But that, as Mr. Rutten points out, smacks of antitrust issues and price-fixing.

What he suggests is that the Obama administration affords the newspaper industry the same antitrust leeway that major league baseball currently enjoys.

According to the opinion, "Executives from many of America's leading newspaper companies and the head of the Associated Press met quietly in Chicago on Thursday to discuss ways to increase revenues from their online operations--presumably by charging visitors to their websites--as well as how to recapture some share of their catastrophically declining classified ad business.

"The meeting, whose participants included an antitrust lawyer to make sure the conversation didn't stray into impermissible collusion or price-fixing, was conducted under the auspices of the Newspaper Assn. of America, and its agenda was titled 'Models to Lawfully Monetize Content.' These guys may be slow on the uptake, but their legal departments have schooled them well in risk management."

Mr. Rutten goes on to say that "Unless the English-speaking world's newspapers find a way to charge for the content they currently give away free on their websites and allow to be aggregated and sold to advertisers by Internet search-engine companies that pay no fees for the privilege, most papers won't survive very far into the next decade."

And this is not crying wolf. American newspapers are losing classified advertising to Craigslist and others by the bucket load--by the $7 billion worth bucket load. To rub salt into these wounds they have also lost 25% of their display advertising over the same eighteen month period, which translates in to an annual loss of $12 billion. Real money, that.

The Associated Press reports that over the same period newspapers online advertising revenue, although rising, only adds up to $445 million, and that's a far cry from spelling viability.

And when it comes to the cost-cutting necessary to meet the financial realities of a vastly reduced revenue stream, what will go first? You guessed it: that oh, so expensive, and most likely over-qualified journalist we currently pay for in Paris, or Rome, or Barcelona, or even in our own backyard.

Make do with less in the newspaper world means, essentially, make do with less quality unbiased reporting. That, in any concerned citizen's book is too hefty a price to pay.

But the problem, as Mr. Rutten points out, "is that newspapers can't begin charging for online content or licensing their journalism to search engines unless all the English-speaking papers do it at once. That's currently illegal under laws barring collusion and price-fixing."

I wanted to clarify that very paragraph with him, and he kindly responded to my email and had no problem with me quoting his reply.

Here's the exchange:

My question:

"When you say the problem is that that newspapers can't begin charging for online content or licensing their journalism to search engines unless all the English-speaking papers do it at once, do you mean that if all newspapers do not do so simultaneously, online readers will simply go somewhere else that's still free?

"Or is there a specific/legal reason LA Times, for example, could not begin charging for its online content tomorrow (which I, for one, would pay for)?"

Tim Rutten's reply:

"You've got the point exactly. Given the reach of the web--every Saturday, for example, I read the Guardian's excellent book section--unless all the quality English language newspapers are allowed to act in concert, readers simply will vote with their clicks and go to the free sites."

And that's the crux.

For although Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has endorsed the idea of allowing the newspaper industry at least a temporary exemption from the antitrust and price-fixing statues--which would allow such a concerted and coordinated start to fee-based online news--the Justice Department's antitrust division begs to differ, and sees no reason for such an exemption.

This looks to shape up as a very interesting confrontation, one with the survival of the newspaper industry in general--and good journalism in particular--at stake.

This site is dedicated to delivering high quality, high impact, and editorially driven content in the British Finance, Government, and Health Services Sectors.

All of their programs are available for free (although you need to register with them) and cover such topics as:

• Engaging communities through high-speed broadband - Interview with Richard Steel, President of Socitm. (Which would not play directly on my PC--perhaps because I'm in the U.S.--but which downloaded just fine for replay);
• Driving up recycling and energy efficiency - Paul Bettison, LGA Environment Board;
• Accelerating wind energy usage in the UK - Interview with Maria McCaffery; and
• Preventing data leaks in the public sector - Interview with David Stanley, Proofpoint.

