The future of the internet: A virtual counter-revolution | The Economist

The future of the internet: A virtual counter-revolution | The Economist: "

It is telling that net neutrality has become far more politically controversial in America than it has elsewhere. This is a reflection of the relative lack of competition in America’s broadband market. In Europe and Japan, “open access” rules require network operators to lease parts of their networks to other firms on a wholesale basis, thus boosting competition. A study comparing broadband markets, published in 2009 by Harvard University’s Berkman Centre for Internet & Society, found that countries with such rules enjoy faster, cheaper broadband service than America, because the barrier to entry for new entrants is much lower. And if any access provider starts limiting what customers can do, they will defect to another.

America’s operators have long insisted that open-access requirements would destroy their incentive to build fast, new networks: why bother if you will be forced to share it? After intense lobbying, America’s telecoms regulators bought this argument. But the lesson from elsewhere in the industrialised world is that it is not true. The result, however, is that America has a small number of powerful network operators, prompting concern that they will abuse their power unless they are compelled, by a net-neutrality law, to treat all traffic equally. Rather than trying to mandate fairness in this way—net neutrality is very hard to define or enforce—it makes more sense to address the underlying problem: the lack of competition.
It should come as no surprise that the internet is being pulled apart on every level. “While technology can gravely wound governments, it rarely kills them,” Debora Spar, president of Barnard College at Columbia University, wrote several years ago in her book, “Ruling the Waves”. “This was all inevitable,” argues Chris Anderson, the editor of Wired, under the headline “The Web is Dead” in the September issue of the magazine. “A technology is invented, it spreads, a thousand flowers bloom, and then someone finds a way to own it, locking out others.”
Yet predictions are hazardous, particularly in IT. Governments may yet realise that a freer internet is good not just for their economies, but also for their societies. Consumers may decide that it is unwise to entrust all their secrets to a single online firm such as Facebook, and decamp to less insular alternatives, such as Diaspora.
Similarly, more open technology could also still prevail in the mobile industry. Android, Google’s smart-phone platform, which is less closed than Apple’s, is growing rapidly and gained more subscribers in America than the iPhone in the first half of this year. Intel and Nokia, the world’s biggest chipmaker and the biggest manufacturer of telephone handsets, are pushing an even more open platform called MeeGo. And as mobile devices and networks improve, a standards-based browser could become the dominant access software on the wireless internet as well.

The danger is not that these islands become physically separated, says Andrew Odlyzko, a professor at the University of Minnesota. There is just too much value in universal connectivity, he argues. “The real question is how high the walls between these walled gardens will be.” Still, if the internet loses too much of its universality, cautions Mr Werbach of the Wharton School, it may indeed fall apart, just as world trade can collapse if there is too much protectionism. Theory demonstrates that interconnected networks such as the internet can grow quickly, he explains—but also that they can dissolve quickly. “This looks rather unlikely today, but if it happens, it will be too late to do anything about it.” "

Technology changes — Society changes

How we communicate has always had a profound effect on both the structure of our societies and our personal opportunities. Freer, wider communication gives us power to improve and damage the institutions that affect our lives and livelihoods, even in societies that tightly regulate speech and behavior.

For example, without direct dialing, there would have been no Montgomery bus boycott and probably no Southern Christian Leadership Conference without Martin Luther King's resulting prominence. Civil Rights in the United States would have progressed on a different, likely slower, path. The shape of legislation would differ. Court decisions would happen later and happen in different order.
Would Barack Obama be President? Or even a Senator?




Can we afford to let a few corporations control how far and whom our voices reach? Control how much we have to say? How often? How loud?

I don't think so. How about you?
– Al Ingram
http://www.economist.com/node/16941635

We're in a service war

This is Bings attempt to differ from other engines by making life easier for the searcher. Booble has already begun to respond. For the casual searcher, Bing might be more useful. Definitely more usable.
in reference to: Bing - Deep Links Makes Life As A New Mom Easier - Search Blog - Bing Community (view on Google Sidewiki)

New Search Technologies Mine the Web More Deeply - NYTimes.com

New Search Technologies Mine the Web More Deeply - NYTimes.com:

“One day last summer, Google’s search engine trundled quietly past a milestone. It added the one trillionth address to the list of Web pages it knows about. But as impossibly big as that number may seem, it represents only a fraction of the entire Web.

