China or other places under its influence?

[The U.S. is] the only country in the world that doesn’t see broadband as not being everywhere for everyone... We’re not committed to creating a high and rising standard of living with the single most important tool available, the Web. Everyone should have access... The protocols need to be open. We need open protocols. All networks should be able to connect at almost no price.

The full text of his speech (It's not long) can be found here, courtesy of Dana Blankenhorn.

Pardon the Interruption...

As readers know, I focus my blogging on leading technology issues of the day. Net neutrality. Open standards. e-Government. Open source. These are the nuts and bolts of this blog.

However, I just read a BBC news article that honestly left me stunned and saddened. And I must apologize from the start that one of the few times Africa is blogged here is to report such news. It's from Zimbabwe, a troubled nation if there ever was one.

I wish I was blogging about this photo... and the new opportunities opened for young Zimbabweans by computers and the Internet.

But instead the story is more about this photo... and how these children, in line for food relief, can expect the fullness of their lives to last less than 40 years. They will probably never use a computer or explore the Internet.

It's easy to forget sometimes that we have the luxury of fighting about net neutrality and open source and other tech matters of the day without worrying about our next meal.

Norway Out in the Open

The signs were there for anyone who was watching. The next mover and shaker for open technologies is... Norway. Its Ministry of Government Administration and Reform has announced its intention of breaking the lock-in of public information to proprietary data formats. (For you norwegian speakers, the offical press release is here).

While ODF is not mentioned by name (neither is Microsoft, though news articles couldn't resist portraying this as Norway and open source vs. MS), open data formats are clearly the driver of Norway's open standards plans.

Norway's main message is this: access to public information will not be dependent upon software owned by any IT company.

The Minister, Heidi Grande Røys, put it nicely in an interview with Norway's leading business newspaper:

It would be unthinkable to force Norwegians to use one telephone company when calling public offices. But that, in principle, is what we have allowed in the computer sector.

Norway's next step: setting up an experts panel to set standards on public information. One would expect OpenDocument Format and interoperability to be major topics of consideration.

Trains, Planes or Automobiles for the Net?

Net neutrality was put to a vote today in the U.S. Congress. Maybe you heard about it, maybe you didn't. (If not, read here). A net neutrality requirement was rejected by the Congressional subcommittee responsible for re-writing US telecommunications laws.

What does it mean? In the short term, it means that nothing stops telecom and cable companies from blocking or impairing web services and content that compete with the high-speed services of those who pay them premium fees.

Is this so bad? After all, the telcom / cable companies are investing big money to build broadband networks. If they will offer better, faster service, shouldn't companies pay more for that? Nothing wrong with people paying more to get more.

But, we should be clear. The Internet will not look the same after this. Today, the Internet is "flat" -- there is little difference in how quickly different websites and content get loaded and made available to consumers. You type in a website address, and it loads. If you paid for broadband access, you get the same broadband access to any website you want. From the user's perspective, all websites are equal.

That's not how it will work without net neutrality. That's not how it will work when the bill supported by the telecom / cable companies becomes law. When that day comes . . .

You, the consumer, pay for broadband (like you do today). You type in a website address. How fast will it load? That depends on whether the owner of that website paid a premium fee to the telecom / cable company to deliver its content and services on the "fast lane." If they did, you get it at the fastest broadband speed. If not, you get it at a slower speed. And that slow lane is going to get crowded as websites continue to proliferate globally.

The Internet will be a class system. And who decided this is how it should be? Telecom and cable companies. They will decide how, and how much. Why? Because they built the infrastructure.

It makes perfect sense . . . as long as you think that the Internet is more like an airplane than a highway.

We don't allow a two-tiered system to rule our roads. Why? Because we see roads as basic public infrastructure on which all users are equal. People don't pay the construction company more just to use the fast lane.

But, we do pay more to sit in business class on an airplane. Airplanes use a class system based on price. And seats are limited. And pricing is complicated. That is what the telecom / cable companies want for the Internet.

So, should we view the Internet as a public highway, or a private airline?

Feelin' Minnesota

Two respected colleagues Sam Hiser and Andy Updegrove have already blogged news of the bill tabled in Minnesota's state legislature to require the use of open standards by state agencies. In fact, it makes open standards the default, and uses the power of budget approval to give the policy real teeth.

