Album Reviews

1————>3—————>5
Terrible——————>Fantastic

5
Yeah Yeah Yeahs Show Your Bones
Voxtrot Mothers, Sisters, Daughters & Wives EP
Suicide Suicide

4
Beastie Boys Same Old Bullshit
Pop, Iggy Idiot, The

3
Bowie, David Heathen
Bowie, David Reality
Disney Pirates of the Caribbean Disneyland Ride Soundtrack
Noto, Alva and Ryuichi Sakamoto Insen
Rhythm & Sound See Mi Yah
Velvet Underground Peel Slowly And See
Digital Underground Body-Hat Syndrome, The
Flanger Outer Space/Inner Space

2
Architecture in Helsinki In Case We Die
DJ Spice and Twisted Individual Five Knuckle Shuffle
DJ Traxx Live @ Blue Star Lounge (20060215)
Rempe, Frank 40th Birthday Mix

1
DJ Green Lantern Alive On Arrival
Up Set, The Up Set, The
Blunt, James Back To Bedlam
Various Artists Riddim Driven
Bad Plus, The These Are The Vistas

Microsoft’s Presence Initative

I attended VON 2006, a trade show focused on VoIP from an enterprise perspective. I have an upcoming article or two regarding the show, which I will post on the site, but for now I wanted to comment on Microsoft’s presence initiative.

For those unfamiliar to “presence,” it is one of the latest buzzwords in tech. Basically, presence is a sophisticated version of “Away” or “Available” as used/found in IM clients. It has some fantastic potential, but remains something mostly in the works and used to attract VC.

At VON, a Microsoft rep provided a half-hour presentation on their presence, IM, and database iniativies, all of which seemed to take aim at Google, AIM, Yahoo!, and consumer-level services. As per usual, Microsoft speaks a grand game but probably will not deliver on their promises (it is not alone; Motorola’s “Seamless Mobility” initiative and Yahoo!’s music and IPTV personalization plans have been significant disappointments).

At the core of Microsoft’s efforts is a subscription-based model for contacts. You have your online identity (e.g., IM screenname) and you allow people to subscribe at different levels, such as friends, family, coworkers, and hobby partners. At any time, they can unsubscribe or, and this is what was emphasized, you can unsubcribe users (more precisely, re-subscribe them to different categories, including lower status ones). It was repeatedly emphasized that if you decided you did not like someone, you could move that person out of your inner circle outward toward less personal/connected circles.

While there was some cool components to Microsoft and its 13 billion strong database of online identities (nervous?), the notion that people would feel free to downgrade people’s relationship status is misguided. People are and have always been concerned about hurting others feelings, and this includes downgrading relationships. Whether it is not breaking up with someone or putting up with a former-friend’s behavior in the Externet or being torn over how to remove people from your blogroll on the Internet, people do not feel comfortable pushing people away.

If people dilute the value of their relationships, then the relationship-centric subscription model Microsoft is pursuing becomes significantly less valuable. After all, information designed for a specific group of friends will become moderated so that the undesired people do not find out about ongoings, etc. As a result, we can expect Microsoft’s initative to lead to another layer of well-intentioned but poorly-implemented/designed Internet novelty.

Public Broadcasting’s Advertising Initative

Recently, PBS affiliate CET announced it would offer VOD, including paid advertising with it. According to the article, it isn’t the only PBS affiliate doing so, as Oregon Public Broadcasting already supports its Web efforts with advertising and PBS.org is considering such a move.

Representative of a larger issue, the PBS affiliates are able to advertise on their Web sites but not TV broadcasts because of FCC regulations that do not cover the Internet. This lack of scope to FCC regulations is not new and is at the heart of the telecom vs. cableco vs. third-party battles regarding net neutrality and duopoly concerns. Simply put, telecoms are trying to receive favorable regulatory rulings to expand into the cable TV market and cable companies are working for favorable regulations in their quest to snag telephone business via VoIP. Both have been successful in their endeavors although their core business have suffered as a result.

Besides nicely illustrating the situation, it raises an long-running concern regarding the encroachment of corporate sponsors and presence in public broadcasting. I will let others slug that battle out, although I am typically found on the side of increased public funding for basic research, public broadcasting, education, and other non-murderous activities.