In a world loaded with technology we act like campers swatting flies with 19th century band allocations. –

The problem is that we’re all locked into the spectrum offered by a single cell phone carrier, and our phones can’t even access most of the wifi hotspots that are in range, much less use them to make calls.

As Yap et al. outline in a provocative new paper entitled Delivering Capacity for the Mobile Internet by Stitching Together Networks, this leads to all sorts of inefficiencies that could be solved by a network ruled by standards that allowed devices to be agnostic about which portion of the wireless spectrum they are currently using:

- Increased capacity through more efficient statistical sharing. Cellular network operators tend to heavily over-provision their network in order to handle times of peak load and congestion. Most of the time, the net- work is lightly loaded. If instead they were able to hand off traffic to each other, or from cellular to WiFi networks, then their traffic load would be smoother, and their network more efficient. For example, what if AT&T could re-route traffic from their iPhone users to T-Mobile during an overload? Or T-Mobile could re- route their customers’ flows to a nearby WiFi hotspot?

- Exploit differences in technologies and frequency bands. Mobile technologies such as EVDO and HSPA provide wide area coverage with consistent bandwidth guaran- tees; while technologies like WiFi provide high band- width and low latency. Lower frequencies provides better coverage and penetration; while higher frequen- cies provides better spatial reuse. Being able to use the most appropriate technology for the application at hand would make best use of capacity available.

- Open up new sources of capacity. The ability to move between networks also open up new sources of capacity. For example, one can now use a network such as that of fon.com to supplement their main network, without having to deploy an extensive WiFi network. Such crowd-sourcing can be a powerful tool to cover dead spots and relieve congestion.

ThirdPipe has observed this since it started posting. We have advocated a technical solution set that included opening up the bands, requiring intelligent spread spectrum devices. We could open up that other 95% of the bandwidth not currently being utilized. Prices would drop, additional services can be had and disasters like the AT&T 4G debacle in places like New York City.

Its time.

Linky.

If you’re a big publisher who can’t see past the dead trees on shelves business model, your goose is already cooked. While the old school music labels and Hollywierd managed to have copyright laws written to guarantee their ownership of their back catalog in any format forever, the right to to distribute electronic copies of old titles owned by authors doesn’t exist. In fact, many big name authors are self publishing electronic copies of their old works without giving a cut to their original publishers.

A bunch of really well known authors, working via their agents, have decided to route around their publishers and offer some of the most popular books of all time as ebooks directly on Amazon’s Kindle, without going through a publishing house. Among the books released through this effort are works from Philip Roth, Martin Amis, Vladimir Nabokov, Hunter S Thompson, John Updike, William Burroughs and Saul Bellow along with many others. Basically, some of the biggest names in literature from the 20th century. (Techdirt)

Of course, new author contracts include the publishers right to distribute “all formats”. That makes me wonder why any writer would want to play with any publisher.  Unless there’s a 100% guarantee you’ll have a permanent spot on the very scarce shelf space at the mega retailers, self publishing in ebook and print on demand format makes more sense.

While may Europeans and Asians continue to enjoy ever faster broadband at falling prices, most Americans have pretty much the same broadband they’ve had for a decade, and many of us are paying more for it. Why? Even the most populated areas typically have only two providers, and rural areas rarely have more than one. Without any competitive pressure to improve, things will stay same or possibly get worse.  How can this happen in the most competitive market in the world?  Our laws have established a brodband cartel and continue to support it. The insure things stay that way, the duopoly lobby is taking a small chunk of billions they get from us to buy Congress’ loyal support. Out of all tech companies, the Duopoly’s biggest players are spending the largest. Lobby money is the music that makes Congress dance, and $11.3 million makes sure that lawmakers are dancing in double step to the Duopoly’s tune.

Here’s a breakdown of how much companies spent in the second quarter, rounded to the nearest thousand, according to disclosures filed by midnight Tuesday:

Verizon: $4.4 million

Comcast: $3.82 million

AT&T: $3.08 million

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40087.html#ixzz0ul0XiYHa

The Russian Federation is moving to a Linux based platform choice for most government office uses –

The government is hoping to launch the first version of a “national operating system” for its computers as early as next year, a senior Communications and Press Ministry official said Thursday.

The operating system, for use on the computer systems of government agencies and state-run companies, will be 90 percent based on the open-source Linux operating system, Deputy Communications and Press Minister Ilya Massukh said.

He said use of the operating system would be optional for all agencies.

The operating system is part of the Information Society program, which the government is planning to implement from September. The program will receive 10 billion rubles ($330 million) in funding per year and includes other technology-related projects such as the creation of an “electronic government.”

The national operating system “may be one of the first targeted programs from the new raft that the government is going to approve,” Massukh said.

143m Russians using Linux? Maybe.

Linky.

