Interactive Content

Folks often forget that South by Southwest is more than a music orgy. SXSW is really five events divided into three categories. The three categories are Film, Music, and Interactive. Film and Music are pretty self explanatory — there’s a music conference and a film conference along with a film and music festival spread out over several days. The festivals are almost entriely indie content — indie movies and indie music. The film and music conferences have speeches and panels with the latest newsmakers about the important issues in those spaces with a heavy slant towards independent producers.

The Interactive conference is a whole other beast. As far as I know, it’s the only conference of its kind — a cross of academia, technology, and business all discussing the latest trends, gizmos, web sites, and so on. Judd was curious what the crowds are like. Here’s my breakdown of some of the stereotypes wandering the halls.  In short, they’re people who can afford to be there (or people who can get someone else to pay for them to be there):

• Academics
• New media producers (bloggers/vloggers/podcasters/mobloggers/etc)
• Recruiters and headhunters
• Venture capitol and angel investors
• People looking for money/work/business
• Product and web designers
• Authors
• Programmers and tech creators

It’s a strange mix, but then this is a strange conference. Panels topics included how to use AJAX, the future of radio, all things blogging and podcasting, ways to make your users love your products, how AT&T is the Dark Side (complete with AT&T logo-Death Star morph — done by Burnie Burns of Rooster Teeth (the Red vs Blue folks). mp3 here, videos here and here — lots of visual gags but none of his slides are in the videos. What the hell kind of video of a presentation doesn’t record the slides? Ugh. I guess you’ll never see the AT&T logo-Death Star morph unless you were there. His opening slide was best:

---

This is the title to the keynote!

This is the smaller, italicized subtitle to the keynote!

---

Maybe you just had to be there.)… you know, the usual technology conference stuffs but all in one place.

They should use this as a promo:

"If you pick any conference to go to this year, make yours SXSW Interactive. Why pay thousands of dollars to go to dozens of conferences in cities that suck? Going to SXSWi is like going to every technology conference all at once in the kick-ass city of Austin, Texas!"

There were some highlights, including Kathy Sierra, author of some of the Head First books which do an amazing job teching a very boring subject (programming). She gave a kick ass presentation about how to create passionate users, drawing from topics in cognative psychology, UI design, etc. She better be in the midst of writing a book on the subject.

And there were some lowlights, like the talk about Darknets. A darknet is a private virtual network for sharing information, like when you dragged your computer over to your friend’s place and plugged into his network to swap porn or when you downloaded a file from a peer-to-peer server that required a password.

The panel was moderated by J.D. Lasica, author of the darknet book. He assembled a very interesting panel including someone from a company that monitors online copyright infringement, someone from Flickr, the founder of FreeNet (hyper-secure P2P), and even a PR person from the MPAA — the body responsible for film ratings and vilifying P2P file sharing. Did I mention that the audience was primarily bloggers, filmmakers, podcasters, and other new media folks? And that there was an MPAA person on the panel?

I think you see where this is headed.

It took maybe two minutes for the first person to interrupt a speaker with a comment. And when the "audience question" portion of the conversation began, the discussion quickly devolved into berating the poor MPAA woman (who was very brave to be on that panel IMO). Less "question" and more "fuck you MPAA." And I was hoping that the bloggers and podcasters would be able to sustain a civilized discussion…

Here’s my transcript of the panel:

• Blogger: What are you doing to ensure I can do whatever I want with any kind of digital content?
• MPAA: (does that trick where it looks like you’re pulling your thumb in half) You see, my thumb looks like it’s in two pieces, but in fact it’s really ok.
• Blogger: I hate DRM!
• MPAA: That’s not a question. And you’re not watching my thumb.
• Blogger: We’re taking over everything! You’re in the stone ages! You wait and see!
• MPAA: (holds hand above head and snaps finger in the air) You see that?
• Blogger: Wha?
• MPAA: Next question.

