Paul Kapustka's Blog
October 24, 2006
A new open peering network? Tell me more!
Reading Sascha Meinrath's posts from the Alternative Telecom Policy Forum in Ottawa makes me wish I was there... would love to hear more about the plans to build a cooperative national backbone to connect muni networks... more, more!
Though there are many details that need to surface, such a common peering network is probably an expected next step of the muni-network trend that seems unstoppable. Heck, even former adversaries like AT&T are now bidding for muni projects, maybe guessing that participating in a public-private partnership could produce more dough than just hiring lobbyists and shills to oppose innovation?
Posted by paul at 02:30 PM | Comments (0)
October 04, 2006
'NXTcomm' replaces Globalcomm, TelecomNext
As reported yesterday, the USTA and TIA confirmed today that they will unite their trade-show efforts again into a single entity, to be called NXTcomm. The inaugural show will take place June 18-21 in Chicago (same scheduled dates as Globalcomm for 2007), replacing both the Globalcomm show and the TelecomNext show, whose March 2007 dates have been canceled. No word on whether or not USTA and TIA will buy a vowel before the branding is complete...
During a conference call Wednesday to announce the new show, USTA chief lobbyist Walter McCormick tried to tap-dance around a question about exhibitor unrest by trying to claim that the new world of networks drove USTA and TIA back into each others' arms. To their credit, several reporters on the line responded with "C'mon" pleas to try to get Walt to give an un-spun answer.
"The industry was clamoring for one strong show," said outgoing TIA honcho Matt Flanigan, more closely approaching honesty.
Posted by paul at 10:26 AM | Comments (0)
October 03, 2006
TIA, USTA back together again?
The split that angered telecom vendors may be healing again, if sources are to believed. At a press conference call scheduled for Wednesday, TIA (Telecommunications Industry Association) and the USTA (U.S. Telecom Association) are expected to announce that they will again jointly produce the Globalcomm trade show.
As yet unknown is whether or not the USTA will still produce its second "TelecomNEXT" show in March of 2007. While representatives of USTA would not comment on the scheduled call, industry sources said that a couple weeks ago, the two associations agreed to once again pool their efforts.
The inaugural TelecomNEXT show this past March had big-name keynote speeches from top telco execs, but had sparse attendance for the expo floor. This past summer's Globalcomm show had slightly lower crowds than the previous Supercomm show that was jointly produced by TIA and USTA until the groups went their separate ways in 2006.
Posted by paul at 12:42 PM | Comments (0)
August 29, 2006
Are big telcos leaning toward 'open' loops?
Maybe it's a stretch to think that AT&T and Verizon are suddenly going to shift course and allow competitors back into the line-sharing business, but conversations with reps from both companies last week in Aspen make me think we'll see more, and not fewer, open networks in the future.
Why the sudden optimism? First there was the very public statement by Verizon's Tom Tauke that the company now thinks private-public partnerships in (some) muni network-building efforts are O.K. (after actively opposing them in the not-so-distant past); then there were some private conversations with folks familiar with AT&T's plans who predicted a kinder, gentler Ma Bell when it comes to municipal network buildouts.
Both telcos, of course, lace any such talk with big caveats: That such networks must not use their governmental or taxation powers to compete directly with private-company efforts; and that they most likely need to be in areas where Verizon or AT&T wouldn't want to build broadband networks in the near-term future.
Good enough, I say. Anything that gets us closer to Bob Kahn's idea of an "open CO" or Reed Hundt's plan for fiber-izing the nation is a step in the right direction.
Guesses as to why the telcos are suddenly warm and fuzzy about the idea of muni nets? Maybe because they can feel the political winds as well as anyone, and no matter what you think of national broadband rankings, the growing anecdotal evidence of better, faster networks, cooler wireless gear, etc., all happening somewhere other than the U.S. has the same national-embarrassment factor as when our hoops team got slapped around a bit in the world forums.
Verizon's Tauke said last week that telcos need to make sure they are not behind the perception curve when it comes to buildouts, otherwise they face the risk of knee-jerk legislation:
"If we don't, the political pressure [brought by the absence of broadband] will cause government to act, perhaps prematurely," Tauke said.
On the anniversary of Katrina, one person close to AT&T's operations said that going forward, you won't see Ma Bell acting like BellSouth did, actively opposing the wireless networks that are still carrying a bunch of Internet traffic in the affected area.
While AT&T officials at last week's gathering wouldn't comment on the record about rumors of a deal with muni Wi-Fi upstart MetroFi, they do say publicly that anything that increases Internet traffic is good for a big backbone provider; whether or not that means AT&T and Verizon back down on lobbying against muni projects is something yet to be seen. But the sounds coming out of Aspen last week sure sounded like a peace offering, rather than a war cry. Let's hope so.
