Paul Kapustka's Blog

« January 2006 | Main | March 2006 »

February 28, 2006

USF -- The biggest mess of all

Want a thornier problem than Network Neutrality? Try USF, or the Universal Service Fund, on for size. As today's predictable debate showed, the rural Senators are simply not going to let go of these tax dollars, no way, nohow. Looks like Americans will be paying for rural broadband too, if the 10 percent-40 percent rule keeps holding.

What's the 10-40 rule? The fact that 10 percent of the nation elects 40 percent of the Senators, a democratic quirk that effectively means that once things like USF get passed once, they will be with us forever, or at least until we change the makeup of the Senate to more accurately reflect the U.S. population.

Never mind that things like the E-rate program, funded out of USF, are rife with mismanagement, and never mind that potentially cheaper solutions like VoIP don't receive fund help. As long as Ted "got to protect those fishing villages" Stevens remains in charge of the Senate Commerce Committee, anything other than more money for rural telcos probably won't even be considered.

So while Net Neutrality may be the hot-button topic, it will be figured out long before USF gets a much-needed overhaul, simply because the rural Senators have enough power to squelch any attempts at radical change. And until we all move to Skype, they'll keep getting their bucks as long as we keep getting phone bills.

Posted by paul at 04:21 PM | Comments (0)

February 26, 2006

The Ghost of Novell appears in AT&T's 'Tiered Internet' plan

Are there any other old-timers out there who start getting twitches, like I do, when you hear service providers talk about creating something better than the plain ol' Internet? Y'know, something that will make business easier because it will be faster and tuned to work well? Like that great service we all know and love, the AT&T NetWare Connect Services?

The history lesson for today, kiddies, is never to believe big companies simply because they are big companies -- and never bet against innovation and openness. Here's a quote from a Feb. 1995 Byte Magazine article about ANCS (as we all lovingly knew it), and how it was just gosh-so-much-better than that annoying TCP/IP stuff:

It's hard to exaggerate the potential importance of such a business Internet. The TCP/IP Internet now being pressed into the service of business-to-business networking is a horse of an entirely different color. True, companies are eagerly creating their own WWW (World Wide Web) home pages and deploying Mosaic as a business application. However, the Internet lacks a coherent directory, and the so-called Internet discovery tools (e.g., netfind, archie, and WebCrawler), are, while ingenious, a poor substitute for a real directory. Companies that engage in network-based commerce will expect to be able to find each other on the network in the same way that they now find each other in the phone book. They'll expect to be able to contact each other whenever they want, not just when an intervening name server happens to cooperate. And they'll want to be able to bill for services rendered through the network. Clearly AT&T's infrastructure is tuned to satisfy just these kinds of expectations.

Clearly!

Now, supposing the AT&T lobbyists get their way -- betcha can't wait for those new, super-fast video services from Ed's house o' big pipes, can ya? I'm sure they'll deliver, just like they did with ANCS. Which we all still use today, right?

Posted by paul at 11:25 PM | Comments (0)

February 24, 2006

VoIP Line video clip

More video: Check out today's "VoIP Line" report for CMP's The News Show. The video link is here.

And if that's not enough VoIP multimedia, then check out the new Pulvermedia Podcast Network -- via Jeff's post today.

Posted by paul at 09:18 AM | Comments (0)

February 22, 2006

Michael Powell on Video

Enough words! Check out my video report from the Silicon Flatirons show, a little fun with Michael Powell's Q&A. The link is here, part of Wednesday's segment of CMP Media's "The News Show."

The bonus backstory for my blog readers: While it's fun to see how much you can accomplish with a tiny webcam and some simple software, the downside is doing a quick minute-long face to face with the busy Mr. Powell, where he talked about Net Neutrality and then how he'd rather be head of the NFL instead of baseball commissioner in his next job... and then watching it go into the ether when the program crashes inexplicably.

(Note to video wannabes: get ready for unstable stuff, and learning about light. Part of life on the great multimedia trail-blazin'.)

By then, of course, Powell was too busy for another sit-down so the chat excerpts were the best I could do. Apologies to Phil Weiser, for not including the great questions that got Powell riffing.
Phil, want to buy a webcam, cheap?

Posted by paul at 11:54 PM | Comments (0)

February 21, 2006

Powell's running -- when, where and for what?

After a day to think it over, the real meat to me of Michael Powell's high-profile appearance at the Silicon Flatirons event is that he will run for political office -- the only remaining questions are where, when, and for what?

Some clues from Powell were found in his public appearance Monday, where he openly derided the "brutal partisanship" in the halls of Congress. (I wrote a news story for Networking Pipeline about the appearance, link is here.)

He also made some comments from the audience during Sunday's proceedings, talking about how Google and Yahoo are the big companies to worry about in the future -- but whose future?

On a more private level, Powell said he is eagerly soaking up all he can about the financial world as a partner in several business ventures, including investment firms as well as consulting gigs with startups and even media giant AOL. Powell said he didn't really understand the money mechanism before, but wants to learn it now... maybe to fill out the resume that you need in a statehouse with a budget?

Pure speculation on my part. But I don't think the ex-chairman is finished with his life as a public servant. Clearly he's not only staying abreast of the hot political topics, but he's trying to expand his circle of knowledge to Wall Street, Silicon Valley and beyond... which makes me think he is more interested in a national post. Anyone want to set odds on the where, when or what? The betting window is now open.

Posted by paul at 11:46 PM | Comments (0)

February 20, 2006

More delayed blogging from Silicon Flatirons -- Michael Powell, take 2

Giving up here again for the night (no hope trying to blog when the Olympic Giant Slalom is on, and then your host finds Pulp Fiction on the dish). More tomorrow (after a skiing break!) on Michael Powell's Monday "fireside chat" with Phil Weiser. While David Isenberg and Susan Crawford have already filtered out some highlights, I liked the former-chmn's take on the FCC as being a place where huge battles are fought that everyone knows will have no real consequence or outcome.

