Princeton Professor Ed Felten has an interesting piece about a tussle going on between the EU and the U.S. over control of the Internet. European countries surprised the U.S. last Wednesday by suggesting that an international body, and not the U.S., have control over certain Internet functions.
Right now, the U.S. Commerce Department approves changes to the Internet’s “root zone files,” which are adminstered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, a nonprofit organization based in Marina del Rey, California. Although this responsibility primarily governs naming, the EU countries cite it is an example of why a new body is needed to “set principles for running the Internet,” a much broader goal.
Felten fears that if the U.S. disagrees with the internationalization of the Internet, a split could emerge between ICANN and a newly formed body he calls UNCANN. Such a split could force two different classes of names, with the potential for neither set of names to work with the others.
But the bigger concern is the seeming anti-American sentiment driving the EU countries (no real big surprise). As Felten points out, this is a very reasonable concern, given the sentiment expressed in a Register editorial. Here’s an excerpt from that editorial:
America is a nation with an insular majority that is easily hijacked by minorities or companies with cash to buy politicians. Currently the religious right in the US has a scary amount of power. They are even trying to kick teaching evolution out of schools because they don’t think the Bible approves of it. This would be OK if they only tortured the people who voted for them. But with control of the Internet these groups can leverage the US government to spread their loony message throughout the world. We have already seen how 30 or so letters from a single right wing Christian group to a US government agency has stopped the .xxx domain dead in its tracks. The question is, why should people in Europe have to accept moral standards imposed on them by the US which seems to get its knickers in a twist about wardrobe failures of stars during football matches.Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 10:16 PM | Print | Comments (0)
The term Web 2.0 gets bandied about indiscriminately, but the proclaimed originator of the term, Tim O’Reilly, has a new, extended explanation of Web 2.0 that is must-reading for anyone in the broad communications realm — Internet, cable, telco, wireless, satellite, whatever. Although O’Reilly tilts his text to software developers, he has managed to succinctly spell out the fundamental nature of the Internet now, as opposed to the Internet in 2001, or even the Internet as of one year ago.
Penned on the eve of his sold-out Web 2.0 conference, O’Reilly encapsulates the rise of the web as a platform for the creation of services, not packaged software, one which harnesses collective intelligence through user feedback. Web 2.0 companies, such as Google and Overture, have built their fortunes by understanding the “long tail,” the collective power of the web’s small sites, as opposed to AdClick, a veritable Web 1.0 company, which sought to sell to a small group of large sites.
Most intriguing for anyone in the online publishing business is the power of RSS, which is an active form of “subscribing” to a site, compared to “bookmarks,” a passive means of tracking content typical of the 1.0 era. Content, too, is now more dynamic, not only with database-backed sites that are continually updated, but also an extensive system of links across sites.
Databases, as opposed to mere technology, are the key to Web 2.0, with Google, Amazon, eBay, MapQuest, Napster (in its earliest form) all emblems of the power of data.
O’Reilly offers many other characteristics of Web 2.0 companies, such as aiming applications at multiple devices, not just PCs, and using lightweight, flexible tools such as XML and PHP. After walking throught these characteristics, he recaps what he believes the chief features of a Web 2.0 company are:
In exploring the seven principles above, we’ve highlighted some of the principal features of Web 2.0. Each of the examples we’ve explored demonstrates one or more of those key principles, but may miss others. Let’s close, therefore, by summarizing what we believe to be the core competencies of Web 2.0 companies: Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them:Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 8:26 PM | Print | Comments (0)-Trusting users as co-developers
-Harnessing collective intelligence
-Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service
-Software above the level of a single device
-Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models
The next time a company claims that it’s “Web 2.0,” test their features against the list above. The more points they score, the more they are worthy of the name.
Published reports about Google’s San Francisco WiFi proposal suggest the company is exploring what would essentially be a new model for broadband access, a model Google seems particularly well positioned to pursue.
In such a model, Google would use a wireless network to provide free 300 kbps access coupled with a mix of Google-delivered location-based services, including ad-supported search and integrated communications. Users would not pay for these services, nor would the government of the municipality in which the network was deployed. Google would also wholesale network capacity to other service providers.