It’s no secret the news media loves blaming bloggers for all of its real and imagined woes. Rather than acknowledging the power of blogs sending traffic to traditional media sites, old media feels that blogs are “stealing” content. So, it should come as no surprise that a new form of copyright trolling has evolved.

Borrowing a page from patent trolls, the CEO of fledgling Las Vegas-based Righthaven has begun buying out the copyrights to newspaper content for the sole purpose of suing blogs and websites that re-post those articles without permission. And he says he’s making money.

“We believe it’s the best solution out there,” Gibson says. “Media companies’ assets are very much their copyrights. These companies need to understand and appreciate that those assets have value more than merely the present advertising revenues.
Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29#ixzz0uSk6QU6X

I think it’s time that blogs started assessing the value of traffic sent to news sites by calling attention to new items. By adding opinion the benefit of additional knowledge, the blog more often than not adds value to the item and generates more interest in the original article.

Since the average blog is more or less like this one, a lawsuit would be catastrophic. We don’t make a profit. Small bloggers will never have the funds to go to trial and will settle. Even though it’s perfectly legal, this amounts to a shake down.

If you’ve been with us for long, you already know we think services like Netflix are the future of pay TV. Two news items today are beginning to make it look like the future is here.  With growth of a million subscribers  at an increased profit and 61% of them streaming their selections the end of cable tv as we know it has begun.

There’s plenty of room for more players, and they’re already in the game to some extent.  The others are Hulu, Amazon, Apple, Youtube and more. The glaring absence remains in the cable channels themselves and programming distributors. The cable guys and Verizon still have some big bandwitdh potential in their dumb pipes. AT&T and the satellite guys are likely to suffer the most.

The internet has made it easier that ever to perform due diligence. In theory that should make the extinction of flaw products and services more likely. That conventional wisdom may be flawed. While instant communication and collaboration can help identify and rectify flaws, and ultimately kill bad products, it can also perpetuate them. In fact, the power of the clique can overcome even the worst of flaws. Sound far fetched? Today’s news feed has two very good examples.

Consider Facebook. As the world’s top  social networking site, membership is nearly compulsive as friends and family made it the center of communication. Even recurring problems securing users data, along with aggressive monetization of user data with blatant disregard for privacy haven’t slowed user growth. In fact Facebook is expected to reach 500 million members within days.

Then lets take the iPhone. Now in it’s fourth incarnation, the cute factor initially overcame annoyances like a proprietary headphone, a non replaceable battery, and being forced to pay upscale rates to AT&T for iffy service. In fact, recurring issues with the hardware itself and inconsistent service would have killed any less clique-ish device. Response to complaints has typically been snarky with half fixes like the one for antenna problems in the new model. Never the less, the iPhone clique keeps growing.

Could it be you d0n’t have to build a better mouse trap to succeed as long as you can build a cult around a bad one?

For the record, I think municipal broadband should be the Third Pipe of last resort, but in a duopoly world it’s a necessary evil.

The broadband duopoly exists only with the help of government - local state and federal. By locking down right of ways, the telco and cable giants have been able to maintain a low investment enterprise with declining costs while routinely raising prices to consumers. When municipalities try to use their right of ways to provide better service, the duopoly always invests in lobbying rather than trying to compete.

There are plentiful pols who are all too willing to carry the duopoly’s water. Fortunately, one case to thwart  muni alternatives in North Caraolina has been defeated:

Indeed it has. North Carolina Senator David Hoyle’s (D-GA) now-defeated amendment (S-1209) was cosmetically titled “An Act to Ensure That A Local Government That Competes with Private Companies in Providing Communication Services Has The Support Of Its Citizens.” But advocates of city/county backed high speed Internet projects just knew it as the Municipal-Broadband Must Die Die Die bill.

Hoyle’s proposal would have banned any Tar Heel state city or county from contracting to “purchase, or finance or refinance” any kind of property to set up an “external communications system.” The law defined the latter as anything that “provides broadband service or other Internet access service, cable service, telecommunications service, video programming service, or a combination of these services.” (Ars Technica)

I hope NC voters will have enough common sense to send Senator Hoyle on permanent vacation from his law making duties when his term expires.

With the lack of will in Washington and most state houses to open the market for competitive broadband, the time for muni networks is here. These networks should not be the last alternative, but hopefully the one that will beak the duopoly strangle hold.  Around the world broadband is moving from copper to fiber at break neck speed at falling prices. World Class Broadband isn’t delivered in electrons any more, it comes in photons. It’s time to join the race and leap ahead or stand on the sidelines with our duopoly and watch the rest of the world race by.

In business there are several ways you can win. You can be head and shoulders above everyone else. Your competition can be total screw ups. You can gain a defacto monopoly by political legerdemain. Or some mix of all of them. Case in point –

In just over two weeks, Emmy-winning AMC drama Mad Men is slated to begin its fourth season on the basic cable channel. But with negotiations between its parent company and AT&T U-Verse over carriage fees, the cable and internet provider might force subscribers to relocate their premiere parties to the apartment of someone with Comcast.

