Paul Kapustka's Blog

November 07, 2006

Why Tuesday DID matter for net neutrality -- and why the debate should change

With the benefit of hindsight, it's clear that Russell Shaw should stick to covering telecom issues and not handicapping elections. But even more to the point, it's worth correcting his opinion that Tuesday's results wouldn't change the net neutrality debate. The guess here is that things will change dramatically, and instead of pushing for some small net neutrality provisions, perhaps we can all -- finally -- move to a more meaningful debate about how to really build new, powerful, neutral, competitive broadband offerings, leaving no option (yes, including government-funded ones) unexplored.

At the time of this writing (11:43 pm California), two Senate races are still undecided (Montana and Virginia), but both are leaning toward the Democratic challengers. Both GOP incumbents, Allen (Va.) and Burns, are on the Senate Commerce Committee and have been telco allies in the fight to keep net neutrality language out of any overall telecom reform. So how can the debate not change in favor of net neutrality ideas with Allen and Burns potentially out the door?

(UPDATE, 11/8: AP reports that both Allen and Burns have lost, giving control of the Senate to the Democrats)

Since Senate Commerce chair Ted Stevens couldn't even muster the votes (or the political juice) to force an anti-NN vote when Republicans had all the power, even action in the lame-duck timeframe probably wouldn't stand for long. (And if he couldn't get a vote then, how hard will it be to muster one in the next month, with even more pressing issues at hand?)

Instead -- with Democratic control or near control of both houses -- what we could see is a total reworking of the telecom reform legislation, either in the form of some new omnibus bill (which includes net neutrality language) or smalller-subject efforts (like video franchising reform) during the next year.

Or? We may see not much at all from the new Congress as the Demos get used to holding the reins again, and reshaping the war in Iraq becomes a daily question for this country.

But -- what I truly disagree with is the opinion of Phil Wolff, who saw the tree but missed the forest when he said:

Since nobody will win on a "net neutrality" platform, no political capital will be earned for NN. So NN won't be a priority in the 2008 election. It's not like anyone tied NN to big issues like jobs, the war in Iraq, political corruption, or public morals.

And nobody raised a million dollars to advocate for net neutrality.

Um, yes, nobody tied net neutrality to big issues, simply because it isn't part of one. Yet. But about the million bucks -- it wasn't just one million, but multiple millions spent by the telcos in attempts to keep net neutrality out of any telecom reform. Unfortunately for their pocketbooks, many of the kinds of folks they supported are now looking for employment.

And while network neutrality as a standalone issue may not be a big deal in ANY election, it will most assuredly be a part of debate and discussion about the economy, jobs creation, broadband penetration, and the ability for the U.S. to remain competitive in a digital world, going forward. And in a newly Democratic House, where Ed Markey will be on the side of power, surely the debate will change from the previous House committee leaders, who prided themselves on not knowing what net neutrality was.

(If they want a lesson, they can read Ed's take on the issue from Fall VON.)

What is heartening is that we may see the debate (or the steps forward) take place in the market before we have to wait for Washington to catch up. Perhaps already sniffing the winds of change, we have recently seen the telcos warm up to the idea of municipal-run networks, best done in private-public partnerships. And then on Tuesday, we heard of a potential deal between Verizon and YouTube, which probably means we won't hear Verizon execs spouting off about Google's free lunch anymore.

What's next? Ed Whitacre telling us how clear the Vonage connection is at his ranch? Well, maybe not.

But wouldn't we all rather see broadband's future worked out by some coalition of technologists, telecom experts and civic leaders instead of politicians who only have time to listen to lobbyists? What Tuesday's results mean is a time for change -- and that includes the current tired take on telecom reform.

To quote Mr. Markey, who at VON pledged to keep fighting for net neutrality and to assure every American access to affordable choices:

"We cannot afford not to have a plan."

Time to start writing one, no?

Posted by paul at 11:22 PM | Comments (0)

Verizon and YouTube: Beginning of the end of net neutrality debate?