The channel delivers a host of informative and timely information for the digital citizen who wants to stay informed about current issues, and seems to have added a workable fluff-filter (weeding out most but the essentials) as part of their approach.

GBTC recently launched their LocalGovTV channel as a web-cast vehicle for governors of public bodies, for council members and senior executives across all public sector organizations and is available free to an unlimited audience at anytime, at any location via the internet.

Other channels include: HealthExecTV, and eGovEuropeTV.

The areas of GBTC focus include:

• Charities
• Children's Services
• Climate Change
• Local Government
• Mobile Working

The site is growing in popularity (now sports 1.2 million hits a month), and for a good reason; and now provides the full spectrum of technical services spanning Internet-TV operations to live web casts and satellite broadcasts.

They produce programs ranging from full-length magazine-format programs to corporate profiles and case studies with the blend of editorial insight and production quality expected of national broadcasters.

A great effort, which I hope will meet with even greater success. And one that I'd like to see replicated on a broad scale here in the U.S.

Of these funds, $250 million will be available for innovative programs that encourage sustainable adoption of broadband services; at least $200 million will be available to upgrade technology and capacity at public computing centers, including community colleges and public libraries; $10 million will be a transfer to the Office of Inspector General for the purposes of BTOP audits and oversight. Up to $350 million of the BTOP funding is designated for the development and maintenance of statewide broadband inventory maps.

On April 2, 2009 Mark G. Seifert, the Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of the NTIA testified before the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet of the U.S. House of Representatives concerning BTOP progress.

According to Mr. Seifert, the BTOP is "the first step in realizing President Obama's vision of bringing the benefits of broadband technology to all Americans. At its core, the broadband initiatives in the Recovery Act offer a tremendous opportunity to stimulate job creation and economic growth in both the near-term and for the future.

"President Obama believes in the transformative power of broadband. Broadband serves as an engine of economic development, enabling communities and regions to develop and expand job-creating businesses and institutions. Communications networks help improve the efficiency of virtually every sector of the economy. The Obama Administration is committed to harnessing the power of broadband technology to stimulate economic growth, create jobs, and help lay the foundation for long-term prosperity for all Americans. Through the BTOP grant program - and in coordination with the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) grants and loans program - we are taking a critical first step in that direction.

He went on to report that, "the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recently ranked the United States 15th among the 30 market economies of the OECD in terms of broadband subscribership per capita. President Obama believes that this must change. With access to broadband and the skills to use it effectively, Americans will be better able to compete, succeed, and lead in the 21st century's knowledge-based economy. Our scientists, universities, and researchers will need better broadband connections to continue our great tradition of innovation.

"The broadband initiatives within the Recovery Act mark the beginning of the process that we hope will result in the United States taking its rightful place as the world's leader in broadband deployment, availability, and adoption. To meet this challenge and to fulfill the statutory mandates of the Recovery Act, the Administration has set five goals for the broadband Recovery Act funding.

"Greater broadband availability and use will make a difference in the daily lives of our citizens. With access to broadband, students are able to learn and access resources far beyond their own classrooms or local libraries. Using telemedicine applications over broadband connections, doctors and other medical professionals can bring the latest medical advancements to patients in remote areas, resulting in immediate, efficient, and cost-effective treatment. Over broadband connections, small business owners are able to buy and sell their goods and services in both near and distant markets. Researchers and scientists require high-speed connections to collaboratively develop the new ideas that will keep our country in the lead. And all Americans have the potential to find new ways of making a living, developing and accessing information, and using other applications that enrich their lives using high-speed broadband. Broadband provides communities a canvas for innovation and economic development, that, by reason of either location or economic status, they have previously been unable to utilize."

BTOP Goals

Among the goals for BTOP, Mr. Seifert enumerated the following: "The program is intended to accelerate broadband deployment in unserved and underserved areas and improve access to broadband by public safety agencies. Significantly, however, while the Act focuses on supply stimulus, demand side stimulus is a critical goal. The Act specifies that the program be designed to stimulate job creation, economic growth, and the demand for broadband.

