• First, Lessig refers to the relative drop of broadband penetration in the US as an indicator of failure of US tech policy.  I keep on hearing this argument elsewhere, but I have not seen a thorough analysis of why broadband is so beneficial from the social point of view.  I mean, intuitively, I can see why that might be the case as I am using it myself.  However, because I part of the system, I am not sure how this intuition was actually formed.  May it a result of hearing this argument over and over again?  Nevertheless, I would expect from Lessig a more thorough argument in this regard beyond just treating broadband penetration data as an obvious indicator.  I wonder what other possible indicators are out there and where does US stand in that regard.  For example, I know that many Israeli start-ups end up being registered as US companies, which suggests that there is a friendlier environment for maturing innovation into finished projects.  Can that be another indicator?  Or am I wrong? And if I am not wrong, what does it say about the US tech policy?  I would love to hear Lessig laying out a more thorough analysis.  He is making interesting points in terms of competition, but primary focus on broadband penetration is taking away from his argument in my view.


• The second point I remain puzzled with is the link Lessig makes between corporate interest and slowing down of broadband penetration.  Why would not be telecom giants interested in getting people on a broader line?  How is his main idea that it is in corporate interest to control the ldquo;pipesrdquo; leading to the corporate world slowing down the broadband penetration?  Is it the cost of connecting people vs. prospective revenue?  I am not sure i am following.

What do you think?

It is titled ldquo;A million thanksrdquo; and i got curious if there are really a million of thanks. A couple of my own experiments yielded limited results. The counter reached about 400K before something happened to cause me to restart. However, thanks to Veronica who poses unlimited computing resources, the question could be finally answered! It appears that there are even more than just a million thanks! Before she had to restart her browser/computer, Hoops and Yoyo said over 4.5 million thanks!!!!

Now i am curios what happens afte let say 100 million?

First, it seems that mobile equipment manufacturers and service providers discover more interest in the African market.  Here are a number of examples: MTN, the South Africa based telecom was recently voted as the most preferred place to work for in Uganda; originally Kuwaiti Zain group has announced that is going to invest ldquo;$1bn per annum in Nigeria till 2011Prime;; Nokia is about to ship 3G enabled phone with Amharic interface to Ethiopia; and Telecom Kenya is about to start selling iPhones in the country under the Orange brand.  Some of these moves can be of course viewed as political, but nevertheless, i think they indicate a development in the African telecom market.

Second, I am noticing that a number of countries in the region are taking off in terms of their activity in the field of telecom.  For example, Egypt is becoming a major telecom hub in the region.  Here is an article suggesting that it is becoming Africarsquo;s leading market.  But not only that.  It is also becoming a major venue for international telecom policy debates.  Just a few months ago it hosted ITU Telecom Africa, later this year it is going to host a major ICANN meeting, and it has a record of hosting other internainal telecom related events in recent past.  Also, South Africa, a more veteran leader on this scene, has been hosting telecom related venues with global impact such as the upcoming World Telecommunication Standartization Assembly (WTSA).  Again, I realize that the processes in Egypt are probably due to the efforts of the Mubarak family, which seems to be in a not very stable political situation.  Nevertheless, it is bringing more of the global policy debates to the continent, which contributes to my argument of Africa starting to play a more prominent role.

Have you had any observations like that?  Do they make sense?  Or have you encountered information that supports/chllanges my observations?  Please share.

I made an arrangement with the local cable company and patiently waited for the ldquo;cable guyrdquo; to show up within the 5 hour window set for me by the service center.  When he finally arrived, he turned to be a very nice, rather senior, man who worked as a subcontractor for the cable company and happened to be new to the are.  He started setting up a cable modem - a procedure that is supposed to take about 15 minutes - when he realized that he does not have the keys to utility room of the apartment complex where cable box is located.  It took us between 20-30 minutes to bring the manager of the complex to open the utility room, just to figure out that the padlock key for the box itself was not matching as well.  It took us another 20-30 minutes until the cable company representative showed up and unlocked the box.  Five minutes later i had internet in the new house.

