Paul Kapustka's Blog

« February 2006 | Main | April 2006 »

March 30, 2006

House Hearing Smackdown: COPE Bill

If you wanted to know who the heavy hitters are in the telecom legislation debate, Thursday's dual House and Senate hearings provided good theater and a chance for some new names to shine. Among the strong performers at the House event were committee chairman Joe "what's all this net neutrality stuff anyhow" Barton, Edward "shaddup" Markey, Vonage's Jeffrey Citron and Ken Fellman, mayor of Arvada, Colo. Scores, highlights and lowlights follow...

(First of all -- if you haven't done any required reading, take some time to bone up on where the debate currently stands. For the House bill, we point you to Jeff Pulver's take of a couple days ago, and for the Senate version, this posting from David Hatch at the National Journal is a good updater. Also, Pulver "wartime consigliere" Jonathan Askin has an on-the-scene report with added depth and insight.)

Now, on to Thursday's House performance, otherwise known as the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Hearing to consider H.R. ____, a Committee Print on the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006: (and that blank spot is not a typo, that's how it's described on the House site)

First off, a caveat: This is far less than a wire-to-wire accounting of the proceedings, mainly because A) I didn't wake up early enough to catch the start of the webcast, and B) the thing ran on so long it was necessary to take breaks for things like breakfast. Such is the drudge of covering these things from the left coast. Now with my apologies out of the way, the best, worst and inbetween...

TOP PERFORMERS

JOE BARTON, R-Texas (committee chairman)
I missed his opening remarks, but during questioning Barton let everyone know who's the boss hog on this bill: He is. School was in when prof. Barton asked the witnesses, with not a small amount of anger, that "I want a definition of network neutrality from each of you gentlemen." Citron (more later) didn't flinch, and neither did Amazon veep Paul Misener. But Barton didn't really listen to their answers -- he already knew the answer, which was (after the panel had answered), "notice, no one's given close to the same definition yet."

Barton is the lead hawg on what is apparently the latest walking order from the Bells on how to deal with network neutrality, which is simply to neuter it by proclaiming it undefinable.

"We're tied up in knots [over net neutrality] and we don't have a universally recognized definition what it is," Barton complained.

Great, we don't understand it, so let's just ignore it! Let's move forward! Pass a bill already!

You may not like Barton's politics, but there is no doubt who is in charge. Hell, he was even passing out grades on the witnesses responses (he liked Misener's the best, and even chided cable lackey Kyle McSlarrow for "not having a definition")! Hey, you trying to put us out of a private-sector job, Joe?
Score: 7.0

ED MARKEY, D-Mass.
Rep. Markey may not have numbers on his side in this battle, but that doesn't mean he can't inflict wounds. His prime whipping boy Thursday was telco tool Walter McCormick, who Markey backed into a corner by noting that telcos want "rules" to force cable and broadcasters into letting telcos carry their programming, while telcos only want "principles" to guide their stewardship of network neutrality and open interconnects.

The great theater was Markey basically not letting MC Walt even begin any of his stock answers, but cutting him off before Walter could even say things like "incentive to invest." "You guys should develop your own programming," Markey told Walt. McSlarrow, a quick learner, didn't even try to slug it out with Markey, instead answering with a curt "no" to a list of questions like, "can you pledge that [cable companies] will upgrade uniformly," etc., etc.

Markey even roughed up Vonage's Citron a bit, trying to push him off his new center-of-the-road stance by asking for a grade "from one to 10" on the network neutrality provisions of the current COPE draft. (he finally coaxed a grade of "5" out of Citron) Markey then finished with a flourish about the weak build-out provisions in COPE, stating that it's clear that the future [of video, I think] in the telco plan will see "the poor side of town subsidizing the rich side of town."

And: "You don't need a business degree from Harvard to know that's the plan," Markey said.(BONUS LINK: Markey's web site already has video of his statement up... yeah, I think he gets this Internet thing.)
Score: 7.5

NEW FACE AWARDS:
STEVE BUYER, R-Indiana
Maybe he's not a nationally known entity yet, but Rep. Buyer is no doubt winning fans in San Antonio for his successful help in passing Indiana's new video dereg legislation (one of the sponsors, state Sen. Brandt Hershmann, works for Buyer). Thursday, he proved as adept as Barton in following the "what the heck is network neutrality, anyway" line, asking rhetorically for people to "write on a piece of paper what network neutrality means" so presumably, he could... what? Belittle it? Buyer then made some veiled references to legislation of his own that he was holding in check in respect to Barton's bid... but if this bill fails, look for Buyer to step into any power breach.

Buyer showed more fire later when he voiced an open-ended question about whether the semantics of "cable service" or "video service" mattered... and when nobody answered, Buyer said, "great, I'm the only one who gives a damn." Yow! Young, well-informed, good presenter, good hair (See Ensign score here for why that matters)... the future is bright for the next fair-haired child of the RBOCs.
Score: 6.75

KEN FELLMAN, Mayor, City of Arvada (Colo.) and rep for some mayor/cities groups:
Fellman, a new face on the scene, gets kudos for trying to dispel one of the bigger myths, that somehow Verizon and AT&T don't have the resources to go get local video franchises all over the country. Fellman, citing a story he read that said Verizon has 50 employees dedicated to evaluating franchise agreements, boldly stated that "if you add up the number of lobbyists they have trying to end franchising, it will add up to more than 50."

Ouch! Maybe he's not the first to suggest that if Verizon and AT&T had redirected lobbying and legislative efforts toward franchising, they might have all they need by now... but what fun would that be? Fellman even took a belated swipe at Barton, following Barton's "define this" performance with a "I was hoping chairman Barton was going to also ask us for a definition of a competitive cable service." (of course, Barton had already left the room, but still -- cheeky!)
Score: 7.25

AND THE REST:

JEFFREY CITRON, Vonage
Still one of the best speakers network neutrality proponents have, Citron is getting to be an ace at this hearings game, never backing down, never unsure of his answers. He's also learned what matters to Congress, spending most of his time talking about E-911 services, and why the bill needs to ensure that the Verizons and the AT&Ts give Vonage access to PSAP infrastructure... sounds reasonable, not whiny, never even says network neutrality anymore. He even talked about how Vonage and Verizon were best buds, since Verizon provided a single tech standard for linking to all its 911 centers! You may not like his new centrist approach, but for a company that needs all the friends it can get, it's sure not stupid.
Score: 6.5

PAUL MISENER, VP for global public policy, Amazon.com
Though he needs to brush up on his technology descriptions of what a router does (hint to Misener: they can do a lot more prioritization of packets than you think), Misener did give voice to what all the Bell suckups seem to want to ignore -- that the CEOs of the big telcos are all saying publicly that they want to charge more for certain applications. "They are going to alter the Internet, unless Congress stops them," Misener noted. "they have already stated their intent to do so."

