Blog Fact Checking and Fermat’s Last Theorem

PCIJ’s  Alecks Pabico has elegantly demonstrated how smart on-line sleuthing can reveal flaws in published news reports.  Specifically, he focuses on a local academic’s claim regarding errors in the proof to Fermat’s Last Theorem.  As a journalist, he recognizes the need to hold the media to a high standard.  As a blogger, he uses this platform to make his case because traditional media might not devote enough space for criticism.  Alecks was our iBlogspeaker on “Blogging and Journalism” and this incident illustrates a way by which these two (2) fields interact. Alecks finds himself in the middle of that junction and I certainly hope more journalists follow his lead.

Fact Checking Blogs Uncover IP Violations

I must say that I’m very happy to report about two (2) blog entries that have recently come to my attention.  I’ve always known that bloggers have the ability to highlight issues that traditional media can’t or won’t cover.  These two (2) entries expose alleged copyright infringement separately commited by GMA 7’s Debate show and Bayo, the clothes company.

As to the alleged Bayo infringement,  it appears that Bayo is using adaptations of a Japanese artist’s work for their Kids of Bayo campaign.  I must say that based on the info presented in the blog entry, this appears to be a clear case of infringement.  Of course, noone’s heard from Bayo just yet and they may have a legitimate defense.  But I would think that in all likelihood, there’s been some copying done here.  This is not to say that the good folks at Bayo knew of the copying.  I would like to think this was the handiwork of a rogue employee or a consultant.  But since the copying was done by Bayo, the owner of the pictures will have recourse against the company.

In the second instance, the opening billboard (OBB) of GMA 7’s Debate program is so similar to that of MTV’s Ultimate Spin.  If the information presented is true, this seems like a clear case of copyright infrigement as well.   Of course, who knows if the copyright owner of the copied work will complain. 

Regardless how the lawyers will handle these two (2) cases, I am happy that these things are reported in the blogosphere.  It’s an indication that bloggers can contribute to society in other ways.  Their personal musings about their lives and experiences document our age in an unprecedented way and will provide historians with a treasure trove of information.  But more than that, some blogs will have an impact on society by reporting on events that will otherwise go unnoticed.  In these cases, these blog entries do not place Filipinos in a favorable light but at least they also show that Filipinos do care about intellectual property rights — that we’re not all pirates.

How we move forward from this depends on all of us. For my part, I’d like to volunteer to represent the victims of the infringement.  Paper Dull invites us to write Bayo and make them aware of the problem.  However you choose to act, just remember that were it not for blogs, you never would have known of these things nor taken any action. 

BTW, thanks to Janette Toral for leading me to these blogs. 

Work-stopping TV: The Contender and American Idol

It must have been a conspiracy of sorts.  On Wednesday evening, the final episode of “The Contender” aired live over AXN at 10:00 p.m.  I’ve been following this show on and off after having watched the earlier episodes based on Mark Burnett’s statement on the Tonight Show that this was the best work he’d ever done.  Well, it doesn’t rise to the drama of The Survivor series but what it lacks in emotional conflict, it makes up for in raw violence brought up in weekly matches between at the Contender Arena.  My wife thinks it’s all rigged and to a certain extent I agree with her.  It’s all in the editing anyway since they don’t show the whole fight.  They lead the audience to believe that one fighter is better than the other and then lead that one to lose.  This was certainly the case in the first episode when Alfonso Gomez, the smallest of the bunch, beat world-ranked Peter Manfredo.  By some twist of fate, Peter made it back to the show and onto the final bout with Sergio Mora.  Again, I thought Peter would win and again, I was wrong.  Same was true for the unannounced pre-fight between Alfonso and Jesse. The smaller guy won.  What’s going on here?

So, much for Wednesday evening.  American Idol was waiting at 8:00 a.m.

Truth be told, it was my first American Idol final episode and I didn’t know what to expect.  It wasn’t so bad except that I found myself sitting through this show for something that took less than 5 seconds to announce.  The show itself tries to be unscripted but it’s obvious that just about everything outside the singing competition is scripted.  The producers obviously concocted the controversy and conflict between the judges and in one instance between Simon and Ryan.  And that alleged Paula Abdul-contestant affair?  I guess they’re just giving people more things to say by the water bottle.  Distractions aside, I don’t think the best person won but I think it was a fair outcome.  The reason is that I think Bo will become a star while Carrie’s going to fade out.  The other losing Idol that will make it is Constantine.  The energy these guys bring to the stage is phenomenal and I have little doubt their Idol exposure will bring them very good projects that will make them shine. 

