Why would Cicconi make such claims? As Ars Technica astutely notes, AT&T has every interest to push bandwith-throttling tactics like those used by Comcast in its blocking of BitTorrent, because like Comcast, AT&T’s supposed high-speed Internet offering relies upon existing network connections, rather than building true fiber-optic cable to the home as Verizon is doing with FiOS–and is prey to the same bandwith restrictions and infrastructure problems as a result, when it’s not literally blowing up in people’s faces.

What Verizon gets–and what AT&T, Comcast, and much of the cable/telecom duopolies fail to understand–is that only with heavy infrastructure investment and network buildouts will we be able to bring real high-speed broadband to the country. Companies that place short-term profits over long-term gains are constantly looking to squeeze every last customer dollar out of existing networks that they can before putting up the money to build out new connections. As a result, “network management”–what you and I call throttling or cutting customers off–is becoming more and more commonplace.

P2P service Vuze has taken the debate a step further, by developing a user plugin that enables them to measure traffic-shaping efforts and analyze the data. Vuze recently published their first report detailing their initial findings, and the conclusions are interesting indeed–Vuze claims that Comcast’s traffic-shaping efforts are widespread, and that they’re hardly the sole offenders.

Of course, it’s important to take Vuze’s findings with a few shakerfuls of salt–they are a P2P service, after all, so it’s in their interests to counteract any network-controlling techniques that would hinder their business. And who’s to say whether or not the app is designed to give back exactly the kind of data they want to publicize? Still, even with the necessary skepticism attached, the central question remains–what if they’re right?

And it’s not just happening to Internet traffic as well. Today a report came out detailing how Comcast, apparently unsatisfied with their reputation as the boogiemen of net neutrality, are compressing high-definition television signals into the bandwith of analog signals, rather than investing in infrastructure upgrades to deliver real HD images to the viewer. The result:

“It kind of looked like they took the standard definition and just blew it up,” said Swanson, a 33-year-old graphic designer and videographer who subscribes to Comcast Corp.’s TV service. “I couldn’t really tell if what I was seeing was really better than what I saw on regular television.”

This sums up so much of how American communications conglomerates have swindled the public over the years by feeding us crappy second-rate service that we pay through the nose for, because there are often no other options for service in our residential area. And don’t think Verizon is a prize just because they get the message about true fiber-to-the-home buildouts. This is the same company that deliberately redirects Internet searches to its own home pages, blocked text messages from NARAL, and (lest we forget) aided and abetted the NSA in spying on American citizens illegally. Wow, that’s real competition there.

This week the Senate Commerce Committee is holding a hearing on no less than the future of the Internet itself, and net neutrality supporter Senator John Kerry has taken the opportunity to solicit feedback from citizens concerned about the unchecked power of corporations to subtly warp and twist Internet access to suit their purposes–or simply to save themselves a few bucks while we fall further and further behind in real broadband development. Don’t forget that many of those bucks will go to buying off Senators and Congressmen to ensure that their agendas are fulfilled on Capitol Hill. If you don’t believe me, ask John “Straight Talk” McCain–his infamous “friend” Vicki Iseman was a hard-charging telecommunications lobbyist:

Iseman, 40, who joined the Arlington-based firm of Alcalde & Fay as a secretary and rose to partner within a few years, often touted her access to the chairman of the Senate commerce committee as she worked on behalf of clients such as Cablevision, EchoStar and Tribune Broadcasting, according to several other lobbyists who spoke on the condition of anonymity…In the years that McCain chaired the commerce committee, Iseman lobbied for Lowell W. “Bud” Paxson, the head of what used to be Paxson Communications, now Ion Media Networks, and was involved in a successful lobbying campaign to persuade McCain and other members of Congress to send letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Paxson.

We’re in the middle of a shadow war over control of the Internet, and the people who matter the most–you and I–need to make our voices heard over the clamor of lobbyists, paid flacks, and pundits. The Internet is a public good that was built with your tax dollars. We need to employ basic principles to build real networks. If we don’t, our Internet future will be compressed, distorted, and not quite like the real thing–too much noise, too little signal, and too much cost for too little benefit.

We can do better than that. We must do better than that.

Comcast’s spokespersons admitted it paid people to do the same for a hearing on the company’s actions regarding its interference with peer-to-peer file-sharing services such as BitTorrent. The placeholders not only held spots in line, but also crowded into the hearing itself, preventing more than 100 attendees — many of whom had come to speak against Comcast — from getting inside.

This is, quite simply put, one of the lowest things I’ve ever seen. Was Comcast so unsure of its position that it had to stack the deck by paying homeless guys and gofers to fill up seats and cheer on command?

SaveTheInternet.com has a video up of the whole sordid affair:

Click here to view the embedded video.

It’s a very old-school action from what is absolutely an old-school company. Comcast and those like them are brick-and-mortar monopolists who are trying to take control of the Internet for their own profit. How can you expect them to play fair and freely with content that passes through their “pipes,” when they are willing to cheat at something as elemental as the right of public assembly and discourse?

I’m sure Sam will point out how utterly stupid Comcast was to try a tactic like this, not realizing they’d get caught–as if they couldn’t conceive their opposition would have access to resources that could dig this story up and get it on the front pages, where it belongs. Again, a very old-school attitude from an old-school company.

Companies like Comcast need to learn and be reminded in no uncertain terms that the Internet does not belong to them. It’s a public utility, built with tax dollars for the public good, and to establish free flow of communication among the public. If we don’t hold them accountable, the Internet of the future will operate very much like Comcast did at this FCC hearing–the people who pay will get the best seats in the house.

Let me begin by emphasizing how much I admire Nader and all he has done. As a consumer advocate myself, I probably would not have the career I do if it wasn’t for him. His work on everything from auto safety to the corporate takeover of modern politics should be an inspiration to anyone who wants to stand up for the little guy. I read his book, supported his presidency, and when compared to the stiff mannequin that was Al Gore in 2000 and the incipient stupidity of Dubya, I pulled the lever for him.

But this isn’t 2000. It’s a very different world, and Nader simply refuses to recognize that.

First there’s his age. At 73 (soon to be 74), Nader is even older than John McCain, a man for whom his age has become a vital consideration as to whether or not you can expect him to go the full eight years. If Nader were elected and served two terms, he’d be 81 by the time he left office. Given that the youthfulness of Barack Obama and the vitality he brings with him has so successfully captured the ever-elusive youth vote, what can Nader really bring to the table to appeal to them by comparison?

Second, there’s accomplishment. What has Nader really done in the intervening eight years since his first run, and the four years since his second run, which was even more of a blip on the radar screen? Robert Scheer asked these questions in 2004, after Nader’s abortive second run:

Nader is not responding to a grass-roots demand that he run but rather is stoking his celebrity as a media curiosity. He has no mandate from those who care deeply about the causes he has championed. His sudden cameo appearance over the objections of many who have followed him, bypassing existing Green Party organizations, smacks of overwhelming elitism. Nader has done nothing of significance since the last election to organize popular opposition to the disasters of the Bush government, yet he now deigns to assert that he alone can save us.

