|
| Friday, March 3, 2006 |
 |
Double trouble booking 
| | Graeme Thickins is all over PC Forum, more than a week before it happens. The theme this year is Users In Charge. The subject couldn't be more up my alley; and since I always go, I was really looking forward to participating this year. In fact, I suggested to Esther that we do a Cluetrain+7 panel, with original cluetrainers, revisiting the User In Charge declaration Chris Locke had issued when Cluetrain went up, almost exactly seven years ago: |
| | In other words, there is a LOT of big stuff to talk about, around users being (and not being) in charge. |
| | But in the midst of planning something with Esther, I discovered that PC Forum was scheuled to coincide exactly with SXSW in Austin. |
| | And, it turns out, the very forward-looking Henry Copeland had long since lined up Chris Locke and myself to participate in a panel on Cluetrain+7 in the Interactive track of the show. In fact, Henry had booked the panel so far back that I had forgotten the details. |
| | Which is why I found myself suggesting to Esther that we do something Henrry had already arranged to happen, 1000 miles to the east, at the very same time. |
| | Thus the decision was made to stick with SXSW and to miss PC Forum for the first time in years. It a major bummer, because it's the one conference I always make sure to attend, every year. |
| | Still, I looking forward to following it here in blogland. |
Write on
| | Tony Pierce: to me writers block happens when you are afraid to say the things that you want to say. |
| | There are ten other lines in that post, each just as good. Like, one of the best ways to confound the devil is to acknowledge him right away and move on while he's basking in the attention. |
Quote du jour
| | It is difficult to produce a television documentary that is both incisive and probing when every twelve minutes one is interrupted by twelve dancing rabbits singing about toilet paper. — Rod Serling |
Neutering news
| | The carriers' plan from the beginning has been to convert the Net into a paid content delivery system--of some kind. That's all they were ever able to imagine. That's why they've screwed Net Neutrality from the beginning, offering crippled asymmetrical service to customers whom they expected only would consume, never producing much more than clicks that brought down more to consume. Most of us have never known anything but an asymmetrical relationship with the Net, which is why so many of us barely can imagine what it means to be a producer as well as a consumer in the Net's end-to-end world. A couple of days ago, a woman I know--middle class, white collar--told me she doesn't like the Net because "I don't like mass media in general". |
| | In fact, the asymmetrical build-outs of service to homes has done enormous harm to market growth by preventing countless small and home Net-based businesses from starting and growing. |
| | Specifically, by provisioning big bandwidth downstream and narrow bandwidth upstream, while blocking ports 25 and 80--in crass violation of the Net's UNIX-derived network model, in addition to the end-to-end principle--the carriers prevent customers from running their own mail and Web servers and whatever server-based businesses might be possible. Again, all the carriers can imagine is Cable TV. That's been their fantasy from the beginning. |
| | So, while pro-Net advocates wish to liberate the Net by burning neutrality into law, anti-Net advocates wish to neuter the Net by preserving the current regulatory regime--or by otherwise re-regulating it to favor the Cable TV model they've built their infrastructure for since the beginning. |
Wow
The funniest line in any comic this year
discuss
Copyright 2008 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