With a few better stock answers (like, how hard would it be to come up with a "this is what net neutrality means" that Amazon, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft could all agree on?), and some better clothes for his next C-Hill appearance (dark blue button-down shirt under a suit? What's that, business casual/formal?), Misener could help net neutrality proponents a lot, going forward.
Score: 6.25

Tool o' the day award (maybe we should just put his name on it): Walter McCormick, USTA
Even though he was knocked to the floor by Markey (and later took another head-swipe from Rick Boucher), MC Walt still found time to play the China Card -- "what if Google censored public speech, as it has done in China?" Walt asked, though nobody had asked the question. "it's a very dangerous thing to be the first country in the world to regulate the Internet," McCormick added. And people pay good money for this kind of blather?
Score: 1.5

Why Is This Man In A Responsbile Position award: Bobby Rush, D-Ill.
Wouldn't you love to have seen whose letterhead was on the piece of paper that Rep. Rush was reading his opening statement from? I mean, this was not someone who appeared to be speaking from the heart or from innate knowledge of the subject. Though Rush said he wants to make sure that the concerns of his African-American constituency "must be addressed," maybe he didn't hear all that stuff about how the bill he's now a co-sponsor of doesn't require telcos to completely build out in the areas where they want to provide video services?

Rep. Rush, meet Rep. Markey. Supposedly, you are on the same side.
Score: 1.0

MORE LATER: Senate smackdown tonight or tomorrow.

Posted by paul at 03:32 PM | Comments (0)

Good question for Google -- why not use the 'Net for lobbying?

Here's a good column on C/Net today that asks why Google is hiring D.C. lawyers, instead of trying new solutions for the lobbying problem. I say, why not do both? Hire the lawyers to CYA among the old guard, while using the Howard Dean online approach to bring new numbers into the fray.

Good luck, tho, in getting Google to answer. I'm on day 5 of a request for Google to respond to AT&T's claims from last week. All I've heard so far is an email saying "we'll get back to you if we think you are important enough to warrant our time."

Maybe, while they're hiring, add some more P.R. or press liason staffers? Gotta be room in the budget, alongside all the free chow.

Posted by paul at 12:19 PM | Comments (0)

Telco vs. Cable -- let the Swift-boating begin!

While we work up our smackdown score report from Thursday's House and Senate hearings, here's some entertainment courtesy of the cable companies -- a new web site and ads attacking the telcos' ease-the-video-franchising-rules campaign. As one astute political observer notes, it's "Swift Boat" attacks coming to issue politics.

The real fun -- scroll down on the left side and view the TV ads, "meet the phoneys." Great stuff!

Posted by paul at 11:27 AM | Comments (0)

March 29, 2006

Smackdown Thursday -- House and Senate

Resting up and getting lots of fluids tonight, with two -- count 'em, two -- hearings scheduled Thursday, both in the House and Senate commerce committee fiefdoms. Betting line is that the House gathering is more exciting, though I'd pay to see a leg-wrestling match between Walt and Earl in the afternoon...

Well, OK, maybe I wouldn't pay. But it would be fun to watch, especially if MC Walter shows up on the same stuff he was drinking last week...

Posted by paul at 05:38 PM | Comments (0)

March 28, 2006

NY Times -- Google finally hires more than 1 lobbyist

The NY Times (registration req'd) has a bit today about Google waking up, smelling the coffee and hiring a few more troops for its upcoming Beltway battles. Better late than never, eh?

Google's arrogance over its ignorance (up until now) of matters Washington was never more evident than at the recent hearings about Google's dealings in China, when local (Bay area) congressman Tom Lantos ripped Google a new search-hole for its move into China.

The company's position is open to fair debate -- but its apparent failure to send somebody a few miles up the Peninsula to brief Rep. Lantos prior to the hearings shows how low a priority Google previously put on holding Congress' hand, a mistake the Googlers are apparently now trying to fix by throwing bundles of cash at lawyers.

Which, in D.C. is not always a bad idea. Just make sure it's the right lawyers. From what we hear, there are a lot of former SBC lobbyists looking for work, so that's a good place to start.

SMACKDOWN QUOTE:

Let's all share a group cringe for the Internet personality known as Esther Dyson, who offered the following quote to the Times about Google's lobbying ramp-up:

"It's sad," said Esther Dyson, editor of the technology newsletter Release 1.0 and former chairwoman of Icann, a nonprofit group that plays a role in Internet administration. "The kids are growing up. They've lost youth and innocence. Now they have to start being grown-ups and playing at least to some extent by grown-up rules."

What's really sad is that Esther thinks it's sad for Google to actually engage lawmakers on their own turf. But then, maybe listening to people from D.C. isn't a big part of Esther's agenda these days.

Smackdown score for Esther's quote: 1.0

Posted by paul at 03:35 PM | Comments (0)

Astroturf Lobbying -- Required reading

After listening last week to arguments from the horses' mouths, this week it's time to look at the Greek chorus -- the astroturf lobbying groups that big telcos pay to sell their stories under the guise of "independent" or "grassroots" efforts. First, some required reading to set the stage: A great new report out today from Common Cause, and a new series from C/Net's D.C. reporters.

Later this week, I'll take a deeper look at how one of these organizations -- FreedomWorks -- puts together its so-called "research" to help the telcos' cause.

One big question that surfaces whenever I hear about these groups is: How can the Bells and the cablecos complain about having to spend so much time and money with local governments when they obviously have the resources to fund nationwide lobbying efforts? Is our political system so transparent that it's simply easier to use P.R. and obfuscation rather than good arguments?

Are we naive even to ask such questions?

Posted by paul at 03:10 PM | Comments (0)

March 23, 2006

TelecomNext -- Net Neutrality Confuses Big Telcos

LAS VEGAS, Nev. -- The debate about network neutrality reached a new level of obfuscation Wednesday, when the top political operatives from AT&T and Verizon held court with the media here to try to clarify the issue -- but ended up raising more new questions instead. The bottom line? I think the big telcos are confused because (unlike the old days, when they battled each other) there simply is no organized foe "on the other side" to cleanly oppose.

Sit in a room for the better part of an hour with AT&T's Jim Cicconi and Verizon's Tom Tauke, and eventually they may zap your brain with enough mind-numbing phrases to make you write something like this, a somewhat desperate attempt to get a short news story out of a long, rambling discourse.

Cicconi's point about net neutrality being all about video would have been great had he named names. But he specifically didn't say anything you could hold him to, which is maybe why he's such a good lobbyist and lawyer. He (and Tauke) hinted that Google was the main culprit here -- and that Google is planning to stream movies over the Internet, and it wants net neutrality rules to let it use the dedicated bandwidth the telcos are setting aside for their own video businesses.

