Leave a comment and win a free pass to the O'Reilly Emerging Telephony Conference in San Francisco. Be sure to leave your email address, Skype name optional, so we can contact you. I'll pick a commenter at random on Monday and post the results.

If you couldn't make last week's Consumer Electronics Show, compare the hundreds of photos on flickr to my photos: I have all the phone and software geek shots, while everyone else seems to get the celebrities, parties, and hot people. (Reminder to self: prioritize.)

Apple upgrades GarageBand to include iChat interview recording. At the moment I can't imagine any product better for podcasting that iChat AV with GarageBand 3.0. It is now more sophisticated at capturing audio, video snapshots, manipulating the audio, and publishing than Skype alone or with any four other products. Sharing conversations is fundamental to serving the enterprise market and to continued access to pioneers and early adopters of social media.

China Tech News tips that eBay China launched their Skype promotion site. Here is the banner.

IT Conversations is carrying an interview with Skype marketing vp Saul Klein. Haven't heard it yet; what do you think? Thanks to John Maas for the tip.

Skype Journal is not Skype. We cannot refund money you paid to Skype, reset your password, or make Skype legal in your country. Please recognise our limits; we sure do.

Stuart Henshall is off to Wien for a few days, so if you're in the area, Skype him this weekend (GMT+1).

Jan in Malaysia posted about a new Skype-blocking filter for Ipoque's network management software. Notice the LAN admin companies aren't making your Skype conversations better (the huge market opportunitiy) but are charging you to get in the way of your employees talking with each other and with customers (the horror!).

AmiciPhone is in a new beta. Skype-like functionality but working to beat Skype's network performance by an order of magnitude in areas like file transfer. Remember, you don't want to be the last carrier standing without a softphone.

9skype blogs that Netopia's PC/Mac remote control software Timbuktu is now Skype compatible. English via Google or by Yahoo!.

Last, I'm not the best joke teller, but this hillarious blonde joke about using Skype and penguins sets the bar high.

This little story over at El Reg reminds me on an anecdote from a few years back. Anyhow, the lead-in first:

The Mirror reports that a BT insider who had access to the shows’ voting database fed the results to a betting syndicate before they were made public to viewers on the live TV shows. The gang then placed bets at betting exchange Betfair.com on the outcome of the voting netting a fortune.

So your communications are only as secure as the least trustworthy and most corruptible person in the telco data centre. And they want to keep Skype out of the enterprise because of (in)security concerns?!

Well, in about 1999, during my database consultant years, I was over visiting the Oracle headquarters at Redwood Shores, CA. My hotel was a few miles down the highway overlooking the airport. (I once got a great view of a Lufthansa 747 aborting its landing presumably due to the runway not being clear ahead. Vroom!) Rather than get a rental car when jetlagged like crazy, I was taking taxis. So I called the front desk and got a taxi booked for the next morning.

Up rolls a big old white Lincoln Town Car taxi with a woman diver. “Mr Geddes?” “Yes.”

Off we head. She hands me her business card, and tells me to call directly to book further journeys.

That evening I call the taxi company direct to get back to my hotel. I really don’t care who picks me up — just that the first available taxi comes. “But Mr Geddes — you didn’t turn up this morning when we came to collect you!”

“What — yes I did!”

“Was it a woman who collected you by name name of Blahdy Blah?”

“Yes.”

Now, here’s what was happening. A pirate taxi driver was listening in on dispatch orders from the taxi company, and sneaking in and snatching customers from them. So we agreed to get a little revenge in.

I call the pirate taxi driver, and make a reservation for the next morning.

Up she rolls to the front of the hotel. “Hiya — nice morning!”, I say.

And I get straight into the white Town Car. Not hers, but the one now pulled up behind. Driven by the owner of the legit taxi company. Who waves at her. And she screams a load of abuse back!

The moral of the story? No communication is too trival to encrypt.

UPDATE: Just to avoid possible confusion, it was the radio transmissions from the dispatcher that she was listening in to, not PSTN calls to order the taxis.

UPDATE: That’s because the PSTN is totally secure. No, really it is. (Thanks, Lee).

Martin decries to his Telepocalypse blog from Scotland.

I’m sure this is something that’s been raked over before, but I don’t see a common understanding of what ‘Net Neutrality’ actually is. Despite many of the Internetorati demanding it by law. Whatever.

There appear to be several different camps, which you could paint as “bottom of IP”, “middle” and “top”.

