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.