Paul Kapustka's Blog
« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 »
June 29, 2006
Bob Frankston joins Kahn, Hundt with new last-mile ideas
In a well-worded missive over at I, Cringely, Robert X talks to Bob Frankston, who wonders why we don't just build last-mile networks ourselves. More fuel for the fire started by Bob Kahn and Reed Hundt.
Bonus link (also from Cringely page), a presentation by Bill St. Arnaud on customer-owned networks. (Complete with technical details for network experts!)
Anyone else smell a trend yet?
Posted by paul at 11:03 PM | Comments (0)
The Fourth Internet Freedom: Give me stats!
As we head into a weekend filled with fourths and freedoms, why not spend some time thinking about the fourth Internet Freedom -- the Freedom to Obtain Service Plan Information -- and why it may be the most important forgotten part of the network neutrality debate? Or, the part the big service providers want to talk about least?
In fine lawyerly terms, the Fourth Freedom as envisioned by former FCC chairman Michael Powell (who unfortunately could never deliver the political strength to turn his beliefs into real policy) says that "consumers should receive meaningful information regarding their service plans." Powell went on to say that "I challenge all facets of the industry to ensure that broadband consumers can easily obtain the information they need to make rational choices among an ever-expanding array of different service and pricing plan(s)."
As we all know, service and pricing plans are typically clear as mud. And now they're even turning Orwellian, claiming that customer calling and Internet usage data are really the property of the phone company. However, don't expect to see such language and terms of usage in the big letters on billboards. Instead, it will remain buried in legalese, just like those software agreements that everyone clicks "accept" without actually reading.
This isn't a new argument. But here's something that is: If service providers want to be allowed to offer tiered services, then why can't we have some sort of regulation that makes them prove that they are delivering what we pay for? It's the same kind of regulation that keeps providers of other commodities (milk, gasoline, alcohol) in line, ensuring open competition in the marketplace. Those industries have regulations for scales and measurements that assure the consumer gets what is paid for. Why can't we have similar regulation for Internet service?
Better yet, why can't the gubmint require the service providers to build a little meter that shows bandwidth usage? That way, when Verizon or someone else makes a claim that the users are somehow to blame for overloading the network, users can say horsehockey! I paid for this really slow connection, and I aim to use all I can!
Alternatively, it may fall to the private sector to provide this freedom, an idea I've touched on before. Though FCC chairman Kevin Martin thinks that public measuring websites are already satisfying this need, I think we need to go several steps further, and bring the network measurement tools being used by large enterprises into the consumer arena -- as long as I'm spending someone else's cash, I suggest Google's stockpile as a good place to start.
Why not build a free, Internet-based widget that would accurately measure Internet traffic from an end-user standpoint, with customizable color-coded tools to allow me to track Vonage or Skype usage against my overall bandwidth allotment? Can't be that hard, and it might be a better business than yet another free video hosting site.
Then we could also build widgets or make it a law to publish metro and core traffic patterns -- just as we currently regulate other scare resources, like air traffic routes, navigable waterways or highways. Again, if politicians won't take the lead (imagine that), there may be a private-enterprise method like those found in other arenas, such as metro automobile traffic. The reason for all this is, again, to debunk (or prove?!) that the networks aren't being clogged by Google's servers, as some "experts" would have you believe.
So for the fourth, let's pledge to make sure that at the very least, the Fourth Freedom is preserved: All we have to gain are the stats to the services we have already purchased. And all there is to hide is... what?
Posted by paul at 05:10 PM | Comments (0)
FCC's VoIP USF order -- in need of appeal?
Almost unnoticed due to the headline-grabbing fight for network neutrality, the FCC's USF order for VoIP may turn out to be a huge blow to the nascent IP communications industry. Jeff Pulver, for one, thinks an appeal of the order is necessary: "I will not watch from the sidelines or from abroad while the FCC sabotages Internet communications," Pulver says in his blog today.
It's a whale of an order to read, but since you have the long holiday weekend ahead, perhaps it makes sense to spend some time perusing the order itself, to see if you agree that it does hold the potential to harm the IP communications industry.
