Paul Kapustka's Blog
« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »
May 31, 2006
Meg Whitman to eBay members: Back net neutrality!
On Lawrence Lessing's blog today the venerable professor reports that eBay CEO Meg Whitman has exhorted eBay members to write their congresspeople in support of net neutrality legislation. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time any member of the Internet community has tried to use its own network to help its lobbying efforts...
Question is, will Google and others follow? Why not send a message to all of Google's beta-program users -- not a pitch, but perhaps just an informational message.
That's one way to combat the millions being spent by the telcos in a battle that they see as a war.
Posted by paul at 11:14 AM | Comments (1)
May 30, 2006
Tuesday part deux
Posted by paul at 03:33 PM | Comments (0)
Tuesday, May 30
THE WEEK IN VON
(put your arrow in the lower left corner to play!)
May 30, 2006
Today's news: The Vonage IPO
Last week saw the debut of the Vonage IPO. It lived down to a lot of observers' expectations, falling below the $17 per share offering.
Now hovering at around $13 per share, what does the Vonage IPO mean? That VoIP offerings are doomed? Or that the company has a business plan that is open to criticism?
Probably more of the latter. But it's now up to Vonage to prove the naysayers wrong. And it will have to do so in an increasingly transparent forum.
Posted by paul at 01:11 PM | Comments (0)
May 26, 2006
FCC now at full strength
Looks like Robert McDowell is out of the Senate penalty box, giving Kevin Martin his first full majority on the commission.
So now things should really move on the eighth floor, eh?
Posted by paul at 01:40 PM | Comments (0)
May 25, 2006
Susan Crawford report on Senate Hearings
Since the smackdown man is in video-testing mode, we turn to Susan Crawford for a well thought out take on the day's proceedings on Capitol Hill. Susan's main point is that we shouldn't rush into legislation just to say we passed something, but instead to wait and get things right. We agree, adding the betting-man's view that waiting past the November elections might help net neutrality proponents in the number-of-people-on-their-side equation.
For more on what went on today, please see the Jeff Pulver blog with on-site reporting by Jonathan "wartime consigliere" Askin.
Jonathan, who was at the Judiciary Committee hearing, reports:
As I have mentioned, the Judiciary Committee, composed of many champions of the Internet and competition, is coming from a very different place than the Commerce Committee. Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers both gave strong endorsement for Net Neutrality. The Committee voted in support of the legislation 20-13. Every Democrat voted for it, and a majority of Republicans voted against it. The bill uses antitrust law to enforce network neutrality. Given this and other dynamics, the chance of telecom reform legislation being passed this year continues to decrease.
Hmmm. Is it time to reset the betting lines already?
Posted by paul at 06:08 PM | Comments (0)
May 24, 2006
More videoblog testing
Thanks for your patience! Testing the brightcove player.
More to come!
Posted by paul at 06:27 PM | Comments (0)
'Recouping an investment' means 'Hold on to your wallet'
When the telcos argue against network neutrality, one central theme is that without tiered pricing plans, they won't be able to "recoup their investment" in all these great new services they plan to build. The question to ask is, from where will that "recouping" come? The answer can be found in your wallet.
In a conference call this morning with reporters, proponents of network neutrality are finally coalescing behind this idea, and it's a powerful one: The battle is not (as the telcos want you to believe) between them and the Googles of the world, but between telcos and customers -- with customers the ones who will have to pay the freight for the telcos' new shiny networks.
Why? Even I can figure this one out. If the phone companies are allowed to charge for tiered Internet services -- much like how cable companies charge for channel plans -- their "partners" in the deals (for video, music, gaming, whatever) are most likely NOT going to "share the costs." On the contrary: just like cable, the telcos are going to have to PAY EXTRA to host specialized content. Just like cablecos pay ESPN a few bucks per customer, so will phone companies have to pay for their content. And who will pay the vig? That's right, you and me.
