I spent the best part of an hour reading an interesting document entitled A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection by Peter Gutmann which discusses problems that Microsoft Windows Vista introduces into the general PC market by its implementation of copy protection measures which will both increase the cost of hardware as a whole (not just for Vista users) as well as artificially degrading output of high quality devices.

Microsoft’s new system of handling device drivers (the pieces of software that interface between hardware and the operating system) and the standards they require all such drivers to adhere to will require hardware manufacturers to change the way they design hardware. Specifically, they need to do so in such a way as to make it very difficult for someone to intercept signals for ‘protected content’ (e.g. movies, music, etc.)

To achieve this, hardware designs need to be less modular. Traditionally, modularity has been used by manufacturers to develop multiple products using the same core framework or circuit board, a bit like each car model has the same frame with different extras. This reduces development and production costs as these can be shared across a larger number of units. By removing this flexibility, the cost of hardware (sound cards, graphics cards and motherboards at least) will rise and since Microsoft is in such a dominant position in the market, it means the cost increases will affect everyone including non-Vista users. With requirements to encrypt communications between devices, the cost in processing terms, and therefore power consumption, will also rise. In a world which is increasingly aware of the impact of the green impact of technology, this is counter-productive.

Not only are Linux and other users faced with potentially increasing hardware costs, the author of this document suggests that the specifications for the hardware need to be closed to be certified to work with Vista and thus reducing the likelihood that open source drivers could be developed making them incompatible with Linux operating systems for example.

Essentially, Vista’s new copy protection system means you can’t play legally purchased content (e.g. movies) with a legally purchased high quality monitor if it doesn’t support the copy protection standards.

If this wasn’t enough, Microsoft is employing a driver revocation system which allows it to disable any devices which ‘leak’ protected content (allow you to copy a movie for example) rendering parts of your PC as useless as a brick.

These are just some of the issues raised by this paper. There’s a summary of the issues on TheRegister for those too busy to read the full document:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/27/windows_drm_monstered/

It may not be obvious from the above, but I am a Microsoft fan. I like linux shells but I prefer Microsoft as a workstation OS. I like the way Microsoft software works and how predictable the features are (I’m not quite sure of the new IE7/Vista ideas but I won’t judge that yet). I have dabbled with OS X but I like Windows too much to switch. Will this be the catalyst for change in my position?

These two words are the most abused terms in broadband advertising. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) did publish an critical adjudication against Carphone Warehouse using “free forever” in its TalkTalk advertising, but there is still a lot of marketing material which is open to misunderstanding by naive consumers in particular as to the nature of the costs and limits of a particular product or service.

Let me be clear about this – There is no such thing as “free” or “unlimited” anything which doesn’t at the very least rely on the law of averages. Any company using these terms is relying on income from something which helps make particular options or features available at no additional cost. Usually they are suffixed by an asterisk or other reference to a footnote detailing the terms, or worse, text such as “Terms and conditions apply. See website for details”.
So why am I so wound up about this? – I view using these terms as being dishonest.. Let’s look at the word “unlimited” for a second. It means “without limit”. Therefore by definition “unlimited internet” means “internet without limits”. Now I can understand that it is not possible to run a service which is not contended (and thus limited in some way) but my issue is where the small print includes concepts such as a ‘Fair Usage Policy’ (which comes under various names including Acceptable Use Policy, Sustainable Usage Policy, etc.)

These policies effectively place limited on what is and is not acceptable, thereby rendering the product no longer unlimited. The honest service providers call these services ‘unmetered’. I am not suggesting that all products should employ charging by usage, but if they have limits in the form of FUP/SUPs, they should be clearly labelled as such. ‘Unmetered’ is understood to mean you won’t get a meter reading each month on how much you’ve used.

Recently, several broadband service providers have started offering ‘free broadband’. This is another term I taker issue with–It’s not really free.. you have to subscribe to some other service to qualify so in reality there is a cost. This is slightly less of an issue as it can be argued the broadband is free whether you take it or not, however I am quite concerned many users do not see past the headline when choosing a provider.

I recently ordered some Christmas presents from an online retailer who was using Initial City-Link to deliver them. This made me quite happy as I see them on average once a week at least for all sorts of deliveries so they usually don’t get the address wrong.