"Other purposes of BTOP include providing funds for broadband education, awareness, training, access, and support to a number of institutions including schools, libraries, educational and job-creating strategic facilities, as well as organizations that provide outreach and other broadband assistance to vulnerable populations.

"In accomplishing the purposes of BTOP, the Act contemplates that NTIA will consult with the states and with the FCC. We are also coordinating our activities with the RUS (Rural Utilities Service), which was allocated $2.5 billion in broadband Recovery Act funding for loans and grants.

"We have been meeting regularly with various state entities as well as with our colleagues at the FCC and RUS and have met with various state entities as well. For example, we are currently talking to RUS about creating a common application form to make it easier for entities to file grant applications with both agencies. We welcome - and indeed are actively seeking - the input of our state colleagues as well as our colleagues at the FCC and RUS as we implement this important program.

"The Act also provides $10 million for our Inspector General (IG) to ensure vigorous oversight of these grant funds. One of the very first actions we accomplished was the transfer of that money to the IG. We have been meeting with the IG and his staff to ensure that the program design incorporates appropriate safeguards from the outset to protect the taxpayers' investment.

BTOP Implementation Activities

Mr. Seifert further reports that, "Since the passage of the Recovery Act on February 17, 2009, NTIA has taken decisive action to jumpstart the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. The Agency is staffing up to administer the $4.7 billion program. Although NTIA has many talented people already in place with significant grant-making experience, we are in the process of greatly supplementing this core team to handle the high levels of interest. We are also in the process of creating the technical systems that need to be in place to handle the tremendous volume of applications that we anticipate.

"We are coordinating closely with other agencies responsible for implementing related Recovery Act initiatives, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Energy. Through constructive coordination, funds and expertise can be leveraged where appropriate--and duplication and redundancy will be avoided to maximize the utility of taxpayer dollars.

"NTIA has launched its BTOP website to provide the public a window into how the Government intends to invest its money - http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants.

Challenges

As to challenges, Mr. Seifert informed the committed that, "We face many challenges in the upcoming months. Some of our challenges are substantive policy issues. For example, there are a host of statutory terms like "broadband," "unserved," and "underserved" that we must define in order to give guidance to potential applicants. We must also decide the scope of the consultative role the states will play as we review grant applications. During our public meetings, various stakeholders gave us very valuable but divergent views about how we should deal with these issues and we are confident that the comments filed by April 13, 2009, in response to the RFI, will contribute greatly to our decision-making on these important threshold issues. We are very focused on creating metrics and requiring reporting that will allow us to understand whether the grants we make are effective in moving the country closer to the Administration's broadband goals.

"While these challenges will be significant, by far our greatest challenge will be determining a fair, equitable, and appropriate manner for selecting grant recipients. We fully expect a pool of strong and innovative applications that reflect the genius of the American people and together address all of the purposes set out in the Act. Our most daunting task will be to select from among these many deserving applications those that most wisely invest the people's money to create jobs and offer credible, functioning, and scalable models for accelerating the deployment of broadband."

For a full copy of Mr. Seifert's briefing, please go here.

Said John Watson, Charmin of the coalition, "In order for consumers to have access to the latest technologies and best services possible, it is imperative for North Carolina to ensure its laws are keeping pace with the proliferation of new and innovative telecommunications options available today.

"Citizens for a Digital Future supports policies that encourage investment in and deployment of broadband and other digital technologies that enhance our lives in so many ways."

The Citizens for a Digital Future has now launched in four different states: Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, and South Carolina, and will soon, I hope, make its presence felt in the remaining states of our union.

So far the coalition, which is completely voluntary and does not require membership dues or fees, have focused on deployment and administration of the economic stimulus package in its covered states, with up-to-date and interesting information about issues raised and hurdles to overcome in bridging the digital divide.