Want a place to join to help? The VON Coalition is a good place to start.
Posted by paul at 09:25 AM | Comments (0)
June 28, 2006
Net neutrality gets a tie in Senate?
From the flurry of PR-group emails that have just started to cross the transom, it appears that a vote on the network neutrality amendment in front of the Senate commerce committee ended up tied, 11-11. UPDATED: According to C/Net, the tie does not go to the runner but instead defeats the amendment. Still, think that C/Net's headline ("Senate deals blow to Net neutrality") is not a full reflection of the truth... from here it looks like the concept of NN is getting stronger, and the tie committee vote will likely fuel momentum for some kind of NN wording (or stalling) in any bill brought to the full Senate.
Though their focus is sometimes skewed on this subject, you have to compliment C/Net for having two reporters on the scene for timely updates... don't see any other tech outlets (or news outlets for that matter) with the smarts to cover this field front and center.
UPDATE 2: Drew Clark at the National Journal weighs in, with a bit more nuance and analysis here.
(Did anyone else notice that the commerce committee's webcast was MIA this afternoon? Or was that just my service provider, blocking it... joke!)
FYI, the betting line on any actual telecom reform bill making it to the President's desk for an Ed Whitacre-assisted rubber stamp before the November elections is now open at 3-1. Please place wagers in the comments field.
Posted by paul at 02:53 PM | Comments (0)
SF Chron gets 'astroturfed' on net neutrality
Try as hard as they can, the good folks at the San Francisco Chronicle just can't quite grasp the nuances of the debate over network neutrality. If they could, they never would have let this piece of drivel run on their editorial pages sourced as something from "a national nonprofit research and education organization." Pul-eeze. The only thing missing from the Heartland Institute's missives are the AT&T letterhead.
There's really little need to rebut Mr. Titch's mournful missive -- since it's full of the same bromides the telcos have been force-feeding down everyone's mouths the past few months. For one example, you just have to love an essay that purports to contain knowledgeable technical information trotting out an argument like this one:
When Disney/Pixar wants to use the Internet to deliver its hit film "Cars" in high-definition, six-channel stereo DVD quality, the enormous video, audio and control codes crossing the networks require a high level of real-time, error-free transmission. If service providers can't recover the costs of delivery from content providers (i.e., Disney), they must spread it among all users. This leaves one-hour-a-day surfers paying the cost of servicing 24/7 bandwidth maniacs.
Hmm. Last time I checked my broadband terms of service, I didn't see anything in there about "well, we sold you 7 Mbps, but don't hog it, buddy!" The idea that somehow my contract with a service provider affects yours is absurd, like we're all sharing a party line. Talk about a disconnect.
And: Those people downloading films illegally using new technologies like BitTorrent seem to be doing just fine. Guess maybe there are other ways to achieve that "real-time, error-free transmission."
Back to the point -- that the SF Chron lets Mr. Titch rant on without identifying his shadow group as an outfit that clearly is serving the goals of corporate masters. Those who have reported on this industry for a bit have found the Heartland's claims of independence wanting, just like their explanation as to why they don't reveal who their corporate sponsors are.
All of this is not to say that the Chronicle shouldn't give Mr. Titch and his backers room to rant: far from it. But they shouldn't blindly accept his definition of his group either, without a little fact-checking of their own.
Posted by paul at 02:07 PM | Comments (0)
Will telco reform bill stall or pass?
As the Senate Commerce Committee markup heads into its third day of deliberations, chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, wonders whether or not meaningful telecom legislation will get passed in 2006.
Even if Stevens manages to get some kind of compromise-laden (but still telco-friendly) piece of legislation out of the Commerce committee, there are foes in the Senate like Oregon's Ron Wyden who could stymie efforts to pass a bill in the full Senate.
More will be known later today after the markup proceedings continue. Stay tuned.
Posted by paul at 09:02 AM | Comments (0)
June 27, 2006
FCC commish Copps on net neutrality
A good video interview with FCC commissioner Michael Copps, who spent some time last week at the Supernova conference urging the high tech community to get behind the Four Freedoms. Worth a listen, since you never seem to hear much wisdom out of the FCC lately.
