Category Archives: ideas

Bill Fitler has put together an interesting page of CodeLaws, by which he means technology designed to implement some sort of policy. The list is an important step is mapping all the ways in which behavior gets regulated. He’s eager (as am I) for any input to make the list more complete. His weblog is here. Continue reading →

A kind-hearted email and a nice analysis of spam have given me an idea:

First the analysis: Philip Jacob has a great piece about spam and RBLs. The essay not only identifies the many problems with RBLs, but it nicely maps a mix of strategies that could be considered in their place. But, alas, missing from the list is one I’ve pushed: A law requiring simple labeling, and a bounty for anyone who tracks down spammers violating the law.

Then I got an email from a kind soul warning me about my work�”do you know how powerful your enemies are?” this person asked. No, I thought, I don’t, but let’s see. If I’ve got such powerful enemies, then I’ve got a good way to do some good.

Here goes: So (a) if a law like the one I propose is passed on a national level, and (b) it does not substantially reduce the level of spam, then (c) I will resign my job. I get to decide whether (a) is true; Declan can decide whether (b) is true. If (a) and (b) are both true, then I’ll do (c) at the end of the following academic year.

So: Is there anyone else advancing a spam solution who would offer this kind of warranty? Continue reading →

If you want to get an idea about how bad the broadband future will be, you need only read this letter from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association describing how good (from their perspective) the broadband future will be. NCTA wrote this letter to the FCC to criticize a letter filed by the Coalition of Broadband Users and Innovators. This Coalition, which includes Microsoft and Disney, told the FCC that it needed to assure that broadband remain neutral�that carriers not be permitted to discriminate in the service they offer based on the application or content the user wants.

This letter from the Coalition was great and important moment in the debate about broadband. I’ve been critical of Microsoft and Disney in the past, but they deserve all the credit in the world for taking up this fight. If neutrality is lost in the broadband platform, that means the end-to-end design of the internet will be lost as well. And that would profoundly weaken the potential for innovation and growth on the network.

The NTCA letter confirms the worst. After arguing at first that they are providing neutral service anyway (a claim which itself is false: have you checked your TOS re: servers?), they then go on to defend their right to discriminate however they wish. And they defend it by pointing to Microsoft: If Microsoft is allowed to cut special deals with partners, why shouldn’t the cable companies?

The level of ignorance here is astounding. We are four years into this debate, and apparently the cable companies have yet to even understand the argument they are attacking. The difference between Microsoft bundling products at the edge of the network, and the cable companies bundling preferred service in the middle of the network, is the difference between an end-to-end network and the Ma Bell network the internet replaced. This letter confirms that the cable companies do not begin to understand the value of end-to-end neutrality. It confirms precisely the claim of the Coalition: that left to its own devices, the dominant broadband provider in America (slow and expensive though it may be) sees no reason in the world why it shouldn’t corrupt the basic internet design.

Robert Sachs, president of the NCTA, is an extraordinarily bright man. He is also apparently a very busy man, for there is no way he could have written the letter he signed. The NCTA should spend some more money hiring press people who have taken the time to understand the arguments they want to rebut.

Meanwhile, we, broadband users of America, need to wake up to the broadband environment four years of do-nothing-ness have produced. �Open access� has been a failure in the United States (though a total success in Japan, where competition has driven prices down and service up: 100 mbs at $50 a month); the cable companies are, as we said four years ago, the single dominant provider of broadband in America. Their service is slow; it is getting more expensive; and now they claim the right to corrupt the basic design of the network they increasingly own. My last book was pessimistic: It was not pessimistic enough. Continue reading →

The battle to build and keep broadband neutral is an important issue to me. I go a couple rounds on the FT.COM site about it here. Maybe it is just me, but these debates are never satisfying. The thrust of Tom Hazlett’s final response is that cable is much better than DSL, so don’t regulate cable. On cable, see the next post. But even ignoring the logic of the claim, we should not forget: However good cable is, does it begin to match the broadband options available elsewhere. Again, here in Japan: 100 mbs for $50 a month; 12 mbs for about half that. What cable company comes even close to that? Continue reading →

Doc reports being Comfort[ed] by free-IP. Soon hotels will post “Free IP” on their signs, and just as “Free TV” signs seems silly to us today, an optimistic sort might imagine our kids laughing in the future, “how silly, of course IP is free.” If only we could find optimism… seesupra. Continue reading →

We’re holding a conference on March 1 at Stanford about spectrum policy. If that sounds boring, then you really need to pay a bit more attention to the next extraordinarily important policy issue affecting innovation and growth. There is about to be a very significant shift in how spectrum is managed. One school says it should be propertized; another says it should be treated as a commons. Read: auctions vs. WiFi; or more auctions vs. mesh networks. The question for the conference is which model makes most sense. The day will end with a “moot court” which will be judged by FCC Chairman Powell, Judge Alex Kozinski, economist Harold Demsetsz, and possibly Senator Barbara Boxer. Go here to learn more. Continue reading →

Declan has a nice article which cozies up a bit more to the idea of Geeks (and geeks-wanna-bes, like me) getting more involved in the political process. That’s progress from where he was last summer. But I was surprised to read his criticism this morning of Amnesty International, which has criticized those who provide technology to enable Chinese censorship. Declan thinks it better for AI to “focus its otherwise good work on the real culprits: The Chinese government.” Apparently, while Geeks are unlikely to persuade Washington to call off the war that is killing IT, AI is likely to persuade China to reform civil rights. Continue reading →

At a Tokyo conference on Intellectual Property Rights of Software and Open Source (hey, I didn’t pick the title), Msft General Counsel Brad Smith makes a strong and repeated defense of “neutrality” in the “software ecosystem.” I’m the other half of the presentation, but you can skip my part (especially because my hair is weird and I mumbled alot)…. Continue reading →

Aaron’s got a reformulation of my escrow-the-code argument which is cleaner, tighter, and more persuasive. We’ve asked to have him re-present my argument in Eldred, but apparently one must be over 15 to argue in the Supreme Court. (Oops, today’s his birthday. We’ll have to ask again…)… Continue reading →

Ted’s latest (and his patience with me is wearing, so perhaps sadly, his last), makes a passionate argument against my source code escrow idea, based on the nature of software and the creativity that builds it. I realize I must have somewhere inspired this debate about “nature.” I renounce it. No more talk about nature, or the philosophy of creativity. My argument is simple (maybe simplistic, maybe naive) pragmatism…. Continue reading →