Author: bradevanrosen

Free Speech Online? Talk to me about Net Neutrality! – by “Evin M”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 2 Comments
Without a new law protecting net neutrality, we're trusting dinosaurs like Sen. Ted Stevens and obselete case law to control free speech and govern technological platforms to which they do not apply...also I thought this was funny and tried in earnest to make it link to my blog post about free speech. from http://www.terminally-incoherent.com

At the end of September, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski unveiled a plan for net neutrality.  This set of rules solidifies the role of internet service providers as pizza guys and not as news networks—that is to say it explicitly disallows blocking or slowing access to specific applications or services.  Net neutrality keeps the “tubes” free from the prying eyes and interests of those who deliver the info packets to consumers, thus allowing free speech to not only occur but to be disseminated.  The proposed rules uphold the four pillars of network neutrality, which allow consumers to access any lawful online content, application, or services with any legal device in an environment that has sufficient competition among network, content, application, and service providers.  It also adds two more basic principles: ISPs will not be able to discriminate against certain applications or information and they must be transparent about their network management practices.

Senator Olympia Snowe and Senator Byron Dorgan are teaming up with Chairman Genachowski, and have begun to discuss legislation that would help scoot along the proposed net neutrality rules.  Dorgan, the senior member of the Commerce Committee, suggested that the congressional contribution to the initial network neutrality efforts could include some deadlines, to help move the process of adoption along.  The good political feelings might extend across the aisle, thanks to an olive branch extended by Chairman Genachowski which halted the development of a Republican-sponsored amendment that would tie up FCC funding.  That bill however, produced in angry response to the GOP’s disapproval of net neutrality, didn’t have much of a chance because of the Democrat’s hold on the senate majority.

Senate support has also been joined with a thumbs up from representatives of corporate world as Amazon, Facebook, and Google have voiced their approval of these rules in a letter to the FCC earlier today.  They make a pretty good point about net neutrality, suggesting that it will allow more applications to be developed and shared because creators will not be deterred by the possibility of having their content blocked or sidelined.  However, the approval is not universal.  AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon have spearheaded the opposition force, citing, among other things, the difficulties of net neutrality in a wireless interface.

We’re in dire need of some governmental commentary on free speech and the web, as the Red Lion v. FCC case becomes increasingly obsolete.  This case, as Prof. Jack Balkin described today in class, relies heavily on the fact that sound information policy is premised on people’s role as passive information consumers.  Before Web 2.0, they didn’t have the opportunity to easily become active producers of knowledge with a readily accessible audience which includes other content producers.  With the entire business model of today’s new media grounded strongly in a participatory consumer culture, we can no longer apply the rules of the game from when media was a one-sided discussion.

Can Wikipedia Have Its Cake And Eat It Too? – by “Inoli H”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 3 Comments

Law&Tech Blog pic

Although in a guest lecture at Yale University last Wednesday Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales, said that Wikipedia is not meant to be used as a reference for college level work, his team at Wikipedia certainly seems to be working to make it able to be. Perhaps it’s not their intent to make Wikipedia a viable source for research, but their effort to make it more reliable is showing.

Making Wikipedia more reliable means taking more control over what goes into it and, to an extent, who edits it. Obviously this causes a problem for the utopia-minded Wikipedian who holds to the ideal that launched Wikipedia – creating a free source of information to which everyone freely contributes and from which everyone freely benefits.

However, the need to sensor what goes into Wikipedia is becoming more and more evident as new policies are instituted by the organization. For example, Wikipedia now screens changes to articles about living people. In his guest lecture, Jimmy Wales shared that someone had once edited the article about him to say that he enjoyed playing chess with his friends in his spare time. Although this might be a nice idea, it simply wasn’t true. The rumor eventually found its way to an article about Mr. Wales in a major magazine. Although a minor case, this shows how far false information that is planted in Wikipedia can go before being noticed or addressed. In a more serious issue World Net Daily founder, Joseph Farah, had false information posted about him in Wikipedia that kept recurring even after he would repeatedly correct the malicious errors. It wasn’t until Mr. Farah threatened to file suit that Wikipedia acted on the situation.