That would be a good story, if it were true. We may never hear Google's side of it, since the company is a black hole these days when it comes to press requests for information. (For the record, we are now at two months in counting waiting for a reply from Google PR to a question I had following this story. Anytime you want to return the email is fine by me, guys.)

But it's not even fully true from AT&T's side. When I asked Cicconi specifically that if net neutrality is all about movies, why has Ed Whitacre also singled out Vonage as a "freeloader?" Cicconi didn't answer the question directly, but replied instead about Google wanting to ride over AT&T's not-yet-deployed video stream, which he compared to a VPN. I tried again, but no answer on Vonage. And remember, blocking Vonage is where this whole net neutrality thing started. By not being able to answer clearly about VoIP, Cicconi ruins his own "it's all video" argument. Some other reporters with a number of words to type by deadline may buy the explanation, but here at NN central we need some more meat.
Score for Cicconi: 4.5

Verizon's Tauke, who isn't afraid to sink to new lows in the debate, seemed exasperated that it's "difficult to find some consensus on what they [the net neutrality proponents] are seeking." He then segued into a doozy that I haven't seen anywhere else in the typically docile "telecom press" -- comparing the net neutrality debate to the war in Iraq.

"It's a little like the war in Iraq," said Tauke, causing cringes all around the room. "There's regime change and turmoil there... and here, there is regime change too."

Much to the Verizon PR staff's joy, Tauke gave up the line of reasoning before he actually called Google insurgents. Smackdown score for Tauke: 0.5.

But the us-vs.-them thinking is pretty indicitive of how such lobbying battles play out. In the past, it was easy -- Cicconi, previously at RBOC opponent AT&T, would tilt his sword against Tauke. Both opponents understood the rules of engagement, death by steak dinners at the Palm, our spokesman against yours.

But the net neutrality battle is different, because like the Internet, its proponents are multiple and diverse. They are opinionated, and all believe they are qualified to lead. They do not band together and speak with one voice, like AT&T, Verizon and Qwest can, within minutes. Ultimately, it may lead to the learning of a hard lesson with short-term defeats in the writing of telecom reform legislation. But over the long haul, net neutrality proponents may learn how to band together effectively and knock down the weak house of cards being built by the telcos.

One of Cicconi's statements Wednesday -- that there isn't the investment money available to build a public Internet that could deliver the QoS of a dedicated line -- seems easily disproved. The folks who are building Internet2 have already told the Senate so, in that by building 10 Gbps backbones and 100 Mbps links to desktops, they are ALREADY doing things like streaming HD videoconferences and more. In Boulder, Internet pioneer Bob Kahn asked why there aren't more technical solutions being proposed for the net neutrality concerns -- my guess is it's a combination of people like Cisco running scared from any real debate (they don't want to anger the people who buy their million-dollar routers) and the scattered efforts from the rest of the arrogant Silicon Valley companies (Google the new Microsoft here) who still think they can ignore what happens in D.C.

Right now, I still think that the telcos are winning the political battle over net neutrality (as Tauke and Cicconi do -- "we're scoring a lot of points," Cicconi said smugly), but that in the long haul there may be finer points -- such as the need for more transparency in network performance statistics -- where net neutrality proponents could score real victories that would matter greatly to consumers of an open Internet. While many in the media may be tiring of this debate already, it's just getting started. And truly, it's just starting to get interesting.

Posted by paul at 05:43 PM | Comments (3)

TelecomNext -- More Thursday

Sorry nothing fun tonight. More Thursday, I promise! How cool is it to be randomly seated next to Cisco (and former FCCer) policy wonk Bob Pepper on a flight back home from Vegas? Tomorrow we'll try to explain what Verizon's Tom Tauke and SBC's Jim Cicconi think network neutrality means, and why Tauke compared the net neutrality debate to the Iraq war...

THAT oughta make you come back later, eh? Look for a fresh post in the mid-afternoon.

Posted by paul at 12:30 AM | Comments (0)

March 21, 2006

TelecomNext Tuesday -- The Big Ed Show

LAS VEGAS, Nev. -- The parade of big-name CEOs continued here at TelecomNext, but even a rare Kevin Martin sighting (and some live questions from real reporters!) couldn't top Big Ed Whitacre at his annual hoe-down. Read on to hear why Ed won today's smackdown, hands down...

It's Big Ed's show here now, and don't you forget it. On Tuesday, we laughed when Ed told us to laugh. We nodded when he said Net Neutrality was an evil scheme. And we believed him when he said he wouldn't block any VoIP.

First off, the mea culpa: Never mind that Ed hisself started all the net neutrality fireworks with his comments more than a year ago about Vonage being a "freeloader" and then again this past fall when he told BusinessWeek that Vonage and Google were "nuts" to think they could make money off his pipes. Tuesday, Ed said some people out there were scared that Internet access was "at risk." (Gee, why, Ed?)

After a failed joke about Mark Twain and the speed of lies -- when it failed the first time Ed said, "you're supposed to laugh," which drew laughs and then more laughs when he repeated the joke -- see, we can learn to follow Ed, just like the FCC! Then Ed told the crowd it was time to "get behind the rhetoric." Umm, would that be rhetoric like "nuts?" Ah, never mind. Dinging Ed here at TelecomNext would be "few-tile," as he pronounces it.

Publicly, Ed tried to put all that "nuts" nonsense behind us by saying AT&T won't block services or apps, "nor will we degrade [services]. Period, end of story."

Well! No need to worry more about net neutrality then! And even though his talk was riddled with holes big enough to drive an AT&T disaster truck through, this was Ed's show and damned if he would let anyone else win the smackdown.
Score: 8.5 (bonus point for coming up with new "rhetoric" around the need for new national TV franchising processes; no longer will the telcos say that "if we get one [franchise] license a week, it'll take us 30 years." The new line from Ed is that "if we get one a day it'll take us 6 years." Sounds more reasonable, right?

OTHER SPEAKERS

Kevin Martin, Chairman, FCC
Wow, a real-live chairman Martin... and even a few cursory minutes for the unwashed press! For once, show host and overenthused pitchman Walter McCormick didn't just ask Kevin about the wife and kid during Martin's on-stage Q&A -- Walt even asked about net neutrality, albeit in a sniveling way, trying to soften the question with an ending that was something like, "this isn't really even an issue anymore, is it?"

Martin, even though he looked a little disheveled (hey, he's a new dad on a quick trip to Vegas... we'll cut him some slack on the "hair" issue) ignored Walter's softshoe and answered cleanly, claiming that the FCC does have the authority to "Madison River" anyone who tries to push the limits of the net neutrality principles. And after an exciting tour of AT&T's disaster-relief trucks (bet that just made the lifetime lawyer tingle with geek excitement, eh?), Martin deigned to stop in a hallway aisle to take a few shouted questions from a press mob. There, he said the commission does need to ensure transparency of services, but only could offer "public web sites" as a place where consumers could find out if service providers were giving them what they paid for. More on this topic later, but we give Kev a close silver medal for showing up and not just mailing it in. For a change.
Score: 8.25

And the rest of Tuesday's crew...