That’s truer now than it was then, and it leads into my third point–timing. Why has Nader waited until now, when we’ve pretty much nailed down who the nominees will be for both parties? Why didn’t he start his run last year, building a grassroots initiative to get on the ballot on all 50 states? Why not appeal to second-tier candidates like Kucinich, Gravel, or even Ron Paul, to work with him and get behind him–and bring their disaffected constituencies with him?

The answer is Nader isn’t running to win. He’s running to be a spoiler, to draw attention–and possibly votes–away from the Democrat and Republican alike. Unfortunately, Mike Huckabee was very right when he said that Nader “usually pulls votes from the Democratic nominee. “So naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race,” Huckabee said–and if he’s saying that, it’s something for us to worry about.

Mike says in his post that if Clinton gets the nomination, he’ll vote for Nader. I’ve had similar statements levied to me by friends of mine who are so far left they make me look like Mark Penn–the idea that anything to the right of, say, Dennis Kucinich, is a corporate tool and not worth voting for. Maybe that’s true.

But what will this concretely accomplish, besides giving votes to McCain, whose supporters will probably not be voting for the Nader/McKinney ticket? Nothing. It will enable people who pat themselves on the back for being principled to absolve themselves of any responsibility for what will happen with what is, essentially, a third term of Bush. It’s the same kind of solipsistic self-aggrandizement that Nader himself is tremendously guilty of. It’s a very cynical, passive-aggressive, mealy-mouthed sort of stance-”I don’t care if the country is going to hell in a handbasket as long as I stay true to my principles.” Nader exemplified this back in 2000 when he flat-out said that he’d rather have Bush win:

When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: “Bush.” Not that he actually thinks the man he calls “Bush Inc.” deserves to be elected: “He’ll do whatever industry wants done.” The rumpled crusader clearly prefers to sink his righteous teeth into Al Gore, however: “He’s totally betrayed his 1992 book,” Nader says. “It’s all rhetoric.” Gore “groveled openly” to automakers, charges Nader, who concludes with the sotto voce realpolitik of a ward heeler: “If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win.”

Well, thanks, Ralph. You got what you wanted. So why, then, are you running again? What can you possibly hope to accomplish this time that you didn’t before?

Matt Stoller is absolutely right when he says that Nader has a lot of things to say that need saying, but that he himself is part of the problem. It’s the same type of phenomenon as Edwards’ populist message pushing Clinton and Obama further left, even though he himself didn’t benefit from it. Hell, you can say it’s the same as bloggers on Daily Kos being more left-tilted than Markos himself. The simple truth is that the movement is bigger than the man–than any man–and those who would try to make it all about them are doomed to failure.

Just as the Obama movement evolved and took form beyond the influence of the movers and shakers in the blogosphere, so too has the populist movement grown and eclipsed many of its standard-bearers. Nader should realize this and have the dignity to step aside quietly, so as not to sully his many considerable accomplishments any further. We need victories, not ideological martyrs. We need Presidents, not kings. And we need someone who is truly out for the welfare of the country, rather than for themselves.

I used to think Nader was that man, but not any more. It saddens me tremendously, but there it is. He needs to go, and he needs to take the army of disaffected whiners who would assure four more years of Republican domination through their vote for him along as well.

This leads me to the excellent paper authored by Sascha Meinrath on how the concept of net neutrality needs to be incorporated and expanded into a larger vision of Internet freedom.

Meinrath’s paper (available as a free download, and which I found via the indispensable Natasha Chart) studies the landscape of America’s decrepit and costly broadband offerings in exhaustive detail. He hits all the right marks–the $750 million buildout of “dark fiber” connections that go largely unused, the billions in subsidies given to major telecom companies with no discernible return for the taxpayer, and the current efforts of both telecoms, government, and media companies to restrict, choke, and narrow access to information in order to preserve both their business models and their primacy of content providing.

As Meinrath notes:

From the reemergence of telecommunications giant AT&T to current efforts by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to re-open media ownership proceedings, fewer players are gaining massive market share, creating increasingly vertically and horizontally integrated corporations with the potential to dominate entire market sectors (Kushnick, 1999; McChesney, 1999). The current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulatory environment fails to spur technological innovation and has retarded expansion of digital inclusion efforts (Cooper, 2004). Instead, the FCC has fostered a decades-long market environment fraught with pricing and geographical discrimination as well as overpriced, substandard telecommunications services (Slotten, 2000)…

Meinrath’s solution is a ten-point plan that recasts the Internet as a global public utility rather than a private enterprise commodity. I’ll translate his points for the tech-phobic among you:

1. Requires Common Carriage. (Every market player has access to the Internet, from public networks to private companies)

2. Is Open Architecture and Supports Open Source Driver Development. (You can use any hardware you want…)

3. Is Open Protocol and Open Standard. (…and any software you want.)

4. Supports an End-to-End Architecture (i.e., is based upon a “dumb network”). (Prevents governmental and corporate attempts to block or prioritize traffic.)

5. Is Private (e.g., no back doors, deep packet inspection, etc.). (No spying allowed!)

6. Is Application-Neutral. (See #2 and #3.)

7. Is Low-Latency and First-In/First-Out (i.e., requires adequate capacity). (Requires carriers to eschew “artificial scarcity” by using all the cables and connections they buy for at least basic access.)

8. Is Interoperable. (Works effectively across the nation and the world.)

9. Is Business Model Neutral. (Enables both public-sector and private-sector innovation.)

10. Is Run by its Users (i.e., is internationally representative and non-Amerocentric). (Self-explanatory.)

Meinrath’s plan doesn’t have all the answers, but he does a marvelous job of providing context and a larger vision for how we can not only rebuild America’s position as a true technological and social innovator in the realm of the Internet, but how this can be expanded into a truly globe-spanning connective system that’s “neutral, democratic, and efficient.” Highly recommended.

And if you’re so inclined, you can go back and read my principles for America’s Internet future, which addresses a lot of similar points, and a few Meinrath doesn’t. Just sayin’.