Don’t believe me? Listen to the panel, but only if you’re a glutton for punishment. I’d point you to the video but it’s only five minutes long and is missing JD’s great mashup that he showed before the panel spoke because SXSW didn’t want to spend $20,000 to clear the rights for the media that he used.

Where was I? Got mesmerized by that thumb… Oh yeah. If you ever moderate a panel, ask a question, give an interview, or give a speech at SXSW, let me offer you some advice:

1. Remind people that when you give time for the audience to ask questions, you really should ask a question.
2. If you’re going to offer a comment, don’t unless it’s a question and relevant to the panel.
3. Berating the panelists is not nice and will not engender their kindness in return.
4. If you’re giving an interview or moderating a discussion and have never done so before, please take the time to practice. Inexperience shows.
5. If you’re the moderator, your job is to moderate and get the panel to talk. Don’t answer all the questions yourself.
6. If moderating a panel, do not invite only your friends to be on the panel.

Was SXSWi worthwhile? Sure was. Just make sure to put your bullshit filter on high before you go. And bring a bathing suit. And a spare liver. Photos and stories are next.

In case you’re thinking of going next year

If you’re not from Austin and think you’re going to the South by Southwest music festival, think again. 1300 bands in 5 days is a music lovers dream. Bands covering every music style from all around the world play fill nearly every bar in downtown Austin. To see any shows, you need either a badge or a wristband. People who pay the music conference fees (about $500) get in to any show they want by using their conference badge as admission.

Music fans can pay $125/$150/$175 to get a wristband, and that wristband will get you into the music shows as well. The price depends on when you buy your wristband; this year the first 2000 were $125, the next 2000 were $150, and any remaining ones were $175 (up from $110/$130/$150 last year). 4600 total wristbands were sold this year; the first 4000 sold in one day, two max per person. The remaining 600 were $175, cash only, and had to be worn immediately after purchase "to prevent scalping."

If you didn’t get a wristband through the normal channels, plenty of people were selling theirs online. There were at least 260 SXSW eBay wristband auctions and 300 Craigslist wristband sales listings, most of which sold for over face value. If you’re not from Austin or have a friend who’s willing to brave hours in line, then you can always get gouged by the scalpers since Texas has no anti-scalping laws.

I emailed the SXSW music people about this. They said that the wristbands are sold as a "courtesy" to Austinites in exchange for having their town invaded. Anyone not from Austin who can’t be at Waterloo Records on the magic day when wristbands go on sale is SOL. A coworker of mine got a less cordial letter — that SXSW is about the conference and not the fans. If you can’t get a wristband, then please pay the full music conference fees or shut the fuck up. Or words like that.

But that’s not the full extent of SXSW’s indifference to music fans. Buying a wristband does not guarantee you admission to the shows. People with badges always get in first, even if there’s 200 wristband wearing fans who have been waiting in line for the last three hours. In short, if you have a wristband, you’re probably going to spend a night wandering up and down 6th Street instead of listening to the music you paid for.

I don’t know about you, but paying a scalper $250 for a wristband because you couldn’t buy one in person isn’t very courteous; at least ten percent of all SXSW wristbands were sold online. Courteous is not selling only 4600 wristbands and then giving priority to the music execs who have badges paid for by their companies. SXSW is Austin’s premier music festival. It’s the party that put Austin on the map. And it’s fuckin crazy that they would treat music as such a commodity when it should really be about the fans.

One example will clear this up. I saw Sleater-Kinney play a kick ass show on Tuesday night. Admission was an SXSW badge — that is, only people who paid the conference fees could get in. When S-K asked the audience how many people are from Austin, maybe 10% cheered. And that doesn’t count the remaining 2/3 of the people who were busy having conversations and weren’t watching the show (read as: business people). If real S-K fans were in attendance, you wouldn’t be able to have a conversation over the music, dancing, and noise.