Saw today's news from the Wall Street Journal about the possibility of a Verizon-YouTube (really Verizon-Google) deal and thought: Is this the beginning of the end of the net neutrality debate?

Wonder how much GooTube will charge Verizon for a snack of user-created videos, after digesting all those free lunches. Just wish you could be there at the negotiating table, dontcha?

UPDATE: Reuters also has a story about the Journal story.

Posted by paul at 07:20 AM | Comments (0)

September 21, 2006

Stevens' net neutrality 'poll' just lobbying in disguise

Back in August, I was hopeful there might be a civil turn in the net neutrality debate after hearing industry leaders like Dick Notebaert and Tom Tauke say there's too much strident, partisan potshotting and little real exchange. I waited and watched, to see if the telco/cableco cabal would tone down their blather. Too bad -- instead of real dialogue, the big playahs are back to their old tricks of FUD, this time cloaking a pure lobbying effort in the guise of a "survey."

In the finest when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife tradition, the "survey" (which was paid for by Verizon, as Preston Gralla and others have noted) touted by no less than Senate Commerce Committe chair Ted "Tubes" Stevens finds -- imagine! -- that "an overwhelming majority of American voters favor video choice over onerous “Net Neutrality” regulations."

Well, when you ask questions like this one (from the press release of the "poll"):

Which of the following two items do you think is the most important to you:

-- Delivering the benefits of new TV and video choice so consumers will see increased competition and lower prices for cable TV

OR

-- Enhancing Internet neutrality by barring high speed internet providers from offering specialized services like faster speed and increased security for a fee

You pretty much know the answers you're going to get.

Smackdown score of half a tube for Sen. Stevens' office in its attempt to give this "poll" legitimacy by issuing a press release from the Senator's office.

(For extra credit, find out which ex-Clinton staffer is making money by running the companies who conducted this "bipartisan" effort. Follow the money!)

I continue to be amazed at the amount of money the big telcos are willing to spend on such astroturf efforts, in the belief that they can fool enough of the people enough of the time. What's not surprising is the number of shills ready and willing to take the telco money. It is depressing, though.

UPDATE: For a more in-depth explanation of the politics behind the poll (and how they are able to call it "bipartisan" as if that somehow makes it more believable), read this item on the Huffington Post.

And Jason Miller over at WebProNews shares his outrage.

No sign of any similar debunking from the "mainstream" media, however. Just another sign that if you want depth, nuance and proper analysis, you have to turn to the blogosphere.

Posted by paul at 12:54 PM | Comments (0)

September 12, 2006

Markey: Fight for net neutrality will continue

BOSTON, Mass. -- His net neutrality amendments may have been defeated, but Ed Markey's fight for better broadband is far from over, as the Congressman showed in a passionate address on the Fall 2006 VON show floor Tuesday afternoon.

"There's just too much at stake to abandon the Internet to the cable and phone companies," said Massachussetts' Markey, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has telecom matters under its purview.

Speaking to a packed house in the VON Theater on the Expo show floor, Markey said his attempts to add net neutrality amendments to telecom legislation this summer were made to ensure that the benefits of broadband are available to all, and not just to those who are able to pay higher tariffs for access or for preferential treatment of their business' Web traffic.

Markey said the Republican-backed bills currently under debate in the House and Senate, which do not include strong network neutrality components, are mainly efforts by the big service providers -- cable and telephone companies -- to rework rules so they can "call their own balls and strikes."

Abandoning traditional regulatory requirements (such as full buildouts of services in geographic regions) will only result in a widening of the digital divide in our country, Markey said, keeping many Americans from learning the skills they need to compete in a global, digital economy.

Whether or not his opitimism about Democratic chances in this Fall's upcoming elections ("In eight more weeks, the Democrats will take control of Congress") proves correct, Markey said he will keep fighting for net neutrality rules, and to "assure every American access to affordable choices" in Internet access.

"We cannot afford not to have a plan," he added.