According to Om Malik’s reading of the Google WiFi proposal:
[T]he company says it will be offering wholesale access to other service providers, who will offer higher throughput connections to their customers. Google says it plans to use its own authentication services. (That explains the Google WiFi VPN client to some extent)…The Google Talk implications on a free network are quite far reaching, if you ask me.
The New York Times’ John Markoff also picks up on the wholesale aspect of the proposal, though he uses the term “premium services” rather than “higher throughput connections.”
The company said its service would be an “open” one and added that it had proposed wholesaling wireless bandwidth to third parties that might be interested in selling premium services.According to the Wall Street Journal:
[Google] is especially interested in testing out future services and advertising systems that take advantage of knowing a user’s location, which would be possible through offering such wireless Internet access.Om conveys a sense of what Google and city officials might be thinking:
“San Francisco will be a true test bed for location based services and applications,” says Chris Sacca, principal of new business development at Google. While the initial use of location-based services might be limited to more-focused and targeted advertising, the potential of location-based services is immense, officials said. Sacca pointed out that the network bid was in line with Google’s thinking on delivering answers anytime anywhere to anyone, and looking beyond a desktop PC.The San Francisco Chronicle cites skeptical comments from an Earthlink executive, who questions Google’s qualifications and the viability of its “free-service” model. His comments also highlight the difference between this potential Google-Access model and today’s subscription-based broadband access and ISP models.
Donald Berryman, EVP and president of municipal networks for Earthlink, questioned if Google had the know-how to be an Internet service provider. He said providing the deal for free is also not sustainable in the long run.
“We’ve looked into free service and we haven’t found a model where free works,” said Berryman. “At some point free becomes less sustainable because there’s no way to upgrade service and the networks when no one’s paying for it.”
But the Chronicle also quotes Chuck Haas, CEO of MetroFi, which runs two WiFi networks in Cupertino and Santa Clara:
[Haas] said the idea of free service is not entirely far-fetched. He said his company submitted a proposal in which wireless broadband would be free across San Francisco but would be paid for with ads and would have no technical support or services for users. For $19.99 a month, subscribers would get enhanced service with no ads and customer support.
“I believe we’ll have enough people that want full security and customer support with no ads that we could make money,” Haas said. “But no matter who the city chooses, I don’t think the city will have to pay for this network.”
Google’s move to enter the broadband access market could even impact developments in Congress, which is considering various approaches to a Telecom Act rewrite. Among the more contentious issues addressed by various draft bills are network neutrality, municipal broadband and privacy, all of which are raised—and with a somewhat novel twist—by Google’s WiFi proposal.
The move also comes at a time when Google faces increasing competition in its core search advertising business, including Microsoft’s recent launch of a system that, according to the NYT, “allow[s] marketers to aim ads on Web search pages to users based on their sex, age or location.”
Google argues that it does not need to use demographic data to direct its advertisements, as traditional advertising requires, because Web searchers can directly indicate what they may want to buy through their search queries. “We are very heavy on user privacy,” said Tim Armstrong, the vice president for advertising at Google. “So our way of targeting advertising relies heavily on what we know about the content people are looking for.” He added that Google does take other variables into account, like the time of day and the location of the user, but Google’s technology does this automatically to make the process simpler for the advertiser.
Armstrong may have a point. Who needs demographic data when you can track every click of every network user and know exactly where and when each keystroke is made as today’s increasingly mobile online population goes about its day?…I don’t know if that’s really cool, really scary or both.
Posted by Mitch Shapiro at 2:14 PM | Print | Comments (0)As part of Mayor Gavin Newsom’s TechConnect initiative, Google has submitted a proposal to offer free Wi-Fi across the city of San Francisco, according to a spate of reports. Google’s proposal confirms, at least in part, speculation first surfaced by Om Malik that the Internet giant is eyeing full-fledged entry into the wireless broadband access business.
While the service would be free to all, an offer that other bidders in the city Wi-Fi contest would be hard pressed to meet, the speed of the offering is 300 kbps, far slower than most DSL or cable modem options. Google is already offering Wi-Fi services in Union Square and in Bryant Park, New York City.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 9:44 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