The package was scheduled to arrive on a morning delivery (pre 12:00) one day and I had to go out that afternoon. I was “carded” (they couldn’t deliver it and left a card saying “We called whilst you were away) at around 13:50 that afternoon, so I called the supplier who confirmed it was supposed to come that morning. They arranged for it to be re-delivered the next day although they didn’t promise it would be done that morning, but they said they would try.

The following day the morning and afternoon passed so I called the supplier after I could not reach City-Link myself other than an automated line which said they had tried to deliver it twice.. Their website still said it was in the van.. They had similar problems getting through to City-Link but I was lucky as they had one person on the phone with them and the rep who was helping me sent her colleague an Instant Message (IM) with my delivery reference and they confirmed it would be going back to the depot and I could collect it that evening.
So I went to the depot to collect it and sure enough they found the package. I mentioned they had never called that day and they first said it wasn’t on the van, then they checked their computer and said it had been on the van and they did try to deliver it.. I asked what time this was considering I was home all day and never heard a knock or had a card through the letterbox at which point she duly informed me “Well maybe they never got around to you..”

I wasn’t aware City-Link’s definition of a “delivery” is “trying to get around to you” but there we go.

Here’s a story I heard today:

A man walks to check-in for a flight, and the clerk asks him some questions..

Check-in Clerk: “Do you have any bags to check in?”
Traveller: “No”

Check-in Clerk: “Any hand luggage?”
Traveller: “No”

She then proceeds with the usual security questions..

Check-in Clerk: “Did anyone give you anything to carry on board with you?”
Traveller: “No”

Check-in Clark: “Did you pack your bags yourself?”
Traveller: “No”

The check-in clerk looks up as it wasn’t the answer she was expecting.. After thinking for a few seconds, she smiled and proceeded to hand him his boarding card and wish him a pleasant flight.

Following my discussion on social exclusion if Internet sites have to resort to micropayment charging for visitors, a comment asked if I believe that Internet access is a social right, like housing and food.

The modern economy is making increasing use of the Internet to lower transaction costs which seeks “Internet discounts” for everything from insurance services to banking benefits and accessing government services online. Even HM Revenue & Customs is giving financial incentives to companies who file annual employer returns electronically (with a view to making it compulsory for the remaining businesses – It already is for larger ones). The capability of the Internet to lower barriers to entry in markets, increase competition and increase access to information (a key requirement for a ‘perfect competition’ economy) is phenomenal and it is something that every part of society needs to be able to access.

I guess by that I am indeed arguing basic Internet access is a social right just like housing and food. In the modern economy, exclusion from this can restrict your career prospects, access to online learning material, etc. If on the other hand you’re asking me if playing online games, and downloading movies online is a social right, clearly the answer is no. I am therefore not arguing the government should be running a national UK Broadband Service, but that we should be conscious that the ability to access the Internet can have significant social benefits. Premium Internet access is still a luxury.

The question I was posing in my micropayments article was whether a trend towards usage charging might lead to exclusion of those who can only just afford the cost of accessing the Internet.

Running a web site that relies on advertising as its only source of income has presented some interesting challenges. Over time, various users have suggested that we should be offering subscriptions or taking donations as a way to fund the site, and maybe use this as an option to allow individuals to opt out of advertising.

Whilst there are no widely used micro-payment solutions around so the feasibility of such a system would still be questionable, it raised some concerns about impact on society if the net moves towards this system to replace advertising.

Let’s assume that when visiting an information website, you pay 5 pence (say 10 cents for the Americans) per month to access that site. Now this may be regarded by many as a wholly reasonable price, and everyone can afford 5p can’t they? Well yes maybe, but what if they visit lots of websites.. If the fee was based on usage of a site, then it would need to be higher. Maybe frequent users pay £1/month ($1.90).. but with a dozen sites that’s a significant income loss to those on very low incomes who could most benefit from the Internet.
Now some will argue that this would be a choice for users who can decide they will pay to not watch adverts, but my question would be, would advertisers be interested in targeting those who can’t afford to buy an opt-out from advertising anyway since their disposable income would be lower? I don’t know the answer to that, but I think it poses an interesting social exclusion question to any changes in how web sites are funded and we might find separate search engines for developing countries as they could not afford to pay the same rates as those in developed countries.