Two points to note in the bill:

1. It sets a very high threshold for getting an exemption to the open standards requirement -- only when it is "technically impossible."

2. It aggressively seeks to break proprietary lock-in. State agencies will not be able to avoid switching to open data formats simply because they have existing data in proprietary formats or because they use certain software.

Additional media coverage can be found here.

Is Open Source Being Corrupted?

In a recent report/interview, Michael Goulde of Forrester Research rang the alarm bell about the risk of profit-hungry tech companies corrupting the "open" values of open source communities and projects.

His argument (summarized here) is: As companies try to cash in on the open source phenomena and become more active in open source projects, they have a strong motivation to steer those projects (and the software produced by them) in directions more amenable to generating revenues and less in line with the principles of freedom to use, copy, modify distribute that open source software represents.

The shorthand argument is this . . . Absolute community corrupts absolutely. As open source communities increasingly involve vendors, their presence (and profit motive) risks corrupting the basic principles of open source software.

So, will the quest for profits erode the "open" in open source?

To begin, I see no inherant contradiction between open source and profits. Many do. I don't. Access to source code combined with the open source principles allows someone to take code, change it, build new softare on top of it, and sell a new software product (or service wrapped around it). Open source licenses protect access to code, but don't stop people from building businesses around it.

The real risks exist when there is no robust community behind an open source project, or if a vendor is trying to "open source" some proprietary software but does not really want to relinquish control over its development. In other words, if you don't have a truly open community, there is a risk that a vendor can steer development or impose conditions inconsistent with an open source model. But then again, any person with appropriate technical expertise willing to be very active in a project can "steer" it to some degree.

I would guess that a strategy to co-opt an open source project would, in most cases, fail in the end. Open and closed work differently. And developers easily spot the difference once they get involved in a project.

There is a certain resiliency involved in open source projects that have a critical mass of community behind them. And it is not easy to remove the fundamental elements of open source -- like code access and basic licensing terms -- without people noticing, and complaining loudly.

You can find additional commentary organized by Dave Rosenberg of the OSDL (including some of my own) here.

A Business Case for OpenOffice & ODF

This is how ICT decisions should be made ... with a business case.

Here is one city's business case for the move to Star Office / OpenOffice for desktop computers. The city is Bristol (in the UK). And its business case includes a cost-benefit analysis of the switch to ODF.

So, the City of Bristol becomes #3 in the list of governments officially adopting ODF. Yesterday I blogged about #2, the National Archives of Australia (See below).

Open ePolicy Group's Roadmap Drives Gov

Just saw this article in The Nation, one of Thailand's biggest newspapers. Apparently, the Open ePolicy Group's work is having real impact helping governments openize ICT ecosystems. Thailand will build its own national roadmap based on the Roadmap for Open ICT Ecosystems.

ODF Finds a New Taker

You knew it would happen eventually . . . and eventually is now. A second government agency is making the move to OpenDocument Format (ODF).

For the details, we go Down Under.

The National Archives of Australia will switch to ODF, as reported here.

Not surprising that ODF government adopter #2 is a public agency that is a data-intensive user. Preservation of public records is a major public interest, and national archives, like libraries, are natural leaders in the switch to ODF. For them, the business case is clear. Only ODF assures them the ability to archive documents in a format that will be accessible using tomorrow's software, whatever that might be.

Put simply, ODF guarantees the longevity of public records.

Net Neutrality: Coming to a Politician Near You

Net neutrality is fast becoming a political football in Washington. Today, Democrats in Congress hit back against a Republican-backed telecom bill for its failure to protect net neutrality.

Jay Inslee, a Congressman from Washington, put his finger right on the button:

The ones that get hurt are the young innovators, the garage innovators, the small-business innovators, the ones that have not achieved the great success of the Googles of the world.

So far, the only excuse offered by Republicans against net neutrality is that no good definition exists. Feeble. Especially since their bill would prevent the FCC from trying to develop a workable definition, or considering any regulations on net neutrality. That's more than feeble; it's disingenuous.

Worse, the people who will feel the pain are consumers and all those entrpreneurs out there creating innovative content who won't be able to afford those "premium" fees the cable companies will soon be charging for life in the fast lane.

The Net Neutrality Hole

So, the battle over net neutrality is now joined in the U.S., as reported here.