Other members of the coalition include: at&t, Btech, Inc., CBM of America, Condux, Enhanced Communications, Inc., Entone, Inc., Fiber Source, Inc., and many others.

Off to an auspicious start, I hope that this coalition will soon reach across the country and garner more and more members who share their vision:

"Citizens for a Digital Future recognizes that adoption of and access to broadband technology -- and its enhancements -- has become increasingly critical to the environment, for education, economic development and health care, among others. Our members support and advance public policies that encourage broad deployment and robust enhancement of broadband and digital technologies."

You can reach Citizens for a Digital Future here.

A rant "dedicated to all the people out there who are innocently laboring under the misperception that the vast majority of Hispanics in the United States are living in such crushing poverty that they are not able to access information on the Internet."

Not so, she goes on to point out:

• In a recent report called The Power of the Hispanic Consumer On-line, Scarborough Research says that the majority (54%) of Hispanics are now online.

• In fact, Internet access among Hispanics has been increasing at a faster rate than it has among total adults in the U.S - growing 13% (on a relative basis) since 2004 - from 48% in 2004 to its current penetration of 54%.  By contrast, Internet access by all consumers nationally grew 8% during the same time period. (In 2004, 64% of all consumers accessed the Internet, and this increased to 69% in 2008.)

The same Scarborough Research elaborates:

"Younger consumers are more likely to download content online. Forty-nine percent of 18-34 year-old adult Internet Users downloaded digital content in the past month, compared to 35% of the total online population. Similarly, it is no surprise that when you examine this younger demographic of Hispanics, the percentage is even higher. 51% of 18-34 year-old Hispanics downloaded digital content during the past 30 days.

"Hispanics have been taking advantage of the expansion of broadband, and their rate of adoption has mirrored that of the total U.S. population. Currently, 68% of Hispanic Internet Users have a broadband connection in their household. This grew from 13% in 2002 - an increase of more than fivefold."

Refreshing news, indeed.

What is a little surprising, however, is that Internet Auction Fraud--which was the most reported online crime for the last two years--no longer heads the pack, though at 25.5% of all reports, it runs a close second; instead, the most reported online crime for 2008 is Non-Delivery of Merchandise and/or Payment, which comprises 32.9% of all reported instances of internet fraud.

The IC3

The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) began operation on May 8, of 2000, as the Internet Fraud Complaint Center--a partnership between the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)--to serve as a vehicle to receive, process, and refer cyber crime complaints.

IC3 was intended for and continues to serve the broader law enforcement community, including federal, state, and local agencies, and since its inception, IC3 has received complaints about the full gamut of cyber crimes, including online fraud (in its many forms), intellectual property rights matters, computer intrusions (hacking), economic espionage (theft of trade secrets), child pornography, international money laundering, identity theft, and a growing list of additional cyber crimes.

The 2008 Internet Crime Report is the eighth edition.

The Numbers

From January 1, 2008 - December 31, 2008, IC3 received 275,284 online complaints. This is a (33.1%) increase over 2007, which saw 206,884 online complaints.

Of all complaints received IC3 referred 72,940 of them to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies around the country for further consideration. The vast majority of these cases was of a fraudulent nature and involved a financial loss on the part of the complainant.

The total reported dollar loss from all referred cases of fraud was $264.6 million with a median dollar loss of $931.00 per complaint. This is up from $239.1 million in total reported losses in 2007. Other significant findings related to an analysis of referrals include:

Non-Delivery

Non-delivered merchandise and/or payment was, by far, the most reported offense, comprising 32.9% of referred complaints--this is a 32.1% increase from the 2007 levels of non-delivery of merchandise and/or payment reported to IC3.

Internet Auction Fraud and Other Scams

Internet auction fraud accounted for 25.5% of referred complaints. Credit/debit card fraud made up 9.0% of referred complaints. Confidence fraud, computer fraud, check fraud, and Nigerian letter fraud round out the top seven categories of complaints referred to law enforcement during the year.