I sometimes wish more Pinoys join American Idol because I think they’ll definitely win.  If Pinoys here can vote then we’d swamp the polls with at least 30 million votes on each episode cast for our kababayan.  You might as well call it Pinoy Idol.  Simon Callow would pass out.  Now, that would be a show I’d watch every week.

NTC’s New Moves

Depending on your inclination, you’d either be worried or delighted with some of the policy moves of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC). It seems that having been stumped by the telcos at their ability to regulate SMS and related issues, they’re no longer satisfied with issuing their own rules, they’re expanding out to other branches of government.  On the VoIP issue, Congress is all set to pass a law if the NTC’s VoIP rules are contested in court. On cellular phone policy, INQ7 reports that Congress is also stepping in after a prolonged litigation has successfully delayed the implementation of consumer-friendly NTC rules.  Today, another INQ7 story discloses that the NTC is cooperating with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to regulate text spam.

For some, these are welcome developments.  They show the NTC’s unwavering determination to solve these public poicy issues and the Commission’s creativity in seeking out alternate policy responses. 

For others, these display the Commission’s unwillingness to utilize its own levers against the telcos.  As to the Text Spam issue, the NTC can threaten to revoke the telco’s license to provide SMS if certain spamming complaints are not addressed.  After all, all of these spam messages go through the telcos.  In the case of their content providers, it’s a simple matter for the telcos to regulate. In the case of others, the telcos can easily trace the occurrence of spam based on traffic analysis.  There’s no reason why the NTC can’t do this.

It’s a SIMple problem, isn’t it?

INQ7 reports a strange phenomenon in the telecoms policy landscape — something in the order of the sun rising in the West.  A consumer group, TXT Power,  the telcos, and even some Congressmen, actually agree on something.  That thing is mandatory SIM registration. 

Apparently, Congress is considering legislation that will require all pre-paid cellphone users to register their contact information as a condition for providing service.  The consumer group, TXT Power, says this is a violation of the consumer’s right to privacy.  The telcos say, this is a costly process that will eat up into their meager resources and translate into higher costs for consumers.  Some congressment say, this is an administrative nightmare that shouldn’t be imposed on the NTC.

Despite this strange phenomenon, I have to say that I disagree with all of them. (more…)

A Laptop Warranty that Actually Works?

As a lawyer, I’ve always looked at warranties with a bit of skepticism.  Everything’s in the fine print and oftentimes, the exclusions to the warranties make them useless.  For example, many times you’ll hear a salesperson say, “It’s covered by a 3 year warranty.”  What they mean is:  if the thing breaks within three (3) years and you’re wiling to take the machine to our service center (a minimum of 2 hours’ drive from wherever you are), prove the date of purchase, bring your original receipt, and wait while we diagnose the problem, we’ll fix it for free —  in thirty (30) days and by the way,  you have to pay for the parts (if we have them, otherwise you’ll have to wait while re-order the spare and pay extra if you want us to hold this thing for you in the meantime).  Also, if you bought the machine outside our authorized dealer network, the warranty’s no good. 

When something breaks and you do the cost-benefit analysis, you’ll probably end up ahead if you just buy a new one.

So, I was a little concerned when the AC adapter to my IBM Thinkpad started sparking yesterday morning even after I pulled the plug from the wall outlet. Uh-oh, there goes my day. (more…)

The Justice Secretary and Freedom of Speech

It was reported over the weekend that Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales had ordered the prosecution of Sen. Lacson’s three (3) jueteng witnesses.  It seems all of them had admitted that they were engaged in the illegal numbers name and on the strength of these admissions, they should go to jail.  It will be recalled that when Gov. Chavit Singson went public with his allegations against Pres. Estrada, he too admitted to being involved in jueteng. I’m not sure if it’s in relation to Sec. Gonzales’ announcement but Gov. Singson is now singing a different tune.   Still, the prior admission is no different from those made by Sen. Lacson’s witnesses and therefore Sec. Gonzales should not discriminate.

Furthermore, Sec. Gonzales should be more careful when ordering the prosecution of people who have admitted wrongdoing.  Not all of them have to be pursued by the authorities.  Otherwise, noone would assist the government in putting other people in jail except when they have committed no crime.  Public policy however allows “guilty” witnesses to testify and our law even encourages them by providing protection.  It seems that Sec. Gonzales has opted not to protect these witnesses but instead use the full force of the government to retaliate. 