The draft telecommunications legislation just released by the U.S. House Commerce Committee has opened a hole. And when it comes to laws, a hole is an invitation to fight. The only thing the legislation does is name the referee: the FCC.

The bill offers no rules or even principles about net neutrality, which is fine by telecom and cable companies. In their view, net neutrality is an answer in search of a problem, at best. And what they don't say is that they want the absolute right to divide up bandwidth to create new revenue streams by charging Internet content providers for "faster" delivery (i.e., loading) of the websites.

Here's my question: why was it a problem to state a simple principle of non-discrimination when it comes to Internet access? And then let the FCC enforce the principle based upon actual cases or anti-competitive activity.

Even that would have been a step forward from the situation today.

The FCC has issued a broad statement (available here) supporting competition among network, application, service and content providers. But it has not spoken with enough clarity to ensure the key to competition -- level playing fields. Worse, the FCC has no power to enforce this policy anyway. So, it's not only hopelessly vague, it's also toothless.

What do telecom and cable companies say? They pledge not to block any Internet content. Block. That hardly sounds comforting.

Every open ecosystem, including the Internet, rests on a few important principles, which include accessibility and non-discrimination. Unfortunately, I fear, these are exactly the "choke points" that telecoms and cable companies want to control. How? By controlling access to bandwidth and discriminating among content providers. To my mind, this sounds like it will have plainly anti-competitive effects on content providers, especially smaller Internet companies and individuals who create Web content.

I worry that the Internet will start to look like my cable TV -- expensive with few choices and limited content, compared to the Internet.

Maybe I'm wrong. I hope so.

But is it crazy to worry about net neutrality?

Net Neutrality -- Does It Matter?

Have you heard about "network neutrality?" If not, you will. And you should.

Warning: telecom and cable companies are real unhappy about it and prefer you remain ignorant about it.

Why should I care about "net neutrality?"

Picture this. You connect to the Internet. Today, you type any website address in your browser and it loads. Every website loads at the same speed. It only depends on the speed of your connection (and how many graphics are on it). It does not depend on which website you want.

Without net neutrality, that will change. Companies or people who pay the telecom/cable companies a higher fee will have their websites load faster. The rest will load at "normal" speed.

Sound familiar? It should. It's basically how the cable TV business works. Cable companies control which channels you can watch and at what price. You pay $X for the basic service, $X+Y for premium service and $X+Y+Z1 for each additional premium channel you want. Oh, and different premium channels have different prices. Confusing?

But wait, there's more bad news! If you had an idea for a new TV program or someone filmed a new show, you could never see it unless a TV network AND a cable company both agreed to broadcast it. Cable TV has few public access channels. Blogs, podcasting, personal TV channels do not exist on cable TV. They never will. Cable is a totally proprietary model.

So why do telecoms and cable companies want to change how the Internet currently works? Money. New revenue steams.

They claim that they will take nothing away from current Internet access; they are just adding a new, additional service for those who want more. They compare it to a 2-lane highway -- there is one lane for cars going at normal speeds and one lane for cars wanting to go faster. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Well... Do you have to pay more on most highways to drive in the fast lane? No. Does every highway have a toll? No. Furthermore, how much choice for cable or telecom do you really have?

Where I live in Washington, DC there is only one cable company. And I cannot choose which channels I want; I can only choose among the packages offered by my cable company. Even with the cheapest, basic service I pay for lots of channels I don't want and never watch. But I still have to pay for them if I want access to the few channels I do want. One company, limited choices. That's lock-in. It's bad for consumers and bad for companies who want to offer new content and services to consumers. That's why the Internet has grown so much faster than cable TV globally.

The Internet faces few barriers from government or industry. It is based on open standards and non-discriminatory access. That is the best formula for innovation and growth -- for consumers and companies.

Yes, defining net neutrality will be difficult. But the principle is right and best serves our public interest --- our need --- for equal access to the Internet and all the content that the human mind can create. It leaves plenty of room for all kinds of innovation and proprietary business. But it ensures that the foundation of the Internet remains accessible, open, and non-proprietary.

ODF Gets Organized

If OpenDocument Format ends up as the dominant file format in the world, it won't be by accident. It will be the result of an organized effort to show people that open data formats are an issue of public interest, of national interest. And more people need to hear about it.

