ODF Heal Thyself

It looks like OASIS is taking biblical advice with regard to the Opendocument Format. Access for people with disabilities is ODF's potential Achilles heel, a deal-breaker for most governments who need to (and should) assure access to public records and data for employees and citizens with disabilities.

The OASIS ODF Accessibility Subcommittee has just issued its accessibility assessment of the ODF 1.0 specification, available publicly here.

The report's Executive Summary lays out a roadmap for ODF to meet or exceed accessability of any file format:

The ODF Accessibility Subcommittee has identified 9 accessibility issues in ODF 1.0, and proposes candidate solutions to them. With these changes, we believe that ODF will meet or exceed the accessibility support provided in all other office file formats as well as that specified in the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0.

Furthermore, these modifications will enable ODF to support the authoring of DAISY digital talking books, a worldwide standard used by blind, low vision, learning disabled, and other print impaired communities.

The recommended changes address:

* Alternative text for non-text objects (3 recommendations)
* Proper association of captions to captioned content
* Encoding of pagination information
* Preservation of table semantic structure imported from other file formats
* Proper encoding of authored table header content
* Author-defined logical navigation of page objects in presentations
* Provision of alternative text hints for hyperlinks

Furthermore, we request that the appropriate text be added to the ODF specification to indicate how this accessibility meta data is mapped by the authoring tool to a platform accessibility API as well as their accessibility applicability in the specification.

To fully address the needs of people with disabilities in using ODF, an ODF application must meet a number of accessibility requirements as well. ODF application developers should be provided with implementation guidelines to meet these requirements.

In other words, in solving any problems with ODF usability by people with disabilities, OASIS is on it.

Looking for IT Leaders? Try Denmark

There is big news about to break on the IT policy front, and it comes from Denmark.

It is expected that tomorrow the Danish Parliament will approve a bill to require the government to use open standards beginning January 1, 2008. This is unofficial at the moment, but a majority in Parliament will apparently vote in favor of the motion, orginally tabled by Morten Helveg Petersen.

John Gotze offers an excellent summary of the motion (in english).

During the motion's initial debate there was enormous resistence from the Minister of Science and no commitment from the Liberal-Conservative government for an open standards law. But two developments changed the political balance. As blogged by John Gotze, the pro-government, conservative Danish People's Party came out in support the motion. And a Danish daily newspaper published a previously secret internal government report that recommended mandating open standards to ensure interoperability, even if specific an economic cost/benefit analysis was not yet possible. The tide turned, and the Helveg Petersen Motion has apparently found a majority.

Two specific points to note with the Danish bill:

1. It will incorporate open standards into public procurement of IT.

2. It specifically says that all digital information and data that the public sector exchanges with citizens, companies and institutions, should be in open standards- based formats. It does not mention the OpenDocument Format, but ODF clearly meets the requirements of this law regarding public documents.

Although the implementation of an open standards mandate will depend on numerous issues of technical feasibility differing from standard to standard, there is no doubt that its impact will be far-reaching.

Count Denmark along with the State of Massachusetts as the two leading governments in IT policy.

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.