ManyMedia

I had not planned to go out of town last November. However, an emergency arose and I left right before Thanksgiving for two months. On my way out the door, the property manager at my home promised to drop my mail into a pre-paid Priority Mail envelope every 10-15 days for me. I sent an Overnight Express Mail envelope to her on Nov. 28. It arrived three (3) days later, on Dec. 1.

The first Priority Mail envelope was dropped into the local post box on Dec. 12. Priority Mail envelopes and packages, the post office advises, will reach their destination in 2-3 days. It arrived on Jan. 2, 2010, some 3 weeks later. The second Priority Mail envelope was dropped into a post office box on Dec. 20 with mail from unknown sources. It never arrived. It was never returned. It’s now over three months later.

I was informed by a postal employee that mail that “goes astray” gets sent to a central processing facility where it’s opened, inspected for checks that are photocopied, then destroyed. How mail goes astray is a mystery since it was stamped and addressed to me, at the same time/manner as the other envelopes (yes, double checked), and it’s the post office’s duty to deliver mail (pdf) to the person addressed. I have no idea what was in that Priority Mail envelope, nor will I ever know. So much for priority!

More recently I received the final word on the Post Office’s handling of a different Priority Mail box. This box contained some cloth on the bottom, a cast iron pot surrounded by paperback books and a couple of t-shirts. The top was secured with rubber pads (as was originally shipped to the store), then more clothes on top. Padded and secure. Here’s what happened in transit:

I went to the local post office to ask how to file a claim. They told me the only way to file a claim is as if the box were insured. It happened that I did not insure the box–who would reasonably guess that a cast iron pot, packed well, would be destroyed in transit? I didn’t. So they advised me to file the claim as if it were insured, and they would note that no insurance was purchased.

The claim was denied locally.

I forwarded my claim, as instructed by post office managers (two of them) to the regional customer service center in St. Louis MO. There agent Autria Finley returned my claim for lack of insurance information (despite the fact that it was clearly marked “no insurance purchased”). In fact she returned my claim, ignoring my letter of explanation and all previously requested documentation, twice. This was a pretty hefty stack of paper being sent back and forth. It was clear that Ms. Finley had no interest in resolving this claim other than to return it to me.

My final plea was to the Consumer Advocate in Washington DC. I don’t feel like there was an advocate in this office any more than elsewhere in the postal system. I have no idea why they even call it an “advocacy” office, since clearly there is no “consumer” interest involved or heard. Here’s what the Post Office said when I asked them to reimburse me for the cost of the pot (only):

You should have known better. (pdf)

There are common reasons why so many people dislike the post office. A few individual agents were kind, helpful, and understanding, but their voice does not mean much in an organization so large and problematic. Many agents are often rude, and there are a lot more of them. I wish problems like this happened to the Post Office high management more often. I also wish courts knew that this problem was common enough to warrant a special clearing house for the “millions of pieces of mail that go astray each day.” Instead I count myself as one who is willing to help develop replacement technologies that will eventually put the post office out of business.

Life, Network distruction, governement taking, lost mail, postal

I blogged a bunch of sessions for the Pacific Telecom Council‘s PTC ’10 conference. This year’s theme was Embracing the Cloud: Enabling Connectivity and Innovation, which was both timely and informative. Here’s a list of my posts:

Sunday

• Sunday Morning: Satellite Workshop
• Sunday Morning: Submarine Cable Workshop
• Sunday Morning: Green ICT and Rural Connectivity
• Sunday Morning: Reaching the Unserved-Underserved
• Sunday Afternoon: Emergency Communications

Monday

• Monday Keynote (China Unicom)
• Monday Conversation (VON and Rogers)
• Monday Keynote with Vab Goel
• Monday Discussion: Applications in the Cloud
• Monday Keynote: Japan MIC
• Monday Keynote: Robert Pepper
• Monday Breakout: Investment and Finance

Tuesday

• Tuesday Discussion: Policy and Business Development
• Tuesday Plenary: Internet Communications
• Tuesday Plenary: The Content Providers Speak
• Tuesday Discussion: Lightening in the Cloud
• Tuesday Conversation: Clouds and Carriers
• Tuesday: Life of Submarine Cables
• Tuesday Plenary: Scott Forbes
• Tuesday Point, Counterpoint

Wednesday

• Wednesday Conversation: Consumer Centric Communications
• Wednesday Discussion: Voice 2.0 (Gary Kim, the moderator, also posted this on his blog!)