John Chambers, CEO, Cisco
Preacher John was out of his normal church, St. Enterprise of the Router Buyer, but he still produced a polished version (with some service-provider twists) of his stock "you need to use the network to move your business ahead" speech. Trademark walk through the audience? Check. Trademark funny demo with Jim Grubb, with a joke about Jim? Check. Trademark "you know where I'm going with this" line? Check. While he impressed several telecom types who hadn't seen him before, there was nothing special about this Chambers appearance.
Score: 5.0

getting late again here, so rapid-fire...

Dan Hesse, CEO, Embarq
Dan really knew how to grip the audience with that opening line about how breaking up AT&T was "this country's greatest regulatory blunder." Then he impressed us by reminding everyone he used to lead AT&T Wireless. ("and how well did that go?" asked the person next to me, snickering) Then Dan proceeded to whine about how VoIP providers don't have to pay as much as he does in interconnect fees or taxes. Instead of feeling your pain, Dan, we looked at your charts and said: "Hmm. Which business are the SMART people in?"
Score: 1.0

Stan Sigman, CEO, Cingular
The guy next to me (who may write this blog soon, if he keeps contributing great keynote one-liners) noted Stan's slow walk across the football-field stage and noted, "he looks uncomfortable out of his cowboy boots." Stan apparently gave some talk about how Cingular has some beliefs it follows to make it such a great business. When I heard we were going to hear about Cingular's operating principles, I took a nature break. (If you really need a gripping, no-holds-barred account of the speech, read here!) Guess I didn't miss much.
Score: 2.0

Robbie Bach, President, Entertainment and Devices Division, Microsoft
After Bach's demo, it's clear to see why after so many years of trying Microsoft has only signed up its second customer for its IPTV software: It's nothing exciting. Gosh, how exciting! Multiple panels on my screen! Live video windows in search! And if we move to Germany, maybe we'll see it in action, right after Vista ships this year! Wait... oh, never mind.
Score: 1.5 (half-point deduction for not being able to work the demo himself. C'mon, if you need to bring a flunky out to click a remote, "Robbie," how is Joe couch surfer supposed to cope?)

Posted by paul at 11:52 PM | Comments (0)

TelecomNext Monday -- 60 second smackdown

Late, late night blogging from TelecomNext, but we need to get Monday's smackdowns complete before Tuesday's keynotes from Big Ed, Chairman Kev and JC the Cisco kid. The winner Monday, in an upset, is Time-Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt! Read on!

We will try to be as rapid-fire here as the backtobacktobacktoback keynotes Monday afternoon, but for your reading pleasure we will eliminate THE REALLY LOUD MUSIC THAT PLAYED FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER. I mean, it was REALLY loud. The House of Blues called up and said "turn that sh*t down." Really.

[side note: better find some new music without the word "ass-shakin" in the lyrics tomorrow to introduce Kevin "Mr. Indecency" Martin!]

Keynote prologue: Walter "showman" McCormick, head lobbyist, USTA.
Walter didn't really have a keynote, but his intro to the people that mattered was extra-long, filled with weird hypey stuff and we were a bit unsettled at his light sport-coat, black shirt ensemble. What is he now, a casino greeter? A reality show host? Amped up on Red Bull? Walter, we realize you're happy the show is underway and that everyone showed up. Now please, sit somewhere quiet. Thank you. Score: 1.5

Ivan Seidenberg, CEO, Verizon
As juicy as Walter was, Ivan was equally restrained. None of the "Google should open their wallets" talk Monday. Just a few wry hints about "gosh it'd be nice to have a compliant Congress" and wonderment about the amazing things we could do with 100 Mbps networks. Yeah, like be jealous of Japan and Korea when they go to Gig-E. Tom Tauke was watching from the front row, probably to tackle Ivan if his lips started forming the words "Network Neutrality."
Score: 3.5

Robert Iger, CEO, Walt Disney
Nothing was truer than Robert's (can we call you "Bob"?) first line, which followed a great glitzy mashup video clip of ESPN, Desperate Housewives, Lost, etc. video scenes. "Maybe I shouldn't say anything," Iger said. But then he did, and proceeded to set open networking back a decade or two, calling for more DRM, more network controls and branded quality content. Scary good, because he knows of what he speaks and is ready to charge us more than Steve Jobs for it. And then cozied up to Ivan by stating that we didn't need any of those net neutrality rules. Bob, one word: MySpace. Check it out.
Score: 5.5

Glenn Britt, CEO, Time Warner Cable
(question: why are all these guys "president and CEO"? If you are the CEO, why do you also need to be president? Tax reasons? Someone please enlighten me.)
Glenn looked nervous -- sheep at the wolf party kind of nervous -- but proceeded to take a swipe at telco lobbying efforts anyway, the kind of mess-the-host's-carpet move that we just love here at smackdown city. He kind of rushed through the last part of his presentation -- something about caller ID for your TV, as if we need such interruptions during the Sopranos -- but you'd hurry too if you thought someone might take a shot at you.
Score: 8.5

Norio Wada, President & CEO, NTT
If there was ever a need for subtitles on a keynote, this was the time. Kudos to Norio for his all-English keynote -- trust me, if I had to write in Japanese I might crash an economy or two -- but you couldn't help but feel a lot of important stuff was lost in translation. Did he say something about building an all-fiber network that would be wide open to ISPs and application creators? Think I saw Tom Tauke getting ill when that point was raised.We need more research here.
Score: 7.5, pending judges review

Tomorrow: Big Ed Whitacre, Kevin Martin and John Chambers! If we ever get to sleep!

Posted by paul at 01:26 AM | Comments (2)

March 17, 2006

Verizon Plays the 'China Card' in Net Neutrality Debate

Don't say you weren't warned! You have to read carefully, but near the bottom of this report you will find Verizon's congressional consigliere Tom Tauke playing the 'China Card' to help bat down the independent Internet players.

Good thing the rhetoric is being scaled down a bit, eh? Sure, letting everyone have access to applications is just like the censorship in China. Thanks for that level-headed take, Tom. Only thing missing from this essay was more whining about a free lunch.

Posted by paul at 11:32 AM | Comments (0)

March 15, 2006

Dick Notebaert and Net Neutrality at VON

More from the VON Daily Buzz (the name of our show daily publication): Here's Thursday's lead story about Dick Notebaert's official statement of Qwest's Net Neutrality policy (which summed up is simply, "we believe what AT&T believes, only we're nicer in how we talk about it"), after the jump.