Posted by paul at 12:28 PM | Comments (0)
August 22, 2006
Verizon's Tauke: Muni broadband is OK
ASPEN, Colo. -- In what seems like a bit of a departure from his company's sometimes very public anti-municipal networks stance, Verizon exec Tom Tauke said Tuesday that private-public partnerships to deliver broadband services are now "part of the solution" in delivering more broadband access in the U.S.
In his keynote speech to the Progress & Freedom Foundation's annual Aspen shindig, Tauke -- Verizon's top policy exec -- said that incumbent providers need to look closely at partnering with municipalities to ensure that they don't create a public groundswell that could result in what he called "premature" legislation that might enforce such plans.
"It's not feasible [for incumbents] to provide broadband to every part of the country -- not tomorrow, not next year," Tauke said. To make sure uncovered areas get broadband, Tauke said the industry "should do all it can" and "encourage public-private partnerships" to bring broadband to all.
"If we don't, the political pressure [brought by the absence of broadband] will cause government to act, perhaps prematurely," Tauke said.
Responding to a question after his speech, Tauke elaborated somewhat on the opinion, saying that as an individual he's wary of municipalities spending money on building networks ("they've turned out to be [economic] dogs"), he did confirm that "there is an open role for municipalities," especially in areas where Verizon can't make "an economic case" to provide service.
"If we can partner in some way with a WiMax, or Wi-Fi [deployment], that's totally appropriate," Tauke said.
Jim Cicconi, AT&T's top policy executive, concurred with Tauke's take, saying that as long as municipalities didn't try to compete with private providers (using their control of rights-of-way and taxing to help do so), public-private partnerships are a good idea.
"Everyone's looking at creative solutions," said Cicconi, who didn't comment on a rumored deal with MetroFi but said AT&T is already bidding on some municipal rollouts. "If the private sector isn't providing services, I don't blame cities for trying to build networks," he added.
Posted by paul at 10:35 AM | Comments (1)
July 26, 2006
Is Congress getting serious about disaster communications? Maybe
Setting itself up as the prime nominee for the "day late and a dollar short" award, the House of Representatives Tuesday made a bold move and approved legislation designed to set national standards for emergency communications -- but left out the part about who should foot the bill. At the very least, the House has admitted there's a problem. As we approach the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, better late than never is as positive as we can be.
As I and others have written before, the fact that first-responder communications are still in such a state of disarray should have cost more people than heckuva job Mikey their government employment. Why are we not asking, on a daily basis, when the Bush administration and its Dept. of [questionable] Homeland Security exactly expect to start making repairs? After the next hurricane?
Our own Jeff Pulver, along with Tom Evslin, continue to press forward with real action, including their plan to compel service providers to implement new technologies to keep people connected even when central offices are underwater. Jeff also blogged recently about another disaster-prepardness effort, and how Internet types and amateur radio ("hams," typically the most-prepared group in emergencies) operators might work together.
Meanwhile, at the FCC disaster things seem to be following the Bush administration and Congress' leisurely pace. After proclaiming last Fall that he would create a Bureau of Homeland Security, chairman Kevin Martin hasn't actually accomplished that goal yet.
Separately, the FCC's blue-ribbon panel on Katrina's impacts just issued its list of recommendations, which includes a curious suggestion that all communications workers who participate in recovery operations be "credentialed" under the auspices of NSTAC (National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee). Is this a good or bad thing? Does credentialing mean that ad hoc support groups won't be allowed into disaster areas? Time for some summer reading, folks, to figure this all out before the next storm hits.
Comments on the Katrina panel recommendations are due by Aug. 7, so please read the report and don't be left without having your voice heard.
Clearly, we agree with Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-N.J., who had this to say during Tuesday's debate on the bill:
Yet many in Congress sit, after 9/11, after Hurricane Katrina, wondering why no real progress has been made. That changes today. The bottom line is this: (the legislation) will improve the capability of first responders to communicate during times of emergency.
Bully for Pacrell, but let's see the follow-through in the Senate and some equal effort from the FCC. Just so we're not all left in the dark again for lack of trying.
Posted by paul at 01:33 PM | Comments (0)
July 21, 2006
Palo Alto thinking about fiber to the home?
Need to follow up on this one, but according to a post on the Backfence Bay Area site, Palo Alto is putting out an RFP for a fiber-to-the-home network that would be owned by the city.
Since PA is the default epicenter of Silicon Valley, it would carry more impact (at least from a PR perspective) than publicly owned networks being built somewhere, say, in Utah, where they can be conveniently ignored if you are opposed to such ideas.
Posted by paul at 11:42 PM | Comments (1)
MetroFi and AT&T: A pyrrhic partnership?