"Having battles at the FCC is a business unto itself," said Powell. And even though there are huge battles at the FCC, he said that all the participants "know nothing is going to come out of it." And companies, Powell added, "spend fortunes in the fight. Ink untold, flows in newspapers [ed. note: or, digital "ink" in blogs, anyway]," but because everyone knows how the law works -- and how the FCC process interferes, nothing happens of note.

Powell also bemoaned the fact that even if the FCC does try to do something, it takes at a minimum four years for all the entrenched-position battles to work out. (Think he misses the job?) "It [the process] invites that the FCC is always open for business to the idea that it can make a rule, to change the way a business (operates)," Powell said. More tomorrow! Plus video when I get around to producing a segment for CMP's The News Show, which you should watch anyway. I highly recommend the "VoIP Line" segments.

PS -- Powell's remarks from his Monday keynote should not be confused with the private interview I conducted with Powell Sunday, which I wrote about here.

Posted by paul at 10:12 PM | Comments (1)

Silicon Flatirons -- Sunday PM, cont'd, with Bob Kahn's showstopper idea

If video over the Internet is truly the ultimate market battleground -- as several discussants on Sunday afternoon's Video over IP panel proclaimed -- then count Silicon Flatirons as at least one of the starting grounds for the rhetorical skirmish. My filtered take: The battle is between video control (RBOCs, cable) and anarchy (Google, open source). With any luck, it's a war that will end up with consumers winning.

Of all the event panels, this one had the highest level of committed, passionate, assertive speakers. The 10-second take? The RBOCs and cable will use all their firepower to try to keep video captive, to make money off it the way they did off voice. While underfunded, the Net Neutral team has in its corner the power of the Network -- Metcalfe's Law -- as well as the entrepreneurial ideas of people who just do things without asking permission.

I won't try to recap the panel -- it didn't really follow any logical path -- but I will try to highlight the best bits. Leadoff batter Tim Wu woke everyone up from lunch-slumber with a bizarre video clip featuring John Malkovich, judo experts, and fashion shows. I have no idea what it is supposed to mean, other than Wu has cool friends, and that the John Malkovichs of the world aren't going to sign exclusive deals with Verizon to air their "content" for a set price.

Wu may be telecom's own John Malkovich -- highly brilliant, perhaps with a bit erratic and eclectic user interface -- but capable of great things at a moment's notice. Wu's power quote in support of Net Neutrality: "How many people do you have to ask to start a business?" In a tiered Net, too many, is the point.

Also on the NN side was Susan Crawford, who certainly doesn't need me to parse her points. In a room full of lawyers, Crawford's appeals that the Internet is more than routers and wires and local loops -- "it's an ecosystem quite separate from the access infrastructure" -- and that "there is a higher public value than deferring to their [RBOCs, mainly] property interests" -- perhaps fell on deaf ears. But in spirit she is closer to Internet pioneer Bob Kahn than any team of lawyers can hope to be, and in the greater technical world -- like the unnamed army that helped TCP/IP become dominant in the first place -- such opinions carry great weight.

On the other side of the debate -- and in case you had any doubts, this is a debate between the dark side and the force -- there was Jon Nuechterlein and Paul Glist, who both had a thing or two to say about the evils of Net Neutrality rules. (Stephan Shelanski was also a discussant, and provided a good commercial description of Starz' Internet distro plan.)

Nuechterlein (can I just call him Jon?) was calm and collected, and wondered that if Net Neutrality "commoditized pipes," why would anyone build them? Gist was entertaining (David I touched on it here) but a tad mean-spirited -- no need to slap at Crawford with an aside that "networks and cool apps don't emerge like beachfront property on the ocean." (This after Crawford had compared the Internet's worth to that of the ocean, available to all, source of food, etc.) Don't take that line unless you are ready to address the monopoly structure under which those networks were built, pal. A point that somehow never seems to emerge on the deregulate-everything side.

Actually, Bob Kahn (winner of the show's Big Brain award, hands down) trumped the whole panel and maybe the whole event with a query during the open Q&A, about whether or not it makes sense for the government to purchase the local loop infrastructure from the current owners, and then set up some kind of "open central offices," where anyone could come in, locate servers, offer services, etc. etc.

"Call it a digital extension cord," Kahn posited. An incredible idea -- one that would pre-empt all the RBOC and cable complaints about the cost of building networks. Fine, let's pay them for their infrastructure, and open it up for business, all open protocols and interconnects.

"If someone wanted a 10 to the Nth megabit service and someone else was willing to provide it, there could be a business," Kahn said later when I asked him to expound. (this is a paraphrase; we were just talking, no note-taking)

The coolest thing about Kahn's idea was that it totally silenced a panel of law professors and lawyers, and hushed a room full of legal experts. Another win for the nerds? Let's hope it's not the last we hear of this idea from venerable Mr. Kahn.

(and here's a lagniappe from Crawford: watch for the launch Tuesday of an open-source video hosting project from a group called participatory culture. Sounds cool! And yet another reason not to have entry barriers on the 'Net.)

Posted by paul at 08:26 PM | Comments (0)

February 19, 2006

Silicon Flatirons -- the incomplete telecom debate

BOULDER, Colo. -- Amidst all the really smart things being said by passionate, dedicated people here Sunday, there was a sense that something -- or somebody -- was missing from the debate. While it didn't detract from the density of the content at this year's Silicon Flatirons event, it also couldn't be ignored that some of the biggest players in matters telecom today -- the FCC, Google, AT&T -- were conspicuous by their absence.