• Digital music sales are quite literally the only bright spot in an ailing business–whereas digital downloads rose by 50 percent in 2007, sales of physical CDs, particularly full albums, continue to tank. This is a logical progression of the business as it moves towards a singles-driven model. Unless you have the clout of Jay-Z and can force digital retailers to sell your album only as a single piece and not individual tracks, the era of the album (or “CD”) may be coming to a close, at least in terms of vendor sales. CDs will probably continue to sell like hotcakes on tour, particularly promotional CDs.
• Artists who have experimented with bypassing the major labels and selling tracks directly to fans have met with mixed results. Nine Inch Nails’ Trent Reznor offered fans the chance to download tracks from fellow artist Saul Williams for free, or to buy higher-quality versions for $5. The majority went for the free version, once again proving Mike Masnick’s theory that you can compete with “free” only if you add value enough to the product to make it worth the cost. As Masnick points out, Saul Williams probably has a lot more publicity now from this experiment, so when the album comes out, he may get a lot more in the way of listeners.
• Speaking of artists who have tried to bypass typical channels to sell their music directly, Radiohead’s Thom Yorke makes the very valid point that artists often see next to nothing in terms of real profit from their via-download sales, because their contracts were negotiated to nickel-and-dime every last bit of money away from them, or simply don’t address e-music sales at all. Much like the writers in Hollywood striking to win rights for profit from content on the Internet, downloadable music means the artists should be able and willing to renegotiate contracts that cut out the middleman and get the profits where they belong.
• Sony BMG is the lone holdout record company that has not committed to sales of DRM-free music. For the company to ignore a revenue goldmine that could come from competing with Apple’s notorious “walled garden” of iTunes and undercutting their price model is, simply put, bad business. Sony already has a tarnished reputation thanks to the CD rootkit scandal, and even its preeminence in the DVD format wars and sales of the PS3 haven’t completely erased that issue from the public’s mind. To cheat itself out of profit through legal music sales just to prove a point is financially unwise at best, but this is the music industry we’re talking about.

This is an exciting and fascinating time to be a music lover, though I’m sure it’s an intensely aggravating and disheartening time to be in the music business. And in order to remain a business–one that’s viable and competitive–the industry is going to have to dramatically readjust its models of success, from committing fully to selling MP3s without any copy protection, to giving artists more profit and control off e-music sales on the back end, to ending the practice of drumming up new revenue streams by suing people into oblivion.

You can’t fight the future, as I often say. 8-tracks, albums, VHS tapes, and many brick-and-mortar chains have passed or are passing into history, but music itself endures and thrives. The medium and the format may change, but the art lives forever. In order for the business to endure and thrive along with the art, the industry needs to stop treating customers like criminals and give them what they want.

Starting immediately, AT&T customers can ditch their AT&T phones and use any wireless phone, device and software application from any maker — think smartphones, e-mail and music downloading. And they don’t have to sign a contract. “You can use any handset on our network you want,” says Ralph de la Vega, CEO of AT&T’s wireless business. “We don’t prohibit it, or even police it.”…AT&T for years kept quiet the fact that wireless customers had the option of using devices and applications other than those offered by AT&T. But now salespeople in AT&T phone stores will make sure that consumers “know all their options” before making a final purchase. The AT&T wireless chief won’t say whether AT&T plans to launch a marketing campaign to push “open” platforms, but allows that might be a possibility.

This is certainly great news for any AT&T customer, and another sign that the American telecom industry is warming up to the reality that open networks with open devices are the way of the future. But are things really as “open” as they seem?

As the USA Today article notes, the iPhone–the holy grail of an open device standard–will still require a two-year contract lock-in with AT&T, and given that Apple has built the business model of many of its product on a closed “walled garden” system, I’m skeptical that we’ll see iPhones working legally on T-Mobile’s or Verizon’s network anytime soon. Engadget (via WebProNews) also notes that swapping your SIM card from one phone to another and not having it turn into a paperweight isn’t the same thing as a truly open network that all devices can access.

AT&T’s announcement followed Verizon’s claim that it would open its own network to all devices and software. Of course, the devil is in the fine print, and in this case, Verizon’s as-yet-unpublished “technical standards” may end up nixing a multitude of applications that customers may want to use. There’s also the fact that Verizon’s CDMA network is not the worldwide standard GSM network, so a phone that is enabled for GSM won’t work on Verizon Wireless’ standard. TechCrunch’s Erick Schonfeld also made the sharp-eyed catch that there may be a two-tiered system for the “open” Verizon network, where apps designed for the new non-Verizon phones will not be available to existing Verizon customers.

So what does all this mean? GigaOm’s Daniel Berninger thinks that though Verizon may attempt to introduce some price discrimination into its open network model, they’ve committed themselves so publicly to the concept that customers–and media watchdogs–won’t accept half-steps. We won’t know until we have a chance to parse Verizon’s tech standards to see if there are any “gotchas” involved.

In the meantime, the moves by big telecoms to embrace openness as the way are a clear response to Google’s stepping up its game in the mobile arena. Not only has Google committed to bidding $4.6 billion in the FCC wireless spectrum auction, it’s also the prime mover behind the Open Handset Alliance, a coalition of technology and mobile providers working to support Android, Google’s proposed open-source mobile phone operating system and application suite. Note that among the supporters of the Alliance are Sprint and T-Mobile, the third-and-fourth-place wireless providers, who stand to gain a lot more from supporting Google than AT&T and Verizon do.

This is not to say that Google is completely comfortable or adept in this arena yet, as witnessed by its inexplicable nerfing of its iPhone homepage. But they’re clearly making moves powerful enough to put some of the world’s most powerful corporations on notice that a truly open network is the way to go, and it’s up to us to ensure that we don’t settle for half-measures or compromises. “Open” means “open,” and we shouldn’t settle for anything less.

UPDATE: TechDirt’s Mike Masnick rips USA Today for claiming AT&T’s new openness is more than it really is. Read the whole thing, as they say.

First came the announcement that Google’s much-heralded online storage service, GDrive, is lurching towards a launch. This isn’t really as big a deal as it may seem–as the Ars Technica article notes, Microsoft, Apple, and AOL already have online storage services–but Google will undoubtedly trump those offerings through sheer size and interconnectedness with other apps like Docs, Picasa, etc. For those who support the concept of the Internet as auxiliary brain, GDrive will no doubt be manna from heaven to those who want complete open access to their work from any platform.

Of course, putting the entire contents of your hard drive online using Google could mean that you’re essentially giving Google free license to use your work as it sees fit, but thanks in no small part to the efforts of people like my fellow scholarly rogue Brian, Google has clarified that it will not try to pwnz0r documents or files you upload to its services. Still, I don’t plan to use GDrive any time in the near future–I like my brain nice and offline, thanks muchly.

Even more interesting is Verizon Wireless’ announcement that starting in 2008, it will open its wireless network to all devices and software that meet its technical standards. Given that Verizon has staunchly favored the “walled garden” approach and has been a devout foe of net neutrality and wireless interoperability, this is a road-to-Damascus moment that puts even Mark Halperin’s mea culpa to shame (so to speak).

The big unknown here is the “technical standards” Verizon will be putting forth. How open will those standards truly be? What kind of hitches and “gotchas” will be in there? It’s definitely going to require a fine-tooth comb to go over Verizon’s proposals and make sure they’re being truthful–after all, this is the company that claimed it offered “unlimited wireless broadband” that was anything but unlimited.

Still, this is a huge step forward and a big gauntlet toss at the other carriers. Will AT&T finally unlock the iPhone in response? Will phones be made that can work on both GSM and CDMA carriers? These are all questions that can be legitimately asked now, and will be demanding answers–that’s how big this move is.