A new global alliance of organizations, universities and companies -- the ODF Alliance -- has formed. Its major focus is on government adoption of ODF.

If you have seen this blog, you have heard the arguments in favor of ODF:

* assuring access to public records today and tomorrow

* guaranteeing that you own and control the documents you create (free from interference by any company)

* saving money by allowing you to avoid costly upgrades imposed by companies just so you can keep accessing your documents, and by giving you more software choices.

Cost. Control. Access to public information. Preservation of public records.

Who should care about these issues?

Everybody. Consumers, libraries, local governments, politicians, companies, international relief organizations, the media, schools.

The ODF Alliance will be a global partnership. Members come from all over the world -- Norway, India, U.S., Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Mexico, Germany and Austria. It is open to any organization, company and government.

Give them a visit and see for yourself. Take control over your information.

Here's my question . . .

If you receive a work-related email at 11 PM on a Saturday night, do you answer it?

Why do I ask?

I was thinking about this as I read a story about how people are working more, but accomplishing less, according to a new study.

The reason? Technology. It makes things move faster -- information, communications, products -- but it also crowds up our days with more stuff to deal with, which slows us down. It makes it harder to focus on one thing. It's also pushing work into our personal time.

A friend recently commented how emails and instant messaging were destroying the line between work and personal in his life. He was receiving work emails late at night, and felt the need to answer them even though it was his time at home.

My line between work time and personal time has broken down completely. I tend to answer emails (work or personal) based on how busy I feel, how much time it will take to reply and what else I have to do at that moment. But I don't feel that a work email is infringing on my private time. Maybe because my line between work and private does not depend on a clock. It's all a mix for me.

So, would you answer that work email on a Saturday night?

Collaboration, not code, is the key!

I say this in every presentation on the Roadmap for Open ICT Ecosystems when I discuss open source software: Collaboration, not code, is the key. Ultimately, the long-term power and impact of open source is not access to the code; it is the power of collaboration.

Yes, open source can save money. Yes, open source can give users greater control over their software. But changes in the proprietary model for software could close the gap with open source on these issues (e.g., vendors could cut costs, improve interoperability using open standards, provide controlled access to source code, or unbundle software so users don't have to buy functionality they don't need).

BUT, there is one thing that the proprietary model cannot duplicate: open collaboration. Why? Because this means giving up control, and they won't do that.

Enter open source as a model for collaboration.

Don't take my word for it. Examples are everywhere. Like . . . in Colorado. A lovely state. A few of its smallest towns may be the next hotbed for open technologies, as reported here. This is not happening in some big city with a huge IT department. It is happening in a rural, sparsely populated part of the state. Two towns and one county are building out e-government services together. By collaborating, pooling resources and development efforts, they move faster, save money and control their own destiny.

Don't believe me? Read the interview with Kent Morrison, IT Manager for the town of Steamboat Springs, Colorado. He put it very simply:

If you buy from a big company, you can get through to support people and they will answer your questions. But what if the company says it's releasing another version this year and you have migrate to it, because in another year they will abandon the previous version. You are forced to upgrade.

For example, we have a particular [proprietary] product that we have used for a couple of years. It's a fine product, but the manufacturer told us a year ago that there is a required upgrade that will cost us $15,000. I put that in the budget for 2006, but the city council says we can't afford it. The manufacturer does its best to provide support, but I'm literally running an obsolete product because I couldn't afford an upgrade.

There it is. Collaboration. Cost. Control. The keys to the kingdom that open technologies offer.

Consumers and ODF

Usually, consumers and technology do not mix well. Like oil and water.

But, once in a while, there are things that all of us need to pay attention to. They may sound techie, but really they are big issues of public interest.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of joining a roundtable, organized by the Consumer Project on Technology, with a roomful of people representing consumer groups in the U.S.

The topic of discussion: Why consumers should care about OpenDocument Format?

As we heard at the meeting, consumers care most about a few things: cost, convenience, access to public information. Consumers don't want to care until they have to care.

So what does this mean for ODF? To begin, as one person suggested, the discussion needs to focus first on the problems, not the solutions. And real problems do exist. Here are 3 examples:

1. How can we guarantee access to public information and records today and tomorrow?

Governments already have a problem with the "digital decay" of electronic public records. Freedom of information means nothing if future access to public records is not assured. Preservation of public information and digitial records is a pressing problem already.

