Posted 10/28/09 at 04:18:34 PM by Bart Salisbury

Read More

Posted 10/26/09 at 03:31:50 PM by Bart Salisbury

You have to seriously wonder how much people pay attention to issues, wether in general or specifically regarding the Internet. Take for example Tajinder Jagdev, the head of Communications, Media and Entertainment of the UK business analytics firm SAS. Jagdev sees the net neutrality proposals recently made by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) a bad thing, because while they rules benefit some parties, they harm others. Thank you Mr. Moto.

According to Jagdev, “The ruling would benefit content companies like Skype but cut into the revenues generated by telecom providers from phone calls. This ultimately raises outstanding issues that need to be addressed in order for the interests of all parties involved to be protected.” Which is exactly what the rules are supposed to do. An objective of the FCC is to keep Internet Service Providers (ISPs), such as AT&T and Time Warner, from stifling creativity on the web. By definition its rule proposals will have to give some preference to content providers over ISPs.

Jagdev also maintains that unrestricted use: surfers running amok, visiting whatever site they pleased, would clog bandwidth and diminish the experience of all users. According to Jagdev: "SAS has already identified that a tiered billing model, in which users pay more money for higher bandwidth packages, is perhaps the most likely solution to remedy the problem of consumer inequality in the future and generate revenues."

Problem here is the FCC hasn’t ruled out such billing practices. What the ISPs have discovered is when applying them consumers rebel, forcing the ISPs to backtrack. The FCC isn’t the problem here, we are.

Ian Williams, of The Inquirer, notes that Jagdev also seems to think that the rules proposed by the FCC are new--they aren’t. Rather the FCC is trying to maintain the status quo. But this certainly isn’t Jagdev’s only misunderstanding of the FCC’s actions.

As Jagdev’s advice was offered without charge, it is safe to assume we got what we paid for.

Read More

Posted 10/22/09 at 02:55:42 PM by Bart Salisbury

It’s an odd spectacle, government rule-making. And watching the process unfold in the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) effort to regulate the Internet seems almost like an out-of-body experience. The basic thrust is easy to understand. The FCC would like for the Internet to remain open, or net neutral, regarding content. All comers to the Internet party should have the same right to move about the tubes as any of the other party-goers.

Seems reasonable, at least to users of the Internet, but not so reasonable to the providers of the Internet. They, the likes of Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, and Time Warner, would like to regulate the party--giving some party-goers special access, while denying it to others. Sort of like putting a bouncer at the door. The Internet providers argue in this way they can make sure that the party doesn’t become too crowded; that those who attend will have a quality experience. Two methods for regulating access have been suggested: (1) curb certain types of Internet traffic, like Verizon did earlier this year with bit-torrenting; and (2) charge for preferential access.

The FCC is concerned that provider-based regulation could have some negative consequences, stymying the potential of the Internet, which up to now has thrived on free exchange. To this end the FCC has proposed six rules that would regulate the actions of Internet providers. These regulations won’t allow for a free-for-all on the Internet, as some deference must be paid to the needs of Internet providers to manage their systems and comply with legal requirements. But within this context the FCC seeks to make the Internet as neutral as it might be, with it’s fifth rule proposal requiring Internet providers “to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.”

Interestingly, this unanimous decision by the FCC (comprised of three Democrats and two Republicans), seems to be sitting well with all parties concerned--both sides conceding it could have been worse. What’s fascinating about this all is the absence of us, the ‘normal’ Internet users from this debate. The providers are there. The major services (like Google) are there. But we aren’t there, even though we are as likely to be impacted by any decision the FCC makes. Like I said: an out-of-body experience.

Read More

Posted 10/21/09 at 07:50:13 PM by Ryan Whitwam

Verizon is coming out swinging as the FCC is poised to officially adopt new Network Neutrality regulations. The FCC is expected to approve FCC Chair Julius Genachowski’s new policies on October 22nd. The cell carriers contend that the realities of managing their networks are not compatible with the new rules. They have even gone so far as to claim that their mobile networks could be “crippled”.

Verizon CEO, Ivan Seidenberg, didn’t mince words, saying of the proposal, “[It’s] a mistake, pure and simple - an analog idea in a digital universe." He claimed that the regulations may keep Verizon from prioritizing packets for important applications, like emergency communications for first-responders.

Seidenberg indicated that Net Neutrality regulations could damage, or halt, our “progress toward a connected world.” Even as the Verizon chief was making these claims, the FCC received a letter signed by 30 prominent investors in technology businesses that support the proposed regulations. Is Seidenberg overstating his case, or trying desperately to save us all from ourselves?

