Arguments have raged across the web during the past week about the Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal ( read the full document ). Opinions range from “it’s great” to “this threatens the underlying foundation of the Internet” and “Google’s gone evil” . This is my take. The proposal primarily affects US Internet users and, although I’m not a US citizen, the issues will almost certainly affect and/or influence other parts of the world. I do not claim to have unbiased opinions or legal expertise. You may agree or disagree; the discussions will continue for many months — probably years. What is Net Neutrality? In essence, net neutrality means all web traffic is treated equally. It does not matter whether the user is downloading a Wikipedia article, a YouTube video, a spam email, or an illegally copied MP3 — no data packet has priority over any another. The Internet operates under this principal … to an extent. Individual ISPs may restrict your bandwidth or perhaps limit torrent downloads during busy periods. Mobile operators usually operate stricter controls to ensure networks remain responsive: they can — and will — block certain content. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had been negotiating with leading providers to outline a framework for the future regulation of US Internet services. This effort was recently abandoned. What is the Google and Verizon proposal? The Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal is a response from both companies to the debate in Congress about the National Broadband Plan and the US Government’s role in the future of the Internet. Google and Verizon are free to make any recommendations they choose. Both companies have an agenda and neither would make a statement that was not in their best interest. Congress can choose to accept, reject or ignore any proposal and the recommendations are not US legislation. Yet. The key points are summarized below: 1. Non-discrimination against lawful Internet content A broadband ISP would be prohibited from preventing user access to lawful content or services. The provider must disclose accurate information about their capabilities and network management. The FCC would be responsible for enforcing consumer protection and can impose fines of up to $2 million for companies violating the rules. These proposals appear reasonable and received the least attention. However, non-discrimination is limited to “lawful” content without clarifying that term or identifying the policing authority. The flip-side of the proposal is that ISPs could block illegal content. Laws differ from country to country. Even legal practices in one US state may be outlawed in another. Possible issues include: Sectors such as the entertainment industry could argue that certain types of content breach copyright laws. This could include pirated material or works that mention or are influenced by another. Companies could use legal precedents to block competitor services and gain an advantage. Individuals or organizations could use privacy or other laws to block negative articles. The proposal could hinder free speech and innovation. In addition, an ISP could be exempt from net neutrality principles if it can claim it’s upholding the law. Even a $2 million fine would be a negligible risk to most large carriers — especially if they can profit from prioritizing content. Finally, it’s interesting to look back to January 2010 when Google threatened to quit China because its Government blocked content which it deemed illegal. How is this different? 2. Network management ISPs are permitted to engage in reasonable network management to provide a reliable service, e.g. reduce congestion, ensure security, addresses harmful traffic, etc. Many have latched on to this issue as a direct attack on net neutrality but ISPs already engage in the practice. The proposal states they should be transparent and disclose all network management policies. The most controversial element is Additional Online Services . In effect, ISPs would be free to offer alternative non-internet services which are “distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service”. These services can make use of the internet and prioritize traffic. The FCC would monitor the systems to ensure they do not threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access. Services such as health and gaming systems have been mentioned, but it’s difficult to evaluate the effect of alternative networks until they’re implemented. It’s unlikely we’ll see separate commercial networks for websites such as YouTube but it remains a possibility. Few people would want to use a fragmented Internet. 3. Exclusion for wireless With the exception of service transparency, wireless networks are excused from legislation because of their “unique technical and operational characteristics”. This seems strange and many have speculated a conspiracy: Google could want Verizon to prioritize Android devices. Wireless networks could become the predominant method of net access over the next few years. If that occurs, what is the point of these proposals? Again, there’s no definition of what constitutes a wireless network. Could a cable ISP put a router outside your house, claim they have a wireless network and avoid legislation? Overall, I find it strange that Google and Verizon have stepped into the political debate. They may be key players but many of the proposals seem too vague to be workable. At worst, the companies appear to be advocating net neutrality exclusions and have been attacked accordingly. The biggest worry is that Congress will approve legislation without an appreciation of the underlying technical issues. The debate has just begun. Related Posts Google Launches Tools to Test for Bandwidth Throttling France Considers “Google Tax” on Internet Advertising .NET on the NET March 2-9: MIX Hangover Edition

See original here:
Google, Verizon and the Net Neutrality Debate

Hot off the back of their recent Webby award , two members of the team from 99designs were instrumental in winning gold for Australia, as the Codaroos took out this year’s annual FullCodePress international website-in-a-day competition. In the Wellington Town Hall at 4pm this afternoon, the FullCodePress judging panel announced that the website the Codaroos had built for their client, Lions Hearing Dogs , had been unanimously voted to be the winner, beating out Team USA’s Timaru Mental Health Support Trust website and the Te Hua Rangatahi website built by New Zealand’s CodeBlacks. The announcement was published on the official FullCodePress site : And like that, more than 24 hours of grueling magic comes to an end. The Codaroos from Australia, after a moment of confusion about what being in the yellow corner meant, were awarded the FullCodePress 2010 trophy from SitePoint’s Sarah Taylor, as the overall winner. The team of six included user experience advocate James Mansfield and developer Lachlan Donald. Former 99designs employee Adam Schilling was also a key member of the team. A huge congratulations to all of the teams who participated in this amazing event. While the Codaroos were today’s winners, the end result of this exercise is that three deserving non-profit organisations now each have an amazing website. If you’re interested in reliving the magic, you can browse through images , video interviews, the twitter archive and screenshots showing the history of each site as it evolved . Related Posts FullCodePress: Team 99designs Do Australia Proud Four Days Left To Win A MacBook From 99designs! Win a Free Ticket to UX Australia 2010!