The bottomistas would see enforced Internet Protocol itself as a premature optimisation and violation of the end-to-end principle. Unhappy that you only get IPv4 or IPv6? Still grumpy that you only have IPv4 and not even IPv6? Really miserable that your VoIP packets are staggering under the poisonous load of IPv6 headers? You’re a bottomista.

I suspect there are some fundamentalist bottomistas who would object to your service providers not giving you a choice of Ethernet, ATM or roll-you-own-L2-protocol. We’ll pretend to be out and not answer the door when they knock.

The middlemen draw a distinction between “raw IP” (before the ISP gets ahold of it), and “retail IP”, which is what you and I get to experience. This kind of suggests that the OSI 7-layer model got it horribly wrong, because there’s a fundamental cleave right in the middle of layer 3, where IP sits. Fair comment, but sounds pretty radical to me. Although I’ve never really got layer 6, so maybe they’re onto something.

Then you might be a “top of IP” kind of girl. You can cope with the discrimination creeping higher up the stack to the next layer, where particular TCP and UDP ports and flags are screened off. But you only get queasy if particular commercial service providers or applications are targeted. Blocking off port 25 is OK to you, since it doesn’t discriminate against any particular email service provider.

Sadly, these are all hogwash and bunkum.

Net Neutrality is a dead end, because

as Searls and Weinberger correctly noted, the Net isn’t a thing, it’s an interconnected set of agreements. These are bilateral and freely entered into. And since those agreements weren’t modelled off a viral template such as the GNU General Public License, they are all unique. There’s no contagious clause that insists the Internet becomes a “thing” by virtue of everyone having to agree to freely and neutrally pass packets in an ever growing pool of Neutraldom. So to impose neutrality you’re going to have to interpose yourself into a lot of contracts. (Another reason why “Internet Governance” is an oxymoron when referring to anything beyond IP address allocation and routing, which do require some central agreement and co-ordination.)

There’s no grand “first principle” from which you can derive network neutrality as an economic argument. No public choice, competition, game theory or otherwise construct that leads us there. Indeed, saying that the public would benefit if there was a transfer of wealth from providers to users isn’t good enough. You’re playing with matches in the oil refinery when you start messing with property rights. Yes, those networks are mostly funded by risk capital. The local loop copper of a fixed operator may still be hangovers from monopoly days, but generally those assets were brought into the private sector on clear rules, the stockholders took a punt, and some of the better informed ones who saw the long-term potential of DSL etc. got to reap a windfall. Of course in parallel the telcos have done a superlative job of lobbying for rules that keep competition out, but that’s a different issue.

But wait a moment, it gets worse.

What if I wanted to allow people in the street to access my WiFi? But I only want to offer web and email, so as to make P2P filesharing tricky. As a good public-spirited citizen I put up a splash page so they know exactly what’s going on. Am I allowed to? Or is Net Neutrality only for the mythical mystical “them”?

When in deploying my network do I need to “design-in” neutrality? Concept, build or operation? Should we be outlawing the deployment of PSTN-specific GSM networks because they’re “unfair” to non-PSTN voice applications like Skype? Am I allowed to deploy non-technological measures for neutrality, such as contract terms? Am I allowed to read the packets, but not block them, in order to enforce my contract (repeat - freely entered into by both partners)?

What level of jitter and congestion is perceived as “neutral”? What if I deploy technology like Qualcomm’s 1xRTT, which separately supports voice and data, with PSTN-only voice, but the data is a bit lousy for VoIP? Is that being unfair, or merely a realistic response to the limitations of technology?

Is neutrality a wholesale or a retail problem? What if the access infrastructure owner offers “neutral” IP connectivity, but no retail provider chooses to pass that on directly to the public without layering on some filtering and price discrimination?

Oh, and what’s so special about the Internet? Do other IP-based networks need neutrality principles? Do any networks? Should more network industries be forced to forego “winner takes all” rewards? Google looks awfully dominant at adverts, doesn’t it… I wonder if that ad network needs a bit of “neutrality”?

Incidentally, although I’m against blanket rules enforcing neutrality, I would reserve it as a tool for post hoc competition and antitrust law enforcement. And I think you can make a stand on Network Neutrality on political and free speech grounds, but that requires a very different policy approach (i.e. not one that confiscates the proceeds of private capital investment).