(More video blogs by David Weinberger from Supernova are here.)
Posted by paul at 05:50 PM | Comments (0)
June 26, 2006
FCC's Martin in bed with lobbyists?
Gosh, can't wait to see this photo spread.
Guessing there wasn't much posing needed... that everyone knew their places?
According to one of the participants, Alex Vogel, a partner at the high-tech lobbying firm Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti:
"The fact that Kevin is standing on the bed and I am sitting on the bed and everyone in Washington is like 'Oh my God, it's a regulator in bed with a lobbyist' -- I honestly believe that didn't necessarily occur to the photographer," Vogel said. "They certainly took other pictures and they decided to use that one because they are trying to sell magazines."
Anyone got a link to the photo? (According to one reader, there is a small copy on the Wall Street Journal's blog... see if there are more links tomorrow)
Posted by paul at 03:19 PM | Comments (0)
June 23, 2006
Big Ed gets a little whippin' from Specter
Sorry for the no-smackdown Thursday (the Senate markup was audio-only, not very good, and it ended with a to-be-continued-Tuesday non-conclusion) but Sen. Arlen Specter more than made up for it today with a lip-whippin' of Ed Whitacre on the subject of NSA snooping. More after the jump...
From the ABC News report (the best I've read yet), here is a little flavor:
Specter drilled Whitacre several times with increasing frustration until he finally asked, "Mr. Whitacre, are you declining to answer?""We follow the law," was Whitacre's repeated comeback.
The exchange between Specter and Whitacre was, to say the least, circuitous.
Specter: Does AT&T provide customer information to any law enforcement agency?
Whitacre: We follow the law, senator.
Specter: That is not an answer Mr. Whitacre, you know that.
Whitacre: That's all I'm gonnna say, is we follow the law. It is an answer. I'm telling you we don't violate the law, we follow the law.
Specter: Now, that's a legal conclusion, Mr. Whitacre. You may be right or you may be wrong, but I'm asking you for a factual matter — does your company provide information to the federal government or any law enforcement agency, information about customers?
Whitacre: If it's legal and we're requested to do so, of course we do.
Specter: Have you?
Whitacre: All I'm going to say is we follow the law.
Specter: That's not an answer, it's not an answer, it's an evasion.
Whitacre: It's an answer.
Specter: If you're under instructions by the federal government…
Whitacre: We follow the law, senator.
Specter: You've said that. I don't care to hear it again.
Whitacre: I don't care to repeat it again but we do.
Specter: Well then, don't. If you're under instructions by the federal government as a matter of state secrecy not to talk, say so.
Whitacre: Senator, we follow the law.
Specter: Well, I think that answer is contemptuous of this committee.Whitacre eventually told Specter he could not answer the question because it asked for "classified information."
Sanford Nowlin at the AT&T Weblog (which can sometimes be a bit cheerleady in favor of Ma Bell) promises to post a video link from CSPAN when it is available here.
Posted by paul at 02:50 PM | Comments (0)
June 21, 2006
Senate vote should be a test on trusting AT&T
We're all set for another Senate Smackdown during tomorrow's Commerce Committee telecom-bill markup session, but what should be -- but probably won't be -- on the docket is a debate about whether or not the U.S. can really trust AT&T. Given the recent news about more NSA snooping and the company's new all-your-data-are-belong-to-us policy, we really need to ask: And we're going to trust this firm to keep promises?
Of the two new stories, the NSA one is something that we all probably expected: if true, it can be written off as part of the quid-pro-quo relationship between the big telcos and the Bush administration. It's not hard to see: Telcos make big campaign contributions, FCC and Congress deregulate the industry to allow the telcos to run rampant, and in return the telcos also let the gubmint sniff whatever they want off the wires.
Your world, delivered, indeed.
The new data policy, sussed out by SF Chron columnist David Lazarus (who seems to have a knack for parsing fine print) is more troubling, because it's the kind of thing that (if approved) gives ordinary users no recourse. "Well, sure we gave your web-surfing info to the government... you DID sign the end-user agreement, after all."