It was a great conference with a few too many interesting sessions for me to cover. Thankfully you can catch some of the main sessions and interviews at PTC TV.

Network, Policy, Scenarios ptc, PTC10

Defining the term “broadband” is hard enough, given the various competing interests working to have the FCC see things their way. But defining the term by identifying exclusionary uses is, well, AT&T. Ars Technica was on top of this filing, and wrote up their concerns in AT&T to FCC: gaming is not “broadband,” but an added service. Specifically, AT&T is instructing the FCC to disallow certain uses of your Internet access, specifically online gaming, as part of the defining what “broadband” is.

They WHAT? That’s right, their testimony advises the FCC that AT&T knows best what we should do with our Internet access.

In testimony submitted to the FCC, AT&T advises that they (by way of the government) need to define what we can (and shouldn’t) do with our Internet access:

Specifically, the Commission must first define the discrete set of applications and online capabilities that must be made available to all Americans to achieve the Recovery Act’s goals.  As discussed below, for residential customers those services should include basic web-browsing capability, email, and online services ….  Thus, the task at hand really is not about “defining broadband” in the abstract.

The testimony continues (with my emphasis):

There are a host of aspirational broadband services that are beginning to emerge in this country, as well as myriad sophisticated applications involving streaming video, real-time voice, and the like.  All are no doubt “broadband” services.  But for Americans who today have no terrestrial broadband service at all, the pressing concern is not the ability to engage in real-time, two-way gaming, but obtaining meaningful access to the Internet’s resources and to reliable email communications and other basic tools that most of the country has come to expect as a given.

So AT&T wants to be free to deliver itty-bitty “broadband” to the rural folks.  AT&T is redefining “access” to meet a more traditional incumbent monetizing strategy: set sites low by defining a bare minimum, then find “aspirational” uses that they can bill extra for. The Ars article is worth a read. However, lessons can be learned from gamers that benefit corporate boardrooms as well. John Hagel and John Seely Brown wrote an article in last January’s BusinessWeek: How World of Warcraft Promotes Innovation. The article describes how various elements of online gaming can benefit the business mindset.

Companies seeking to thrive in a world of increasing uncertainty and accelerating change will need to foster this disposition among their own executive team and employees. They would be well advised to take a closer look at World of Warcraft, both in terms of the approach taken to foster this disposition and as a potential recruiting ground for employees who can bring this attitude and approach into the company.

AT&T isn’t looking broadly at providing access to the Internet. This is an example of Not Neutrality. AT&T has a plan, and your dreams may not be part of it.

Content, Life, Network, Policy access, ATT, broadband, definitions, FCC, Internet, Net Neutrality, online gaming, Policy

The National Broadband Plan hasn’t been completed as a draft or even bullet points, but the ax is already coming down. The Plan is likely to disappoint us, says Business Week in their article National Broadband Plan: Why Consumers May Be Let Down:

Defining broadband is an important effort (so is mapping out where broadband is), but consumers are likely to be disappointed by the National Broadband Plan, because the divide between what the American people want and how the government works means a lot of consumers’ desires will fall into the chasm between.

There’s no “likely” about it. American citizens who are hoping for better access to the Internet–or any access at all–will most certainly be disappointed to find out that nothing will change except for the increasing cost. I’m not surprised, but wish it wasn’t costing taxpayers so much.

Telecom lobbyists are paying less and getting more for their campaign contributions these days. I don’t see a reason to believe that things will change, given the current perspective and dialog. More importantly in this article, the notion of “broadband” (the means of getting access to the Internet) is being framed as the end game. Broadband is not the end game.

Make no mistake: Broadband is NOT the same as the Internet. Broadband is a poorly defined speed, a pipe, the means by which we access the Internet. It’s a marketing term used by the telephone and cable companies to describe their paltry offerings, which have resulted in the United States being ranked 17th in the world (and falling). A significant problem with using “broadband” as our national goal is that the FCC has not defined or measured it, or assessed its distribution (PDF). Of course the telephone and cable companies know, but they aren’t telling. And they’re effectively in charge for now.

If I could pull the plug on this well-financed debacle, I would in a heartbeat. Instead of focusing on the means (the pipe used to get there), let’s focus on the real goal: access to the Internet.

