Paul Kapustka's Blog
« March 2006 | Main | May 2006 »
April 28, 2006
One man's take on Net Neutrality
There may be more official explanations of network neutrality out there, but hard to argue with this sports racer's version. (The definition is near the end of the show... and for mature audiences only, or at least those who won't report it to the FCC.)
Posted by paul at 11:24 PM | Comments (0)
April 27, 2006
Quid. Pro. Quo. (or, how much money it took to win Bobby Rush's vote)
Want to know why Democrat Bobby Rush was so enthusiastic about supporting the Barton COPE bill? Here's one possible answer: Dollars, as in one million of 'em, from AT&T for a "charitable" outfit in Rush's district.
A friend in need... is a friend indeed!
Posted by paul at 01:46 PM | Comments (0)
April 26, 2006
As expected -- Net neutrality amendment defeated
No smackdowns today -- sorry, wasn't able to watch -- but as expected, the new "net neutrality" amendment to the Barton COPE bill failed today by a vote of 34 to 22, meaning Barton's bill will have no net neutrality language in it when it gets voted on by the full House. Next stop: The Senate Commerce committee, who got a love letter today from top tech CEOs with a new name added -- Intel's Paul Otellini.
Here's the text of the letter, sent to me by the PR firm Quorvis Communications:
The Honorable Ted Stevens
Chairman
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510The Honorable Daniel Inouye
Co-Chairman
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member:
We are writing to underscore the importance of an open Internet and to seek your leadership in enacting legislation that preserves the fundamental and critical nature of the Internet.
The open marketplace of the Internet, or what has become known as “network neutrality,” empowers America’s citizenry, fuels our engine of innovation and is central to our global leadership in Internet technology and services. The rules of the road that preserved openness were eliminated last summer by the Federal Communications Commission, and it is critical that Congress moves quickly to reinstate them.
The Internet has succeeded precisely because of these rules, which have prevented network operators from using their control over Internet access to dictate consumers’ Internet experience. Likewise, innovators large and small, as well as investors, have relied on market and regulatory certainty coupled with their own ingenuity to develop new and better online offerings. This “innovation without permission” is, from our perspective, the essence of the Internet.
We call upon you to enact legislation preventing discrimination against the content and services of those not affiliated with network operators and thereby preserve network neutrality. It is our understanding that Senators Snowe and Dorgan plan to introduce legislation that would ensure the Internet remains open and neutral. We commend their effort. We encourage you to include such language in any telecommunications legislation.
Absent such safeguards, the fundamental paradigm of the Internet will be irreparably altered and that most worthy of preservation will be lost. American consumers will lose basic Internet freedoms, the engine of innovation will be hobbled, and our global competitiveness will be compromised.
We look forward to continuing to work with you and other Members of the Committee to re-establish longstanding net neutrality protections.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jeff Bezos
Founder and CEO
Amazon.com/s/ Meg Whitman
President and CEO
eBay Inc./s/ Eric Schmidt
Chief Executive Officer
Google Inc./s/ Barry Diller
Chairman and CEO
IAC/InterActiveCorp/s/ Paul S. Otellini
President and CEO
Intel Corporation/s/Steve Ballmer
Chief Executive Officer
Microsoft Corp./s/ Terry Semel
Chairman and CEO
Yahoo!
Cc: Members of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Interesting to see Intel get more heavily involved. With longtime Washington pro Peter Pitsch on their team, expect Intel's forays to add to the power of the pro-net neutrality forces.
I also missed the Judiciary Committee's hearings Monday, but this account on Jeff Pulver's blog makes it sound like it was an all-MC Walt smackdown, all the time. (Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.)
Posted by paul at 02:20 PM | Comments (0)
Disasters aren't just hurricanes -- Add your voice to the petition!
Appropriately, Katrina got a lot of attention, but sometimes disasters are small and localized -- but potentially just as disruptive and dangerous for those affected. Look what happens when a small but strategically significant landslide takes place, cutting off all communications to a community. Still think this country is ready for disaster situations? If you think more needs to be done, there is still time to add your voice to the Pulver/Evslin petition before the FCC on post-disaster communications.
Reading more about the outage in Half Moon Bay and the coastside serves as a great reminder that despite all their wishes to build super networks that will rake in big bucks, the infrastructure of the telcos' networks is in many places paper-thin. Imagine the headlines we'd see if Vonage couldn't reach 14,000 customers for more than a day, and had to rely on police officers at street corners for 911 coverage!