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Customers' desires to purchase specialized services shouldn't be denied by regulation, said Qwest CEO Richard Notebaert, as part of the reasoning behind his company's "hands-off" stance on Network Neutrality.

The hot-button topic, which has been front and center at this week's Spring 2006 VON gathering, was the focus of Notebaert's industry perspective session here Wednesday morning. In what he called Qwest's first official statement on Network Neutrality, Notebaert praised the ideas of Internet Freedoms while also asserting that "commercial agreements" between service providers and customers shouldn't be denied by Net Neutrality regulations.

Notebaert made no bones about Qwest's desire to sell differentiated services to partners or customers, calling it a natural, normal part of the telecommunications business.

"We've always sold bigger pipes, better SLAs to those who wanted them," Notebaert said. "It gives them [the customers] a competitive edge. That's what it's all about."

While some proponents of Network Neutrality argue that deals for specialized delivery of Internet content and services can act as a sort of service-provider bottleneck on the market, Notebaert said having government intervene in such commercial decisions "doesn't feel good to me."

Unlike some of his big telecom provider contemporaries, Notebaert tried to bring reason to the debate, especially in the matter of blocking or degrading services, a notion he sees as an insult to even consider.

"My job has never been to degrade services," said Notebaert. "It's not even in the realm of possibility [at Qwest]." On the subject of blocking services, Notebaert said the FCC has shown in the past its willingness and authority to discipline such cases, like the one last year where Madison River was fined $15,000 for attempting to block Vonage's VoIP service.

"It [blocking] is just not going to happen [at Qwest]," Notebaert said. "The idea of blocking isn't in our dictionary."

(copyright 2006, pulvermedia)

BONUS for Paul blog readers: In a quick conversation after his talk, yours truly asked Notebaert if he thought that some of the heat in the Net Neutrality debate just might have been raised by his contemporaries, Ed Whitacre and Ivan Seidenberg.

After first stumbling through an attempt to claim he didn't know what I was talking about -- after which I repeated the question -- there was this: "I'm not going to talk about that," Notebaert said with a smile. Meaning, I know what you're asking, but I don't have to give you an answer.

Round one, to Notebaert. But we're far from finished. :-)

Posted by paul at 11:28 PM | Comments (1)

March 14, 2006

Larry Lessig And Net Neutrality at VON

Not much time to blog tonight, so here is Wednesday's lead story from our VON Daily Buzz... we will try to find a place to post the full PDFs somewhere soon, but for now this snippet will have to suffice. Read on for prof. Lessig's call to action...

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Though he does a great job of arguing the case for an open, innovative Internet, Stanford Law professor Larry Lessing told a VON audience Tuesday that they, not he, need to speak up now to get a similar message to the halls of political power.

In a talk that focused on the "Network Neutrality" debate -- the issue of whether or not service providers should be allowed to have greater control of pricing and content delivery mechanisms for Internet access -- Lessig warned attendees of the Spring 2006 VON Communications Policy Summit that big telecommunication companies might choke off business opportunity by exerting more control over their networks.

"The only people who can resist [controls] effectively are the people who build the value on this network," said Lessing, referring to the VON audience of innovative IP communications companies. "That's the class that needs to deliver the message to Congress."

If they follow Lessig's lead, the message is that an Internet with fewer controls might actually produce a "bigger economic pie" than one that allows the current network operators to better preserve and monetize their existing infrastructure.

"Bigger, fuller and richer comes from less control over the network," said Lessig, who backed up his point with several examples of amateur video work that is rapidly approaching professional quality.

The urgency of the Net Neutrality debate, Lessig said, is being advanced by the big phone companies, who have made public statements recently that accuse independent application and service providers like Vonage and Google of enjoying a "free lunch" on the service providers' wires.

"Those should be fighting words in [Silicon] Valley," said Lessig, who added that he has spent many words trying to convince tech companies to get their lobbying act together.

"I've spoken hundreds of times, and nothing's happened," Lessig said. "But somebody's got to do it. Selling the soul of the Internet is too high a price to pay."

(copyright 2006, pulvermedia)

Posted by paul at 11:35 PM | Comments (0)

March 13, 2006

Cisco: Arms Merchant For Net Neutrality

If Cisco makes good on its pledge to publicly state its Network Neutrality position Tuesday, it's good to remember that no matter which way the debate goes, the router king stands to win. Just more proof that in any battle, the most-guaranteed rewards usually go to the arms merchant. (Hint: The betting line is at "even" that Cisco says something Verizon and AT&T will like.) UPDATE, 3/14: Betting line pays off, as Cisco does as predicted.

It's the end of a long first day of Spring 2006 VON, but issue #1 of the show daily is in the printers' hands, scheduled for delivery (by yours truly) fresh Tuesday morning. Given that Larry Lessig is scheduled to speak in about 8 hours, I'm going to be brief here. But I did want to relay some bits of an interview I did recently with ex-FCC officio (and now Cisco policy czar) Robert Pepper, conducted the day Sen. Ron Wyden introduced his Network Neutrality legislation. (there is, by the way, no betting line on Wyden's bill ever becoming law.)

Pepper ("Bob" to many of us) seemed a bit agitated during our call, maybe because I just blindsided him with a direct dial, instead of going through the courtesy of PR channels. To his credit, Bob picked up his own (IP-powered!) phone. And part of what he said was that some Net freedoms -- "you ought to be able to go on the 'Net and attach your own equipment" -- are extremely important, but "NOT inconsistent [his emphasis]" with "being able to manage to network to improve customer experience."

If that sounds like someone who now works for a company that sells million-dollar routers to service providers as well as wireless routers at Best Buy, you understand (as another mutual friend said) "why Bob lasted so long at the FCC." He knows how to play politics. And that's good for Cisco, since they sit in the middle of this looming battle between big service providers and common customers.

Where Pepper -- and Cisco, which didn't have much in the way of D.C. lobbying talent to start with -- will likely try to land is a position that says, "let's not make new businesses illegal before they get a chance to survive." The actual quotes from my interview has Pepper saying: "there needs to be a lot of creative experimentation with different business models -- pro-consumer and pro-competitive models need to be tried. There's a false impression that net [providers] today don't manage traffic. Not all traffic is treated the same. A lot of the debate I've seen [thinks] everyone gets the same thing for the same price."

Pepper and Cisco, unlike the service providers who make Swift-boat type remarks, do understand that the Vonages and Googles of the world are already paying freight. "There is a misunderstanding -- [we know] a lot of content providers at the edge invest hundreds of millions at the edge of networks," Pepper said. "There are cache and server centers. A lot of this debate [seems to be] a lack of understanding, and misinformation, false assumptions. A reasonable way to approach it [seems to be] competitive, pro-consumer [services] at different price points." That's the way it's done, Pepper said, "in every other aspect of commercial life."