That may be a slightly boring story, but it made me thinking how a 4000 years old technology keeps on playing such a central role in our lives and even has the ability of interfering in our interaction with the ldquo;newerrdquo; technologies.  A simple few dollars lock and (lack of) and even cheaper key prevented my access for over an hour to one of the more sophisticated contemporary pieces of technology in domestic use.  It was both ironic and fascinating to think about about it.

More so, it was really interesting to think about the human factor involved in any technology application.  At the end of the day the fact that the ldquo;cable guyrdquo; did not have the right keys was a results of a human error or organizational failure.  It is fascinating how little things actually change at the base even as technical sophistication grows.

I want to start posting (from time to time) kind of a digest of various blog-posts I found interesting.  I will provide links and a couple of lines description of what it is about.  If you find it interesting, click; if not, donrsquo;t.  Very simple :)  I have no idea how often I will post those, but hope you will find those interesting.  Of course, any feedback will be appreciated.

ldquo;Comcast forgets the business it is inrdquo; - a post by Robert Picard reflecting on the recent battles Comcast has with its own clients on the grounds of limiting file sharing.  His argument that by doing so, Comcast is focusing on optimizing its network usage instead of focusing on its core business, which is supplying content to people.

ldquo;Could Googlersquo;s data collection get more intrusive?rdquo; - InformationWeek article republished on ldquo;Googalization of everythingrdquo; ran by Siva Vaidhyanathan.  It tells a story of a research paper suggesting data collection about human behavior using other electronic devices in the household, not just the personal computer.

ldquo;Make Your Life Flash Before Your Eyesrdquo; - Guy Kawasakiintroduces a product that makes it easier to tell your life story in pictures.  It looks nice.

ldquo;Microsoft’s Free Tools for Scholarly Researchrdquo; - an update by hratner of ldquo;the scholarly kitchenrdquo; about MS free research tools.  Although the description of the tools didnrsquo;t immediately prompt me to check them out, they may turn out to be useful in the future.

ldquo;Pressure mounts in the USA for a national broadband infrastructure policyrdquo; - an interesting post from Lawrence Baker of BuddeCom about the prospects of broadband infrastructure; is high speed internet worth policy that might cost well over $80-100 billion?

ldquo;The new powerhouses of Central Asiardquo; - the world is catching up! snippets of what looks like a very interesting BuddeCom report about telecom developments in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nepal, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

ldquo;China becomes world’s largest internet marketrdquo; - according to blorge, China, with 19.1% penetration, is now number one country in the world in the number of citizens who are online; that is compared to US with 71% penetration; I wonder what are the long-term repercussions of these numbers with all the power-to-the-user 2.0-ishness?

ldquo;Mobile Phones and the Digital Dividerdquo; - PC World article by Ken Banks who argues for subsidized advanced handsets in the developing countries as a means of bridging the digital divide; not sure i would subscribe to 100% of his argument, but it is an interesting read.

So, what do you think?  Do you find this kind of digest interesting/useful?

Thanks to Bob, I got exposed to the ldquo;GOOD Magazinerdquo; (site) - an online outlet dedicated to social issues with an interesting funding model and young approach to content.  Here is an example of what they create (a few months outdated, but still interesting):

What do you think?

The free guide, which is intended for use by bloggers, website operators, and other citizen media creators, focuses on the legal issues that non-traditional and traditional journalists are likely to encounter as they gather information and publish their work online.

“We’ve created the legal guide to address the myriad legal issues faced by online publishers, whether they are bloggers, citizen journalists, or established journalism organizations.  Because many online publishers don’t have a background in media law, we have tried to make the guide as approachable as possible and included dozens of practical tips for avoiding legal liability,” said David Ardia, director and co-founder of the CMLP, an initiative to provide legal assistance, education, and resources for citizen media and to study the impact of law on online journalism.

The guide is covering six major sections:

1. Forming a Business and Getting Online


2. Dealing with Online Legal Risks


3. Newsgathering and Privacy


4. Access to Government Information


5. Intellectual Property


6. Risks Associated with Publication

The website of the project provides a fully searchable version of the guide, which only limitation is that it covers US only.  It would be great to have also some international perspectives as well.

Hope you will find it useful!

After having a chance to look at the latest batch of essays from the Asia-Pacific region, I have a couple of observations:

• There is more similarity in the way young people describe social, political, and economic problems, and more so the information and communication technology.  In previous years, there was less unity in the way people addressed the question of the essay.