I propose that instead of pursuing this losing battle, we start talking about a Global Internet Plan for America. Why?

• We’re really trying to get access to the global Internet resources: everything that is available now and being created in the future. We want access to the global Internet. The Internet offers advanced information services and benefits to everyone, in many languages and many forms.
• The United States of America has unique political and technological resources, so this Plan is uniquely designed for Americans. Americans care about each other. We want our nation recover to economically. We want the best for our kids. We want all benefits to be widely available, in rural as well as urban settings. We don’t want our families, friends, or ourselves to be denied or limited access to the benefits of the Internet for any reason.

How do we get there? The current “debate” needs to be reframed to show priority for citizen-customer concerns and experiences. As the debate is framed now, it allows incumbent service providers to divide and conquer the conversation, the possibilities for change, and our future. Here are a few new ways to talk about this global Internet plan for America.

Decoupling access from delivery: The global Internet represents significant economic development benefits in the form of more competitive choices, lower prices, and faster performance. However, our service providers are increasingly serving as gatekeepers, choosing what information and how (devices, speed, etc.) we can or can not access it. Americans will realize the greatest benefit only if we decouple the Internet goods and services from the delivery pipe (broadband). This is called structural separation. For the greatest amount of benefit, we should be allowed to choose for ourselves what information to access, on our schedules and according to our needs, using our choice of hardware devices and software.

Monopoly rents as private taxation: Since the telephone and cable companies are the only game in town (where there is Internet access), they have considerable persuasive abilities when it comes to raising rates.  Citing Kushnick’s Law: “A regulated company will always renege on promises to provide public benefits tomorrow in exchange for regulatory and financial benefits today.” For instance, we’ve already paid $300 billion dollars in approved phone rate increases for telephone company promises that have never been fulfilled. One way of looking at this is as a private tax that takes in ever-increasing amount of our income. How often have you heard of local Public Utilities Commissions denying rate hikes? That doesn’t happen very often!

Coverage is not competition: Broadband service over telephone lines (DSL) has physical distance limitations, so is not available to all homes or businesses. Broadband over cable lines (cable modem service) passes a majority of homes in the nation, and is sometimes the only choice for access. In these areas, the price of access is high. What this means is that there are parts of the nation which either do not have access to the Internet at all, or have effectively one choice for providers. A Brookings Working Paper from 2002, The United States Broadband Problem: Analysis and Policy Recommendations (PDF), states the problem accurately:

Thus the effect of current industry structure is to generate a stable duopoly in residential Internet services, with continued monopoly control in most other markets – by the ILECs in voice and business data services, and by the CATV industry in residential video. Neither industry would logically be interested in provoking highly dynamic competition in open-architecture, high speed, and/or symmetric broadband services to either businesses or homes. Hence the slow pace of improvement in broadband services is not surprising. Unfortunately, however, it damages the economic growth, social welfare, and national security of the United States, and indeed of the world.

This means that any claims of nationwide coverage are suspect. As mentioned above, actual coverage and subscriber/customer data is not shared with the government, so the FCC doesn’t know how bad this problem is. However, there is no reason that access to the benefits of the Internet should be denied to any of our nation’s citizens. Keeping the data secret does not serve in the nation’s best interest. I want an Internet plan that works for all Americans.

There are more issues that can be properly described: problems inherent in the current state of the industry, and solutions that support ubiquitous access to the global Internet by all Americans. This is a plan I want to see come to life. This is the plan that will bring benefits to the entire nation. I am not alone in calling for this plan.

I welcome your additions in the comments below. Thanks go to George Lakoff for perspective on reframing this issue.

Content, Devices, Network, Policy choice, incumbents, Internet, self-determination, service providers

The Blandin on Broadband blog has an informative post by Gary Fields called The 4 D’s of Incumbent Telco Public Policy. Gary writes,

Just recently I had the opportunity to participate in the State of Minnesota Ultra High Speed Broadband Task Force, a public policy effort similar to my earlier efforts, but with more official State authority and legislation behind it. I was shocked to see the same strategies and tactics utilized by the provider representatives. At the same time, I have observed actions conducted by the FCC and recognize the same influences. To help others engaged in these important public policy discussions I decided to prepare a summary of the tactics deployed by providers to help facilitate a more constructive effort. With perseverance and diligence we may yet reclaim our global leadership role in telecommunications service and reap the economic benefits that position will bring.