Access Method

E-mail (74.0%) and WebPages (28.9%) were the two primary channels over which the fraudulent contact took place.

Fighting Back

According to the IC3, the best way to guard against Internet facilitated scams is to stay informed. Keeping informed of the latest scams on the Internet may enable Internet users to recognize and report these scams instead of losing money or their identity information in one of them. To learn about the latest scams, we recommend periodically checking the IC3, FBI, and the FTC websites for the latest updates.

Additionally, the IC3 and its partners have launched a public website, www.lookstoogoodtobetrue.com, which briefs the consumer about various consumer alerts, tips, and fraud trends.

Fighting Non-Delivery

The IC3 makes specific recommendation about fighting non-delivery of merchandise or payments:

• Make sure you are purchasing merchandise from a reputable source. As with auction fraud, check the reputation of the seller whenever possible, including the Better Business Bureau.
• Try to obtain a physical address rather than merely a post office box and a phone number. Also, call the seller to see if the number is correct and working.
• Send them an e-mail to see if they have an active e-mail address. Be cautious of sellers who use free e-mail services where a credit card was not required to open the account.
• Investigate other websites regarding this person/company. Do not judge a person/company by their fancy website; thoroughly check the person/company out.
• Be cautious when responding to special offers (especially through unsolicited e-mail).
• Be cautious when dealing with individuals/companies from outside your own country. Remember the laws of different countries might pose issues if a problem arises with your transaction.
• Inquire about returns and warranties on all items.
• The safest way to purchase items via the Internet is by credit card because you can often dispute the charges if something is wrong. Also, consider utilizing an escrow or alternate payment service after conducting thorough research on the escrow service.
• Make sure the website is secure when you electronically send your credit card numbers.

Fighting Internet Auction Fraud

The IC3 also makes specific recommendations on how to battle Internet Auction Fraud:

• Understand as much as possible about how Internet auctions work, what your obligations are as a buyer, and what the seller's obligations are before you bid.
• Find out what actions the website takes if a problem occurs and consider insuring the transaction and shipment.
• Learn as much as possible about the seller, especially if the only information you have is an e-mail address. If it is a business, check the Better Business Bureau where the seller/business is located.
• Examine the feedback on the seller and use common sense. If the seller has a history of negative feedback then do not deal with that particular seller.
• Determine what method of payment the seller is asking for and where he/she is asking to send payment. Use caution when the mailing address is a post office box number.
• Be aware of the difference in laws governing auctions between the U.S. and other countries. If a problem occurs with the auction transaction that has the seller in one country and a buyer in another, it might result in a dubious outcome leaving you empty handed.
• Be sure to ask the seller about when delivery can be expected and warranty/exchange information for merchandise that you might want to return.
• To avoid unexpected costs, find out if shipping and delivery are included in the auction price or are additional.
• Finally, avoid giving out your social security number or driver's license number to the seller, as the sellers have no need for this information.

Steps To Take If Victimized:

1. File a complaint with the online auction company. In order to be considered for eBay's Fraud Protection Program, you should submit an online Fraud Complaint within 90 days after the listing end-date.
2. File a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center.
3. Contact law enforcement officials at the local and state level (your local and state police departments).
4. Also, contact law enforcement officials in the perpetrator's town & state.
5. File a complaint with the shipper: USPS, UPS, Fed-Ex, etc.
6. File a complaint with the National Fraud Information Center
7. File a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.

A Closer Look at Non-Delivery

Doing the non-delivery math paints an unpleasant picture:

Since Non-Delivery constitutes 32.9% of the 275,284 reported cyber crimes in 2008, this means we saw 90,568 reported non-delivery cases. Now, since according to the National White Collar Crime Center's August 2005 report, The National Public Survey on White Collar Crime, only one cyber crime in seven is actually reported to police or a regulatory agency, we will have to multiply this number by seven to get an accurate count of perpetrated non-delivery crimes for 2008, which ends us up with 633,976.