In a mildly interesting "debate" on the topic online today at the Wall Street Journal, Craig Newmark and Mike McCurry trade jabs. While neither lands anything that even rates on the smackdown meter, there was one snippet from McCurry that bears repeating, since it seems to be another emerging telco "talking point." That somehow, if I'm using a lot of bandwidth, I'm using up resources at the expense of my neighbors, or McCurry's mom. To wit:
The Internet needs investment. That investment will be spread across the market and the big companies that provide content will help pay the cost and work that cost into their business models. Or the consumer will get stuck with the entire bill. And my mom who uses the Internet to email and read news will have to subsidize the guy down the street who wants to stream HDTV movies 10 times a day.
The first part of this quote doesn't wash with existing business models; the last part is just plain funny -- like somehow there's a limited resource and we all have to share it, even though we're being lured with advertisements that promise "Your world. delivered." (I guess I should go and check my service agreement with Comcast to make sure that I'm not downloading HD movies while Mike's mom wants to send email!)
For its part, Google will keep spending upon the millions it already invests in backbone infrastructure to ensure that its services work well over the regular Internet.
"It (the network neutrality debate) is not about big companies -- we'll do just fine," said Alan Davidson, Google's top D.C. lawyer. Consumers, however, should start to see the light and see that net neutrality regulation needs their support, he said. Or else, they'll find out that the only part of McCurry's argument that rings true is the line "or the consumer will get stuck with the entire bill."
(Nice to see from the Journal that they are calling McCurry's organization what it is -- "a phone industry group" -- instead of buying into any phony grassroots idea. Good to see that the astroturf strategy is turning out to be another expensive telco mistake.)
Posted by paul at 12:02 PM | Comments (0)
May 22, 2006
The Week in VON -- Videoblog trial
Welcome to the "beta" verson of my videoblog! Please excuse the poor lighting and low-carb webcam. Things will get better soon, I promise!
(click on video window to play)
Here are some links:
Check out video from VON at the Jeff Pulver Video Vault.
Check out what bloggers had to say about Spring VON Europe 2006.
Musician Moby joins the battle for network neutrality legislation.
See you next week on the small tube!
Posted by paul at 01:04 PM | Comments (0)
May 19, 2006
Snowe, Dorgan jump on net neutrality pig pile
Joe Barton claims that nobody can define it, but a whole bunch of his colleagues are sure trying. Add to the list today the expected net neutrality bill backed by Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., just the latest entrant in the now-popular NN sweepstakes. Betting line to follow!
Thanks to the thorough reporting of C/Net's Anne Broache, we now have a handy tout sheet for the pending net neutrality bills. What the C/Net chart is missing -- betting odds. Here's the Paul Kapustka Blog betting line (remember, wagering may not be legal in your locale! Check law enforcement or tribal rules to see if "gaming" is OK):
Bill/Sponsor(s)/Odds/Comment
S.2360 / Wyden (D) / 100-1 / A loud vocal start, but no real support
S.2917 / Snowe (R) and Dorgan (D) / 5-2 / Bipartisan power -- could stall the whole telecom reform process until past November (which would then pay off at even money)
HR5417 / Sensenbrenner (R) and Conyers (D) / 7-1 / A wild card, we here at the "house" don't know if this filly will be allowed to run. If it can, it might have legs.
HR5252 / Barton (R) and Rush (D) / 3-2 / Could win its House "race," but very likely will end up being gelded by Senate moves. Roses or dog food?
S.2686 / Stevens (R) and Inouye (D) / even / The Clydesdale of 'em all... with the power to mutate, especially if lawmakers show a willingness to drill for oil in Alaska.
The house does NOT accept Paypal for bets. Please place your wagers in the comments arena. Remember, the betting window may close at any time if network operators deem it A) necessary for national security; B) necessary for "network administration"; C) underpayment of fees; or D) If Ed thinks it's not gonna make money.
Posted by paul at 03:38 PM | Comments (0)
May 18, 2006
Sen. Boxer Outs an Astroturfer
You may or may not agree with her politics, but there was no denying Sen. Barbara Boxer's smackdown skills Thursday, when she exposed Julia Johnson, chairman of something called the Video Access Alliance, as a professional lobbyist whose firm specializes in setting up so-called advocacy groups.
