Category — Random Ramblings

Many developing countries have adopted an unlikely form of technology, which many take for granted. Where it was once expensive to run a power-grid, let alone a phone line people now are able to communicate without wires with the use of cell phones. These areas have skipped many technological steps and have taken a giant leap in order to be able to communicate and do business like the rest of the world does.  It’s hard to imagine how integral the ability to communicate is to daily life. Sure it makes the world a smaller place, but sometimes that’s needed in order to survive in an ever expanding technological world.

Lara Farrar describes in a CNN article how a cell phone has transformed a Ghanaian man’s small taxi business. He is able to get calls to be picked up at any time from any anywhere. He is able to be on-call at all hours, and thus never losing on a business opportunity. Families can stay in touch easier from long distance, and farmers can keep track of market prices a town over in order to keep from losing on potential profit. It’s hard to dispute that the wide acceptance of a cheap, mobile, wireless, device could be a bad thing. It won’t transform a developing country into a modern high-tech society over night, and it is of course no substitute for good education and good health care systems. But it helps.

One of the challenges that faced cell phone adoption in developing countries was the requirement for electricity in order to charge phones. Many of these places have scarce and non-dependable energy resource, and thus driving the cost of owning a cell phone up. Samsung has recently started selling a reasonably priced solar charging phone called the Solar Guru. It has all of desired basic features of a modern cell phone including an FM radio, MP3 ring tones, games, and a torch light (a useful feature I had on an old phone that I am saddened does not appear on a lot of newer phones). This phone costs about $60 and can run for 5-10 minutes of talk time with just one hour of sunlight. It’s incredible how something that comes in no scarcity in many developing farming communities can be used to bring vital communication to places where once people had to travel to neighboring towns just to charge a cell phone.

Samsung is one of the few who attempts to bring cell phones to new markets where there is seldom a competitor. Its simply good business. Out of this there are sure to be competitors who will be able to offer more at a cheaper cost. Many of us in the US complain of cell service providers taking advantage of the consumer. This is the only downside that I can see with the potential boom in cell phones in poor developing countries. I fear that the cut-throat competition that thrives in cell service providers may attempt to get the best of economically week societies. What would be a preventative solution? Many have already adopted a pay as you go type plan in these places. Maybe if the trend continues in this direction, consumers will be safe from the communications giants that wring many modern consumers into contracts that exploit.

Further Reading

• CNN – Africans get upwardly mobile in cell phone boom
• Green Technology Daily - Will solar speed up emerging cell phone revolution
• Developments.org - Mobile phone revolution

Capitalism is known for its consumer driven economy. It creates competition and therefore encourages innovation and low cost. The consumer ultimately decides on what is an acceptable price and product quality. In these modern times with booming technology we are starting to see a rising trend that has somehow been allowed to exist against the common scene of the common consumer. Vendor lock-in has slipped under the radar as a Trojan horse without causing alarm and is now wreaking havoc and locking consumers and their wallets to monopolized prices all while squashing any and all competition.

How did this happen? Sometimes disguised as product loyalty, Apple sells its hard ware sporting an image. What happens when that shiny MacBook breaks? Can owners of broken hardware bring it to a third party specialist who can fix any hardware that follows standards in best practices in the market? No, consumers must 9 times out of 10 bring it to an Apple store, so that an Apple technician can fix the problem. You bought an Apple product, now you have no choice but to come back for extra service, whether it is an upgrade or extension of service. (Note the irony in that Apple is now locked into a strangling contract with AT&T.)

The initial investment into a company or product ultimately makes smaller choices of upgrades and additions cheaper to stay with the vendor than to change. The next thing the consumer knows, their entire “owned” suite of products (whether it be computer software, hardware, cell phone service, etc.) is with a single vendor. The consumer has essentially dug themselves into a hole of brand loyalty intentionally or not and is therefore forced to continue to financially feed the monster. Where does the cycle end and more importantly how does it hurt capitalism as a whole?

