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 10/19/09 at 08:27:33 AM by Paul Lilly

There's been a lot of talk of net neutrality as of late, mainly because the FCC plans to release details of its proposed net neutrality rules this Thursday. Last week the FCC was bombarded with letters frkom net-neutrality opponents urging new FCC chairman Julius Genachowski to take a cautious approach toward the new rules, but not everyone feels this way. The FCC also received another letter, this one in support of net neutrality, signed by several prominent Internet company founders.

"We believe a process that results in common sense baseline rules is critical to ensuring that the Internet remains a key engine of economic growth, innovation, and global competitiveness," the group wrote. "An open Internet fuels a competitive and efficient marketplace, where consumers make the ultimate choices about which products succeed and which fail. This allows businesses of all sizes, from the smallest start-up to larger corporations, to compete, yielding maximum economic growth and opportunity."

Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter's Evan Williams added their signature to the letter, as did Digg founder Kevin Rose. So did Amazon.com's Jeff Bezos, Google's Eric Schmidt, and a bunch of other recognizable names included among the 24 CEOs and Internet company founders.

Read More

Posted 09/29/09 at 08:37:09 PM by Ryan Whitwam

Verizon’s Chief Technology Officer, Dick Lynch, had some tough words for you heavy downloaders out there. He claimed that in the future, all internet access will be sold based on the amount of data a customer wants to consume. Lynch claims that so-called metered broadband is the only way forward. “We’re going to have to consider pricing structures that allow us to sell packages of bytes, and at the end of the day the concept of a flat-rate infinitely expandable service is unachievable,” said Lynch.

The Verizon CTO further explained that the model would likely be similar to the current model of wireless carriers, and not a specific price per gigabyte used. Verizon has previously decided against instituting caps on their FiOS service, but this could be an indication that all the uncapped internet goodness is about to end.

His statements were made as part of a larger discussion of Network Neutrality. Lynch specifically talked about the rise of high bandwidth applications and services. He said that some services “will not be happy on the public Internet.” Lynch speculated some other method of delivery for these services may be needed.

We’re used to hearing the outcry when a broadband provider tries to institute caps. Does the Internet-using population have the stomach for metered access? Let us know in the comments.

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

Posted 09/22/09 at 08:02:13 PM by Ryan Whitwam

The two largest wireless providers in the US, Verizon and AT&T, are not cool with the FCC’s new push for Network Neutrality. On Monday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski gave a speech outlining plans to create a set of binding Net Neutrality rules that would extend to the wireless industry. AT&T claimed regulation was not needed saying, "AT&T has long supported the principle of an open Internet and has conducted its business accordingly."

The companies also argue that wireless service is a different animal, and Net Neutrality practices may not be feasible. "On a wireline broadband network, you know where your customer is," said Verizon VP of Regulatory Affairs. "So you can build capacity to handle the peak demands. But on a wireless network, you have a crowd converge on a site that suddenly has 10 times or 100 times the users competing for the same resources."

AT&T and Verizon both pointed out that they were behind the FCC initiative for wired broadband, just not for their wireless networks. Verizon also called attention to their policy to allow any compatible, certified device to use its 3G network. Consumer advocates say that there are multiple non-neutral practices taking place on wireless broadband networks to be dealt with. VoIP applications, like Skype, often find themselves barred from operating on cellular 3G networks. With the FCC already investigating competition in the wireless industry, this may lead to still more hearings. Should Net Neutrality extend to cellular data networks? Let us know in the comments.

Read More