During a spotty live webcast of Thursday's hearings on the Senate Commerce Committee's communications reform bill, we were able to catch the priceless snippet of Boxer not asking, but telling Johnson that she was a lobbyist, and not the head of some community organization.
Johnson tried to respond to Boxer's claim by saying she was proud to be an African-American and a business owner, but Boxer quickly cut her off by saying sure, we're all proud of you but that's not the point.
"I really don't see you as an independent voice," said Boxer, noting that Johnson's firm touts its lobbying abilities, and has represented big communications firms in the past.
Like any good astroturf, the "alliance" doesn't share any information on its web site about whose cash is responsible for its "grassroots" effort. My question: How the heck to such obviously fake people get into these hearings as credible witnesses? I mean, isn't having MC Walt McCormick enough?
Meanwhile, Ed Markey on Thursday had an event with the artist Moby, who is backing net neutrality legislation. That's the real Moby, and not some fake artist claiming to represent artists.
Who do you believe?
Posted by paul at 12:56 PM | Comments (0)
May 17, 2006
Telco FUD -- Funny, and plenty to go around
The original title of this post was going to be "Ed Whitacre's short hairs and other stories," but who wants to read that in an RSS feed headline? Spent most of today trying to hold back the laughter, since there was both a Wall Street Journal editorial about how Google, Microsoft and other tech firms were going to beat up poor ol' AT&T and Verizon with lobbyists (mmmph!) and a "dear colleague" letter from Sens. Brownback and DeMint claiming that network neutrality "threatens to deprive parents of new technologies they may use to protect their families from online harm."
You just can't make this stuff up, but there it is. On the very same day that the WSJ runs a well-thought-out, no-new-info recap on the net neutrality debate (correctly pinning it to the coming video-over-IP question that we have talked about before), one of the Journal's wizened editorial types, Holman Jenkins, gets his undies in a bundle worrying about how big, powerful Microsoft and Google are going to tag-team AT&T and Verizon into submission over net neutrality by "loading up on Washington lobbyists."
(Hmm. Must have been all those former SBC lobbyists, who were replaced by the AT&T crew. Glad they found work!)
The kicker line is Jenkins' claim that net neutrality lobbyists are just pursuing billable hours:
Lobbyists keep themselves employed by seeking regulatory leverage over a company's competitive environment, and in "net neutrality" they found a slogan proven to stir up the useful idiots of the "public interest" sector. What for, exactly? Who cares. Let's get AT&T and Verizon by the short hairs now and we'll decide later.
Yeah, I'll just bet that Jim Cicconi and his legal brethren are shaking in their boots over Microsoft's and Google's ability to muster troops of lawyers. Probably as scared as the Indians were, bearing down on Custer: "there's only one of him with a pistol, and all of us thousands on horses! Quick, call the Wall Street Journal and tell them we need an editorial, pronto!"
Remember, it was not too long ago that AT&T was able to employ more lobbyists than lawmakers to ensure the fight for video franchising in Texas went their way. So, Big Ed's short hairs are probably safe for right now.
BONUS LINK: The WSJ is apparently running ANOTHER net neutrality editorial in Thursday's editions, which is already available online here. Got to be impressed at AT&T and Verizon's ability to get others to do their work for them.
(And: What does it say about the WSJ's own opinion of its opinions, when it charges beaucoup bucks to read the regular news, but the crackpot stuff is free? Of course, so is my blog, so... guess I need to "add value" by giving them a smackdown score: 1.5. Thanks for reading up on the topic, fellas. And thanks for the party-line view. And geez! With a column picture like that, should you really be talking about short hairs?)
Not much time left here to recap the Brownback/DeMint missive to their Senatorial brethren, which is predictable in most phases ("opposing the heavy hand of regulation that network neutrality represents is critical...") except for its introduction of a new idea, the one that says that somehow, the "new technologies" planned by the telcos "hold the promise of providing parents with new tools to protect their children and families as they explore online."