And if the users value a neutral connection so much, perhaps it’s time for them to self-organise a bit, build their own networks, or tender for connectivity together — rather than rolling over and accepting whatever the local telco can cableco provide by default. But that would burst the illusion that government is here to save us from ourselves and we’ve no need to take personal responsibility for our connectivity freedom.

The moment you try to define Network Neutrality, you have to choose a layer, a time, a market, the participants. You have to make non-neutral choices in order to define the boundary of your Neutrasphere. There is no ‘neutral’ space devoid of favouring the interests of particular market players. The contradiction is inherent. There is no way to finesse it away.

Everything’s bass-ackwards. Neutrality is a sign of healthy supply competition and sophisticated ways of demand expression. It’s an output, not an input. Beware demanding net neutrality as a blanket principle, rather than a scalpel to excise particular local anti-competitive acts. Khrushchev declared the corn harvest was great, too — but it didn’t create the incentives for more corn to be sown and for the system to succeed on future iterations. And net neutrality rules are also likely to have the exact opposite effect of that intended.

Net neutrality messes up freedom of contract, freedom of association, and property rights.

I don’t buy it.

via Telepocalypse.net

There’s been a lot of press in the last year or so about port blocking, open access, Net Freedoms, and so on. I won’t provide the links, you go find ‘em. Every forum, mailing list, conference, and discussion panel seems to have a lot of heated opinion about it. Although I couldn’t attend the VON sessions, there was heated debate there between the “Freeloader!” and the “Freedom fighter!” factions.

But why should I, emotively, care at all?

Stop for a moment. Why do you, personally, care about this issue? Telecom isn’t the only industry with distribution bottlenecks, significant market power, and cross-subsidy between the stages of production. Just look at how baked beans are positioned in supermarket shelves. Manufacturers in the UK pay the supermarkets to buy prime positions. Yet telecom incites such great passion in intelligent people. Baked beans don’t. What’s going on?

I think I’ve finally worked out why. It’s David Isenberg’s elephant in the corner — what he ambiguously calls Freedom to Connect. Most of these arguments attempt to build a logical economic thesis about why we do or don’t have the correct balance between price discrimination, competition and common carriage. But it increasingly misses the point. We sense there’s a deeper, more troubling, aspect to getting cut off from part of the conversation.

Whilst nebulous and fluffy, it’s all about democracy. The rest is post hoc rationalization of our more fundamental beliefs about how a 21st century society needs to be wired up to work. And my thesis is that we are underestimating the importance of this political (as opposed to economic) side of the debate.

The sense of indignation you feel inside you when you hear about port blocking is because you sense the loss that those customer are enduring. You and I have come to realize that if you don’t have access, you aren’t able to fully participate in society any more in some non-trivial way. You can still do the old analogue things, have a protest at the street corner. But the crowds have moved online. Nobody can hear you.

Not only that, but when someone else gets the chop, you’ve lost a member of the demos from your democracy. Your conversation is impaired by others no longer being able to participate.

Why don’t we feel so upset about the closed, walled gardens of wireless networks? There are several reasons, I believe. Firstly, the very nature of the medium lends itself to competition (through multiple overlapping networks), which ensures some degree of openness. The low cost of wireless telephony is also in itself a great democratising force. Going from zero phones to one closed one is a great step forward. Participation is everything. We also have lower expectations based on the natural capacity limits the technology has had until recently. Our tolerance of “co-operative bottlenecks” has been greater in order to share the resource better.

On the other hand, when someone’s Net connections to their home come under pressure of restriction, we react differently. I think this is partly a psychological issue of how we view these spaces differently. We are defensive of our homes. Somewhat tenuously, the family still is the organising unit of society. We aspire for every household to have at least some form of unfettered access to all forms of information discourse. That’s why it hurts when we fall short.

Which brings me to my real point. This conversational chatty democracy stuff all sounds fine. But that’s hardly going to energize society into fits of fiber laying and open access regulation. Where’s the beef? Well, here’s my outrageous suggestion:

The ability to access Internet content and services is the new Right to Bear Arms.

Wow. I’ve said it. So what does it mean? The founders of the United States of America in their wisdom saw the seizure of excessive power by government as a central risk. To counteract this, they ensured the general populace would always be sufficiently armed. This gives any putative dictator or tyrant pause for thought before exercising the machinery of government violence for undemocratic ends. The price is a certain undercurrent of everyday violence, but the experiment has by and large succeeded. The USA is one of the longest-standing constitutional democracies, and has withstood extraordinary change in demographics and fortune during that period.