This in turn means that 1,736 such crimes occur every day, or 72 ever hour, 24/7.

Or, to put it in another light, here in the United States, every minute of ever day (24/7), a product is fraudulently sold (and gullibly purchased and paid for) online.

Not a laughing matter.

Fraudulent Online Escrow Protection

One of the IC3's key recommendations is to consider utilizing an escrow or alternate payment service after conducting thorough research on the escrow service.

However, please take careful notice of the line "after conducting thorough research on the escrow service." Why did the IC3 include that warning?

It is because fraudulent online-escrow protection has proven to be a very profitable online fraudulent activity, masquerading as it does as protection, while only intending theft.

It is nothing short of escrow wolves in sheep's clothing. For this is the world of praying on the innocent and unsuspecting; of perpetrating fraud in the guise of help.

This is the world where the weary online buyer--well informed perhaps about online auction frauds and false promises--to safeguard his money turns to an online escrow service to make sure that he receives and approves the merchandise before his funds are released to the seller.

He Googles "Online Escrow" and is met with a host of sites, one seeming more legitimate than the next. He reads the "about us" carefully, and as much of the fine print as he has time or mind to absorb. Finally settles on one: Integrity Escrow.

He establishes an account, and his email is verified by the site, over a secure https link. So far so good. Seeing the https and the little security symbol in his browser makes him feel warm and fuzzy.

He then provides the details of the transaction, and, as a final step, deposits the purchase amount--in this case $3,500--in his newly established escrow account.

And that, as the saying goes, was the last he saw of that money.

How do they do it?

Impersonating the Solution

Turns out Integrity Escrow was nothing but a slick impersonation of a bona fide escrow company, established--normally in China, Russia, or the former Eastern EU--for the sole purpose of stealing your money while pretending to do the exact opposite, i.e., preventing theft.

Unfortunately, online escrow fraud is escalating, due to factors such as:

• Online identity/credit-card theft
• The Anonymity of the Internet
• A lamentable lack of public awareness about fraudulent escrow sites
• Web hosting companies that allow fraudulent escrow sites to be created with stolen credit cards, and then allow them to remain on their service even after they have been reported.

To this, add an increasing number of tech savvy criminals with zero concern for their fellow man.

Luckily--for those who's job it is to track the fraudulent online escrow sites down--those who set then up fraudulent are, as a rule, lazy people, who wouldn't (probably couldn't) create original copy if their lives depended on it. No, too much work.

Lazy people normally resort to templates, made to order scam sites (which abound as well) where they go to download a respectable site. As for trust-inducing copy, few sites are better than bona fide online escrows, which is where they go for the words.

Safeguard Your Money

How can, you, the average Internet user protect yourself against online escrow fraud?

Firstly, it is important that you (as recommended by the IC3) research these sites before ever sending money or merchandise. First, do a WHOIS search on the domain. This will show you how long the site has been up, where it is being hosted, how many times the site has been taken down. These are clues. If it smells fishy at all to you, go elsewhere.

It is your money. Handing it over to a cyber criminal probably has not yet made it onto your top-ten list of what to do with it.

There are many great deals online. There are many great auction houses online. There are bona fide online escrow sites, but nowhere near as many as there are fraudulent ones.

So do all the online research you can. When you have found a site that seems legitimate, you should take one of several additional steps:

• Firstly, while fraudulent sites can buy the necessary certificate to make it a secure site, they seldom do;
• Secondly, you can check at escrow-fraud.com to see if the site you have decided on is listed as a fraudulent site by them; they also maintain a list of bona fide sites;
• Thirdly, you can call the site's customer service department to make sure they are based in the United States. If you have any doubts about that, ask them to call you back, and check the caller ID--if it is an international call, beware. Also, if the site does not have a customer service department, again, beware;
• Once you know that you're talking to a U.S. based service department, ask any questions you can think of to ensure they are legitimate, such as which bank are they using for their escrow accounts, and who is their main contact at that bank (whom you can then call to verify that this online escrow company does in deed have an escrow account there);
• If the answer is a well-known American bank, and if the customer service rep can supply contact information at the bank, you are 99% there. Then, if you want to reach 100%, make that final call to the bank to rule out any vestige of doubt.

