ManyMedia

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

I keep seeing references (like the first paragraph of http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/13/atkinsonweiser.htm ) to the idea that proponents of network neutrality are in favor of regulation, and opponents are against regulation. This is nonsense. If opponents are against regulation, let’s see them advocate in favor of lifting the ban against municipalities that want to require open access, and repealing laws against municipalities that want to build wireless nets.

And what do you call the rules that prevent cities from setting the terms of cable franchises? I call them regulations, and anyone who doesn’t is a lying sack of fertilizer. It’s part of the same mendacious mentality that uses the word “express lanes” when they really mean “impair my packets so yours can go faster”. If they could, they’d favor a special-interest law of physics that lets them use faster-than-light technology for their packets–and only their packets.

If existing regulatory measures were not in place, neighborhood activists could lobby their city councils in favor of net neutrality. Citizens would throw out boards of supervisors and city councils that could be seen to be in the pocket of the hated Cable Guy. Any city politician who wanted to keep their job would insist that cable franchisees must treat packets fairly. The only reason cities don’t do that is that because of a lot of regulations, cities have lost their negotiating rights.

Bottom line, I’d be fine with “express lanes” for data, if the market was competitive and not a duopoly. Actually, if there was more competition, I doubt if any ISPs would even consider impairing my packets. But as long as we have in place shelves full of regulations that protect incumbents, I say “Maximum speed 186 thousand miles per second: It’s the law”.

Network, Policy cable, closed networks, incumbents, muni networks, network neutrality, open networks, regulations

People do not use the term “network neutrality” in a consistent fashion, so no ideal definition exists. Basically, some broadband ISPs want to set network-administration policies any way they like-including prioritizing and deprioritizing of different packets, and charging extra to assign higher priorities. Some ISPs have used the term “express lanes” to describe premium-priced virtual channels that prioritize packets according to the wishes of higher-paying customers. Different advocates for express lanes describe such customers differently-as Web site operators and/or as end-users. Many customers of ISPs want traffic routed in a more democratic manner, largely based on first-come, first-served policies.

I find that the quality of the debate is very poor, with both sides engaging in intellectually dishonest tactics. The ISPs are dishonest because so-called “express lanes” only come about by impairing the progress of non-express packets; no technology exists to put packets at “warp speed”. But advocates of network neutrality also fudge the truth when they insist on democratic network policies.

In fact, when accessing a higher-paying Web site such as Amazon, users typically do enjoy faster downloading than when accessing lower-paying sites such as those of small-press publishers. Moreover, ISPs impair P2P traffic to a reduced level, but one that many users find acceptable. Many network engineers believe that a relatively small number of P2P users account for a very large percentage of Internet traffic, and that if ISPs did not impair such traffic, a few users would interfere with serving the needs of the greater Internet population.

While the most vigorous debate occurs among Internet pundits and bloggers, the most influential debate occurs in Washington D.C., where service providers AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon team up to lobby in favor of the so-called express lanes, and large customers including Microsoft and Google team up to lobby in favor of laws that will mandate so-called network neutrality. I have little doubt that the fractious debate will be with us for some time; that compromises will be struck, allowing existing services to remain more or less status-quo, while introducing out-of-band services that provide “express lanes”; that ISPs will face challenges in getting customers to pay extra; and that over the course of many decades, many parties will struggle to control strategic pathways for data, just as armies seek control of rivers and nations seek control of markets.

---

Note for future: If there was more competition, not a duopoly, perhaps traffic would have to be neutral for competitive reasons. Thus, I would like to understand what the policy justification was for overturning open access. “Municipalities are not allowed to require open access because the court upheld the FCC regulation, and the FCC justifies its policy on the basis of YYY”.” How do they justify it? Technically, it flies in the face of the 7-layer model (penalizes use of advanced technology) and the “property rights” argument alone doesn’t hold water bec. municipalities have property rights, too. I would also like to understand what the obstacle is for new facilities-based ISPs. “Startups cannot enter the market because YYY”. (Is there still a legal/regulatory mandate for exclusivity, aka monopoly for video franchises and universal-service telcos? Where does the truth lie between “too costly” and “would simply violate regulations”? Is it “too costly to comply with regulations”? What exactly would it take to start “Newco Residential Fiber Services”?)

Network, Policy Bell Telephone Co, cable, closed networks, FCC, Internet, network neutrality, open networks

There are those who believe the Internet offers unprecedented opportunity to inform people, develop our global culture(s), connect devices, and more.

There are those who believe the Internet offers a new money-making opportunity, a way to limit the development of any possible competition, and an ideal cat-bird seat as privileged economic middleman in a service quickly becoming a necessity in modern life.

The fortunate truth is that the Internet is still a primordial lake. The enzymes are all there: a network, interested people, compelling things to do and places to go, and imaginative devices that can be used in a wide variety of settings and for a wide variety of purposes, to fullfil our desires and needs. However, life is not certain: many of the powers that “control” the Internet have visions of a dead sea.

Our friends have often pointed out that there are ways for us to route around the rocks of DRM, censorship, and other obstacles–as if these were no more significant than a broken router. Still, there’s reason to complain when entering a bright cove, confronted with a seemingly unavoidable pre-roll video advertisement that’s the price of watching a great piece of footage (like this one, if you can get past the snakes).

