What, no blue frilly front shirt?

This reminds me of when the web took off in the mid 90’s. People would say to me “I am on the Internet.” They meant that they used a single application (at that time the world wide web). They had no comprehension of the underlying infrastructure, nor, more importantly did they care. I mentioned this because I think it is still true today – most Internet users do not understand the infrastructure, they just want their applications ( for example browser-based applications: such as YouTube, or Facebook or client based applications such as Yahoo Messenger or Skype) to run faster (and be free).

At the infrastructure level, the struggle has always been in defining a viable business model and allocating the costs. Dial-up Internet access had a major negative impact on the telco’s because it vastly exceeded the telco’s CO connect time assumptions but did not provide the telco’s with any additional revenue. This is where the telco’s learned their lesson about controlling the Internet delivery infrastructure.

In order to clearly define Internet policy, lets focus the discussion on delivery infrastructure which, simply stated, consist of an IP address, TLD service, and a physical connection. (All other capabilities, from email to web to Skype, are services made up of bits that come and go via this infrastructure. Further, there is no technical requirement for an infrastructure provider to offer a data service or for a service provider to maintain an infrastructure.) Also, to help simplify, let’s separate the last mile component of the infrastructure from the backbone.

The goals of the last mile infrastructure are:
•Deliver bits faster and cheaper than was delivered in a preceding time period.
•To be reliable
•To be ubiquitous
•To have a fixed price to the consumer

Ironically, this capability is what the original Internet Service Provider delivered. They took existing telco voice infrastructure and added value by getting bits to the customer. They provided speed by deploying the latest modem technology and by faster and better connections to the backbone. (The telco’s, along with everyone else from Bechtel to Southern Pacific, were in the backbone business laying fiber.) Only when equipment was needed in the CO such as DSLAMs did the telco’s (along with the cable companies) really get into the end user business. Of course, the CLECs help drive this transition.

Given the requirements stated above, what are some possible viable business models?
•Government provided:
oSince the focus is on the last mile, this would have to be local governments
oPayment is via taxes or user fees
•Last mile infrastructure-only companies
oWhat is the competition they keeps the services viable and up-to-date?
oWould need a guaranteed return to encourage investment
•Regulation
oA revised version of the 1986 Telecommunications Act?
oCould require the divestiture of the infrastructure or a creation of regulated and non-regulated services by a telco.

The intensity of the debate is driven by the fact that while large vested interests want a deregulated market, it not possible. A market model is not viable because the market is fettered by the simple fact that there is a huge barrier to entry, physical access. And, vertical integration (which is the telco’s model) is not effective either. Does anyone want five infrastructure companies running wires to their house. Do we want the telco’s completely controlling access to content that may compete with their content?

Due to the size and scale of the U.S. consumer market, a mixture of the three approaches will be needed to reach the goals in a reasonable time frame. Trying to select single policy would take far too long to put into place. To be clear, the position of this blog is regulated last mile infrastructure. The backbone and content services markets are both unfettered and should be determined by a market model. With a level infrastructure playing field, the backbone and content competitive intensity would deliver benefit to consumers even faster than those received in recent history.

Brad, I see two issues here: Disclosure: if there is a financial interest, disclose (In your case, you received a $1,072 in referral fees.) The amount doesn’t matter. Imho, quibbling about the amount is a slippery slope.

I don’t think the bookstore comparison is on point because you are comparing offline and online when the comparison should be between an online sales site to an online review site. True, the bookstore does not explicitly state its financial interest. However, it is not required because the interest is so strongly presented implicitly, i.e., the presence of pricing and the offer to sell. This is true for Barnesandnoble.com and well as for Barnes and Noble in the Forum. Disclosure is required when the arrangement is not clear or, more importantly, could influence the information presented – regardless of whether the channel is online or offline.

The second issue is privacy: As I understand it, you are: a) capturing user information and, b) covered under Amazon’s privacy policy since it is coming from Amazon. However, I believe anyone engaged in capturing my habits should have a privacy policy in place for me to agree to. This policy does two things: 1) it lets me know you are capturing data (and I would probably want to know how which would lead to the Amazon affiliation) and 2) it informs me of your data sharing policy. (This enables me to avoid giving you personal information or avoid your site if I disagree.)

On more abstract level, I believe your post is about building trust online. Disclosure and privacy policies are a way to build trust, which is the core of almost all business transactions. The real challenge for an online business is to build the level of trust that the corner store has (or had) from their physical proximity. No one wants to buy from a dog on the Internet.

Just saw this...Hope you are enjoying your post Marathon wind down. Given that the weather is pretty much the same in large parts of the south, I a betting you had the same weather I did in Atlanta. Good day for a run, especially if it was a flat course.

Thanks for letting me know.

BTW, I mentioned you in my new blog: The Technology WeatherStation (www.cschooler.com). Keep up the good blogging!

Did you ever figure out who perpetrated this attack? Was there any attempt at getting some financial gain from you?