2. How can we guarantee the every person truly owns and controls the documents they create?

Right now, you do not own your documents. Maybe you create a letter, a report, a spreadsheet or a presentation on your computer. When you save it, your file has a .doc or .xls or .ppt at the end of its name. BUT, you do not own .doc, .xls or .ppt. One company owns them. And therefore, one company controls access to the documents that YOU created with your own hands and your own information. What happens if that company raises its prices? Or changes the terms for accessing your documents? Or goes out of business? Or forces you to buy new software (that you don't need) just to use your documents again? You have a problem, and no choices.

3. Why do I have to keep buying new software and paying more money when I don't need it?

For most people, the answer is simple and sad: because you have no choice if you want to use the documents you created and be able to share them with other people. There is an unnatural monopoly over documents in the world. And when the company who owns all our documents (because it owns .doc, .xls and .ppt) says you must "upgrade", then you must upgrade if you want to use your documents ever again. That is NOT an "upgrade" -- that is blackmail. And you -- the consumer -- pay for it.

We need to talk about these things in plain english, without techie talk.

And we need to be talking to groups who should care about these problems -- like ...

* consumer groups
* libraries
* international relief organizations
* schools and universities
* election organizations
* local governments
* media organizations
* other groups that care about freedom of information

All of these groups rely upon large amounts of information and documents and access to public records. All of them should be worried about the problems mentioned above. All of them should start talking about how to solve these problems.

And ODF will likely be part of that discussion.

California Considers Open Source for Elections

Today -- Wednesday, February 8th -- a committee of the California State legislature, chaired by State Senator Debra Bowen, held a hearing to discuss the possibility of using open source software for elections.

Smart idea. For too long there has been inadequate attention to the architecture of election infrastructure. New technologies can be used to make voting easier, faster, more secure and transparent. But proprietary machines and software are not the best answer.

Electronic voting machines should run open source software AND produce paper records of all votes. It's as simple as that.

The case for open source here is compelling. There is no other way for government AND the public to be 100% certain that the software is secure, without flaws enabling abuse, and produces accurate (and verifiable) results. There is no second place here.

And once again, a state in the U.S. is stepping forward to seriously consider mandating open technologies for critical public services. Like voting.

California's State CIO, J. Clark Kelso, has gone beyond that, however. In September 2005, he established an Open Source Working Group composed of IT managers from 10 state departments.

Why?

According to California's 2004 Performance Review, open source is not just about cost savings. “Since the code is open, it offers the flexibility for organizations to modify the code as needed for specific uses. . . Open source can [also] provide superior security than closed source." Words to live by.

There it is. Cost, flexibility and security. The case for open technologies.

A National Campaign for Open Standards

My last blog entry highlighted a call to arms -- or open technologies -- for governments by Mark Shuttleworth, Ubuntu's founder.

And now, almost on cue, I find a government that has stepped up in a big way. Thailand. The Thai government, led by its National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC), has launched a national campaign to promote open standards and open ICT ecosystems.

Thailand is serious about open technologies. They have established an inter-agency Working Group to coordinate its efforts nationally.

As I blogged earlier here, there is similar political movement afoot in Europe at the national level, notably by Denmark and Norway.

Shuttleworth to Gov: Get in the Game!

I speak frequently about the need for governments to take affirmative steps to open their ICT ecosystems. This is a major point in the Open ePolicy Group's Roadmap for Open ICT Ecosystems.

This idea was echoed yesterday by Mark Shuttleworth, Ubuntu's founder, at a speech in the Philippines.

The Roadmap urges governments to increase the presence of open source in ICT ecosystems. This does not mean mandating open source in all cases. It does mean mandating choice in public procurement -- combined with actions that will increase the competitiveness of open source. Advocacy by governments, as Mark Shuttleworth urged, is one key step.

Who Owns Your Documents?

This is important! Ask yourself this question . . .

When you create a Word document, an Excel spreadsheet or a Powerpoint presentation, do you own that document?

Maybe you wrote a letter. Or a presentation for a meeting. You did it on your computer with your own hands. It is your information you put into the document. But when you saved your document, the name of your file ends with .doc or .xls or .ppt.

You don't own .doc, .xls or .ppt

One company owns them. Microsoft.

