Paul Kapustka's Blog

August 17, 2006

Illegal or necessary? Wiretapping is really a case of trust

Whether or not you agree with the judge who called the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping a violation of the Constitution, there is an easier question to answer: Do you trust this administration when it says it's telling the truth?

Sure, nobody wants terrorists to succeed, and if there are terrorists out there who don't know how to use encrypted systems like Skype to make calls, hell yes, let's tap their phones.

But let's do it the right, legal way. Get warrants. Have oversight. Is there really a need to keep Congress and the Courts -- the other legs of balance on the great power stool -- out of the loop?

I'm not a legal expert but I am smart enough to know that when someone says they don't have to play by the rules, that's one sign that they shouldn't be trusted. And for the Bush team, it's another sign on a long road of truthiness.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is quoted in the Times story as saying:

“We’re going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue,” he said, because it “has been effective in protecting America.”

Do you believe him, and by extension, the Bush adminstration scripting his words? I'd like to. In this case, I want to.

But where's the proof? Take their word for it?

While we still can in this country, make your opinion -- do you believe them, yes or no -- count this November.

BONUS LINK: Susan Crawford, as usual, has a very thorough analysis and explanation. And an opinion, too:

This may be too plain and workmanlike an opinion to survive the intellectual legerdemain of the best hired-gun appellate lawyer -- but it's right. It's a good day for the rule of law.

Posted by paul at 10:48 PM | Comments (0)

July 11, 2006

USF -- The new telcom battleground

With network neutrality now safely a mainstream topic, it's time to look to what will be an even messier battlefield: the specter of reworking the Universal Service Fund, a billions-large taxing infrastructure that now appears to be the big telcos' latest weapon against innovators, especially Voice over IP providers.

Our own Jeff Pulver has been sounding the alarm for the VoIP industry on the FCC's latest how-can-we-please-you-AT&T move, an "interim" order that uses the idea of USF payments as a club to VoIP business plans. The quick take is that the 150-page-plus order will undo most of the "light touch" regulatory stance toward VoIP, replacing it with legacy telecom taxation burdens for the sole reason of covering an expected coming shortfall in the USF budget.

While Jeff (with the assistance of Pulver.com wartime consigliere Jonathan Askin, our man in D.C.) has detailed the main outrageous points of the pending order here, don't just take his word for it. The telco analysts at Stifel, Nicolaus (which include former FCC chief of staff Blair Levin) recapped the order in a recent research note by calling the interim rules "more problematic for VoIP providers than advertised, complicating their ability to avoid regulatory traffic assumptions that providers believe will inflate their payments."

(That's "more problematic" as in the way your car-repair payments become "more problematic" when the garage owner tells you "the problem isn't just a loose screw, it's something somewhere in the transmission." For VoIP providers, the potential bill just got a lot bigger.)

Great -- let's cut off innovation by saddling it with fees that perpetuate the old monopoly models of business. Dan Berninger, in a guest post on Jeff's blog, argues against the recent order and USF in general at length here. Worth a read to get your bearings.

What's especially interesting about the latest order is that it seems (according to Jeff Pulver's reading) to eliminate some of the protection of VoIP from state-by-state regulation that many thought was already decided in VoIP's favor with the Nov. 2004 Vonage order.

After that order came out, an industry source noted that current FCC chairman (then just a commissioner) was the only commissioner not to release a statement (scroll down to Nov. 12) about the Vonage order. Perhaps because he knew he'd try to change it in the future, so he didn't want any words to use against him? Lawyers and conspiracy theorists, start your billable hours.

Posted by paul at 10:14 PM | Comments (1)

June 28, 2006

Will telco reform bill stall or pass?

As the Senate Commerce Committee markup heads into its third day of deliberations, chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, wonders whether or not meaningful telecom legislation will get passed in 2006.

Even if Stevens manages to get some kind of compromise-laden (but still telco-friendly) piece of legislation out of the Commerce committee, there are foes in the Senate like Oregon's Ron Wyden who could stymie efforts to pass a bill in the full Senate.

More will be known later today after the markup proceedings continue. Stay tuned.

Posted by paul at 09:02 AM | Comments (0)

May 16, 2006

Telecom money keeps flowin' to Congress

When they're not paying for astroturf, the telcos are opening their funding wallets to Congress. Not a surprise, and hard to blame them from playing the hand they have been dealt. Still, it's good to read stories like this one by the National Journal's David Hatch that give you a clear idea how much it takes to get your message heard on the Hill.

You've got to love the cash rolling in to Ted Stevens' coffers, even though he's not up for re-election for a couple more years. Never hurts to start saving early!

Posted by paul at 03:07 PM | Comments (0)

May 02, 2006

Susan Crawford on USF: A must-read

Even though we love, love, love network neutrality, we've said all along that reworking the Universal Service Fund (USF) is a much thornier issue. In her usual succinct style, Susan Crawford follows the money to let you know why USF may live on while net neutrality suffers.

