Got Voice?

For the past few weeks I have been testing a new service, GotVoice, from a company based in Kirkland Washington with an interesting idea -- how can you profit from the stupidity of the phone company? Now perhaps that isn't the way that company executives in Kirkland would describe their strategic plan, but its hard not to look at them and think, "this is yet more evidence of how stupid US telecommunications companies are."

The idea is simple (too simple, you'd think). How can I have access to my home and cell voice mail from the web and through email? If we had telephone companies that knew how to build services that customers wanted, this wouldn't even be a question. But there is NO innovation going on at the phone company (fill in your favorite one, or AT&T if you are reading this after they have bought everyone else). Thus companies like GotVoice can come along and fill in the niche.

Here's how it works -- You sign up for an account with GotVoice (basic service is free, but added features are available at $4.95 and $9.95 a month) and give them your phone company, phone number, and voicemail "PIN" -- they will then place a call on a regular basis to your voice mail box, record your messages, and send you an email letting you know you have a message (or email you the message as an MP3 with a premium plan).

But this is absurd! Why can't the phone company simply email me the message? Why do I need a third party to glue voice mail and email together? Perhaps someone in the finance department of AT&T found a study conducted in the early 1990s which said that none of their customers wanted voice mails in their email... or maybe they have a trial of voicemail to email right now but they are only rolling it out in 3 small test markets over the next two years... or maybe they don't actually care at all about their customers and never think about introducing new products that we actually want!

In the meantime, Got Voice?

Intellectual Property and Pricing

Today a different kind of IP here on IP Inferno, although I believe that the issues confronting our creative industries are parallel and related to those that confront the technology industry. There is an ongoing debate amongst a set of thinkers on the relationship of PRICE to COST, in particular as applied to products that are largely (or entirely) made up of this flimsy stuff we call intellectual property. When your product is bits and not atoms, should costs of manufacturing and distribution have anything to do with price?

Solveig Singleton addresses this issue in a recent blog post on IP central entitled "The Marginal Cost Fallacy, Again" in which she argues that the idea that marginal cost would have anything to do with pricing is an academic notion, not intended to have any application in the real world. This is in response to an interview with Defective By Design, an anti-DRM activist organization. In the interview, the ant-DRM advocates ask:

When we live in a age where all digital works of art and all human knowledge can be transferred at (next to) zero cost, and where the cost of making one more copy is zero. Is it right to be building digital fences and digital handcuffs around this art and knowledge?

Solveig sees in this an argument that prices for IP should relate to costs and points out that this connection is not a necessary connection.

But the component of the equation which appears to be lacking in Solveig's observations is the willingness of a consumer to pay a given price. The market's willingness to pay IS a critical component and marginal costs finds its way back into the (real world) calculation via this component.

Lets do some context setting -- cassette tapes provided consumers with a vehicle for duplicating recordings 30 years ago and yet they had a nominal impact on pricing for record albums. Why? Consumers still had to purchase cassettes AND invest their own time and energy into duplication. When a consumer evaluated the cost (in real dollars and time) of duplicating an album, consumers whose time was worth something would opt to buy the album. Consumers whose time was not worth anything likely had little disposable income anyway, and thus wouldn't have bought the album.

But with marginal cost approaching zero for electronic duplication - both in real dollars and tims - the consumer's calculation is quite different. Now it really doesn't make economic sense to purchase the album. Thus you are left with the flimsy bulwark of legal protection for IP to entice a consumer to pay for the album.

When economic incentives are out-of-whack with business practices, does it make sense to do as the RIAA has done and enforce those business practices through legal efforts? Or does it make sense to change those business practices?

15 Years Ago - Net Neutrality Debate 1.0

Denise Caruso over at the Public Knowledge blog writes about the first round of Net Neutrality debates, 15 years ago:

...here’s a slightly shortened version of the May 19, 1991, “Inside Technology” column I wrote for San Francisco Examiner — yes, that’s 15 YEARS ago. I like to think of it as the proto-Net Neutrality problem statement...

She goes on to include an article about how well the "modified final judgement" was working to make sure that we had a competitive telecommunications marketplace here in the US. It includes this great quote from past-FCC commissioner Nicholas Johnson, commenting on why the telcos should not be allowed to sell information services:

“They already suck money out of both ends of the straw,” he said. ”They charge us for getting information out of the system and they charge the supplier for putting it in. They can get rich beyond their wildest dreams of avarice by concentrating on what it is they do best [i.e., renting the conduit] — the mere fact that doing so also happens to serve the public interest should not deter them.”

Denise also asks, "So: how can we kick this debate out of Wonkville and into the Zeitgeist?"

VONOSPHERE

Congratulations to Paul Kapustka and Jeff Pulver on the launch of Vonosphere - an information rich site tracking VoIP and Video-on-net news and breaking some news of its own. I expect we'll see more of Paul now that he has his own TV show... err, Internet show. Doesn't quite replace Amanda Congdon for me but, I like it better than that Joanne Congdon (I mean Colan) show... Anyone other than me think she is trying a little too hard to look like Amanda? Anyway, back to Paul and Vonoshphere. Congratulations! And check out his video on Ed Whitacre. Man, that guy just doesn't come across as trustworthy. I wonder what it is about him?

Senator Feinstein on Network Neutrality

From: senator@feinstein.senate.gov
Subject: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message
Date: August 2, 2006 8:15:54 AM PDT
To: tshelton@ipinferno.com




August 2, 2006


Mr. Edward Shelton
xxxx Ave
xxx, California

Dear Mr. Shelton:

Thank you for writing to me about open access to the
Internet and network neutrality. I appreciate hearing from you.

I agree with the general principles of network neutrality
that owners of the networks that provide access to the Internet
should not control how consumers lawfully use that network and
should not be able to discriminate against content provider access
to that network.

As Congress debates changes to our telecommunications
laws this year, many different proposals have been offered
regarding network neutrality. The question arises whether or not
action is needed to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. I
believe any workable solution must balance the needs of the
network, service and information providers. Please know that
when legislation regarding network neutrality comes before the
Senate I will be sure to keep your specific views in mind.

Again, thank you for writing. If you should have any
comments or questions, I hope you will feel free to contact my
Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.





Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

http://feinstein.senate.gov

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website
http://feinstein.senate.gov. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at
http://feinstein.senate.gov/issue.html.