Now you have found an online escrow company you can trust; register with them and enjoy your purchase.

Escrow.com

To make your life a little easier: there is an online escrow company with the credentials to put your mind at ease.

Licensed by the state of California--as well as by the States of Idaho and Arizona, who require separate licenses--Escrow.com is the only on-line escrow company credentialed to serve every state of the Union, and who indeed does so 24/7.

While Escrow.com will handle transactions of any size, it may not make financial sense to turn to them for low cost items since their transaction fee is $25, and their commission is $63 per $1,000 value of the transaction if payment is by credit card and $32.50 per $1,000 for wire transfers.

But, if you value your sleep, Escrow.com would be indispensible for any transaction of $250 on up.

While Escrow.com is gaining increasing recognition as the Internet escrow company to turn to for peace of e-commerce mind, their staff, on a daily basis, also hunt and diligently work to shut down fraudulent impostors, which are encountered daily.

And they spring up like mushrooms, these impostors: there are days that Escrow.com staff discovers as many as ten new such sites.

The good news is that as these sites are tracked down, authorities are alerted and the sites are soon off the air.

eBay Weighs In

To quote the biggest online auction site of them all, eBay: "Pay safely - beware of fake escrow services when you consider using them to pay for your eBay item.

"For eBay transactions, you should use eBay's only approved Escrow Company: www.escrow.com."

Escrow.com--A Soon-To-Be Household Name

As Escrow.com gains further and further recognition on its way to become a household name, it gets harder and harder for impostors to defraud the public for the excellent reason that they are not Escrow.com--the only name you know you can trust.

Here's to peace of mind and a good night's sleep.

And that is why--to do my little part--nearly a decade ago now, I was one of the first buyers of the Rocket eBook (since renamed the Planet eBook, and now no longer available). It weighed near enough a pound, had 16 megabytes of RAM, and storage expandable to a whopping 32 MB. It had a nice--in my opinion--backlit screen, a serial, pre-USB, connection, and it didn't harm trees.

It was battery hungry, however, and as such did not, in the end, get as much use as my tried and true tree-books.

About four years ago (may have been longer) I started to see rumors about a "digital ink" developed by Sony, and a year later read that Sony had in fact released a digital ink book reader in Japan (with no plans to market one in the United States, however--lamentably).

Fast forward another six months, and something had made Sony change its mind. Coming soon, to a Borders near you: the Sony Reader (PRS-500).

I was one of the first customers, honest. And this is the reader I still have, and actually love, although since then Sony as brought out its sequel, PRS-505, and Amazon has brought out Kindle, and now, a couple of months back, Kindle 2.

The sweet thing about digital ink is that the reader only draws energy from the rechargeable battery when it "turns" (paints) a new page. Once the page has been painted, it is like paper, it's displayed without drawing any power at all. When Sony talks of Reader battery life, they measure it in number of page-turns. Kindle, which works on the same principle, is a little more power hungry since it also talks to the internet a lot (for downloads and Wikipedia access). Sony's current reader claims 7,500 page turns from a fully charged battery, while Kindle says it's battery charge will last up to 2 weeks (with wireless off).

 The downside, if there is one, with digital ink is that lacking backlight, you need good lighting to read it--as is, of course, true of paper books as well--and while the print is not as sharply contrasted as a paper page (the Sony Reader background is not crisply white, nor the letters crisply black) I still find it a pleasure, actually, to read the Sony Reader, and I've never had a problem with legibility.