While net neutrality may puzzle even the smartest folks, keeping USF and its $7-plus billion per year in customer payola is a no-brainer for a legislative body that can't even bring itself to end a telecom tax originally levied to supply the Spanish-American War. Instead of looking differently at IP communications, bet your last dollar that Congress will instead find a way to tax new entrants just like they tax the phone companies now.

Hey, what about those "no regulating the Internet" arguments we're hearing from the Bells on net neutrality? Why not make similar arguments against USF? We're waiting...

Posted by paul at 09:40 PM | Comments (0)

April 02, 2006

Senate Hearing -- France, Line Sharing and Mark Cooper vs. Sen. Stevens

Sorry if the headline confuses; it's Sunday night here in the Bay area, which has become Seattle for March -- as in endless rain, so the synapses have become waterlogged. Trying to recap last Thursday's "Competition and Convergence" hearing in front of the Senate Commerce committee, where France, line sharing and Mark Cooper were the highlights... read on, s'il vous plait...

Compared to the verbal fisticuffs being thrown in the twin House hearing last week, Thursday's Senate stage was like watching golf on TV -- still fun, but a bit more cereberal and not many outbursts, except for one heated exchange between our leader Sen. Ted Stevens and Mark Cooper, the director of research at the Consumer Federation of America, over unlicensed wireless spectrum, of all things.

Instead of our usual smackdown format, we're going to try a different format tonight and honor the NCAA tournament. Since the bracket actually contains nine speakers (the eight on the official lineup plus Sen. Jim DeMint), it's not going to be a straightforward winner vs. loser, but instead winners by elmination. Maybe this is more like "survivor," but since the only reality TV I watch is sports, I can't say for sure. Anyway, try to follow along. Fun is guaranteed, or your money back.

LOSERS, FIRST ROUND: Walter McCormick, USTA; Sen. Daniel Inyoue, D-Hawaii; Steve Largent, president, CTIA (and a HELL OF A PASS CATCHER!); Jerry Ellig, Senior researcher, George Mason Univ.

How many times can we kick MC Walt in one day? We're getting as tired of it as you are of reading it, no doubt. Finding something positive to say, we can only offer: Walt really carries the water for his overlords. But man, we need a better example of the pains of video franchising than some outfit in the middle of Tennessee that is flummoxed because its build-out crosses 25 local jurisdictions. What, like the Bellcos can't hire Paulie Walnuts to do some persuadin'? The killing blow -- Walt used the same example in both hearings. That means there must not be any more examples, right?

Sen. Inyoue may be well-meaning, but he needs to up the Kona blend intake. His contribution to the discussion, a softball that Earl Comstock and Cooper fed on like sportswriters at an NFL game-day buffet: A reference to the Wall Street Journal article (which we've all read) from last week talking about the wonders of 24 Mbps broadband in France. "What is France doing right?" asked Inyoue. Never mind that we should all be asking that of the Senate CC, right?

Largent and Ellig are eliminated simply because they did not say anything striking in their small moment of allotted time... somewhere, J.J. Redick knows how they feel. (And just once, wouldn't you like to hear somebody ask Largent at one of these things "how does it feel to never have won the big one?" heh. Or maybe the USTA could hire Mike Harden, who could just glare at Largent and maybe throw him a forearm shiver if Largent starts saying things like "we've made a tremendous investment in infrastructure" more than once a year.) (And just to be fair, we'd have to let Largent recover and smack Harden back. Or maybe Walter.)

Semifinals: Cooper vs. Stevens; Comstock vs. DeMint and Kyle McSlarrow

The Cooper vs. Stevens exchange was the highlight of the hearing -- watch that heart monitor, Sen. Stevens! If you're not familiar with Cooper's resume (it's about 1,000 pages long) suffice to say he's got a lot of info bottled up inside about why networks need to be open. I don't know Cooper at all, but I have seen him speak and it usually seems like he has a chip on his shoulder about something; add to that a slight whiff of crazy-uncle persona, and you have a fight waiting to happen. Last Thursday, Stevens was ready.

Their exchange started when Cooper ended his opening comments with a line about the need to "liberate the spectrum" and provide more unlicensed bands. Stevens jumped right after him, asking him how the hell (he might not have said "hell," but he meant it) we could open up more networks and allow more pornography, movie downloads, illegal music copying... you know, all the things we like the Internet for.

"Unlicensed doesn't mean anarchy," Cooper tried to say. Stevens, however, pressed him on what that meant -- how would it be regulated or watched? Cooper tried to make some comparison to traffic laws, but Stevens wouldn't hear it -- "there's cops in every town," he sputtered, meaning that there is no way in hell that the country could muster an equivalent force to police the wide-open nets of Cooper's dreams. "You lose me!" Stevens thundered, taking the halftime lead.