(Just an aside: Can you imagine if AT&T sold other products, like milk? There would be a legal form running down the side of the carton, telling you that AT&T Dairies was not liable for the spoiling or spilling of milk, etc. etc., and then when you went to the checkout the register would add an extra $3 for "government milk regulation fees," even though in the legal form it would be explained that there aren't really any required fees and the charge may not match the exact fee paid to the goverment. How quickly would you switch to another provider? But what if AT&T milk and Verizon moo-juice were the only things on the shelf?)
(Now I may have to smack myself down as the winner, most obscure metaphor award. Smackdown score: 2.15. Thank you.)
But really -- such data policies seem to make a farce of the Fourth Freedom, something I will expound on more fully sometime soon. I promise.
Posted by paul at 12:41 PM | Comments (0)
June 19, 2006
'Save The Net' Viral video ad contest winner
Jeff Pulver has announced the winner of his first "Save the Net" viral video contest -- see the $1,000-winning entry and learn more about Phase II of the contest (and the new $5,000 prize!) at Jeff's blog here.
There was lots of creativity brewing at the recent Vloggercon in San Francisco -- here's a chance to get some cash and recognition for your work, and to help turn the tide against the million-dollar lobbying campaigns of the big telcos.
Posted by paul at 10:48 PM | Comments (0)
June 17, 2006
The 'Naked' truth from AT&T -- DSL is really expensive
It's so sad, it's funny: As part of its bargaining to get California to approve its takeover of AT&T, the company formerly known as SBC agreed to provide naked DSL, or broadband service without having to purchase a companion telephone line.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the service has recently been rolled out. Your savings, should you wish to ditch your phone+DSL combo for just DSL? One dollar per month.
Now you may see why we trust the opinions of Stifel, Nicolaus analyst and former FCC chief of staff Blair Levin so much: In the same story linked above, Levin noted that requiring naked DSL without any price controls was to pass something the telcos would laugh at. To wit:
"If naked DSL does not include a price regulation, the ILECs will simply re-price the bundle [of DSL and phone service]," said Blair Levin, a former FCC chief of staff who is now a telecom analyst for Legg Mason.
Actually, it turns out that Blair gave the ILECs too much credit. Instead of repricing the bundle to match their DSL "price" of $19 or so a month, they just... increased the price of standalone DSL to match what the bundle typically costs, around $45 per month.
Winner, of the "Ed will love the way I said this" AT&T employee of the month award was the spokesperson quoted in the Chronicle story, who said:
AT&T spokesman John Britton said the standalone price accurately reflects the real cost of DSL, and highlights the value the company places in its bundled service."Bundled services continue to deliver the greatest value to consumers," he said. "Most standalone services will have higher prices than bundled service."
So... are they saying that AT&T's discount DSL pricing is just a bait and switch, and then when they have killed off all competitors we will all be moved to paying "the real cost of DSL?"
But sure, go ahead and trust the telcos on keeping the Internet open. Just don't ask how much it will cost.
Posted by paul at 09:47 PM | Comments (0)
June 14, 2006
You know net neutrality is mainstream when...
The Wall Street Journal writes about it as a general-interest story, with pictures of Moby and an interview with Ask a Ninja; you get in your car and the local easy-rock FM station (KFOG) morning-show crew is interviewing Craig Newmark about net neutrality.. that's when it's certifiably mainstream.
The worry from my standpoint is, of course, that the story becomes all about the celebrities and funny stuff and loses the focus of being about letting the telcos and cablecos dictate where the future of the Internet should go.
To that end, I say we advance the transparency debate, and keep asking why Reed Hundt and Bob Kahn's ideas about building a public "last mile" infrastructure don't get a louder reception.
(Bonus transparency link: Though the C/Net story from today's Judiciary hearings didn't mention it, Blair Levin (former FCC chief of staff, now telecom analyst at Stifel, Nicolaus) said in an email that he did bring up the "transparency" point during Q&A at the same hearing. Bully!
Posted by paul at 05:15 PM | Comments (2)
June 13, 2006
Let the 'transparency' debate begin -- and can Google help?