• In the past, when young people wrote about ICT, they always wrote about the internet and sometimes about mobile communication (a more recent trend).  In the current batch a noticeable amount of people placed TV and radio in the same basket as the internet and the mobile.

Of course, these are very preliminary observations and in order to derive more robust or generalizable conclusions, one needs a more systematic analysis.  I havenrsquo;t done that (yet), but do I find those early observations interesting.  What do you think?

I wonder if the other side of the argument has its viral component on the web?

You are welcome to read the entire article, but what I wanted to share here are some quotes containing numbers about information technology and associated investment in developing countries.  So, here we go:

With the explosion of markets for low-cost cell phones, personal digital assistants, and personal computers, the information and communications technology (ICT) sector has been particularly influenced by the BOP business logic. More than half of the world’s population lives in rural or peri-urban areas outside the reach of ICT networks. To bridge this digital divide, the World Bank and IFC have invested $5 billion in loans to ICT projects in more than 80 countries. Most USAID programs worldwide have an ICT component, with its latest report indicating that the U.S. government spent a total of $120 million on ICT for development purposes (ICT4D).

Mobile telephony represents the most dramatic ICT4D and BOP success story. According to the joint WRI and IFC report, between the years 2000 and 2005, the number of mobile subscribers in developing countries grew to nearly 1.4 billion, a fivefold increase. Annual increases in cell phone subscribers exceed 100% per year in some nations, notably in sub-Saharan Africa.

India stands out as a leader in developing ICT4D projects, with over 150 private and public initiatives. Mobile subscribers per 1,000 people increased from 4 in the year 2000 to 48 in 2004. Internet users per 1,000 people went from 5 in 2000 to 23 in 2004. The Indian government has made a concerted effort to deliver low-cost connectivity and ICT-enabled services to the “common person” for development purposes. One of the most popular channels for the mass delivery of ICT4D services is through access to shared computers in rural ICT kiosks (also known as telecenters). The kiosks are equipped with one or more Internet-enabled computers and are generally owned and run by independent entrepreneurs. The Indian government is in the process of installing 100,000 ICT kiosks for business and government services throughout the country through a franchise model. Microsoft Corporation India has committed to initiating an additional 50,000 kiosks on the premise that such kiosks can be drivers of growth and facilitate development through business opportunities. The most recent company to seek its fortune in rural India is Google, with a simplified search engine and mobile phone applications, customized to provide weather information, crop patterns, and other relevant data to rural customers.

There are no new and shocking ideas in these data, but it is always good to put numbers along some commonly shared ldquo;wisdomsrdquo;.  Again, here is a link to the complete article.

A while ago I got a Facebook friend request from someone named Alberto Floro Da Silva.  Although I think my Facebook profile is not the most restricted in terms of privacy, I do not usually add total stranger to my friends list.  In most cases I have met most of my contacts or have mutual acquaintances who think we should maintain a linkage.  I would almost never add a complete stranger to my list.

Alberto and I had indeed a number of people as mutual Facebook friends.  However the age difference between him and those acquaintances was quite significant and I could not identify a clear pattern of relationship (geographical, event, etc.).  So, I emailed Alberto asking whether or not we actually know each other and got a reply from his saying that no, but he usually adds all the friends of his friends and would appreciate a link to me as well. For a few moments, I was puzzled, and then decided to accept Albertorsquo;s request.  My decision was based on some observations I had about various patterns of using platforms such as Facebook among people of different ages and different cultural backgrounds.  ldquo;What can be wrong,rdquo; I thought to myself, ldquo;thatrsquo;s the way he is using Facebook and there will be no harm or cost in adding him.rdquo;

Apparently I was wrong.

A few days after adding Alberto, I got the following message from Alberto:

DIMA EPSTEIN, it could please analyze this presentation of technology for http://alfloro.ffivision.com environment . it informs its research please. grateful alberto - Brazil

When you follow the link it shows you a short video about global warming and a call to join a business that ldquo;will change your life and help fighting the global warmingrdquo; (more or less in these words).  No additional information is available on the website, only a form to join.  To me it looked fishy.  I emailed Alberto asking for explanations, but never heard back.  A few days later, I removed him from my friends list.