Since many big-bucks CEOs and other Silicon Valley execs live in the Half Moon Bay area, we expect to soon see a private microwave (or WiMAX?) network set up to avoid problems from future landslides. But how many other areas are similarly vulnerable to single points of failure? Might it make sense to require AT&T and Verizon to make such infrastructure information public, so that citizens can take action before the next mountain slides down?
Posted by paul at 08:52 AM | Comments (0)
April 25, 2006
FCC's Martin: Stuffing? I'm staying!
You may or may not like him as chairman of the FCC, but it's not your choice, is it? The person whose choice it is says Martin should stick around a bit longer, and chairman Kev, always a team player, said "sure."
More analysis later, since until today I had been trying to figure out whether or not Martin was prepping to cut and run in order to seek a higher office in '08. But as those who know him say, Martin is smart, and riding on Bush's coattails may not be the attractive option it was a year or so ago. So why not stay at the FCC and burnish the resume a bit?
Quick-hit smackdown gives the genuflection award to Verizon, whose "gosh we're glad Kevin is sticking around to advance our agenda" press communique crossed our virtual desktop probably even before Kevin himself heard the news...
Posted by paul at 10:38 PM | Comments (0)
Net neutrality: The battle won't be won or lost this week
There's sure to be plenty of smackdown-ready grandstanding and oratorical theatrics at Wednesday's House markup session on the Barton COPE Bill, most of it around the topic of network neutrality. But no matter how things go Wednesday (and they will very likely go south fast for net neutrality proponents), the battle will be far from over -- in fact it will have just begun.
Here's a quick summary of what we know, and why it makes us think net neutrality is going to be around for a bit:
1) The retooled Markey-Eshoo-Boucher-Inslee "net neutrality" amendment that will be offered up will generate a lot of debate, but even a staffer for one of the supporting legislators knows they don't have the votes to make it stick. The main purpose of the effort? For an advantage "down the road," according to the staffer.
2) Even if the Barton bill sans net neutrality language makes it out of the committee, there still needs to be a companion bill out of the Senate before anything becomes law. And even though Senate commerce chairman Ted Stevens has been pushing for some kind of telecom legislation this year, the hangup over net neutrality (which is endorsed by at least one Republican on the Senate committee, Maine's Olympia Snowe) may cause eventual legislation to be watered down or put on hold for more consideration. In fact, one Senator is already endorsing a move forward without addressing net neutrality issues.
3) The idea of delaying things fits in nicely with two important camps on the net neutrality side: Democratic incumbents, who smell blood (and perhaps a return to majority) in the fall elections; and big technology companies like Intel, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, eBay and others, who have only just begun to realize that they may have a dog in this hunt after all. Even if their lobbying efforts so far are pale and amateurish compared to the full-court press of the telcos and cable players, the big tech wallets can be quickly brought to bear with the advice of "let's take some more time to get this right."
From our seat, we're still waiting to see how committed the big techs really are to net neutrality ideas. Ray Gifford over at the PFF has already gone on the record claiming that Google will eventually flip-flop on the need for net neutrality laws, since it might hamper the company if and when its long-rumored Wi-Fi-/fiber network surfaces.
There was a limp letter sent by the tech titans to the House committee, who probably turned it over and used it to write down everyone's lunch order. I know I'm not the first to make this point but it bears repeating that: Microsoft is trying to sell its TV software to every telco in sight, including AT&T and Verizon; Yahoo already has broadband partnerships with AT&T and Verizon; eBay owns Skype, which already makes it a target of the telcos; and Google is even willing to "do business" with China, so it can't be too far a reach to expect them to cut deals that make "shareholder sense" with AT&T and Verizon.
Here at our humble little outpost on the Internet, we are now at almost a month and counting in trying to get an official response from Google about AT&T's claim that Google was asking AT&T for preferential video treatment. The silence, as they say, can be deafening. So until Eric Schmidt, Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates and Co. start taking on Ed Whitacre publicly, there's not much of a fight going on.
Thankfully, we don't all just have to stand by silently and whimper. Jeff Pulver, my new employer, has started a unique contest that is looking to reward creative types who come up with their own message for saving the Internet -- betting that the power of the many will outweigh the power of the few, or the one, and produce more meaningful opinions than astroturf supporters or swift-boat specialists.
Get to work! There's still time left on the clock.
Posted by paul at 09:48 PM | Comments (0)
April 24, 2006
Net neutrality back under the hot lights
Forget just heating up: Looks like this will be another hot-burner week for the topic known as network neutrality, with a markup/debate session scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday on Joe "Big Hoss" Barton's what is net neutrality anyhoo bill.