This speaks volumes about Sec. Gonzales as a Justice Secretary.  Obviously, he’s concluded that GMA (Ginoong Mike Arroyo) and the others are innocent even before he’s heard the evidence.  That being the case, the only ones guilty of a crime are the witnesses.  I’ve never seen such raw efficiency from any government official in making a factual determination.  But then again, he may have other motivations — like the enforcement of our anti-gambling laws.

Perhaps our Justice Secretary should pull back and consider what he’s doing in relation to the Constitutionally-protected right to freedom of expression.  If less than innocent people are threatened by the State against making disclosures that are beneficial in upholding the rule of law, then shouldn’t that action itself be considered a violation of the Constitution? And should the person calling for such action sit as a top law enforcement official of the land?

A Misquote on VoIP

Inq7 reports that the Commission on ICT Chair, Virigilo Pena, believes that VoIP won’t have a great impact on the ordinary Filipino because:

“VoIP presumes access to a computer [and the Internet]. And if you’re running at 3-percent penetration rate, only a small percent of the population [has access] to VoIP. Yes, it’s right that there is false sense of expectation. Even if VoIP allows people abroad to make cheaper calls, not all their relatives have access to a computer,” Pena said.

He’s not serious, is he?  He must have been misquoted by the media because this is not a smart thing to say when you’re the Undercretary for Communications of the DOTC.  Look at his job description:

Advises and assists the Secretary in the formulation of policies and objectives pertaining to the Department’s telecommunications and postal systems;

Develops plans and programs in order to provide a safe, reliable, and efficient postal system;

Oversees all activities of the Department pertaining to the telecommunications and postal communications services for which he shall be responsible to the Secretary;

Assists in the guidance of government and private investments, development of our country’s communications systems in a more practical, expeditious and orderly manner; and

Perform such other function as may be assigned by law and/or assigned by the Secretary.

It’s impossible.  Given his job description, he must know that VoIP calls can be made even by people without a computer.  After all, PLDT itself offers outbound VoIP calls for 18 cents per minute to people without computers but only basic telephone service.  He must know this since PLDT is the dominant telco over which is office has jurisdiction. 

As a top government official in charge of communications, he knows that one of the key points of the NTC VoIP guidelines is interconnection.  If VoIP providers are allowed to interconnect to a telco’s local exchange, then anyone with a telephone (regardless of computer ownership) can make an international VoIP call.  Therefore, the three percent (3%) penetration rate he mentions is completely irrelevant. 

After all, he did make this astute observation:

“The bulk of VoIP calls are inbound to the Philippines,” Pena stressed.

He’s absolutely right.  Of course, he’s aware that this is because the government has maintained a regulatory system that prohibits local players from offering outbound VoIP calls without an expensive and time-consuming licensing process.  This is precisely what the NTC VoIP guidelines are meant to address — opening up the market so that ordinary folks can pick up the telephones already installed in their homes in order to make long distance VoIP calls to their loved ones overseas.

I must say I also agree with this last statement of Mr. Pena: 

He added that apart from technology, there is also a need to educate people about VoIP.

He’s hit the nail right on the head.  Many people do need to be educated about VoIP.

Let’s not forget that when he’s not acting as an Undersretary for DOTC, he’s a Cabinet-rank Chairman of the Commission on ICT where technologies far more complicated than VoIP are involved.  I hope he doesn’t get misquoted when he’s acting in that capacity as well.  But I guess that’s just a fact of life.

Cyberbaguioboy on VoIP

Cyberbaguioboy weighs in on the VoIP debate after talking to an unnamed telco executive who asks:

[D]o we have the necessary basic infrastructure like telephone lines and Internet access points to support VoIP services that will benefit the general consumers?

The answer he says, is “No” because:

we don’t even have a widespread deployment of Internet in the country, save for the telephone lines.

I must say the argument is seriously flawed and perhaps betrays the person’s ignorance about VoIP technology.  VoIP can be deployed in this country despite the problems he identifies.  In fact, PLDT already offers international VoIP calls at 18 US cents per minute.  But what the VoIP industry needs is a regulatory regime that will permit them to even begin offering services.  On top of that, the VoIP providers will need some physical interconnection with the local exchanges so they can switch Internet-relayed calls to your ordinary phone set and vice-versa. This is what the NTC regulations are all about.

Still, I have to agree with the executive’s conclusion that the bottom line issue here isn’t VoIP, it’s competition: 

The NTC or Congress should instead focus on making the telecommunications industry, which includes the information and communications technology sector, more competitive and open to changes. It should promote less regulation and break monopolies to pave the way for a free market that is essentially dictated upon by consumers.

