1-888-Biz-nezz

I'm setting up a business advice hot-line. As a teaser, once again I'm putting out some free advice for big business. Last time it was Detroit, but they didn't listen.

Now I'm going to try to help Sony and Toshiba and their Blu-Ray, HD DVD format battle. Let me look into my crystal dollar bill. Lets see...Oh I see it. My advice? Sell, sell, sell the technology to whatever sucker you can find. Pssssst, call Detroit, they're alway looking backwards.

Why you ask? Simple, DVD's are a dead technology. Whoever wins the format "battle" loses. Apple TV, Amazon Unbox, Netflix direct and the rest are all going to stream movies directly to the consumer's TV. There's no way to make back the development and marketing costs as this whole thing has maybe, maybe a two year window.

Which means dear consumer, don't waste your hard earned dough on this new technology. Wait just a sec and you'll get HD movies via the internet, format be damned.

Cool huh?

Little Brother is Watching Them.

The City of Denver will pay Evan Herzoff $8,500 because Mr Herzoff was arrested for asking Police Officer Jeffrey Morgan for his business card. Apparently,

Herzoff was walking home April 8, 2006, when he saw police arresting an individual. He filmed the arrest with a small camera and was approached by Officer Jeffrey Morgan, who asked Herzoff for his identification.

Morgan examined Herzoff's ID and was told he was free to leave. When Herzoff asked Morgan for his business card, Herzoff was handcuffed, arrested and forced to spend a night in jail.

Mr Herzoff is a volunteer with a group called Copwatch.

Again, this is an example of how technology can increase democracy. Copwatch could not exist without the internet. A random event in Denver, hits the world, and this blog because of said internet. City organizations now know that they face immediate and complete scrutiny of their actions and have to act accordingly, which only helps the citizens. Cameras are getting smaller and better (not to mention camera phones) which enable everyone to be a reporter, and again, the internet gives everyone a venue.

Bottom line, I don't think Mr Herzoff would have received his $8,500 30 years ago. Lots of people are afraid of technology, fearing that the government will use it to increase its power. In reality, time and again, governments fear technology because it erodes their power.

Earmark's marked.

The Senate voted to curb earmarks, special legislation slipped into spending bills, by mandating that the mark be posted to the internet 48 hours before the bill goes to vote, and 48 hours after the mark is introduces. As part of the post the Senator must include the names of all sponsors and they cannot use earmarks to induce other Senators to vote their way on a bill (I have no idea how they plan to monitor/enforce that last part - I'm sure the all powerful Senate Ethics Committee will have something to do with it, meaning you will never, ever read about a violation of this rule leading to any kind of punishment).

Definitely a "around the edges" move on earmarks. But, also definitely better than before. I particularly like the internet angle. First, sometimes the best reform is sunshine. While not a direct slam to earmarks, making them less secret should slow them down. 96 hours is a long time in this day and age. Lots of time for news/blogs to discover, discuss, and put pressure on those earmarks and who/why they were placed into a spending bill. Second, I believe that the internet is a great tool for a democracy and that the government should by using this tool more aggressively. The people's protection against the government (physical, economic, legal, etc) is oversight. The internet is a fantastic tool for the people to oversee the legislators they entrust with the power to run the nation.

So my hope is that this turns out to be a bit of a Trojan Horse.

XM X-ed out?

U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts ruled that the music industry lawsuit against XM + mp3 can proceed. The gist? The industry says XM is infringing on their rights by allowing users to record broadcast music on their mp3, XM says their protected by existing law saying people can record music onto tape players for personal use. Are too, am not, etc.

First off, I have to admit I don't know much about the technology, don't own a satellite receiver and don't listen to much radio (aren't I fun?). Given that, here's my take.

As you know, I do think that technology changes things. So I get that a cassette recording is different than mp3, with the mp3 having the potential to be mass distributed in a way cassette's never could. So crux one for me is the exportability of the mp3's derived from the satellite's feed. If there is none, then I think this is a dead issue, if it's there (and not, "You have to be a super geek to make it work") then I think the industry has a point. Unless, obviously you can record mp3's from regular broadcasts, then it loses that point. I'm a fickle pointer.