In case you want to sift through the latest version, David Isenberg has a PDF on his site, though as he states in an accompanying post, there will likely be many changes to the broth before it's soup.
Meanwhile, as Om frets that Silicon Valley doesn't think the debate is worth talking about, Drew Clark over at the National Journal says that Nancy Pelosi is cranking up some real opposition.
Sorry that I missed the conference call this morning from the brand-new Save the Internet coalition, too bad because it might have been fun to listen to Vint Cerf and gun owners answer the same questions. If anyone sees a good recap of the call, please comment and I will add the link.
Behind just a bit today as I get started on my new "official" job, where I will help surface the wonderful content being produced by the marvelous folks at pulvermedia. Thanks to Jeff and all the great people in the "pulversphere." Watch this space for more exciting news soon!
Posted by paul at 02:45 PM | Comments (0)
April 21, 2006
Net neutrality -- isn't it actually boiling over by now?
Maybe it's not fair to make fun of people who are late to the game, but after weeks of Senate hearings, trade-show keynotes and headline back-and-forths, can't we all agree that the network neutrality debate is a bit more than just heating up?
Not sure if the judiciary committee hearing is even worthy of smackdown status -- with its predictable list of speakers (C'mon, does Tim Wu get paid to appear at these things? We know MC Walt does, and we've heard him so many times we can probably post a drinking game based on what Walt will say).
Matter of fact, that's not a bad idea. Check back later to see if we had time to put one together, or post some ideas in the comments. I will start off by saying "take one sip every time Walt says a phrase that sounds like 'incentive to invest.' "
Besides, it's not clear whether or not the judiciary has any skin in this game... making this hearing just more bloviation. Just what we need to REALLY "heat things up," eh?
Posted by paul at 02:18 PM | Comments (0)
April 19, 2006
Get creative -- Make your own 'Save the Net' Message
Everyone complains about big-bucks, hot-air advertising in the telecom debate, but who does anything about it? Now you can, and earn rewards for your efforts. If you're at all creative, or even just have an idea, submit an entry to Jeff Pulver's "Save the Internet" viral marketing contest and you might make us all smarter while taking home $1,000.
Given all the creative web artistes out there today, there's got to be some swirling around with inside knowledge of the telecomsphere... in fact there was one funny mashup of the AT&T ad that was linked to during the back-channel conversation at F2C. Where is that ad? Where are more like it?
Posted by paul at 05:33 PM | Comments (0)
April 14, 2006
The Easter Bunny Hates You
Sure, he may bring eggs this weekend, but what does the Easter Bunny do the rest of the year? (hat tip to John P. at Good Morning Silicon Valley for the link)
Posted by paul at 11:47 AM | Comments (0)
April 13, 2006
Ed Markey on Net Neutrality at the Huffington Post
More confirmation that net neutrality is entering the mainstream debate: Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., pontificates on the subject at the Huffington Post.
Posted by paul at 02:06 PM | Comments (0)
Concerned about this year's hurricanes? Add your voice to the Pulver/Evslin petition
If hurricane Katrina revealed anything last year, it was the lack of a comprehensive technology infrastructure to handle post-disaster communications. While we wait and wonder what exactly the dept. of Homeland Security has done with all those billions, Jeff Pulver and Tom Evslin have taken action and filed a petition with the FCC to start the process of bringing present-day technologies to bear on the problem. What can you do? Simple -- follow the instructions here and let the FCC know that you too care about what happens when the next storm hits.
After Katrina last year, there was a fairly sizeable outpouring of concern from the tech community, wondering how we could use our collective smarts to help. Commenting on the petition is a good way to start.
Posted by paul at 01:13 PM | Comments (0)
April 11, 2006
Clearwire's VoIP has unclear promises
On the surface, wireless provider Clearwire's debut in the Voice over IP market may seem a sensible choice to users of the company's pre-WiMAX Internet access service. But upon further review, there's a lot less to the company's offering than other VoIP competitors, leaving one to wonder why anyone would willingly buy a non-nomadic, unsecure service that can only be used with a single broadband provider -- Clearwire.
Like we've seen before, Clearwire's press releases may say one thing, but the company's real intentions are spelled out more forthrightly in the terms of service, those fine-print documents that even company execs don't always have time to read.
For the VoIP service, available this week in Stockton, Calif., Clearwire's press release promises a better VoIP:
What differentiates Clearwire from other VoIP providers is that Clearwire’s service operates across the company’s existing wireless network, offering secure, dependable, high-quality voice communications.
