PeerFlow

Crack Google?

Cringely gets anxious over Google's floor bid for 700Mhz. After pointing out that Verizon and AT&T coming around to Kevin Martin's leaked counterproposal of watered down "open access" rules, he says:

Look who Google is up against -- all the largest Internet service providers in the U.S. Google will not win this even if they win the auction, because the telcos and cable companies are far more skilled and cunning when it comes to lobbying and controlling politicians than Google can ever hope to be. The telcos have spent more than a century at this game and Google hasn't even been in it for a decade. And Google's pockets are no deeper than those of the other potential bidders.

— Is Google on Crack?: Eric Schmidt bets the ranch on wireless spectrum, Robert X. Cringely, Pulpit, 27 July 2007

Cringely is missing the point about who Google is up against. These outfits have not been the largest ISPs for more than a century. They've been telephone companies for more than a century. And being around for a long time isn't necessarily a sure win. Look at the Vatican; it's been around for two thousand years, and it's managed to lose most of its traditional heartland of Europe. Sure, Google is fragile, in some senses even more fragile than Microsoft, as Cringely points out. But even Microsoft is losing market share from IE to an open source browser, Firefox. Google, as a proponent of open source that actually understands it, has a fair chance here. The incumbent duopoly telcos aren't really in the Internet business; Google is.

Maybe Cringely's right that Google alone couldn't win the auction. But Google and Sprint possibly could. Sure, Sprint is a phone company, too. But that doesn't mean it's going to side with the rest if it scents profit. Maybe with a little help from Apple.

Let's hope that's what Google is really up to, rather than expecting to get Martin to change the rules and then wait for AT&T to deliver another striped bass.

I also don't think Cringely is taking into account the stakes here.

Internet Robber Barons

Paul Krugman examines how far behind the U.S. is in every metric of Internet speed and broadband uptake, and why:

What happened to America’s Internet lead? Bad policy. Specifically, the United States made the same mistake in Internet policy that California made in energy policy: it forgot — or was persuaded by special interests to ignore — the reality that sometimes you can’t have effective market competition without effective regulation.

You see, the world may look flat once you’re in cyberspace — but to get there you need to go through a narrow passageway, down your phone line or down your TV cable. And if the companies controlling these passageways can behave like the robber barons of yore, levying whatever tolls they like on those who pass by, commerce suffers.

— The French Connections, Paul Krugman, New York Times, 22 July 2007

Krugman reminds us that as recently as 2001 the U.S. was far ahead. And then he gets specific.

The Internet As a Market: Al Gore and Reasoned Discourse

So I've been wondering what to say about Al Gore's book, The Assault on Reason. A story in The Economist helped me out. After lauding Gore for calling Mr. Bush's risky schemes well before most people, for denouncing the invasion of Iraq back in 2002, for his Oscar, and for being "the man who changed the climate of opinion climate change", it then ridicules the book's core thesis:

But he does not stop there. He worries about America's money-saturated politics. He lambasts television for infantilising the electorate.

...

He sometimes comes across as eccentric—as when he lambasts television for killing public discourse, then celebrates the internet as its potential saviour. A few minutes online, reading the zealots on either the right or the left, should have been enough to explode that illusion.

— Gore in the balance, From The Economist print edition, May 31st 2007

That last would appear to be the sort of trivialized, perhaps even infantilized, reaction Gore is lamenting. The big advantage of the Internet is you get not just a few zealots at extreme ends of an arbitrary spectrum: you get all the shadings and colors and depth you can absorb. And you can weave your own strands in this home-made tapestry.

Internet Radio: DRM Air

Previously we saw a last-minute reprieve for Internet Radio. I read SoundExchange's press release, but I didn't catch this:

Under the new proposal, to be implemented by remand to the CRJs, SoundExchange has offered to cap the $500 per channel minimum fee at $50,000 per year for webcasters who agree to provide more detailed reporting of the music that they play and work to stop users from engaging in "streamripping" ­ turning Internet radio performances into a digital music library.

— SoundExchange Confirms Minimum Fee Offer: Reminds Commercial Webcasters of Obligations to Pay New Royalty Rates, Press Release, SoundExchange, 13 July 2007

Alan Wexelblat explains that part about "streamripping":

So it's that simple. Become our agents in preventing people from recording Web radio streams or face the financial axe.

— When is a Reprieve Not a Reprieve, by Alan Wexelblat , Copyfight, July 19, 2007

TV4U? Not Me!

Franchise reform, if you don't have enough supporters, apparently you can just write their names in anyway:

At a Capitol press conference, several others leading the fight against the bill -- including former Madison Mayor Paul Soglin and communications professor Cynthia Laitman -- said their names also falsely showed up as supporters of the deregulation bill on petitions given lawmakers by TV4Us, the private group leading the ad and public relations push for the bill.