It seems to me that a market-driven fully-competitive telecoms sector is an ideal goal but after having observed this industry for some time now, I’m convinced it won’t happen in my lifetime.  But then again, weirder things have come to pass.

Comment All You Like!

Thanks goes out to Angelo who helped me turn off the “your-comment-must-be-approved-before-it’s-posted” policy of my blog. 

So, please leave a comment or a suggestion.  Opinions (especially contrary ones) are most welcome.  There’s nothing like a good debate. Constructive criticism is good, too.   Or just say “Hi!” 

Erwin Oliva once told me that a blog is a “digital handshake.” 

Well, then I’m pleased to meet you. 

Private and Public Enforcement of IPR

In a news report in INQ7, the Intellectual Property Office is asking different local government units (LGUs) to pass a model IP ordinance which is described as follows:

The template IP ordinance x x x requires all business permits issued by the city or municipal government to carry the express condition that the licensee will not engage in the sale, rental, transfer, distribution, manufacture or production of pirate, counterfeit, or fake goods including VCDs, DVDs and videos.

Violating this ordinance would be grounds for the revocation, suspension, or cancellation of the violator’s business permit.

The validity of such an ordinance is, in my view, legally questionable.  Congress has already passed upon the matter of intellectual property when it enacted the Intellectual Property Code.  Nowhere in the law does it penalize infringers by denying them the right to pursue any other legitimate business.  Therefore, it appears that the LGU enacting the ordinance would be expanding the penalty for infringement beyond that imposed by Congress.  The issue is whether or not the Local Government Code grants the LGU this power.

More to the point,  the ordinance overextends when it penalizes the infringer with the revocation of it business license.  It assumes that the only business of the infringer is selling fake DVDs.  But the fact of the matter is that the infringer may be engaged in other legitimate businesses.  Why should those businesses be affected when the infringement is only one part of their entire operations?  If one operates an Internet cafe and incidentally, makes copies of business applications for its customers, the ordinance will shut down the whole place including the Internet cafe.  Even under the IP Code, this kind of wholesale punishment is not contemplated.  If an infringer is otherwise pursuing a legitimate business, the IP Code does not prevent him from continuing the same despite the infringement.

But the more troubling aspect of the ordinance is the fact that LGUs are now being recruited to enforce IP rights.  As I’ve said before, IP rights are private rights that have to be enforced by their owners.  If no IP rights holder complains, there’s no basis for the government to enforce the law. 

Here’s a real world analogy:  Let’s say you have a car and it’s stolen.  You haven’t reported it to the police because frankly, you’re glad someone finally took it off your hands.  Question: Can the police now run after the car thief if you don’t complain first?  Of course not!  They wouldn’t even know which car was stolen.  In fact, they have no basis to assume that any car is stolen (even if the driver looks like he can’t afford the car he’s driving).  Enforcement of your private property rights can only happen if you initiate the process.  Without your involvement, the law enforcement agencies cannot act on their own.

Let’s move back to the LGU’s and this ordinance.  How then will the LGU’s know that the business owner was violating IP rights if no IP rights holder complains?  On the one hand, you would think that this makes the ordinance impossible to enforce.  But you’d be wrong.  Under the recently-enacted Optical Media Act, the mere absence of certain codes on a CD makes it illegal and subject to seizure.  This means that even if no IP owner complains that his movie or audio CD is being pirated, the Optical Media Board (OMB) can initiate criminal proceedings simply upon the basis that the optical disk itself is illegal (that it doesn’t contain certain codes that the OMB specifies).  In this respect, the OMB is engaged in the public enforcement (at taxpayers’ expense) of private rights.

It’s as if the government said, “We’re going to spend your tax money to protect your car whether you want it protected or not! We will pursue all car thefts, whether you report it or not!” When you consider that much of the intellectual property in this country belongs to foreigners, and those rights being enforced may be those of people who don’t even pay taxes to the Philippine government, you might think it’s a little unfair.  It’s entirely possible that the rights of an American movie producer who doesn’t care if his film is being pirated in the Philippines are being protected by the OMB using your tax money.

This is what we’ve come to:  the public enforcement of private rights.