He then went into a bit about how Amazon provides free shipping for ordering a certain dollar amount, and another argument that the "cellular model is a good model, with buckets of minutes for different prices." I don't know that either argument holds up when the real Net Neutrality debate seems to be more about whether or not consumers, not service providers, get to pick the winners and losers in the content and application arena.

Where Cisco could go a long way is to provide consumers of broadband services the same kind of network-management statistics its equipment gives to those who purchase and run it. Why not let both sides see what the administrators see, and let users judge for themselves? More tomorrow, after Cisco has its say.

MORE UPDATE, 3/14: Pepper pretty much repeated these same ideas in a lunchtime speech at VON. He added some language about there being "false arguments" but as predicted announced Cisco's line as being somewhere between mandated Net Neutrality and anything goes for the Bells. Guess it makes business sense!

(P.S. -- if you are at VON and are a reader, drop a comment and say howdy. I'll be easy to find at the Comm Policy summit.)

Posted by paul at 11:29 PM | Comments (0)

March 10, 2006

Getting ready for VON

Sorry for the light posting this week, all readers new and old... we here at headquarters have been busy getting ready for next week's Spring 2006 VON show, where yours truly will once again be producing a live "print blog," aka a show daily. Look for it if you are there, and say hi if you see us... we'll be the ones taking pictures!

If you won't be with the rest of the VoIP world in San Jose, you can still follow the news from the show live at our "news" site, pulverWeb. Lots of photos there too. Plus, yours truly will be participating in Friday's "bloggers' panel," so come and heckle as necessary.

Posted by paul at 04:34 PM | Comments (0)

March 09, 2006

Comcast 'Net down in SF Bay region?

Anyone have any more info? Apparently Comcast's high-speed Internet service is FUBAR in the SF Bay region today... as usual with any big company customer service is clueless. Twice I was told the service was fine, but finally one supervisor said it's been down all morning, no idea what the cause is. Of course, even when they do customers are left in the dark. UPDATE, 2 p.m.: Working now. For how long, who knows? Light a candle.

The best "support" could suggest was to watch my modem lights, and when the "cable" light comes on I'll know it's working again. Hmm. Boy, that transparency idea can't advance soon enough for me. Luckily, I have alternative broadband choices and subscribe to one exactly for days like this.

Good thing we have real broadband competition in this country, eh? Providers are just climbing all over themselves to help customers get what they need. And when it's all one company, just imagine how good customer support will be!

Posted by paul at 11:23 AM | Comments (0)

March 08, 2006

We have a winner! Suck up to AT&T contest

We have a winner in our bet to see who would be the first out of the box to publicly claim that the AT&T/BellSouth re-monopolization would be "good for consumers and competition." Read on! (Hint: it's NOT odds-on favorite Walt McC.)

Never heard of this group before, but in today's CommunicationsNews email blast (we're too cheap to spring for a full sub), there is this snippet:

The Competitive Enterprise Institute called the merger of AT&T and BellSouth "a pro-competitive move that will benefit consumers."

And who would know better! Ladies and gents, some BellSouth golf shirts for our winners... soon to be a collector's item. (Judges note: If we find out that this group is funded by AT&T, we may void their victory.)

Poor Walt... maybe he can make up lost ground in his sure-to-kiss-somewhere-on-Ed keynote at TelecomNext. Or should that be TelecomOne? Can't wait!

Posted by paul at 12:50 PM | Comments (0)

March 07, 2006

Andy Abramson, Intel media star

Well, we all know how shy our pal Andy Abramson is. But for a few seconds Tuesday afternoon, he had a geek-stardom moment when, during a flashy bit of video at the end of a keynote speech at the Intel Developer Forum, there was Andy doing his Karate Kid pose, on the big screen!

The full backstory -- Intel's marketing dept. must have done a thorough search to include the buzziest Web sites in its fast-moving montage video clip (with the requisite thumpo-tech soundtrack) following Sean Maloney's afternoon keynote, where the Origami PC was displayed. But VoIPers watching the screen couldn't miss the 2-3 second display of our pal Andy's site, with his wonderful photo all close-up-like.

Way to go dude! I'd call Sean and ask him for one of those WiMAX cards as payment.

Posted by paul at 10:04 PM | Comments (0)

Spectrum Reform -- From Ted Stevens

Thanks to David Isenberg for this coverage of a new idea from the ever-lovable Sen. Ted Stevens, which calls for turning over unused TV spectrum for Wi-Fi. Just when you thought Ted was sleeping, he pulls this rabbit out of the hat...

Of course, as David I notes, some other folks may have done the heavy lifting. No problem. With some good heavyweight bi-part backing (Kerry, Boxer on the left, Sununu and Allen on the right), this bill is a mover. At least until the man from the mouse gets aholt of it.

Posted by paul at 10:00 PM | Comments (0)

Forget Origami -- get me one of them WiMAX cards!

SAN FRANCISCO -- While the media masses swarmed around the Origami prototype PCs at the Intel Dev Forum today, I was trying to see if I could swipe the WiMAX PC card, a product due out later this year. Gimme WiMAX! Give it to me NOW!

Other cool non-Origami announcements from Sean Maloney's afternoon keynote included Intel's development of a programmable WiMAX radio chip that would let equipment vendors build base stations that could communicate at three different bands of spectrum -- 2.3-2.5 Ghz, 3.5 Ghz and 5 Ghz. Such a chip could remove a huge stumbling block for WiMAX acceptance and costs, since currently products must be built specifically for each spectrum band.

More later from the talk (well, probably tomorrow later since I also have to produce a video clip. But the bonus! We'll link to that tomorrow as well so you can see the "Origami" live).

Posted by paul at 04:49 PM | Comments (0)

March 06, 2006

If Ma Bell can return, so can Ricochet

Help me off the floor, please, I just got done reading this story about Ricochet's planned return to the Bay area. Yeah! I knew someday my old Ricochet modem would rise again... to surf at sub-standard (but untethered!) speeds.

Maybe there's a self-help group out there somewhere for us old, rejected, left by the roadside of the info highway Ricochet users. If you used Ricochet, and you had the grace to be in a good reception zone, it was wonderful. No phone lines to worry about. Any room in the house would do. You could even take it on the road to another city that had Ricochet, and fire right up -- no changing SMTP settings or any of that other fun stuff that was part and parcel of the old way of connecting.

We could even forgive the old gal for the occasional DNS slipup.

One of my great geek stories involves taking my Ricochet down to LA for Internet World, and finding a "hidden" Ricochet network that the company had set up for the LAPD. Ah the joy of turning on that modem and hearing the four beeps that said "bandwidth is yours!"

But it's a love that shan't be rejoined, since I have now found a new suitor for my mobile broadband needs... who reaches speeds Ricochet will never see. But maybe, just maybe... on a dark night... I'll take the modem out and see if I hear the beeps again. And remember... the way we were...