Comstock, meanwhile, was working over the "let it be" attitudes of DeMint and McSlarrow thanks to an audacious opening statement -- "The 1996 [Telecom] Act did work, in many areas" -- and some comprehensive followup thanks to the opening provided by Inyoue. In what should be a pretty good ongoing argument for proponents of network neutrality, Comstock made it easy by saying that France basically did what the U.S. tried to do with the 96 act -- open competition by forcing the incumbents to share their lines. "The consumer [in France] is getting the benefit of the infrastructure they've already paid for," Comstock said. Comstock got a late assist from Cooper, who took MC Walt's attempt to parry Comstock ("France has a government-owned [network] and they don't have to make money") and thrashed it by adding to it the example of British Telecom, which has established a similar line-sharing regime that has produced a number of high-speed competitors.

"The regulators set rates and didn't have a half-decade of litigation to death," Cooper said. "That model [and France's] beats the heck out of our approach."

DeMint scored a few points with his wry notice that "cable wants access to phone switches but doesn't want to allow [others] to connect to cable... and phone companies want video [reform] but they don't want to give up USF." (To us, a clear indication that both camps need to pony up a bit more to the DeMint war chest!)

But Sen. DeMint put up an air ball with his thought that "it just seems obvious to me that we should let it [regulations] go for a couple years, and protect the consumer... we couldn't do any more harm than we're doing now."

Great! How about we do the same for your paycheck?

Comstock and Cooper took turns piling on, Comstock first by noting that New Zealand (sure, it's a "country") tried such an approach and it failed. Then he surfaced a metaphor that kind of worked, something about it being a race where some of the competitors (telco, cable) have a big head start. "There's not enough money in the country for us all to build our own networks," Comstock said, returning to the point.

McSlarrow tried the "we're all bidnessmen here" approach, allowing that "we're all stuck in a system with quid pro quos." But then went on to only mention a new model that would -- surprise! -- benefit those with more quid pros than the competition.

Cooper took McSlarrow out with a view no doubt hardened over time of watching battles like this one -- "there's no reason to believe that the problems will be solved by those with market power," he noted, maybe the epitath of the ongoing lawmaking if there ever was one.

Then grampa Ted wrapped it all up by reminding everyone that when he first used phones, you could hear three people talking at once! Hello Central! Just when you think Ted's ready to make the big shot, just like Patrick Ewing he bricks it away.

Winners: Cooper, Comstock. Eliminated: McSlarrow, DeMint. Tourney champion: Stevens. Hey, he might have blown the ending but remember who sets the schedule! It ain't anyone from Comptel or a professor from some school, that's for sure.

Posted by paul at 11:06 PM | Comments (0)

March 30, 2006

House Hearing Smackdown: COPE Bill

If you wanted to know who the heavy hitters are in the telecom legislation debate, Thursday's dual House and Senate hearings provided good theater and a chance for some new names to shine. Among the strong performers at the House event were committee chairman Joe "what's all this net neutrality stuff anyhow" Barton, Edward "shaddup" Markey, Vonage's Jeffrey Citron and Ken Fellman, mayor of Arvada, Colo. Scores, highlights and lowlights follow...

(First of all -- if you haven't done any required reading, take some time to bone up on where the debate currently stands. For the House bill, we point you to Jeff Pulver's take of a couple days ago, and for the Senate version, this posting from David Hatch at the National Journal is a good updater. Also, Pulver "wartime consigliere" Jonathan Askin has an on-the-scene report with added depth and insight.)

Now, on to Thursday's House performance, otherwise known as the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Hearing to consider H.R. ____, a Committee Print on the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006: (and that blank spot is not a typo, that's how it's described on the House site)

First off, a caveat: This is far less than a wire-to-wire accounting of the proceedings, mainly because A) I didn't wake up early enough to catch the start of the webcast, and B) the thing ran on so long it was necessary to take breaks for things like breakfast. Such is the drudge of covering these things from the left coast. Now with my apologies out of the way, the best, worst and inbetween...

TOP PERFORMERS

JOE BARTON, R-Texas (committee chairman)
I missed his opening remarks, but during questioning Barton let everyone know who's the boss hog on this bill: He is. School was in when prof. Barton asked the witnesses, with not a small amount of anger, that "I want a definition of network neutrality from each of you gentlemen." Citron (more later) didn't flinch, and neither did Amazon veep Paul Misener. But Barton didn't really listen to their answers -- he already knew the answer, which was (after the panel had answered), "notice, no one's given close to the same definition yet."

Barton is the lead hawg on what is apparently the latest walking order from the Bells on how to deal with network neutrality, which is simply to neuter it by proclaiming it undefinable.

"We're tied up in knots [over net neutrality] and we don't have a universally recognized definition what it is," Barton complained.

Great, we don't understand it, so let's just ignore it! Let's move forward! Pass a bill already!

You may not like Barton's politics, but there is no doubt who is in charge. Hell, he was even passing out grades on the witnesses responses (he liked Misener's the best, and even chided cable lackey Kyle McSlarrow for "not having a definition")! Hey, you trying to put us out of a private-sector job, Joe?
Score: 7.0

ED MARKEY, D-Mass.
Rep. Markey may not have numbers on his side in this battle, but that doesn't mean he can't inflict wounds. His prime whipping boy Thursday was telco tool Walter McCormick, who Markey backed into a corner by noting that telcos want "rules" to force cable and broadcasters into letting telcos carry their programming, while telcos only want "principles" to guide their stewardship of network neutrality and open interconnects.