Reading Om's news of a potential partnership between MetroFi and AT&T, I'm not sure I agree with his assessment that "it puts a serious cramp in the [muni Wi-Fi] plans of others, namely Earthlink," simply because I think you have to doubt AT&T's seriousness in this area. This could be one partner who stands to win more by the partnership failing, than succeeding.
Clearly we will know more if and when the details come out, but I'm not sure exactly what AT&T would bring to a muni Wi-Fi partnership, other than maybe not opposing such deployments, as the company has done in the past through various means.
Also not sure what Om means by calling MetroFi a "laggard" in this space -- seems to me they have a pretty good record so far for a starup. You just hope that the "partnership" news doesn't turn out to be a pyrrhic relationship for MetroFi, bogging down its progress while it waits for a the slow steps of AT&T to keep pace.
Posted by paul at 10:50 AM | Comments (0)
July 17, 2006
Juniper: YouTube driving need for more edge routing horsepower
They're not officially related, but it's easy to draw a dotted line between today's announcement of a new edge router from Juniper Networks and YouTube's claim of serving 100 million videos a day, with one (YouTube popularity) driving the need for the other (bigger routers in the network edge).
For the Juniper nitty-gritty on gearhead details like line-cards, capacity, etc., look here. What caught my attention most during my briefing call with Juniper last week was the inclusion in the presentation slides of the idea of large enterprises as potential customers for the ~$100,000-plus M120 router.
With more companies and consumers consuming more video, there's going to be a need for more capacity and control closer to the end user, said Juniper product marketing manager Alan Sardella, who sees Net traffic growing rapidly.
"It [the traffic growth] is partially a function of video, with the ascent of YouTube," Sardella said. "There's already a lot [of video] starting to stream across [the Net]. There's a general increase in traffic that is felt a lot more deeply in the core."
Whether or not regional telcos, the big players or even large enterprises will need Juniper's M120 anytime soon is something we'll be able to watch once the box becomes generally available in October. One of its features, according to Juniper, is the ability to extend QoS to Ethernet, making it "more like Frame Relay or ATM," according to Sardella. Does that mean that Juniper foresees a future with more SLAs, perhaps SLA to the home?
"SLAs are more or less guaranteed to happen on a larger scale," Sardella predicted. "One size fits all [bandwidth services]are not going to fit for much longer."
Posted by paul at 04:13 PM | Comments (0)
July 12, 2006
Online poker ban? Don't bet on it
Fresh from the more-Republican-pandering-for-votes-with-meaningless-legislation dept.: The House votes to ban online gambling! Hooray! Maybe next they'll vote to ban spam, and viruses too! With about the same effectiveness, we might note.
Probably the most effective thing the House vote did was win a bunch of headlines, courtesy of the 24x7 news media monster that simply doesn't have time to analyze such efforts for the froth they are. It's easy to be a bloviator like Bob Goodlatte and proclaim that "Internet gambling is a serious problem that must be stopped," but how exactly does that jibe with politicians' willingness to be duped by gaming interests in meatspace? Oh, right, not a serious problem because after all those tribes are campaign contributors.
Hypocrisy smackdown score: 1.0 for Rep. Bob and his pals, who should stick to more relevant issues like flag-burning.
Two questions need to be asked: Are any voters fooled by such frothery? And does anyone in the House really think they could make such a ban work?
And maybe a third question: Isn't there more important work for our elected officials to be concerned with? Maybe we will find some answers from voters who are tired of such pandering come this November.
Posted by paul at 09:53 AM | Comments (2)
July 10, 2006
Is the Moto/Intel Clearwire investment good for WiMAX?
Playing catch-up here a bit, but wondering whether last week's Intel/Moto investment in Clearwire -- a stunning $900 million private placement -- is good news or bad news for WiMAX, given that Clearwire pulled a planned IPO to take the private dough.
Since Clearwire is still privately held, there has been scant information about the company's success (or lack thereof) so far in selling its pre-WiMAX services. And completely ignored in all stories about the investment is the company's previously murky attitude about independent services like VoIP or video downloads, which we've covered several times.
Now, it's clearly smart to take $900 million whenver it's offered, but it's also coming from two players who have a very vested interest in seeing WiMAX succeed -- especially Intel, which needs another win along the lines of Wi-Fi to give its chips an edge over AMD's.
The question then is whether WiMAX (especially Clearwire's pre-standard version) itself is attractive, or whether Intel can't afford a Vonage-like IPO flop that could chill further WiMAX investment. Wondering if those who think WiMAX will be the so-called third pipe think this is good or bad news? Please feel free to weigh in below in the comments.