Not to take away from a fantastic assemblage of smarts -- any conference that has a Bob Kahn and a Michael Powell in the audience is off-the-charts in brainpower -- but sometimes the "debates" seemed a bit like watching someone whack a tennis ball off a brick wall. Sure, the argumentative groundstrokes of a Tim Wu or a Ray Gifford were flawless, cross-court winners. But if Network Neutrality and telecom regulation are the topics of the day, where is Ed Whitacre, Mr. Not on My Pipes? Where is Kevin Martin, or for that matter, any current employee of the FCC? MIA. And it's their loss.

That the FCC couldn't send anyone to Boulder was just indicitive of what one insider called the current "toxic" mood in our favorite government bureau. Conference host Phil Weiser could only shake his head in disbelief, with no FCC presence at one of the premier telecom-thinker events anywhere. Former FCC chair Michael Powell took the diplomatic route, saying "you'd have to ask them" (meaning the current regime) why there are no FCC members present at this conference (or many other public forums, for that matter).

"I always encouraged the [FCC] staff to get out and learn things" at events like this one, Powell said during one of the breaks. Powell also thought it was strange that big content providers like Google and Yahoo were non-entities, especially since they were the topics of most panel conversations.

"They are the biggest animals in the jungle right now," Powell said. "Why aren't they here?"

Posted by paul at 09:10 PM | Comments (0)

Silicon Flatirons -- Sunday AM

BOULDER, Colo. -- OK, it's late Sunday night and after inhaling so much telecom policy-talk here in Boulder I feel vaguely Schumpeterian myself. Maybe the best way to handle this is to do a straight notebook core-dump, and let y'all sort out the details.

(Note: if you don't get the Schumpeterian link don't feel bad. I had a vague sense of what it meant but thought that anyone who uses the word "Schumpeterian" before 10 am needs a telecom time-out. Fortunately I had stopped by the Trident for a post-breakfast latte so I was amplified enough to take the transgression in stride. Anyway.)

Morning panel: "The Institutional Challenges of Technology Policy." (as if you could list them all in 2 hrs!) Discussants: Phil Weiser (moderator), Ray Gifford, Dale Hatfield, Howard Shelanski, Hon. (that means "judge") Stephen Williams.

Instead of presentations, this panel was mainly a Q&A volley game, with event host Weiser serving up the Q's. Weiser, the executive director of the Silicon Flatirons program, is one of what I would call the "young turks" of telecom policy -- a role he cemented by co-authoring the obligitory dense policy book that is guaranteed to bring on sleep on the most insomniac of nights. (Trust me, I know. At least I got it at the conference discount last year.) But Weiser knows his stuff, is genial and gets people talking. Eventually, that is, after a slow start with a Latin-flavored query about whether it's better to set rules first, or to punish afterwards.

In terms of sheer conviction, the clear winner of this panel was the PFF's Gifford, who overcomes his just-out-of-the-shower look with well-honed opinions and good sound bites that carry far beyond Boulder. Gifford's arguments, that "we have to know a lot" before making pre-emptive rules, sound reasonable. Especially so since they're not drenched in RBOC stain, but tempered with Gifford's reasonable "but we might not move fast enough" with post-infraction governance to save the injured. He (and the PFF) have done a lot of thinking about this, and it shows.

Things warmed up a bit on the panel when discussion turned to why there aren't smarter people on the FCC, and why they are so swayed by political pressures. My notes here are hazy, but I have Gifford saying "there's no political reward for caring." Sounds interesting.

(afternoon-panelist Susan Crawford took notes as well, including an apt summation of former FCC chairman Michael Powell's show-stopper cameo on politics and the FCC.) I'd only add a line of Powell's about the FCC: "It's a political animal, and it invites to it the same people [that go to Congress]."

While Shelanski and Hon. Williams are more than well versed in the topics, they were lacking in passion, and seemed more concerned about saying the right thing. Judge Williams gets the Schtoompah award for opening the Schumpeterian gambit. The venerable Hatfield, as Susan noted, isn't afraid to say things went wrong. And the impressive audience weighed in during the open Q&A, with Internet pioneer and co-author of TCP Bob Kahn asking somewhat rhetorically why there wasn't more discussion about how technology could help solve these issues.

Best quotes:

Superlobbyist Preston Padden weighed in with a view of his own, that even though a hard date for DTV transition has been set, "my bet is that with 30 to 40 million [people] still using [analog TV], you'll see the heroes in Congress quickly kick the can down the road." (Not sure what prompted this reply, but it was great theater from the man from Disney.)

Gifford, during open Q&A: "You know things will change when Google's position on Net Neutrality flips, which it will in a couple years." (this after Gifford's claim that Google owns miles and miles of dark fiber and plans to build its own access network, a myth everyone seems to believe but has yet to be confirmed.)

Pessimism ruled the ending of this panel, with Hatfield wondering if the emerging duopoly might "slip back" into just a single provider in many markets, should telco TV investments fail to pay off -- and Gifford noting that a "confluence of events" between Congress, the President and the FCC necessary to pull off meaningful reform is something that it "doesn't look like we'll have in the near future."

Host Weiser adjourned with a hopeful thought, that there will soon come a time when "Congress will say we need reform." His hope for the community? That it would involve thoughtful and diverse speculation, like that promoted Sunday morning. Kevin Martin, are you listening?

Posted by paul at 08:35 PM | Comments (0)

Silicon Flatirons -- Lunch

After leaving a great lunch where Sunday morning's telecom debates continued anew, I had to wonder: What did the various rastafarian-haired, Yoga-mommy customers at the Baseline Wild Oats market think of their cafe being taken over by a bunch of Bellhead/Netheads? Just what Boulder needs, a new kind of weird. Telecom geeks.

Thanks go to David Isenberg, who took it upon himself to invite everyone he saw with a badge to stroll over to Wild Oats for grocery-store selections and spectrum reform gabbing. I never knew that recycled-paper napkins and Odwalla bottles could substitute for cell-phone towers, but because they can I know a lot more about Nextel networks and interference woes than I did before lunch.