The great theater was Markey basically not letting MC Walt even begin any of his stock answers, but cutting him off before Walter could even say things like "incentive to invest." "You guys should develop your own programming," Markey told Walt. McSlarrow, a quick learner, didn't even try to slug it out with Markey, instead answering with a curt "no" to a list of questions like, "can you pledge that [cable companies] will upgrade uniformly," etc., etc.

Markey even roughed up Vonage's Citron a bit, trying to push him off his new center-of-the-road stance by asking for a grade "from one to 10" on the network neutrality provisions of the current COPE draft. (he finally coaxed a grade of "5" out of Citron) Markey then finished with a flourish about the weak build-out provisions in COPE, stating that it's clear that the future [of video, I think] in the telco plan will see "the poor side of town subsidizing the rich side of town."

And: "You don't need a business degree from Harvard to know that's the plan," Markey said.(BONUS LINK: Markey's web site already has video of his statement up... yeah, I think he gets this Internet thing.)
Score: 7.5

NEW FACE AWARDS:
STEVE BUYER, R-Indiana
Maybe he's not a nationally known entity yet, but Rep. Buyer is no doubt winning fans in San Antonio for his successful help in passing Indiana's new video dereg legislation (one of the sponsors, state Sen. Brandt Hershmann, works for Buyer). Thursday, he proved as adept as Barton in following the "what the heck is network neutrality, anyway" line, asking rhetorically for people to "write on a piece of paper what network neutrality means" so presumably, he could... what? Belittle it? Buyer then made some veiled references to legislation of his own that he was holding in check in respect to Barton's bid... but if this bill fails, look for Buyer to step into any power breach.

Buyer showed more fire later when he voiced an open-ended question about whether the semantics of "cable service" or "video service" mattered... and when nobody answered, Buyer said, "great, I'm the only one who gives a damn." Yow! Young, well-informed, good presenter, good hair (See Ensign score here for why that matters)... the future is bright for the next fair-haired child of the RBOCs.
Score: 6.75

KEN FELLMAN, Mayor, City of Arvada (Colo.) and rep for some mayor/cities groups:
Fellman, a new face on the scene, gets kudos for trying to dispel one of the bigger myths, that somehow Verizon and AT&T don't have the resources to go get local video franchises all over the country. Fellman, citing a story he read that said Verizon has 50 employees dedicated to evaluating franchise agreements, boldly stated that "if you add up the number of lobbyists they have trying to end franchising, it will add up to more than 50."

Ouch! Maybe he's not the first to suggest that if Verizon and AT&T had redirected lobbying and legislative efforts toward franchising, they might have all they need by now... but what fun would that be? Fellman even took a belated swipe at Barton, following Barton's "define this" performance with a "I was hoping chairman Barton was going to also ask us for a definition of a competitive cable service." (of course, Barton had already left the room, but still -- cheeky!)
Score: 7.25

AND THE REST:

JEFFREY CITRON, Vonage
Still one of the best speakers network neutrality proponents have, Citron is getting to be an ace at this hearings game, never backing down, never unsure of his answers. He's also learned what matters to Congress, spending most of his time talking about E-911 services, and why the bill needs to ensure that the Verizons and the AT&Ts give Vonage access to PSAP infrastructure... sounds reasonable, not whiny, never even says network neutrality anymore. He even talked about how Vonage and Verizon were best buds, since Verizon provided a single tech standard for linking to all its 911 centers! You may not like his new centrist approach, but for a company that needs all the friends it can get, it's sure not stupid.
Score: 6.5

PAUL MISENER, VP for global public policy, Amazon.com
Though he needs to brush up on his technology descriptions of what a router does (hint to Misener: they can do a lot more prioritization of packets than you think), Misener did give voice to what all the Bell suckups seem to want to ignore -- that the CEOs of the big telcos are all saying publicly that they want to charge more for certain applications. "They are going to alter the Internet, unless Congress stops them," Misener noted. "they have already stated their intent to do so."

With a few better stock answers (like, how hard would it be to come up with a "this is what net neutrality means" that Amazon, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft could all agree on?), and some better clothes for his next C-Hill appearance (dark blue button-down shirt under a suit? What's that, business casual/formal?), Misener could help net neutrality proponents a lot, going forward.
Score: 6.25

Tool o' the day award (maybe we should just put his name on it): Walter McCormick, USTA
Even though he was knocked to the floor by Markey (and later took another head-swipe from Rick Boucher), MC Walt still found time to play the China Card -- "what if Google censored public speech, as it has done in China?" Walt asked, though nobody had asked the question. "it's a very dangerous thing to be the first country in the world to regulate the Internet," McCormick added. And people pay good money for this kind of blather?
Score: 1.5

Why Is This Man In A Responsbile Position award: Bobby Rush, D-Ill.
Wouldn't you love to have seen whose letterhead was on the piece of paper that Rep. Rush was reading his opening statement from? I mean, this was not someone who appeared to be speaking from the heart or from innate knowledge of the subject. Though Rush said he wants to make sure that the concerns of his African-American constituency "must be addressed," maybe he didn't hear all that stuff about how the bill he's now a co-sponsor of doesn't require telcos to completely build out in the areas where they want to provide video services?