Posted by paul at 10:23 AM | Comments (1)
June 29, 2006
Bob Frankston joins Kahn, Hundt with new last-mile ideas
In a well-worded missive over at I, Cringely, Robert X talks to Bob Frankston, who wonders why we don't just build last-mile networks ourselves. More fuel for the fire started by Bob Kahn and Reed Hundt.
Bonus link (also from Cringely page), a presentation by Bill St. Arnaud on customer-owned networks. (Complete with technical details for network experts!)
Anyone else smell a trend yet?
Posted by paul at 11:03 PM | Comments (0)
June 23, 2006
Big Ed gets a little whippin' from Specter
Sorry for the no-smackdown Thursday (the Senate markup was audio-only, not very good, and it ended with a to-be-continued-Tuesday non-conclusion) but Sen. Arlen Specter more than made up for it today with a lip-whippin' of Ed Whitacre on the subject of NSA snooping. More after the jump...
From the ABC News report (the best I've read yet), here is a little flavor:
Specter drilled Whitacre several times with increasing frustration until he finally asked, "Mr. Whitacre, are you declining to answer?""We follow the law," was Whitacre's repeated comeback.
The exchange between Specter and Whitacre was, to say the least, circuitous.
Specter: Does AT&T provide customer information to any law enforcement agency?
Whitacre: We follow the law, senator.
Specter: That is not an answer Mr. Whitacre, you know that.
Whitacre: That's all I'm gonnna say, is we follow the law. It is an answer. I'm telling you we don't violate the law, we follow the law.
Specter: Now, that's a legal conclusion, Mr. Whitacre. You may be right or you may be wrong, but I'm asking you for a factual matter — does your company provide information to the federal government or any law enforcement agency, information about customers?
Whitacre: If it's legal and we're requested to do so, of course we do.
Specter: Have you?
Whitacre: All I'm going to say is we follow the law.
Specter: That's not an answer, it's not an answer, it's an evasion.
Whitacre: It's an answer.
Specter: If you're under instructions by the federal government…
Whitacre: We follow the law, senator.
Specter: You've said that. I don't care to hear it again.
Whitacre: I don't care to repeat it again but we do.
Specter: Well then, don't. If you're under instructions by the federal government as a matter of state secrecy not to talk, say so.
Whitacre: Senator, we follow the law.
Specter: Well, I think that answer is contemptuous of this committee.Whitacre eventually told Specter he could not answer the question because it asked for "classified information."
Sanford Nowlin at the AT&T Weblog (which can sometimes be a bit cheerleady in favor of Ma Bell) promises to post a video link from CSPAN when it is available here.
Posted by paul at 02:50 PM | Comments (0)
June 17, 2006
The 'Naked' truth from AT&T -- DSL is really expensive
It's so sad, it's funny: As part of its bargaining to get California to approve its takeover of AT&T, the company formerly known as SBC agreed to provide naked DSL, or broadband service without having to purchase a companion telephone line.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the service has recently been rolled out. Your savings, should you wish to ditch your phone+DSL combo for just DSL? One dollar per month.
Now you may see why we trust the opinions of Stifel, Nicolaus analyst and former FCC chief of staff Blair Levin so much: In the same story linked above, Levin noted that requiring naked DSL without any price controls was to pass something the telcos would laugh at. To wit:
"If naked DSL does not include a price regulation, the ILECs will simply re-price the bundle [of DSL and phone service]," said Blair Levin, a former FCC chief of staff who is now a telecom analyst for Legg Mason.
Actually, it turns out that Blair gave the ILECs too much credit. Instead of repricing the bundle to match their DSL "price" of $19 or so a month, they just... increased the price of standalone DSL to match what the bundle typically costs, around $45 per month.
Winner, of the "Ed will love the way I said this" AT&T employee of the month award was the spokesperson quoted in the Chronicle story, who said:
AT&T spokesman John Britton said the standalone price accurately reflects the real cost of DSL, and highlights the value the company places in its bundled service."Bundled services continue to deliver the greatest value to consumers," he said. "Most standalone services will have higher prices than bundled service."
So... are they saying that AT&T's discount DSL pricing is just a bait and switch, and then when they have killed off all competitors we will all be moved to paying "the real cost of DSL?"
But sure, go ahead and trust the telcos on keeping the Internet open. Just don't ask how much it will cost.
Posted by paul at 09:47 PM | Comments (0)
June 01, 2006
In Emergencies, Telecoms say 'Me First'
Reading today's story by C/Net's Anne Broache about telecom companies' desires to have government aid in emergenices, wondering why Anne didn't include the telcos' hypocritical responses to an effort to try to get them to focus on helping the people who really need emergency aid -- their customers.
Don't get me wrong -- if the telcos need National Guard protection to get to their flooded COs, I'm all for it. But the question bears asking -- if they implemented VoIP or other new technologies to ensure some kind of continuous communication for their customers, those same customers most likely wouldn't be angrily storming BellSouth offices with frustration, busy signals and unanswered questions.