Now, after seeing over a dozen of my friends befriending Alberto I went on and researched a little bit more about the mysterious link.  Apparently, this is a company in Florida that distributes some sort of engine performance enhancing add-on, which uses multi-level marketing (MLM) as its marketing vehicle.  I didnrsquo;t spend too much time on the investigation, but the brief one I did, draws a picture of a pretty sketchy enterprise.  Most of the search results for FFI (the commonly known name for the company) bring up web pages of distributors such as that of Alberto.  Interestingly enough, the only link to the full name of the company on the first page of Google results is a sponsored linked to some kid of MLM clearing house.

If you search for the full name (rdquo;Fuel Freedom Internationalrdquo;), there is a rather badly written Wikipedia article about it with sort of an editorial war going on between people who are pushing the product and everybody else.  There is of course the companyrsquo;s website, which has more marketing texts, but little substance.  And if you really have time, there are dozens of online debates (such as this one and this one) and YouTube videos, debating whether or not this is scam.

The more I looked into it, the more fascinated I was by the phenomenon of how multi-level marketing is (ab)using the online tools.  I could, in fact, write an entire post looking into the debates about the authenticity of this product (from my short review, I remain skeptical about it), but I would to limit myself to an observation of to how Alberto is exploiting our reputation and our ldquo;befriendingrdquo; habits to promote his business, whether it is legitimate or not, on networking sites (yes, he has profiles in more than one).

My lesson from this story is that even though I treat Facebook more as a self-updating address book, I should be more careful with how I use it.  In the short period of time Alberto was my Facebook ldquo;friendrdquo; this fact might have encourage other people on my list to befriend him.  But not only that, having my name on his ldquo;friends listrdquo; probably gave more credibility to his message (i.e. product and marketing strategy he is using) in the eyes of people who trust me (just as having people I know on his list, gave him more credibility in my eyes).

This later point is what I think we, online users, should be really thoughtful about - having a publicly observable link to a person, shares some of our credibility with him/her.  Bringing our offline perceptions and habbits to the online environment, we tend to trust people referred by people we know.  However, the weight of relationship or the referral in online environment appears to be significantly less than that in the offline life.  The combination of the weight we give to referral whether it is online or offline, and the lightness with which we provide those referrals online (voluntarily or not), create quite a dangerous exposure that can, in fact, cost someone money, or other resources.  I find it really interesting, and I am sure, somebody out there is already studying it :)

To wrap it up, please be thoughtful when you befriend people online and if you had asimilar story, please share it in the comments.

One the one hand it was well organized in terms of communication leading to the event.  By the time Joanne and I registered, we made it only to the waiting list.  Nevertheless, the organizers kept on communicating with us and encouraged us to come, assuming that they will be able to fit in everyone.  There were indeed a lot of people and getting in was quite a mess.  Of course there were some supporters of Al Gorersquo;s ideas, some protesters, and some advocates for vegetarianvegan food, demonstrating outside.

Inside, it was rather impressive.  It was my first time in the DAR Constitutional Hall and it was packed (probably over three thousand people).  The crowd was extremely supportive.  Gore was received with standing ovations and many times his talk was interrupted with more ovations.  Well, in fact it wasnrsquo;t interrupted, as the speech was very well planned and the ovations came in all the expected places.  It was rather short and didnrsquo;t have any famous Al Gorersquo;s use of gadgets (which I hoped for).  I didnrsquo;t have a normal camera with me, but took a few pictures with the cell phone.

The speech itself was rather simple and short.  This is not to say it was not good, but I felt slightly used, as it was too obvious that the entire event was held for the small army of journalists who were there typing, taking pictures, and filming.  The audience was there just as a decoration, and it was a really good and interactive decoration.  You usually see it on TV, but when it happens live, the feeling is quite different.

As I said, the message was simple:

• The problem: United States is in a horrible shape with weak economy, distant wars, and high gasoline prices;


• The reason: United Statesrsquo; reliance on fossil fuels;


• The solution: Shift to using renewable energy sources in 10 years fromhellip; NOW!