In a separate joint statement with Google, Verizon clarified that they accept Net Neutrality principals for wireline broadband, just not for their wireless networks. "Verizon and Google might seem unlikely bedfellows in the current debate around network neutrality, or an open Internet. And while it's true we do disagree quite strongly about certain aspects of government policy in this area -- such as whether mobile networks should even be part of the discussion -- there are many issues on which we agree," the companies wrote.

Read More

Posted 10/16/09 at 08:31:33 PM by Ryan Whitwam

The broadband infrastructure of the United States is a little on the poor side when compared to some other nations. According to a new FCC report, the best way to fix that is to open up broadband access and increase competition.  The FCC hasn’t considered requiring open access to broadband facilities since 2002. The principal of ‘open access’ says telecoms, like cable companies, should allow access to their physical infrastructure for competing businesses that don’t own infrastructure. Telephone carriers (i.e. DSL) are required to do this, cable providers are not.

The study was quoted as saying, “The lowest prices and highest speeds are almost always offered by firms in markets where, in addition to an incumbent telephone company and a cable company, there are also competitors who entered the market, and built their presence, through use of open access facilities.” The US is also expected to use stimulus finds to increase access to broadband.

The 232-page report estimates that building out the US infrastructure would cost at least $20 billion, and as much as $350 billion. The wide disparity in cost is the result of uncertainty as to what speed should be offered. The report says one-third of Americans have broadband access at home but do not subscribe, and 4% have no access at all.

Read More

Posted 10/07/09 at 04:23:05 PM by Jason Barry

AT&T announced today that they’ll be enabling the use of VOIP on their 3G network specifically for the iPhone. Skype was extremely excited to hear the news given that 10% of all iPhone and iPod touch users have downloaded the Skype application.

The announcement was initially released by AT&T in an FCC filing, soon to be published, explaining that they will open their 3G network to internet calling applications, including Skype.

It should be interesting to see where this leaves the much debated Google Voice application, rejected from the Apple App store earlier this year. While AT&T’s decision isn’t as sustainable as a government policy, it should put significant pressure on other carriers to allow similar network access.

You can find a PDF of the filing here, as well as a link to the AT&T press release.

Read More

Posted 09/29/09 at 11:34:58 PM by Pulkit Chandna

You can now curse your ISP with even more conviction. A task force set up by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has revealed that actual broadband speeds are slower than promised speeds by as much as 50% to 80%.

Although the task force didn’t name any decent ways to express dissent, it is suggested that indignant consumers learn the art of protesting from the true masters of the art: the Palestinians, who have pioneered some of the most effective and economical techniques, including stone pelting and the fabled catch-and-hurl-back-teargas-grenade technique.

Coming back to the subject of broadband access, the task force is busy preparing a report on ways to enhance broadband penetration in rural and urban areas. The panel will submit its final report to Congress in February. It said in an interim report that anywhere between $20 and $350 billion might be needed for installing necessary wireless and landline infrastructure. Its estimate depends on the internet speed.

“This speaks to consumer empowerment. And if you are advertising one speed but delivering another, that takes power away. Consumers can't make accurate decisions based on quality of service from one provider off another,” Joel Kelsey, an analyst at Consumers Union, told the Washington Post.

The panel said in its report that while nearly 2/3 of Americans are wallowing in broadband bliss and 1/3 have access but haven’t subscribed, 4% have no access whatsoever. The panel also expects smartphones to march ahead of blander phones by 2011.

Read More

Posted 09/25/09 at 08:03:25 PM by Ryan Whitwam

AT&T has sent a rather pointed letter to the FCC accusing Google of violating Network Neutrality standards. No, that isn’t a typo. AT&T’s beef is that Google Voice will not connect calls to some numbers that traditional telecoms are required to connect. This is because of so-called “common carrier” laws.

Some rural local telephone carriers charge long distance companies extremely high fees to connect calls to certain numbers on their networks. These are usually numbers for conference call centers, adult chat lines, or party lines. Sneakily, revenues from these connections are shared with the owners of the lines. Google Voice does not connect these calls, and AT&T thinks that isn’t fair.

It is interesting that Google, a company that strongly supports Net Neutrality, is taking this course of action. AT&T seems to want them to be treated like any other telecom, but in Google’s response, they lay out their rationale for why AT&T should shut it.

Google says that first and foremost, Google Voice is a free service. To make it workable, they simply cannot spend money to connect those calls. They also say that Google Voice is software, and software isn’t covered by common carriers rules. Finally, they claim that since Google Voice is an invite-only beta service, it doesn’t need to comply with all regulations.

So, is this just AT&T trying to distract the FCC, or is Google really in the wrong here?

Read More