We’re moving from a society where physical force was the prime means of coercion to one where ideas have ascendancy. Physical force doesn’t scale well as a means of subjugation. It’s one thing to take a man’s posessions; quite another to persuade him to make your dinner every night for nothing. The hardest part of the civil rights movement wasn’t undoing the yoke of the white man, but persuading the everyday black man that it was his inalienable right to have that yoke removed. Once that was achieved, the outcome was largely a foregone conclusion.

Building tyranny is harder when the populace is armed with good information. It’s not impossible; indeed, a tyranny of the majority is still a major risk. But when I can have a cheap encrypted Skype conversation with Iranians, Syrians, and Mexicans, something qualitative has changed. For example, when I visited Syria a few years ago, we went to Hama. This town was largely razed in 1982 (with the loss of tens of thousands of lives) when its own army shelled the city to put down an Islamic uprising against the Baathist government. I pass no comment on the politics of it, but merely note that this is a little-known episode of history. You certainly don’t see it mentioned on the official tourist website. Can you imagine keeping such news under wraps in the era of video cameraphones, satellite Internet and Skype?

Consider a populace that wants to rise up against its political masters. We’re already at the point where the government response isn’t to take away the populace’s arms, but to take away its means of communication. Militias don’t congregate in the woods and more, they start their own Yahoo! group and MoveOn and Meetup from there.

There’s no point in demanding universal access if you don’t have the economic means to deliver. Much of the debate is about means, not ends. But those ends deserve greater exposure and reflection. If we are serious about transformation of society through information technology it means sweeping away many of the special protections the telecom industry has managed to accrue, enforcement of competition law, and greater collective effort to deploy connectivity and open up wireless and fixed rights of way.

There’s more at stake here than cheap phone calls and unlimited TV channels. Cheap airlines have done more for European cohesion and understanding than decades of political exhortation. Cheap, ubiquitous and unfiltered communications are becoming a prerequisite of a pluralist participative democracy. Societies that fail to encourage the free flow of information will suffer because ingrained interest groups will ensure the rules are set up to perpetuate their privileges. When you can’t make a Skype call, you’re losing something more than money.

You might believe that your political system is a stable one delivering endless contended freedom and openness. But your average American feels a lot more secure in that knowledge with a rifle in the basement. I’d want the same feeling of security, just with symmetric gigabit fibre so I can host my own subversive content if necessary.

Next time someone is vigorously defending the existence of filters on the Net, dig deeper. Don’t ask them for the logic of their argument. Rather, try to find out why it excites them so much. Perhaps they aren’t aware of what animates their own passions.

Don't get me wrong...

I don’t want anyone to think I’m about to become a crypto-socialist, so a quick clarification. The correlation between “network freedom” and the right to bear arms is only a partial one.

Taking up arms is something that can be done unilaterally. A network is by its definition a collective effort, even if an emergent rather than centrally co-ordinated one. So it cannot be purely a personal “freedom”.

The right to bear arms is equally re-stated as a right not to have your arms taken away from you. It doesn’t mean anyone has to provide you with a gun. Network access is a positive outcome of economic activity over which there are rivalrous claims to finite resources, like network engineers. But you don’t (yet) own the network, so there’s no corresponding right not to be deprived of the use of your possessions. Bearing arms is really a negative freedom (something bad that won’t be done to you), whereas Net access is a positive freedom. Freedom doesn’t do free lunches.

As I have said before, price discrimination in competitive markets is your friend. Filtering can be used for price discrimination. Filtering is a symptom of how well the system is performing. In a mature telecommunications sector, such as wireline, it is a symptom of ill-health. In a nascent one, such as cellular access in the developing world, being only able to access closed phone and SMS service is a vital part of the pricing regime that makes the network possible. The existence of network filtering is an output, not an input; a symptom, not a cause.

You do not automatically make your society freer and healthier by outlawing all network filtering. Indeed, you might achieve the exact opposite result.

Guns don’t come with enforceable end user license agreements that say “For shooting small furry animals only”. But we do distinguish between bunny-hunting guns and machine guns. We discriminate based on lethality. We don’t expect unlimited freedom to bear arms. A farmer wanting to blow some cute crop-nibblers to kingdom come is given carte blanche to blast away. Walk into a bank carring the same hardware, and expect trouble. We might likewise expect some boundaries to our communications freedom.