Wow! Net neutrality will prevent all that from happening, because, you know, there won't be any INCENTIVE TO INVEST! (sip) I'd go on, but there isn't time to laugh at all the points (including one ironic passage that accuses net neutrality proponents of using "fear and misinformation" to dupe the world. Any day now, we'll hear or read that it was Google who said "not on my pipes," and not Ed "fear my short hairs" Whitacre.
Smackdown score: 0.5. Really gents, don't your staffers have better things to do?
It should be funny, and it would be, until you start to realize the depth of resources the telcos are bringing to bear in this battle. Guess there's something to worry about, eh? And it ain't keeping your kids safe that's keeping Ed and Ivan up at night. Or Google's lawyers.
Oh, how did I get a copy of the Brownback/DeMint letter? Sent to me by Verizon's helpful PR team. They know I enjoy a good joke as well as anyone, I guess.
Posted by paul at 10:02 PM | Comments (0)
May 16, 2006
One (smart) definition of network neutrality
When Susan Crawford talks (or blogs), we've learned to listen. When she offers a simple definition of network neutrality, you should too.
Add Susan to the list of people who doubt the need for extensive layers of QoS:
Given enough bandwidth, all the need for prioritization in the last mile goes away. The question is who will provide that bandwidth and at what cost. In other countries it has been treated like a utility, unbundled and open to competition, and speeds are much higher and costs are much lower. That's the model I'm working towards.
Isn't this the right debate to have? How much does it cost, how can we build it so that everyone wins? Instead of "us vs. them" ??
Posted by paul at 09:59 PM | Comments (3)
Why QoS sucks... money out of your pocket
As some of my critics have noted, I'm not a network engineer. But somebody who is just penned a long, convincing essay as to why QoS isn't the answer for better bandwidth, but is instead mainly a telco ploy to suck more cash out of users while keeping alive their old, tired networks.
It's a long read, but extremely worthwhile. One of the many money quotes says:
The operator controlled QoS challenges and associated expense dramatically increase when you consider providing consistent QoS behavior, via policy, across multiple technologies, service providers, applications and devices. It is delusional to think that network service providers will share their policy information which they all view as a competitive advantage. This leads to the conclusion that best effort is fundamental for competitive behavior and makes end to end QoS an unreachable goal.
And, further:
There is also a clear danger that the cost of the QoS mechanisms needed, including their operation and management will far exceed what is required to provide ample non-QoS service, or simply bandwidth.
And for critics of critics of the "need" for QoS:
Attacks on the anti-QoS perspective often center on the claim that the anti-QoS crowd want “infinite bandwidth". This and similar statements by the QoS advocates are nonsense! Adding more bandwidth has always been more cost effective than QoS. Others also agree, please see http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/internet.economics.pdf. Think about this, if adding bandwidth wasn't effective, then how come QoS isn’t widely deployed today? A look at QoS, past the hype, reveals numerous issues. As an Internet user, all I care about is that I have enough capacity so most things run nicely. Just give me my advertised bit rate and I am happy.
(What's really funny is that the same crank who tried to tout the wonders of QoS in previous comments on my blog has also commented on the link where all this info came from. The truth hurts, but apparently not enough to convince everyone.)
Please read, and decide for yourself!
Thanks to Martin "no net neutrality for me, just more Internets" Geddes for the link.
Posted by paul at 09:17 PM | Comments (3)
Telecom money keeps flowin' to Congress
When they're not paying for astroturf, the telcos are opening their funding wallets to Congress. Not a surprise, and hard to blame them from playing the hand they have been dealt. Still, it's good to read stories like this one by the National Journal's David Hatch that give you a clear idea how much it takes to get your message heard on the Hill.
You've got to love the cash rolling in to Ted Stevens' coffers, even though he's not up for re-election for a couple more years. Never hurts to start saving early!
Posted by paul at 03:07 PM | Comments (0)
Digging under the astroturf -- who pays for 'Hands Off the Internet' site?
