I haven't written about the recent remarks by telecomm executives about Google "stealing" revenue that is rightfully theirs. It strikes me that this really a case of P/E envy but let's take a look at the comments and what they really reflect about the problems that the RBOCs face.
Despite the billions they raked in during the dot com boom, the problem is that telcos mostly sell (phone service) which is complete commodity. While they also sell leased lines and data centers, their profit margins are almost entirely found in their residential phone service. Consumers are paying too much for far too little service. Let's take my provider Qwest. We have two lines from Qwest - a line for my office and one for the house. Despite various bundling options our phone bill is regularly between $125~$150 per month. We don't have voice mail, or three way calling or a whole host of other features regularly pushed upon us by Qwest's telemarketing reps. I spent a whole lot of time on the phone with Qwest to figure out why my bill was so high. During that conversation one thing really struck me. My expectations of service and Qwest's were completely at odds. When I noted to the rep that my phone situation was hardly complex, her response was "Sir most people don't have two lines. You have more services than most of our customers. You have a pretty complex phone set up."
The strange thing I thought the number of services I derive from the phone company completely at odds with the actual cost. For example my high speed wireless connection is far more valuable to me than my phone and provides far more value. I regularly run Skype for phone calls. In fact I recently called London on Skype, to find out where a check was. When I queried about the call quality, the woman on the other end of the phone was surprised not only I wasn't in London, when she found out it was an internet telephony call she was downright incredulous. I would hesitate to guess the cost of making that phone call with Qwest. Certainly far too much as I found out when making calls to Canada. I have stopped using my phone for all international calling.
The problem of course is that telcos haven't kept up with customer's expectations. They are simply providing a connection to what people find really valuable, namely the Internet and the content contained therein.
Who provides that connection is completely inconseqential to the user. They want the content. The connection is a means to an end. This is why the current telco posturing is in it's own way too funny to believe. They are the tail trying to wag the dog. Their threats to degrade access or (even cut off access) to Google or Yahoo are laughable. Let's say (Telco A)degrades access to Google because they want a slice of Google's revenue. Google's response is simple. They can simple re-direct that telco's customers to page saying, "Telco A has decided to degrade your access to Google. This despite being paid by you for internet access. Please let them know you want full access to the Internet at 1800 Pissed Customers.Or simply try Telco B for internet access."
The problem is that telco's see the revenue generated by Google and Yahoo and figure they deserve a slice. They no more deserve a slice of revenue from Google than they do the revenue from a direct mail company that uses phone lines to take orders.
Telcos seem to think (quite mistakenly) that because they own the connection the customer uses to access the internet, they own the customer. This is false. If they were to provide degraded service to those customers on a per site basis, they would cease being their customers, fleeing to telephony provider who will provide the access that customers want. I cannot imagine what stick (other than regulatory) the RBOCs have to enforce a payment from Google or Yahoo. By hurting their customers (who will certainly view it that way), cannot they expect to have some leverage.
The problem with RBOCs is that they simply lack the ability to quickly innovate. Instead they really prefer to roll out new services slowly and bill them accordingly. For example, Google launched in 1998. Why wasn't there a phone company version of Google already out there? It's because they saw the scope of such endeavors is a far too limited fashion. The RBOC search engines (such as Athand) saw themselves as online Yellow pages and NOTHING more. With this sort of innovative thinking it's no surprise that Athand and telco attempts at seartch were complete flops.
The attempt of a telco to retroactively exert a toll on the internet is doomed in any free market environment. Indeed Google is poised to leap frog all that copper the telco has spent billions stuffing into the ground. I can easily imagine Google with all that dark fiber it has bought, and wireless access to simply start offering free internet telephony, along with internet access. It will be interesting to watch what will happen in San Franicisco's free wireless environment.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Microsoft's Temper Tantrum as Strategic Delay
Microsoft's Temper Tantrum as Strategic Delay
Microsoft despite it's size and maturity as a software company Microsoft is still capable of throwing quite a temper tantrum when it wants. While the change in administration from the Clinton Administration to the Bush administration in the United States meant that the anti-trust action by the Justice Department was quickly closed, in Europe the action is still on-going. And there Microsoft still continues to show it's ass, acting like a four year old forced to do something it doesn't want to do.