Finally, more people are picking up on statistical transparency as something that may help us move to the root of the network neutrality debate. As I've said before, just knowing exactly what is happening on the network could go a long way toward keeping service providers honest. Good to see that Russell Shaw has picked up the thread and advanced it a bit, too.
In a sort of argument with fellow ZDnetter George Ou, Russell notes that both agree that having a clear look into the network would ease a lot of the pain net neutrality rules are trying to solve:
George then makes the point that he believes these potential abuses can be best addressed by mandating that all ISPs disclose all network traffic metrics to the public. As a matter of fact, one of the most frustrating things about Internet Service providers is getting honest metrics and downtime statistics out of them. Forcing them to disclose their performance metrics, backhaul to last mile throughput ratios, QoS policies, and other pertinent data would shed light on any suspicious behavior or incompetence.I for one, would support such disclosures. They would, at the least, provide substantive documentation that would be useful in discussing any untoward favoritism.
One idea I kicked around a bit at this past weekend's Vloggercon (in no small agreement with fellow blogger Matt Sherman, who is about 179 degrees away from me on most net neutrality matters) was the idea of Google (or Microsoft, anyone with buckets of folding money and a desire to get into online apps) buying or building an online application that would show anyone who wants to use it exactly what's happening to their packets as they course to and fro.
Sure, that's a simplistic view but it's the consumer version of what all the self-proclaimed net wizards are talking about when they tell you how to "ping" a server. Why not use some of that Google cash, some of the otherwise wasted programming talent chasing Web 2.0 dreams (how many social network/hookup/map mashups do we need, anyway?) and build something we'd all like to see -- a desktop dashboard that could flash red when an ISP tries to block or degrade service, or starts narrowing the pipe for Skype?
I've seen all the flashy demos from the equipment providers who are mining enterprise dollars in this territory, so I know it's possible. Maybe not easy, but one little app -- call it the Google Desktop Bandwidth Detector (tm) -- could go a long way to keeping Big Ed and his pipes honest and open.
Posted by paul at 10:08 PM | Comments (0)
Reed Hundt rebuts Steve Forbes
Publishing magnate and erstwhile Presedential candidate Steve Forbes showed yesterday why nobody should trust him beyond his own magazine pages -- in an editorial for the Wall Street Journal, Forbes attempted to explain why net neutrality was bad, but contradicted himself in a single paragraph with a mis-representation of the facts that former FCC chairman Reed Hundt ably rebuts in an email reply.
In his Journal piece, titled "Ominous Neutrality," Forbes rehashes a lot of the standard telco pitch (including the humorous reference to "well-financed lobbyists" pushing for net neutrality, as if somehow the Bell army of lawyers and influence-peddlers wasn't the overwhelming Beltway presence). But Forbes truly steps in it when he tries to blame the 1996 Telecom Act for our current broadband woes. To quote:
Passing Network Neutrality legislation would be a re-run of the disastrous Telecom Act of 1996 which forced telecom companies to provide network access to competitors at below market prices. That certainly put a chill on network innovation. After years of wasteful lawsuits and regulatory infighting, the network access monster has gone away. But it was a big factor in letting America slip into the high-tech Stone Age, with consumer broadband services lagging far behind what's available in countries like Japan or South Korea.
I suspected Forbes had his facts not just wrong but in contradiction, so I emailed Hundt for confirmation and got this reply:
I don't know if the proposed Net Neutrality bill is a good or bad bill because I haven't studied it. I do know, having spent last week in Japan, that the reason Japan is far ahead of the United States in ADSL specifically and broadband generally is precisely because they adopted the line sharing and other pro competitive regulations of the FCC of the 90s. The companies and Japanese regulators told me this in detail all last week, since, to my surprise, I am the father of the current Japanese regulatory paradigm.
Instead of serving up lukewarm offerings from backward-thinkers like Forbes, why doesn't the WSJ take a closer look at ideas like Hundt's call to have government and private businesses partner in building out fiber to every home in the U.S.?
Yes, it will cost all of us money. But it's better than waiting for AT&T and Verizon to come to our broadband rescue, isn't it?