Kudos to Sascha Meinrath for digging through the tedium of Whois data to find out that the "grassroots" backers of the lame "Hands Off the Internet" site are lobbyists and PR firms, presumably under contract from the big telcos and their suppliers.
Not much of a surprise, but it keeps begging the question: Why the need to hide the affilation of who's really paying the bills? Embarrassed about something? Ted and others want to know, too.
My question: Is funding for such sites built into the costs of the new high-speed connections AT&T talks about?
Posted by paul at 12:39 PM | Comments (0)
May 15, 2006
Verizon, AT&T persist with 'Clogged Internet' Disinformation
The Internet just can't handle video! That's the "Chicken Little" cry from AT&T and Verizon, whose technically suspect message found a home in an Associated Press story that is sure to get huge play, even though it's mostly just self-serving spin for the telcos' tiered Internet plans. Question: Can the blogosphere shoot this one down? Or will overall ignorance and big-media influence carry the day?
I actually watched the seeds of this story get planted, when AT&T's Jim Cicconi and Verizon's Tom Tauke trotted out this same story line in an exclusive briefing with reporters at the TelecomNEXT show in late March. Peter Svensson, the AP reporter who wrote the current story, was at that same briefing and apparently bought into the Bells' line enough to put together the story on today's wire that carries the unfortunate headline "High-Def Could Choke Internet, ISPs Fear."
Never mind that Svensson does try to balance the argument a bit -- he basically buys the Verizon-AT&T-BellSouth line that gosh, if people start watching high-quality video, the Internet will get all clogged up. What's funny is that the story paints the biggest problem -- the fact that the ILECs' networks simply aren't built to handle always-on connections -- as something that is only a problem because of the unrealistic expectations of users.
An interesting data point from the story is that ILECs are typically using one T-1 (1 Mbps) to handle every 40 DSL accounts -- an oversubscribed model that works well with voice calls, but not for the "Your world. Delivered." broadband plans that AT&T and Verizon advertise. In other words, they are betting you won't use the full pipe you pay for, and if you do, they want to charge you more.
(Now do you understand the need for net neutrality rules?)
To quote, from the AP story:
Oversubscription doesn't present a problem as long as people are using the Internet for Web surfing, e-mail and the occasional file download. But if everyone in a neighborhood is trying to download the evening news at the same time, it's not going to work."The plain truth is that today's access and backbone networks simply do not have the capacity to deliver all that customers expect," according to Tom Tauke, Verizon Communications Inc.'s top lobbyist.
Never mind that Verizon's advertising claims "Our speeds are extreme. Our prices are hot." According to Tauke, the backbone can't back up Verizon's advertising. Attention lawyers! Is there a truth-in-advertising suit out there somewhere?
The story goes on to say that the ILECs are considering adding a data download ceiling, above which customers would pay extra fees -- much like cell phone plans, which charge you more for using minutes beyond your "package" amount.
Sounds simple, right? Everyone understands cell phones and "minutes," even though most cell plans these days (even from Verizon and AT&T) are going the other direction, to all-you-can-eat plans. The key for the telcos is to get Congress to buy into the line that "The Internet isn't built for video, so we have to charge people more to pay for all the new, big, fat pipes."
There are, of course, many problems with this scenario, and in the story Svensson only touches on one, outlined by Dave Burstein, who is quoted as saying the Bells will probably use any extra income to beef up the new video infrastructure, while keeping the old Internet-access setup in its shared mode even though it would become increasingly cheap to upgrade it, given the rapid technological advancements in networking gear.
There's also the still-underreported facts coming out of the Internet2 experiment, where the people who run that network keep saying that if you just increase end-user bandwidth connections to 100 Mbps, all the "choking" problems in the network go away, with no special treatment needed for video like AT&T and Verizon claim.
I'm sure there are more holes to poke in the telcos' argument, but right now they have the power of the Associated Press on their side to spread their disinformation. Question is, can the blogosphere jump on this one and help get it right before more people read something that's painfully wrong?
Posted by paul at 09:47 AM | Comments (8)
May 12, 2006
How big will the NSA scandal get?