Posted by paul at 08:08 PM | Comments (0)

Silicon Flatirons -- Sunday PM

BOULDER, Colo. -- Call this the to-be-continued post. More tomorrow on the afternoon's video over IP panel, as well as Bob Kahn's keynote. I confess I did not take good notes during the DRM panel, so if anyone sees a recollection let me know and I will add the link here. Also: I did a short news story/interview with former FCC chairman Michael Powell, here's the link to the story on the Networking Pipeline site.

For extra credit, you can read up on Bob Kahn's Digital Object Architecture project, which I talked about briefly here. Kahn also made an interesting comment in an open Q&A, wondering why the U.S. goverment doesn't buy up the telco local loops and establish open Internet-service central offices -- again, more tomorrow on this idea. Also on Monday is Chairman Powell's scheduled keynote, as well as a keynote from Level 3's Jim Crowe.

Posted by paul at 08:00 PM | Comments (0)

Blogging from Boulder

Watch this space for coverage of the Silicon Flatirons' telecom law conference... here in wintry Boulder (think the warmest it got today was 20 degrees F), where I still occasionally space out since I'm a couple hundred yards from my freshman-year dorm room...

More later, since there is so much good stuff (and REAL dialogue) taking place that it's too hard to blog in-time. Besides, you're all at home or doing something fun anyway, because it's Sunday! Maybe I'll have something online by the time everyone checks email Sunday night. See ya then.

Incedental note: When I was here freshman year (1980-81) we used to laugh at the law school when we walked past it every day, since it is in a building called "Fleming Law," which became "Flem Law," or "Phlegm Law" in our Beavis-and-Butthead humor minds of the time. Anyway. Here I am, 25 years later, blogging from Flem Law. Eesh.

Posted by paul at 04:02 PM | Comments (0)

February 17, 2006

Virginia eases video franchising

Can you hear the dominoes falling? Two down, 48 to go... don't forget, we told you so...

Posted by paul at 05:06 PM | Comments (0)

Bloggin' while blind

Here's a neat trick from the don't-try-this-at-home dept.: Don't go to the eye doctor and get your pupils dilated if you still have a blog to post! Oh yeah, and never celebrate before you cross the finish line... d'oh!

Dilated pupils... celebrating before a victory... maybe themes for the big Web 2.0 party at Mike Arrington's tonight? Look for a recap here over the weekend. CYA!

Posted by paul at 04:54 PM | Comments (1)

February 16, 2006

National video franchising, coming soon

Though boring, yesterday's Senate Commerce Committee hearing about video franchising rules held a clear signal that it's just a matter of when, not if, that state-level or national rules replace the local franchising setup. Just like the Omegas, the RBOCs are in charge here. The only thing missing was Ted Stevens as Dean Wormer, telling Ed "Marmalard" Whitacre "let's finish this damn thing."

Only problem, there is no Delta house around to sneeze "Eat Me!" or to call for a point of parlimentary procedure. The body language, the lack of tough questioning, all point to an RBOC victory that's all but assured.

Sometimes, it seems the simple arguments are the ones that carry the day. Unlike Network Neutrality, local franchise agreements are something that Chairman Stevens can get his arms around. When he starts asking the cable and local-franchising proponents if they think that cities should be able to extort flower beds and free goodies for their franchise licenses, or if there is some small number of PEG (public, education and government) channels that everyone can agree on, you could see they had no reasonable answers or ready retorts.

As D-Day says, "War's over, man." But this time, there will be no homecoming parade. Instead, localities will have to settle for a check from the state for the franchising fees and local control they used to exchange for rights-of-way and hope that redlining rules aren't as weak as the Faber College ROTC.

Posted by paul at 01:30 PM | Comments (0)

February 15, 2006

Senate lets Whitacre, Seidenberg off the hook

I was all ready to produce another smackdown scorecard from today's Senate Commerce Committee Video Franchising hearing -- but was disappointed when the panel let superstar attendees Ed Whitacre and Ivan Seidenberg off the hook, without a single question about their plans to tier the Internet. Wha' hoppen?

(It's frightening to think that I might be getting addicted to these commerce committe webcasts, and the charm of listening to Ted Stevens sputter on about why Alaska is a worse place to live than India -- more later on this -- crammed into a poorly focused RealMedia window.)

Maybe what would scare me off is more Daniel Inouye! But, I'm getting ahead of myself.

The point, the point: The committee had Big Ed and Slick Ivan in their house -- and didn't do a damn thing about it. Even VoIP champion John Sununu bailed, with a weak question about "how would you ensure consumer protection?" that Ivan answered blandly for both he and Ed, with a little just-us-folks chuckling between the two of them.

The only panelist who tried to turn up the heat was Public Knowledge president Gigi Sohn, who put a twist on her support for a national franchising setup -- she was all for it, as long as the "new entrants" -- and by here we mean Verizon and AT&T -- keep their networks neutral, and open to all providers of video.

Response, from anyone? Zip. Zero. It was like last week's hearing never happened.

So... no smackdown. You could easily substitute the Warren Communications report from last week's FCC meeting in Keller, Texas, for Wednesday's hearing, and it would work:

BROADBAND SUFFERS WITHOUT REFORM of video franchise rules, AT&T, others tell FCC. Cable says process works.

There were some jabs, but they were few and far between... Gene Kimmelmann, senior director for public policy at the Consumers Union, got laughs by noting that "I've heard more praise today for local franchising [from the cable companies]than at any time in the last 20 years." Tom Rutledge, chief operating officer at Cablevision, seemed like he had a pulse when he frothed about the fact that the telcos haven't even tried to obtain franchises, but instead have focused their efforts on trying to change the laws.