It’s truly a strange day when one of the hoariest of the old communication titans upstages the new king of the hill, and I can’t wait to see what happens next.

Microsoft, with so much invested, must have been somewhat nonplussed. Open-source fans (and Apple, at the other end of the spectrum) rejoiced. Clearly computer users were tired of Microsoft and wanted a change.

Microsoft is constrained in releasing new software. As the world’s dominant operating system (and desktop publishing software) provider they have a large pool of legacy users – such as myself – who expect to upgrade and take decades worth of data with them onto the new platform. As they discovered with Windows Hotmail, sometimes your existing client-base doesn’t want to upgrade, no matter how exciting you make it.

Maybe the open-source movement is correct? Maybe not having that legacy gives Linux and Apple a mega-advantage?

The confusing truth is quite the opposite. For what computer buyers wanted instead of Vista was Windows XP; first released in October 2001. As far as computer development is concerned, XP is from the Stone Age.

Although, perhaps not that surprising.

The Excitement of 2001

I remember getting my first 386 computer back in the 1990s. It was a huge leap over the X86 I’d had in school, and over the 286 fellow students were using. But it was quickly surpassed by 486s and Pentiums.

Each generation brought with it tremendous advantages in speed and software power. In 1997 I was installing IBM’s OS/2 Warp at a major insurance company as we revamped their network, upgrading them from their mainframe system.

Back then Microsoft was fighting off IBM and other incumbent 900-pound gorillas. I hated OS/2. It was fundamentally idiotic and impossible.

With each iteration Microsoft learned and improved. When XP came out it all seemed to come together.

It’s easy to mock Microsoft, but it’s just as easy to mock Toyota or Hyundai or any of the motor manufacturers that aim squarely in the middle-market. If you’re a super-geek (Linux) or super-artiste (Apple) then Microsoft seems very middle-class.

But 90% of the work I do (and most office-workers) is word-processing and spreadsheets. I haven’t needed a faster machine or better office package since 2001. I still use my same version of Office and XP from then. It’s stable and more than sufficient.

Many people felt the same way. Hence the rather hum-drum response to Vista.

Changing Direction

Microsoft appears to have realised that this may happen many years ago. The first Windows Mobile packages came out in 2000 – very early in the mobile phone revolution. Windows, who still doesn’t have a phone of their own, had to develop solid relationships with hardware manufacturers.

The largest incumbent is Nokia, still hanging on to Symbion, their native operating system (and one I find frustrating as all hell). After years of struggle Microsoft seems to be releasing well-respected software.

And, while the computer desktop may have gone into a terminal holding pattern, the world of computer gaming has exploded into a $25 billion industry. These customers don’t want the same each time and are demanding ever higher performance.

More importantly, no-one playing on Playstation 3, or Xbox 360, or Wii seems to want the software to be open-source. They want to play the games, not muck around coding.

Microsoft has gradually built up a reputation and, with Halo 3, has bumped up into the big-time.

Apple, Facebook, and the Strategy of Business

By now you think I’m having a snog-fest with Microsoft. I could just have easily written about Apple’s no less exciting return to form.

Both companies, in their own way, have followed consumer trends; experimenting off their existing consumer-base and finding new markets with new products.

While open-source concentrates on the desktop, existing incumbents have been looking – with some success – for the next big thing.

Rupert Murdoch, pariah of the left-fringe, proves how successful a wait-and-see attitude can be. This old-media titan stood his ground and then bought MySpace in July 2005. The purchase price of $ 580 million was more than returned with a $ 900 million advertising deal with Google only seven months later.

Google may dominate the web but they do so with a single product. Realising their vulnerability, they too are entering new markets. Google has also attempted to cement their control of the Internet by offering a new platform for interoperability between social-networking sites. It is no surprise that MySpace is amongst their first backers, while Facebook is holding off.

So, what does this teach us?

Monetising Facebook (parlance for “making a profit”) was always going to be difficult. Microsoft seems to have come up with an elegant approach. Mark Zuckerberg, owner of Facebook, has said that 80 Facebook applications (developed by tiny firms) have more than 1 million subscribers each.

Now massive brands, like Blockbuster and Coca-Cola, have been brought in who are going to take a look at this data and develop their own applications.

The lesson for all those new-age open-source developers is this: if you happen to hit on something that really works, hang on to your socks. Could be that someone bigger and wealthier is going to come in and copy your idea.

It’s no good sobbing about the “unfairness” of this. Who were Linux open-source developers copying when they developed Open-Office? Copy-left indeed.

It is the nature of business, this constant reinvention to stay ahead and keep customer’s whose only loyalty is to their own self-interest.

I think we can safely ignore the desktop for a little while (until the genuine next big thing) and watch the fireworks on mobile platforms and social networking.

Perhaps we’ll see a new brand develop; perhaps we’ll see the return of old brands we were laughing at. But it will be about selling things.

Not giving them away.

In reading through all of this, and hearing comments from Sam about it, I wanted to cut through the hype and address what this really means for people on social networks and the companies that power them. Let’s go point by point:

