Thursday - Nov 24, 2011
“…it’s important to note that the browser is designed to be somewhat behind the state of the art, and [it] makes up for it by its reach.”
- Peter-Paul Koch, mobile platform strategist
When you think of the word “Internet,” what immediately comes to mind? Perhaps it’s your favorite website. Maybe you think of a social media tool like Facebook. For others the Internet is synonymous with ideals like freedom of expression and freedom to information. Those in the tech industry may talk about concepts like voice over IP or organizations like the W3C. And on occasion, someone may respond with a rare correlation: the Web browser.
Yes, the humble Web browser — utilized by most every person who has anything to do on the Internet — is regularly overlooked, not because it’s useless, but rather because it’s ubiquitous. For all but those without an Internet connection, one of the most used programs aside from an email client is a browser. As cloud-based applications and the Web-based Gmails of the world continue to see growth, the browser is becoming more integral to online activities than ever.**
Take for example the growing number of online services at your fingertips. You can pay your credit card bill online. You can order flowers, make hotel reservations, buy plane tickets, and manage your bank account from the Internet. Want to create and share spreadsheets or text documents online with cloud-based Google Docs? Most if not all of these activities require an important piece of software: the Internet browser. Choosing which browser you use to do these activities can sometimes be nerve-racking, however.
At their core, most Web browsers are the same. The standard browser allows you to go to your home page, go back a page using the “Back” button, and bookmark a site for future use. This sort of functionality is expected no matter the browser. Of course, this inevitably leads to the question “with so many similar options out there, how does one decide which browser to use?”
For those who are relatively new to Internet technology, the answer is usually this: choose one that’s both well-supported and stable. This typically means using Microsoft’s Internet Explorer or Apple’s Safari browser. These two browsers have long been a part of the industry, and despite any criticism they receive, they are supported and stable browsers that an Internet newbie needs while learning to use the ‘net.
Yet change is always occurring in the browser industry. Take for example the recent news that when combining both mobile and desktop markets, the behemoth that was Internet Explorer has now fallen below 50 percent market share, compared to its former glory of over 95 percent in 2004. What’s taking Internet Explorer’s place? According to the same report Google’s Chrome and Apple’s Safari browsers are chomping up market share. Mozilla’s Firefox browser has also had an impact. Why? They tout rapid page loads, standards compliancy, and quality Web rendering; Internet users are being won over in the process. These improvements — coupled with greater support — signify more powerful and stable options for not only those new to the ‘net but also to long-time veterans looking for a change.
Safari in particular has garnered many converts, not just in the desktop market but also in the mobile browser market, which brings up another important point about Web browsers as vital Internet tools: mobile devices are changing how we utilize the Internet, and with these mobile devices come new methods of browsing. The mobile market is booming, so much so that now 25 percent of the U.S. population is using a smartphone as their primary device to browse the Internet.
This sort of adoption means greater demand for mobile Web browsers. Enter Safari, Google’s Android browser, and Opera’s Mini/Mobile browsers. Even upstarts like the Dolphin browser — which recently surpassed 10 million users — are seeking to bring new ways to view Internet content to smaller screens.
What does all this mean for you, the reader? The Web browser on your desktop or mobile device may seem as ubiquitous as the bathroom in your dwelling, but your browser shouldn’t be dismissed as a static mean to an end. Rather, the Web browser should be your friend, which grows and changes with a growing and changing Internet. Why not:
* Try a new browser for a few months and see if you like it. Did you know most browsers allow you to install add-ons and extensions to make your online experience more enjoyable? Examples include the popular Adblock Plus for Firefox, Chrome, and other browsers; CleanPage for Internet Explorer; and Shareholic for most major browsers.
* Did you know that the ancient Internet Explorer 6 is still used by 7.5 percent of the world’s Internet users? If your parents are using it, participate in Update Your Parents’ Browser Day on Friday, November 25.
Most of all, remember that the humble Web browser is your travel companion on your journey across the wide expanse of the Internet; treat it well.
Further reading:
* Chrome Extensions
* Firefox Add-ons
* Internet Explorer Add-ons
* Opera Add-ons
* Safari Extensions
** To be fair, despite the strong growth of the likes of Gmail and Hotmail, the folks at CampaignMonitor are reporting that (according to their internal numbers) market share for Web-based email surprisingly lost about four percent of its market share from May ’09 to May ’11, likely due to both the exodus of users from AOL and Yahoo! Mail and the rapid growth of the mobile email client.
Photo via Johan Larsson, Flickr Creative Commons
Thursday - Nov 10, 2011
Two stories have been playing out recently involving the expansion of broadband access and usage in the U.S. Let me touch on them both briefly and then discuss them together in further detail.