To help everybody with that Al Gore and Co. have launched the ldquo;Werdquo; campaign, which has a nice website with additional information about the idea and footage of yesterdayrsquo;s speech.  According to the website, so far over 1.3 million people already signed up.  From a quick glance at the website, the primary goal of the campaign is advocacy and it is used as a vehicle to collect signatures on various petitions.

As I said, it was an interesting experience.  It was not only a typical media event of a kind you usually see on TV (especially now, with all the coverage of US presidential election) - one that is carefully planned and has a weird mixture of sincere ideas and crafted messages.  The way the speech was delivered was also interesting.  Maybe this is the image of Al Gore that i had in my head - one of a global liberal thinker concerned with the future of the entire planet, but I found the speech to be extremely US-centric.  That makes sense in light of my other observations above (after all it is a carefully planned event), but the level of patriotism and nationalism in Al Gorersquo;s speech caught my ear.  It sounded as if US is the world and solving the national problems will definitely make the rest of the planet a better place.  Without judging this way of presentation, it was surprising.

As to the substance, I am no expert on energy, but it looks like the speech was recieved with mixed feelings (not by the audience in the hall, but by experts elsewhere).  Nevertheless, it also seems that the environmental questions are entering every domain of public discourse, including telecom policy.

However, it appears that one place where Google isnrsquo;t winning the search (and online advertisement) battle(s) is in one the fastest growing economies today - China.  The local rivalrsquo;s name is Baidu and according to this article it holds 60% of the Chinese search market, compared to Googlersquo;s 25%.  The article goes on to discussion of potential reasons for the gap, attributing it primarily to Baidursquo;s business practices and better cultural fit to the Chinese business culture.

I think it is a really interesting case of how culture interacts with technology and business.  I also wonder to what extent internet policies employed by the Chinese government (primarily filtering of the content) are actually helping the competitive advantage of Baidu?

For those who do not follow, a few days ago the senate voted for granting immunity to the telecommunication companies for participating in wiretapping program of the current administration.  In the past Obama opposed this legislation, but in the current vote he changed his mind and voted for the amendment.  As a result, many of Obama supporters came out criticizing him.  A lot of the criticism appeared on the social network component of Obamarsquo;s own campaign site (if you havenrsquo;t done it yet, take a look, there is a small Facebook on his website).  I think this is the story in a nutshell, but you can search for FISA and Obama for further details (here is an item on CNNrsquo;s website for example).

Now to my morning observationhellip;.

The main point, made a number of time during the morning news, was amusement, or even shock, about criticism taking place on Obamarsquo;s website.  How can it be that a campaign website hosts criticism of the candidate?!?!  After all, Obama is considered to be the one who harnessed the internet and reinvented election in the 21st century!  How come he allows criticism on his own campaign website?!  Is this what the new politics all about?

Leaving sarcasm aside, it really looked as if the anchors found it difficult to comprehend that there is a discussion going on a social networking platform on a candidatersquo;s website.  And their shock/amusement went on and for the half an hour that i had the TV on.  However, what got lost in that shocking reveliation of new politics is the issue itself.  FISA did not get discussed and the change in Barak Obamarsquo;s stand deserved only limited attention (as a background to the virtual uprisal).  Most attention was focused on the fact that Barak Obamarsquo;s supporters are backlushing on him and they do it on his own campaign website.

The bottom line is that I think CNN missed the point.  In fact it was really surprising that a channel that markets itseld as technologically advanced (just remember all the touch screens obsession) has such an unsophisitcated amusement by technology as its main political item of the morning.  Not impressive at all.

I think this is a very interesting chapter and I have been trying to use their acronym ever since.  However, using it a ran into two problems.  First, the more substantive problem - it seems that missing out the process of communication from describing the domain of my inquiry is damaging to the cause.  The process of communication and the communication enabling technologies are important factor in what i am trying to look at.  Second, on the more mundane level, the term MIT doesnrsquo;t fly because of a very strong brand of MIT the institute of technology.

This is where i would like to propose a different acronym to use for definition of my field of inquiry.   It was created in one of our conversations with Tarleton (i bet the entire credit actually goes to him) where we discussed this issue.  The acronym is MICT (pronounced ldquo;mist) and it stands for Media, Information, and Communication Technology.  I think this term does a more comprehensive job in capturing the field of inquiry both Tarleton and I (also probably Josh in our department and many other people elsewhere) are focusing on.

