Well Done (0.00 / 0)

Thanks, now I may be able to explain this to my wife!

---

by: ArthurKC @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 23:27:21 PM UTC

THIS IS GREAT! (0.00 / 1)

He's right on every point. If we can open both of the airwaves, user and provider, our entrepreneurial class will quickly develop applications and points of integration that the corporate giants have not dreamed of.

The present barriers to entry are too great, but this could change all of that.

---

by: Michael Harold @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 23:28:44 PM UTC

To those that remember that far back... (0.00 / 0)

I like to ask people what they think the "internet" would be like if it had never been open and instead was a tightly controlled semi-cooperation of 4 providers - AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy and GEnie.

McCain down. Rudy Giuliani is next.

---

by: factbased @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 05:40:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pretty Good (0.00 / 1)

Pretty good video, matt. You might want to experiment with various techniques in terms of scripting the whole thing, even making cue cards, etc. This might help you structure the text to be delivered so it's easier for Ben (or whomever) to get each important point across, and also will make thins nicer when it's time to stitch it together.

Visual aids would be a huge help, but dealing with a one-day production schedule makes that hard. There are some interesting things you can do w/PowerPoint or Keynote that will let you make movies of what they do. Coming up with good pictures is hard, but they're worth 1000 words, as they say.

Anyway, practice makes perfect. Just keep making more.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

---

by: Josh Koenig @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 23:29:30 PM UTC

Hmmm (0.00 / 1)

First, I agree with Josh up above me about the video.  It needs a bit more editing tricks to make it more fluid, but it's a good job.

I am not convinced about the technical issues.  From all Apple has said, Cingular made significant changes to their system (especially the message viewing system) in order to make the features of the iPhone work.  Unless other carriers change their systems in order to accommodate the features on the iPhone, it will not work on their system as it does now on AT&T.  The guy said "to the best of his knowledge there are no technical reasons it won't work on other networks" or something like that.  I question his knowledge, and I think this is a big enough issue to at least dig into deeper.  The development of that technology is a significant investment for any carrier, and thus would not be directly available to anyone immediately.  Dingle could not use his iPhone on any other carrier as he does now because of this.

If I am wrong about this, then great.

As to the bigger issues - whooo hoooo!


-jason The UpTake

---

by: JasonB @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 05:15:20 AM UTC

No technical reason - iPhone is a GSM phone with GPRS/EDGE (0.00 / 0)

Those are well-defined standards and it would work just fine on other GSM networks with the right frequencies. The only nonstandard feature I've seen so far is the visual voicemail, which seems like a good idea, but hardly the main feature. Operators in the U.S. spend a lot of time evaluating phones and insisting the manufacturers tweak things, but that is mostly for branding and maximizing of revenue for the operator (e.g. disabling wifi, not allowing free ring tones, etc) - not for technical reasons.

McCain down. Rudy Giuliani is next.

---

by: factbased @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 05:26:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

great! (0.00 / 1)

That was the feature I was thinking of, so thanks for clarifying that.

If that feature is easily added to other carriers, along with any of the other new features, then my issue is resolved. And I do thank you for the information.

Oh and I currently have Verizon with the Razr V3, so I am WAY  too familiar with how Operators kill built in features, it does not please me in the least.


-jason The UpTake

---

by: JasonB @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 05:37:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good news and good video (0.00 / 0)

Ben was good. A bit of constructive criticism: explain Carterfone. It took me a while to search around and find out what that term was he kept using. And a good-natured nitpick - there's no backslash in savetheinternet.com/airwaves (exposed as a Windows guy!)

McCain down. Rudy Giuliani is next.

---

by: factbased @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 05:17:53 AM UTC

post url at end of video at beginning (0.00 / 1)

Good work on the video.  Only comment I have (production-wise) would be to show the savetheinternet.com url at the beginning of the video as well so folks can surf to that page while listening to your video. 

---

by: tomanjeri @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 05:32:22 AM UTC

*claps* (0.00 / 1)

Applause! Applause! For the iPhone hearing! For a congressman on our side! For Ben Scott!! For your editing job!! I would really like to see a video blog from Ben Scott on a regular basis. He just makes sense to me, even though I know it takes up a lot of everyones time to create and be dedicated to one. I really appreciate the education though. Cheers!

---

by: CarlySpeaks @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 05:54:47 AM UTC

Working around the telecom oligopoly (0.00 / 0)

Great video!

I would just like to point out how the discussion of consumer telecom options gets skewed and narrowed as a result of the excessive privatization and deregulation of the market that has occurred in the U.S.

Typically, there is an implicit assumption that we are wholly dependent on the carriers building out their networks over the portion of the spectrum they license from us, the public, and that we have no other option but to sign up for their services and use the devices they insist we buy from them on their portion of the spectrum.

While I am not an expert in this area, I believe there are other options besides trying to get a piece of the spectrum to build-out another more entrepreneurial and consumer friendly network.

For example, another, more technologically-sophisticated, consumer-friendly option would be for the U.S. government to create a multifunctional telecommunications backbone for the entire nation using the publicly-owned spectrum. All carriers could pay to use the backbone (which would finance its maintenance and upgrading) and they would compete to leverage it to the maximum through the devices and services they offer through it.

With such a backbone, there would be no problem porting a device over to another carrier, so this present discussion about the iPhone would be moot. Importantly, such a backbone could be designed to ensure that in an emergency, all the agencies in the emergency responder community (fire, police, etc.) could communicate with each other, which is not now the case in most areas of the country.

While it is nice to see Congressional representatives intercede on behalf of themselves and us consumers, I find the overarching grip that the telecom oligopoly has on the discussion and the alternatives limiting and disturbing.

I am all for the free enterprise system and the free play of the market and competition. But what we see here is a significant diminution of our options by virtue of the fact that the elephantesque telecom oligopoly is really an obstacle instead of a facilitator of the provision of the technologically-advanced services that we need. The U.S. is falling far behind the rest of the industrialized world because excessive privatization and deregulation in the U.S. is actually restraining trade and commerce instead of advancing it.

The best example of the inadequacy of the hodge-podge privatized system we have, and the disadvantages that derive from the lack of a nationwide backbone, is the everyday experience of U.S. consumers who find themselves in black-out zones in their own neighborhoods where their mobile phones go dead because their carrier's coverage is inadequate. These black-out zones can be found in densely-populated urban areas as well as isolated rural areas.

This pervasive defect in the U.S. telecom system, which has emerged as the result of extreme privatization and deregulation, is not only unacceptable and unnecessary from a technological point of view. It also constitutes a grave security risk for individuals who are caught in some type of emergency and at the same time find that they have no connectivity. Same for emergency providers trying to reach such individuals, not to forget individuals who had no connectivity to start with, as would be the case in rural areas that the carriers have chosen to skip over because their profit margins of doing business in these areas would be too low.

Since the telecom oligopoly has no incentive to solve this grave defect, a public debate needs to open with respect to solving it. One major option that should be in the forefront would be that of having the federal government step in to get it resolved, possibly through some kind of public /private partnership or by itself, if necessary. Making sure that we all have mobile phone security and connectivity wherever we are in the country should be a national priority.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 22:21:00 PM UTC