Every person who goes to Austin for SXSW should know that if you’re buying a wristband, you’re gambling with your money. In my opinion, you’re better off spending that money on 4 days of great meals and drinking. That’s what I did with the money I saved by not getting a wristband. And let me tell you — I had a better time than I would have if I had gone to those shows. And I didn’t even have to deal with the crazy SXSW traffic and parking.

There’s one last thing that’s been bothering me. It’s "South by Southwest, Inc." They’re a business. How much money are they making of everyone? Let’s go through this:

• Speakers don’t get paid to speak at the conference (though they do get a free badge)
• Bands don’t get paid to play at the festival (but they get free wristbands)
• People shell out hundreds of dollars for wristbands and badges
• Companies pay tens of thousands of dollars for SXSW sponsorships

Other than paying rent for Austin Convention Center, SXSW Inc must be making tons of money off this. Yeah, if you’re from SXSW Inc and are reading this, go ahead and refute this all you want. But all of us who know you’ve raised wristband and conference fees by 5-10% each year for the last few years know better. We’re getting screwed.

I loved the years I went to SXSW, but there’s no way I’ll ever go to the music festival unless someone else pays for it. Or if they have some kind of lottery system for purchasing wristbands along with online purchasing. And give wristbands the same priority as badges. And make sure that wristbands can’t be sold for more than face value.

Of course, a free platinum badge for next year would get me there as well… More on my SXSW and Austin experiences later.

A response from an unarmed alum

My Masters degree is from the School of Information Management and Systems (SIMS). I have a lot of love for SIMS — South Hall, the faculty, the staff, my former schoolmates. But part of love is being honest, and I’ve got some tough love for SIMS that I’ve wanted to get off my chest for a while. Not too long ago, Dean Anno Saxenian delivered her first State of the School address (big thanks to Joe for recording it). Between that, my experience at SIMS, conversations I’ve had with people, and some reflection, I now offer this response to the State of the School.

During my time there and even today, I could never explain what my degree represents or what SIMS does. I can explain my website, my company, my job, and even the scar in my eyebrow in one sentence, but for my life I can’t summarize SIMS in under seventy words or three sentences. One response to this problem is that SIMS has been renamed the UC Berkeley School of Information — the "iSchool" for short. To borrow from David Spade, "iSchool? Yeah, this is Apple. We want our little ‘i’ back." If there’s anything more zeitgeist than the iSchool then the new name would be the eSchool. Sure, I understand the need for branding; most of the schools in this discipline have now changed their name to "School of Information." But iSchool? Only if it comes with a free iPod.

I’m willing to forgive the poorly written mission statement which sounds more like a pitch to businesses than a school training future professionals and academics. However, I won’t forgive this explanation of the school’s "five areas of concentration." For those of us who went there, we know how those fields fit together, even if we only focused on one or two of those areas. For people who don’t know anything about information science, how can they possibly understand how "human computer interaction" fits together with "information economics and policy?" (Quite frankly, I can’t figure that one out myself.) The iSchool is a place where those parts fit together, but through the explanations on that page (and in practice) it seems more like five little schools than one big school.

Here’s my best attempt to explain the iSchool ne SIMS:

The goal of the UC Berkeley School of Information is to understand the nature of information in our society by combining the best practices of Computer Science, Business, Economics, Law, and Sociology. The result is an academic and professional program that educates the future leaders in technology development, management, and research — leaders who can use their knowledge to drive the changes that will become part of our everyday lives.

Yeah, it sounds marketing-ish, but at least it gets the point across — and I didn’t even bring up the PhD/Masters program division (more on that later). I still gotta try to make it one sentence shorter than twenty words.

Let me give you some specific examples about the iSchool’s lack of a coherent brand. Every Wednesday, the school hosts a guest speaker who gives a presentation about something related to the iSchool (many are listed here). While usually informative and interesting, the topics seem random and unrelated. People unfamiliar with the iSchool may think SIMS took people off the street and let them speak for two hours. Putting them under the umbrella of the iSchool isn’t enough to help people understand the connections between "Content Creation by Massively Distributed Collaboration" and "Cryptanalysis Machines through 1950." And for the love of all things holy, please find any guest speaker other than Brewster Kahle. A speech by Brewster about information storage and access at SIMS is as stale as starting a State of the Blah speech with the phrase "The state of the blah is good." (Sorry Anno and GWB — you should hire new speech writers.)