Rep. Rush, meet Rep. Markey. Supposedly, you are on the same side.
Score: 1.0

MORE LATER: Senate smackdown tonight or tomorrow.

Posted by paul at 03:32 PM | Comments (0)

March 29, 2006

Smackdown Thursday -- House and Senate

Resting up and getting lots of fluids tonight, with two -- count 'em, two -- hearings scheduled Thursday, both in the House and Senate commerce committee fiefdoms. Betting line is that the House gathering is more exciting, though I'd pay to see a leg-wrestling match between Walt and Earl in the afternoon...

Well, OK, maybe I wouldn't pay. But it would be fun to watch, especially if MC Walter shows up on the same stuff he was drinking last week...

Posted by paul at 05:38 PM | Comments (0)

March 28, 2006

NY Times -- Google finally hires more than 1 lobbyist

The NY Times (registration req'd) has a bit today about Google waking up, smelling the coffee and hiring a few more troops for its upcoming Beltway battles. Better late than never, eh?

Google's arrogance over its ignorance (up until now) of matters Washington was never more evident than at the recent hearings about Google's dealings in China, when local (Bay area) congressman Tom Lantos ripped Google a new search-hole for its move into China.

The company's position is open to fair debate -- but its apparent failure to send somebody a few miles up the Peninsula to brief Rep. Lantos prior to the hearings shows how low a priority Google previously put on holding Congress' hand, a mistake the Googlers are apparently now trying to fix by throwing bundles of cash at lawyers.

Which, in D.C. is not always a bad idea. Just make sure it's the right lawyers. From what we hear, there are a lot of former SBC lobbyists looking for work, so that's a good place to start.

SMACKDOWN QUOTE:

Let's all share a group cringe for the Internet personality known as Esther Dyson, who offered the following quote to the Times about Google's lobbying ramp-up:

"It's sad," said Esther Dyson, editor of the technology newsletter Release 1.0 and former chairwoman of Icann, a nonprofit group that plays a role in Internet administration. "The kids are growing up. They've lost youth and innocence. Now they have to start being grown-ups and playing at least to some extent by grown-up rules."

What's really sad is that Esther thinks it's sad for Google to actually engage lawmakers on their own turf. But then, maybe listening to people from D.C. isn't a big part of Esther's agenda these days.

Smackdown score for Esther's quote: 1.0

Posted by paul at 03:35 PM | Comments (0)

Astroturf Lobbying -- Required reading

After listening last week to arguments from the horses' mouths, this week it's time to look at the Greek chorus -- the astroturf lobbying groups that big telcos pay to sell their stories under the guise of "independent" or "grassroots" efforts. First, some required reading to set the stage: A great new report out today from Common Cause, and a new series from C/Net's D.C. reporters.

Later this week, I'll take a deeper look at how one of these organizations -- FreedomWorks -- puts together its so-called "research" to help the telcos' cause.

One big question that surfaces whenever I hear about these groups is: How can the Bells and the cablecos complain about having to spend so much time and money with local governments when they obviously have the resources to fund nationwide lobbying efforts? Is our political system so transparent that it's simply easier to use P.R. and obfuscation rather than good arguments?

Are we naive even to ask such questions?

Posted by paul at 03:10 PM | Comments (0)

February 28, 2006

USF -- The biggest mess of all

Want a thornier problem than Network Neutrality? Try USF, or the Universal Service Fund, on for size. As today's predictable debate showed, the rural Senators are simply not going to let go of these tax dollars, no way, nohow. Looks like Americans will be paying for rural broadband too, if the 10 percent-40 percent rule keeps holding.

What's the 10-40 rule? The fact that 10 percent of the nation elects 40 percent of the Senators, a democratic quirk that effectively means that once things like USF get passed once, they will be with us forever, or at least until we change the makeup of the Senate to more accurately reflect the U.S. population.

Never mind that things like the E-rate program, funded out of USF, are rife with mismanagement, and never mind that potentially cheaper solutions like VoIP don't receive fund help. As long as Ted "got to protect those fishing villages" Stevens remains in charge of the Senate Commerce Committee, anything other than more money for rural telcos probably won't even be considered.

So while Net Neutrality may be the hot-button topic, it will be figured out long before USF gets a much-needed overhaul, simply because the rural Senators have enough power to squelch any attempts at radical change. And until we all move to Skype, they'll keep getting their bucks as long as we keep getting phone bills.

Posted by paul at 04:21 PM | Comments (0)

February 22, 2006

Michael Powell on Video

Enough words! Check out my video report from the Silicon Flatirons show, a little fun with Michael Powell's Q&A. The link is here, part of Wednesday's segment of CMP Media's "The News Show."