It's latest response just reflects poorly on the company. The EU wanted MS to DOCUMENT protocols and document various behaviors in the Microsoft operating system. Microsoft's response was to through the source code at the EU reps. They argued that the source code is the "ultimate documentation" and that the source code would be enough to allow their competitors to integrate with Windows to compete.
How do they know that? Well they queried various professionals and computer companies about the utility of the source code and they all agree it's enough. Of course Microsoft won't release the names of the companies or the professionals they cited.
Essentially Microsoft is saying,"We have discussed this with bunch of computer professionals and they all agree. The source code is enough."
The EU officials then asked,"Who are these people?"
To which Microsoft responded,"We cannot tell you."
It seems to me if you are going to quote an expert in a legal brief, people are going ask who that person is. To respond by claiming it's a trade secret is somewhat silly and very childish.
Look at the response to the documentation request. Microsoft responded to it by providing the source code, which ISN'T what the EU was asking for. They were asking for documentation in order to inter-operate with Windows various systems.
Microsoft dumped the source code as passive aggressive response. It's non responsive because source code (remember we are looking at 53,000,000 lines of code) doesn't actually respond to the request for DOCUMENTATION. This is an old corporate tactic called "Cover them with paper."
Microsoft knows anyone attempting to use the source code as a guide will spend more time attempting to decipher the source code than actually making a product to compete with Microsoft.
Keep in mind that the EU didn't ask for the source code. They asked for documentation of interfaces. In response to this Microsoft presented the Windows source code.
A set of documentation is more useful to developer seeking to develop a product for Microsoft Windows, especially a smaller development shop such as an open source development. The Windows source code is only truly useful for shops large enough to devote significant resources to it. By significant resources I mean more than a single individual - You will need a fairly good sized team (between 10-15 developers) solely devoted to making sense of the code.
In this regard providing the source code is an ideal response from Microsoft's perspective. It's a response that they can actually say is responsive (in a way) yet, it's not a response that open source developers can take advantage of in the same way that a set of clear documentation would be.
What I find almost amusing (if it wasn't so damn annoying) is why did Microsoft officials respond this way? The EU officials in Belgium don't change the way Washington changes. These bueaucrats aren't going anywhere. This particular delaying tactic only delays the eventual documentation that Microsoft is going to have to provide. The EU isn't the United States with a convienant election to completely shift the focus of the government.
Furthermore the EU is far too large a market for Microsoft to take it's ball and go home. Ballmer once actually threatened to do just that by leaving the European market. I suspect that MS is doing this because they are hoping that this will be enough and the Eueaucrats will leave them alone. The initial response however, that the Eueaucrats see the Microsoft ploy for just what it is a ploy and are likely to tag this response as a non-responsive.
It's also clear that MS understands the power of delay tactics. After the change of administration in 2001, MS quickly settled. They have continued to fight the EU for the past five years and will continue fight the EU until they have no choice. This means five-six years of preventing competitors actually launching products based the documentation that should have been provided years ago.
This strategic delay provides MS even more time to continue and extend their monopoly position in various software markets, increasing the barriers to entry for competition.
Microsoft despite it's size and maturity as a software company Microsoft is still capable of throwing quite a temper tantrum when it wants. While the change in administration from the Clinton Administration to the Bush administration in the United States meant that the anti-trust action by the Justice Department was quickly closed, in Europe the action is still on-going. And there Microsoft still continues to show it's ass, acting like a four year old forced to do something it doesn't want to do.