It’s not just AMC that faces being dropped by U-Verse. Female-oriented channel WE tv and the Independent Film Channel could also face the firing squad if AT&T can’t reach an agreement with parent company Rainbow Media before July 25.

This is similar to the situation faced by Cablevision last March when its pricing squabble with ABC resulted in customers missing a bit of the live Oscars telecast.

Source

It is crazy that a channel customer should be losing any access to the entertainment over some internal provider-carrier squabble. That is fighting over who washes the dishes kind of silliness. And the customer be damned thank you very much.

The better model is the carrier is paid by the subscription of the consumer not by the channel provider. No squabbles occur. In fact under that scheme the two parties work in concert to maximize subscription rates. The whole effort become customer focused rather than channel focused as it is now on cable.

And that is why the likes of Netflix and Hulu will be winners in the space.

Tom Silverman is a guy who has been in the music biz longer than I have been in IT. So he knows the trade and its tricks. It is refreshing to hear an insider to state that the current music model is broken —

One of the biggest problems with the old model, which has been going for 50 years, is thinking, “We’re the labels, they’re the artists, and we make money even if they don’t make money. We reduce our risk, they put their blood, sweat and tears into it, and we only give them money when we sign them and when they deliver a new album.”

In between, the only place where they get money is from their booking agent, because they’re touring. They all love their booking agent, because their booking agent gives them a check every month, or every week, and we only give them a check every year and a half when they deliver a new record — and most of that money goes to their lawyer, manager, the taxman, and making the record. Not much of it ever goes in their pocket, and that’s been true for 20 years. Unless they have a five million seller, most of that money goes into that project. Of course they don’t like the labels, because they’re not getting that reinforcement of regular cash flow. They see the labels making money, and them not making money on records.

He also considers the use of the Internet and social networking much a waste of time. Even though in this same article he admits that Susan Boyle broke thorugh on the basis of internet presence. –

No, I think you have to be out there. You have to spread the word to get exposure, but I think the problem is context. When you’re in a glutted environment, you need to differentiate yourself more than ever, so you need a great story. Story is context; it’s not content. The songs on Susan Boyle’s record are forgettable, and her performance is just okay. There are a million singers who can sing that well at least. It’s just the story that sold it. If people could learn from her, regardless of what kind of music they did — “How can I make my story so that when people hear it, they have to spread the word?” That would activate the medium more effectively than trying to get another 50,000 followers on Twitter, which doesn’t seem to do much at all.

Silverman also suggests a different management model. Using LLC’s and Silicon Valley type investment techniques. Oddly we suggested that very thing on this blog well over a year ago. And it is right.

But there are some pieces that Silverman I think is missing –

• The first is good talent is extremely common, and extreme talent is in good supply. Go into any good size church in the USA and there are probably 2 singers in the choir equal to or better than what is screamed out of Hollywood. Is that the case?

  Empirical evidence. Neil Sedaka held a contest with several radio stations as part of a record tour/sale 5-6 years ago. Thousands were screened by the radio stations. Sedaka was floored that several hundred were good enough to be considered by his measure of talent. Anecdotal I know, but good talent recognizes that in others.

  Value in many ways is a perception, especially when the goods are of a nonphysical nature. So when the perceived supply of the goods rises dramatically because consumers perceptions are altered by the sheer volume of good choice the cost curve must drop. Its supply and demand. There is a huge talent supply and only a finite consumer supply.

• The other is this one. Silverman sees it, calls it the ‘clutter the marketplace’. He is of course, right. $3k and you can foam a garage, buy mikes and stands, a 2yo PC and a midi/mixer card and have the equivalent of what a decade ago cost $500k. So anybody can be in it if they want it enough, such is modern technology.

  But again that is not the biggest issue as I see it. Look the big labels are soon to be gone. They are right now where the major studios were back in the 60’s. Then as now, every release had to be a mega blockbuster as that what the audience expected but the costs were beyond belief. The end game will be the same too. Fundamentals now are also different.

  A band, even if it does not break thru to the levels that Silverman expects which is 100k distribution as the floor. Well run the numbers at $10 per disc. $1m gross. Deduct 5% for production costs. (Yes that cheap.) Zero out distribution costs as most bands at this level would sell either direct over the internet or more likely direct at the concerts wher they make most of their money anyway So out of say $900k split 10 ways with band, light, stage men that is still $80-100k. No you won’t get overnight rich at those numbers, but that is a descent upper middle class income with unlimited upside you you do break thru.

To an extent Mr. Silverman’s lament recognized for what it is runs head long into supply chain economics. The Internet has eliminated the middle man in most cases. Producer and retailer become one. No industry is immune from it even music. And for a lack of a better analogy, iTunes IS WalMart in the music industry.

Linky