So I would caution people from taking the analogy too literally. The right to bear arms is also a means to an end — a populace willing and able to resist attempts to capture the machinery of state to perpetuate undemocratic activity. Unfettered and affordable network access is correspondingly essential to the operation of a free and dynamic post-industrial society.

So I’ll say it again, differently. Rules against network filtering are one way of dealing with significant market power in a vertically integrated part of the market where someone has significant market power in the access layer. It isn’t necessarily the best way of doing it, but it’s one way. In all other cases, it’s likely to be harmful. You should use the existence of such activities as a yardstick for the development and maturity of the industry. Expect new technologies and markets to be full of filtering, which slowly recedes over time as competition heats up. Meanwhile, municipal networks and other co-operative of user-owned connectivity systems should aim for more opennness that simple economics suggests, because the benefits are hidden in the political layer.

I alluded to the special privileges and protections that exist in telecom. I guess I ought to enumerate a few to back up such a claim in what is becoming sometimes a suicidally competitive environment.

The US is the easiest example of how barriers to entry are built via co-option of the regulatory infrastructure, but examples about all over. Tariff sheets and their attendant cost of lawyers to issue, public utility comissions stuffed with friendly faces, exclusionary numbering schemes, sweetheart deals on rights of way, spectrum auctions that have singularly failed to recover the maximum public benefit, suspicious tax rebates, opaque pricing schemes that fail to come under scrutiny, faux taxes; the list goes on and on. Mostly it’s just a matter of not having to comply with normal competition and cross-subsidy rules and establishing your own parallel (and captive) regulatory environment, plus special deals on costs on inputs and prices of outputs. Check out the usual places for more data.

UPDATE: Susan Crawford has some thoughts along similar lines, with the money quote being:

I’m trying to create a normative map that will help reveal the assumptions at the heart of the network providers’ arguments. The key issue should be: is access to the internet a public goods problem, for which incentives are necessary to ensure buildout and maintenance? or — Is access to the internet a monopoly problem, for which you have to find ways to ensure frictionless competition?

Right now, we can’t tell what the right answer is.

My hunch is that we’ve not found ways for the invisible hand to operate that also allows collective action by users, groups of users, communities and regional government. It’s an “economics technology” problem, not a “technology technology” problem.

David Weinberger documents Tim Wu’s similar analysis of how the world is divinding into “openists” and “deregulationists”, where a confused cross-purposes of terminology, worldviews and methods collide.

via Martin Geddes' Telepocalypse.

Whilst perusing my daily feeds, I see Kim Cameron bring up the following idea:

When I was in Britain earlier this summer, I met Toby Stevens. How should I describe him? Can we invent the category of privacy entrepreneur?

Was trying out the Skype 1.4 beta today, with auto-forwarding. You know, Skype is now in a position to re-intermediate the mobile and other carriers (for a fee!). If your cellular carrier doesn't "get it" and see that there's a demand for innovation in voice features (like enhanced privacy), you just hand out your Skype number instead and have it intelligently forwarded.

Only want to be called on your mobile at certain times of day, or when you're not in a meeting, or when you're at your keyboard with a certain presence status? Then just set up your forwarding accordingly.

The current forwarding mechanism is just a binary on/off, but it doesn't take a genius to see how extensions could play into this.

So Skype Inc. is indeed a form of privacy entrepreneurialism. Roll up! Roll up! Come here to buy your missing telecom privacy features!

Now all Skype has to do is find a way to remunerate developers whose extensions lead to more billable minutes and up-sell to premium features. Unless of course they like pissing in their own pond and killing the little developer fishes...

Now here's a really evil thought. Want to upset the incumbent telecom players with some progressive regulation? Then force a separation of connectivity and service markets upon them. Allow users to port their number to a service provider like Skype, but still allow termination to your mobile device. Finally make numbers logical addresses associated with service, not physical addresses associated with routing and connectivity. Add a dash of wholesale pricing rules, stir in some termination rate sauce, and serve with gusto. Et voila! A competitive market in advanced telephony service emerges, unconstrained by the low level of competition in connectivity.

And we didn't even need to buy a single IMS box...

Unfortunately, the implementation will be really messy with all sorts of craziness because even things like a 3G data card needs to be assigned a telephone number to be accepted by the provisioning system. Doh! But where there's a political will, there's a technical way.