It's latest response just reflects poorly on the company. The EU wanted MS to DOCUMENT protocols and document various behaviors in the Microsoft operating system. Microsoft's response was to through the source code at the EU reps. They argued that the source code is the "ultimate documentation" and that the source code would be enough to allow their competitors to integrate with Windows to compete.
How do they know that? Well they queried various professionals and computer companies about the utility of the source code and they all agree it's enough. Of course Microsoft won't release the names of the companies or the professionals they cited.
Essentially Microsoft is saying,"We have discussed this with bunch of computer professionals and they all agree. The source code is enough."
The EU officials then asked,"Who are these people?"
To which Microsoft responded,"We cannot tell you."
It seems to me if you are going to quote an expert in a legal brief, people are going ask who that person is. To respond by claiming it's a trade secret is somewhat silly and very childish.
Look at the response to the documentation request. Microsoft responded to it by providing the source code, which ISN'T what the EU was asking for. They were asking for documentation in order to inter-operate with Windows various systems.
Microsoft dumped the source code as passive aggressive response. It's non responsive because source code (remember we are looking at 53,000,000 lines of code) doesn't actually respond to the request for DOCUMENTATION. This is an old corporate tactic called "Cover them with paper."
Microsoft knows anyone attempting to use the source code as a guide will spend more time attempting to decipher the source code than actually making a product to compete with Microsoft.
Keep in mind that the EU didn't ask for the source code. They asked for documentation of interfaces. In response to this Microsoft presented the Windows source code.
A set of documentation is more useful to developer seeking to develop a product for Microsoft Windows, especially a smaller development shop such as an open source development. The Windows source code is only truly useful for shops large enough to devote significant resources to it. By significant resources I mean more than a single individual - You will need a fairly good sized team (between 10-15 developers) solely devoted to making sense of the code.
In this regard providing the source code is an ideal response from Microsoft's perspective. It's a response that they can actually say is responsive (in a way) yet, it's not a response that open source developers can take advantage of in the same way that a set of clear documentation would be.
What I find almost amusing (if it wasn't so damn annoying) is why did Microsoft officials respond this way? The EU officials in Belgium don't change the way Washington changes. These bueaucrats aren't going anywhere. This particular delaying tactic only delays the eventual documentation that Microsoft is going to have to provide. The EU isn't the United States with a convienant election to completely shift the focus of the government.
Furthermore the EU is far too large a market for Microsoft to take it's ball and go home. Ballmer once actually threatened to do just that by leaving the European market. I suspect that MS is doing this because they are hoping that this will be enough and the Eueaucrats will leave them alone. The initial response however, that the Eueaucrats see the Microsoft ploy for just what it is a ploy and are likely to tag this response as a non-responsive.
It's also clear that MS understands the power of delay tactics. After the change of administration in 2001, MS quickly settled. They have continued to fight the EU for the past five years and will continue fight the EU until they have no choice. This means five-six years of preventing competitors actually launching products based the documentation that should have been provided years ago.
This strategic delay provides MS even more time to continue and extend their monopoly position in various software markets, increasing the barriers to entry for competition.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Stallman, Commons, and the GPL3
Stallman, Babies, Bathwater and the GPL.
Why does Richard feel it necessary that if something doesn't fit his model of freedom, that it becomes necessary to throw the whole thing out? He has directed this latest conciption at the Creative Commons folks. Noting that the variety of licenses developed by them contains some pretty restrictive licenses. Some are pretty open, and are more open than the GPL. Instead of noting that some of the licenses are pretty restrictive, he thought it better simple to davvow the whole thing and that if he endorsed certain licenses, people would misunderstand that to mean a blanket endorsement of all the Commons licenses. I would call that copout in today's world. Communication is networked. People can quickly find out which licenses are FSF(Free Software Foundation) friendly by pulling up the browser Richard. There shouldn't be any confusion about which licenses you feel are appropriate.
However instead of actually suggesting which Creative Commons licenses are FSF friendly, Richard simply suggests that he actually can't be bothered with it. Instead he writes in a LinuxP2P article.