Biologists tell us that the eye emerged many times in separate lines of evolution, and they use the word convergence or parallel evolution to describe that kind of emergence. Maybe like the eye, the “routing around” phenomenon will repeat itself in history over and over. It’s in the DNA of packets. In fact, it’s in the DNA of DRM: By definition, DRM systems give you everything you need to decode something you purchased. (When in doubt, just download a copy of Audacity and let it rip. This should not be construed as encouraging infringement. Instead, you might want to lean how to make mashups.)

Still, without a pipe, there’s no packet. If the octopus controls all the pipes, what then? Are there new pipes that have the “routing around” DNA? Are there enzymes in the primordial soup that have the power to break down the walls of the octopus’s garden?

Yes. There. Are. Unlicensed spectrum. Mesh networks. Ultrawideband communications. Detect-and-avoid. 802.22. We could go on. But not yet. Stay tuned.

Network choice, closed networks, Internet, network neutrality, open networks

From http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?site=lightreading&doc_id=65310

Wi-fi IP phones coming to a broadband connection near you:

Vonage Holdings Corp., an upstart company known for pushing the boundaries of IP-based communications, announced today at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas that it has partnered with UTStarcom Inc. (Nasdaq: UTSI – message board) to produce a portable WiFi handset that allows users to access Vonage’s VOIP network from multiple locations. Known as the F-1000, the unit will allow users to “roam from home” and access their Vonage service through 802.11b hotspots (see Vonage Unveils New VOIP Tech ).

Michael Tribolet, executive VP of operations at Vonage, says that the new handset, set for release later this year, will give Vonage users the freedom to access their service while on the go. “This is a great application for travelers, especially international travelers where there tend to be more WiFi hot spots, because it will allow them to stay in contact with communications the way they expect them to be,” Tribolet says.

Tribolet says that there were some technical hurdles that had to be overcome before the company could introduce a WiFi option to its subscribers. “The predominant issue has to do with battery life,” he says. “It’s different than a traditional cell phone which can go into sleep mode. A WiFi handset must always stay awake and be able to search for hotspots. The F-1000 has a battery life of about 100 hours, similar to a standard cordless phone.”

Another issue had to do with reliability and quality. “We’ve wanted to introduce a WiFi product for some time, but the products that were out there didn’t have good enough quality for the consumer market,” Tribolet says. “We finally found a product that gives us the quality and reliability that consumers expect.”

The wireless handset will connect to an existing wireless network out of the box and allow users to begin making calls over their broadband Internet connection right away, using their existing Vonage account. As a user travels to another location (like a Starbucks or their office), the handset will automatically scan for available authorized WiFi networks and connect to them, allowing users to make calls.

Devices open networks

The FCC’s press release (PDF) says,

the Commission intends to commence an auction for Advanced Wireless Services licenses in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands as early as June 2006. …

To which Brett Glass replied,

Unfortunately, if this auction follows the pattern of previous ones, the sizes of the regions auctioned — and the speculative prices which large existing carriers will be willing to pay to preclude competition — will prevent small, new, or innovative operators from having a shot at buying this spectrum. You’ll see the big names — Verizon, Cingular, Nextel — but not smaller local operators, in keeping with the FCC’s chumminess with large corporations.

Robert Berger also replied,

Selling spectrum for exclusive, permanent ownership to a private or corporate entity should be grounds for racketeering charges against the agency pretending its theirs to sell and the congresspeople who passed laws allowing for this if they received bribes (so called campaign contributions) from the industry that is getting these public commons at a fixed price, non lease based price.

It is a sad day “For all of us who believe in the future of wireless broadband”. All this does is gum up the spectrum more and reward oligopolies who try to control the last mile so they can foist their walled gardens on the citizens who truly own the spectrum and have no real input to this corporate giveaway.

Scenarios closed networks, open networks

Slashdot points to an article in today’s Investor’s Business Daily (Google cache) that says, in part:

Personal computers using Microsoft’s (MSFT) Windows XP Media Center Edition operating system remain a high-priced, low-volume niche product two years after entering the market.

Meanwhile, cable and satellite firms are aggressively deploying new set-top boxes with personal video recorders. The ability to make a PC serve as a PVR is widely considered to be the killer application of media center PCs.

… Market researcher International Data Corporation expects about 600,000 Windows media center PCs will have shipped in 2004, up from 300,000 in 2003. But 3.5 million PCs will be sold with TV tuner cards this year, meaning that there are a lot of vendors selling generic media center PCs.

The Slashdot post also links to a few of the alternatives to Microsoft’s Windows Media center.

Scenarios open networks

SCO’s case against IBM eroding

Scenarios open networks

Clearwire to deliver WiMax to 20 US cities in 2005; already offering service in Jacksonville Fl, St. Cloud MN, and elsewhere at less than $40/month for 1.5 Mbit/s downstream

Scenarios open networks

WildBlue to deliver 2-way satellite-based Internet to rural US: less than $50/month for 1.5 Mbit/s down, 256 kbit/s up; no phone lines

Scenarios open networks