Other recent restrictions on editing, besides the page “protection” mentioned above, include giving privileges to established editors to “flag” articles and using an optional feature called WikiTrust that color codes changes based on the reputation of its editor. As you can see, it may be difficult for a newcomer to Wikipedia to contribute substantially to the wealth of information stored on the website. His edits may be color coded as less reliable or placed on hold until a more experienced editor flags them. Changes by more experienced editors also seem more likely to stay on the site than those of newcomers.

This only adds to the other large problem Wikipedia is facing – a decline in editing. Obviously as Wikipedia grows older and there is less to add to it, the excitement of being the first to write about something is less abundant. The growth curve is inevitably becoming less sharp. But if Wikipedia wishes to to continue to grow, the  question then becomes, “How can Wikipedia make itself a more reliable source without adopting xenophobic policies that inhibit new editors?” For this question, I do not readily have an answer, but it seems clear that if Wikipedia wishes to increase its reputation as a source of factual information, it must be willing to sacrifice the dream of having a well of information that is freely editable by anyone.

I imagine that Wikipedia will make this sacrifice as they continue to become more and more fixed in our society. With the release of the WikiReader this past Tuesday it is clear that Wikipedia is not going anywhere any time soon. This contrasts with Santa Clara law professor Eric Goldman’s prediction that Wikipedia will fall by 2010. However, true to Goldman‘s conjecture, Wikipedia is progressively tightening the rein on site edits as it fights to gain more credibility. It seems as though Wikipedia is eating the cake and give up the dream of a 100% freely editable source of information. So much for Utopia. It’s time for Wikipedia to grow up. (Pun intended)

As Spotify takes off, is a service-based model the future of music? – by “Samuel D”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 5 Comments

iTunes has been leading the charge in legal online music sales since 2003 (selling over six billion tracks in that time) by selling individual songs and albums (DRM-free since January) through its iTunes Store software. Some interesting (ostensibly) legal alternatives have popped up over the years (Rhapsody, Pandora, imeem, Lala, MySpace Music), but none pose as great a threat as 2006 start-up Spotify. Spotify takes an entirely legal, service-based, streaming model to a new level, and the results overseas have been astounding.

Spotify has reached deals with major music labels for use of their collections. Users can stream the music with no buffer delay using a free version (with advertisements every half hour) or an ad-free premium version (for the equivalent of $16US per month). Users can also buy a one-day pass to go ad-free for 24 hours (for the equivalent of $1.62US).

Sharing: One of the most popular features of Spotify is sharing. Since the entire streaming library is available to all users at all times, users can share songs and elaborate playlists with users instantaneously. One user could make a 100-song playlist for a party, send it to a friend, and the recipient could play it instantaneously without downloading any files or buying any songs.

Offline: Users can cache up to 3,333 songs for offline use. This, clearly, would be larger than most people’s iTunes library and makes Spotify a direct (and potent) iTunes competitor. It’s also a huge competitive advantage over several of its streaming counterparts.

Geolocation: Spotify is the inverse Hulu, in a way, as it is currently only available overseas in Norway, Sweden, Finland, the U.K., France, and Spain. They are working hard to bring the service to the U.S. The Stockholm-based company is opening a U.S. office this year. The U.S. launch is imminent (as they reach deals with U.S. record labels), but apparently will rely on a mysteriously “slightly different” business model.

spotifyiphone

Portability/Mobile: The basic Spotify experience works through downloadable software (synced across multiple machines), but Apple recently shocked the tech community by approving the Spotify iPhone/iPod Touch app for the App Store. The app lets premium users stream the entire Spotify library over 3G or Wi-Fi AND sync offline. Given the offline sync, the Spotify app would instantaneously eradicate the need to buy music through the iTunes Store for your iPod. An Android app is available, as well. Playlists and settings are wirelessly synced between your phone and computers.

MP3: Spotify (for obvious reasons) does not allow users to download files of songs, but does link to legal music partners (Amazon, etc.) so users could buy MP3s on their own.

The Future: Spotify clearly takes the service-based music model to a new level. Valleywag calls it “everything iTunes should be.” As Spotify adds more and more music to its library and even Mark Zuckerberg sings its praises, how will Apple respond? Spotify is now reportedly making more money for Universal in Sweden than iTunes is. Many believe a service-based model is the future of music now that mobile platforms have caught up, but do people really want to rent music?