Posted by paul at 01:27 PM | Comments (0)

September 11, 2006

Tim Wu: Net neutrality needed to ensure Internet innovation

BOSTON, Mass. -- To ensure that future Skypes and YouTubes have a chance to emerge, the Internet needs to remain as neutral as possible, said Columbia law professor Tim Wu.

In his Monday morning keynote that opened the Fall 2006 VON communications policy summit, Wu noted that most of the Internet's innovation over the past five years has come from the network's edges and ends -- and that the current "network neutrality" debate is, in fact, a question about whether the networks will continue to be open enough to allow such innovation to continue without permission from the service providers who rule the network's core.

"The edge-core war" will be one of the main industry debates for the next five years, predicted Wu, who noted that five years ago, most people were asking when the large telecom service providers would unleash IP innovations.

"Turns out that they didn't," Wu said. Instead, "names like Vonage and Skype came out of nowhere."

Given the large numbers of participants at the Internet's edge -- versus the small group of players at the network's core -- Wu expects innovation to continue to emerge first from the edges and ends, provided that those companies or inventors don't have to cut special deals to ensure speedy access for their applications and customers.

"There are a lot more possibilities of innovation coming from the edge, like two dudes from Sweden deciding to use peer-to-peer technology for VoIP," Wu said. "What will be interesting to watch going forward is whether startups like YouTube can get independent funding, or whether the need to have a partnership with an AT&T or some other joint venture to get financing."

Posted by paul at 09:03 AM | Comments (0)

August 09, 2006

WSJ wrong on WiMAX -- and neutrality

It didn't take long for the Wall Street Journal's opinions editors to try to twist Tuesday's WiMax announcement from Sprint into some sort of proof that there is no need for net neutrality legislation since, gosh, look how fast the third pipe's being built. Too bad the facts (especially those dealing with licensed and unlicensed spectrum) don't support the WSJ's point of view.

In the Journal's unsigned editorial today, the paper says WiMax operates in unlicensed spectrum, meaning Sprint won't have to deal with regulators or FCC auctions. It also falls into the simplistic trap of calling WiMax just a big brother technology to Wi-Fi:

WiMax, meanwhile, operates in unlicensed spectrum, meaning Sprint doesn't have to shell out money in auctions to deploy the technology. WiMax is like a wireless home network or a hot-spot in a coffee-shop, but it works over much longer distances, allowing greater coverage and a wider variety of uses.

Such simplifications are just plain wrong, according to Glenn Fleishman, who pens the Wi-Fi Net News site. From a post yesterday, he notes:

I keep seeing phrases like “WiMax is Wi-Fi on steroids.” It’s not. Here’s why: The fundamental difference between WiMax and Wi-Fi is that WiMax is intended for licensed spectrum in which contention among providers with different interests is eliminated; Wi-Fi is designed for a hostile environment in which every party must accept interference within the legal limits without complaint.

Fleishman continues:

Before you get huffy out there and say, hey, there’s going to be unlicensed WiMax, too, or, there’s already unlicensed WiMax, think again. There is no unlicensed profile yet approved for WiMax. Any device that uses 5.8 GHz may be lovely, full of light and truth and the joy in exciting electrons into different states at high frequencies, but it isn’t certified WiMax. Further, the word is that there may never be a certified profile for the unlicensed bands.

The 5 GHz band gets a real workout, especially 5.8 GHz with its special point-to-point rules for higher signal gain, in metro-scale Wi-Fi networks because it’s the only affordable way to backhaul data, and by using highly directional signals, they can bypass quite a bit of the interference issues in that band. At least for now.

The WSJ edit then makes a strange comparison about regulatory opinions -- somehow using the emergence of cable-TV telephony (another network created with monopoly protection) as proof that line-sharing and other competitive attempts of the 1996 Telecom Act were "proven wrong" -- to say that if net neutrality legislation passes, it will happen just in time to throttle a new wave of supposed competition like Sprint's WiMax network.

While we here at the Paul Kapustka blog (that means me) welcome Sprint's WiMax plans, it's pretty optimistic to even call WiMax an operable standard yet, much less a competitor to copper wires or fiber to the home. The only working WiMax in the U.S. right now is the fixed version, and most services (like Clearwire's) apply the "pre-standard" euphemism, which is great unless you expect things to work together. Or expect economies of scale in equipment building.