"The only thing slowing down Verizon is Verizon, and the only thing slowing down AT&T is AT&T," Rutledge said. But later during questioning, Stevens seemed perturbed at Rutledge's very presence, and cut him off when Rutledge trotted out the standard cable reply of "well, we've spent a $100 billion and telcos have spent..."

(Here, we agree with the Senator from Alaska. Enough, cableheads, about your 100 billion. We all know you spent a lot of dough, OK? Let's move on.)

Parting shots -- to Ted Stevens, the "spend some time in India" award, for wondering aloud (and on the record) about why hotel-reservation phone-answering jobs are going to India, and not to rural Alaska. (Did you know Ted Stevens was from Alaska? And that it's a state as big as several European countries, plus Don King's hairdo?)

According to Stevens, citizens in India have "a quality of life we're not enjoying," referencing the fact that there are 100 villages in Alaska that don't have Internet access. Memo to Christine Kurth: Time to let the Senator know that not all of India has broadband access. And India's big too! Just like Alaska! Except without million-dollar bridges.

Sorry! Cheap shot award to myself.

Spotted in the background props to: Christine Kurth; Michael "no Google for me" Sully Sullivan; and James Assey. Please pick up your hostess gifts on the way out.

Posted by paul at 04:15 PM | Comments (0)

Pulverweb -- the authority on VoIP news

A bit of self-promotion here: If you are interested in VoIP and IP Communications news, do yourself a favor and bookmark or subscribe to pulverWeb, where we bring you the best compilation of news, blogs and views the industry has to offer, updated frequently throughout each business day.

Started as an experiment last Fall, pulverWeb is now the most comprehensive place you can go to find links to the top VoIP and IP news out there -- no matter where it resides. Headlined by the Jeff Pulver Blog -- which is a daily source of info on the IP communications industry -- pulverWeb also now has news archives, so you can click through all the stories you might have missed, plus it will now also feature entries from this blog, and others as we go along.

See something we didn't? Drop us a line at editor at pulverweb dot com, and if it's good we'll post a link. Also let us know what you like, and what you'd like to see. Thanks for reading!

Posted by paul at 03:49 PM | Comments (0)

February 14, 2006

Watch out, Google -- here comes the China card

If you thought Google's decision to buckle under to the Chinese government earned the company a public black eye, just wait: By the time the big telcos get done using the "China card" as a cudgel, Google and Yahoo may think a truck done run 'em over.

The first whiff of the coming salvo came in last week's Senat Commerce committee Net Neutrality hearings, when RBOC tool Walter McCormick tried to give Google a wedgie by comparing its Net Neutrality stance to its sure-we'll-censor approach to China. Though he was cut off quickly by Sen. Barbara Boxer, the tone of the coming bashing was clear: How can these Internet companies claim to want a free, open net when they clearly will shut down freedom to make their own businesses better?

It's a good argument, and one Google and Yahoo better come up with an answer for, quickly. Because Senators may not understand how optical networks can be provisioned, but they sure do understand that not letting Chinese web-surfers read whatever they want to amounts to something less than freedom. And in case you haven't heard, spreading freedom is what it's all about these days in D.C.

And from the looks of it, everyone on the RBOC/cable side has got the talking points down. In a letter to the editor in this week's BusinessWeek, Verizon mouthpiece David Fish refutes the idea that Verizon is "hogging its pipes," as an article from the magazine claimed earlier. As smart people like Om had noticed, the Verizon story in BW was half-baked. But check out the last line of Fish's letter:

At Verizon we agree with Vinton G. Cerf that there should be no "tollbooths" or other attempts to block access to the Internet. Along the same lines, efforts by Europe or China to block or control -- and efforts by some in the U.S. to regulate -- the Internet must be resisted with vigor.

Whack! Here comes the China club again, Google! Whack! Still think it's good business to provide half a loaf? Whack!

Posted by paul at 10:42 AM | Comments (0)

February 13, 2006

Dorman's parting shot -- an AT&T golf weekend

So apparently 30 million wasn't enough of a going-away gift for AT&T's Dave "quick exit" Dorman -- according to a report in the San Jose Mercury News this weekend, Dorman got to play in the AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am in Pebble Beach as his "final official act."

A notes column by reporter John Ryan reads as follows (enclosed here since finding archives from the Merc is always iffy):

Most people get a cake when they leave a company. Dave Dorman got this. Dorman, CEO of AT&T until it was bought by SBC, left Jan. 31. But Ed Whitacre, now CEO -- the company is still called AT&T -- let Dorman play the tournament as his final official act. (Dorman had six months to accept a $30 million severance package; after the six-month mark, he'd get nothing. Being the smart guy he is, he took the buyout.) He would love to continue playing, and by now he knows the people who make it happen, but spots can be hard to come by. What if his turn doesn't come up for a while? ``My great memories have to do with camaraderie, the great people that are here, competition,'' he said. ``It's really just a warm, social occasion built around golf.'' And one other thing: a hole-in-one in a practice round in 2001, the first year of the new fifth hole. ``At the time, it was about the fourth hole-in-one.''

Awww... nothing like a warm and fuzzy exit straight from the heart of ol' Big Ed. And aren't you glad that Dave hisself is worried that he might not ever have the corner-office pull to get himself into the tourney again? I mean, after PointCast... and Concert... and... well, glad he had a fun weekend, aren't you?

(hat tip to the Tool for the pointer.)

Posted by paul at 10:05 PM | Comments (0)

Ted Stevens' cell phone bill

From the you-gotta-hope-he's-got-the-no-roaming-fees plan: Sen. Ted Stevens on how he uses his cell phone:

My Eskimo friends in Alaska call me from a walrus skin boat in the Arctic Ocean to tell me they are celebrating that they just harpooned a whale. When I am in Iraq, and I was in Iraq last August, with our troops, I checked in with my wife to make sure she had fed the cat.