The other massive problem with the iSchool’s brand is how the faculty associate themselves with the iSchool. Most of our best faculty, including Hal Varian (information economics superstar), Pam Samuelson (information law superstar), and Doug Tygar (information security superstar), are professors in both the iSchool and another school (business/economics, law, and computer science respectively). I know writing "School of Information Management and Systems" takes up lots of space in an article, and especially "professor of business, economics, and information", so maybe these professors can now change over to the much more succinct "[professor name here], professor at the UC Berkeley School of Information." Nonetheless, citing "School of Information" still won’t make sense to most people. Maybe people will get the idea that one UC Berkeley Haas School professor got in his head — that SIMS is the place where they "smoke pot and talk to themselves." I may not have recalled that quote correctly, but the sentiment lingers around the iSchool like the smell of… pot?

To solve these problems, SIMS hired a marketing firm to help refine the school’s image. Parts of the firm’s results were leaked to students, including a swath of quotes from students, alumni, campus leaders, and "thought leaders." The quotes pointed to a lack of school identity, lack of knowledge about what we do, and generally a lack of publicity about the school’s existance. Given the tone, I think these comments were inadvertently made available to the students. Maybe part of the plan is to keep everyone unaware of the real state of the school.

All that being said, the iSchool is definitely on the right track. After years of complaining, they are putting more resources into recruiting and they’re revamping the curriculum. The curriculum has always been questionable from the perspective of the students. On one hand, I can understand the reason why the faculty thought encryption should be a required part of our education. But in practice, that knowledge does very little for me.

In the state of the school address, Anno took time to note that the curriculum changes were influenced by her conversations with people in the industry and by a project that completed two years ago called the SIMS corpus project . The results of the corpus project were, more or less, that there’s a difference between what SIMS students think SIMS is and how SIMS is marketed to the world (much like the marketing firm’s results… hm….). The results of that project accurately reflect the state of SIMS from two years ago. While I do agree with their conclusions, the SIMS faculty and staff need to take into account how the goals of the student body change over time. I know that my class and previous years are much more focused on a professional track, but future Masters classes seem more academically oriented.

As for getting jobs, I can’t tell you the amount of complaining we students had to make before we had a SIMS career fair. Our faculty have always stressed that the SIMS Masters degree is constructed to make us look very attractive to employers. If that’s true, then why didn’t all the Masters students have jobs lined up before graduation? Why are companies begging for more Berkeley MBAs and CS students but not iSchool students? How difficult is it to do a Google search for companies in Silicon Valley and send them an email asking if they’ll come in and interview some great students?

The people in the industry Anno referred to (whatever that industry is) may know what they want in SIMS graduates. However, only us alumni are truly fit to say what parts of our SIMS educations are relevant to our careers. I was especially frustrated when Anno didn’t mention alumni taking part in this re-evaluation of the SIMS curriculum. I really hope that was an oversight in her speech. How can you change the curriculum without consulting former students to see what parts helped them most and least? SIMS should take alumni accounts over those of current students and industry experts. While I have great respect for those other people, my fellow graduates and I are the ones shaping how SIMS is perceived in the world. You can show us some respect by letting us take part in the future of the school (and by not mailing us requests for donations every three months).

And now word on the split personality of the iSchool. It’s a great place for people to get their Masters degrees and drive technology changes in the world. Masters students become consultants, user interface designers, information architects, engineers, managers, and someday CIOs, CTOs, and CEOs. Some become PhD or law school students or even librarians. But SIMS also has a PhD program, and since there’s only been 6 PhDs conferred by SIMS, I can’t really say what they become. However I do know that the PhD curriculum is almost entirely academic (as in future professors) rather than professional (as in future managers). All my comments (except these) should be taken with respect to the Masters program.

