Here is an article that elucidates Internet's biggest issue. The survey tracks demographics, trends of cyberspace and paints a plaintive image.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Memo 13: Internet Issues
When I think of Internet today, I remember a line: ‘With power, comes a lot of responsibility’. This line, I believe, holds very true for the Internet Society and associations like the IETF, IRTF and IAB.The Internet is so powerful and pervasive that it has become the lifeline of modern human existence. Nothing could better articulate the stature and influence of Internet than the presence of a whole new virtual and secondary world, the most stunning replica of the real world and its aspirations, in the form of Second Life.
However, this has come with a price. There are some raging issues that Internet faces. Not only do these issues have the potential to jeopardize the noble intent of Internet but also can vilify its existence. I will address some of the many issues, in this memo.
Security
Front up is security. Although tremendous work has been done in this domain, there always are cracks in the wall. The most notorious ones are the DoS (denial of service) attacks. These are malicious attempts to deny legitimate users, their right to certain services. The impact varies from inefficiency of modern equipments to damaging physical security.
Privacy
Next, are the privacy issues. These essentially are caused due to some kind of security breach but have technical and legal appeal. The public nature of Internet has made it vulnerable to privacy issues. The very fact that the packet you send or intend to receive goes through alien nodes, makes privacy a major concern. Also, legally there have been cases wherein the definition of privacy in a given context has been questioned.
Pornography
Although, this is one factor that actually defines 60% of internet traffic, it raises serious concerns. There are several content providers that are involved in child pornography and that content floats unmonitored on the Internet. Also, it is very easy for people not legally permitted (due to age, national rules etc.) to access the prohibited content.
Copyright
Internet has been one of the best and worst sources of information. However, it has quite easily been most prominent reason for copyright issues and plagiarism. There is virtually no way at present to prevent attempts to copy material from the Internet and plagiarize content. One could minimize this by penalizing attempts and making use of tools like turnitin, however there is no asking in instances where such law isn’t enforced.
These were a few of the several issues that plaque the Internet today. There is constant work going on to curb these however there also is a constant effort to find a way around the rules, bend them and increase the necessity of such rules.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Article 6: Telecom-Economy Nexus
A brief but beautiful report on the fundamentals and dynamics of the telecom-economy nexus and their mutual effect on each other.
http://www.lirne.net/resources/netknowledge/cho.pdf
http://www.lirne.net/resources/netknowledge/cho.pdf
Article 5: Antitrust's latest in CA...
Discover how an adamant judge in San Francisco disallows a media group's antitrust ways
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1043240720070410
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1043240720070410
Memo 12: Telecom has got the Kangaroos hopping!
A country's economy is often shaped and adorned by the basic infrastructure that she wears. Not only is it indicative of a nation's fiscal health and well-being but is also a yardstick that enables the measure of its potential and prowess to develop further. In today's post-information age, the traditional infrastructure in the form of water supply, roads, rails, electricity etcetera has become the one that is extremely important to sustain the economic growth of the country. However, the information and telecommunication technology infrastructure has proven to be the one that actually drives the economic growth.The human capital
This memo studies the impact of telecommunication infrastructure and services on the economy of Australia. One of the most amazing aspects of the Australian case is that the impact of telecommunications on its GDP has been becoming evident at twice the rate at which telecommunications has been actually growing. This has doubly enhanced the significance of telecommunications which has led to a further growth and development in the sector. The entire chain reaction has led to some explosive growth indices not only in the telecommunications sector but in the overall economy as well.
Starting first up, let us look at the employment scenario. A recent study by the Govt. of Australia showed that approximately 100,000 Australians work in the telecommunications industry and the rate (at which people are being employed by the industry) has been increasing every year by about 11%. These are some phenomenal numbers and clearly explain why Australians are the 4th most intensive users of information and communication technologies in the world.
This has a non-obvious but a very significant implication. Since the industry has been aggressively driving related employment, there has been a tremendous boost in the education and vocational training industry. More and more individuals have been investing in education and training of technological, financial and regulatory aspects of telecommunications in general. This, as a result, is driving a whole new parallel industry of hi-tech education and training which now is responsible for 12.8% of country's GDP.
I drive Me
Second, the industry has been responsible for its own growth. Unlike the conventional infrastructures, a telecom infrastructure's value and economy increases exponentially with the increase in the no.of users of the infrastructure and with the no.of services offered over it. So as more and more people and services have attached them to the network, the increase in significance and value of the network has led to an increased investment in equipments, hardware, software, economic and policy analysis of telecommunications. This has led to an increased maturity and research in each of these sectors and hence led to creation of markets in several cases. For instance, SMS and MMS related services and advertising comprises of almost 33% of revenue for an average telecom operator in Australia. This has further attached people and services to the network in general and hence the industry has been driving itself.