(my emphasis)
But in the company's own terms of service, you learn that "secure" isn't always what it seems to be:
You acknowledge and understand that Clearwire cannot and does not guarantee that the Internet Phone Service is secure, and we are not liable to you or any other party for any lack of privacy or security you experience while using the Internet Phone Service.
So... it's "secure," but they can't guarantee that. Feel better already?
Also in the terms of service, Clearwire makes sure you understand that their VoIP is only to be used with Clearwire's broadband service... making its portability limited to however far you can carry your antenna within Clearwire's service area.
In addition, you are required to obtain and use Internet Access Service from Clearwire in order to enable the Internet Phone Service to operate. You acknowledge and understand that the Internet Phone Service may not be used with another provider’s broadband or internet service and we do not authorize you to use the Internet Phone Service with another provider’s broadband or internet service.
So... is that Voice over IP, or Voice only over our IP?
And -- do you trust such a company to keep all your calls private?
Clearwire respects your privacy and, to the extent feasible, treats the content of all communications as private, except as may be required by law. Please refer to the Clearwire Privacy Policy at www.clearwire.com for additional information. We have the right, but not the obligation to you to monitor, intercept and disclose any transmissions over or using our facilities, and to provide subscriber billing, account, or use records, and related information under certain circumstances (for example, in response to lawful process, orders, subpoenas, or warrants, or to protect our rights, users or property).
OK, so you have Clearwire service, but maybe you'd like to use an independent VoIP provider? Danger, Will Robinson... more murkiness ahead. While the company denies actively blocking any outside VoIP provider, its terms of service still has language prohibiting "excess utilization of network resources," which may make you wonder what exactly you are getting when you buy bandwidth from Clearwire:
The excessive use or abuse of Clearwire’s network resources by one subscriber may have a negative impact on all other subscribers. Accordingly, you may not use the Service or take any action, directly or indirectly, that will result in excessive consumption or utilization of the system or network resources, or which may weaken network performance, as determined in Clearwire’s sole discretion. Such prohibited actions include, but are not limited to: using the Service to host a web server site which attracts excessive traffic at your location, continuously uploading or downloading streaming video or audio, usenet hosting, or continuous FTP uploading or downloading.
Last fall, Clearwire did say, quite publicly, that it would start a "partner" program to "certify" outside VoIP providers to make sure their offerings didn't inflict such so-called "negative impacts" on the Clearwire network. But despite promises to post info about the program on the company's Web site, I haven't been able to find any such info lately. (I am currently waiting for an email reply from the company inquiring into the partner program. Let's hope my email doesn't have a negative impact on their service.)
Posted by paul at 03:13 PM | Comments (11)
April 10, 2006
Disney's Web moves could prove AT&T's 'Fast Net' isn't needed
One hidden feature of today's big news from Disney could be that the success of online video moves -- like Disney's or CBS's recent webcasts of NCAA tournament games -- might completely disprove AT&T's notion that there needs to be a separate 'fast web' to ensure online video delivery.
Even though Disney makes it sound like they are proud partners in the telco vision of the future, it's clear from today's announcement that big TV players aren't going to wait for AT&T and Verizon to build their so-called super networks. Instead, they're betting that today's network connections are good enough for most people, who will take the tradeoff in broadcast quality to have the convenience of click-here TV.
So -- if these things take off, the need for "dedicated" Web conduits for TV could become a moot point. And then the Disneys of the world wouldn't have to share revenue with the service providers, a fact that might bring the big content powerhouses over to the pro-net neutrality camp. Something to watch for, anyway.
Though I don't watch programs like Desperate Housewives or Lost, I was amazed by the usefulness of CBS's web sports moves, both the NCAA plan and this past weekend's Amen Corner Live feature at masters.org, which according to the Masters folks served 1.3 million video streams over the weekend. The latter gave a clear reason why the Web beats broadcast hands-down: When the Masters' schedule was thrown into disarray Saturday due to rain delays, there was no way to find out what was happening Sunday morning via TV, since the planned "broadcast windows" left viewers in the dark until CBS-TV decided it was time for you to know what was going on.
Online? A user's paradise. Not only was there up-to-the-minute scoring, but also the aforementioned live broadcast of the action at Augusta's famed Amen Corner, the pivotal stretch at holes 11-12-13.
What I really want is something like a Slingbox in reverse, that will use Web technologies and search to find interesting video, and then simply channel it to my big screen. I'm guessing the technology for such a trick is already out there, but why not make it simple? Then we'd really have some must-see TV.