Spotify is currently valued around $250 million and with the U.S. launch imminent, that should only grow. Expectations and buzz are certainly high. The service has six million users presently, but is setting its sights high, aiming to take the service-based model to the next level:

“If we can transcend it so that, maybe you don’t actually have to pay for the music, it’s included in your data plan with your carrier or ISP or cable operator; it might be when you buy a new product, a TV screen, that you get one year of music included … devices like new Samsung TV screens, where they’ve got Linux built in, which allows you to do software on it – they’ve got YouTube built in, they might have Spotify built in.”

Spotify Website: http://www.spotify.com/en/
Spotify on Twitter: http://twitter.com/spotify
Spotify on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotify

Where No Wikipedia Has Gone Before – by “Drew W”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 2 Comments

“We want you to imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.”

This used to be something only a glassy eyed hippy might tell you*, but over the past eight years (it really was only eight years ago) Wikipedia has changed the way that swaths of humanity access and relate to information. As the GPL and BSD License are to software, the GFDL and Creative-Commons licenses are to documents. Governed by the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-by-SA) License, Wikipedia articles can, in short, be copied and derived from as long as credit is given to the original source and any new works are distributed under the same CC-by-SA license. Wikipedia’s copyleft** makes it not just free to look at; it’s free to retransmit, edit, and download in it’s entirety.

This places Wikipedia in a different category from most of the other large internet entities upon which we now find ourselves (quasi-?)dependent. Of the ten most trafficked websites worldwide, Wikipedia is the only non-profit. It has no trade secrets to protect (even the code the site runs on is open source) and few reasons to block access to its content. When you can’t read a Wikipedia article, it’s likely not Wikipedia that’s blocking you, it’s someone else. This is the case, for example, in China. For a time, Wikipedia was blocked entirely there. Now the site is open, with access to controversial articles blocked. Other countries, and sometimes even schools have attempted to block access to Wikipedia.

“The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.”***

Whether it’s a damnable injustice or a cultural difference, some are intent on getting Wikipedia and other “undesirable” data to computers behind national firewalls. But for those who lack the appropriate proxy servers, encryption, etc., this task may seem daunting. That’s where something called a “sneakernet” comes in. Though it’s easy to forget, sometimes the best way to move a piece of data is not push it down a wire, but to put it in your pocket****. When you have Internet Police bearing down on you–or you live outside the range of the world’s networks, this may be your only option.

A small project called Information Without Borders (whose wiki homepage is unfortunately subject to constant spam, making me doubt their possibilities for success) is attempting to develop a sneakernet protocol: a program that can be run on computers unconnected by the internet to facilitate data transfer between them. The working plan is to use old cell phones, flash drives, any device whose cost drops after a few years, to carry data payloads beyond the reach of the Internet and behind blockades such as the Great Firewall of China.

Already, people have been using physical means to circumvent virtual roadblocks. In Cuba, there is an underground market for flash drives containing data, videos, anything to which access is restricted. In the United States, other steps are being taken to expand the Internet’s reach. A US project called Feed Over Email will eventually begin beta-testing in Iran and China.

And this is where Wikipedia comes in again: it’s easy to copy and to transport and–within the boundaries of the United States at least–legal too. US developers have already created distributable local storage versions of the encyclopedia that can run on hardware as slow as the iPhone and take up as little as 2 gigabytes of space. In fact, these Wikipedia distributions have already made it onto laptops sent around the world as part of the One Laptop Per Child program. It seems that we are not too far away from a world where the knowledge contained in Wikipedia’s 9.25 million articles (in ~250 languages) can reach and empower you behind any firewall. It just might have to get to you in someone’s pocket.

*Jimmy Wales has freaky-bright eyes

**all wrongs reserved

***this one was brought up by Ben Somers at CPSC183:day 1

****”The moral of the story is: Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.” Andrew S. Tannenbaum, Computer Networks (2003). Also, don’t underestimate pigeons.