Posted by paul at 09:28 AM | Comments (0)
June 12, 2006
Net neutrality at Vloggercon
Kudos to the organizers of this past weekend's Vloggercon event in San Francisco, which was buzzing with activity including raw enthusiasm, blatant profit-seeking, and an inordinate amount of attention paid to somebody leaving Microsoft or something. And, there was talk of network neutrality!
Sunday's network neutrality panel, of which I was a part, was really more of a learn-in, with lots of good questions and (I hope) some fairly objective and informative answers mixed in with the inevitable opinions. Matt Sherman, the so-called only Republican in San Francisco, has a good recap and I can only say "yea" in agreement with his assessment of our fellow panelists.
(Except that I really don't dislike the phone companies... think I even said a few times that they are only doing what their shareholders expect... I do get a bit heated when they stop making sense or try to deliberately obfuscate; but I see that as part of the journalist's job, to expose untruthiness...)
(Funny to also see from a couple recent posts that Matt and I agree to disagree -- see that he likes the Tauke interview on C/Net, and lauds the Washington Post editorial even though it conveniently ignores the fact that when the FCC counts broadband, it only needs one subscriber in each Zip Code to count the entire Zip Code as broadband-enabled. Ah well.)
One thing several people asked for was a list of where we get political and net neutrality info. Here's a starter sampler:
The Jeff Pulver Blog
Sure, he's my employer, but you will be hard-pressed to find another site that pays more attention or spells out the reality of the situation, with the nuances the MSM doesn't know or understand. One of our not-so-secret weapons is our man on the Hill, Pulver.com "wartime consigliere" Jonathan Askin.
The National Journal's Insider Update
Sometimes their Wall Street Journal-type politics creep in, but for the most part this squad of telecom-reg reporters is hard to beat for timely news and analysis.
Susan Crawford Blog
If you like the Internet, the human soul, and logic, you will love Susan's law-professor/real person take on the often complex and confusing state of telecom regulations.
David Isenberg Blog
Smart stuff about the stupid network. His paper on the stupid network is required reading for anyone interested in this debate.
Posted by paul at 11:22 PM | Comments (0)
C/Net's "interview" with Verizon -- not very objective, or just bad?
On a day when everyone apparently feels free to pile on with their anti-net-neutrality ideas, I'm having a hard time deciding whether Declan McCullagh's "Q and A" with Verizon top lobbyist Tom Tauke on C/Net is: A) a job interview for someone hoping to work for the phone companies; B) written by Verizon; or C), just really embarrassing. Since McCullagh is usually a decent reporter we'll give him the benefit of the doubt and just call this piece a poor bit of editing and composition.
I mean, it's perfectly fine and perhaps expected that when FCC chairman Kevin Martin shows up at the TIA-sponsored Globalcomm show, or at the USTA-sponsored TelecomNext show, the lobbying group head tools are going to lob softballs and flowery bouquets in his lap so he can just recite meaningless, predictable statements.
Hey, they are lobbyists. That is what they are paid to do.
But why does McCullagh give Verizon's Tauke the slobbery treatment, with questions that carry all the weight of wet tissue? Not that I'm any Jim Grey, but I'd like to think that just because Tauke is some hotshot legal dude, it doesn't mean I can't call him out for making stupid comments (scroll down to the bit where he compares net neutrality with the Iraq war), or call B.S. on his using the China card to advance his arguments.
McCullagh, however, seems overjoyed to call Tauke "the winner" in the net neutrality debate, and saddles the lobbyist with tough questions like this exchange:
(McCullagh:)But if Net neutrality covered the Internet section of your fiber offering, you might have reduced incentive to invest and upgrade it in the future. Is that a fair statement?Tauke: That doesn't compute for us. The reality today is that we have three primary services: video, voice and Internet access. What we do with Internet access is that we provide it, and consumers use it as they see fit. That's the world today. We're building a network that has more capabilities. We see Internet access as critical to the customer's communication experience for the foreseeable future, and we want to enhance that.
Suggesting that we would somehow reduce and impair the customer experience in that area makes absolutely no sense to us.