Beyond those trillion pages lies an even vaster Web of hidden data: financial information, shopping catalogs, flight schedules, medical research and all kinds of other material stored in databases that remain largely invisible to search engines.

The challenges that the major search engines face in penetrating this so-called Deep Web go a long way toward explaining why they still can’t provide satisfying answers to questions like “What’s the best fare from New York to London next Thursday?” The answers are readily available — if only the search engines knew how to find them.

Now a new breed of technologies is taking shape that will extend the reach of search engines into the Web’s hidden corners. When that happens, it will do more than just improve the quality of search results — it may ultimately reshape the way many companies do business online.

Search engines rely on programs known as crawlers (or spiders) that gather information by following the trails of hyperlinks that tie the Web together. While that approach works well for the pages that make up the surface Web, these programs have a harder time penetrating databases that are set up to respond to typed queries.

“The crawlable Web is the tip of the iceberg,” says Anand Rajaraman, co-founder of Kosmix (www.kosmix.com), a Deep Web search start-up whose investors include Jeffrey P. Bezos, chief executive of Amazon.com. Kosmix has developed software that matches searches with the databases most likely to yield relevant information, then returns an overview of the topic drawn from multiple sources.

“Most search engines try to help you find a needle in a haystack,” Mr. Rajaraman said, “but what we’re trying to do is help you explore the haystack.”

That haystack is infinitely large. With millions of databases connected to the Web, and endless possible permutations of search terms, there is simply no way for any search engine — no matter how powerful — to sift through every possible combination of data on the fly.

To extract meaningful data from the Deep Web, search engines have to analyze users’ search terms and figure out how to broker those queries to particular databases. For example, if a user types in “Rembrandt,” the search engine needs to know which databases are most likely to contain information about art ( say, museum catalogs or auction houses), and what kinds of queries those databases will accept.

That approach may sound straightforward in theory, but in practice the vast variety of database structures and possible search terms poses a thorny computational challenge.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/technology/internet/23search.html?th&emc=th

PC World - Sneaky Fees: 7 New Ways You're Paying More

PC World - Sneaky Fees: 7 New Ways You're Paying More:

JR Raphael, PC World

"It's no secret that the faltering economy is taking its toll on the tech world. You may not have noticed, though, how often your wallet has been hit with sneaky fees as a result. We've identified seven recently introduced surcharges on tech-related products--add-ons that vendors aren't exactly trumpeting. Ready to see where companies are hiding the new fees?

Sneaky Fee Philosophy

Sneaky fees are by no means new. A study two years ago found that American consumers, on average, pay almost $950 each in cloaked costs every year. Now, with the mangled state of the economy heralding hard times ahead, corporations are have even more reason to try to bump up the price of their goods by subtly tacking on a few cents here and there for various nominal services and extras.

'Companies are struggling with this new economic environment in the last 12 months,' says Bob Sullivan, author of Gotcha Capitalism and columnist of MSNBC’s Red Tape Chronicles. 'They'll really be willing to do anything to survive.'

Finding Your Fees

We've long heard about hidden fees in things like phone bills. 'Federal Subscriber Line Charge'? There's nothing federal about it--that one goes straight into the phone company's coffers, as does the 'Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge' on your cell phone service statement. But newer costs are popping up in technology right now, and they may be affecting you in ways you're unaware of.…"

http://www.pcworld.com/article/152825/article.html?tk=nl_wbxnws

State and Federal Electronic Government in the United States, 2008 - Brookings Institution

State and Federal Electronic Government in the United States, 2008 - Brookings Institution:

"The social and political impact of new technology long has been debated among observers. Throughout American history, technological innovations – from the movable-type printing press in the 15th century, the telegraph in 1844, and the telephone in 1876 to the rise of radio in the 1920s and coast-to-coast television broadcasting in 1946 – have sparked much speculation. Transformationalists often claim that new technology will produce widespread consequences. Incrementalists, on the other hand, point to the influence of institutional forces—such as structural fragmentation within government as well as issues related to the investment cost and organizational structures of state and federal government—in limiting the speed and breadth of technology’s impact on the public sector.

