i-Witness

Let’s push for Open Document Format the way Massachusetts does.

February 16, 2006

The egalitarian world of the Internet is inclined for a new challenge when AOL and Yahoo, two of the world’s largest email service providers, recently proposed to charge a fee for the delivery of spam-free emails along the originating and destination route.

According to media reports, AOL and Yahoo will introduce a system that would guarantee speedier delivery to companies that pay between 0.25 and one US cent for each message. While AOL and Yahoo would still accept email from senders who do not pay for preferential treatment, the business bias is that the paid messages would bypass spam filters and other barriers which strip off pictures and other images, enabling the emails to land more quickly in in-boxes.

Are we seeing the prospect of a two-tier Internet from now? Notably, AOL and Yahoo’s proposed new business model came in the wake of intensifying debates on the future of the web as the US Congress prepares to institute the first major update of telecommunications legislation since the birth of the Internet.

The centre of debates is on the principles of Internet Neutrality. It is the principles that had been followed through over the last decade of commercial Internet, under which data has been disseminated without discrimination or preference ever since the birth of the World Wide Web.

Therefore, the notion of a premium email delivery service on the Internet, like the one AOL and Yahoo proposed, has been resisted by advocates of "Net Neutrality", notably those from the US.

Here’s a recap of the development in the US, the Motherland of Internet. In August 2005, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) decided that telephone companies are no longer required to open up their broadband lines to rival Internet service providers. The FCC decision was made after the US Supreme Court freed cable companies from similar requirements in June. The net result was that DSL and cable modem operators now found themselves competing on a level playing field, with the pure-play Internet operators crying for mercy.

Political clouts came into play. At the insistence of two Democrats on the commission, the FCC adopted a series of principles that favour Internet users, Internet companies and Internet innovators. The principles, which are widely known as ‘Internet Neutrality’, provides the grounding to keep the Internet open in an era when access in the US is dominantly controlled by the cable and telephone duopoly. ‘Internet Neutrality’ is revelled because it should (read my lips!) guarantee the right of users to access all legal content and services on the Web.

This brings us to the key hurdle faced by VoIP operators in access restrictions to certain geographical sites, a prickly issue for the ‘Baby Bells’ in small regions in the US – yes, we have a parallel right here in Malaysia.

Here’s the case. Earlier last year, a small regional telephone company blocked its DSL customers from using Vonage, an Internet telephone service. The FCC intervened swiftly and forced the telephone company to restore Vonage access.
The incident was seen as having restored the FCC's authority to police a content-based discrimination. Besides, it illustrates the importance of upholding the Internet-neutrality principles.

Interestingly too, big names like Apple, Amazon, eBay and Microsoft etc also bandied together to lobby for such Internet Neutrality rules. The implication is far–reaching.

Imagine, without the Internet Neutrality principles being adopted, a broadband service provider could ally with a search engine and, perhaps, a music-download service to forbid its customers from accessing rival services. Competition will be dead, and the vibrant dynamics of open market and innovation will be stifled.

But there is one setback. The ‘Internet Neutrality’ principles do not have the full force of law behind them. To make the principles work, a knowledgeable legislative body and a no-nonsense enforcement agency are critically required so as to consumer interests. This is no easy task. Even in progressive countries like the US, as has been illustrated earlier, if the FCC fails to do its part, the Congress will have to step in to ensure that all Internet users remain free to access all the content and services that are flourishing on the Web.

Internet content providers are already under fire from telecommunications firms, who are seeking to ensure that their profits - as the providers of the pipeline - keep pace with the internet's expansion into entertainment and commerce.

Posted by Jeff Ooi at 08:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Let’s push for Open Document Format the way Massachusetts does.

February 1, 2006

What will the Malaysian ICT industry be looking at in pushing the envelope for Open Source this year? We can’t be keeping the evangelical talks after the government has started to incorporate Open Source solutions into its procurement procedure since 2004.

Despite the fact that budget allocation and expenditure for Open Source solutions are relatively miniscule at the moment, it was a good start since the Open Source endorsement policy came into being. Our next job is to show the government the next step. Yes, we need to take that bigger step to realise the benefits of adopting Open Source in terms of innovation and justifiable alternatives in resources planning in the ICT sector, both in the government agencies and the commercial world.

In 2005, I noticed there had been some missteps on the part of the industry’s flag-bearer, the Association of Computer and Multimedia industry Malaysia (PIKOM), with regards to its position on adopting Open Source. For the record, PIKOM during the time when Mr Looi Kian Leong was the chairman was instrumental in the creation of an Open Source Special Interest Group (OSSIG). Some monumental results were produced, one of which was a white paper on adopting Open Source software and solution in the public sector, which was presented to the then Ministry of Communications and Multimedia. The gist of the white paper was also presented at inaugural Public Sector CIO Conference organised by MAMPU in 2002.

However, during the General Public Policy Conference (GPPC) 2005 hosted in Kuala Lumpur by PIKOM, the present PIKOM leadership was reported by the mainstream media that it was reviewing its position on Open Source vis-à-vis the 2002 white paper on Open Source it endorsed via the PIKOM-OSSIG. As a founding member of the OSSIG, I was made aware of the protracted debates that ensued behind the scene within the OSSIG.

It is felt that if the PIKOM public announcement to review its position on Open Source was misendeavour on the part of the current leadership. It is unusual for an organisation to resort to drastic measures like reviewing a white paper it took pain and resource to conceive and subsequently endorse. Many feel that while a white paper may be left untouched in its entirety, appendices that incorporate new updates could be attached to the original document, if the necessity was to perfect whatever prior shortcomings.

It is with this imperative in mind that all is not lost for PIKOM to re-crystallise its strategy to help propel Malaysia to be on par with other First World countries in ICT deployment. Admittedly, we are not here to be copycats and emulate others’ practices for the sake of getting upgraded against the Joneses. However, in technology and sciences, there is this overpowering insistence that we should adopt global best practices in all areas of knowledge domains. It’s precise on this note that PIKOM could play a bigger role as the trade body that represents over 80% of the significant players.

One such trendline is the progress achieved in the promoting of OpenDocument Format (ODF), which has been radically endorsed by the state government of Massachusetts, USA. Recently, the state of Massachusetts had made it official that it will use only non-proprietary document formats in state-affiliated offices effective Jan. 1, 2007. The OPF is one such format.

The OpenDocument Format (ODF) is an acronym for the OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications. This standard was developed by the OASIS industry consortium, based upon the XML-based file format originally created by OpenOffice.org. In layman’s term, it is an open document file format for saving and exchanging editable office documents such as text documents (including memos, reports, and books), spreadsheets, charts, and presentations.

The obvious political barrier to adopting ODF is that the ODF is intended to provide an open alternative to proprietary document formats, including the popular but undocumented DOC, XLS, and PPT formats used by Microsoft Office, as well as Microsoft Office Open XML format.

Proponents of ODF advocate that organisations and individuals that store their data in an open format such as ODF could avoid being locked in to a single software vendor, leaving them free to switch software if their current vendor goes out of business, raises their prices, changes their software, or changes their licensing terms to something less favourable.

We should keep our eyes open in 2006 to leverage on this significant development.

Posted by Jeff Ooi at 08:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)