I laughed when I read this post because while the four “D” words are so common in telecommunications (aka telco, telecom) policy, they also work on so many levels for so many people! For example, in a Dilbert world you’d see the four “D” tactics being used to help ineffective people protect their jobs. That said, there are a few more “D” words that are useful in these conversations.

The real lesson here is that if you see anyone engaged in tactics centered around these four “D” words, recognize and understand that these are diversion tactics. Their intent to distract does not diminish your priorities. You may need to respond by being more direct with your questions and needs. This is especially true for telecom policy these days.

Network, Policy broadband, choice, closed content, closed networks, control, debate, distractions, Policy, telecom

This video is Gigi Sohn with Public Knowledge talking about why the FCC is looking into what’s going on between Apple and AT&T. The Consumerist published the FCC letters to Apple and AT&T. Entrepreneur and telecom pundit Bob Frankston added an interesting comment to a (barely formatted) mailing list about why the historic Hush-a-Phone decision is applicable.

On a related note, Jason Calcanis wrote a widely circulated piece, The Case Against Apple-In Five Parts. It seems that Apple is the new Microsoft, and AT&T is, well, the same old AT&T as it was before. The more things change, the more they stay the same. I hope this matter is interesting to watch.

Devices, Network, Policy Apple, applications, ATT, FCC, hush-a-phone, Policy, tying

Reps. Edward J. Markey (D-MA) and Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) introduced a bill (full text, PDF) on July 31, 2009 to establish a clear national broadband policy that ensures an open and consumer oriented Internet. In a press release from Rep. Markey, he stated, “This bill will protect consumers and content providers because it will restore the guarantee that one does not have to ask permission to innovate.” Rep. Eshoo added that “The Internet has thrived and revolutionized business and the economy precisely because it started as an open technology.” About their bill, H.R. 3458:

H.R. 3458, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, is designed to assess and promote Internet freedom for consumers and content providers.  The bill states that it is the policy of the United States to protect the right of consumers to access lawful content, run lawful applications, and use lawful services of their choice on the Internet while preserving and promoting the open and interconnected nature of broadband networks, enabling consumers to connect to such networks their choice of lawful devices, as long as such devices do not harm the network.  The legislation also directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to promulgate several rules relating to enforcement and implementation of the legislation, including rules to ensure that providers of Internet access service fulfill the duties and disclose meaningful information to consumers about a provider’s Internet access service in clear, uniform, and conspicuous manner.  H.R. 3458 makes clear that it does not prohibit an Internet access provider from engaging in reasonable network management consistent with the policies and duties of nondiscrimination and openness set forth in the bill, nor does the legislation affect any law or regulation addressing prohibited or unlawful activity, including any laws or regulations prohibiting theft of content.

Yes, there are controversies lately that prompt this legislative action. The controversies include the recent rift between Apple/AT&T and Google Voice, inquiry into exclusive arrangements between wireless carriers and cell phone manufacturers, and what Doc Searls so appropriately calls The Dawn of the Living Infrastructure. It’s time to focus on this issue (again). Citing Doc:

Let’s face it. Mike Arrington’s problem with the iPhone, Om Malik’s problem with AT&T, the FCC’s problem with Apple + AT&T together, my own problems with Cox, Dish Network and Sprint, David Pogue’s problem with the whole freaking cell phone industry … all of these are a great big WAAAH! in the wilderness of industrial oblivity to what customers want. We’re in the graveyard of what Umair Haque calls the zombieconomy. We’re living in Night of the Living Dead and complaining that the zombies want to eat us alive.

What they really want is to strap us down while they bleed us for small change—tiny amounts of ARPU. They do this, for example, by forcing us to sit through “The … number … you … have … dialed … eight … zero … five … seven …” until a small ka-ching happens somewhere deep in their billing system, so you get bled whether or not you’ve left (or received) a message. David Pogue:

Is 15 seconds here and there that big a deal? Well, Verizon has 70 million customers. If each customer leaves one message and checks voicemail once a day, Verizon rakes in — are you sitting down? — $850 million a year. That’s right: $850 million, just from making us sit through those 15-second airtime-eating instructions.

This is death by a thousand paper cuts. More importantly, it’s a tax on innovation and the ability to connect and be creative. Let’s put a stop to it.