But this is part of a larger trend calling for stronger intellectual property rights.  In the case of the Philippines, IPR enforcement is tied into free tradeso we don’t have much of a choice.  Even though there may be strong arguments favoring a weak intellectual property rights system, those become irrelevant given the promise of free trade — that is, cheap imports.  But then again, what’s the value of free trade when you have nothing to trade?  In the case of the Philippines, our biggest export is labor but the free flow of labor isn’t a free trade issue, it’s an immigration issue.  Once you look at immigration policy in the first world, you’ll see that it severely resitrcts the flow of people from here to there.  So, I guess I’d like to see if free trade has really delivered on its promise.  If not, then maybe we should reconsider our intellectual property policy and move further away from where we find ourselves today.  I recall one Conrado de Quiroz column where he urges the government to pursue a policy on intellectual property that promotes the national interest.  I think this is what he was talking about.

Bing on Some Bloggers

Bing offers her honest insights on some famous bloggers. It’s an interesting read. She’s referring to certain individuals but it can also be seen as practical advice on how to handle yourself as a blogger.  Certainly, we could all use some constructive criticism.  

Work Plan for Congressional Committee on ECommerce

Janette Toral writes about the work program for the Congressional Oversight Committee for the E-Commerce Law.  I’m pesonally interested in the E-Government Audit which will review past IT projects and e-government activities. Some years ago, ITECC approved some e-government projects out of a multi-billion peso fund.  It would be good to know the status of those projects since no updates have been publicly released.  It’s important that these kinds of projects be coordinated properly to avoid duplication of tasks among agencies and the wasting of taxpayers’ money.  If there are success stories, great! We could always use good news.  If there are failures, then we should do our best to learn from them and press on.  Good luck to the Committee.

UPDATE:  Here’s a copy of the slide presentation made before the Committee (in PPT and PDF).  Thanks to Janette Toral for the copies!

What’s Missing in the BSA Software Piracy Study?

The Business Software Alliance has released its  annual global software piracy study.  Here’s the relevant part for the Philippines:

Software piracy rate in the Philippines went down to 71% in 2004, a decrease of 1% from the 2003 level. However, losses due to software piracy increased to US$69 million (PhP3.7 billion) from US$55 million last year. In the Asia Pacific, 53% of the software installed on personal computers was pirated in 2004, the same level as in 2003, with losses increasing from US$7.5 billion to almost US$8 billion.

I’m not going to argue the methodology. Suffice it to say that the losses can’t be that big simply because they assume everyone in the country can afford their software.   This is an obvious error.  People resort to piracy because they’d rather buy other things (say, food) than programs.  It is wrong to think that stronger IP enforcement will  force people to buy software.  They’d probably junk their computers or seek other alternatives.

The fact is that if BSA acheived the strict IP law enforcement they want for this country, their members’ profits or market share will not rise.  Faced with prosecution or imprisonment, local users will simply shift to free/open source software (FOSS) applications such as OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc.

Additionally, the study does not take into consideration the full impact of free open source software (FOSS) in the local market.  This should be no suprise since BSA is made up of proprietary software vendors and as an organization it is intended to expand the market for their members’ goods rather than diminish them.  So, FOSS plays no part in their strategy to combat software piracy:

Efforts continue by BSA and others to stem the growth of piracy, including implementation of educational programs, policy initiatives to strengthen copyright laws and enforcement of those laws. These are effective inhibitors to piracy.

This statement is a misleading in two (2) respects.

First, the Philippines no longer needs to strengthen our copyright laws.  Our IP legal environment is very strong with not only local statutes dating back at least 50 years (and an even older one during the Spanish era), but the Philippines has acceded to all major copyright treaties (say the same for all IP treaties like TRIPS, The Patent Cooperation Treaty, the WIPO Treaty, the WIPO Internet Treaties, etc.). 

We even have regulations here that don’t exist in the U.S. like the Optical Media Law and the Supreme Court Rules on Search and Seizure in IP Infringement Cases.   The Supreme Court has even established special IP trial courts all over the country despite the fact that it has resisted forming special Bouncing Checks Courts in the face of so many cases clogging the lower courts. (In other words, the many victims of bouncing checks were not treated the same as IP rights  holders despite the fact that much of the IP registered in this country belongs to foreigners.)
So, there’s not much more the Philippines can do in strengthening its IP laws.  (more…)

A Bad Test Case for Hacking

INQ7 reports that alleged hacker, JJ Maria Giner, has filed a motion which led to the suspension of the criminal case filed against him for hacking.  The Department of Justice alleges that Mr. Giner hacked government websites.  I haven’t read through the charge sheet but I do know that the primary basis for the prosecution of Mr. Giner is the affidavit he submitted to the DOJ.  The INQ7 report says:

In his counter-affidavit, Giner admitted to sending an e-mail to the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), informing the agency about the vulnerability of its website to hackers. With this admission, he argued that if he had the intention of destroying or corrupting the system, he would not have informed the agency.