Tethered Tethering? – by “Wesley W”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 2 Comments

Many are noticing the shift toward tethered appliances.In his book, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, Professor Jonathan Zittrain argues that the Iphone and similar devices may herald the end of the internet and the death of innovation. Sometimes the devices are engineered such that the user is not only unable to use applications not approved by the manufacturer, but is also unable to use the device for anything the manufacturer doesn’t want them to. In some cases it gives manufacturers the ability to change functionality remotely without much notice. Apple’s devices have often been the subject of the tethered appliance discussion due to their policies regarding the Iphone. But as Apple helps to usher in the era of tethered appliances it begs the question of who stands to benefit from this trend?

Usually only the manufacturer benefits from obliterating all ability to tinker with their product as they can then control what type of innovation occurs as they have to license any application before it can be bought by users. This allows the manufacturer to monopolize the market surrounding their product. So not only do you pay them for the device, you have to continue to pay them if you want applications for your device. (MMmmmm profits are delicious). For consumers that means more costs and less innovative technology.

This type of locking-down on the functionality of devices raises concerns for the ability to use your device as a modem for internet service, or “tethering”. This kind of “tethering” allows you to access the internet on a laptop by connecting it to an Iphone for example. AT&T provides phone service and internet access for Iphones and other smartphones on their 3G network. They charge for access to their network service. However “tethering” allows you to avoid paying AT&T for a separate wireless data plan for the second appliance by using the phone as a wireless modem. Although you’re only using the internet you’ve already paid for, AT&T may wish to charge extra for “tethering” capabilities. Can they do this? Maybe with the help of tethered appliances.

Imagine combining the desires of AT&T with a tethered appliance like Apple’s Iphone where they have the ability to prevent you from “tethering” without paying them to do so. Not so hard to imagine because that may not be too far from reality. In the past the Iphone’s OS allowed for users to relatively easy “unlock” their Iphone to allow it to function as a modem for other appliances for free. However this year’s recent Iphone OS update (3.1) has removed this workaround. AT&T and Apple are supposedly working on “fine-tuning” the network to support this service. It remains unclear whether it will be made available again or when it does whether it will be for free or if there will be costs attached. So far the tethering issue has been approached cautiously by AT&T as it adds strain to their 3G network and is a very big issue for users who booed when it was announced earlier this year that AT&T was not among the carriers that would support tethering for the 3G Iphones. Currently other types of phones, like a BlackBerry®, have pricing plans with AT&T that include “tethering” and cost between 30-60 dollars.

Currently the IPhone pricing plans do not have any “tethering” charge attached as AT&T is discouraging users from using the Iphone in this manner until they prepare their network for the increased traffic the millions of Iphone users could create.  No one is really sure about whether Apple and AT&T plan to charge users for the ability to “tether”. However it is clear that with Apple’s help the Iphone’s functionality can be taken away without much warning. If they find a way to make money from the high demand for this function will AT&T and Apple choose to do so? How much will it cost Iphone users? As of today, Iphone “tethering” is still unavailable. So it remains to be seen whether or not “tethering” will become a costly application of Apple’s newest tethered appliance.

You’re tied in a knot, but I’m not gonna get caught – by “Aditya K”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 3 Comments

After from scrutiny from the FCC, AT&T announced that it was allowing for VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) on its 3G networks. Yes, this includes programs like Google Voice on the iPhone. Josh Silverman of Skype lauded AT&T’s move, saying how this is the right step, not only for Skype, but for the Internet in general. Apple was “very happy” too and will add VoIP applications to their App Store.

The FCC—which was investigating AT&T’s competitive (or anti-competitive) actions when it came to (supposedly) blocking Google’s Voice program—will be voting on network neutrality rules at the end of this month. The net neutrality rules would apply to all broadband networks, which include wireless ones. AT&T’s actions, though very beneficial to the cause of network neutrality, come as a big surprise:

AT&T has never been too supportive of net neutrality, being one of the largest ISPs around. However, a few weeks ago, they surprised everyone by claiming that Google—one of the biggest supporters of net neutrality—was being hypocritical.

Google Voice utilizes a system where they block high-cost calls to certain rural telephone numbers. This is because many rural phone companies practice “traffic pumping,” which means that they charge exorbitant amounts of money to connect to these numbers, and they share their revenues with phone sex and conference call lines.