The potentially good:
On October 27 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to overhaul an antiquated telephone subsidy plan which first began in 1934. By spending the next six years transitioning the funds from the controversial Universal Service Fund, subsidies to telephone carriers will likely disappear in favor of a new Connect America Fund.
This new fund will go towards a vigorous expansion of “broadband build-out to the 18 million Americans living in rural areas who currently have no access to robust broadband infrastructure.” Though it’s incredibly early, cautious optimism is due, with an array of potential future benefits to some Americans.
The potentially not so good:
On November 9 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced the expansion of a pre-existing Comcast program that provides low-cost broadband Internet service to qualifying low-income households. Comcast’s “Internet Essentials” program was introduced on September 20 as part of an agreement with the FCC concerning its merger with NBC Universal. The newly-proposed expansion would involve most of the country’s major cable providers. All would adopt similar aspects of Comcast’s program in their own tailored-made programs, which wouldn’t receive an investment of federal funds.
There’s a hitch, however. The qualifications for the program would likely be so archaic that few U.S. residents would be affected positively for the long-term.
—–
There’s no doubt that the U.S. needs greater broadband expansion. The common refrain for years has been that the U.S. lags far behind other countries in adoption and infrastructure, with an FCC report earlier this year stating that broadband access is only getting marginally better compared to previous years. Recent news out of Alaska and Idaho has further emphasized the need for rural broadband access across the United States. The FCC is betting that the recently announced Connect America Fund will help. And to be honest, it’s difficult to imagine broadband access not being positively affected with the transferal of funds allocated to now ubiquitous phone access subsidies to more sparse Internet access subsidies. The fund would essentially have to be mismanaged, though it wouldn’t be a first.
Conservatives are already deriding the new fund, however. “By subsidizing rural broadband, the FCC is attempting to offset the additional costs of deploying technology to communities with low population density,” said Diane Katz and Luke Welch in a recent article on conservative mouthpiece The Foundry. “But those costs reflect the realities of rural life, and it is simply wrong to force city dwellers to pay for the choices made by rural residents.”
Despite their argument, data by the Pew Internet and American Life Project shows that broadband adoption in rural areas* has more or less kept pace with suburban and urban adoption rates since 2006. This would seem to indicate that broadband saturation hasn’t occurred yet in rural communities. The same research also showed that of those who don’t go online, 21 percent don’t do it because the price is prohibitive.** This leads me to talk about the second bit of news from the FCC dealing with low-cost broadband Internet service.
While it sounds like major cable providers offering $10 per month broadband service would go a long ways towards appeasing the previously mentioned 21 percent of non-users, the details reveal the stunt to add up to little more than a positive PR ploy, one that again fails to address what many view as the major problems with high prices: the lack of competition in the U.S. broadband industry. It’s likely the details of the participating providers’ low-cost service will be similar to Comcast’s requirements for eligibility, which are:
• must have at least one child receiving free school lunches through the National School Lunch Program
• must not be a current Comcast Internet subscriber and must not have been a subscriber within the last 90 days
• must not have an overdue Comcast bill or unreturned equipment
Sadly these requirements likely mean few will actually be able to take advantage, as Karl Bode notes for DSLReports.com:
“Once you’ve eliminated those who don’t qualify for the school lunch program, eliminated those who already have service (not uncommon even in poor homes), and eliminate those who also owe Comcast money (also obviously not uncommon in poor homes), how many customers will Comcast actually wind up having to serve at the $10 price point?”
Brian Stelter of The New York Times rightfully points out another aspect of the program that fails to address the long-term goals of the FCC. Stelter notes that for those who do qualify, the $10 price point will only be good for two years, leaving low-income customers to either discontinue their service or pay beyond their means to continue with the service.
“The price is akin to an on-ramp for new customers,” said Stetler, “with the hope being that they will decide to pay more for access once they have had it for a while.”
What seems strange here is the assumption that low-income households will suddenly have additional money to cover the price increase two years later. If the FCC is counting on wider broadband adoption to last beyond the two-year period in low-income households, I believe they’re being entirely overconfident.
These recent and any future tactics by the FCC to expand broadband service, if anything, will likely continue to draw ire from some Americans. Additional research by the Pew Internet and American Life Project (published in August 2010) has shown that 53% of Americans don’t think the government should meddle with the expansion of affordable broadband. Yet without government intervention, it’s difficult to imagine the problem of stifled broadband competition fixing itself. Rather, the FCC likely will need to gain a better understanding of the rural broadband picture and spend more time focusing on methods to encourage lower pricing. Such action won’t fully solve the complex issues surrounding the opposition to who foots the bill for broadband in areas of low population density, but it will at least bring greater legitimacy to its fervent push to catch up.
* See slide six of the hyperlinked slide show for the relevant information.
** See slide 21 of the hyperlinked slide show for the relevant information.
Photo via Gavin St. Ours, Flickr Creative Commons