Posted by paul at 12:37 PM | Comments (0)

AT&T-BellSouth Analysis -- From November

All the analysis you need to know about the weekend's big merger is in this story from Light Reading's Mark Sullivan -- from way back in November!

Nicely done, Mark. Even see that you have the same Blair Levin story that I heard; my guess is that Mark's is the more accurate (though later) recount of Blair's joke, since Mark tends to a good job at those reporter things like taking accurate notes, even when alcohol is being served.

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

March 04, 2006

Winners, Losers in AT&T-BellSouth Takeover

Here's your low-rent, seat-of-the-pants Saturday night analysis of the forthcoming AT&T takedown of BellSouth. Our immediate list of the biggest losers (Vonage) and winners (Qwest) will certainly be amended over time, but please feel free to chip in with your own takes in the comments field!

Since Sunday is Oscar night, maybe we should hand out "Whitacres" instead of golden statuettes. And gosh, it's just not right to call anyone a loser, is it? So let's be positive here. On with the show.

CATEGORY: Best Independent VoIP Company That Just Lost A Prospective Buyer

And the Whitacre goes to: VONAGE HOLDINGS, as in "holding pattern for an IPO that may not ever happen."

Well, if Jeffrey Citron and pals were waiting around for Duane Ackerman to ease their pain before getting to the public markets, Duane is no longer in the house. Guess this story is no longer the scoop it never was, eh? JC and pals can now only wish Rich had been right.

CATEGORY: 15 Minutes Of Fame That Won't Be Duplicated

The Whitacre goes to: BILL SMITH, (soon to be former) BellSouth CTO. You may remember Bill -- why it was just in December that he was sounding like ol' Ed hisself. We're guessing Bill took up the "not on my pipes" cause because Duane Ackerman is a genteel sort, and wouldn't stoop to that kinda talk, especially in the papers. So Bill got some headlines, congrats, here's a locker next to Dorman's at the yacht club. And yes, you can take all that BellSouth logo stuff with you. Won't be needin' it much 'round here anymore.

CATEGORY: The RBOC who now looks prettier as the bar gets to closing time

The Whitacre goes to: Qwest and Dick Notebaert, who (to carry on the bar analogy) held their liquor long enough to be the last independent standing... and thereby almost inevitably Verizon's next pawn to purchase. This ain't no shotgun marriage -- unless you consider that the gun may be pointed at both heads. The question traders are asking themselves Sunday is how do I buy Qwest stock when the markets are closed?

CATEGORY: Best retirement package negotiation

The Whitacre goes to: Duane Ackerman. $65 billion? Hell, forget playing golf at Pebble Beach. Big Ed will probably see to it that you tee off with Tiger amongst the azaleas. Guess your why build fiber plan makes sense now, eh? Hell! Let Ed figger that one out!

CATEGORY: Biggest RBOC tool, competition division

The Whitacre goes to: Whichever regulator/lawmaker is first to utter the phrase that the AT&T/BellSouth takeover "will actually increase competition" for services. This one is still open for betting, and any reasonable facsimile will work for wagering purposes. Early line has Walter McCormick at Even; Kevin Martin at 5-3; Sen. John Ensign at 3-1; and Hayley Barbour at 5-1. Remember, AT&T employees are not eligible since they are required to say dithery things like this due to contract clauses.

Posted by paul at 10:25 PM | Comments (0)

Come Together, Ma Bell: AT&T to buy BellSouth

Somewhere, Blair Levin is laughing out loud tonight. For it was at Fall VON that I distinctly remember him saying: "...and when SBC (now AT&T) buys BellSouth, then they will say that 'finally we have the economies of scale to deploy broadband networks.' " Looks like we'll be able to find out if Blair was right:

TECHNOLOGY ALERT from The Wall Street Journal. AT&T is planning to acquire BellSouth for roughly $65 billion. A deal between the two could be announced as early as Monday.

If you subscribe to the Journal (which we all do, right?), the link is here.

(Note: Blair, of course, was joking. Sort of. But even as a joke, pretty good material, no?)

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

March 03, 2006

Net Neutrality and Political Reality: Round One goes to the RBOCs

For proponents of Network Neutrality, yesterday's legislative proposal from Sen. Ron Wyden was a breath of fresh air -- a member of Congress who seems to understand the need for an open Internet! Despite Wyden's efforts, however, the political reality is that the "tiered services" train has already left the station, and the RBOCs are riding it. And unless the proponents of Net Neutrality can coalesce behind some simple, powerful ideas, they have little chance of stopping the Bells (and cablecos) from striking all kinds of new content-specific delivery pricing schemes.

As usual, the telecom analysts at Stifel Nicolaus (a group that formerly worked for Legg, Mason) have this thing hammered down: According to their latest flash report, the analysts think that the telcos will largely gain "the freedom they are seeking from traditional common carrier/non-discrimination type regulations," and be able to offer new services as they see fit.

Their reasoning? A combination of factors, not the least of which is the fact that AT&T and Verizon are well-connected on the Hill, and have many active backers. The telco/cableco duopoly also has an easy to understand, coherent message: We won't block any applications or services, they say. But that shouldn't preclude us from offering other services that allow us to recoup our investment in new networks.

On the Network Neutrality proponent side, there isn't even a clear group effort to oppose the telcos, and (other than Wyden's bill) not much in the way of concrete proposals as to what Net Neutrality even means. One of the biggest proponents of an open Internet, former Calif. PUC commissioner Susan Kennedy, told me last year that while she believes in the idea of Net Neutrality, she couldn't find a sensible way to write regulations that would achieve the goals in a reasonable manner. Martin Geddes has also been vocal in explaining why such rules could do more harm than good.

So is the future bleak? Will we all be forced into an AT&T/Verizon/Comcast version of CompuServe? Will costs for Net access continue to climb, as Sen. Wyden predicted on his conference call yesterday?

Maybe not. The Net Neutrality movement is not without its own arrows, and to succeed the points need to be made clear and succinct, so that non-technical members of Congress can understand their import. The first point, of not allowing service providers to directly block any service, seems to have been won. The next step is likely to be something Wyden mentioned yesterday during his call, the idea of "transparency," or the ability of consumers to see, in great detail, the level of service they are paying for.

"The transparency provision is the heart and soul" of his proposal, Wyden said during the call, where he also -- accurately -- predicted that few in the media listening would understand what he was talking about. When you have such transparency (think of it as a Service Level Agreement for consumers), Wyden said, consumers can act as their own enforcement bureau, with the data to back up complaints of poor or degraded service.

The idea of requiring such transparency was also kicked around at the recent Silicon Flatirons conference in Boulder, Colo., and the RBOC representatives present there didn't have a good answer to the question of "why can't I get the statistics about the service you are selling me?" It's a great argument, and since the tools are already widely available, one that will be hard for any service provider to object to.