• I’m on [insert social network here]. Will this change anything about what I use it for? That depends. Shocking as it may seem to technology evangelists and marketers, not everyone joins social networks to furiously flaunt themselves and meet up with people that can help them do business. Indeed, the first and most primary reason I’ve encountered to use a site like LiveJournal, MySpace, and the like is to reestablish connections you’ve already made–to follow up on what your friends are doing, as Tim Lee astutely notes. This is a prime example of what trendwatchers call “opinion movers” or early adopters in action. A few people jump onto a new thing. Then they tell their friends about it and they follow. Then the thing gains wide acceptance and brings in people that the original group may or may not want to interact with. Eventually, the thing becomes so common that it loses its cachet, and they move on to the next thing. Social networks are no different. I joined LiveJournal in 2001 (when it was still invite-only!), and six years later, virtually my entire group of close friends use it. I joined LinkedIn in 2005, and two years later, half of my friends and colleagues use it. If I have a need to join another network or service, I might do so, and if I did, I suspect many would follow me on.
• Will this make it easier for me to network? Possibly. Sam said something to me about how a single cross-platform system would “maximize networking efficiency” and not force you to remember different passwords and usernames for each one. Personally, I think that’s a bit silly–if you can remember baseball players’ stats or your grocery list, you can remember passwords for sites. But on the whole, I support any move towards tearing down walled gardens and building a truly integrated and open Web sphere, one where you can create and control your online identity and share as much as you want, with whom you want. (I’ll get back to this in a bit.)
• Why isn’t Facebook joining the OpenSocial group? Remember that Microsoft just bought a huge stake in Facebook, partially just to trump Google and partially to utilize Facebook’s system of individual-targeted advertising, rather than Google’s content-targeted ads. Google’s OpenSocial platform is a counter to that, and a deep expression of the companies’ differing philosophies, as articulated by eWeek’s Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols:Indeed, if you think about it, this face-off over Facebook, says a lot about both companies. Google wants to open up its advertising. Microsoft—and this is so Microsoft of them—wants to keep the advertising all to themselves…If you buy into it, you have to buy into an expensive complete server to desktop package. It’s not quite the same thing as selling your business’ soul to Redmond, but it’s close. Google, on the other hand, says you can just use its open services and applications, like Google Apps Premier and Standard editions to do pretty much everything Microsoft can do for you, with one big difference. With Google, it’s either free of charge or the company charges you a pittance.
• So, can I trust Google with my personal information? Ah, now that’s the $75,000 question (adjusted for inflation), isn’t it? Remember that because Google is all about advertising, the company is constantly looking for ways to target its ads more effectively and efficiently, through hyperlocalized and targeted marketing. Brian’s also excellently explored how Google’s egregious Terms of Service for some of its applications gives them license to bogart your works for any purpose, and you’re powerless to challenge it. By no means is this endemic to Google alone, however–Rupert Murdoch didn’t buy MySpace because he loved those crappy HTML layouts. No, he bought it because he saw the goldmine of advertising wealth that could be gleaned from the millions of teenagers and young adults who signed up to join their friends. All of these companies are enthralled by the idea of turning the Internet into a massive yet micro-targeted marketplace, where any Web site you sign up for could hit you with ads that get more and more detailed and persuasive as you share more and more information.
• Summation. A few months ago, Gavin and I had a discussion about the growing trend towards interoperability for Web 2.0 and its consequences, which is frighteningly prescient in retrospect. But my core argument hasn’t changed–users should expect some loss of privacy in exchange for the convenience of open networking, but control must be key. If an open network is a door, that door should be able to be closed. I should have the right to not share entries or information with people I don’t want reading it. I should have the right to block or bypass targeted ads with a subscription. I should have the right to opt-out as a default from any networking service third party that wants my current network to share my personal data. I should have the right to ensure my written and image content will not be misused or abused by the company without explanation or the right of refusal. Most of all, I should have the right to enjoy a social network for its stated purpose–as a way to keep up with my friends, share photos, or do business–without worrying if Google or another company is going to use the time I spend there as leverage to increase its dominance of the known galaxy at my expense.

Castro would seem to make a persuasive argument about the safety of e-voting, but there are a few things that trip up his own “paper audit trail,” if you will.
Castro’s employer, the ITIF, is an adjunct arm of the Information Technology Industry Council (ITIC), a massive technology industry lobby group that counts heavyweights such as Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, and Unisys among its members. Many of these companies have been deeply invested in writing source code, applications, and providing hardware for e-voting machines, so they get a black eye as well every time they fail. Naturally, since it costs less to pay analysts to write papers supporting their position than it does to write better code, the ITIC has undoubtedly nudged the ITIF to put this thing out and stir the pot in their favor.

Castro is also extremely facile in dismissing the serious problems with e-voting machines that can malfunction, be tampered with, or simply not work properly from the start. A regular sticking point in debates over e-voting security is enabling third party auditors to have full access to the source code in order to ensure it is stable, secure, and cannot be easily tampered with or altered. Castro says that “Many DRE vendors are unwilling to release their source code publicly
because they fear copyright infringement. They also fear that individual reviewers will make unsubstantiated claims against their voting systems prior to an election simply to undermine the public’s confidence in the voting systems.”

As it happens, I recently wrote an article for Federal Computer Week detailing the decertification of thousands of voting machines in California due to pervasive, multileveled errors in the source code and software of the machines. We’re not talking malicious code inserted by hackers, but simple, stupid, garden-variety mistakes made by coders and designers who probably aren’t getting paid enough, don’t have the requisite skill, and were under tremendous pressure to get these machines’ software up and running in time for elections. As Dr. Rebecca Mercuri said when I interviewed her (paraphrasing slightly), “This is what happens when you build machines without security as a core principle. Adding voter-verified paper audit trails to insecure machines won’t change the essential problem.”

The idea often proposed by e-voting proponents (and echoed by Castro) is that if we trust critical everyday applications like banking, doctor’s appointments, etc. to purely electronic means, well, why not voting? The difference is this–if I bank online, I always have the option of printing out my current account statement, a billing invoice for a transaction, or some kind of record that proves I did what I did, when I did it. I would never use any service or company that completely prohibited or failed to provide ANY kind of paper record for electronic transactions. Even something as simple as an e-mail notice verifying I bought something online is a record I can refer to later if things go wrong. Given the importance of elections and making sure that they transpire fairly and honestly, the idea that there is something flawed about demanding a verifiable paper trail of every voter’s vote seems silly on its face.

Obviously, paper audit trails won’t address the problem of inherently insecure systems–that’s a much deeper issue that needs to be addressed if electronic voting is ever to be adopted on a large-scale basis throughout the country. But to simply dismiss the idea of adding a verifiable paper audit trail as a check on a potentially vulnerable and insecure system as “technophobia” betrays both a lack of understanding of the seriousness of the e-voting problem, and the obvious desires of the companies invested in the e-voting experiment to prevent anyone from seeing just how crappy their systems really are. As Ed Felten says:

One could spend months arguing about what exact position emerges from the 19 pages of delicately drafted hedging that make up the body of this report. But the bottom line — contrary to the impression most readers will gather from the report — is that paper and electronic voting together are, if done right, better than either the best paper system or the best computerized system would be alone.

No system can ever be completely 100 percent secure, but when it’s something as important to our country and democratic process as voting, every measure that adds transparency and accountability to the process is a worthwhile endeavor. In a perfect world, no state, county, or city would permit voting machines with records as dismal as Diebold’s or Sequoia’s from EVER being used. But until that day comes, using a verifiable voter-auditable paper trail is a good start to keep these machines–and their makers–honest. And giving paid flack reports like Castro’s the criticism they deserve will serve to keep so-called “nonpartisan think tanks” honest about their own paper trails as well.

TechDirt and Ars Technica have more criticism of the Castro report.

Does Web 2.0 undermine net neutrality?

Gavin: I feel that net neutrality is being undermined by all the new upstarts; from Facebook to Digg to Wordpress. My issue is this: closed-standards, like all the Web 2.0 platforms, seem a step backwards rather than a step forwards. Try and imagine if Google declared that henceforth Gmail subscribers could only email other Gmail subscribers? They’d go bang in a week.

Yet, that is precisely how Facebook, Digg, Wordpress, etc all operate. I need new login addresses – new identities – for every single Web 2.0 ap. Yet I only need one email address to contact anyone via email anywhere in the world. Various initiatives (like Identity 2.0) aimed at reducing this complexity seem merely to reinforce it.