Side Effects..
Also, the telecommunications industry has been aggressively driving labor productive and labor intensive growth across diverse industry domains. Over the past 5 years there has been an indirect impact on the growth of some of the basic industries. This has mainly been due to facilitation of enhanced efficiencies in day to day businesses, communication costs, enterprise networks etc. Adjacent graph illustrates the impact:
This memo studies the impact of telecommunication infrastructure and services on the economy of Australia. One of the most amazing aspects of the Australian case is that the impact of telecommunications on its GDP has been becoming evident at twice the rate at which telecommunications has been actually growing. This has doubly enhanced the significance of telecommunications which has led to a further growth and development in the sector. The entire chain reaction has led to some explosive growth indices not only in the telecommunications sector but in the overall economy as well.
Starting first up, let us look at the employment scenario. A recent study by the Govt. of Australia showed that approximately 100,000 Australians work in the telecommunications industry and the rate (at which people are being employed by the industry) has been increasing every year by about 11%. These are some phenomenal numbers and clearly explain why Australians are the 4th most intensive users of information and communication technologies in the world.
This has a non-obvious but a very significant implication. Since the industry has been aggressively driving related employment, there has been a tremendous boost in the education and vocational training industry. More and more individuals have been investing in education and training of technological, financial and regulatory aspects of telecommunications in general. This, as a result, is driving a whole new parallel industry of hi-tech education and training which now is responsible for 12.8% of country's GDP.
I drive Me
Second, the industry has been responsible for its own growth. Unlike the conventional infrastructures, a telecom infrastructure's value and economy increases exponentially with the increase in the no.of users of the infrastructure and with the no.of services offered over it. So as more and more people and services have attached them to the network, the increase in significance and value of the network has led to an increased investment in equipments, hardware, software, economic and policy analysis of telecommunications. This has led to an increased maturity and research in each of these sectors and hence led to creation of markets in several cases. For instance, SMS and MMS related services and advertising comprises of almost 33% of revenue for an average telecom operator in Australia. This has further attached people and services to the network in general and hence the industry has been driving itself.
Side Effects..Also, the telecommunications industry has been aggressively driving labor productive and labor intensive growth across diverse industry domains. Over the past 5 years there has been an indirect impact on the growth of some of the basic industries. This has mainly been due to facilitation of enhanced efficiencies in day to day businesses, communication costs, enterprise networks etc. Adjacent graph illustrates the impact:
The phenomenon
I can actually go on and on describing the impact of telecommunications on Australia's economy. It is just phenomenal. The brief indicators described in the memo give an overall picture of the nature and potential of the impact. Also estimations of the future impact look even more encouraging.
“ - Boost in the national output by 3.7% over the next decade
- increase real investment by 4% and consumption by 3%
- increase employment by 5.3% and ral wages by 4.44%
- contribute 3% to an appreciation of real exchange rate” [1]
As evident, the value of impact telecommunications has had n Australian economy can only be realized by studying the impact of its value.