How much would such a plan cost? A penny per customer, which is apparently too much for BellSouth to part with.
Just a thought! But the cynical view says that BellSouth/AT&T will just make more campaign contributions and then soak up police protection. All in customers' best interests, of course.
Posted by paul at 08:54 AM | Comments (0)
May 16, 2006
Why QoS sucks... money out of your pocket
As some of my critics have noted, I'm not a network engineer. But somebody who is just penned a long, convincing essay as to why QoS isn't the answer for better bandwidth, but is instead mainly a telco ploy to suck more cash out of users while keeping alive their old, tired networks.
It's a long read, but extremely worthwhile. One of the many money quotes says:
The operator controlled QoS challenges and associated expense dramatically increase when you consider providing consistent QoS behavior, via policy, across multiple technologies, service providers, applications and devices. It is delusional to think that network service providers will share their policy information which they all view as a competitive advantage. This leads to the conclusion that best effort is fundamental for competitive behavior and makes end to end QoS an unreachable goal.
And, further:
There is also a clear danger that the cost of the QoS mechanisms needed, including their operation and management will far exceed what is required to provide ample non-QoS service, or simply bandwidth.
And for critics of critics of the "need" for QoS:
Attacks on the anti-QoS perspective often center on the claim that the anti-QoS crowd want “infinite bandwidth". This and similar statements by the QoS advocates are nonsense! Adding more bandwidth has always been more cost effective than QoS. Others also agree, please see http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/internet.economics.pdf. Think about this, if adding bandwidth wasn't effective, then how come QoS isn’t widely deployed today? A look at QoS, past the hype, reveals numerous issues. As an Internet user, all I care about is that I have enough capacity so most things run nicely. Just give me my advertised bit rate and I am happy.
(What's really funny is that the same crank who tried to tout the wonders of QoS in previous comments on my blog has also commented on the link where all this info came from. The truth hurts, but apparently not enough to convince everyone.)
Please read, and decide for yourself!
Thanks to Martin "no net neutrality for me, just more Internets" Geddes for the link.
Posted by paul at 09:17 PM | Comments (3)
May 15, 2006
Verizon, AT&T persist with 'Clogged Internet' Disinformation
The Internet just can't handle video! That's the "Chicken Little" cry from AT&T and Verizon, whose technically suspect message found a home in an Associated Press story that is sure to get huge play, even though it's mostly just self-serving spin for the telcos' tiered Internet plans. Question: Can the blogosphere shoot this one down? Or will overall ignorance and big-media influence carry the day?
I actually watched the seeds of this story get planted, when AT&T's Jim Cicconi and Verizon's Tom Tauke trotted out this same story line in an exclusive briefing with reporters at the TelecomNEXT show in late March. Peter Svensson, the AP reporter who wrote the current story, was at that same briefing and apparently bought into the Bells' line enough to put together the story on today's wire that carries the unfortunate headline "High-Def Could Choke Internet, ISPs Fear."
Never mind that Svensson does try to balance the argument a bit -- he basically buys the Verizon-AT&T-BellSouth line that gosh, if people start watching high-quality video, the Internet will get all clogged up. What's funny is that the story paints the biggest problem -- the fact that the ILECs' networks simply aren't built to handle always-on connections -- as something that is only a problem because of the unrealistic expectations of users.
An interesting data point from the story is that ILECs are typically using one T-1 (1 Mbps) to handle every 40 DSL accounts -- an oversubscribed model that works well with voice calls, but not for the "Your world. Delivered." broadband plans that AT&T and Verizon advertise. In other words, they are betting you won't use the full pipe you pay for, and if you do, they want to charge you more.
(Now do you understand the need for net neutrality rules?)
To quote, from the AP story:
Oversubscription doesn't present a problem as long as people are using the Internet for Web surfing, e-mail and the occasional file download. But if everyone in a neighborhood is trying to download the evening news at the same time, it's not going to work."The plain truth is that today's access and backbone networks simply do not have the capacity to deliver all that customers expect," according to Tom Tauke, Verizon Communications Inc.'s top lobbyist.
Never mind that Verizon's advertising claims "Our speeds are extreme. Our prices are hot." According to Tauke, the backbone can't back up Verizon's advertising. Attention lawyers! Is there a truth-in-advertising suit out there somewhere?
The story goes on to say that the ILECs are considering adding a data download ceiling, above which customers would pay extra fees -- much like cell phone plans, which charge you more for using minutes beyond your "package" amount.
Sounds simple, right? Everyone understands cell phones and "minutes," even though most cell plans these days (even from Verizon and AT&T) are going the other direction, to all-you-can-eat plans. The key for the telcos is to get Congress to buy into the line that "The Internet isn't built for video, so we have to charge people more to pay for all the new, big, fat pipes."