The bonus backstory for my blog readers: While it's fun to see how much you can accomplish with a tiny webcam and some simple software, the downside is doing a quick minute-long face to face with the busy Mr. Powell, where he talked about Net Neutrality and then how he'd rather be head of the NFL instead of baseball commissioner in his next job... and then watching it go into the ether when the program crashes inexplicably.

(Note to video wannabes: get ready for unstable stuff, and learning about light. Part of life on the great multimedia trail-blazin'.)

By then, of course, Powell was too busy for another sit-down so the chat excerpts were the best I could do. Apologies to Phil Weiser, for not including the great questions that got Powell riffing.
Phil, want to buy a webcam, cheap?

Posted by paul at 11:54 PM | Comments (0)

February 21, 2006

Powell's running -- when, where and for what?

After a day to think it over, the real meat to me of Michael Powell's high-profile appearance at the Silicon Flatirons event is that he will run for political office -- the only remaining questions are where, when, and for what?

Some clues from Powell were found in his public appearance Monday, where he openly derided the "brutal partisanship" in the halls of Congress. (I wrote a news story for Networking Pipeline about the appearance, link is here.)

He also made some comments from the audience during Sunday's proceedings, talking about how Google and Yahoo are the big companies to worry about in the future -- but whose future?

On a more private level, Powell said he is eagerly soaking up all he can about the financial world as a partner in several business ventures, including investment firms as well as consulting gigs with startups and even media giant AOL. Powell said he didn't really understand the money mechanism before, but wants to learn it now... maybe to fill out the resume that you need in a statehouse with a budget?

Pure speculation on my part. But I don't think the ex-chairman is finished with his life as a public servant. Clearly he's not only staying abreast of the hot political topics, but he's trying to expand his circle of knowledge to Wall Street, Silicon Valley and beyond... which makes me think he is more interested in a national post. Anyone want to set odds on the where, when or what? The betting window is now open.

Posted by paul at 11:46 PM | Comments (0)

February 20, 2006

More delayed blogging from Silicon Flatirons -- Michael Powell, take 2

Giving up here again for the night (no hope trying to blog when the Olympic Giant Slalom is on, and then your host finds Pulp Fiction on the dish). More tomorrow (after a skiing break!) on Michael Powell's Monday "fireside chat" with Phil Weiser. While David Isenberg and Susan Crawford have already filtered out some highlights, I liked the former-chmn's take on the FCC as being a place where huge battles are fought that everyone knows will have no real consequence or outcome.

"Having battles at the FCC is a business unto itself," said Powell. And even though there are huge battles at the FCC, he said that all the participants "know nothing is going to come out of it." And companies, Powell added, "spend fortunes in the fight. Ink untold, flows in newspapers [ed. note: or, digital "ink" in blogs, anyway]," but because everyone knows how the law works -- and how the FCC process interferes, nothing happens of note.

Powell also bemoaned the fact that even if the FCC does try to do something, it takes at a minimum four years for all the entrenched-position battles to work out. (Think he misses the job?) "It [the process] invites that the FCC is always open for business to the idea that it can make a rule, to change the way a business (operates)," Powell said. More tomorrow! Plus video when I get around to producing a segment for CMP's The News Show, which you should watch anyway. I highly recommend the "VoIP Line" segments.

PS -- Powell's remarks from his Monday keynote should not be confused with the private interview I conducted with Powell Sunday, which I wrote about here.

Posted by paul at 10:12 PM | Comments (1)

Silicon Flatirons -- Sunday PM, cont'd, with Bob Kahn's showstopper idea

If video over the Internet is truly the ultimate market battleground -- as several discussants on Sunday afternoon's Video over IP panel proclaimed -- then count Silicon Flatirons as at least one of the starting grounds for the rhetorical skirmish. My filtered take: The battle is between video control (RBOCs, cable) and anarchy (Google, open source). With any luck, it's a war that will end up with consumers winning.

Of all the event panels, this one had the highest level of committed, passionate, assertive speakers. The 10-second take? The RBOCs and cable will use all their firepower to try to keep video captive, to make money off it the way they did off voice. While underfunded, the Net Neutral team has in its corner the power of the Network -- Metcalfe's Law -- as well as the entrepreneurial ideas of people who just do things without asking permission.

I won't try to recap the panel -- it didn't really follow any logical path -- but I will try to highlight the best bits. Leadoff batter Tim Wu woke everyone up from lunch-slumber with a bizarre video clip featuring John Malkovich, judo experts, and fashion shows. I have no idea what it is supposed to mean, other than Wu has cool friends, and that the John Malkovichs of the world aren't going to sign exclusive deals with Verizon to air their "content" for a set price.

Wu may be telecom's own John Malkovich -- highly brilliant, perhaps with a bit erratic and eclectic user interface -- but capable of great things at a moment's notice. Wu's power quote in support of Net Neutrality: "How many people do you have to ask to start a business?" In a tiered Net, too many, is the point.