Read more from the original source:
99designs Champions Win Gold for Australia

Here we go again. Apple’s Steve Jobs has received more publicity this week following his Flash-bashing open letter . The CEO doth protest too much, methinks. Let’s have a look at his 6 points in more detail but, before we do… Note: We’re all biased I don’t have or use Apple products. I admit they regularly create glorious devices but I don’t always understand the appeal or the price people are willing to pay for them. I don’t develop in Flash. I prefer web standards but Flash has its uses. It is used inappropriately but the same can be said for any technology. I’ll be accused of bias in one way or another, but those people will have their own biases. Everyone does. Steve’s first point… Flash products are 100% proprietary … Flash is a closed system. We strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Great, although we could pick holes in that 100% figure — Flash comprises several closed and open source technologies. I’d hate to see the web evolve into a Flash-only platform, but it’s not likely to happen Steve. almost all [Flash] video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads What Steve means is that YouTube offer H.264. While that’s the most popular video site, it’s a different story when iPhone users go elsewhere on the web. And why H.264? It’s covered by patents which impede royalty-free usage — hardly the “open” web standards Steve wants. Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. Flash has a bad reputation on the Mac but has that stopped people using it? Adobe should fix the problems, but will they bother when Apple publicly berates their efforts? Would Apple have the same attitude if Adobe pulled PhotoShop from the Mac platform? Besides, I’m sure Steve would be horrified by much of the software I run on my PC and phone. Isn’t that my choice? Fourth, there’s battery life. Steve quotes a specific example: You can view a (hardware-decoded) H.264 video on the iPhone for 10 hours. The same video in Flash (assuming it’s not H.264-encoded) drains the battery in 5 hours. Does it matter? How many other applications drain the iPhone battery? Would Apple criticize or ban other products for irresponsible electricity leakage? Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”… Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript? First, Flash has it’s roots in SmartSketch — a drawing application for pen-based PCs. But I don’t understand his point? HTML-based websites often rely on rollovers and mouse input. If standard HTML works so well on Apple devices, why are many companies urgently producing iPhone-specific versions of their existing web applications? Sixth, the most important reason. We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. That can happen. But it can also generate healthy competition and choice. The iPhone is one of the most closed and proprietary products on the market. Apple has total control over what applications you can write, distribute and run. That’s their prerogative, but it grates against Steve’s call for an open web. Ultimately, Apple is protecting their business interests. They’re not consumer champions protecting users from Adobe evil. Enough of my ranting. Here’s a chance to have your say — it’s unlikely to affect Apple’s decision, but cast your vote on the SitePoint home page or leave a comment below. Related Posts Adobe Drops iPhone-based Flash Development Adobe Hits Back at Apple’s Criticism of Flash Adobe Announces Flash Media Encoding Server

Read the original:
Steve Jobs Criticizes Adobe and Flash. Again.

The web was a strange and exciting place during its infancy. It offered choice. Consider how many search engines existed 10 years ago. I’ve forgotten more than I remember, but I regularly used Altavista, Excite, Hotbot, Lycos, Web Crawler and others. While some these sites still exist, they’re a shadow of their former selves. Today, web search is dominated by three engines and that will shortly become two. It’s the same for social networking. Web2.0 brought us a flurry of websites, yet today we’re left with Facebook and, to a lesser extent, Twitter. MySpace is struggling and AOL is planning to sell or shut down Bebo just two years after after buying it for $1 billion. You want video? Why visit anywhere other than YouTube? Want to go shopping? Do many web users venture beyond Amazon or eBay? The web has converged. Although more sites are created every day, few users look beyond a handful of regularly-visited bookmarks. Perhaps it’s not surprising: Few companies survive without a viable revenue model. YouTube and Twitter are yet to make money — how could a competing site do better and make money? It’s rare for a site to continue if it can’t attract a critical mass of users. Facebook became successful because of the number of registered users. A competitor would have difficulty persuading users to switch to another system — especially when none of their friends are using it. Chris Anderson’s “Long Tail” theory is still relevant. Selling small quantities of niche items can be as good as selling large quantities of popular items. But has everyone become a long-tail supplier now there’s little hope of competing with the 20 or so major players? Independent traders have all but disappeared from some high streets. Is the predominance of large corporations causing the same to happen on the web? It’s less of a problem — physical space is not an issue and there are fewer barriers to entry — but I can’t help thinking we’ve lost something. Is big business sucking variety, excitement and innovation from the web? Related Posts YouTube PPC Ads Are Smart Move, Not Desperate One About PHP usage Finally, Facebook Reportedly Adding Web Search This Fall

Originally posted here:
Does the Web Get Smaller as Usage Grows?

It’s hard to believe that YouTube, which serves more than 1 billion videos per day, is a mere five years old today. The domain name YouTube.com was registered on February 14, 2005.

YouTube wasn’t the clear leader in 2005: it competed with a range of services from Veoh to Vimeo to Viddler and many more. Some combination of easy uploading, embeddable videos and an early decision to serve up all clips in Flash (plus, some would argue, lenient policies on copyrighted content) eventually saw YouTube emerge as the victor in the video battle. The company sold to Google in October 2006 for $1.65 billion.

For the entire history of YouTube and its evolution over the past 5 years, check out our YouTube channel.

Tags: youtube

See the original post:
Happy 5th Birthday, YouTube!