There are, of course, many problems with this scenario, and in the story Svensson only touches on one, outlined by Dave Burstein, who is quoted as saying the Bells will probably use any extra income to beef up the new video infrastructure, while keeping the old Internet-access setup in its shared mode even though it would become increasingly cheap to upgrade it, given the rapid technological advancements in networking gear.
There's also the still-underreported facts coming out of the Internet2 experiment, where the people who run that network keep saying that if you just increase end-user bandwidth connections to 100 Mbps, all the "choking" problems in the network go away, with no special treatment needed for video like AT&T and Verizon claim.
I'm sure there are more holes to poke in the telcos' argument, but right now they have the power of the Associated Press on their side to spread their disinformation. Question is, can the blogosphere jump on this one and help get it right before more people read something that's painfully wrong?
Posted by paul at 09:47 AM | Comments (8)
May 12, 2006
How big will the NSA scandal get?
As we wait, sharpening the smackdown knives for the upcoming Congressional hearings featuring top telco execs, one can't help but wonder how big the telcos/NSA call-record fiasco is going to get. One thing is probably a given at this point -- there won't be any meaningful telecom legislation passed this year, which may be exactly what net neutrality proponents want at this point.
More thoughts later on this topic, but some quick fodder for thinking: When will we hear what Kevin Martin and the FCC think about more deregulation for the telcos? Still a good idea?
And will the Bush administration stick its neck out for its big contributors and try to get any lawsuits scuttled (in the name of national security, of course), or will it let AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth swing?
One thing's for sure, these hearings are going to be a lot more fun than watching Walter McCormick talk about the "need for investment incentive." Let's just hope the webcasts aren't monitored...
Posted by paul at 09:31 PM | Comments (0)
May 11, 2006
Telcos to NSA: C'mon in, the door's open!
According to USA Today, the big phone companies (except Qwest) have been allowing NSA to build a database of tens of millions of calls made in the U.S. Still want to "trust" them when it comes to keeping the Internet open?
Note to net neutrality proponents: You may want to ask Congress a few questions about this one. And then get them to ask Big Ed and Ivan for some answers.
UPDATE: Ed Markey is already on the case. See here.
Posted by paul at 08:55 AM | Comments (0)
May 08, 2006
Broadband competition -- more options
David Isenberg also saw Susan Crawford's post, and weighed in with some competition-building thoughts of his own.
David sums up the last 10 years of slow-moving broadband rollouts quite nicely -- read the post, and then ask if you really want AT&T, Verizon, etc. to be in charge of the future of Internet access here in the U.S.
David's alternate method of access involves a leap of faith:
Find new network architectures that do not have the barrier of high fixed costs. Mesh networks.
As much as I'd like to believe in the power of wireless, right now I believe that the power of walls has the stronger magic. Until Intel and others (Motorola?) innovate to make walls disappear (as barriers to broadband), I can't see wireless options fully replacing the power of a wired connection.
But I want to be convinced otherwise!
Posted by paul at 01:06 PM | Comments (0)
How much for the 'third pipe' for broadband?
Reading this post last week from Susan Crawford made me wonder: How much will it really cost to build the so-called "third pipe" of broadband? And might it just be cheaper to pay the telcos off, and buy their local network elements?
I'm not the first or the smartest to float this idea; and in a time when we are spending $10 billion a month to fight a war with dubious return, is it fair to ask why don't we spend some of that cash on rebuilding or retooling our country's communicaions infrastructure?
Reed Hundt says it would cost $20 billion to bring fiber to all homes in America; and Bob Kahn (see earlier link) thinks it's a good idea to create open local loops, so that multiple types of broadband providers can flourish. Assume the money can be found, Kahn says, to pay off the telcos. The idea from Kahn, Hundt and Crawford is simple -- we need to do something to get competition rolling again. There's too much at stake to pin all our hopes on AT&T, Verizon and the cablecos, whose track record of delivering on high-speed services is not too stellar.
So -- why not pay them off? What's the price? And how come these ideas, or other technologicial solutions, aren't a part of the debate in the Senate and House?
Just askin'.
Posted by paul at 08:44 AM | Comments (0)
March 23, 2006
TelecomNext -- More Thursday
Sorry nothing fun tonight. More Thursday, I promise! How cool is it to be randomly seated next to Cisco (and former FCCer) policy wonk Bob Pepper on a flight back home from Vegas? Tomorrow we'll try to explain what Verizon's Tom Tauke and SBC's Jim Cicconi think network neutrality means, and why Tauke compared the net neutrality debate to the Iraq war...
THAT oughta make you come back later, eh? Look for a fresh post in the mid-afternoon.
