Author: john

Malamud’s list of 10 rules for radicals

10 Rules for Radicals: Lessons from rogue archivist Carl Malamud – Boing Boing

I can’t recommend this enough for anyone interested in Internet history, politics, hardware, or law.

Rogue archivist Carl Malamud’s 10 Rules for Radicals is the transcript of his keynote at the 19th World Wide Web Consortium conference in 2010. It’s a thrilling and often hilarious account of his adventures in liberating different kids of information and networks from various bureaucracies in his storied and exciting career. Malamud has instigated the liberation of American law, the Blue Book describing the workings of the telephone system, the EDGAR database, the video archives of the National Technical Information Service, and many others.

AT&T Weighs In

I couldn’t have said this any better myself.

Now that we’re going from wired to wireless, these same folks don’t want “the open Web” to happen to them again all over again. If they have to compete in an open marketplace, with the best applications and services on neutral ground, well, they’ll just be consigned, once again, to a commodity service layer with low margins. That’s their greatest nightmare.

Be sure to check out this short but insightful post: AT&T Weighs In: Trust Us, We Know What You Want – John Battelle’s Searchblog.

The skinny on Google + Verizon

Google released the details of their talks with Verizon (Google Public Policy Blog: A joint policy proposal for an open Internet).  On the whole their proposal doesn’t sound all that bad. There is, however, one potentially dangerous point:

Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services such as Verizon’s FIOS TV offered today.

At a glance, this sounds perfectly reasonable.  Yet, what this might effectively do is create a system of multiple networks–or multiple internets.  One of the greatest strengths of the Internet is the fact that it’s one big happy network (though admittedly less happy along the backbone where peering can be problematic).  Assuming that these innovative networks interconnect with the greater internet, we may end up right back where we started: with companies that run the wires in ways that are best for the bottom line. I’m not that convinced that’s the best way to run the network.

Edit: Looks as though I largely agree with Public Knowledge’s take on the situation.

Hopefully not as bad as it sounds

Google and Verizon in Talks on Selling Internet Priority – NYTimes.com.

Google and Verizon are discussing an agreement where Google would pay for preferential treatment on Verizon’s network. I hope Google has some larger strategy that we aren’t seeing here, because this could set an extraordinarily bad precedent.

Gigi B. Sohn, president and a founder of Public Knowledge, makes a great point: “The fate of the Internet is too large a matter to be decided by negotiations involving two companies, even companies as big as Verizon and Google.”