All this to say that the eReader is here, and that between the two giants Sony and Amazon, they may--in the long run--have a positive impact on tree-preservation, not only through books but also newspapers; especially now since not only the Seattle Post Intelligencer, but also the Christian Science Monitor, have ceased their print editions and will now operate as digital-only papers (although the CSM will print a weekly magazine, with more in-depth coverage of current stories).

I gather that it will not be long before the Seattle Post Intelligencer and the Christian Science Monitor follow New York Times and Los Angeles Times in also becoming Kindle editions, to be downloaded automatically over-night, to be read, like any morning newspaper, with the coffee in the morning, sans dead trees.

The CSM, as did the Seattle Post Intelligencer, sites the economic advantages of an online-only edition in its efforts to stay viable, and even expand its coverage but fielding more journalists, especially abroad.

Not a word about trees, however; but in my mind, that is the sub-text.

According to their findings: "People do not necessarily identify their actions as 'citizen participation', but when we asked them about specific activities, it became apparent that most of them are, in fact, participating as citizens. The most significant variables that influence levels of participation among the general population sample are socio-economic group, qualifications and age, although internet access and confidence are also important.

"Citizen Participation, both online and offline, was highest among our online user sample. This is partly due to this group's characteristics (e.g. a higher socio-economic group) but also because, as confident online users, they can carry out more citizen participation activities via the internet.

"The internet is an important channel for citizen participation, and even more so for related citizen activities. Those with the internet at home displayed higher levels of citizen participation in all groups surveyed, including those living in areas of multiple deprivation.

"The internet makes citizen participation easier. This is partly because it saves time, which is one of the main reported barriers to participation, and it seems that the internet is both supplementing and replacing traditional channels for citizen participation. But this may mean that a proportion of the population may become disenfranchised as digital citizen participation and other online related citizen activity grows."

"Those living in areas of multiple deprivation generally engage less in citizen participation activities compared to the general population. The main reported barrier to this group's participation is lack of interest, but internet access, lack of awareness, trust and confidence are also barriers to online participation. Those with internet access at home in areas of multiple deprivation exhibit greater levels of citizen participation than those without access. However, people living in areas of multiple deprivation are less likely to know what can be done online, and more likely to question the effectiveness of digital participation [my emphasis]."

In fact, according to a current iWire article, Ed Richards, head of Ofcom, recently told a meeting at the London School of Economics that 40 percent of homes in the UK do not have access to broadband and half them didn't want it even though they could afford it. Whether self-excluded or not, 20 percent of Brits could be left behind by e-government.

The research report correctly highlights the apparent widening gap of the U.K. digital divide. Though not in fact widening, the existing gap appears to widen when viewed against the backdrop of increasing government use of the Internet as a tool and channel of citizen services.

As the report puts it: "While these new [Internet] channels may raise levels of engagement, they also pose a challenge: a significant section of the population, lacking access to these technologies or the confidence to use them, may become increasingly disengaged [my emphasis].

According to the report, 90% of the general population sample have 'ever' taken part in some sort of citizen participation activity and three-quarters (75%) have done so in the past year. In addition, around two-thirds have 'ever' taken part in more than two activities and almost one-third have taken part in more than two activities in the past year.

Further, online users are more likely to engage in citizen participation activities and to participate more frequently. This fact is put down both to the type of people in the online user sample and to the channel itself--in the sample there is broad agreement that the internet has made citizen participation easier.

Also, those in the online user sample tended to be from higher socio-economic groups and have higher levels of qualifications, which match the profile of people who tend to participate more in citizen participation activities.

However, Internet access and confidence with its use are not the only variables. Middle-aged people, those from higher socio-economic groups and those with higher levels of qualifications are more likely to take part and participate more frequently than are the general population. Conversely, young people, those from lower socio-economic groups, and those with fewer qualifications are less likely to take part, and participate less frequently than the general population.

This report goes in to great detail (and I highly recommend that you give it a closer look) of Internet impact on citizen participation, and serves--in my view, anyway--as a great example of that kind of study that perhaps the FCC should carry out and publish.