ADDITIONAL READING:
Jeff Jarvis notes that content providers need to make this move sooner, not later, regardless of what their traditional partners think. Just like Microsoft with VoIP -- it's gotta have a PC client, even if it means making Verizon and AT&T mad.
David Berlind over at ZD Net, meanwhile, frets that AT&T and Verizon may soon charge you more to watch Disney's stuff. Maybe he didn't hear about the lovefest between Disney's Robert Iger and the telcos at the recent TelecomNext show? Trust us David, it won't be Disney paying AT&T. It'll be AT&T begging Disney to give it "exclusive" content, which AT&T will probably pay Disney for.
Posted by paul at 11:58 AM | Comments (0)
April 07, 2006
Blog lite -- Masters weekend
Sorry for those who came here looking for weekend analysis... we'll be lite on the blogging thru Sunday, watching golf on the telly. (also recovering from an awesome day skiing up at Heavenly, where the snow on Hwy 50 is still piled above the roadside reflectors... and more on the way! Can you say Fourth of July skiing?)
Posted by paul at 08:55 PM | Comments (0)
April 05, 2006
Ballmer, Schmidt, Diller, Whitman weigh in on COPE markup
Forwarded to us today is a copy of another "love letter" from some people named Ballmer, Schmidt, Semel, Whitman, Diller and Bezos to Rep. Joe Barton and the members of the House committee marking up the COPE bill today. Guess what? They "urge the Committee to include language that directly addresses broadband network operators’ ability to manipulate what consumers will see and do online." Surprised?
Here's the full text of the letter:
The Honorable Joe Barton Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515Dear Mr. Chairman:
We write to express our concern that the telecommunications legislation being considered by the Committee fails to preserve the longstanding openness of the Internet. Without critical changes, the legislation puts at risk consumer choice, American innovation and global competitiveness.
Until FCC decisions made last summer, consumers’ ability to choose the content and services they want via their broadband connections was assured by regulatory safeguards. Innovators likewise have been able to use their ingenuity and knowledge of the marketplace to develop new and better online offerings. This “innovation without permission” has fueled phenomenal economic growth, productivity gains, and global leadership for our nation’s high tech companies.
To preserve this environment, we urge the Committee to include language that directly addresses broadband network operators’ ability to manipulate what consumers will see and do online. It is equally important to pass a bill that fleshes out these consumer freedoms via rules of the road that are both meaningful and readily enforceable.
We look forward to continuing to work with you and other Members of the Committee to protect millions of Americans’ legitimate expectations in an open Internet, as well as the innovation and competitiveness that it creates.
Sincerely
/s/ Jeff Bezos Founder and CEO Amazon.com/s/ Meg Whitman
President and CEO
eBay Inc./s/ Eric Schmidt
Chief Executive Officer
Google Inc./s/ Barry Diller
Chairman and CEO
IAC/InterActiveCorp/s/Steve Ballmer
Chief Executive Officer
Microsoft Corp./s/ Terry Semel
Chief Executive Officer
Yahoo!
Well written, folks. But maybe if this was important, it's time to jump on that corporate jet and show your face in D.C.? Just a thought.
Posted by paul at 09:43 AM | Comments (1)
SF Chronicle on net neutrality
Holy mainstream! San Francisco Chronicle business columnist David Lazarus checks in today with a coherent if simplified (remember his audience) take on network neutrality.
It's so well done that we're almost willing to overlook David's condescending use of phrases like "told an industry conference" when he's lifting quotes from another source. Almost.
C'mon David, it can't be that hard to show a little link love when other reporters are doing the groundwork for your columns. At least let us know what you are reading to get your facts and quotes.
BONUS LINK: during the F2C event, I asked in the live chat why more technically smart people weren't challenging AT&T's assertation that they need to build special networks to do video. Don't know if this was a direct response, but Kevin Marks weighs in today with one clear explanation of why AT&T's claims are horse pucky. (Thanks to David Weinberger for the link)
Posted by paul at 09:24 AM | Comments (1)
April 04, 2006
F2C -- Reed Hundt steals the show
It's one thing to talk about network neutrality, but yet another to formulate a plan of action, with real numbers, costs and ways to compromise to get things done in the real world. With a speech at the F2C: Freedom to Connect event that embraced all of the latter, former FCC chairman Reed Hundt on Tuesday eclipsed most of the "net neutrality is good" offerings in recent memory, and moved the ball forward by putting a price tag -- $25 billion -- on the cost of bringing fiber to all U.S. homes.
[editor's note: I'm not in D.C., but thanks to the excellent live audio link, I was able to "participate" as a guest during the proceedings. If others who were present have corrections/clarifications, please leave 'em in the comments.]