This report assesses the nature of American state and federal electronic government in 2008 by examining whether e-government effectively capitalizes on the interactive features available on the World Wide Web to improve service delivery and public outreach. Although considerable progress has been made over the past decade, e-government has fallen short of its potential to transform public-sector operations. This report closes by suggesting how public officials can take maximum advantage of technology to improve government performance.

These key findings come from the full report (PDF; 543 KB):

+ Eighty-nine percent of state and federal websites have services that are fully executable online, compared with 86 percent in 2007.

+ Three percent of government websites are accessible through personal digital assistants (PDAs), pagers or mobile phones, up from 1 percent last year.

+ Seventy-three percent of government websites have some form of privacy policy available online (the same as last year), and 58 percent have a visible security policy (up from 52 percent last year).

+ Forty percent of government websites offer some type of foreign language translation, up from 22 percent last year.

+ Sixty-four percent of government websites are written at the 12th-grade reading level or higher, which is much higher than that of the average American.

+ Seven percent of government websites have user fees.

+ Twenty-five percent of federal websites and 19 percent of state websites are accessible to the disabled.

+ The highest-ranking state websites belong to Delaware, Georgia, Florida, California, Massachusetts, Maine, Kentucky, Alabama, Indiana and Tennessee.

+ The top-ranking federal websites are the national portal USA.gov, Department of Agriculture, General Services Administration, Postal Service, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Education, Small Business Administration, Library of Congress, Department of Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board.

See also from Brookings:
+ Improving Technology Utilization in Electronic Government around the World, 2008"

Courtesy of the ResourceShelf http://www.resourceshelf.com

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/0826_egovernment_west.aspx

The French Connections - New York Times

The French Connections - New York Times: (TimeSelect Subscription Required)

"The numbers are startling. As recently as 2001, the percentage of the population with high-speed access in Japan and Germany was only half that in the United States. In France it was less than a quarter. By the end of 2006, however, all three countries had more broadband subscribers per 100 people than we did.

Even more striking is the fact that our “high speed” connections are painfully slow by other countries’ standards. According to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, French broadband connections are, on average, more than three times as fast as ours. Japanese connections are a dozen times faster. Oh, and access is much cheaper in both countries than it is here.

As a result, we’re lagging in new applications of the Internet that depend on high speed. France leads the world in the number of subscribers to Internet TV; the United States isn’t even in the top 10.

What happened to America’s Internet lead? Bad policy. Specifically, the United States made the same mistake in Internet policy that California made in energy policy: it forgot — or was persuaded by special interests to ignore — the reality that sometimes you can’t have effective market competition without effective regulation.

You see, the world may look flat once you’re in cyberspace — but to get there you need to go through a narrow passageway, down your phone line or down your TV cable. And if the companies controlling these passageways can behave like the robber barons of yore, levying whatever tolls they like on those who pass by, commerce suffers.

America’s Internet flourished in the dial-up era because federal regulators didn’t let that happen — they forced local phone companies to act as common carriers, allowing competing service providers to use their lines. Clinton administration officials, including Al Gore and Reed Hundt, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, tried to ensure that this open competition would continue — but the telecommunications giants sabotaged their efforts, while The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page ridiculed them as people with the minds of French bureaucrats.

And when the Bush administration put Michael Powell in charge of the F.C.C., the digital robber barons were basically set free to do whatever they liked. As a result, there’s little competition in U.S. broadband — if you’re lucky, you have a choice between the services offered by the local cable monopoly and the local phone monopoly. The price is high and the service is poor, but there’s nowhere else to go."

(Time Select Subscription Required) http://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/opinion/23krugman.html

The Black Holes of Tech

“We've all experienced technical conundrums—bizarre behavior exhibited by our computers, or MP3 players, our phones, or some other piece of electronic wizardry. By all rights, technical stuff is rooted in logic, so strange things shouldn't happen, but they do. We're not talking about stuff that happens to everyone; a bad device driver, for instance, can ruin life for every user who owns the affected part. We mean stuff that only happens to the few, the ones who call tech support and baffle everyone to whom they speak from the lowly key puncher to the senior geek in charge.

We're here to tell you that you're not alone. We've been baffled, too. Read on, to delve into times when the armies of ExtremeTech and Ziff-Davis itself—known the world over for technical proficiency—thought they woke up in the Bermuda Triangle.”

‘’

……

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2154190,00.asp