Just a few years ago, AT&T tried blocking calls to these phone numbers, but the FCC said no. AT&T is known as a common carrier, which is a business that is not allowed to discriminate because it carries out a public service (in this case, telephone calls). In AT&T’s eyes, Google Voice is doing the same exact thing that they tried to do—and getting away with it.

So basically, AT&T is calling Google out on not being net neutral, citing the fourth principle of the FCC’s open internet rules (“consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers”). Google Voice either acts as a pseudo-network provider, or it acts as an application—either way, it must abide.

Google responded almost immediately, claiming that those neutrality principles should not apply to Google Voice because: Voice is a free software application (thus no common carrier laws should apply); Voice isn’t replacing phone services because you need a wireless/land line to use it; and Voice is invite-only currently.

The major questions that arise are: Can Google be considered a common carrier with its Voice application? Should its call discrimination be bound by net neutrality principles? The fact that neutrality applies to phone services but not to software applications that utilize the phone services seems a bit iffy. Though the FCC’s rules specifically apply to network providers, perhaps they should reevaluate their rules to apply broadly. Though AT&T’s line of reasoning may be flawed, perhaps they do have a point.

In re Bilski, Software Patents, and FOSS – by “Benjamin S”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 2 Comments

Our discussion and readings in class last week talked a lot about software and copyright; everyone by now has a solid idea about what GPL and BSD-style licenses mean, so I thought I’d digress into related part of the topic that we haven’t spent so much time on and that doesn’t look like we’ll be seeing too much of later.

So, yesterday brought exciting news of another amicus brief being filed for In re Bilski, this one by the Software Freedom Law Center (for detailed analysis, Groklaw’s summary is terrific).  For those who don’t know (which I’m assuming is most of the audience, here): Bilski concerns patentability of abstract ideas.  Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw  filed for a patent on “a method of hedging risks in commodities trading”.  At no point did the patent application involve an invention of any kind; Bilski claims that his patent application is valid, and that innovation in business is just as valuable and needs patent protection just as much as true technological innovation.  Bilski’s patent was rejected by the USPTO; he appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, where he was also denied; and Bilski at last appealed to the Federal Circuit Court.  Bilski appealed to the Supreme Court and was accepted on June 1 of this year.

Now, Bilski is a very big deal.  The Federal Circuit decision held that the machine-or-transformation test should be the only test for the eligibility of a patent, rejecting several other tests (some of which have been used in other decisions, though never in Supreme Court cases) .  The machine-or-transformation test states that “A claimed process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.”  At every court, Bilski’s patent has been rejected for various different reasons; the real question is how far-reaching the case will become.

What does this have to do with free software, you ask?  Everything, essentially.  While we’ve focused on copyright in class, plenty of software is patented, too.  Take FAT tables, for one: the file system that’s used on your USB flash drive, that is well-supported and implemented by every operating system that matters.  It’s what lets you plug a flash drive into a Mac, dump some files on it, then go pull those files off on a Windows machine.  Microsoft holds the patent on that one; last year they caused a gigantic ruckus when they sued TomTom (a company that writes Linux-based GPS systems) over violating that patent.  The lawsuit threatened the entire Linux community (because Linux includes FAT support); the buzz died down after TomTom settled the case, but plenty in the free software community are still uneasy.

Most free software types, including the Free Software Foundation, the Software Freedom Law Center, and End Software Patents are opposed to the idea.  Plenty of them oppose software copyrights too, but with the advent of the GPL, the FOSS community has learned how to make copyright work for them, not against.  And software patents have HUGE problems; there is an entire industry known as “patent-trolling”, in which companies do nothing but obtain or file software patents on obvious ideas, and then sue existing companies for patent infringement.  The patent-troll ecosystem is enabled by the deplorable state of the USPTO (huge backlogs, huge rates of patent approval for non-patentable material, technologically incompetent patent inspectors, etc. etc. etc.).  And it’s worst in high-tech.  Major players acknowledge that the system is broken, but everybody still plays the game; big companies throw their weight around, threatening smaller groups (and each other) with ruinous patent-infringement lawsuits, sometimes for purposes of naked extortion.