It's not just that Hundt is a good showman, as my colleague Dana Blankenhorn observes (he is); it is the combination of effective presentation with the soundness and completeness of his arguments that makes you stand up and take notice.
While Dana and others may think that Hundt has been hiding somewhere in seclusion, trying to deny his involvement in the now widely attacked 1996 Telecom Act, nothing is further from the truth. Behind the scenes at times, in front at others, Hundt remains engaged in the debate and more up-to-speed on its intracacies than others who should be, like Congressmen who blather on, searching for some easy definition of network neutrality and why it's important.
If nothing else, the evidence that line-sharing and some government regulation can indeed foster competition -- see, Japan, Korea, Great Britain and now France (France!), as heralded by the recent Wall Street Journal article -- has certainly given new life to the ideas of the '96 Act and its champions, of which Hundt is one.
For one, Hundt is not going to stand silently by while others try to paint network neutrality as "new regulations on the Internet." Without the common-carrier guidance of the 96 Act, Hundt noted Tuesday, the "petri dish for the creation of new companies" and economic wealth might not have occurred. "I don't forgive you if you believe that the [regulatory] paradigms didn't exist," Hundt said.
"It's not an accident" that Japan, Korea and France are following pretty much the same line-sharing ideas advanced by the 96 Act, Hundt said, since a WTO treaty from 1997 followed the 96 Act's script. What has happened is that real competition and real broadband has surfaced in those countries, like symmetrical 100 Mbps connections -- "so much throughput that it's trivial" to argue about the need for things like VPNs, Hundt said.
Like Bob Kahn, Hundt thinks that it's time for the government to step in and "create a public thoroughfare to the Internet -- and it ought to be fast, and every year faster. It should constantly improve, like roads."
Unlike others who just call for such things, Hundt has the cost parsed out: Estimating a cost of $1,000 per household (the actual cost of laying fiber, minus the amount people have demonstrably been willing to pay for such services) to build a nationwide fiber network would cost between $20 and $25 billion, Hundt said -- "less than one-tenth of the money budgeted for a missile defense system that doesn't work."
Far from excluding the telcos, Hundt said to let everyone and anyone bid on the contracts -- lowest bidder wins, and whoever builds the fiber can keep "half of it for their VPN," and let the other half be the public conduit.
While acknowledging that calling for huge domestic expenditures might seem "crazy" in Washington today, Hundt noted that building national broadband systems "only happens to be the dominant paradigm in every developing country in the world."
Why not ours, as well? You can call him a dreamer or a radical, but if you truly want to oppose Hundt's views, you better have some facts to back it up.
So how's that markup going, anyway?
Posted by paul at 09:16 PM | Comments (0)
Sens. Snowe, Dorgan to introduce 'Net Neutrality' Bill
I've just received an email containing a draft of a proposed bill from Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., that proposes to "amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality." Looking for a link, will update as more is discovered.
Called "the Internet Neutrality Act" for short, the proposed bill would codify much of the so-called Internet Freedoms, while adding a few twists, including one proviso for making available to users information about the "speed, nature and limitations of their broadband connection," an idea we've batted around here under the rubric transparency.
In an apparent effort to start the debate with a bit of a nod to expected opposition, the bill also contains caveats that do not prevent a network operator from providing exclusive or tiered services, as long as such offerings don't violate any of the "freedoms" principles.
According to the PR firm that sent the email, the draft is expected to be introduced after the upcoming Congressional recess. Guess the net neutrality debate is getting more fuel for the fire!
Posted by paul at 02:07 PM | Comments (0)
April 03, 2006
Michael Powell at F2C: Congress Isn't Tech-Savvy
Leave it to a master politician to detect nuance: Former FCC chairman Michael Powell said today that he objects to the caveats added to the end of his original Internet Freedoms by current FCC chairman Kevin Martin, calling them "not constructive." Speaking at the F2C: Freedom to Connect conference, Powell also said he could count "on my two hands" the number of members of Congress who truly understand technology. Ah, the things you can say when you leave office! Call it "freedom to opine."
I'm not in D.C., but thanks to the excellent live audio link, I was able to "participate" as a guest during today's F2C: Freedom to Connect proceedings. (There is also a back-channel chat room that had some decent discussion/dialogue, but it was also subject to a lot of "dude!" posts so beware if you wander onto it Tuesday.)
The Powell "quotes" here are subject to the distortion field of being webcast, but I take pretty good notes. (If anyone who was present can correct/clarify, please do so in comments.)