It is this very lack of open-standards that reduces the long-term power of all the new Web 2.0 companies. They make it a choice. You have to give up your old blog to come and use the new system. You have to give up your old friends on MySpace and make new ones on Facebook. I can change my service provider any time and keep my email address. No compromise necessary and it improves service levels and expands the market, since I don’t mind making a bad initial choice when I can change my mind later. Try changing your mind about S&R’s blog platform choice now …

This is so much like dotcom bubble 1 that I continue to be amazed that no-one notices.

Martin: I know that LJ, at least, utilizes OpenID, but I do agree that lack of compatibility across platforms is a severe hindrance for people that want to establish cohesive online identities for themselves all over “teh Intar wubs.” I’m on several different social networking hubs (LJ, Orkut, LinkedIn) and have different accounts for each, PLUS my various e-mail addresses and blogs I do. It’s a pain in the ass.

As a privacy advocate, I can understand the need for security that a walled garden approach supports, but I also think it has a lot to do with the incipient social stratification and layering between different sites. Did you read Danah Boyd’s article about the class distinctions between MySpace and Facebook, wherein the former is considered “gutter” and mostly for use by musicians, porn stars, and generally non-white, trashy types, and the latter is where the “good” people go? Fascinating stuff. Check out this Guardian article about it.

Gavin: I read Danah Boyd’s article a few weeks ago and got angry about it. The thing I enjoy about the internet is its flatness. So I am perturbed by indications of the creation of a classed society by all the miscreants who claim that this is precisely what they don’t want. I don’t believe them. Digg and Reddit are now owned by the same company yet, to read the missives between them, they’re on different continents.

Martin: I don’t think that it’s unwanted, per se, but more of the inevitable truth that human irrationality and tribalist impulses will create class distinctions even in the flattening, no-one-knows-you’re-a-cocker-spaniel world of the Internet. People will associate with whom they feel comfortable, and even in the delimiting world of the Internet, human nature is not so easily overcome.

There’s a positive side to this, however, individual communities can block out a unified identity, but it also frees you to create distinctive identities that fit each community. The Martin Bosworth who blogs on S&R is not quite the same person who blogs on Private Intelligence; we have different topic focuses and different approaches, so we present different identities to the reader (not consciously, but that’s the perception). Jim Harper of the CATO Institute very insightfully pointed out that Web 2.0 is simply the latest flowering of the Internet’s power to “decouple” your “meatspace” identity from your Internet presence; a concept as old as Gibson’s “Neuromancer.”

I had someone call me all kinds of names for getting into a flamewar with them over anti-gay comments they made in a public forum. To their perception, I was everything they said I was and worse, even if it was inaccurate in fact. They knew only what they saw, and even after I copiously pointed out that I was not a troll and a hypocrite for calling them out, they did not buy it. Perception is all.

Are multiple independent identities a security feature, or just schizophrenic?

Gavin: Oh, sure, it allows one to explore parts of oneself. You can even go completely psycho from the privacy of your own home if you wish. A friend of mine – in her 50s – enjoys playing a teen vamp and picking up boys all over Second Life. But having all sorts of different identities doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t be able to co-ordinate them all from one place. That can’t be a privacy issue. Surely having numerous gates to the same place (i.e. me) is worse than one? It makes spam worse, for starters, since there is more than one way to get hold of me, more than one password (rather than a single, very robust system).

Martin: Security specialists go round and around about this. For me, a decentralized, localized, multilayered target is much harder to attack than a single centralized target. And spam is so easily dealt with these days that many people simply disregard it and move on. Believe it or not, not everyone necessarily wants the world to know they write Harry Potter/Jack Sparrow slash fic on their LJ. And that’s their right. It’s their personal space to share – and NOT share – as they wish.

Control is key. If I choose to share my lurid gossip with the world, making all of my journal entries public and unfiltered, I must accept that I will lose some expectations of privacy. But if I explicitly lock some content for certain viewers only, my expectation of privacy should be assured.

Gavin: And I’m in agreement. Your privacy should be entirely yours to control. But we do have to discuss convenience. The more services that come out, and the less they communicate across common standards and platforms, the harder it gets to keep track of which identity you’re using and where. When you go shopping do you prefer having a separate credit-card for each store, and carrying hundreds of them, or do you prefer to have one you can use everywhere? When you phone someone would you like to have a different phone for each network provider? One for Verizon so you can call your Verizon friends, another for AT&T, another for Vodafone.

Martin: The more credit cards you have, the more at risk you are for ID theft and fraud, but one of the downsides of the credit system is that “thin credit file” consumers sometimes have to apply for gas cards, boutique store cards, etc. just to build a history. Merely making that point.

Bear also in mind that wireless carriers in the United States regularly lock down and disable interoperable features of phones to ensure you cannot port your phone with you if you change providers. It’s a horrible state of affairs and completely anti-competitive, and it has had the side effect of conditioning people to accept “walled gardens” for many features of their technological life.

Gavin: Which means that there is clearly a competitive advantage in dropping those walls. Basic business strategy has always said that the easier one makes it to arrive or leave, then the lower the switching cost – that’s why your network carriers put up the walls in the first place. But there is a further set of analyses that says, if the walls are high, then people often behave in ways that go against your objectives. They fight you. So illegal immigrants in the US have such a hard time getting in that they choose not to go home at all. If it were easier to get work permits to get in, then more would be happier to go home in-between jobs. The same goes for switching costs. If it is really difficult to leave then, once a person makes the choice to leave your company, they will NEVER return.

But that misses the point about the web. It’s always easy to leave, but it is really hard to set up a new account and recreate your network. So why does every web 2.0 brand have a different, inherently dodgy, login system? Why are they all distinct from each other? Why can’t I link my LiveJournal, Wordpress, and Joomla blogs together? They’re all open-source projects? Why the hell don’t they communicate with each other?

Open-source might be free, but open-standards allows communication between competitors

Martin: I don’t think any of this was intentional by design, but each of the groups you mention is specifically out to ensure you stay within their community. The upside of decentralized closed communities is that it enables the user to create their own identity to fit each community, and enables them more control over their individual Internet identity footprint.

Sam started Scholars & Rogues because he was frustrated with LiveJournal’s detachment from the larger blog political community, which is completely valid and fair. Yet I find many a LiveJournal quoted and linked to in a wide variety of blogs and just as many topics. These users have enabled themselves to be found, and their communications have reached beyond LJ’s closed niche. For better AND worse.

Gavin: Blogging fits entirely within my point. It’s easy to link within blog platforms, but across platforms is harder. I’d like to keep a common identity across blogs I comment in of similar interest. I don’t want to have to create whole new identities to comment at Huffington Post, Daily Kos, or any of the other blogs I don’t necessarily write for but may comment on regularly. I want my comments to connect to my blog – to create a consistent personality.