There are all kinds of reasons to dislike software patents; see the End Software Patents wiki for the laundry list.  While copyright’s not likely to get fixed anytime soon, Bilski creates an opportunity for the court to make a huge improvement.  There are amicus briefs on all sides, and the rosters lined up here have a lot to say about how this might come out.  Larry Lessig gave up on copyright reform because vested business interests are more powerful and better-connected than would-be reformers; but there are vested business interests on all sides of Bilski. There are financial groups (American Express, Accenture) saying Bilski should be overturned and business method patents should be allowed.  Microsoft, Dell, and IBM, among others, argue that business method patents should be dropped but that software patents should survive.  FOSS supporters like the EFF, FSF, SFLC and Red Hat have urged the court to invalidate software patents as well.  It’s likely that any decision the court makes will improve the state of things; here’s hoping they make the right one.

Google Wave! – by “David K”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 4 Comments

Google’s Wave is the latest technology whose whole business plan depends on distributing the source code and having multiple developers work to improve and elaborate on the app beyond Google’s control.

Wave is Google’s proposed replacement for email, and it is a sort of combined Gmail, Gchat, Facebook, Google Docs, and Yahoo games.  The core unit is a “wave”, which is a topic many users can be invited to, inside which multiple threads can be started consisting of “blips”, like messages.  It’s more dynamic than just a forum, because all users work on all the content in real time, and can rearrange and restructure the whole wave, replacing it with a conclusion when a concensus is reached, or anything else.  Google stores the history so important information is not in danger of being lost in this way.  Here is a more in-depth explanation.

Google depends on third-party developers in 3 key ways.   First, the wave interface, like email, can support multiple implementations, so this will allow applications like Thunderbird to adapt to user preferences for how to represent the wave abstractions.  To this effect, Google has published the code for OT, its operation transformation framework, which is what allows all users to edit the wave concurrently, so that developers can match it with the high level of consistency it requires.

Second, Wave will support robots, bots which have the same privileges and status as users, so they can edit waves, and will allow users to do things like translate waves between languages in real time or interact with other businesses sites like twitter.  This can allow Wave to be used as a back-end for the business practices of other sites.

Finally, Wave will support a gadget system, so waves can include things like chess games, group piano collaboration, or working together making a route on a google map.  Developers can add whatever they like onto this to enable any kind of collaborative project.

One of Google’s biggest worries is that the OT protocol for editing simultaneously will be too complex for developers to be able to make their own functioning apps.  It’s offering as much support as possible for this and is going to open up the fully documented code for its own application shortly.  Another worry is that the interface itself will be too complicated, not just for companies to make implementations for, but for users to catch on to.

It’s a big question whether users will accept this as a replacement for email, or whether they’ll prefer the old stability linear nature of email.  Email and chat might be enough–I can’t see any way I’d really use google Wave at the moment.  But often the uses of a program expand beyond what it was originally intended for, and maybe google is acknowledging this by having very few originally intended uses and counting on them expanding after time.  If this catches on, proprietary software will seem even more obsolete.

Free and Proprietary Software: Google’s Balancing Act – by “Eric F”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 1 Comment

Free Software has pushed itself into the spotlight with Mozilla Firefox and Linux.  Businesses, while wary of its philosophy, are beginning to understand its usefulness.  Google, notably, has tried to work closely with the open source community, as both an user and a contributor.

One of their most recent projects, the Android operating system for mobile phones, was built by Google and then released under the Apache license to the open source community.  Android was initially met with some controversy, especially given its licensing.  Instead of licensing under GPL, Google chose the Apache license, which allows for proprietary modifications be made to Android, so long as the copyright notice and disclaimer are preserved.  Android was released in Q4 2008 and Google has since benefited from the work of programmers, who have developed ‘mods’ aiming to increasing Android’s functionality.

However, on September 25th of this year, one of the Android community’s most prominent ‘modders,’ Steve Kondik, received a Cease and Desist letter from Google.  Steve Kondik had been distributing a ROM called Cyanogen, which was built from the Android framework.  The problem lay not in that Kondik was distributing Android, which was open source, but that he was distributing Google’s core, but proprietary, apps, Gmail, Google Maps, etc.  These apps were part of the “Google Experience” phones and were licensed through the phone manufacturers.  Therefore, while Cyanogen could be continued to be developed and distributed, Google’s apps would need to be removed and anyone who installed Cyanogen would be left without them.  Normally, this would be a minor issue.  However, Google’s apps were central to the Android experience, with the average user expecting  Google’s apps to come baked in.  Without them, any development would be crippled.