(From Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens Addresses
the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. And you thought press releases were boring!)

Posted by paul at 05:32 PM | Comments (0)

Tastes Great, Less Filling -- Is anyone listening?

After watching the Webcast of the "Net Neutrality" Senate hearings last week and listening to the Webcast of the FCC's meeting in Keller, Texas, I'm left with two impressions: One, the debates are about as engaging as "Tastes Great, Less Filling;" and two, there's got to be a better way to reach a conclusion.

Scott "Rayno" Raynovich of Light Reading hits on a number of these same points in a well-written editorial today; while I may not agree with all of his let's-make-a-deal sentiments, I do think he's correct in stating that on both sides of the argument, things have gotten so strident they don't make any sense.

Take the FCC's Friday afternoon club, f'r example. On one hand you had AT&T's mouthpiece claiming the company needs to find a way to get past having to deal with all those nasty local franchise boards. On the other hand you had a rep from the franchising boards saying they welcome new entrants, but haven't heard a peep from the big telcos (until now that cable is seriously making a play for phone service).

So who's right? And how will the communications solon make up his mind? Instead of just talking past each other, isn't there any way to bring all sides together (here I am including the lawmakers and regulators) to hammer things out intelligently? Perhaps quarterly or twice-a-year regulation camps, where a wider pool of deep-thinkers all have some input on what goes on?

Or do we agree to keep the current smoky back-room implementation, with all its wonderful side effects? Is there another way?

Posted by paul at 02:27 PM | Comments (0)

February 10, 2006

Winter Olympic-type fun: The Aspen Downhill helmet cam

Now thanks to the town of Aspen, you can virtually experience what it's like to race a downhill! Click on the "helmet cam" link and off you go!

For more points, see if you can stay in a tuck the whole way down. Extra bonus points for readers who can name the slope (hint: Aspen is not in its name).

Posted by paul at 12:44 PM | Comments (0)

February 09, 2006

Where's the love for Vonage?

It may be hard to feel sorry for a rich man who may get richer, but given the way that some bloggers are ripping into Vonage's IPO plans, I just want to pour out a shot for Jeffrey Citron, who must be wondering what he did to deserve such disrespect.

And hey! I'm not even on a Vonage advisory board, so you know my opinion is heartfelt.

Is it OK to be skeptical of Vonage as an investment or a business? Yes, because that is part of our job. But do we have to be nasty?

Maybe those who feel free to toss around the word that's the opposite of "blow" should have spent some time Tuesday watching my man Jeff stick up for the VoIP and independent-operator industry at large in front of the U.S. Senate. The new beast known as Google should thank Citron (maybe with a business deal?) for bailing out Vint Cerf, a monumentally intelligent man who was out of sorts talking to polished hams like Sen. Ted Stevens.

Jeff may have a vested interest in the outcome of the Net Neutrality fight, but at least he's got some skin in the game. Where, I ask, is Mr. $4 billion in this fight? Still hiding in some undisclosed European location? Or behind some faulty teleconferencing software?

And, do we really need to belabor the obvious, like saying "gosh, Vonage better really really execute well." Hmmm. Good advice for any number of businesses, no?

What do I think? I think that trying to predict how the public markets may or may not accept Vonage is a fool's endeavor. Dig deep into the S-1, sure, let's get all the facts out there. But let's also not forget that Vonage is taking all the arrows from two deeply fortressed foes, and still signing up people who just want to use the phone for less.

Community building? Perhaps not. But is calling people on the phone likely to be a business for the near future? Perhaps.

UPDATE -- Fri., 2/10: More Vonage smackdown, this time from the erudite Martin Geddes. Hey, he told us so!

Posted by paul at 03:12 PM | Comments (0)

February 08, 2006

Vonage Files For IPO

According to the Wall Street Journal, Vonage has (finally!) filed for its IPO (subscription required to view link)... and as some suspected, Jeffrey Citron is out as CEO (he remains chairman). The story says the company is seeking $250 million, which seems a bit odd... more later, we're sure.

According to the Journal:

Vonage said Mike Snyder will take over Feb. 27 as chief executive from founder Jeffrey A. Citron, who will remain chairman of the board. Mr. Snyder joins Vonage from ADT, a provider of security systems and unit of Tyco International Ltd., where he has been president since 1997.

At the Senate Commerce Committee hearings Tuesday, Citron said Vonage now has 1.4 million VoIP lines in service... while some of us had previously seen the IPO rumors as mere bait for an acquisition, maybe there were no takers for Vonage, which many have deemed to be not worth its VC valuations? Maybe the public market will have the last say.

Posted by paul at 09:29 AM | Comments (0)

February 07, 2006

Scorecard for Senate Net Neutrality Smackdown!

The battle over Network Neutrality had a pretty good round of verbal fisticuffing today in the Senate Commerce Committee hearing, with good jabs and fancy footwork from both sides of the argument. Overall, we'll give a slight edge today to the Network Neutrality proponents, with a caveat...

...that says they really haven't scored a victory until they face down the twin emperors of Ed Whitacre and Ivan Seidenberg and draw some blood there. Without either Big Ed, Ivan the Slick or Comcast's Brian Roberts present, Tuesday's exercise was merely a scrimmage compared to the big game that comes later.

