ManyMedia

I am very proud to read at broadband.gov that my friend

Dr. David S. Isenberg has joined the broadband team as an Expert Advisor, and will be working on how physical infrastructure choices facilitate or impede policy options.  David is best known to the telecom policy world as the author of the 1997 essay, The Rise of the Stupid Network.  When Dale Hatfield was Chief of the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology, he called The Rise of the Stupid Network “one of three works that changed my perception of the telecommunications industry.”

I have been warned to “lower my expectations,” as the wheels of government do not move at top speed or toward full enlightenment. That said, I remain optimistic!

Life, Policy, Scenarios FCC, infrastructure, isen.com, Policy, stupid network

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 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

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

Chris Anderson of Wired has a new book (Free: The Future of a Radical Price) and interesting article, Tech Is Too Cheap to Meter: It’s Time to Manage for Abundance, Not Scarcity. Anderson points out that the price of computer processing, bandwidth, and hard-drive storage have dropped, and continue downward, such that the effective cost of providing those services are near zero. (Indeed, the billing components are more costly than the actual services.)

When your phone company tells you that your voicemail inbox is full, that’s artificial scarcity—it costs less than a nickel to store 100 voice messages, and the average iPod could store more than 100,000 of them (voice messages are recorded at lower quality than music, so they take up less space). By forcing subscribers to spend time deleting voicemails, the phone companies were saving a little on storage costs by spending a lot of consumer time. They managed the scarcity they could measure (storage) but neglected to manage a much more critical scarcity (customer goodwill). No wonder phone companies are second only to cable TV companies in “most hated” rankings.

What does this mean? Tech is really about opportunity and access, not the pipe we are limited to use. Our current national debate about broadband is about the screwdriver, not what that tool will allow us to create. That’s a significant difference. This is a debate about existing telecom and cable providers managing scarcity, as opposed to giving us access to manage our own abundance.

Life, Network, Policy abundance, broadband, Internet, Policy, scarcity, SOHO nets

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

The New America Foundation kindly recorded a meeting in which a coalition of diverse interests and groups gave a call to action. It’s nearly an hour and a half long, and worth the time to listen and learn.

UPDATE: The US Broadband Coalition’s Jim Baller follows up with a 30 minute piece from C-SPAN, entitled The Communicators: Broadband Lobbying Efforts that informs about upcoming steps to accomplish the broadband strategy.

Network, Policy Anne Veigel, broadband, C-SPAN, choice, Communicators, control, Internet, James Baller, Policy, strategy, telecom, US Broadband Coalition

My colleagues said it so well before the words came to me. On the matter of technology policy statements from the presidential candidates, telecom prosultant™ David Isenberg said this about John McCain’s technology policy statement:

I was hoping that McCain’s Tech Policy would emphasize and extend the two McCain pro-Internet initiatives — the McCain Lautenberg Community Broadband Act and Spectrum Re-regulation, neither of which have yet seen the light of day — but it doesn’t. In the first case, it makes a vague nod in the direction of “market failure and other obstacles.” In the second, it treats spectrum policy as a done deal; now that we can surf the Web in coffee shops, we’re done.

David Weinberger’s take is more to-the-point:

Much of the McCain policy is the expected stuff about public-private partnerships, educating the workforce, and providing incentives to reach under-served populations, etc. But he shows his hand on three issues:

1. He’s flat against Net neutrality.
2. He wants to see copyright extended and enforced more vigorously.
3. He thinks the current infrastructure only needs a couple of tweaks.

In sum, our Internet policy should be the same as our energy policy: Hand a key resource off to big corporations whose interests are fundamentally out of alignment with ours as citizens.

Hmm. Not a surprise and not what I hope for. Reminds me of the early days of television: so much hope for the betterment of society and the world, but delivered to the strict commercial interests of several large corporate interests. Development of the dream and betterment of society? Not so much.

Compare McCain’s policies with Ars Technica’s thoughtful summary from last November of Obama’s policy statement:

The document begins with a set of policy goals that pretty well sum up the major areas that the proposals address:

• Ensure the full and free exchange of information among Americans through an open Internet and diverse media outlets.
• Create a transparent and connected democracy.
• Encourage the deployment of a modern communications infrastructure.
• Employ technology and innovation to solve our nation’s most pressing problems, including reducing the costs of health care, encouraging the development of new clean energy sources, and improving public safety.
• Improve America’s competitiveness.

This is closer to what I had in mind for my future.

Having said that, I realize (and everyone has touched on the limitations of each policy document) that it’s going to be very hard to bridge a gap between where we are now and where we should be in a more connected world.

Now I’ll be watching this race to see what kind of future we’ll really have.

Content, Network, Policy, Scenarios control, election, Internet, ownership, Policy, president, technology, telecom

Skype asked the FCC for…something recently. Skype’s not a public company and their Website doesn’t have details. The FCC search engine’s had user-interface-dystrophy for more than 10 years and is no help.

Ars Technica has as good a summary as any. The FCC’s 1968 Carterfone decision. The Carterphone decision allowed us to attach devices of our choosing to the public switched telephone network, as long as such devices cause no damage. Skype wants the same principle applied to 3G wireless.

Much will be said, pro and con. Be prepared to hear how the Carterfone decision refers to “devices” and not to software. And that the PSTN of 1968, which was a regulated monopoly, is not like 3G, which relies on auctioned spectrum. I wager we will hear accusations that what Skype is proposing is an anti-capitalist insult to private property–that auctioned spectrum.

If the Skype side is smart, they’ll point out how the Carterfone decision was good, not bad for the economy, and they’ll try to quantify how much GDP we added by allowing competition to accelerate the adoption of cordless phones and answering machines. Maybe Skype will follow up by pointing out what would have happened if the meter was still running (think AOL, circa 1996) on Internet use. Think of the good it would do our economy if we hadn’t given cellular-spectrum licensees a choke-hold on the bandwidth.

But we did. I don’t know if it’s too late or not. Maybe we’d have to buy back the spectrum. I don’t actually think so. My opinion is we just have to make smarter decisions about the bandwidth that’s coming up for sale, and that will create competition that forces the cellular licensees to open up. But that’s a subject of another post.

My point, and I do have one, is that Skype is pulling a Steve Jobs here.

Remember a few weeks ago, when Steve told the RIAA it should stop insisting on DRM? Good PR move. Of course, anyone who was paying attention, policy-wise, immediately noted Jobs’ hypocrisy. Jobs was fresh from releasing an iPhone that has no SDK for independent developers, hiding this self-interested decision behind a lame excuse [link].

“These [iPhones] are devices that need to work, and you can’t do that if you load any software on them…it has to be more of a controlled environment”.

Is Skype even any different? Unless you’re an asterisk hacker Skype doesn’t make it easy for users to make calls to Free World Dialup or Gizmo software–what TMCnet called the “great wall of VoIP”. It’s not really rocket science. Anybody really use that SIP-to-Skype gateway, though? For the highly technically able only, I suspect.

Bottom line, what goes around comes around. And what goes around is narrow self-interest. And if that’s all that ever goes around, that’s all that’s ever going to come around. Skype–and Jobs–might be right on the ideal. Bring it down to earth, and the policies they propose are no less selfish and petty than those they criticize.

Content, Network, Policy closed content, closed networks, FCC, Policy