ManyMedia

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 FCC recently posted a Notice of Inquiry, FCC-09-51. The purpose of this NOI is stated in the Introduction, which begins:

This Notice of Inquiry seeks comment to inform the development of a national broadband plan for our country. Its focus is to enable the build-out and utilization of high-speed broadband infrastructure. But “infrastructure” barely hints at the importance of what we are undertaking. High-speed ubiquitous broadband can help to restore America’s economic well-being and open the doors of opportunity for more Americans, no matter who they are, where they live, or the particular circumstances of their lives. It is technology that intersects with just about every great challenge facing our nation.

I signed and support this Comment in response to the NOI. The comment points out that (1) the term “broadband” is not the same as the Internet, (2) broadband’s true value is that it gives access to the Internet, and therefore (3) when designing a National broadband policy, we should make sure that it supports the value of the Internet.

Network, Policy broadband, Comment, definitions, infrastructure, Internet, national broadband plan, Net Neutrality, Network, NOI, Policy

What happens when the infrastructure of the net becomes oligopoly-controlled? Services become limited, prices go up. I’m hardly the first to point this out.

Larry Lessig wrote in his book The Future of Ideas about the possibility that given a few subtle changes to the Internet’s infrastructure it would be relatively easy for the cable companies or another small handful of telcos or other large businesses to take control of the Net, turning it into the kind of closed systems TV or the old telephone networks used to be. This dire prediction may be upon us.

Comcast has been progressively turning on functions to block VPN traffic for the last four or five months. If you fight through the Comcast site to find the terms of service you discover that’s only the beginning. Under their rules prohibiting you from using your Internet connection for ‘any business purpose’ you are arguably in violation if you so much as buy a book from Amazon.com.

Network blocking, business, cable, closed network, Comcast, DSL, infrastructure, Net Neutrality, Network, oligopoly, prohibitions, telecom, VPN

NY Times Market Watch has an article entitled Is Verizon Flying Too High Above Its Valuation? which describes something happening to all the Baby Bells to various extents:

With its alluring 4 percent dividend and aura of stability, Verizon Communications has been a stock market star in recent months. Shares in this telecommunications giant, formed two and a half years ago when GTE merged with Bell Atlantic, have jumped 40 percent since the end of September. The stock closed on Friday at $38.50.

To which Susan Kalla, an analyst at Friedman Billings Ramsey in New York, says pshaw. Ms. Kalla, perhaps the sharpest person covering telecommunications at a brokerage firm today, says Verizon is, at best, a $28 stock. It is showing no revenue growth, almost no profit growth; in short, its business is eroding, she said.

I did a paper on this last May (The Future of the Bells). The nature of telephony is changing in important ways, and yet the FCC seems momentarily poised to reaffirm the monopoly granted to the Bells some time ago. Does anyone think there’s any kind of collusion going on that the boundaries between each Bell’s territory is never crossed by each other?

Network closed networks, controlling network, Internet, Net Neutrality, open networks, ownership, Policy, telecom

The future is uncertain. A useful tool for looking into the uncertainty is a set of scenarios. Good scenarios explore the extremes of what is likely or possible (but they don’t forecast the future). This blog project uses four scenarios to explore the future of the Internet and communication as we have come to know it.

To start, I define two significant market and political forces that affect the Internet and shape my four scenarios: intellectual property laws and common carrier laws. Tying intellectual property laws to availability of content, and common carrier laws to the proprietary nature and uses of the network, these forces become axes that define four possible worlds:

• Many Walled Gardens: highly competitive, open content but a proprietary and restrictive network,
• Just Route the Bits: open and available content on an open and accessible networks,
• You Will: monopolistic, restricted content on proprietary, restrictive network, and
• The 10,000 Mickeys: monopolistic, restricted content on open and accessible networks.

These four scenarios help me understand where development of our telecommunications future is headed. I made blog for each axis (content and networks) so I can add news about forces that affect these scenarios. I also invite you to participate in the discussion on my related wiki.

Scenarios Boundary Spanning, choice, closed networks, controlling content, controlling network, Internet, Net Neutrality, open networks, ownership, Policy, relationships, Scenarios, telecom