However, I think the music industry is making a huge mistake with this. I don't know the history of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (the act that allows you to record from broadcast) but I assume that the music industry was going through one of it's periodic troughs and freaked out that people were recording songs from the radio, killing sales (funny how it's never simply that the industry is putting out bad music, or is in transition from one fad to the next). Anyway, lots of hullabaloo from all sides and presto the AHR comes about. My point is this, cassette recording for private use didn't destroy the industry. I think it's unlikely that mp3's will either.

However, mp3's may save it. Personally, and I get that I'm probably not mainstream, most of my listening at home and car comes from my iPod. I'll occasionally listen to the radio but mostly I don't like their mixes and few things bug me more than radio banter. A close second is when I finally do hear a new song that I like and, despite all the banal banter, no one tells me who it was. So off I go, definitely not buying a new song for my iPod. However, let me record it on the spot, and I can take the time to figure out who it is, or better yet my understanding is that XM tells you right on the screen who it is. Now I can go by a song or album. Isn't that good for the music industry? Furthermore, with XM I can listen to music broken down by my favorite genre (Come onnnn Hair Metal - make that comeback!). Thus I'm more likely to hear a new song I like and go buy that one. Again, isn't that good for industry? Rather than look at this as a threat, see it for what it is, the future. And not necessarily a bad future, if the industry embraces it, XM can actually help boost sales, even XM + mp3.

But I don't expect that. The music industry is famously backward looking. It's also fearful. Despite all the panic about mp3's and digital downloading, I own exactly zero pirated songs. Granted I know some folks that were big into back in the day, but now even the biggest of them doesn't do it. iTunes is a buck, and it's great quality, why bother? Plus people are basically law abiders. But even if someone has a handful of "Pirated" songs, odds are they've bought a whole bunch legally. I know I've bought more music over the last three years than I did in the three years previous to the purchase of my first iPod. The music industry needs to quit fighting customer service and add-on features and embrace them. Expand the market by offering more, don't shrink it by offering less.

Landline surcharge landmine

Interesting AP story 'bout cell phone subscribers paying a subsidy for rural land telephony users.

You can predict my rant, but I wanted to also use this as a case to point out how technology is changing existing labels. The only thing that cell phone and land line users share is the idea that you are talking to someone at a distance. The technologies are completely different, as are uses, abilities (a cell phone has mp3 players, camera, recorders, games, calendars, sms, email, etc - a land phone has...numbers) and even users. Yet in the minds of companies, regulators, and customers they are just versions of each other. It's like comparing a bicycle to a jumbo jet. Both enable you to travel more efficiently and faster than walking, but nothing about how they work, users, ease, etc are the same. We need to realize that cell phones and land line phones are fundamentally different, just as telephony and Internet use are different. Technology allows things that are very different to have similar uses. We need to embrace, not constrain this idea.

As for the subsidy, AT&T Spokesman Gordon Diamond says,

“We believe the core principle is that everyone, including cell phone callers, benefits from being able to call people in the high-cost areas. If wireless customers didn’t contribute, the surcharge on wireline customers would have to be higher.”

Two, things. One if AT&T believes this as a "core principle" then AT&T should either provide that service, or set up its own fund. As to the second sentence, my only thought is "And..." What's the problem with wireline customers being charged more? If it cost's x to use that service then it cost's x. How is forcing cell phone users to pay more to help wireline users more fair than asking wireline users to pay for the cost of their service? Take it down to the stereotypes. If you're poor and live in the city, why should you be forced to pay more for something that should not only be cheaper, but cheaper and better to subsidize some who is poor and living in the country? At that point, aren't you just saying that one group of poor people are more deserving than another. My personal bet is that there are far more people on the lower end of the economic spectrum living in areas with cell coverage than areas without. Said another way, and much more confusing, but what the hay: Getting rid of the subsidy helps far more poor people than keeping the subsidy helps. Plus it has the benefit of making the system more efficient, removes what is undoubtedly a kitty for the providers, and eliminates a whole oversight issue.

The thing is, wireline phone service is a dying technology. Wireless is taking over, its cheaper and offers more services. You shouldn't fight the inevitable, especially when fighting it is expensive and damaging.