Also on the NN side was Susan Crawford, who certainly doesn't need me to parse her points. In a room full of lawyers, Crawford's appeals that the Internet is more than routers and wires and local loops -- "it's an ecosystem quite separate from the access infrastructure" -- and that "there is a higher public value than deferring to their [RBOCs, mainly] property interests" -- perhaps fell on deaf ears. But in spirit she is closer to Internet pioneer Bob Kahn than any team of lawyers can hope to be, and in the greater technical world -- like the unnamed army that helped TCP/IP become dominant in the first place -- such opinions carry great weight.

On the other side of the debate -- and in case you had any doubts, this is a debate between the dark side and the force -- there was Jon Nuechterlein and Paul Glist, who both had a thing or two to say about the evils of Net Neutrality rules. (Stephan Shelanski was also a discussant, and provided a good commercial description of Starz' Internet distro plan.)

Nuechterlein (can I just call him Jon?) was calm and collected, and wondered that if Net Neutrality "commoditized pipes," why would anyone build them? Gist was entertaining (David I touched on it here) but a tad mean-spirited -- no need to slap at Crawford with an aside that "networks and cool apps don't emerge like beachfront property on the ocean." (This after Crawford had compared the Internet's worth to that of the ocean, available to all, source of food, etc.) Don't take that line unless you are ready to address the monopoly structure under which those networks were built, pal. A point that somehow never seems to emerge on the deregulate-everything side.

Actually, Bob Kahn (winner of the show's Big Brain award, hands down) trumped the whole panel and maybe the whole event with a query during the open Q&A, about whether or not it makes sense for the government to purchase the local loop infrastructure from the current owners, and then set up some kind of "open central offices," where anyone could come in, locate servers, offer services, etc. etc.

"Call it a digital extension cord," Kahn posited. An incredible idea -- one that would pre-empt all the RBOC and cable complaints about the cost of building networks. Fine, let's pay them for their infrastructure, and open it up for business, all open protocols and interconnects.

"If someone wanted a 10 to the Nth megabit service and someone else was willing to provide it, there could be a business," Kahn said later when I asked him to expound. (this is a paraphrase; we were just talking, no note-taking)

The coolest thing about Kahn's idea was that it totally silenced a panel of law professors and lawyers, and hushed a room full of legal experts. Another win for the nerds? Let's hope it's not the last we hear of this idea from venerable Mr. Kahn.

(and here's a lagniappe from Crawford: watch for the launch Tuesday of an open-source video hosting project from a group called participatory culture. Sounds cool! And yet another reason not to have entry barriers on the 'Net.)

Posted by paul at 08:26 PM | Comments (0)

February 19, 2006

Silicon Flatirons -- the incomplete telecom debate

BOULDER, Colo. -- Amidst all the really smart things being said by passionate, dedicated people here Sunday, there was a sense that something -- or somebody -- was missing from the debate. While it didn't detract from the density of the content at this year's Silicon Flatirons event, it also couldn't be ignored that some of the biggest players in matters telecom today -- the FCC, Google, AT&T -- were conspicuous by their absence.

Not to take away from a fantastic assemblage of smarts -- any conference that has a Bob Kahn and a Michael Powell in the audience is off-the-charts in brainpower -- but sometimes the "debates" seemed a bit like watching someone whack a tennis ball off a brick wall. Sure, the argumentative groundstrokes of a Tim Wu or a Ray Gifford were flawless, cross-court winners. But if Network Neutrality and telecom regulation are the topics of the day, where is Ed Whitacre, Mr. Not on My Pipes? Where is Kevin Martin, or for that matter, any current employee of the FCC? MIA. And it's their loss.

That the FCC couldn't send anyone to Boulder was just indicitive of what one insider called the current "toxic" mood in our favorite government bureau. Conference host Phil Weiser could only shake his head in disbelief, with no FCC presence at one of the premier telecom-thinker events anywhere. Former FCC chair Michael Powell took the diplomatic route, saying "you'd have to ask them" (meaning the current regime) why there are no FCC members present at this conference (or many other public forums, for that matter).

"I always encouraged the [FCC] staff to get out and learn things" at events like this one, Powell said during one of the breaks. Powell also thought it was strange that big content providers like Google and Yahoo were non-entities, especially since they were the topics of most panel conversations.

"They are the biggest animals in the jungle right now," Powell said. "Why aren't they here?"

Posted by paul at 09:10 PM | Comments (0)

Silicon Flatirons -- Sunday AM

BOULDER, Colo. -- OK, it's late Sunday night and after inhaling so much telecom policy-talk here in Boulder I feel vaguely Schumpeterian myself. Maybe the best way to handle this is to do a straight notebook core-dump, and let y'all sort out the details.

(Note: if you don't get the Schumpeterian link don't feel bad. I had a vague sense of what it meant but thought that anyone who uses the word "Schumpeterian" before 10 am needs a telecom time-out. Fortunately I had stopped by the Trident for a post-breakfast latte so I was amplified enough to take the transgression in stride. Anyway.)