His suggestion? Why the GPL of course. He does note,
And actually Richard the GPL is nigh unto useless for any creative endeavor such as novels, stories, manuals, music etc.
Richard displays this same idiosyncractic nature in the proposed GPL3. Linus has thoughtfully pointed out the tactical error of fighting the DRM and commons war in the latest version of GPL, noting that providing copies of your private keys so others can copy your signed GPL application is a non starter since that completely undercuts the useful security features.
Richard is trying to make a point about DRM. However he is trying shoehorn it into a license where he doesn't belong. His recent turnaround on the Creative Commons is because he believes his way is the only way. He believes the GPL3 should be the single point of attack of securing both our rights as software users and content consumers.
Richard's stubborness is an admirable trait in an advocate. He has stood for the rights of programmers everywhere. But stubborness often leads you astray. The GNU project struggled for years attempting to complete a micro kernel. The HURD is still incomplete after 20 years of struggle. This means litterally hundreds of thousands of man hours spent on the project. It should have become apparent after the 5th year that this particular tree wasn't going to bear fruit. Yet Richard continued to encourage and focus on the hurd for ANOTHER 12 years.
Richard's stubborness (literally that it's his way or the highway) means that he is missing an essential component to the growth of the free software movement. It's the critical mass of people writing and using free software. For the new cultural commons to be built, it's going to take a large group of writers, producers, musicians, videographers, choreagraphers et al to develop it. The GPL is simply the WRONG tool to develop this new cultural commons. Yet he changed his mind about the Creative Commons licenses, after the introduction of the GPL3. I mean the highly restrictives licenses of the Creative Commons have always been there as part of the organization.
I hope Richard will give more thought to his decision that he can "no longer support the Creative Commons." The GPL3 isn't a broad enough tool to develop that Cultural Commons.
Why does Richard feel it necessary that if something doesn't fit his model of freedom, that it becomes necessary to throw the whole thing out? He has directed this latest conciption at the Creative Commons folks. Noting that the variety of licenses developed by them contains some pretty restrictive licenses. Some are pretty open, and are more open than the GPL. Instead of noting that some of the licenses are pretty restrictive, he thought it better simple to davvow the whole thing and that if he endorsed certain licenses, people would misunderstand that to mean a blanket endorsement of all the Commons licenses. I would call that copout in today's world. Communication is networked. People can quickly find out which licenses are FSF(Free Software Foundation) friendly by pulling up the browser Richard. There shouldn't be any confusion about which licenses you feel are appropriate.
However instead of actually suggesting which Creative Commons licenses are FSF friendly, Richard simply suggests that he actually can't be bothered with it. Instead he writes in a LinuxP2P article.
Some Creative Commons licenses are free licenses; most permit at least noncommercial verbatim copying. But some, such as the Sampling Licenses and Developing Countries Licenses, don't even permit that, which makes them unacceptable to use for any kind of work. All these licenses have in common is a label, but people regularly mistake that common label for something substantial.
I no longer endorse Creative Commons. I cannot endorse Creative Commons as a whole, because some of its licenses are unacceptable. It would be self-delusion to try to endorse just some of the Creative Commons licenses, because people lump them together; they will misconstrue any endorsement of some as a blanket endorsement of all. I therefore find myself constrained to reject Creative Commons entirely.
His suggestion? Why the GPL of course. He does note,
It may seem obvious, but it's not true. The GNU GPL is written primarily for software, but it can be used for any kind of work. However, its requirements are inconvenient for works that one might want to print and publish in a book, so I don't recommend using it for manuals, or for novels.
And actually Richard the GPL is nigh unto useless for any creative endeavor such as novels, stories, manuals, music etc.
Richard displays this same idiosyncractic nature in the proposed GPL3. Linus has thoughtfully pointed out the tactical error of fighting the DRM and commons war in the latest version of GPL, noting that providing copies of your private keys so others can copy your signed GPL application is a non starter since that completely undercuts the useful security features.