References:
All figures and statistics and [1] taken from “Impact of Telecom in Australia” by Australia Telecom Society, Center for Strategic Economic Study, Australia 2006.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Memo 11: Anti-trust ? ... EchoStar-DirecTV case revealed Washington's primary concern
Indulgence often defeats the supposed intention and causes unforeseen repercussions. Legal practices and the policy precedents sometimes force me to relate them to the ugliness of human intervention in a natural ecosystem. Several instances have now been testimony to the fact that an attempt to regulate the market so as to make it conform to the modern day ethics of competition, has actually jeopardized the very purpose. Many times, just as natural processes take care of the balance in an ecosystem, market forces and trends should be allowed to dictate the dynamics of market change. The Opposition to Merger
Four years ago, vehement opposition disguised in the attire of anti-trust halted the DISH TV and DirecTV merger. This was strongly made possible by the policy makers' clout in the FCC. There were several factors that stopped the $26.2 billion combination of nation's two biggest direct broadcast satellite players.[1]
The primary argument was that the 'hostile' take over by EchoStar Communication's DISH TV of Hughes Electronics' DirecTV, will give it a market share of 91% making direct broadcast satellite market a virtual monopoly. Second, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation that sells programming like Fox News and FX to both cable and satellite companies, lobbied with the Department of Justice to stop the merger on anti-trust grounds.[2] "Also opposing the deal was the "Western Caucus," a bipartisan coalition of members of Congress representing primarily Western and rural districts. According to a letter sent to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the group’s members had grave concerns that such a merger would increase costs and decrease options for their constituents who wanted direct broadcast satellite television service. The result for rural America, they wrote, would be a monopoly with essentially no hope for future entrants." [2]
Four years ago, vehement opposition disguised in the attire of anti-trust halted the DISH TV and DirecTV merger. This was strongly made possible by the policy makers' clout in the FCC. There were several factors that stopped the $26.2 billion combination of nation's two biggest direct broadcast satellite players.[1]
The primary argument was that the 'hostile' take over by EchoStar Communication's DISH TV of Hughes Electronics' DirecTV, will give it a market share of 91% making direct broadcast satellite market a virtual monopoly. Second, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation that sells programming like Fox News and FX to both cable and satellite companies, lobbied with the Department of Justice to stop the merger on anti-trust grounds.[2] "Also opposing the deal was the "Western Caucus," a bipartisan coalition of members of Congress representing primarily Western and rural districts. According to a letter sent to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the group’s members had grave concerns that such a merger would increase costs and decrease options for their constituents who wanted direct broadcast satellite television service. The result for rural America, they wrote, would be a monopoly with essentially no hope for future entrants." [2]
Anti-trust camouflage
The reasons above clearly indicate an immature handling of the issue on the policy front, supported by some irrational arguments. The primary argument of 91% market share overlooks the fact the merger would constitute a mere 20% of the overall television broadcasting market where cable, and now the phone, companies enjoy a comfortable position. This would actually increase competition and force the relatively complacent cable companies to pull up their socks to stay competitive.
Second, Rupert Murdoch's cry had a different cause altogether, than that projected. First, reduction in competition in the satellite segment would naturally erode his corporation's profits in selling the programming. Second, Rupert Murdoch had lost the bid to buy DirecTV to EchoStar.
Third, rural America would naturally prefer service than the lack of it. There are several places where cable companies wont dare to even think of providing services purely due to economic infeasibility. Satellite TV would be the only possible alternative and EchoStar will obviously want to keep the pricing competitive and in sync with that offered to urban counterparts so as to tap the rural market completely. Also, the provisioning of services at rates competitive to that of cable companies in urban markets would actually up their profit in the urban segment (as satellite TV broadcast becomes more profitable in an area of increased density) and help them cross subsidize their rural services. In an essay published in the Rocky Mountain News in late January, Wallop wrote, "The satellite industry has a strong track record of serving rural areas, not with promises but with programming".
Apart from this, interveners should base their policies in a technology specific environment of reasoning. Satellite segment is ten times as risky as the cable or the telephone segment. Relatively, lot of investment and technological expertise goes into a satellite based services. This demands a soft corner for players in this segment so as to encourage future entrants and hence competition. In an open and competition encouraging market, fears of a monopolistic domination no longer hold much appeal. Entrepreneurial vigor and technology often naturally balances the market forces. For instance, just when regulators were pushing hard to discover ways to share the copper network, along came the vibrant cellular phone technology. It has now virtually and unknowingly created one of the most ideal markets upholding all the ideals of capitalism and competition. In a similar way, there are some very dynamic developments taking place in the satellite segment too. For instance, "wireless telecom entrepreneur Craig McCaw has been busy funneling billions into satellite ventures such as ICO and Teledesic. These satellite constellations would offer ubiquitous high-speed service across the globe and have attracted an impressive group investors, including Microsoft founder Bill Gates. And let's not forget about wi-fi and ultra-wideband which could revolutionize the way we communicate". [3]
The Real Concern...
The reasons above clearly indicate an immature handling of the issue on the policy front, supported by some irrational arguments. The primary argument of 91% market share overlooks the fact the merger would constitute a mere 20% of the overall television broadcasting market where cable, and now the phone, companies enjoy a comfortable position. This would actually increase competition and force the relatively complacent cable companies to pull up their socks to stay competitive.
Second, Rupert Murdoch's cry had a different cause altogether, than that projected. First, reduction in competition in the satellite segment would naturally erode his corporation's profits in selling the programming. Second, Rupert Murdoch had lost the bid to buy DirecTV to EchoStar.