My greatest gripe with the instinctive anti-business / anti-commercial edge of Web 2.0 is that they completely neglect that real market growth comes from open-standards not open-source technology. Open-standards ensure that everyone has access to a common understanding of how something should work. Phones would never have caught on if there hadn’t been a standard set of protocols that allow different brands of phone and different networks to interact. People would bitch like hell if they had to carry multiple phones to solve this issue. But multiple systems for social networking seems just fine. Of course I want to spend hours building up a network on one platform and then watch another one become popular and be unable to move my network across. Sounds like a great idea.

Martin: Think about this, Gavin: each network has a niche that it fills, and you build your identity footprint to fit in that niche. There’s been talk that Facebook (which was originally only for college students; as “walled garden” as you can get) is overtaking LinkedIn as the premier destination for business networking. Now, while Facebook may be the superior product when it comes to social networking that leads to business opportunities, LinkedIn is still the market leader when it comes to specific business networking. Why would I move my identity somewhere when I can build and define my niche in the locale that it’s best suited for?

Put more simply, if I want to find college friends, I’ll use Facebook (or MySpace, God forbid). If I want business connections, I’ll use LinkedIn. Each one serves a particular need, and the other is not – or should not – trying to be something it’s not. To all these rules, there are exceptions. I had a college buddy find me on LinkedIn, and I’ve found business interests in LiveJournal, but their prime design remains the same.

Gavin: How about simply a set of open-standards – plugs, if you like – that allow third party “bridges” to collect information you allow and you can choose what gets sent where. Then you can spend ages developing a comprehensive set of data on yourself and simply port it to the platform you want to use. So your business info goes to LinkedIn, your college info to Facebook, your curriculum vitae to Monster, and your mad fantasies about hair-nets and blue rinse to the granny forum on LJ. To me this would create a real “neutral” platform and make it easier for all.

Net-neutrality seems aimed at the standard “bad-guys”; people like AT&T or Microsoft but at least they signed up to open-standards. You can leave their platforms and still connect to your mates who stayed behind. But it works both ways. If they clean up their act it’s just as easy to go back.

Screaming from the public gallery

Martin: They only did this thanks to lots of regulation and screaming from the public, mind you. AOL, Compuserve, and Prodigy were the same in the Internet’s early days. It took outside forces to push people beyond their particular networks, and many people STILL use AOL’s system alone for their Internet needs. More power to them if that’s what makes them happy.

Gavin: Of course it takes screaming from the public. Hi, everyone, I’m a member of the public and I’m screaming.

Anyone remember the Search Engine wars? How about SixDegrees? How many of the incumbents from Del.icio.us, Digg, Furl, Reddit, Newsvine, StumbleUpon, Simpy, Fark, Backflip, Wink, Spurl, LinkaGoGo, Mister Wong, Netvouz, Magnolia, Diigo, Blue Dot, Segnalo, Tailrank, RawSugar or any other I may have left out are going to survive? And what happens to all the effort to the one you put in if it fails?

Martin: Honestly, half of those names you mentioned will die on the vine if they have not already done so, or be bought by larger companies and instituted into the corporate approach. I don’t feel obligated to sign up to EVERY single search/social network/Web 2.0 gadget that comes down the pike, because I have crafted an individual identity that suits my needs. People will use the market to decide what they want and don’t want. Google is king because it was easy to use and free. FARK is king because the content is hysterical and user-contributed. del.icio.us is king because … well, actually, it got bought by Yahoo and now it’s not nearly as user-friendly and intuitive in the current iteration.

You have the power to decide where you want to build your online identity. I agree that the option for a cross-platform interoperable accessibility should exist; BUT this should only be an option, not the standard.

“A lot of the routine stuff we do can be done by really talented people in another time zone at much lower wages,” said Macpherson, 51, who used to run a clothing business with manufacturing help from Vietnam and India.

I’m of two minds here. On the one hand, what is MacPherson doing that’s different from any independent news magazine, Web site, or blog community? He’s providing a useful service for his community and keeping that most vital of resources–local news–alive and well.

It’s also feasible to think that the news can be constructed without people being there. Many an article I’ve written has been cobbled together from statements, press releases, and cobbled quotes–I try to get the source whenever possible, but sometimes you just go with what you have.

But on the other hand, I can’t believe that MacPherson is so hard up for money that he can’t contract out to a few freelancers to cover city council meetings part-time. I have no trouble thinking of a few struggling journalism students or copy slaves that wouldn’t mind the extra scratch.

And the idea of using Webcasts of the hearings to build articles from is also entirely feasible–I’ve done it myself–but then again, I am not from Bangalore, India. What kind of nuances or important details will be lost because of the cultural, technological, and physical gaps between the reporter and their subject?

I hate myself for thinking this idea has merit, but being an employee and consultant for several small businesses, I see the outsourcing of practically any and every function as a reality every day. I just can’t shake the idea that MacPherson–who says openly that he wants to serve his community–is doing his community a disservice by not working harder to recruit fresh talent closer to home.

What do you guys think?

Now it turns out that the laptop won’t, after all, cost US$ 100. Before anyone leaps to the defence of Negroponte I will admit that the technology is nifty, innovative and exciting. I hope it gets incorporated into commercial devices. However, one has to ask oneself whether this is any less of a vanity project than Oprah Winfrey’s US$ 14 million school in South Africa which only serves 152 kids?

Take a look at the requirements for the success of the project: a government must purchase 1 million of them in a single order, and an initial order of 3 million is required just to get the ball rolling. In other words a poor country (since a rich country certainly doesn’t need them) has to find US $ 175 million to purchase a batch of computers. That alone, in South Africa, would pay for 65 new schools. And we do need them. As ME Surty, the deputy minister of education, declared, “It is wonderful to talk of connecting up our schools to the Internet, but too many schools have no access to running water, let alone electricity.” Worse than that: too many children still get taught sitting under trees, rather than even having classrooms.

Technology has produced so many wonders that it is easy, and lazy, to get into the habit of thinking that poverty is caused by a lack of things. It isn’t.

The premise for needing such a sophisticated device is thin. Many programmers got their start on the ZX Spectrum, a wonderful beginner’s computer. It uses a television, a tape recorder and a command line. Coding is straightforward. The open-source nature of the XO has blinded many with the belief that this is somehow easy for others, but the learning curve for Linux is severe. The XO’s toy-box case hides a very sophisticated interior. And no-one is declaring that poverty in Africa is a result of a lack of MRI scanners at their hospitals; no matter how much this sophisticated product would improve their diagnostic capacity.

Talk of the digital divide ignores the stability divide. The US was a wealthy country long before the Internet. Wealth and stability produced the Internet, not the other way round. China has created 300 million jobs in a decade with a government completely opposed to the Internet. Little notebook computers are not going to change anything.

AMD with their 50×15 project has a more practical approach of putting computer labs into existing infrastructure, but it is still counterproductive. All of this tells African governments that they need not be responsible for the outcomes of their failed economic and political experiments; the rest of the world will feel sorry for them and stump up cash to allow them to proclaim that they are “doing something for the people”.