The amount of PhD/Masters student interaction is… well… drinking, and even then I can’t recall PhDs attending the ritual Thirsty Thursday binge. Maybe they really are that busy, but if so then that still doesn’t explain the lack of PhD/Masters interaction in classes and research. Masters students are treated just like PhD students in terms of access to classes, professors, and so on. It’s just that PhD and Masters student are two very separate vocations at the iSchool. Appropriately, the door between the Masters’ work area and the PhD work area was almost always closed during my time there. And when it was open and we started talking, a bitter looking PhD student would come over and slam the door shut. Not exactly the nicest way to make friends…

The one part of Anno’s speech that stuck with me most is this: $100 million in five years. That’s right — she’s undertaking a mega fundraising campaign for the iSchool. There’s not enough Mitch Kapors, Brewster Kahles, or Bob Glushkos in the world to give that much money to the school (I dig the hat, Bob). And where is Anno going to find time to raise that money, solve the school’s image problem, and teach a class much less run the school? I wonder if she has an open day on her schedule in the next two months. The problems at SIMS run deep, and it’s going to take something other than $100 million to solve those problems.

I still can’t explain what I learned in the last two years, but I know this. SIMS students are the kind of people that…

• See problems before they happen. And when you ignore us and those problems happen, call us in to fix it and we’ll make sure it doesn’t happen again.
• Don’t need to be told what to do. You should ask us what to do, and we’ll tell you what we think. Then we’ll make sure it gets done, let you know how it went, and tell you how to do it better next time.
• Put the pieces together. Is there some new technology or trend that you think fits into your business? We probably already saw that link, figured out how to integrate it, and even started working on it.
• Get it. You don’t have to explain your problems twice, much less once. We speak business, technical, or social lingo. And if you don’t get it — trends, businesses, technologies — we can explain it to you.

And above all, SIMS students are the kind of people that you want working for you. You don’t want us working for your competitors because we know your business better than you do, and we’ll put you out of business before you can say, "How do they keep beating us to the punch every time?"

I really love SIMS… er… the iSchool. My time there has opened my eyes to the ties between technology, policy, sociology, and business. Nearly every time I have a conversation with an alum, we end up at a point where we say, "someone should build that." That’s the kind of people we are — innovators. And before you know it, our influence will be everywhere.

Still don’t get it? Think that someone from SIMS can help you with your problems? Feel free to email me.

---

Update – Feb. 22, 2006, 9:57pm:  Comments are working again.  My apologies to anyong who was trying to write one and couldn’t.  Thanks to everyone who emailed me feedback about this rant.  I’ll write more on my post-SIMS experiences in the future.

and then she backpedals

After the DMCA was passed, rumors were abound that the entertainment and media industry heavily lobbied Congress to get the law passed, but those rumors were never substantiated. In a recent blog post, former RIAA head Hilary Rosen admitted that she expected influence and votes in return for her contributions. In her words:

"Damn straight when I gave a $1,000 or $2,000 to a lawmaker I wanted him to listen to my business proposition.  And when I helped organized an event that raised $50,000 or $100,000 you bet I expected their vote.  Why else do it?  Now you can argue that the Member of Congress already took that position and my colleagues and I were just showing our support for their position.  But how can the public really be sure of that?"

Wow. She broke the first rule of lobbying: Never admit you’re buying votes. And in her defense, I can’t be sure of the context of these comments. Was she speaking as a former RIAA head, as a US citizen and individual contributor, as a member of GLBT rights supporter Human Rights Campaign, or any other role she’s taken over the years.

All the same, these are damning comments coming from a former lobbyist. After talking about her role influencing laws, she turns a hard corner and makes the case for public financing of elections:

"Members of Congress are CONSUMED with raising money for their re-elections.  It has become a burden.  And no matter how cavalier they are about it in public, their hand wringing in private is certain.   And anyone, including lobbyists, who lessen that anxiety, is considered a better friend than those that don’t.  It is just a fact.  No lobbying reforms will change that fact.