As we wait, sharpening the smackdown knives for the upcoming Congressional hearings featuring top telco execs, one can't help but wonder how big the telcos/NSA call-record fiasco is going to get. One thing is probably a given at this point -- there won't be any meaningful telecom legislation passed this year, which may be exactly what net neutrality proponents want at this point.
More thoughts later on this topic, but some quick fodder for thinking: When will we hear what Kevin Martin and the FCC think about more deregulation for the telcos? Still a good idea?
And will the Bush administration stick its neck out for its big contributors and try to get any lawsuits scuttled (in the name of national security, of course), or will it let AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth swing?
One thing's for sure, these hearings are going to be a lot more fun than watching Walter McCormick talk about the "need for investment incentive." Let's just hope the webcasts aren't monitored...
Posted by paul at 09:31 PM | Comments (0)
May 11, 2006
Telcos to NSA: C'mon in, the door's open!
According to USA Today, the big phone companies (except Qwest) have been allowing NSA to build a database of tens of millions of calls made in the U.S. Still want to "trust" them when it comes to keeping the Internet open?
Note to net neutrality proponents: You may want to ask Congress a few questions about this one. And then get them to ask Big Ed and Ivan for some answers.
UPDATE: Ed Markey is already on the case. See here.
Posted by paul at 08:55 AM | Comments (0)
May 10, 2006
Net neutrality a minor topic at Google Press Day
With lots of new stuff to announce, perhaps we can pardon Google for not giving front-of-mind attention to the topic of network neutrality at Wednesday's press day event. However, we were able to get some answers to pending questions, with direct input from CEO Eric Schmidt, co-founder Larry Page, esteemed big-brain Vint Cerf and chief lobbyist Alan Davidson...
As expected, Davidson, Google's high-profile D.C. representative, had the most salient information about the search giant's persuasion efforts in the halls of Congress. While stating the obvious -- that tech companies are behind the Bells when it comes to asserting influence in Washington -- Davidson said there should be a more-concerted effort coming soon from the same companies whose names were affixed to a public letter sent to the Senate commerce committee.
On another unsolved point, Davidson said emphatically that Google has never asked AT&T for any preferential video treatment, directly contradicting claims from AT&T's top lobbyist.
Schmidt, who is becoming a master at saying things in a diplomatic, can't-pin-me-down manner, said in his formal presentation that instead of worrying about specific language or laws, Google would try to expand the discussion of the role of regulation in communications -- "the goal here is to get it [regulation, legislation, etc.] right," he said. Later, in an informal Q-and-A, Schmidt deferred to Cerf on the issue.
Cerf, in an informal Q-and-A, called the Washington process one of "endless" education, often made tougher by the high turnover on congressional staffs. The biggest disconnect right now, Cerf said, is that most D.C. types think of IP-based TV as another form of cable TV, when it could actually be much more.
The telcos' pitch that IPTV needs special pipes for streaming capabilities is "crap," Cerf said, asserting that the powers of packets and IP infrastructures can find other ways to solve content-delivery issues.
Count Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., among the lawmakers Cerf likes. "I can talk geek to him," laughed Cerf.
Other telecom tidbits from the day:
-- Google may participate in the upcoming wireless spectrum auctions, Schmidt said, during a formal Q&A session, most likely as a partner with another entity.
-- Google continues to paint its Wi-Fi efforts as an "interesting experiment," and refused to look any deeper into the dark fiber, according to Page. As a caveat, Page did say that there are "few things in the world that work so well [as the Internet]. That's why we're so interested in network neutrality." (So, they DO know what it's about, at the Larry-Sergey-Eric level.)
-- When asked if Google had plans for its own cellular phone, Schmidt showed his sense of humor with the quick reply: "No. We're busy."
Posted by paul at 04:31 PM | Comments (0)
May 09, 2006
Net neutrality -- careful what you read
Maybe it's nit-picking, but a column today from the usually reliable Drew Clark over at the National Journal needs a couple corrections... not the least of which is to note that former FCC chairman Michael Powell is the original author of what was then called the Internet Freedoms, now better known as net neutrality. To say he's against net neutrality is something that just isn't true.