Whoa! Incentive to invest! Careful, Declan, you're in danger of becoming part of the Walt McCormick drinking game. (to which we have never published all the rules, but they are emerging, along the lines of: Take one sip for whenever Walt says "incentive to invest" in any public speech. Finish your drink whenever he says "recoup our investment" or something along those lines.)
McCullagh follows up his please-say-incentive-to-invest-for-me-again question with this query line, which can only be seen as bizarre:
(McCullagh:)What do you think of the tone of the debate, and the appearance of pro-Net neutrality spokespeople like Moby and Alyssa Milano?Tauke: I think it's one of the stranger debates I've ever been involved in. It's almost like we're debating what is beauty and how do we define it and regulate it? The problem is that everyone has a different definition of Net neutrality. If you look at the four major companies that are supporting the Net neutrality arguments, there are three distinct definitions of what Net neutrality should mean.
The question becomes which way do you think the market will better develop? If government sets policy today that dictates how the market develops? We think it should develop in the free market space, and government regulation should come in when a problem becomes apparent.
(McCullagh:)So why doesn't Verizon hire a famous spokes-model? Or -actor?
Tauke: For us that would be a real change in the way we do business. We continue to have this view that if you try to present the arguments and walk through the issues, at the end of the day they'll do the right thing.
Our sense is that's pretty much what happened in the House of Representatives.
Yes, it WOULD be a change in the way Verizon does business -- hiring somebody who uses their real name, instead of the astroturf groups the phone companies are using to advance their arguments. Um, Declan, got any proof there that Alyssa and Moby were "hired?" Or is that something your editors missed?
There's other strange bits to the Q&A -- like some of Tauke's replies being in parentheses. How do you talk in parentheses? Unless there was some cut-and-paste from email... sent by whom? Like I said, it's hard to tell where and how this was all composed, which could be taken many ways by conspiracy theorists.
We won't go there. Today. But we will say it's certainly not the best thing we've seen on C/Net's pages.
There's lots more badness to this one, but I'm pretty much done here. I will leave you with one more exchange, which shows a somewhat questionable level of net expertise from McCullagh, and a non-answer answer from Tauke (the parentheses in Tauke's response are from the story, not any insert of mine like this one):
(McCullagh:)You've said that there will be no degradation of service for any content provider, but that enhanced-service options will be available for a fee. But what about content providers like Google and Yahoo, which put relatively large demands on the network? What if they decide they don't want to buy into your tiered-service offerings--would they still get the same level of service they have been getting all along?Tauke: Let's take that a piece at a time. When we look at the Internet--a connection between, say, you and Google--there's three pieces: your access to the Internet, the Internet itself and Google's access to the Internet.
(You control your access to the Internet.) On the Internet itself, there is no company that controls access--it's a best effort, conglomeration system. The third piece is the Google connection. Google decides how many DS1s or DS3s or whatever other connections they're going to buy.
It's a long way of saying that (a) we believe the decision today is made by the consumer about what the level of access should be, and (b) we at Verizon at the current time don't make a decision in either case. It's the purchaser of network access that makes that decision. The question itself is not reflective of what we believe the network function to be.
Unless, of course, the purchaser of network access actually wants to USE all that bandwidth they are paying for. That also isn't allowed, according to a Tauke quote in a previous 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.
Bottom line? A Q and A that raises more Qs than provides As gets D bad smackdown score: 0.75 (combined) for McCullagh and Tauke. Can't wait to see what they offer us after the Senate hearings Tuesday!
Posted by paul at 09:59 PM | Comments (0)
YouTube test -- Rocketboom report
Testing the YouTube service...
same report from yesterday, new viewer.
Like it? Hate it? Comment below!
Posted by paul at 05:44 PM | Comments (0)
June 11, 2006
ROCKETBOOM AT VLOGGERCON
Watch the Rocketboom folks, Andrew Baron and Amanda Congdon, give a little insight into their leading videoblog enterprise.
Don't miss the bonus cameo view of Robert Scoble! In his last few moments as a Microsoft employee!
More from Vloggercon tomorrow, including a recap of the "net neutrality" panel I was on.
(Yes, well might you ask, "who is Robert Scoble?" apparently he's a blogger or something.)