Posted by paul at 12:30 AM | Comments (0)
March 21, 2006
TelecomNext Monday -- 60 second smackdown
Late, late night blogging from TelecomNext, but we need to get Monday's smackdowns complete before Tuesday's keynotes from Big Ed, Chairman Kev and JC the Cisco kid. The winner Monday, in an upset, is Time-Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt! Read on!
We will try to be as rapid-fire here as the backtobacktobacktoback keynotes Monday afternoon, but for your reading pleasure we will eliminate THE REALLY LOUD MUSIC THAT PLAYED FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER. I mean, it was REALLY loud. The House of Blues called up and said "turn that sh*t down." Really.
[side note: better find some new music without the word "ass-shakin" in the lyrics tomorrow to introduce Kevin "Mr. Indecency" Martin!]
Keynote prologue: Walter "showman" McCormick, head lobbyist, USTA.
Walter didn't really have a keynote, but his intro to the people that mattered was extra-long, filled with weird hypey stuff and we were a bit unsettled at his light sport-coat, black shirt ensemble. What is he now, a casino greeter? A reality show host? Amped up on Red Bull? Walter, we realize you're happy the show is underway and that everyone showed up. Now please, sit somewhere quiet. Thank you. Score: 1.5
Ivan Seidenberg, CEO, Verizon
As juicy as Walter was, Ivan was equally restrained. None of the "Google should open their wallets" talk Monday. Just a few wry hints about "gosh it'd be nice to have a compliant Congress" and wonderment about the amazing things we could do with 100 Mbps networks. Yeah, like be jealous of Japan and Korea when they go to Gig-E. Tom Tauke was watching from the front row, probably to tackle Ivan if his lips started forming the words "Network Neutrality."
Score: 3.5
Robert Iger, CEO, Walt Disney
Nothing was truer than Robert's (can we call you "Bob"?) first line, which followed a great glitzy mashup video clip of ESPN, Desperate Housewives, Lost, etc. video scenes. "Maybe I shouldn't say anything," Iger said. But then he did, and proceeded to set open networking back a decade or two, calling for more DRM, more network controls and branded quality content. Scary good, because he knows of what he speaks and is ready to charge us more than Steve Jobs for it. And then cozied up to Ivan by stating that we didn't need any of those net neutrality rules. Bob, one word: MySpace. Check it out.
Score: 5.5
Glenn Britt, CEO, Time Warner Cable
(question: why are all these guys "president and CEO"? If you are the CEO, why do you also need to be president? Tax reasons? Someone please enlighten me.)
Glenn looked nervous -- sheep at the wolf party kind of nervous -- but proceeded to take a swipe at telco lobbying efforts anyway, the kind of mess-the-host's-carpet move that we just love here at smackdown city. He kind of rushed through the last part of his presentation -- something about caller ID for your TV, as if we need such interruptions during the Sopranos -- but you'd hurry too if you thought someone might take a shot at you.
Score: 8.5
Norio Wada, President & CEO, NTT
If there was ever a need for subtitles on a keynote, this was the time. Kudos to Norio for his all-English keynote -- trust me, if I had to write in Japanese I might crash an economy or two -- but you couldn't help but feel a lot of important stuff was lost in translation. Did he say something about building an all-fiber network that would be wide open to ISPs and application creators? Think I saw Tom Tauke getting ill when that point was raised.We need more research here.
Score: 7.5, pending judges review
Tomorrow: Big Ed Whitacre, Kevin Martin and John Chambers! If we ever get to sleep!
Posted by paul at 01:26 AM | Comments (2)
March 09, 2006
Comcast 'Net down in SF Bay region?
Anyone have any more info? Apparently Comcast's high-speed Internet service is FUBAR in the SF Bay region today... as usual with any big company customer service is clueless. Twice I was told the service was fine, but finally one supervisor said it's been down all morning, no idea what the cause is. Of course, even when they do customers are left in the dark. UPDATE, 2 p.m.: Working now. For how long, who knows? Light a candle.
The best "support" could suggest was to watch my modem lights, and when the "cable" light comes on I'll know it's working again. Hmm. Boy, that transparency idea can't advance soon enough for me. Luckily, I have alternative broadband choices and subscribe to one exactly for days like this.
Good thing we have real broadband competition in this country, eh? Providers are just climbing all over themselves to help customers get what they need. And when it's all one company, just imagine how good customer support will be!
Posted by paul at 11:23 AM | Comments (0)
March 08, 2006
We have a winner! Suck up to AT&T contest
We have a winner in our bet to see who would be the first out of the box to publicly claim that the AT&T/BellSouth re-monopolization would be "good for consumers and competition." Read on! (Hint: it's NOT odds-on favorite Walt McC.)