…

The ONLY answer to all of this is public financing of elections.  Then lobbying becomes genuine “education” and relationships are built on respect and constituent interest.  It seems so obvious."

I’ve been a fan of campaign finance reform for years, but I know the reality of that happening is grim. And if you’re not convinced about the need for campaign finance reform, candidates raised around $4 billion in the 2004 election cycle — all that money for seats in public office. I can think of many great ways to spend $4 billion…

Despite her former job, I’m proud of Hilary’s admission and hope that other lobbyists admit the need for greater reform than what’s currently being proposed in Congress. I especially hope that some day Hilary will come clean about her role in the creation of the DMCA and other RIAA-friendly policies, and that will come in the form of an interview with me exclusive to my web site.

One thing at a time though… Keep an eye out for more Lobbyist Stories during the Abramoff fallout.

It’s probably in your living room right now

I’ve wanted to opine on the state of digital video sales on the Internet for some time, and thanks to a chat with a friend today I feel inspired to follow through with it. But before we get to video, you need to understand the state of music first.

No surprise here — Apple is the digital music industry. They’re over 80% of the market (Apple’s numbers, but I believe them), but not even that stat can capture Apple’s power. The rest of the digital content sales industry bases everything they do — pricing, marketing, new technologies — on Apple’s moves. For instance, we’re stuck with $0.99 songs and $2 videos until Apple changes their pricing — that’s how much power Apple has in the industry. (You can argue that Apple is at the whim of big media who set that pricing, but that doesn’t matter. The rest of the digital content industry won’t budge until Apple does.)

Video seemed like a natural progression from digital music sales. However, the experience of music listening versus video watching is very different. Music can be (and usually is) enjoyed alone — a pair of headphones and you can tune out the world to your Walkman, iPod, or digital media device of choice.

Video has two major differences. In most cases, people seek out collective watching experiences like at movie theaters or sports bars; there’s something about being part of an audience — sharing the experience. For all video, people like to enjoy movies, TV, sports, and other video content in the comfort of their homes on a big TV with big stereo.

And thus begins the rush to video on portable devices. Apple lagged behind other portable video offerings but had a store to go with the device when they launched. However, Apple did not have a TV offering that matched the bad-assness of the iTunes Music Store. Apple has Front Row and that’s about it. Therefore Apple didn’t immediately corner the video market, and so it’s still up for grabs.

For the reasons I just mentioned, portable devices are not the platform that will drive the future of digital video. Video is a living room or movie theater, big screen experience. Any video killer app has to start there. That’s why I say the killer video app is in the cable box. You can watch hundreds of channels from around the world, in multiple languages, and across every imaginable genre. Many boxes are DVRs and record on hard drives so you can watch them at any time. And On Demand shows and movies mean we can watch whatever we want right at that moment.

And so if Comcast, Time Warner, and the like can get their shit together, they can corner the digital video sales market in one fell swoop. Make videos purchasable and downloadable onto your DVR via the cable box, let people then download them onto a computer or iPod, and reap the profits. Besides Apple, cable companies are the only companies that have the infrastructure to do video right and do it right now. (Note Google was not in that sentence — they’re still behind Apple like everyone else). And remember, Apple has Front Row. I’ll bet it won’t be long until you can buy an Apple set top box either from Apple or your local cable company.

On a related note, TiVo has been ahead of the video curve for some time — recording shows, new advertising models, downloading to computers and iPods and PSPs, even will let users swap shows over the Internet (to the anger of every TV and movie company). TiVo has Live365 support (Internet streaming radio), and I don’t think it will end there. I’m willing to bet that TiVo incorporates a video store in their next version (or version following — I don’t keep up with TiVo version numbers). Kudos to them if they make that deal with Apple to integrate iTunes sales into TiVo. If TiVo dies (and sadly I believe that’s the most likely outcome) it will be because they didn’t make enough deals with the cable and satellite services. Why buy a TiVo and pay $10 a month when you can pay the cable company $5 a month for the same thing? How the mighty have fallen.