In reality, the guess is that truly competitive WiMax networks will emerge in licensed, protected bands, which means that companies interested in making a buck in this arena will actually shell out huge dollars for spectrum, as the auction starting today will prove out. And who will be among the bidders? Who can afford it? Big companies, or small independents?

So yes, huzzah for Sprint and WiMax. We wish the deployment well. But in the meantime, let's keep the Internet truly open for the rest of us, and not just those who can afford higher fees.

BONUS LINK: We're not the only ones who read the WSJ piece and were shocked, yes shocked, that the nation's biggest business paper can't even do some simple fact-checking. Mike over at TechDirt follows a similar line of thinking here.

Posted by paul at 01:09 PM | Comments (0)

August 02, 2006

The net neutrality 'transparency' widget is almost here!

Let me pat myself on the back for doing the easy work -- predicting it would happen -- while also pointing to an InfoWorld story that claims that a Seattle-based security researcher has devised a way to test for net neutrality.

The story goes on to say that:

The software can tell if computers are treating some types of TCP/IP traffic better than others -- dropping data that is being used in VOIP (voiceover Internet Protocol) calls, or treating encrypted data as second class, for example.

The software was supposed to be announced Wednesday, but there was no follow-up story on the InfoWorld site, and their blog from Black Hat came up empty on its promises for more info and silly photos. Ah well. We all know the trials of posting late night from Vegas, eh?

At least InfoWorld got a story on the proposed software... which is more than we can say for my former employer (and new Black Hat show owner) CMP Media, which apparently has a bunch of reporters there but no sign yet of any VoIP news... maybe they're all still at the party? Toga! TOGA!

Posted by paul at 11:08 PM | Comments (0)

Ed Whitacre video

Raw footage from the NARUC conference Tuesday...

Posted by paul at 04:06 PM | Comments (0)

July 21, 2006

Taking back the Net -- More from Bob Frankston

A few well-done essays about why the FCC is as useful to the Internet as a bicycle to a fish, from Bob Frankston. Start here, and follow the top two links.

And then you may understand the madness of anyone on the outside of this mess trying to describe it in terms that make sense to average folk.

Posted by paul at 11:19 PM | Comments (0)

July 05, 2006

All your Internets are belong to us... or something

Thanks to the wonder of the Internets (and recordable webcasts), the rest of the world is just awakening to the entertaining ramblings of our lovable Sen. Ted Stevens, whose titterings we've loved for some time now. If you're concerned about the future of the Internet, read these transcripts or listen to Stevens' rants from last week's markup... and understand why Ed Whitacre laughs himself to sleep at nights.

But rather than just shake our collective heads at Stevens' ignorance, we should instead endeavor to make smarter voices heard now, as our own Jeff Pulver rightly notes in his call-to-action blog entry today.

Smackdown score for Sen. Stevens and his laughable attempt to understand something other than drilling for oil or expensive bridges: 0.15 for technical merit, 8.0 for entertainment.

(Thanks to Wired.com, David Weinberger and Public Knowledge for the pointers.)

Posted by paul at 07:00 AM | Comments (0)

June 29, 2006

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)

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)

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 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 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)

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)

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 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

'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 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)

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 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 02, 2006

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)

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. 20510

The Honorable Daniel Inouye
Co-Chairman
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear 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)

April 25, 2006

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 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)

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. 20515

Dear 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)

March 30, 2006

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

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

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

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

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

March 23, 2006

TelecomNext -- Net Neutrality Confuses Big Telcos

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

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

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

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

But it's not even fully true from AT&T's side. When I asked Cicconi specifically that if net neutrality is all about movies, why has Ed Whitacre also singled out Vonage as a "freeloader?" Cicconi didn't answer the question directly, but replied instead about Google wanting to ride over AT&T's not-yet-deployed video stream, which he compared to a VPN. I tried again, but no answer on Vonage. And re