Friday, February 23, 2007
Telus About It
The big story in Canada: Telus was selling pay-per-porn over its wireless network, the Archdiocese of Vancouver complained, and now the company has backed down.
A few observations:
A few observations:
- The National Post's Colby Cosh describes mobile phones as "an attractive pipeline for prurience in households where the PC and the TV are shared, or for anyone who worries that his browser history may be monitored." This tells me that nobody's using the "Fast User Switching" capabilities in Windows XP or Mac OS X, which ostensibly let people share a single computer. That's probably because of the "What, do you have something to hide?" response you can expect from the spouse to whom Fast User Switching is proposed.
- As a "pipeline for prurience," a mobile device can be used for storage as well as display. Virtually any device (e.g. iPod) with a USB connection can act as a private repository for images or movies. Put a password on the device or the files, and it's secure. The user could plug the device into any computer, unlock the files and access the desired images without leaving any traces. Absent connectivity, loading mobile devices with porn requires access through an Internet-enabled computer. But once you have an Internet-enabled personal mobile device with sufficient storage, you have an ideal mechanism for managing private files, including adult-oriented content. Consequently, the "it's a small screen, nobody would ever use it anyway" argument is a red herring. Even a small device can light up the big screen.
- Telus and the other wireless carriers have brought this problem upon themselves with their limited devices, obsolete development platforms and restrictive policies. If they were simply common carriers rather than content providers, they could step back and say, "We're just the carrier, we don't control the content." By putting themselves in the way as content gatekeepers, they leave themselves open to all sorts of bad PR.
- This paper on Wireless Net Neutrality by Tim Wu describes the deadweight economic loss from the current arrangement. For example, I can't write a decent piece of software for a mobile phone without getting the phone company's permission. As the paper describes, if I want to write software for the Web, it may cost me $20/month for a Web host before I'm open for business worldwide. But if I wanted to write software for a cell phone, I'd have to wait months for approval or denial of my idea, buy my way onto every network in the country, cut a deal with each provider to serve up my code, limit the functionality based on the carriers' various business models, and share the profits. If the wireless companies would simply do a good job at being a common carrier, and let the market do what it does best, the levels of innovation would be astounding. Based on Tim Wu's arguments, I'll bet this is going to be an active public policy debate over the next year or so.
- Aside from the phone company, who's going to be against Wireless Net Neutrality (WNN)? Based on the Telus kerfuffle, I'd venture to say that the talking point will be, "WNN = Porn." If the phone companies don't control the content on the networks, then the airwaves will be humming with millions of flesh-colored 0s and 1s, to be collected and furtively squirreled away on the mobile devices of sex addicts for later perusal on their sub-$1000 hi-def televisions.
- So, did Telus pick a fight with the Catholic Church in order to lay the groundwork for its upcoming PR battle?
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