Because of TiVo and the dominance of cable and satellite DVRs, I think Apple doesn’t want to get into the set top box game right now. The only things that can bring Apple into the set top market are 1) a viable iTunes Movies Store (note Movies, more than just Video) and 2) CableCARD support so that anyone can use an Apple box with encrypted HDTV cable offerings. TiVo and Microsoft Media Center are planning CableCARD support soon too. If the cable companies can’t capitalize on digital video offerings, expect Microsoft, TiVo, Apple and others to jump on it and fast. The first computer CableCARD offerings should start appearing this year. I should add that the cable companies are tied to the big networks — Viacom, GE (NBC), and so on — making an already complicated landscape more complex… (Think of how the RIAA (may have) influenced Apple in their pricing, DRM, etc.)

The next two years will be highly transformative in the digital content business because of video. Video sales will not scale up for at least a year or two, and companies are only now getting the infrastructure in place to handle video. Any company that doesn’t migrate towards video will find themselves obsolete; the customers and the content will go elsewhere. Also the cost of building this video capability is very high, so companies are going to start pouring money into video. In either case, some companies will go bankrupt. The shakedown starts now.

How many companies will survive this? Dunno, but Napster looks like they might go soon . Despite the positive PR spin of their 500,000 users, I’m betting against them. By comparison, Rhapsody’s music subscription has around 1.3 million users and is making deals with high speed Internet providers to increase their subscription base. There’s Yahoo! too. Yahoo! is trying to undercut all the subscription services — well, tried to and then jacked their prices up . I don’t know how many users Yahoo has, but they’re using the music service as a loss leader — undercutting the competition and hoping that either the music subscription market grows or that competitors will close up shop.

Let’s talk mobile video too. Nobody wants mobile video. I love this study from the UK — 36% of people who have mobile TV watched it at home. Why? Because they wanted to compare the TV on their phone to a real TV set. I’m amazed they couldn’t figure that one out. Mobile TV is dead until the cost of that service and the phones that support it plummets. The kicker is that if everyone who could buy mobile data and video plans subscribed to them and used them, the cellular networks would overload. Can you hear me now?

Good.

Everyone — and I mean EVERYONE — wants a piece of the pie. Even the good old telephone companies are making deals with content providers to ensure rapid and high quality delivery of goods, at a cost of course. In short, a two-tiered Internet. Decent service for most, great service for those who pay — ‘those’ being consumers, companies, or anyone who will pay for it. While some folks argue that we really need this, others think it may bring about the demise of the Internet (no links here — I won’t give these Chicken Littles any cred). This is what happens when your Internet is regulated by market forces. These moves are especially relevant because… *drum roll* — phone companies want to start offering cable TV service too. Broadcast over IP. Like I said, everyone wants a piece of the pie. Everyone.

It’s a turbulent time to be in the digital content business. I’m sure there will be more fun stories to come, but at the least you’re now a little more informed about this complicated landscape. Keep an eye on video. What happens with video will single-handedly transform the Internet.

but nobody thought to ask why…

Usually I’m not so fast with responses to current events, but this one has me pissed off. Really pissed off.

A Chinese blogger’s site was taken down — a blogger living in China who wrote in Chinese about highly political Chinese events. What makes this newsworthy is that apparently the takedown was done by Microsoft. The blog was hosted on MSN Spaces. One day, it’s there. The next, "This space is temporarily unavailable."

Most folks are complaining about Microsoft . Apparently it was MS, not the Chinese government, that shut down this blog.

That, however, is not why I’m angry.

I’m angry because of the huge jump-to-conclusions attitude of the blog world. I’ll offer two points that explain why MS did what they did:

First, read the MSN Spaces Code of Conduct. In there, it clearly states (my emphasis):

Violations of the MSN Spaces Code of Conduct may result in the termination of access to MSN Spaces services or deletion of content without notice.