Third, rural America would naturally prefer service than the lack of it. There are several places where cable companies wont dare to even think of providing services purely due to economic infeasibility. Satellite TV would be the only possible alternative and EchoStar will obviously want to keep the pricing competitive and in sync with that offered to urban counterparts so as to tap the rural market completely. Also, the provisioning of services at rates competitive to that of cable companies in urban markets would actually up their profit in the urban segment (as satellite TV broadcast becomes more profitable in an area of increased density) and help them cross subsidize their rural services. In an essay published in the Rocky Mountain News in late January, Wallop wrote, "The satellite industry has a strong track record of serving rural areas, not with promises but with programming".
Apart from this, interveners should base their policies in a technology specific environment of reasoning. Satellite segment is ten times as risky as the cable or the telephone segment. Relatively, lot of investment and technological expertise goes into a satellite based services. This demands a soft corner for players in this segment so as to encourage future entrants and hence competition. In an open and competition encouraging market, fears of a monopolistic domination no longer hold much appeal. Entrepreneurial vigor and technology often naturally balances the market forces. For instance, just when regulators were pushing hard to discover ways to share the copper network, along came the vibrant cellular phone technology. It has now virtually and unknowingly created one of the most ideal markets upholding all the ideals of capitalism and competition. In a similar way, there are some very dynamic developments taking place in the satellite segment too. For instance, "wireless telecom entrepreneur Craig McCaw has been busy funneling billions into satellite ventures such as ICO and Teledesic. These satellite constellations would offer ubiquitous high-speed service across the globe and have attracted an impressive group investors, including Microsoft founder Bill Gates. And let's not forget about wi-fi and ultra-wideband which could revolutionize the way we communicate". [3]
The Real Concern...
Hence more than anti-trust, I believe the policy makers and the guardians of legal sanity need to concentrate on anti-rust because decisions in the recent past have displayed a rust in their rational and decision making abilities. As Adam Thierer, the Director of Telecommunications Studies and Clyde Wayne Crews Jr., the Director of Technology Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. say, "regulatory ethos today are wholly corrupt and completely at odds with foundations of a free and just capitalist system. Sadly, morality-based arguments don't get very far in Washington these days".
References:
[1] Barthold, Jim "FCC rejects EchoStar-DirecTV Merger" http://telephonyonline.com/news/telecom_fcc_rejects_echostardirectv/ October 2002
[2] Bast, Joseph "Farm Bureau endorses EchoStar/DirecTV Merger" http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=399 May 2002
[3] Thierer, Adam and Wayne, Clade "EchoStar-DirecTV Merger Critics Propose Infrastructure Socialism in Outer Space" http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/021008-tk.html October 2002
References:
[1] Barthold, Jim "FCC rejects EchoStar-DirecTV Merger" http://telephonyonline.com/news/telecom_fcc_rejects_echostardirectv/ October 2002
[2] Bast, Joseph "Farm Bureau endorses EchoStar/DirecTV Merger" http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=399 May 2002
[3] Thierer, Adam and Wayne, Clade "EchoStar-DirecTV Merger Critics Propose Infrastructure Socialism in Outer Space" http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/021008-tk.html October 2002
Monday, April 2, 2007
Memo 10: Google Doc(k)s In....
Competition has always driven innovation. But not all innovation drives competition. Only the ones that have a greater appeal to the masses and the ones that are not drastically radical have more often found success. People have always been slow and weary to react to change. It has always been observed that when something new is associable with its predecessor and the change is evident in its improvements, it is much easily and quickly adapted than the one that cannot be related to at least by the multitudes.One such example is the area of word processors.
Microsoft has ruled this sector for decades now with its almighty MS Word. It has been a marvelous word processing software and has served people quite loyally for quite some time now. Although we keep on cribbing about Microsoft products, its anti-competition policies, its shortcomings etcetera but we all use Microsoft products and especially when it comes to Office. The simple reason is that the MS Office products are simple, easy to use, very effective and a kind of must have.
MS Word is not free and that is probably the major reason why a few people (believe me, they are very very few in number) do not use it. Its alternates like Open Office Text Document (by Sun and free) and Corel Word Perfect (not free but gives a large enough free trial period) are ridiculous replicas of MS Word. (even the short cuts are similar) This talks a lot about the effectiveness of MS Word. Since people have been using MS Word for quite some time, its alternates have to be pretty similar to facilitate easy migration. Also, MS Word is very user friendly and trying to make something different and complicated will not appeal to the common man.
