I’m Mike

Yesterday, Comcast came by to install their digital voice package at my apartment. Comcast has a special deal going on now: $24.95/month for 6 months, unlimited long distance. Skype’s even cheaper — $3/month for outgoing calls and $5/month for incoming (when they’re up). But here’s what I’m wondering: why’s it so cheap? Why is VoIP cheaper than a traditional plain old telephone service (POTS) line? Or, put another way, why is a POTS line more expensive than a VoIP line? Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve had “redesign blog” on my to-do list for more than a month now. Over the weekend I finally got around to doing something about it [screenshot]. The stock WordPress theme I’ve been using since I launched my blog is great, but I’ve noticed it showing up on more and more sites and I wanted something unique. The changes I made are evolutionary, not revolutionary. And I’m the first to admit that I’m not the best designer around, but I think it’ll do for now. Read the rest of this entry »

The upcoming spectrum auction that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to authorize in the next few weeks has pitted several major technology and telecommunications companies against one another. The current draft rules for the auction set aside some new spectrum (22MHz of the 60MHz up for auction) for an “open” network — unlicensed radio frequency spectrum that can be used by anyone, with a limited set of rules to prevent abuse of this “wireless commons.” Read the rest of this entry »

Google and Microsoft have been trading antitrust complaints over the past few months. Most recently, Google filed a confidential complaint with the Justice Department asking that Microsoft be forced to alter the desktop search functionality in Vista to better accommodate third-party search applications. Surprisingly, Microsoft quickly acquiesced to Google’s request, agreeing to modify Vista to address the concerns in a service pack scheduled for release at the end of this year. Read the rest of this entry »

I was cleaning out some files on my PC and came across a paper that I wrote for a philosophy class a few semesters ago. Not surprisingly, the philosophers I read had difficulty finding moral justification for our current Intellectual Property regime.

Briefly, the paper argues that Intellectual Property rights can only be justified as a “recipient rights.” A bearer of a recipient right is entitled to some reward, but it’s difficult to determine the form of the reward, or who the duty-bearer is (e.g. who should pay them). Since IP can’t be justified as anything but a recipient right, it is unethical for right-bearers (IP owners) to demand retribution from a particular individual. Thus I, as an individual, do not owe the RIAA anything. If I download an MP3 they cannot ethically demand payment from me (by suing me, for example).

You can download the paper here [HTML Version].