The background on Powell's Internet Freedoms nuance is that in February of 2004, the former chairman publicly stated the four tenets that are at the base of the current network neutrality debate. While the freedoms were never codified during Powell's tenure, Martin did give them a bit of backhanded support when he made them part of an official statement last summer.
In a blog post from last year, F2C host David Isenberg pointed out the subtle differences, which Powell referred to Monday when asked about the freedoms and the FCC.
"I don't like their switch at the end," Powell said, in what may be his first public comments about the matter. (He did say earlier this year that he thought, overall, that network neutrality was doin' fine.)
"All of a sudden, there's a footnote?" Powell continued. "It sounds innocuous, but I know what the meaning of [the footnotes is]. It's not constructive."
In other words, Martin has taken Powell's idea and rendered it impotent with a few extra words, especially the "All of these principles are subject to reasonable network management" line. As Susan Crawford calls it, it makes Internet Freedoms into faith-based policymaking.
On whether or not network neutrality should be mandated by law, Powell cautioned the F2C audience -- mainly people on the side of network neutrality -- about dealing with Congress.
"The legislative process does not work well," Powell said, when Congress has a "weak understanding" of the base issues. As it stands, Powell said that pretty much most of Congress couldn't tell you what the 7-layer stack is. "There's a very shallow current understanding [of technology]" in Congress, said Powell, who claimed that he "could count on my two hands who they [tech-savvy lawmakers] might be."
Powell also said that tech-heads should "be careful" about competing with the telcos in lobbying and legislative fights. "You're playing their game," Powell said. "Regulatory battles are an art form, and these guys are maestros."
Instead, Powell suggested finding technical ways around the problem, perhaps starting new networks that might find private funding, because, he said, the government is not going to "be the cavalry" and build new networks.
Good advice, but does anyone else feel a little burned -- like, NOW he tells us?
Posted by paul at 05:26 PM | Comments (2)
Martin Geddes at F2C
Martin Geddes may have the most clear thinking on the whole network neutrality issue -- perhaps that's why he was chosen to speak at F2C: Freedom to Connect. Missed him this morning on the excellent live audio, but you can read Martin's composed thoughts here. And you should!
Posted by paul at 04:24 PM | Comments (0)
April 02, 2006
Senate Hearing -- France, Line Sharing and Mark Cooper vs. Sen. Stevens
Sorry if the headline confuses; it's Sunday night here in the Bay area, which has become Seattle for March -- as in endless rain, so the synapses have become waterlogged. Trying to recap last Thursday's "Competition and Convergence" hearing in front of the Senate Commerce committee, where France, line sharing and Mark Cooper were the highlights... read on, s'il vous plait...
Compared to the verbal fisticuffs being thrown in the twin House hearing last week, Thursday's Senate stage was like watching golf on TV -- still fun, but a bit more cereberal and not many outbursts, except for one heated exchange between our leader Sen. Ted Stevens and Mark Cooper, the director of research at the Consumer Federation of America, over unlicensed wireless spectrum, of all things.
Instead of our usual smackdown format, we're going to try a different format tonight and honor the NCAA tournament. Since the bracket actually contains nine speakers (the eight on the official lineup plus Sen. Jim DeMint), it's not going to be a straightforward winner vs. loser, but instead winners by elmination. Maybe this is more like "survivor," but since the only reality TV I watch is sports, I can't say for sure. Anyway, try to follow along. Fun is guaranteed, or your money back.
LOSERS, FIRST ROUND: Walter McCormick, USTA; Sen. Daniel Inyoue, D-Hawaii; Steve Largent, president, CTIA (and a HELL OF A PASS CATCHER!); Jerry Ellig, Senior researcher, George Mason Univ.
How many times can we kick MC Walt in one day? We're getting as tired of it as you are of reading it, no doubt. Finding something positive to say, we can only offer: Walt really carries the water for his overlords. But man, we need a better example of the pains of video franchising than some outfit in the middle of Tennessee that is flummoxed because its build-out crosses 25 local jurisdictions. What, like the Bellcos can't hire Paulie Walnuts to do some persuadin'? The killing blow -- Walt used the same example in both hearings. That means there must not be any more examples, right?
Sen. Inyoue may be well-meaning, but he needs to up the Kona blend intake. His contribution to the discussion, a softball that Earl Comstock and Cooper fed on like sportswriters at an NFL game-day buffet: A reference to the Wall Street Journal article (which we've all read) from last week talking about the wonders of 24 Mbps broadband in France. "What is France doing right?" asked Inyoue. Never mind that we should all be asking that of the Senate CC, right?