Devices, Network, Policy antitrust, cell phone carriers, mobile tech, network neutrality, open networks, zombieconomy

The blog called municipal networks & community broadband has an interesting article, How NTIA Dismantled the Public Interest Provisions of the Broadband Stimulus Package, on how the NTIA has gamed the stimulus rules in favor of incumbent interests.

Making private companies and public, non-profit entities equal in their ability to apply for stimulus funds actually privileges existing large telecommunications firms because they have the resources to push their way to the front of the line – especially with all the paperwork required of applicants.

The declaration that existing telecommunications companies are in the public interest is only one of the ways the NTIA has structured the BTOP to favor existing private providers.

Another is the speed definition NTIA has chosen in its broadband definition. NTIA chose minimum “broadband” speeds reminiscent of those from more than a decade ago rather than the modern speeds common across the networks of our international peers. The minimum download speed of 768kbps and upload of 200kbps is pitiful. Moreover, adding insult to injury, the anemic baseline speed is based on advertised rates rather than actual rates, perversely encouraging network owners to overstate their capabilities.

It’s sad but not a surprise, given the amount of lobbying money that the telephone incumbents put into Congress. While the NTIA’s interpretations are likely to ensure that some of us continue to have “broadband,” few of us in the United States will have meaningful access to the Internet. This is the difference between the means and the ends.

Network, Policy broadband, Internet, NTIA, stimulus funds

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of the Department of Agriculture released their initial 121 page “Notice of Funds Availability” (NOFA), the “stimulus program” for “broadband” projects. (I note with some consternation that the NOFA is specifying a tool (broadband) rather than the end goal of providing access to the Internet.) One of the major challenges in this NOFA is that it is designed to promote projects in unserved areas. The reason this is a challenge is that obtaining numbers for communities that are served, under-served, or unserved are difficult to come by, and even harder to prove.

Geoff Daily of AppRising has an intriguing idea. In his article Why Not Force Incumbents To Show Which Areas Are Served? Daily points out that the definitions underlying rural Internet access subsidies are rather problematic because they effectively limit funds to only the most rural areas (by excluding marginalized urban areas), and allow the incumbent telephone interests to refute claims of service by the upstarts. To address this problem:

I’d like to propose an alternative solution: why not force incumbents to show which areas are already served by threatening to consider all areas unserved that they don’t produce verifiable data for showing that they offer service there?

By doing this we’ll save applicants from wasting a lot of time and money collecting data that already exists, plus we’ll also enable them to know if the area they’re putting together a project for qualifies for subsidies before submitting their application. Additionally we’ll be able to take this data and use it to inform the broadband maps we’re charged with creating.

On the carrier side, we give them a clear reason for why they should give up their data on the availability of their services so as to insure we’re not subsidizing duplicative investment. And at the same time we can remove any appearance of prioritizing the protection of private service provider interests over making real progress in the deployment of broadband.

Hey, the incumbents have the real numbers. Why not make good use of them?

Network, Policy, Uncategorized access, incumbents, Internet, SOHO Nets, stimulus, underserved, unserved

Perhaps it should be no surprise that when it comes to real access to the Internet, the government is swayed by promises of “broadband” and claims of existing “competition.” Federal stimulus funds are hard enough for some service providers to come by. Now we learn that municipalities wishing to provide Internet access to their citizens are targeted for exclusion. Telephony Online’s article Broadband stimulus details separating likely winners, losers, states:

One group of broadband stimulus hopefuls that has been in large part swept out of the running by the specifics of the plan is individual municipalities of any size. Though the stimulus plan stoked broad interest from municipalities earlier this year, many of them have been frustrated by the program’s preference for “underserved areas,” which the government has defined as areas where where at least half of all households lack broadband, where fewer than 40% of households subscribe to broadband, or where no service provider advertises broadband transmission speeds of at least 3 Mb/s.

Those rules sent the city of Northfield, Minnesota, for example, which had hoped to secure stimulus funds, back to the drawing board in its efforts to finance its plans. Melissa Reeder, Northfield’s information technology director, told the local press, “Honestly, I don’t think there’s a single Minnesota city that would qualify.”

This policy decision is short-sighted and will not deliver on the promises of Federal stimulus funds. Now you can expect to pay twice (once in the form of taxes to pay for the stimulus funds and once for your ISP bills) for more of the same.

Network, Policy access, broadband, Internet, muni nets, municiple networks, Policy, stimulus, stimulus funds