I’m sure I’m a minority here, but are URL shorteners (e.g. TinyURL) really a “business”?  Bit.ly raised $2m in funding for this?  What?

On the news that Twitter has switched URL shorteners, why isn’t Twitter doing this themselves?  Either by handling URL shortening directly, or even better, treating URLs properly with respect to contributing to the 140 char tweet limit.

I must be missing something.

Since we’re partially dependent on Time-Warner Internet access, I’ve had to pay more attention to bandwidth caps / metered broadband issues.   See some recent discussions in GigaOM, and the Washington Post.

Generally, I’m glad to pay extra for using a resource with (a) real scarcity, and (b) in a truly competitive environment.  But neither of these apply in most broadband cases.

First, bandwidth demand is growing quickly, but Moore’s Law is driving network capacity.  Our first Internet connection was a 64K DDS data circuit costing $400/month in 1992 (about $600 in today’s dollars).  Now, 20mbits is $50/month (and for FiOS, that’s artificially limited from much faster underlying speeds).  With price/performance increases in server and switch capacity, it’s difficult for providers to argue bandwidth is limited and costs are growing.

Second, most broadband providers are not operating in a truly competitive environment.  Regulatory and licensing hurdles make it difficult for new competitors to enter many markets, allowing  incumbent providers to exploit their positions for better profit margins.  Stated differently, any broadband provider with true competition wouldn’t be talking about bandwidth caps.

Finally, it’s frustrating this issue has gotten so much mind-share, when we need to be heading in the exact opposite direction.   We need policy and investment that brings the US nearer to the top in worldwide broadband penetration.   History will compare our national network  infrastructure to the Interstate Highway System:  strategic investments enabling fundamental advantages in business, production, defense, innovation, and quality of life.

For writing, here’s the approach I’ve found works best for me, by far:

• Clearly note the purpose & main points (1 to 5)
• Write the first draft as quickly as possible
• [Maybe] do a light editing pass
• Set aside for an hour/day/week
• Return, edit into shape, publish

Editing is where the real work happens, and I find it easier (and more enjoyable) than writing the first draft.  I’m a rabid fan of the Strunk and White School of Editing.

The blogosphere is aflutter with the woes of the newspaper industry.  I think most papers won’t make it, with the printed newspaper becoming as quaint as home milk delivery.

Newspapers are really in two different businesses that got fused together:  content and distribution.

The Internet is replacing proprietary distribution (i.e. printing newspapers).  The content side can’t stand alone because of increasing non-newspaper competition, and (I suspect) value subsidy from their proprietary distribution (e.g. what you paid for getting the news at your doorstep was subsidizing the newsroom).

Remember AOL:  the Internet killed the dialup business, and they didn’t shift content fast enough to be compelling without a captive dialup user base.

Cable companies & TV networks are next:  as bandwidths increase, users are starting to get their video on-line, instead of through proprietary cable and TV networks.  Over time, the “cable networks” will feel like the old TELNET network, and get disconnected like copper phone lines.

What’s the next business to have a proprietary distribution model blown up by the Internet?

If you extrapolate to a future where all information is on-line, how important is “knowing” vs having the ability to find what you need?

“Knowing” will always be important, especially when combined with experience.  I wouldn’t want to cross a bridge designed by someone who learned finite element analysis by reading Wikipedia.

But “finding” is an increasingly important skill, and we largely just assume people figure it out.   But when I watch people use Google (or other search engines), I see a huge range of skill — some search, go through page and page of results, and declare “I can’t find it”.  Others are adept at tweaking:  quoting key phrases, negating words to omit unwanted categories of results, doing site-specific searches, etc.

I think we need to start teaching the skill, and I’m noodling on the idea of teaching a short class (1-2 hours) on how to search with Google.

I sometimes use JDarkroom for writing.  It blanks out the screen, giving only monospaced text, letting you focus on words (not formatting, the clock, the weather, email, surfing, or blog reading).

But when I need to think, turning off the computer entirely and writing on paper seems to work best (I like the large squared Moleskine notebooks).  It goes everywhere, boots instantly, and never crashes.  Because my writing bandwidth is much lower than my typing bandwidth, I focus more on thoughts than words.

For creative thinking, I also find it helps to shake up my surroundings.  I like leaving the office and going to a restaurant, coffee shop, library, museum, etc.  I’ve even made excellent “think time” out of waiting at the dr’s office, waiting to pick up the car with new tires, etc.

Try scheduling some notebook time.

I got a big chuckle out of this article from CNN, about consumers canceling cable service and turning to the Internet for TV.

The analyst/pundit comments reminded me of the Internet naysayers from the mid 90s:

The brutal economy may motivate some consumers, like the Wynsmas, to switch to Web-based TV, but it won’t necessarily hurt the cable or satellite TV business, which has historically been recession-proof.

Yes, but this is the first time in history that consumers have a viable alternative to satellite and cable TV.  And, the alternative happens to be entirely on-demand.

And:

“The cable companies have invested billions of dollars to expand the footprint and reach of their services, and it will require a similar investment by the [Internet Protocol Television] players to catch up,” said Lewis, the technology consultant.

Not really:  cable companies spent billions building infrastructure, both for broadband/IP and for proprietary cable distribution.  Since IP is open access (in theory), the IP TV player don’t need to duplicate that investment — they can just ride on the back of it.

I love video chat, but I’m currently stuck with my dad where we can see his video but he can’t see ours (using Skype).  We know it works on our end.   My dad can’t figure out why it doesn’t work any more, and (debugging remotely) I can’t figure it out either.

I loved Skype when it first came out:   it was simple, punched through firewalls reliably, and had great audio quality.   Now, I feel like it’s devolved to the iChat / old Net Meeting experiences, where each session begins with 15 minutes of debugging (can’t connect, no audio/video, etc.)

I want a video chat client that “just works”, and works especially well when one of the participants isn’t that computer saavy:

• Rock-solid firewall traversal (e.g. no iChat “communcation errors”)
• Simple setup and config; eliminate all “advanced” options
• Remote debug of problems.  With permission, let me poke around the other computer’s chat configuration (e.g which USB device, audio settings, etc.).  If soemthing doesn’t work, give very specific and detailed error messages.  Bonus:  include screen sharing or at least screen snapshots.
• Great echo cancellation (modern PCs have the signal-processing horsepower) so nobody needs microphones headphones
• Dynamic quality settings for video and audio based on bandwidth.
• Pre-configuration option:   a way for me to configure a link, send to a friend for them to download and install, in a way that it’s intially configured to chat back to me.
• A test call that checks everything (like Skype’s echo123, but for video too).
• Launch and chat.  Support for individual desktop icons that initiate a video chat to a specific recipient.

I’m half-tempted to start an open/collaborative effort to build this.