"I don't know how it happened," said Soglin, who said he has pushed for tight municipal controls and consumer protections over the cable TV industry since 1971. "AT&T gets very confused."

— Legislators seek probe of misuse of names, By Steven Walters, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, WEDNESDAY, July 11, 2007, 11:15 a.m.

How confused?

Market Failure?

Here's an interesting directive from the White House:

The order requires federal officials to show that private companies, people or institutions failed to address a problem before agencies can write regulations to tackle it. It also gives political appointees greater authority over how the regulations are written.

— House Balks at Bush Order for New Powers, By Jim Abrams, The Associated Press Tuesday, July 3, 2007; 8:16 PM

How does this work?

Broadband Produces Employment

Many have assumed that broadband is good for the economy; now here's a study with rivets:

More specifically, for every one percentage point increase in broadband penetration in a state, employment is projected to increase by 0.2 to 0.3 percent per year.

— The Effects of Broadband Deployment on Output and Employment: A Cross-sectional Analysis of U.S. Data, By Robert Crandall, William Lehr and Robert Litan, Brookings Institution, 2007

Of course, this is like saying every state in medieval Germany that had a printing press produced employment in the printing industry. There are economic and social effects far beyond mere employment. What should be done?

The paper has a few recommendations:

The surest route to lower prices is provided by increasing competition in the delivery of broadband services.

The Tree of Liberty

On this day in the United States we celebrate the Declaration of Independence with

Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfire and Illuminations

as John Adams recommended in 1776.

The Declaration laid out a "a long train of abuses and usurpations" and referred to "certain unalienable Rights", which the former colonials went on to spell out in a written Constitution (the oldest in the world today) to which they added a Bill of Rights. Is their work done?

A FiOS Way

Verizon has a policy blog. It's been around for most of a year now:

I’ll leave clever humor comparing this blog’s name with the terminology for amphibious offspring to others, yet in one sense the comparison is appropriate. “PoliBlog” is very much a site in its infancy, and none of us here at Verizon is sure how it will evolve. But evolve it will.

The intent of PoliBlog is to present perspectives on issues of importance that intersect public policy, politics, markets, and business in the broadband world. That’s a big pool to swim in, and it reflects the constantly changing world we live in.

—, Welcome Aboard, by Tom Tauke, PolicyBlog, October 02, 2006

I have to give them points for seeing it as an emergent communication method including their point of view, rather than just dictating talking points.So far, they seem to be sticking to that. And they're getting some interesting comments, pro and con. But let's look outside their blog box a bit.

FTC: What, Me Worry?

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) says there's no need for net neutrality:

FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras said that without evidence of "market failure or demonstrated consumer harm, policy makers should be particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this area."

So in a "market" where the average customer has at most two choices, we're supposed to wait for a market failure?

USA Yesterday

The net in the U.S. is so slow even the mainstream media have finally noticed:

The USA trails other industrialized nations in high-speed Internet access and may never catch up unless quick action is taken by public-policymakers, a report commissioned by the Communications Workers of America warns.

The median U.S. download speed now is 1.97 megabits per second — a fraction of the 61 megabits per second enjoyed by consumers in Japan, says the report released Monday. Other speedy countries include South Korea (median 45 megabits), France (17 megabits) and Canada (7 megabits).

"We have pathetic speeds compared to the rest of the world," CWA President Larry Cohen says. "People don't pay attention to the fact that the country that started the commercial Internet is falling woefully behind."

— U.S. Net access not all that speedy, By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY, posted 25 June, updated 26 June 2007

Of course, we're not going to get internationally competitive speeds until there are some serious structural changes in the ISP "marketplace", producing more competition somehow. And broadband isn't the point; Internet access is. Plus speed alone is trivial; without choice and participation it's nothing. But speed helps draw in participants, and once we're online, speeds lets us do more things. So it's good that USA Today is paying attention; maybe its readers will, too. Then maybe they'll ask for something better than two turtles.

-jsq

Giant Beasts Gently Swatting

Susan Crawford pithily describes the current Internet access market:

The duopoly is something like Shamu and Godzilla on hire for televised wrestling – giant beasts gently swatting at one another for the cameras. They aren’t competing, these giants. There is a clear failure in the market for highspeed internet access in this country.

— Moving Slowly in the Fast Lane by Susan Crawford, Susan Crawford blog, Tue 19 Jun 2007 10:29 PM EDT

What is to be done?

Framing Net Neutrality

Here's an interesting exercise in framing net neutrality:

On the one side are traditional media - phone and cable companies, the carriers - in rare agreement. They do not want to be regulated, and they want to preserve the profitability potential that protects their network upgrades. They are therefore joined by some hardware tech firms. On the other side is what might be called the internet-industrial complex - consisting of idealistic net community folks, small start-ups, large Silicon Valley corporations pretending to be both - and Hollywood, in another strange bed fellowship.