I am actually making a more elaborate argument about it in one of the papers i am writing at the moment, but i would love to hear any immideate thoughts from you.

Unfortunately, it looks like not much progress was achieved at that hearing.  On the semi-positive side, the authority to decide what content is appropriate and what content is not, was taken from the sole ownership of the minister of communication.  It will now be determined by a committee consisting of 3 government representatives and 4 representatives of the various sectors of the society (it is not clear how exactly all this is supposed to work).

On the ironic, or should I say sarcastic, side, it was decided that the current clients of the ISPs will not be automatically shifted to the censored internet.  However all the new clients, incluing those whose plan ended and they are renewing it, will have to state whether they want or not to use the government filter.  The punch line of this (not so funny) joke is that if you will not provide an answer, the ISP will not be able to provide you internet services.  In other words, there is no change, since within a span of few years everybody will have to be classified in a government database as porn wachers or not (my exhaggeration).

On the annoying side, the newspapers seem to misinterpret the conclusions of this hearing calling them ldquo;significant changesrdquo; to the original proposal (HE1, HE2).  Moreover, the continuous use of children safety as an excuse for promoting this law, is particulary annoying because it shows lack of willingness to really deal with the substantive issue creating visibality of control, but not addressing the proposed problem.  From reading the opinoins presented in the news articles, it seems that people who has the least interaction with this medium tend to support the filtering solution, while those who have more interaction tend to criticise it.  Unfortunately, it seem that the former group has more impact on shaping this law and moving it forward.

At the end of the day, it looks like the cencorship law still has its momentum.  I think one of the comments on Ynet summarized this hearing in the following way (my unprofessional translation): ldquo;It looks like they took a zucchini, painted it green, and are now selling it to us as a cucumber.rdquo;  Couldnrsquo;t agree more.

This post is for testing purposes only.  I am trying to figure out why the videos i embed do not go through in RSS feeds.  Veronica helped me to make some changes and this is a test drive.  Letrsquo;s see how it works.

If you are already here, you may still watch the video.  It is about a project my friends and i did a few years ago.

Hope it wasnrsquo;t a total spam :)

I think this is an amazing and very energetic talk by Benjamin Zander about classical music and his way of thinking.  It is totally worth the 21 minutes.

I think he completely deserved the standing avation.

Ride a bicycle (EN):

Walk more (EN):

Buy a hybrid (EN):

Last updated: 7 July, 2008

Just a quick note - the blog is moving. Not too far away, just to: www.thinkmacro.org

Veronica and i just reinstalled the blog to replace my personal website and at some point i will shut this one down (or redirect to the new location).  So, please update your RSS feeds and bare with me until i finish tweaking the new website.

Thanks!!!

I saw a Washington Post article about an emerging trend of serious games.  It mentions a very interesting initiative called ldquo;Games for changeldquo;, which describes itself in the following way:

Games for Change (G4C) provides support, visibility and shared resources to individuals and organizations using digital games for social change. We provide special assistance to foundations and non-profits entering the field. Today, G4C acts as a national hub to help organizations network and develop videogame projects beyond their traditional expertise. Our members represent hundreds of organizations and include partners in the games industry, academia, nonprofits, local and state governments, foundations, the UN and artists.

They have a rather interesting website with many examples of serious games and it also seems that there is quite a vibrant community surrounding these issues.  They have a section of youth produced games, which currently has only one game and i could not really see how it was youth produced (but maybe i am missing something).  Nevertheless, the concept is interesting.

It also reminded that itrsquo;s been a while since wanted to post a note about (already not so) new project by Impact Games (creators of Peace Maker).  Itrsquo;s called ldquo;Play the newsrdquo; and it is kind of a dream league, but for news.  Irsquo;ve been following this project since its beta and i find it as an interesting approach to keep people interested in the worldrsquo;s matters.  My only ldquo;worryrdquo; is that it seems (based on the discussions on the site) that at least the current pool of participants consists primarily of people who are already curious and knowledgeable about the world affairs.  It would be interesting to see how this idea flies among the youths, who are being blamed to become more disengaged, apathetic, and more.