As I have stated earlier, capitalism thrives on innovation and the competition. Small business is a risk. There is no sure thing with a start up. There is less money to throw around, and this causes small business to stay innovative an ahead of the curve. This is its ace in the hole and the only thing it has to fight bigger companies. Large companies have their resources at their disposal; products can be created faster and cheaper. Ultimately the savings can be passed down to the consumer. Small business’s job is to challenge large companies with its innovation. Large companies’ jobs are to create competitive prices for the small business to beat. Thus business swings back and forth as David beats Goliath and vice versa on a regular basis. In the end, consumers win. They get the best of both worlds.

What is happening with vendor lock-in trends is that large companies are forcing their product, at a price they decide is fair on a consumer. The consumer must play along, or pay the price of breaking the cycle. Breaking the cycle means giving up their brand for a lesser known brand that offers innovation at a higher cost. The cost being: throwing away an initial investment into a vendor lock-in type product on top of the cost of investment into the smaller brand’s product.

It’s easy to see how the consumer is getting the tail end of the deal, but it goes beyond cost. Innovation suffers because small business suffers. It’s a snowball effect that creates a standstill in these fast moving technological times. It’s apparent that the problem exists, but there is no easy answer. Open source is starting to get more attention than it has in the past, but it only applies to software. The best way to change the current trends in business is to let the consumer’s money talk. In the end, the US is still run by capitalism. Money is the only language that capitalism understands. We won’t see a change until consumers wise up to the vendor lock-in gift and make it more profitable for business to compete rather than bully.

Imagine (if you will) a place where you could be tracked when you traveled. The government kept records of who you are along with the most sacred personal documents that keep you unique and grant you democratic power. All of this information would be tracked on a small, convenient card that you would keep in your wallet. Easy to fit into the palm of your (or someone else’s) hand. Does this make you feel safe? Does it conjure up realistic visions of theft? Does it sound like the beginning of countless films in which someone if framed or has no identity? These types of scenarios may not be too far off for us citizens of the United States.

That may sound a bit paranoid, but the US is currently trying to pass a bill called the PASS ID ACT. It essentially takes the asks state governments to take the power and responsibility of keeping track of people away from the state and bring it to a federal level. The requirements for obtaining this ID are higher than that for a state driver’s license in that it requires and electronically stores identification information. In other words, it’s a one stop shop for identity thieves.

The Real ID Act passed in May 2005 on the coattails of a bill to increase funding for American troops in Afghanistan. The costs for implementation of the ID’s was unrealistic, and no state agreed to invest. Now the PASS ID ACT is an update if not a rewrite to the Real ID Act. The PASS ID ACT limits the official uses for which the ID can be scanned and makes it less expensive to implement. Ultimately, it’s the same thing.

Riding the post 9/11 paranoia we are seeing decisions being made that attempt to make people feel safer. This type of ID is harder to obtain and harder to forge. It’s supposed to make us feel better about the people around us. It can act as an alibi for or against crimes in that the scanning of the ID can save time/location information. If we think about it, what is the price for this empty feeling of security? As the social security rises, privacy and risk for identity theft raises at the same degree. The people who would attempt to pose as someone else at the expense of the law will not be deterred by this. If anything, it drives up the price of stolen identification on the black market.

The only realistic benefit that I can see to this Act is that people whose driver’s licenses are revoked for DUI or any number of reasons will not be able to cross a state line and simply get a new one. If the PASS ID ACT is the solution for this problem, then we are using a fire hose to put out a flame. The issue can be fixed by looking at how we handle criminal charges and communication between states. Throwing money at the problem is probably the worst solution anyone could think of (especially in these fiscally troubling times.)

On that note, if we are looking to see stability in the US economy anytime soon the PASS ID ACT would certainly not move us in the right direction. Forcing states to invest into new, untested technology could prove to be nothing but a waste. Not to say that new technology is bad. In fact I whole heartedly support the use and innovation across the board for usable technology. With that comes fiscal responsibility, which the PASS ID act does not seem to demonstrate.

Further Reading:

• Law Blog – Real ID, Fake ID, Pass ID – What’s Up in the Air with a National Identification Card
• Center for Democracy and Technology – CDT Testifies on Reevaluating REAL ID Act
• Open Congress – S.1261 – PASS ID Act
• Electronic Frontier Foundation – PASS ID: REAL ID Reanimated