While Drew was at F2C and I wasn't (I listened in over the excellent webcast), what Powell said actually had more nuance. To sum up, he warned tech-types against trying to battle telcos head-on in a legislative fight, instead counseling that more prep work and different tactics might be more successful. So, I don't think he was arguing against net neutrality rules as working against innovation, but instead was saying that fighting the Bells in Washington right now is a losing battle.
A nuance, but an important one. So is the correction needed for the headline, which proclaims that "Tech allies split on net neutrality."
Like many people who don't live in Silicon Valley, Drew mistakenly assumes that Cisco and Google and eBay are all allies by geographical location. While sometimes their businesses align, the companies are not really close friends -- especially in a situation like this one, where Cisco has to choose between the general Internet public and companies that pay Cisco millions for big routers. No surprise whose side Cisco is on, though you have to admire their delicate steps in the dance.
There's another comment in Drew's column -- that the issue has "clinched a raw nerve in Silicon Valley." (Clinched? Maybe pinched?)
Not sure what raw nerve he's talking about, since net neutrality simply doesn't make the headlines very often out here. Not yet, anyway. Part of the problem is that some of the players Drew lumps together -- Google, eBay and Yahoo -- all probably have very different takes on the subject. As we've noted before, they all might have their own interests at heart when they only take baby steps in opposition. There's Yahoo's deals with AT&T and Verizon, Google's rumored plans of its own networks (which it may not want to share any more than AT&T does) and eBay's ownership of Skype, which may make them not want to anger the PSTN keepers who they want to connect with.
And then there's Microsoft, who wants badly to sell IPTV software to the telcos and cablecos.
To correct the headline (and parts of the column), I'd say that many people and many companies are split on how they want to see this debate play out. And it's a lot deeper than some simple "geek vs. geek" ploy.
And: Cisco still makes most of its money selling routers to corporations, with telcos and consumers a lesser percentage of sales. As long as we're making corrections, that is.
BONUS LINK:
Want to hear what Powell said straight from the horse's mouth? Check out F2C highlights at Jeff Pulver's video vault.
Posted by paul at 04:34 PM | Comments (1)
May 08, 2006
Broadband competition -- more options
David Isenberg also saw Susan Crawford's post, and weighed in with some competition-building thoughts of his own.
David sums up the last 10 years of slow-moving broadband rollouts quite nicely -- read the post, and then ask if you really want AT&T, Verizon, etc. to be in charge of the future of Internet access here in the U.S.
David's alternate method of access involves a leap of faith:
Find new network architectures that do not have the barrier of high fixed costs. Mesh networks.
As much as I'd like to believe in the power of wireless, right now I believe that the power of walls has the stronger magic. Until Intel and others (Motorola?) innovate to make walls disappear (as barriers to broadband), I can't see wireless options fully replacing the power of a wired connection.
But I want to be convinced otherwise!
Posted by paul at 01:06 PM | Comments (0)
How much for the 'third pipe' for broadband?
Reading this post last week from Susan Crawford made me wonder: How much will it really cost to build the so-called "third pipe" of broadband? And might it just be cheaper to pay the telcos off, and buy their local network elements?
I'm not the first or the smartest to float this idea; and in a time when we are spending $10 billion a month to fight a war with dubious return, is it fair to ask why don't we spend some of that cash on rebuilding or retooling our country's communicaions infrastructure?
Reed Hundt says it would cost $20 billion to bring fiber to all homes in America; and Bob Kahn (see earlier link) thinks it's a good idea to create open local loops, so that multiple types of broadband providers can flourish. Assume the money can be found, Kahn says, to pay off the telcos. The idea from Kahn, Hundt and Crawford is simple -- we need to do something to get competition rolling again. There's too much at stake to pin all our hopes on AT&T, Verizon and the cablecos, whose track record of delivering on high-speed services is not too stellar.