What is needed in impoverished nations is exactly the same thing as got Europe and the US out of the mire: stability, accountability, and respect for private ownership of one’s capital (be that labour, land or products).

Since poor countries cannot afford Negroponte’s Folly, foreign donors must stump up the cash. Given the poorly articulated purpose of OLPC, the incredible lack of infrastructure and basic services in the countries concerned, I can only hope that the donor community refuses.

As for the notebook? It is what it is. A luxury toy for the kids of the rich.

x-posted: whythawk.com

Linux’ most compelling argument has been that – for the same power as Microsoft – you get a free product. Only tech junkies can really use the extra features in Linux, and most people buy something to use, not to modify, so editing source-code is of no interest to them.

Now Bill Gates has announced that Microsoft is bundling a complete suite of software and selling it to emerging market governments for US$3 apiece. In this his business strategy is flawless and honours his roots. DOS was given away free to schools throughout the 80s, which is how I became proficient in it as a child here in South Africa.

The Open-Source movement has defined itself virtually entirely as in opposition to established commercial software companies. Their language mimics the struggle language of political resistance movements. And it is inherently flawed.

Why when a motor company is charging for the products of its labour shouldn’t a software company – whose product is used in the manufacture of those vehicles – be paid for theirs? Why should the employees of that software company be forced to work for free?

The militancy of thought and ideal within the open-source movement reminds one of fascist political movements with their calls to arms and declarations that the enemy is upon us.

Lest we forget, Umberto Eco, in his seminal “Five Moral Pieces”, lists a few of the signs that you may be in the presence of a fascist ideal:
1. A rejection of modernism and the capitalist way of life

How can the open-source movement be accused of rejecting modernism? But there it is; software is only a small and superficial component of modern society which includes all the systems and processes that allows a vast complexity of people – with all their different cultures and beliefs – to live and work together. The power of modernism is in its ability to distribute what people want to where they want it. The open-source movement relies entirely on infrastructure created by earlier entrepreneurs and capitalists: electricity, communications cables, electronic hardware manufacture, and the systems of law and economics that allow a company in South Korea to comfortably manufacture to order for a US engagement. While ignoring all that modern capitalism makes possible, Open-Source chooses a specific slither of that economy and attacks it as if it represents the whole.

2. Dissent is betrayal

Microsoft is the über-enemy. When Microsoft distributed free notebook computers to popular bloggers as a promotion the open-source community went up in arms at the suggestion that Microsoft was attempting to buy popularity and questioning the morality and propriety of all who had accepted these pcs. Yet the open-source movement is all about free stuff. Microsoft certainly recognises the danger of engaging with a movement that despises them, yet they did so anyway. And the movement responded as if mere engagement was betrayal.

3. The appeal to the frustrated poor and middle classes

The open-source movement appeals to the needs of the poor. Their claims that massive profits take cash away from the poor and give it to companies and individuals already making massive profits. Their right to freely remix popular songs or redistribute copyrighted material is a form of struggle against oppression. Yet this is not a problem that the poor of the world have. If they go to bed hungry it is because of a lack of food, not software. This is where the argument becomes the weakest with the One-Laptop-Per-Child campaign attempting to engage with African governments who deny their citizens any education at all. It is simplistic and naïve to imagine that profits equates with theft. Poverty is caused by a myriad of things.

Manuel Castells, on visiting South Africa, was asked by the government, “What do we need to do to participate in this digital world?” To which the wise man responded with devastating candour, “If Africa wants to enter, then recognise that across the whole of Africa there are as many telephones as in New York. If you want reliable connectivity then you need a reliable electricity grid. If you want a reliable grid then the biggest inhibitory factor is the absence of peace. If you want to move Africa to the centre, then do these: establish peace, build democracy, and create freedom.”

4. An obsession with conspiracies

This is almost self-evident. If Microsoft charges for their products it is because they are stealing form the weak. If Microsoft gives most of its profits away to charity then it is simply attempting to buy good will. The big music companies are conspiring against public trade in their products. Governments act to protect big business at the expense of the needs of the people.

All of these are beliefs that call on the need to be permanently besieged by enemies all around.

5. The enemy is both too strong and too weak

The open-source movement believes it is dealing with agencies raised against it that are both inimically entrenched but that they can still be easily defeated. It is a self-defeating delusion since it means that, by defining themselves entirely in relationship to their enemies, the movement can never be anything. They are also incapable of assessing the real purpose, activities or endeavours of their self-defined enemies. Microsoft’s dramatic gesture of giving software to developing nations will be treated with disdain and not the applause it deserves.

6. Scorn for the weak

Obviously, anyone using a commercial product or paying for it must be brainwashed or simple. No matter how difficult or clutzy free software may be, it is still infinitely preferable to the soft laziness inherent in the commercial. As such the open-source movement believes themselves to be a select elite. Their attitude to the general public – the same people they claim to represent – is at once patronising and scornful. The feel “sorry” for those of us still caught in the web of commercial interests.

7. Machismo and sexual transfer

The open-source movement is driven by a bunch of skinny male geeks. They don’t get out enough and they don’t meet enough women. Machismo, as Eco says, “implies contempt for women” and so it is no surprise that the Internet is largely a place for the exchange of pornographic images.

8. “Qualitative populism” must oppose the corruption of parliamentary government

The Internet loves voting and you would imagine that this implies a form of direct democracy. Yet, despite all this voting, the people participating in these activities are a minority amongst the societies in which they live. Access and general engagement with the medium implies a particular economic status, and the interests define the individuals involved. All this voting and activity misleads this community into believing that they represent the popular will of all the people everywhere. They are continually surprised by popular political elections voting for candidates they don’t agree with or returning responses of which they don’t approve.

Clearly vote rigging is the norm and parliaments are inherently corrupt. Every time a popular open-source leader casts doubt on the legitimacy of parliaments there is a whiff of fascism.

9. Fascism uses Newspeak

All fascist movements have been based on poor vocabulary and elementary syntax with the hope of reducing the language available for dissent and reasoning. Blogs, with their derivative containment of the ideas of others, and their banal contempt for society, are a pure expression of this.

When any new idea stops being about the pursuit of genuine opportunity and becomes a self-reflecting idealism – that the idea itself has value by virtue of its enunciation – then we no longer have popular engagement.

For all the screaming about free software, it must be of continual shame to the open-source movement that there are more freely purchased versions of commercial software in regular use, then there are freely downloaded versions of open-source software.

More South Africans use MXit – a paid SMS chat tool – than use email.

The greatest incentive that anyone ever came up with is the idea of profit. The surest proof of the popularity of one idea over that of another is when a person faced with that choice chooses – voluntarily and uncoerced – to part with their own money in preference of one over the other.

As a market strategy – as Microsoft has proven – giving away your product to encourage use and gain support is brilliant. To claim that this is an end unto itself is spurious.

And the surest proof of this are the words on every single open-source project home-page: donate here.