So, it is Mr. Giner’s defense that he did break into the government websites but he did so in order to substantiate his emails to them that those government sites had security vulnerabilities.  He thought he was doing them a favor.  After all, the government IT managers would have ignored his emails if he didn’t demonstrate the vulnerabilities.  The subsequent emails indicate he was acting with good intentions (among many that line the path to hell, as they say).

Of course, the DOJ’s response is: “The law doesn’t require intent in order to commit the crime of hacking.”  I’m afraid I’ll have to agree with the DOJ here.  There is a string of Supreme Court decisions saying that crimes spelled out in “special laws” are mala prohibita — a lawyerly phrase which means, even if you didn’t mean to do the act, you’ll still be held accountable.

But I digress.

My point is that for all the publicity surrounding it, this is a bad test case for the government for the following reasons:

(a)  This case does nothing to show that the Philippine government can effectively investigate and collect evidence against hackers.  As admitted by the DOJ itself, their main evidence was supplied by the accused. 

(b)  The fact that he’s a white-hat hacker makes it worse.  What he did was harmless and in fact, he intended to help out the government agencies concerned.  Sure, he did break the law but government should run after black hat hackers — technically proficient people who act malevolently and without regard to the damage they cause. 

Script kiddies and white-hat hackers like Mr. Giner should be given a 30-day seminar on ethical computing and be required to listen to Kenny G (or Kenny Rogers) for the duration.  That’s punishment enough. (more…)

IBM’s Blogging Guidelines

IBM just  released its Blogging Policy and Guidelines (from James Snell’s blog).   Check out his post.  What’s interesting is that IBM employees collaborated on a Wiki to draft the guidelines in ten days.  I’m thinking of various projects involving Wiki and peer production of content and this is yet another application I’ve missed — employee crafting of policies. 

I hope you lawyers out there can use this as a template for your clients who’ll need one of these policies for their own internal use.

Many thanks to vonjobi for pointing this out.

US Supreme Court Cites a Blog

US Constitutional scholars scour every corner of US Supreme Court decisions.  Believe it or not, they even debate and agonize over footnotes. Which is why I was intrigued by an email received from one our graduates that the US Supreme Court had cited a blog in a recent decision.  This is just the thing blogging needs right now — some validation from the High Court that blog content is worthy of consideration in matters of Constitutional Law.

He gave me a link to this article which led me to this blog or bLAWg and finally to the decision itself only to find out that the citation (footnote no. 4 of Justice Stevens’ dissent) merely says that a certain document can be found in Prof. Berman’s Sentencing Law and Policy Blog.

Oh, well.  I can dream, can’t I?

The Manila Bulletin Features The Sassy Lawyer’s iBlog Talk

Check out this Manila Bulletin excerpt of The Sassy Lawyer’s iBlog talk on How to Make a Bookmark-worthy Blog (Click here to see her slides and my own take on her talk).  The Sassy One took note and published what the newspaper couldn’t. 

Telof — A New Hope for VoIP

The Internet’s openness makes it a perfect tool for disintermediation (a seven syllable word for something as simple as “cutting out the middle man”).  One of the earlier mottos of the Net (attributed to John Gilmore) was “The Internet sees censorship as damage, and routes around it”  implying that no  obstacle whether economic, political or social would be insurmountable in a connected world. 

Alas, as we’ve seen, the disruptive nature of Internet technology has not fulfilled that promise to the extent envisioned by early net libertarians.  It turns out people are like cows when they’re on-line.  They’re not smart enough to route around the simplest of obstacles.  Prof. Zittrain calls this the Bovinization principle (or was it a theorem?).

The same is true to a certain extent when it comes to VoIP.  Here, the obstacles were the regulatory regime and the dominant telcos.  While Filipinos can enjoy the benefits of VoIP through foreign providers like Vonage and Net2Phone, inbound traffic must still route through the telco’s local exchanges.  This means that any VoIP provider interested in offering services for inbound calls must have some sort of arrangement with the telcos.  Even the NTC’s draft VoIP rules anticipate as much. (more…)

Dean Alfar on Guerilla Writing

For those of you who missed Dean Alfar’s excellent talk at iBlog, read his blog entry on guerilla writing.  It’s a must read.