The US Congress is in the middle; by the latest count six bills are pending, and while none is likely to be passed for now, the process itself has been a boon.

— A third way for net neutrality, By Eli Noam, Financial Times, 29 August 2006

Note "internet-industrial complex", in analogy to Eisenhower's phrase, "military-industrial complex". Yet the cablecos and telcos are said to be "in rare agreement" when actually they have long been acting on the same side on this issue; after all, it's in both their (short-term) interests to keep the number of players down. With no competition, there's no real market, and thus no real competition (which long-term means they won't be competitive with their international competitors, which are already offering speeds ten times faster for similar prices).

Internet Deconstructs Spin?

Joe Trippi thinks the Internet changes politics from spin to something better:

Internet activism is spelling the end for the age of spin, the online campaign guru Joe Trippi will warned two British politicians, suggesting that the rules for dealing with "old media" no longer apply.

...

"Command and control ... [is] a disaster in the peer-to-peer social network world."

— Does the Internet Spell the End of Political Spin? By Tania Branigan, The Guardian. Posted June 15, 2007.

Dave Weinberger suggests more or less the same thing, somewhat less optimistically,

Incumbents Preparing

Cringely gets pessimistic:

In the end the ISPs are going to win this battle, you know. The only thing that will keep them from doing that is competition, something it is difficult to see coming along anytime soon, rather like that lemonade-powered sports car.

— Beyond Net Neutrality: If at first you don't succeed, change the game. I, Cringely, Pulpit, April 6, 2007

Is he just whining?

Stalking Horses?

This make me wonder:

This is in response to (apparently) poisonous language from Verizon (and others), saying that "Frontline is a stalking horse for net neutrality and other unprecedented and unjustified mandates."

— Open Access, by Susan, Susan Crawford blog, Thu 07 Jun 2007 06:25 PM EDT

I wonder why Verizon and the few other members of the duopoly are able to frighten anyone into changing their language?

Big Ed Retires

"Who else they gonna listen to? The public?"

Savetheinternet.com produced a memorable satire on the policies of just-retired AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre. We've already seen that new AT&T CEO Randal Stephenson isn't steering a much different course, and Time-Warner CEO Ed Parsons seems to think the cablecos and telcos are the original natives of the Internet and will win at Little Big Horn. Meanwhile, the FCC has time to try to regulate Cher. Maybe the FCC needs to hear some different opinions.

-jsq

Not Virtual

John Robb quotes an Estonian on a basic point:

"This is not some virtual world. This is part of our independence. And these attacks were an attempt to take one country back to the cave, back to the Stone Age."
Linnar Viik, an Estonian government IT consultant to the Washington Post.

Internet Systems Disruption, John Robb, Global Guerrillas, 21 May 2007

A society is its communications, and increasingly the Internet is the matrix of those communications. Such communications are virtual only in the same sense that society is virtual. And it doesn't take an attack by a foreign power to disrupt those communications. Too few ISP owners can reduce participatory communications to limited broadcast, just as has already happened in radio.

-jsq

Slow and Expensive U.S.

Speed is trivial, but you'd think we could do better than this:

The average broadband download speed in the US is only 1.9 megabits per second, compared to 61 Mbps in Japan, 45 Mbps in South Korea, 18 Mbps in Sweden, 17 Mpbs in France, and 7 Mbps in Canada, according to the Communication Workers of America.

— US high-speed Internet is slow, Submitted by Canada IFP, Press Esc, on Sun, 2007-05-20

And as we've seen, that list of countries could soon include Hong Kong and India, because they're taking the problem seriously. More interesting was this was said to.

Communications Monopoly

Here's what happens when you have a communications monopoly:

The Defense Department isn't trying to "muzzle" troops by banning YouTube and MySpace on their networks, a top military information technology officer tells DANGER ROOM. Rear Admiral Elizabeth Hight, Deputy Commander of Joint Task Force-Global Network Operations, says that the decision to block access to social networking, video-sharing, and other "recreational" sites is purely at attempt to "preserve military bandwidth for operational missions."

Computer_center_400x Not that the 11 blocked sites are clogging networks all that much today, she adds. But YouTube, MySpace, and the like "could present a potential problem," at some point in the future. So the military wanted to "get ahead of the problem before it became a problem."

— Military Defends MySpace Ban (Updated Yet Again), Noah Schachtman, DangerRoom, 18 May 2007

How much bandwidth is it using? We don't know; the Admiral won't say.

Now if the U.S. military's real reason is to keep the troops from posting information that could get some of them killed, I could understand that. But if so, why are they trotting out this lame excuse? And for that matter, why is the U.S. commander in Iraq saying military blogs are providing good accurate descriptions of the situation on the ground?