Largent and Ellig are eliminated simply because they did not say anything striking in their small moment of allotted time... somewhere, J.J. Redick knows how they feel. (And just once, wouldn't you like to hear somebody ask Largent at one of these things "how does it feel to never have won the big one?" heh. Or maybe the USTA could hire Mike Harden, who could just glare at Largent and maybe throw him a forearm shiver if Largent starts saying things like "we've made a tremendous investment in infrastructure" more than once a year.) (And just to be fair, we'd have to let Largent recover and smack Harden back. Or maybe Walter.)
Semifinals: Cooper vs. Stevens; Comstock vs. DeMint and Kyle McSlarrow
The Cooper vs. Stevens exchange was the highlight of the hearing -- watch that heart monitor, Sen. Stevens! If you're not familiar with Cooper's resume (it's about 1,000 pages long) suffice to say he's got a lot of info bottled up inside about why networks need to be open. I don't know Cooper at all, but I have seen him speak and it usually seems like he has a chip on his shoulder about something; add to that a slight whiff of crazy-uncle persona, and you have a fight waiting to happen. Last Thursday, Stevens was ready.
Their exchange started when Cooper ended his opening comments with a line about the need to "liberate the spectrum" and provide more unlicensed bands. Stevens jumped right after him, asking him how the hell (he might not have said "hell," but he meant it) we could open up more networks and allow more pornography, movie downloads, illegal music copying... you know, all the things we like the Internet for.
"Unlicensed doesn't mean anarchy," Cooper tried to say. Stevens, however, pressed him on what that meant -- how would it be regulated or watched? Cooper tried to make some comparison to traffic laws, but Stevens wouldn't hear it -- "there's cops in every town," he sputtered, meaning that there is no way in hell that the country could muster an equivalent force to police the wide-open nets of Cooper's dreams. "You lose me!" Stevens thundered, taking the halftime lead.
Comstock, meanwhile, was working over the "let it be" attitudes of DeMint and McSlarrow thanks to an audacious opening statement -- "The 1996 [Telecom] Act did work, in many areas" -- and some comprehensive followup thanks to the opening provided by Inyoue. In what should be a pretty good ongoing argument for proponents of network neutrality, Comstock made it easy by saying that France basically did what the U.S. tried to do with the 96 act -- open competition by forcing the incumbents to share their lines. "The consumer [in France] is getting the benefit of the infrastructure they've already paid for," Comstock said. Comstock got a late assist from Cooper, who took MC Walt's attempt to parry Comstock ("France has a government-owned [network] and they don't have to make money") and thrashed it by adding to it the example of British Telecom, which has established a similar line-sharing regime that has produced a number of high-speed competitors.
"The regulators set rates and didn't have a half-decade of litigation to death," Cooper said. "That model [and France's] beats the heck out of our approach."
DeMint scored a few points with his wry notice that "cable wants access to phone switches but doesn't want to allow [others] to connect to cable... and phone companies want video [reform] but they don't want to give up USF." (To us, a clear indication that both camps need to pony up a bit more to the DeMint war chest!)
But Sen. DeMint put up an air ball with his thought that "it just seems obvious to me that we should let it [regulations] go for a couple years, and protect the consumer... we couldn't do any more harm than we're doing now."
Great! How about we do the same for your paycheck?
Comstock and Cooper took turns piling on, Comstock first by noting that New Zealand (sure, it's a "country") tried such an approach and it failed. Then he surfaced a metaphor that kind of worked, something about it being a race where some of the competitors (telco, cable) have a big head start. "There's not enough money in the country for us all to build our own networks," Comstock said, returning to the point.
McSlarrow tried the "we're all bidnessmen here" approach, allowing that "we're all stuck in a system with quid pro quos." But then went on to only mention a new model that would -- surprise! -- benefit those with more quid pros than the competition.
Cooper took McSlarrow out with a view no doubt hardened over time of watching battles like this one -- "there's no reason to believe that the problems will be solved by those with market power," he noted, maybe the epitath of the ongoing lawmaking if there ever was one.
Then grampa Ted wrapped it all up by reminding everyone that when he first used phones, you could hear three people talking at once! Hello Central! Just when you think Ted's ready to make the big shot, just like Patrick Ewing he bricks it away.
Winners: Cooper, Comstock. Eliminated: McSlarrow, DeMint. Tourney champion: Stevens. Hey, he might have blown the ending but remember who sets the schedule! It ain't anyone from Comptel or a professor from some school, that's for sure.
Posted by paul at 11:06 PM | Comments (0)