Posted by paul at 10:49 PM | Comments (1)
June 09, 2006
GLOBALCOMM VIDEO REPORT
REPORT FROM GLOBALCOMM 2006, CHICAGO
(Same stuff as earlier report, just testing the Brightcove player.)
Like this player? Like the other one? Let me know in the comments.
thanks!
Posted by paul at 01:12 PM | Comments (0)
June 08, 2006
Net neutrality amendments defeated in House vote
From Drew Clark at the National Journal, covering Thursday night's vote:
As the House moved toward overwhelming passage of a measure overhauling the 1996 Telecommunications Act, it defeated a contentious amendment strengthening the so-called network neutrality provisions in the bill by a 269-152 tally.
Read the whole article here. Senate votes start next Tuesday. Start your smackdowns!
Posted by paul at 07:40 PM | Comments (0)
Google's 'Open Letter' on net neutrality
Better late than never? Google posts a call your representative note on the Web, in favor of net neutrality regulations.
Great stuff, but after having attended a Google press day and querying just about everyone in sight (including Eric Schmidt) about net neutrality, why did I not learn of this until reading Doc's blog?
While the letter is a little less prominent than a long-overdue visit to Capitol Hill, you still have to question the low-key method to Google's madness, especially in the face of million-dollar astroturf campaigns by the telcos and cable lobbying groups.
Google -- gotta do better about getting the word out. Maybe use that online spreadsheet to re-order priorities?
Or maybe at least call in advance and find that graduation suit and tie?
Yeah, Google is really feared and respected in D.C., right? Heh.
Posted by paul at 02:02 PM | Comments (3)
VIDEO REPORT FROM GLOBALCOMM
(drag your cursor onto the screen for video controls)
News report from Globalcomm 2006, Chicago, IL
Jeff Pulver announces Video on the Net, and looks for video pioneers... Microsoft and Juniper announce IPTV security deal, tell service providers that IPTV isn't enough...
Like the video blogs? Let us know in the comments!
Like the Pulver party? Let us know there too!
Posted by paul at 12:36 AM | Comments (0)
June 06, 2006
Head of Herding Cats
Like 1,200 of my closest friends, I will have a "head of Herding Cats" morning Wednesday. Expect slow blogging, but watch for video from Globalcomm!
Including EXCLUSIVE footage of Monday's appearance by FCC chairman Kevin Martin. (Don't worry, you didn't miss anything.)
Smackdown from the party: Who knew that EVERY SINGLE PERSON knew the words to Jessie's Girl?
(winner, award for "song that uses the word 'moot' and doesn't even think it's bad.")
Yeah, I feel so dirty when they start talkin' cute...
Posted by paul at 11:12 PM | Comments (1)
June 01, 2006
Thursday, June 1
THE WEEK IN VON
Today's news: Vonage to customers: PAY UP!
THE NEWS: Should customers be forced to pay $17 per share for Vonage IPO reservations?
THE TAKE: C'mon Jeff. Dip into your pocket!
News link:
C/Net: Vonage customers must pay up for IPO shares
News link:
C/Net: Vonage customers must pay up for IPO shares
See you in Chicago next week!
Posted by paul at 04:08 PM | Comments (0)
In Emergencies, Telecoms say 'Me First'
Reading today's story by C/Net's Anne Broache about telecom companies' desires to have government aid in emergenices, wondering why Anne didn't include the telcos' hypocritical responses to an effort to try to get them to focus on helping the people who really need emergency aid -- their customers.
Don't get me wrong -- if the telcos need National Guard protection to get to their flooded COs, I'm all for it. But the question bears asking -- if they implemented VoIP or other new technologies to ensure some kind of continuous communication for their customers, those same customers most likely wouldn't be angrily storming BellSouth offices with frustration, busy signals and unanswered questions.
How much would such a plan cost? A penny per customer, which is apparently too much for BellSouth to part with.
Just a thought! But the cynical view says that BellSouth/AT&T will just make more campaign contributions and then soak up police protection. All in customers' best interests, of course.
Posted by paul at 08:54 AM | Comments (0)