Here’s an interesting look at the debate over whether to make electricity universal, tracing some of the parallels to internet access. It’s a good historical parallel.
(0)
Monthly Archive for December, 2009
Page 2 of 3
New Google Phone would challenge US carrier model
Ars hits the nail right on the head with their assessment of why the Google Phone is a “big deal.” Technologically, it’s nothing new. Yet their decision to sell the phone without an exclusive carrier. They point out something I also found remarkable about travel in Europe–advertisements for cell phones. Hopefully this will loosen some of the stranglehold the cellular companies have on manufacturers.
Is AT&T to Blame for Poor iPhone Experience and Is Non-Exclusivity the Answer? | The iPhone Blog
This quote, allegedly from the “fake Steve Jobs …describing an entirely fictional, frighteningly plausible conversation between his character and an equally fake AT&T CEO, Randall Stephenson” was too good not to share (the entire original post is worth a chuckle or two):
And now here we are. Right here in your own backyard, an American company creates a brilliant phone, and that company hands it to you, and gives you an exclusive deal to carry it — and all you guys can do is complain about how much people want to use it. You, Randall Stephenson, and your lazy stupid company — you are the problem. You are what’s wrong with this country.
I stopped, then. There was nothing on the line. Silence. I said, Randall? He goes, Yeah, I’m here. I said, Does any of that make sense? He says, Yeah, but we’re still not going to do it. See, when you run the numbers what you find is that we’re actually better off running a shitty network than making the investment to build a good one. It’s just numbers, Steve. You can’t charge enough to get a return on the investment.
The sad thing about this is it might just be true–building a better network might not make good short-term financial sense for AT&T, though one might argue that taking a longer view and using the iPhone as a means to build the best network would be in their best interest.
It’s also possible that, had cellular carriers been forced to standardize on one technology or if the tower building and renting business was unbundled from the carriers, we might no be in this situation.
Google demonstrates quantum computer image search – tech – 11 December 2009 – New Scientist
This confirms something I’ve suspected for some time–Google has been working on using quantum computers for 3 years now. It’s nice to see a company with resources this large investing in R&D.
Big Cable: Net neutrality violates ISP 1st Amendment rights
Cable internet providers are arguing that possible FCC rules ordering Internet Service Providers (ISPs) not to exert any discrimination that flows over their network.
“…the First Amendment is framed as a shield for citizens, not a sword for government.” True enough, the First Amendment “promotes democratic values,” McSlarrow added, “but it does so best by freeing citizens from government regulation of their speech, not by regulating it.” …
“I don’t know how to say it any more clearly than this,” McSlarrow reiterated. “Internet Service Providers do not threaten free speech; their business is to enable speech and they are part of an ecosystem that represents perhaps the greatest engine for promotion of democracy and free expression in history.”
This strikes me as a bit of a stretch. If we’re to look back to the media landscape that existed when the Constitution was written, we might equate ISPs to paper. Much like paper, ISPs provide a medium by which others are able to communicate. Seen in this light, the framers would certainly have argued for “paper neutrality.” Given their opposition to the British tax on paper (in the Stamp Act of 1765), I think the framers would want to guarantee the free flow of information–be it over paper or the network.
Perhaps ISPs should be grateful they were not forced to open their networks to competitors in the Brand X decision.