There is, however a new player. Google Docs and Spreadsheets is the new entrant. Unlike MS Word and its counterparts, it is conceptually different as it is a Web word processor Instead of the document being saved in your hard disk, the document gets saved in the server under your Google account. This is very consistence with Google's ideology of shifting computing away from the individual to the central grid. Hence hard disk crash does not affect your important documents. Also the document is available from any place at any time on any machine with Internet access.
Secondly, the interface is very much similar to that of MS Word. That is, considering the basic editing tools like cut, copy paste, undo, spell check, font, paragraph etcetera, Google Docs can be easily related to . However these functionalities are very basic in nature and are not as comprehensive.
However, the usp of Google Docs is the ability to collaborate. Since the documents are online, one can invite several collaborators to work on the same document simultaneously. This is something very new and very useful especially today when the corporate culture relies so much on collaborative and group project reports. Also the document gets auto saved periodically.
So with all the great features and innovation, is Google Docs the next generation word processing software? Is it all set to replace MS Word?
Well, it has a long way to go. Its collaborative feature loses appeal when more than 9-10 people work on it simultaneously. The response is very slow, lagging and not comfortable to work with. Secondly, Internet access although much much easier than the past, isn't yet an obvious aspect. Consider travelling on a plane or in a bus where you have time to work on a document and Google Docs wont allow you. Also, it is psychologically convenient for people to go to MS Word for a document than to Google Docs as to go to the latter, you connect to the net, go to Google, sign in and then start the document.
Also, it does not incorporate all the features that MS Word has or one would like a word processing software to have like tables, formulas, rulers, headers footers, page layouts etcetera. It is very difficult to integrate pictures, graphs etcetera into the document when compared to MS Word and its counterparts.
Hence, I believe that Google Docs is certainly not an innovative replacement for the orthodox word processing software. However, it is a great concept that encourages centralized, collaborative and secure computing. (I believe, contrary to common notion, PCs are more vulnerable than servers and online storage) Also it has a great scope for plain text based applications that require multiple access and back up.
MS Word is not free and that is probably the major reason why a few people (believe me, they are very very few in number) do not use it. Its alternates like Open Office Text Document (by Sun and free) and Corel Word Perfect (not free but gives a large enough free trial period) are ridiculous replicas of MS Word. (even the short cuts are similar) This talks a lot about the effectiveness of MS Word. Since people have been using MS Word for quite some time, its alternates have to be pretty similar to facilitate easy migration. Also, MS Word is very user friendly and trying to make something different and complicated will not appeal to the common man.
There is, however a new player. Google Docs and Spreadsheets is the new entrant. Unlike MS Word and its counterparts, it is conceptually different as it is a Web word processor Instead of the document being saved in your hard disk, the document gets saved in the server under your Google account. This is very consistence with Google's ideology of shifting computing away from the individual to the central grid. Hence hard disk crash does not affect your important documents. Also the document is available from any place at any time on any machine with Internet access.
Secondly, the interface is very much similar to that of MS Word. That is, considering the basic editing tools like cut, copy paste, undo, spell check, font, paragraph etcetera, Google Docs can be easily related to . However these functionalities are very basic in nature and are not as comprehensive.
However, the usp of Google Docs is the ability to collaborate. Since the documents are online, one can invite several collaborators to work on the same document simultaneously. This is something very new and very useful especially today when the corporate culture relies so much on collaborative and group project reports. Also the document gets auto saved periodically.
So with all the great features and innovation, is Google Docs the next generation word processing software? Is it all set to replace MS Word?
Well, it has a long way to go. Its collaborative feature loses appeal when more than 9-10 people work on it simultaneously. The response is very slow, lagging and not comfortable to work with. Secondly, Internet access although much much easier than the past, isn't yet an obvious aspect. Consider travelling on a plane or in a bus where you have time to work on a document and Google Docs wont allow you. Also, it is psychologically convenient for people to go to MS Word for a document than to Google Docs as to go to the latter, you connect to the net, go to Google, sign in and then start the document.
Also, it does not incorporate all the features that MS Word has or one would like a word processing software to have like tables, formulas, rulers, headers footers, page layouts etcetera. It is very difficult to integrate pictures, graphs etcetera into the document when compared to MS Word and its counterparts.
Hence, I believe that Google Docs is certainly not an innovative replacement for the orthodox word processing software. However, it is a great concept that encourages centralized, collaborative and secure computing. (I believe, contrary to common notion, PCs are more vulnerable than servers and online storage) Also it has a great scope for plain text based applications that require multiple access and back up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