That said, we still had an event, so we need a scoreboard. Here is my unofficial, highly subjective scorecard from today's Senate hearings (viewed via the mushy-looking Real Networks webcast) on Network Neutrality, scored on a 1 (bad) to 10 (good) basis; scores are pretty much in order of chronological appearance:

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.):
Not actually a member of the Commerce Committee, Sen. Wyden (who called himself a "frustrated ex-member of the committee") gave a brief opening statement to rally the Net Neutrality troops: "There are powerful interests who are trying to break the Internet," he moaned. Says he will introduce legislation to make sure "no bit is better than another one." Um, including spam? Call us when your bill passes.
Score: 4.0

Vint Cerf, Google: Too cereberal for his own good. Smacked down by Stevens for using the "I'm an engineer, not an economist" line too many times. Vint, neither are they! But that doesn't stop them from grabbing millions for bridges. His star quality is undeniable, and Congress is sure to heed his warning -- "nothing less than the future of the Internet is at stake." And the "future Googles waiting to be born" is also a good rally point. But he fumbled on Ensign's questions about whether or not nets in Japan are open. Good thing for the NN team that Citron was there to bail him out.
Score: 6.0

Walter McCormick, USTA: The ultimate RBOC tool. Smooth and polished, McCormack is a lobbyist personified, and was treated as such. He could only rely on the standard arguments: "There isn't a problem" yet, and that NN rules will discourage investment. Waffled when asked by Sen. Dorgan about Verizon's bid to make Google pay -- "I wasn't privy to the comments Verizon made." (Hint, Walt -- you can read them here.) Smacked down by Boxer when he tries to tweak Google for censoring search in China. McCormick is nothing but Ed Whitacre's puppet, and the strings showed.
Score: 3.5

Jeffrey Citron, Vonage: One star of the show for the Net Neutrality team. Hides his natural arrogance well on this stage, and is well-prepared with facts to answer questions about USF and whether or not Vonage pays for its network use. Could make the points stronger, but he also knows that he doesn't have the juice to tweak Congress so he has to be their friend, or at least a very respectful presenter. Came to Cerf's rescue with Japan answers. Could be the poster child going forward, since Vonage is the only app provider (that we publicly know of) that has been blocked.
Score: 8.5

Kyle McSlarrow, NCTA: Showed a new strategy from the incumbents -- paint Network Neutrality as something that will "risk throwing the system into neutral." Huh? The real debate is about RBOC and Cable desires to have tiered systems and preferential treatment of content. This is classic Swift-boating, trying to change the definition of the argument. Won't be successful, with people like Lessig on the other side to call BS, but McSlarrow has friends in Ensign and other GOPers with strong telco ties. Also trots out the "there isn't a problem here" and "need incentive to invest" chestnuts. Neither argument holds a lot of weight, especially since Boxer shows she reads magazines that tend to quote Whitacre. Bad metaphor award: "Right now, innovation is exploding down the broadband highway."
Score: 5.0

Earl Comstock, CompTel: Too bad about the nanny stuff -- he could have been a great addition to the FCC. A Republican who opposes the Bells, with a command of history (grandpa telecom award for: he was THERE when they wrote the Telecom Act way back when!), Comstock advances an important point (reinforced later) that "the answer to quality of service is bandwidth." Also opens up a can of whup-ass on RBOCs for noting that they had promised 45 Mbps networks in the past, and have not delivered. "The Bell companies seem to be the best at making promises and the worst at keeping them." Ouch! He's right when he says "this is a fight about who is going to control innovation." Now take that sword to K street and see if it works.
Score: 7.75

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska): That this guy is in charge of the debate should scare us all. Can one of his staffers sit him down for a few minutes and explain "all that gigabit stuff?" Seems overwhelmed and can't figure out why Japan can get 100 Mbps and we can't get diddly. (Hint: they require operators to share networks. It's called "competition.") Had to love the open-mike catching him schmoozing with Cerf during the break… asking if he was related to the cartoonist. Weak questioning asking Cerf why Google doesn't just build its own network. Maybe, because they don't have a 75-year monopoly to string copper to everyone's house? Or local monopolies like cable providers? Demerits for twisting every question into something about Alaska. Bad metaphor silver medal for trying to compare networks to oil pipelines. Maybe if Google could harmlessly allow them to search for oil in ANWR… ah, never mind.
Score: 4.0

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.): With all the overseas trips these guys take, how can they know so little about what goes on in other countries? Why is Dorgan asking Vint Cerf if Network Neutrality works elsewhere? Though he "comes down on the side of freedom on the Internet" let's not forget that Dorgan joined with Conrad Burns to torpedo Sununu's free-the-VoIP legislation in 2004. Ostensibly on Net Neutrality's side, Dorgan will bargain as long as USF funds pour into the Dakotas. Watch soon for the "FiOS coming to Bismarck" headlines and a vote-switch from do-right-by-my-constitutents Byron.
Score: 4.0

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.): How does a guy from Nevada know so much about Wall Street? Will hammer that we need a "financial incentive to build networks" over and over again until you just give him the money for fiber rollouts just to keep him quiet. Claims that Great Britain and Japan are not free markets and he is right -- of course neither was AT&T but that's not his point. In fact, he says "I don't trust the Bell companies" and with his great-looking hair you almost believe him! He wants competition, between the cable companies and telcos! That's the American Way! Cerf weakly replies to Ensign that net rollouts in Japan "seem to be able to make money," but Ensign is not listening, he's slicking his hair back. Do not discount the hair, or his highly effective and well-thought-of aide-de-Internet camp, Mike "Sully" Sullivan, who is the gel behind the hair.
Score: 8.0

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.): With a folksy twang asks Citron if "you-all are paying into USF?" Citron knocks it out of the park, unequivocably, yes we are, we pay fees to ISPs. Next question? "Do you-all support USF?" "My only wish (Citron) is that it be fair." Asks same questions of Comstock. Would probably ask the lunch-line staffer if they support USF. Do you think Sen. Pryor wants to see USF continue? Do you think he really cares about Network Neutrality? Was he awake the whole time?
Score: 2.5