Richard is trying to make a point about DRM. However he is trying shoehorn it into a license where he doesn't belong. His recent turnaround on the Creative Commons is because he believes his way is the only way. He believes the GPL3 should be the single point of attack of securing both our rights as software users and content consumers.
Richard's stubborness is an admirable trait in an advocate. He has stood for the rights of programmers everywhere. But stubborness often leads you astray. The GNU project struggled for years attempting to complete a micro kernel. The HURD is still incomplete after 20 years of struggle. This means litterally hundreds of thousands of man hours spent on the project. It should have become apparent after the 5th year that this particular tree wasn't going to bear fruit. Yet Richard continued to encourage and focus on the hurd for ANOTHER 12 years.
Richard's stubborness (literally that it's his way or the highway) means that he is missing an essential component to the growth of the free software movement. It's the critical mass of people writing and using free software. For the new cultural commons to be built, it's going to take a large group of writers, producers, musicians, videographers, choreagraphers et al to develop it. The GPL is simply the WRONG tool to develop this new cultural commons. Yet he changed his mind about the Creative Commons licenses, after the introduction of the GPL3. I mean the highly restrictives licenses of the Creative Commons have always been there as part of the organization.
I hope Richard will give more thought to his decision that he can "no longer support the Creative Commons." The GPL3 isn't a broad enough tool to develop that Cultural Commons.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Torvalds on GPL3
Linus Torvalds, creator and great guardian of the Linux kernel, has expressed an opinion on the the new GPL3. As posted in these following posts here, here and here at Slashdot. This Newsforg article on Linus' GPL3 covers pretty suscinctly why Linus dislikes the DRM components of GPL3.
Torvalds point is a simple one and one that after a little thought I agree with. The GPL isnt' the place to fight this battle. It's out of place here. From the Linux kernel mailing list,
In short Linus believes that the attempt to reassert the commons is largely lost. After thinking about it I agree. Copyright terms are going to be extend to infinity and in instead trying to shovel back the tide; an entire seperate ecosystem needs to develop exactly like the original GPL developed the free software ecosystem. I understand what Richard is trying to do here; the free software ecosystem is pretty important here. In that regard the Creative Commons licenses are the place to start. Given that the means of production of even features are beginning to drastically decrease given Moore's law, this ecosystem is growing richer over time. Only by developing our own commons can we break the cultural stranglehold.
Torvalds point is a simple one and one that after a little thought I agree with. The GPL isnt' the place to fight this battle. It's out of place here. From the Linux kernel mailing list,
If enough interesting content is licensed that way, DRM eventually becomes marginalized. Yes, it takes decades, but that's really no different at all from how the GPL works. The GPL has taken decades, and it hasn't "marginalized" commercial proprietary software yet, but it's gotten to the point where fewer people at least _worry_ about it.
As long as you expect Disney to feed your brain and just sit there on your couch, Disney & co will always be able to control the content you see. DRM is the smallest part of it - the crap we see and hear every day (regardless of any protection) is a much bigger issue.
The GPL already requires source code (ie non-protected content). So the GPL already _does_ have an anti-DRM clause as far as the _software_ is concerned. If you want to fight DRM on non-software fronts, you need to create non-software content, and fight it _there_.
In short Linus believes that the attempt to reassert the commons is largely lost. After thinking about it I agree. Copyright terms are going to be extend to infinity and in instead trying to shovel back the tide; an entire seperate ecosystem needs to develop exactly like the original GPL developed the free software ecosystem. I understand what Richard is trying to do here; the free software ecosystem is pretty important here. In that regard the Creative Commons licenses are the place to start. Given that the means of production of even features are beginning to drastically decrease given Moore's law, this ecosystem is growing richer over time. Only by developing our own commons can we break the cultural stranglehold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)