So -- why not pay them off? What's the price? And how come these ideas, or other technologicial solutions, aren't a part of the debate in the Senate and House?
Just askin'.
Posted by paul at 08:44 AM | Comments (0)
May 02, 2006
Susan Crawford on USF: A must-read
Even though we love, love, love network neutrality, we've said all along that reworking the Universal Service Fund (USF) is a much thornier issue. In her usual succinct style, Susan Crawford follows the money to let you know why USF may live on while net neutrality suffers.
While net neutrality may puzzle even the smartest folks, keeping USF and its $7-plus billion per year in customer payola is a no-brainer for a legislative body that can't even bring itself to end a telecom tax originally levied to supply the Spanish-American War. Instead of looking differently at IP communications, bet your last dollar that Congress will instead find a way to tax new entrants just like they tax the phone companies now.
Hey, what about those "no regulating the Internet" arguments we're hearing from the Bells on net neutrality? Why not make similar arguments against USF? We're waiting...
Posted by paul at 09:40 PM | Comments (0)
Net neutrality -- Round Two begins
There wasn't much time wasted between the end of round one of the Net neutrality battle -- the passage of the Barton COPE bill out of committee -- and the beginning of round two. Most interesting part of the second engagement? The arrival of new players, mainly on the pro-net neutrality side of the debate.
The above link, which routes you to a C/Net pickup of a Reuters story, is interesting on several levels: Not only does it explore the idea that without net neutrality rules, we may all be paying more for online banking; but it also signals more "mainstreaming" of the debate, with well-respected news operation Reuters seeing it as a significant place to break a news story.
It's fun on one level to watch this turn into a real debate, instead of just another example of the big telcos using their influence to pummel regulators into accepting their world-view of things. You can almost feel the frustration when you read posts like this one by Randall May of the Progress & Freedom Foundation -- a group that has lots of smart people, but also an apparent inability to accept any version of the truth other than their own. (C'mon Randy -- when you start arguing about the semantics of the word "neutrality," you're grasping at straws.)
Here's Randy's reasoning:
BTW, I believe that imposing anticipatory broad-brush mandates preventing any differentiation of services on the net will diminish investment in new high-speed facilities and innovative applications, thereby neutering the net. So, in my view what the proponents of new Internet regulations are arguing for is Net Neutering, not Net Neutrality.
To which one can easily reply: You mean those high-speed facilities and innovative applications we are enjoying now? With billions in profits, how much more "incentive to invest" is needed?
But back to the battle: Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., is already back up off the canvas with a new standalone version of a net neutrality bill; and D.C. insiders expect Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, to launch their own "net neut" bill any day now.
Senate commerce committee leader Ted Stevens, meanwhile, has launched the mother ship of telecom bills, a monster that observers are only starting to digest. The network neutrality component right now calls for the FCC to examine the situation on a year-to-year basis and report back to the Senate. Given the toe-the-line adherance to a GOP/RBOC agenda by current chairman-for-the-rest-of-the-second-term Martin, it's hard to believe that net neutrality proponents would agree to such an arrangement.
The analysts at Stifel, Nicolaus are pessimisstic about Steven's bill becoming law, as they say:
We thus expect the Stevens draft will undergo significant changes (and probably deletions) if it is to move through the Senate and be reconciled with a narrower House bill focused on video franchise relief and a few other areas -- and even that's no guarantee of legislative success.
And don't forget Alyssa Milano, the star of stage and screen who added her name to the growing list of Internet users who want there to be real discussion about the issue, not back-room deals. Sure, it's easy to be snarky and silly about Ms. Milano, but (besides her fame), she's far from frothy and is, in many ways, no different from other small businesspersons who are worried about the potential for gatekeeping and tiered services that only the rich (of both users and providers) can afford.
So why not Alyssa -- in fact, why aren't more independent voices joining the debate? You don't have to be a lobbyist to play, and heck, you might even earn some coin for your efforts. Not a bad way for the second part of this debate to begin.
Posted by paul at 03:00 PM | Comments (0)