Sen. George Allen (R-Va.): I Dream Of Jeannie Award for trying, but failing, to come up with a metaphor claiming that passing Net Neutrality regulations would be bad. "Do you pass a law.. that lets the genie back out of the bottle?" he asks, confusingly. Ah, Senator, do you mean that "tiers of service" will foster more innovation than the current setup? He reminds us of Brick, the weather guy in Ron Burgundy, Anchorman -- who is similarly unable to construct the party-in-my-pants joke when the fat is in the fire. Later on he drew laughs for comparing the Senate to a "wounded sea slug." George, they're not laughing with you. Here's a tip of the genie bottle to Sen. Allen.
Score: 2.5

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.): Enthusiastic but needs to read blogs like Om Malik's -- they would tell her that the BusinessWeek article about Verizon she is quoting is only half-right, and not the best place to start an argument (that "little pipe" of Verizon's is 20 Mbps, so tough to call that "squeezing," Babs). She understands the issues, but isn't clear on the specifics, which is scary for the Net Neutrality team -- they should have done a better job of preparing her. Barbara, meet Vint. Vint, Barbara. But showed that "I'm the Senator here" when she sliced McCormick in half when he tried to end-around her questions with a swipe at Google. Recovers again later when she finds another friend in Lessig to toss softballs at. Shows she knows the score as to who is behind each presenter, which is more than half the battle. But someone get her a browser and a Bloglines feed!
Score: 7.0

UPDATED, 4:47 pm PST, with second panel scores:

KYLE DIXON, Progress & Freedom Foundation: Kyle is the kind of guy you wish was on your team… smooth, well-spoken and an obvious command of the issues. Only (big) flaw is the "nanny" feeling you get from everyone at the PFF -- don't get me wrong, I love the PFF and the excuse to go to Aspen every summer! And they are smart smart folks there. But they never forget to let you know it, and to let you know they know it. Somehow Kyle can make the statements that Net Neutrality rules could "undermine the incentives to invest" and "doing so could make network neutrality the problem" and make them sound fresh and new, even if they are tired and old. When he says regulation could be a "slippery slope," you can almost feel yourself sliding!
Score: 8.5

LARRY (LAWRENCE) LESSIG, Stanford: Obi-wan with glasses… nah, that's not right, but kinda. Lessig is a higher power than the rest of us mere mortals, and he taps the force. His magic is strong, and he makes his points clearly and forcefully. And he's a showman, saying "you have my testimony" but instead he's going to talk off the menu! Cool! Does a good job of turning the whole premise around by stating that AT&T/Verizon's plans -- and not Network Neutrality rules -- are "a radical change in the regulation of telecom" and that the past success of a regulated Internet should be the guide to future success, not "theories." He's a little obtuse with his musical references and allusions to wading in horse dung, but comes on strong later with a clear explanation of the differences between tiered pricing for service levels (which he says is OK, even encouraged) and tiered pricing for access to applications (not cool, will cut off innovation to only those who already have cash).
Score: 9.25

J. GREGORY SIDAK, Georgetown University Law Center: Sorry, I tuned out on J. Greg after about 10 seconds -- he was low-talking and not making any clear points. According to his prepared materials he said he was a 20-year paid telecom consultant AND made a reference to his kid and the Fox show "24" in his opening statements, which earns him the Joe Buck irrelevant award. As in, we refuse to listen to you because you have nothing to say. Thanks for taking up some of Barbara Boxer's valuable time. And thanks for being local, so we didn't have to pay travel expenses.
Score: 1.5

GARY BACHULA, Internet 2: The sleeper of the show -- Gary had Sen. Stevens sputtering, wondering how the hell some snotty college kids are getting gigabits per second while fishermen in Alaska only have dial-in over wet monofilament. Bachula torched the AT&T and Verizon claims about the need for "specialized" video services with some hands-on experience. According to Bachula, Internet 2 users are streaming HDTV, holding conference calls -- all at best-effort configuration on their mile-wide pipes. "It's far more cost-efficient simply to provide more bandwidth," Bachula said. "Rather than introduce more complexity, telecom providers should focus on bandwidth and the [QoS] problems take care of themselves." But Gary, then how would you justify all those lawyers? The Jason Gore of the hearings, without the 84 on Sunday.
Score: 9.0

(P.S. -- thanks to all the Blackberry-holding attendees who helped with this report. You know who you are!)

Posted by paul at 12:49 PM | Comments (2)

February 05, 2006

Who Is Paul Kapustka?

PAUL KAPUSTKA is a longtime industry journalist who has been covering the networking and Internet business markets since 1991. At some point I may list all the jobs I've had if I can remember them. Suffice to say I can remember life before browsers.

This is a personal blog, with the views solely my own, and not those of my many employers. Most recently you may have seen my work in various places at CMP Media LLC (including video reports for CMP Media's The News Show). Currently I am editor of pulverWeb, a VoIP news site.

Comments, suggestions, complaints and howdy-tos can be sent to: paul at kapustka dot com.

Posted by paul at 12:59 PM | Comments (0)

February 03, 2006

FCC Meeting In Keller? Start The Conflict-Of-Interest Train Rolling

Not sure what to make of the FCC's decision to hold its next open meeting in Keller, Texas, home of Verizon's FiOS rollout.

Maybe FCC chairman Kevin Martin is jealous of TV Network news anchors, who get to jet around the globe to cover the story? Sure, I understand -- the meeting is supposed to be about video franchising, so why not stage it in an area that's breaking new ground. But by placing it so clearly in an area made famous by Verizon marketing seems to smack of payback. Wonder how Kyle feels about this move? Think he's invited?

Let's just hope Martin and the other commissioners are taking commercial flights to Keller, and not fighting for the shotgun seat on Verizon's corporate jet. You wouldn't want more conflicts of interest than those already reached by moving the meeting to Keller.

What's next? FCC commissioners showing how much bandwidth Google takes up by holding a meeting in Ed Whitacre's office? No, that would probably take up too much space on AT&T's pipes.

Posted by paul at 02:54 PM | Comments (0)