Since, Google has experienced a tremendous backlash on the Android community.  While everyone assents to Google’s legal right and its self interest (Google, in a blog post responding to the controversy, has stated that, “Unauthorized distribution of this software harms us just like it would any other business, even if it’s done with the best of intentions.”), many insist that leaving developers such as Kondik alone is better for everyone, especially Google’s reputation among developers.

This issue has clarified the important difference between free software and open source.  And while this issue may have hurt Google’s reputation or even dampened developer enthusiasm, it is important to remember that mobile networks remain extremely closed and manufacturers, as they tentatively take steps towards an open source platform, are another key part of innovation.  Google’s demonstration of its willingness to protect proprietary software on this open system may ensure that more devices are developed for Android, thus increasing its relevance and hopefully its market share.

The resolution to this particular story has been predominantly positive.  Developers, including Cyanogen, have formed the Open Android Alliance, which is dedicated to developing open source alternatives to Google’s primary applications.  Kondik, himself, blogged on the Cyanogen site that “[a] lot of people are helping to work many of these issues out, notably the guys from Google (Dan and JBQ) who manage the open-source project.”

Given the community of developers and Google’s private interests, conflicts were bound to happen.  Yet, the compromise that Google has struck – making its rights clear while working the community – seems to be the right way forward.  Android will continue to be developed in ways outside of Google’s control, but will nonetheless increase user usage of the internet and, by extension, Google’s services.  And the ordinary customers, outside of the open source community, who have never heard of Android and know of ‘open source’ only as a catch phrase, will not care, so long as Android remains a good user experience.  As stated in our Two Bits reading, “Giving away the Communicator source code in 1998 endeared Netscape to geeks and confused investors; it was ignored by customers.”

Net Neutrality, A Short Introduction – by “Andrew K”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 2 Comments

Hi everyone,

It will be my goal in this (hopefully not too long) post to introduce the concept of Network Neutrality. And to dispel any illusions of objectivity: I am in favor of Net Neutrality (and so should you!)

The concept of Network Neutrality is simple: treat all network data equally, regardless of who is sending it or who is receiving it. That means that the ISPs should treat data from Joe’s website the same as that from Yahoo!. This is an idea that we take for granted, but it is important in preserving the freedom that the internet presents for innovation and development of new applications and ideas.

So why should we care? The internet service providers want to establish a “tiered” internet, one with different levels of speed and bandwidth. They would charge more for the fastest tier and less for the slower ones. This means that traffic from corporations with money would dominate the internet, as smaller entities would be sending data in the slow lane. In this system, the net is not neutral; data from one source is treated differently based on the source.

This could lead to big problems, proponents of Net Neutrality say. In such a case, the ISPs would effectively control which sites you could see and have the power to block what they don’t want. If such a system was in place when Skype was first made, it would have been squashed. The ISP, knowing Skype would threaten their services, would block it and make it unavailable. The FCC chairman Genachowski admits even seeing one ISP block certain political views.

These threats should not be seen as conspiracy theories, and Save The Internet has cited ISP executives making their goals clear here. The opponents of Net Neutrality are generally affiliated with the big ISP’s, who would benefit greatly from having this monopolistic power. Feel free to call me out on this if you think otherwise!

Under the Bush Administration, Net Neutrality was stifled, and downright discouraged. The Justice department filed that new network regulations were not necessary and pretty much let the ISPs (who have a lot of lobbying power) do whatever they wanted. It’s nice to see the Obama Administration (including the FCC) take a stand for Net Neutrality.

There are genuine arguments regarding the increasing use of bandwidth and that ISPs must be able to fund themselves for these increasing demands. But I don’t think entrusting so much power into the ISPs, ultimately a profit-seeking entity, over the internet is a wise idea for the health of the internet.

Again, I don’t pretend to know all the answers, and feel free to make your comments.

Lastly, I’ll let a fellow Yalie by the name of John Hodgman explain it himself on the Daily Show