DISQUS

I'll b e doing a short talk at VON.x in San Jose on Real World Impact of Social Media. it will be on multiple live-streams via QIK (I think 4 at this point). The talk will demonstrate a real world example of a success story, and there will be more to follow afterwards.

Chris,

I have a social networking success story that I can't share broadly right now. It's sort of a special event that's going to happen at VON. That's one reason I sked if you were going to VON. But it once that happens it will be widely shared. ;-)

Actually I've been using Skype since two months after it was released. I use it almost every day at this point. I'm almost always online on Skype somewhere or another. I'm just not always visible. The truth is that Sheryl and I typically have a Skype channel open between us about 6 hours a day.

I've never felt Techmeme added value. It was simply a noise aggregator. This just bears out that opinion.

Richard,

I don't often comment on net neutrality because it's become a rather boring issue of flogging for me. Your comment at the end - It’s the height of arrogance for people unschooled in packet network engineering to denounce engineers for telling the truth, but that arrogance is the essence of net neutrality advocacy. - struck a chord because it's an argument I've had with some of those folks more than once. It's also an argument they quickly back away from. I've given up on pointing out their misconceptions because banging my head on that wall merely gives me a headache.

Mostly just wanted to say thanks for keeping a view of reality in the discussion. I think it's a pointless discussion and a lose-lose proposition. I wish it would just face away myself.

Thanks Richard. I don't want to paste the response I just left back here as I feel like I'm spamming duplication. I just skimmed the comments about SMS and need to read them thoroughly and go check that other link mentioned.

SMS is so interesting because in many ways it demonstrates how backward we are in the US, especially the adult population. When SMS takes off here, it wll be huge. It's already a huge global market with revenues that the IM folks just won't ever see.

Richard, didn't know if you'd make it back to see my response to yout thoughtful comments or not, so I dropped over here. I'll copy my comment from those comments back here. I confess that I don't often talk to people I feel really understand the nuance of all the technical, social and political issues surrounding the evolution of telecom-related technologies. As a result, I often shoot from the hip, and my thoughts don't come out fully developed or quite as intended. The post you commented on is surely one of those. Anyway, here's what I said over there.

First to Netheads and Bellheads. I agree the terms both carry negative connotations. But they’re well understood. I could have said circuit-switchers and packet-switchers, but that’s less valid. I could have said “telecommuncations industry” (even using legacy) and ISPs, but that’s not really valid and overlooks all the CLECs crushed by the telcos. I picked those terms because they create a specific perception, although you’re right, I could have done better.

Interesting also because I don’t know which I am 17 years with AT&T living through divestiture firsthand. Really odd because I built and managed the largest StarLAN anyone had ever seen on the planet for a time. Yes, 1 Mbps coaxial. Back in the day. I’ve been a system architect for voice and dat netwotrks, packet and circuit. I full appreciate Erlang-B traffic measures, the busy hour and the nuance of voice systems, but I’ve designed global packet networks too. In a sense I am neither Bellhead or Nethead, or some hybrid of the two in some fashion.

I agree that today the people I mentioned, Jeff Pulver, David Isenberg and Tom Evslin are as much mouthpieces and marketers of a cause as anything else. Although David did work in a technical role in Bell Labs years ago. I use them as examples of voices crying out for change. And I feel they sometimes cry out too much rather than bring about change by engaging in the process. That was my real point.

Technologist who view the big picture and see through the sham of net neutrality and such, need to be encouraged to act as influencers in the politics of the telecommunications environment more. The telcos of old know how to influence politics to their benefit. They do it every day. The “other side,” (are they the progressives of technologoy with the major telcos being the fundamentalists?), seems too often to try and influence change by talking louder. We, the “Netheads” for lack of a better term, doa lousy job of teaching courting, and leading the political power base where we want them to be. It seems to easy to stand on the sidelines of politics and shriek “you just don’t get it” in their direction. Easier than engaging and changing how they think.

Ok,it’s still early here and I haven’t quite worked ou tmy thoughts. Need more coffee and have a meeting to run to. I want to think on this some more. One of these days I’ll articulate my thoughts more clearly.

Thanks again for taking the time to comment and give me something to noodle around with. I really appreciate it.

Kudos to Microsoft for going forward with a release out of cycle from the "patch Tuesday" routine. That was warranted. But as much credit goes to SANS for the pressure on Microsoft to do this. If SANS hadn't been as vocal about it, it would not have rolled early. SANS reputation added pressure to Microsoft to perfom, and kudos to MS for stepping up and showing they can when the pressure is on.

ceejayoz, that would be the Dense Definition Web. Because from there we could move up to the Ultra Dense Definition Web.