So, it is your information you wrote, but do you own the document you created?

Who controls access to your information?

ODF's Biggest Disability

Wider acceptance and adoption of the OpenDocument Format (ODF) faces one major hurdle -- access for people with disabilities. This must be addressed quickly for ODF to take advantage of its head-start on Office Open XML. Access for disabled people is a deal-breaker for ODF. Without it, ODF is dead in water, politically. Fortunately, the issue is being addressed . . .

Andy Updegrove recently offered an update:

Disability issues: The ability of ODF to match, or surpass, the capacity of MS Office to accommodate those with disabilities remains an important test for implementation. Last week, Thomas Trimarco, the Massachusetts Secretary of Administration and Finance, delivered a [message] to representatives of the community of persons with disabilities stating that an evaluation will be made in mid 2006 to determine whether applications supporting ODF are likely to provide an acceptable alternative to MS Office for State employees with disabilities. If that need is not met by mid 2006, then the effective date of ODF implementation will be lagged as necessary until it is judged adequate to this task.

Meanwhile, work continues within OASIS to give final approval to and launch the new working group which will be chartered to facilitate use of applications supporting ODF by those with disabilities.

The Case for ODF

As you may have noticed, I have written several times about the need to raise awareness -- especially among consumers and users of technology as well as politicians -- of the value (and need) for open standards. This is especially true for open file formats like OpenDocument Format. The next 2 years are crucial for this.

Sam Hiser has made another valuable contribution to this effort today with his article in the Financial Times -- Progress Toward Openness is Being Watched Carefully.

The article clearly lays out the high value of ODF for data-senstive users like libraries and, yes, governments. Sam also offers a sharp distinction betweeen a truly open standard like ODF and a less-than-open standard like Microsoft's Office Open XML.

So, what will help spread awareness of the value of open standards? What groups can be engaged that are not yet part of this important dialogue? What are your thoughts?

Peter Quinn speaks

For those of you interested in reading the first full interview with Peter Quinn, former CIO of the State of Massachusetts, here is his interview with Groklaw.

In it, he discusses the politics of ODF in Massachusetts very frankly as well as offers some predictions on fate of ODF as public policy.

Carpe Consumers

One thing that the battle in Massachusetts over open standards and OpenDocument Format shows is the importance and power of consumers. Politicians listen when large consumer and citizen groups speak out. It is no accident that one of the main arguments used against ODF was its use would create new barriers to access by disabled citizens. This is a serious concern, and must be addressed quickly. The issue also highlights a larger problem . . .

Consumers and user groups are often little engaged in the open standards debate. They often feel that these are "techie" issues of no concern to them. This needs to change. The value and benefits of open standards need to be presented in ways that speak directly to the needs of real people. Advocates of open standards need to do a much better job of this.

In my presentations on the Roadmap for Open ICT Ecosystems, I begin with a discussion of how the lack of open standards caused real problems in bringing emergency relief to tsunami victims in Thailand. If you are interested, the audio of my most recent presentation at an Open Standards Conference in Denmark is available here.

Next month, I will speak to several major U.S. consumer groups about the importance and value of open standards. The lunch meeting is being organized by the Consumer Project on Technology. Representatives from the Computer and Communications Industry Association, U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the Consumers Union will join us.

So here's my question: how can you get consumer groups interested in open standards?

How about you readers in Denmark? I see you checking this blog. So . . .
What consumer and public interest groups can you bring into the discussion?
How can you convince them to support open standards and ODF?

Local Governments Go Open

Here is the latest EU FLOSSpols survey reporting on the use of open source software by local governments in the European Union

Open source usage by local governments in the EU:

Spain 97.5%
Austria 96.4%
Italy 95.7%
Germany 89.9%
Sweden 83.6%
Belgium 83.3%
AVERAGE 78.7%
France 76.3%
Netherlands 55.3%
UK 32.1%
Greece 29.7%

Other interesting findings include:

Open source users administer 35% more PCs per IT administrator than non-users – its use appears to reduce administrator workload per PC. More proof of the TCO advantage of open source.

49% of local government authorities knowingly use some open source.

An additional 30% report using open source (such as GNU/Linux, MySQL or Apache) but did not know that these were open source.

Licence fees account for 20% of IT budgets. Half of all respondents find this too high.