Morning panel: "The Institutional Challenges of Technology Policy." (as if you could list them all in 2 hrs!) Discussants: Phil Weiser (moderator), Ray Gifford, Dale Hatfield, Howard Shelanski, Hon. (that means "judge") Stephen Williams.

Instead of presentations, this panel was mainly a Q&A volley game, with event host Weiser serving up the Q's. Weiser, the executive director of the Silicon Flatirons program, is one of what I would call the "young turks" of telecom policy -- a role he cemented by co-authoring the obligitory dense policy book that is guaranteed to bring on sleep on the most insomniac of nights. (Trust me, I know. At least I got it at the conference discount last year.) But Weiser knows his stuff, is genial and gets people talking. Eventually, that is, after a slow start with a Latin-flavored query about whether it's better to set rules first, or to punish afterwards.

In terms of sheer conviction, the clear winner of this panel was the PFF's Gifford, who overcomes his just-out-of-the-shower look with well-honed opinions and good sound bites that carry far beyond Boulder. Gifford's arguments, that "we have to know a lot" before making pre-emptive rules, sound reasonable. Especially so since they're not drenched in RBOC stain, but tempered with Gifford's reasonable "but we might not move fast enough" with post-infraction governance to save the injured. He (and the PFF) have done a lot of thinking about this, and it shows.

Things warmed up a bit on the panel when discussion turned to why there aren't smarter people on the FCC, and why they are so swayed by political pressures. My notes here are hazy, but I have Gifford saying "there's no political reward for caring." Sounds interesting.

(afternoon-panelist Susan Crawford took notes as well, including an apt summation of former FCC chairman Michael Powell's show-stopper cameo on politics and the FCC.) I'd only add a line of Powell's about the FCC: "It's a political animal, and it invites to it the same people [that go to Congress]."

While Shelanski and Hon. Williams are more than well versed in the topics, they were lacking in passion, and seemed more concerned about saying the right thing. Judge Williams gets the Schtoompah award for opening the Schumpeterian gambit. The venerable Hatfield, as Susan noted, isn't afraid to say things went wrong. And the impressive audience weighed in during the open Q&A, with Internet pioneer and co-author of TCP Bob Kahn asking somewhat rhetorically why there wasn't more discussion about how technology could help solve these issues.

Best quotes:

Superlobbyist Preston Padden weighed in with a view of his own, that even though a hard date for DTV transition has been set, "my bet is that with 30 to 40 million [people] still using [analog TV], you'll see the heroes in Congress quickly kick the can down the road." (Not sure what prompted this reply, but it was great theater from the man from Disney.)

Gifford, during open Q&A: "You know things will change when Google's position on Net Neutrality flips, which it will in a couple years." (this after Gifford's claim that Google owns miles and miles of dark fiber and plans to build its own access network, a myth everyone seems to believe but has yet to be confirmed.)

Pessimism ruled the ending of this panel, with Hatfield wondering if the emerging duopoly might "slip back" into just a single provider in many markets, should telco TV investments fail to pay off -- and Gifford noting that a "confluence of events" between Congress, the President and the FCC necessary to pull off meaningful reform is something that it "doesn't look like we'll have in the near future."

Host Weiser adjourned with a hopeful thought, that there will soon come a time when "Congress will say we need reform." His hope for the community? That it would involve thoughtful and diverse speculation, like that promoted Sunday morning. Kevin Martin, are you listening?

Posted by paul at 08:35 PM | Comments (0)

Silicon Flatirons -- Lunch

After leaving a great lunch where Sunday morning's telecom debates continued anew, I had to wonder: What did the various rastafarian-haired, Yoga-mommy customers at the Baseline Wild Oats market think of their cafe being taken over by a bunch of Bellhead/Netheads? Just what Boulder needs, a new kind of weird. Telecom geeks.

Thanks go to David Isenberg, who took it upon himself to invite everyone he saw with a badge to stroll over to Wild Oats for grocery-store selections and spectrum reform gabbing. I never knew that recycled-paper napkins and Odwalla bottles could substitute for cell-phone towers, but because they can I know a lot more about Nextel networks and interference woes than I did before lunch.

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

Silicon Flatirons -- Sunday PM

BOULDER, Colo. -- Call this the to-be-continued post. More tomorrow on the afternoon's video over IP panel, as well as Bob Kahn's keynote. I confess I did not take good notes during the DRM panel, so if anyone sees a recollection let me know and I will add the link here. Also: I did a short news story/interview with former FCC chairman Michael Powell, here's the link to the story on the Networking Pipeline site.

For extra credit, you can read up on Bob Kahn's Digital Object Architecture project, which I talked about briefly here. Kahn also made an interesting comment in an open Q&A, wondering why the U.S. goverment doesn't buy up the telco local loops and establish open Internet-service central offices -- again, more tomorrow on this idea. Also on Monday is Chairman Powell's scheduled keynote, as well as a keynote from Level 3's Jim Crowe.

Posted by paul at 08:00 PM | Comments (0)