So -- proponents of a more open net -- it's time to circle the wagons and move the debate to the next level, instead of dabbling at the theoretical level in discussions that may be self-satisfying but do not deal directly with the fact that telecom reform legislation is already underway. We'll leave the last words here to Martin, who believes that new technical solutions will move faster, perhaps even beyond the current Internet as we know it, to offer a better future. To wit:

Having a “two tier” network is something we should look forward to. We want more Internets! Plural! They may continue to interconnect; they may decide that the Internet Mk1 [ed. note: his sarcastic title for our current "Internet"] is more a source of digital pollution than valuable content. I just can’t see how any “stop the clock — we’re all just comfortable as we are!” neutrality rule helps us reach new and better places.

Later in his essay, he adds:

So neutrality rules that entrench our “Internet Mk1” as somehow sacred, hallowed and for all time are just totally counter-productive. Better to allow Verizon to screw over their customers and make it worthwhile for someone to bypass them entirely using newer technology.

And maybe some transparency rules, just in case.

WYDEN CALL SMACKDOWN:

Don't think we need a full post on this, so I'll just add a couple awards here. The "what the hell am I doing on this call, anyway" award goes to the several listeners who displayed their level of knowledge by asking "what is Network Neutrality, anyway?" Glad to see we're not afraid of stupid questions! There are no stupid questions, except maybe yours.

And the "#-5 means mute in Meetingplace" award goes to all the professional journalists on the line who didn't realize the call was open, meaning we could hear all that background chatter you just had to make (even prompting Wyden to ask people to quiet down at one point, a request that was ignored). The best was after Wyden delivered his money quote, a stirring moment of passion that was heralded by one caller (presumably talking to someone else) who said out loud, "Wow, wow, wow... great quote!"

Glad it was good for you, too, dude!

Posted by paul at 11:04 AM | Comments (0)

Wyden's bill -- More on Friday

Did I say I would post something in an hour? Silly me, I meant "tomorrow." For those interested in the we-said they-said part of the news, you can read a fairly decent take here. For more analysis and the smackdown, you'll have to wait until Friday morning Calif. time.

The bonus! There's always a bonus after the jump. Here is a video link (courtesy of CMP Media's The News Show, where I also contribute). Not very in-depth, but it is multimedia. See ya after coffee time.

Posted by paul at 12:06 AM | Comments (0)

March 02, 2006

Russell Shaw transcribes the Wyden call

Russell Shaw wins the award for fastest transcriber, conference call division. While I was bloviating about Wyden's call, Russell was taking much better notes and has a lot of the meat ready to digest.

Good to see that Russell and I are close on the money quote transcription. As promised, I will have more smackdown analysis later.

Posted by paul at 12:38 PM | Comments (0)

Wyden's money quote

OK, I may be blogging until Midnight tonight, since this isn't the only hat I wear. Look here at my blog on the CMP Media TechSearch site for the first pass at Wyden's money quote.

(Since I was not using a tape recorder I may not have gotten all the words right, but the gist of the meaning is complete. It's always fun to look around after one of these calls and see the different literal versions of the "quote" from different reporters.)

Let's hope my mangling wasn't too bad. Another dirty secret of reporting revealed! :-)

Posted by paul at 12:21 PM | Comments (0)

The Paul Kapustka Network Neutrality Primer

As a service to those looking to come up to speed on Network Neutrality, I humbly offer the following list o' links to the stories I've been writing on the topic over the last few years. The grandaddy, of course, was the Vonage being blocked story from a year ago, which broke in Boulder thanks to me being awake when Larry Lessig "dropped the big one."

The follow-ups to that story provide all the background you need on Madison River's attempts to keep its users from having Vonage service.

FCC Fines N.Car. Provider $15K For Blocking Vonage

Former FCC chair Michael Powell should get a bunch of credit for bringing this debate into the open (even if he was never able to really do anything about it from a regulatory perspective).

Net 'Freedoms' May Be Powell's Legacy

Cable companies said last year that they are not going to block services. Mostly, they don't have to worry about the argument since their Internet offerings (at least for download speeds) are right now so fast that there aren't any congestion problems. But just watch those terms of service!

Cable Execs Say They're Not Blocking Outside VoIP

Cisco will play an increasing role in this debate, since routing equipment will be the battlefield on which net performance is fought. Here's a good detailed primer from router exec Mike Volpi:

Q&A With Cisco's Mike Volpi

Vonage Chairman (former CEO) Jeffrey Citron has been at the forefront of this debate, as you might expect. And he's had a few things to say:

Vonage's Citron calls for 'Broadband Bill Of Rights'

Vonage Claims Price 'Blocking' Of VoIP

I've also had an opinion or two on the subject (fancy that!):

SBC, Verizon Should Lose The Hypocrisy

And just in case you think Ed Whitacre at AT&T has only recently started railing against Google and Vonage, read here and learn it's hardly a new battle for the company formerly known as SBC:

RBOCs Seeking Quick Checkmate On VoIP

That's all for now! Oh yeah, don't forget the "Senate Smackdown" that helped get this blog off and running.

Posted by paul at 11:45 AM | Comments (0)

The media awakens to Network Neutrality

One of the more interesting tidbits from today's well-attended conference call by Sen. Ron Wyden was how many of the "media" on the line had no idea at all what Network Neutrality is, or why there's a debate. Welcome to the jungle, boys and gals! Can't wait to see the stories that come out. Watch for our detailed analysis in the next hour or so.

(Which will, of course, include snide awards for people who don't know how to mute their phones when on conference calls!) The starting point for background can be today's "Pay for play" piece in the WSJ (subscription required), where the RBOCs show how far ahead they are in this battle by their almost unanimous on-message statements.

To wit (quoting the WSJ story here):

Others include plans similar to those of wireless companies where customers would pay for a certain amount of monthly capacity and then face hefty charges if they exceed it. "Any model that allows the consumer to have more control and more choice makes sense to us," says BellSouth Chief Technology Officer William Smith, who is contemplating the new models but has no immediate plans to implement them.

Mr. Smith often laments the fact that his parents, who use the Internet for only low-capacity activities such as Web surfing and email, pay fees similar to those of heavy users who suck up capacity by downloading music or using BitTorrent, which is used by millions to download movies and other material off the Internet. Overall at BellSouth, 1% of broadband customers drive 40% of Internet traffic, he says. "People who drive cost in the network create additional charges in the network," Mr. Smith says. "If my elderly parents don't use a lot of traffic we ought to be able to create a service plan that meets their needs."

C'mon! Do we expect Mr. Smith's parents to keep paying for all our IRC chats and BitTorrent downloads! Heh heh heh... more to come!

Posted by paul at 11:00 AM | Comments (0)