Never heard of this group before, but in today's CommunicationsNews email blast (we're too cheap to spring for a full sub), there is this snippet:
The Competitive Enterprise Institute called the merger of AT&T and BellSouth "a pro-competitive move that will benefit consumers."
And who would know better! Ladies and gents, some BellSouth golf shirts for our winners... soon to be a collector's item. (Judges note: If we find out that this group is funded by AT&T, we may void their victory.)
Poor Walt... maybe he can make up lost ground in his sure-to-kiss-somewhere-on-Ed keynote at TelecomNext. Or should that be TelecomOne? Can't wait!
Posted by paul at 12:50 PM | Comments (0)
March 06, 2006
AT&T-BellSouth Analysis -- From November
All the analysis you need to know about the weekend's big merger is in this story from Light Reading's Mark Sullivan -- from way back in November!
Nicely done, Mark. Even see that you have the same Blair Levin story that I heard; my guess is that Mark's is the more accurate (though later) recount of Blair's joke, since Mark tends to a good job at those reporter things like taking accurate notes, even when alcohol is being served.
Posted by paul at 12:03 AM | Comments (0)
March 04, 2006
Winners, Losers in AT&T-BellSouth Takeover
Here's your low-rent, seat-of-the-pants Saturday night analysis of the forthcoming AT&T takedown of BellSouth. Our immediate list of the biggest losers (Vonage) and winners (Qwest) will certainly be amended over time, but please feel free to chip in with your own takes in the comments field!
Since Sunday is Oscar night, maybe we should hand out "Whitacres" instead of golden statuettes. And gosh, it's just not right to call anyone a loser, is it? So let's be positive here. On with the show.
CATEGORY: Best Independent VoIP Company That Just Lost A Prospective Buyer
And the Whitacre goes to: VONAGE HOLDINGS, as in "holding pattern for an IPO that may not ever happen."
Well, if Jeffrey Citron and pals were waiting around for Duane Ackerman to ease their pain before getting to the public markets, Duane is no longer in the house. Guess this story is no longer the scoop it never was, eh? JC and pals can now only wish Rich had been right.
CATEGORY: 15 Minutes Of Fame That Won't Be Duplicated
The Whitacre goes to: BILL SMITH, (soon to be former) BellSouth CTO. You may remember Bill -- why it was just in December that he was sounding like ol' Ed hisself. We're guessing Bill took up the "not on my pipes" cause because Duane Ackerman is a genteel sort, and wouldn't stoop to that kinda talk, especially in the papers. So Bill got some headlines, congrats, here's a locker next to Dorman's at the yacht club. And yes, you can take all that BellSouth logo stuff with you. Won't be needin' it much 'round here anymore.
CATEGORY: The RBOC who now looks prettier as the bar gets to closing time
The Whitacre goes to: Qwest and Dick Notebaert, who (to carry on the bar analogy) held their liquor long enough to be the last independent standing... and thereby almost inevitably Verizon's next pawn to purchase. This ain't no shotgun marriage -- unless you consider that the gun may be pointed at both heads. The question traders are asking themselves Sunday is how do I buy Qwest stock when the markets are closed?
CATEGORY: Best retirement package negotiation
The Whitacre goes to: Duane Ackerman. $65 billion? Hell, forget playing golf at Pebble Beach. Big Ed will probably see to it that you tee off with Tiger amongst the azaleas. Guess your why build fiber plan makes sense now, eh? Hell! Let Ed figger that one out!
CATEGORY: Biggest RBOC tool, competition division
The Whitacre goes to: Whichever regulator/lawmaker is first to utter the phrase that the AT&T/BellSouth takeover "will actually increase competition" for services. This one is still open for betting, and any reasonable facsimile will work for wagering purposes. Early line has Walter McCormick at Even; Kevin Martin at 5-3; Sen. John Ensign at 3-1; and Hayley Barbour at 5-1. Remember, AT&T employees are not eligible since they are required to say dithery things like this due to contract clauses.
Posted by paul at 10:25 PM | Comments (0)
Come Together, Ma Bell: AT&T to buy BellSouth
Somewhere, Blair Levin is laughing out loud tonight. For it was at Fall VON that I distinctly remember him saying: "...and when SBC (now AT&T) buys BellSouth, then they will say that 'finally we have the economies of scale to deploy broadband networks.' " Looks like we'll be able to find out if Blair was right:
TECHNOLOGY ALERT from The Wall Street Journal. AT&T is planning to acquire BellSouth for roughly $65 billion. A deal between the two could be announced as early as Monday.
If you subscribe to the Journal (which we all do, right?), the link is here.
(Note: Blair, of course, was joking. Sort of. But even as a joke, pretty good material, no?)
Posted by paul at 09:29 PM | Comments (0)