Posted by Mike Bijon February 10, 2006
Gmail for Domains will likely turn out to be more expensive and have much more competition than suggested by Paul Kedrosky’s “Gmail for Domains: Oh-Oh Outlook”. Corporate bandwidth is still in short-supply and expensive. Microsoft’s Office Live doesn’t look to be a complete waste-of-space either.
Based on the amount of extra traffic created by the constant background refreshes of Gmail, I’m not so sure the economics of viewing email on a hosted, AJAX-enabled platform are all that good. The high costs of WAN bandwidth, in the US, and securing/filtering that traffic properly, will make Gmail for Domains much more cosly than most companies will initially expect. Nonetheles, the adoption rate of Gmail for Domains probably won’t be slowed. Any reaction to speed or cost issues will likely be after-the-fact, with a near-complete lack of attention paid to security and bandwidth by most SMBs.
The launch of Microsoft’s Office Live and what looks to be a decent hosted-email, -SharePoint/storage, -CRM platform will provide a good amount of competition for Gmail for Domains. The interface may be too-complicated, but the added collaboration features and Office Live’s resemblance to the already familiar Outlook, Outlook Express, and HotMail should make it very competitive. Of course, Microsoft’s graphic-laden interface is bound to be even more bandwith-hungry than Gmail but, again, that will just sow user-unhappiness and not slow adoption.
Posted by Mike Bijon February 03, 2006
…don’t make a lot of money in the process.
Craigslist is adding a $10 fee to New York apartment listings posted by brokers, but not to those posted by private “individuals”, beginning on March 1st. By instituting the fee Craig and the small staff at Craiglist primarily hope to improve the quality of their online apartment listings - though they will probably rack up a fair amount of income in the process.
It should seem obvious, but the novel concept of providing an excellent service with minimal fees is turning the world of both print and online classifieds on its head. If anything is actually an example of web2.0 - that’s it.
Posted by Mike Bijon February 02, 2006
Far better and less selfishly than I said it in End of Net Neutrality Points to Another Bubble - I Want QoS Before I Fund It, Jeff Chester reviews the effects of the telecom carriers commoditizing bandwidth usage and the effects on consumers in The End of the Internet?.
Chester’s article discusses both the changes in FCC policies that allow carriers to discriminate against the type, source, and destination of traffic and political moves to profile internet traffic and stop the construction of community wi-fi networks - without speculating to deeply on the effects such carrier-control will have. It is far more informative and less alarmist than many similar posts since Om Malik’s original note Slow Lingering Death of Net Neutrality?.
I’m beginning to think that the answer to many of these policy- and lobbyist-driven fights isn’t in fighting the regulation, but in performing an end-run past it. A few small carriers participating in an open exchange for bandwidth and network traffic (just like the oil market or the CBOT commodities market) would efficiently price bandwidth and keep networks open. It would likely be more expensive for corporations than their current long-term network contracts - but it would also keep prices below the premium levels the carriers want and encourage competition from smaller networks. I just wonder if the new “manage yourself” FCC would ever allow such an exchange.
Same-day Update:
Business Week has also picked up the story today, in Is Verizon a Network Hog?. It’s probably worth a read just because it’s a conservative, commerce-friendly publication that’s lightly taking the side of Google and Amazon (though they may have been the only companies involved who offered quotes) - although the article presents very little new information and no editorial on the situation.
Good Morning Silicon Valley has no mention of network neutrality or premium services, but We thought you said spend the $200 billion on “dark fiber” details that $200 billion in tax breaks were given to telecom carriers to upgrade consumer, last-mile connections. The “reference” sites for the $200 billion figure seem awfully spammy to me and the 1996 Telecom Reform, Wikipedia article lacks details, so I’m unclear on the actual terms of those tax breaks. I do know that I’m still lacking connectivity greater than 1.5 mbps (as is everyone not in a Fios fiber or 20 mbps cable beta area) and that, if true, this point could carry a lot of weight against the telecom carriers lobbying for stricter control of traffic on their networks.
Mike Bijon: I work as senior technology manager and technologist for 