You will not upload, post, transmit, transfer, disseminate, distribute, or facilitate distribution of any content, including text, images, sound, data, information, or software, that:

… is illegal or violates any local and national laws that apply to your location; including but not limited to child pornography, illegal drugs, copyright material and intellectual property not belonging to you.

Like I said, this blogger is from China. While I’m no expert on Chinese laws, I imagine the Chinese government would find that blog or its content illegal. I also imagine Microsoft is not super savvy about Chinese laws but they’re not looking to get in trouble either. If the Chinese government has an issue with that individual blog, they’re more likely to stop traffic to MSN Spaces altogether rather than stop traffic to that one blog.

MS plays it safe, decides it would rather let all the other Chinese blogs stay up, and pulls the one offending blog instead. That way when the Chinese government goes to MS and asks why they shouldn’t block all access to MS Spaces, MS can say they would much rather do this on a blog-by-blog case.

The other reason why MS did this is because they’re trying very, very hard right now to make business inroads in China. The US Government is trying to get China to do more to enforce their intellectual property laws; MS is probably losing a bundle to counterfeit software overseas, and China is a huge offender in software, movie, and music bootlegs. To win China’s favor, MS is watching China’s back too. MS already censors Chinese ‘net searching (so does Google), so censoring an individual blog is a far cry from the worst that MS could have done.

Let me be clear — I am not defending MS’s decision. In fact, I think that the smart folks in Redmond had several other options they could have chosen instead:

• Block China IP addresses from accessing that blog
• Remove individual offending posts
• Change phrases, words, or sentences to make the content acceptable

And for each of those, inform the blogger and the readers about why. I’m sure most bloggers out there will take offense to these ideas. "How could you even suggest that a company censors the posts of its bloggers?" Well, MS offers this service with terms, and it’s up to MS and NOT YOU to determine how they’re enforced. (Don’t like their terms? Take your blog somewhere else.) Second, it’s better that MS does it than the Chinese government who use much harsher tactics than MS would (say, by blocking all MSN Spaces access in China).

For all of you complaining about MS, calling them complicit in the Chinese government’s censoring — yeah, they are. That’s the price of doing business in China. I say MS made the right call this time; not even MS can make a stand against the Chinese government, no matter how high the ideal is.

This is just one small part about how the international nature of the ‘net is going to cause many, many more problems in the upcoming years. We’ve already seen the US resist turning over ICANN — a wise move in my opinion. What you see China right now is a small example of what could happen worldwide if other countries are given control over portions of the Internet. However, this is the only reason why the US should resist turning over ICANN.

But the international issues are not over. Remember that France said Yahoo can’t sell Nazi goods to French net users; those sales are banned by French law. The US court said Yahoo doesn’t have to listen to France. ICANN, MSN Spaces, search censoring — these are isolated examples of a terrible dilemma. Governments should work together to make these decisions. Unilateral action, like the actions of MS or the Great Firewall of China, just piss off the bloggers. Take a chill pill, go curl up with your favorite international relations book, and think about this a little bit more before you give MS the verbal smackdown.

UPDATE:  Maybe MS read my post.  This link goes to a nice summary of the MS response. Quote the MSN PR folks:

"MSN is committed to ensuring that products and services comply with global and local laws, norms and industry practices. Most countries have laws and practices that require companies providing online services to make the Internet safe for local users. Occasionally, as in China, local laws and practices require consideration of unique elements."

"Microsoft is a multinational business and, as such, needs to manage the reality of operating in countries around the world."

I also recommend this post from the MSN Spaces product manager.  Maybe even the Scobilizer has come to his senses:

"I have been talking to lots of people today, though, inside and outside of Microsoft. In every instance they asked me to keep those conversations confidential. Why? Cause we’re talking about international relations here and the lives of employees." (emphasis mine)

I couldn’t have said it better myself.