I fondly recall episodes of "the Swedish Chef" on the Muppet Show, and while I’m not saying that Verizon’s new FiOS1 TV Channel, which debuts in the Washington, DC area (a good policy-oriented location) tomorrow (today!), March 30 will produce any such fare, Verizon claims it will usher in a new era of television viewing.
On to the squaring away of persistent myths, various network operator reps knock the notion that peer to peer sharing is what produces the biggest bandwidth buster today – instead taking a fairly varied approach to what’s causing problems today, and coming down the pike. The assessment, reported at an optical networking show, is also timely: note the substance of the Verizon comment, which would appear to be quite tied to the company’s substantial (and still counting) network upgrade.
In other bandwidth news coming from the same show, Level 3 mulls future upgrades to its network – similar to that intent voiced by Verizon, in another scope.
"Pull up a chair and set there a week..."
In M. V. Brewington’s Chesapeake Bay Log Canoes and Bugeyes, published in 1963, the author describes an Eastern Shore colloquialism for building canoes where the eye alone determined the shape and form of the hull, which I’ve heard called "building by the rack of eye.” The other phrase for this, which I'd never heard before, but which sounds about right for the Eastern Shore, is the “winchum squinchum” method, which he says was used on the “more poorly built” canoes.
Now in some discrepancy the author also states that the Virginia canoe builders claimed never to use half hull models (called “draughts”), which often produced minor hull variations, with more beam on one side of the keel than the other, since the canoes were hewn by hand from multiple logs. These hull peculiarities might in turn demonstrate some advantageous handling traits, such as sailing closer to the wind or faster on one tack than the other, for example, and I got the impression that nobody really seemed to mind.
Having aired the issue of symmetry and informal values in perspective, I’ll turn to the state of regulatory parity that now exists amongst wireline, cable, wireless, and broadband over powerline (BPL) providers. The FCC voted yesterday to classify wireless broadband as a Title I information service (similar to the other services), AND opened a “Notice of Inquiry” on broadband industry practices. Both actions likely will re-invigorate those who call for a principle of “non-discrimination” to be added to the FCC’s Internet access principles, whatever the delivery medium, and have this additional principle formalized, sooner rather than later.
So if you may happen to be wondering about the connection between VoIP, Vonage (from yesterday’s blog) and the heretofore sterling regulatory reputation of the wireless sector, recent technological changes are stirring things up. These include consumers running VoIP over wireless, or Wi-Fi, and the potential for attaching numerous computing devices to the network that may or may not be obtained from the wireless carrier of your choice. In the past few days (weeks) there have been a number of articles on this subject, which make for great reading and wondering.
One link between the wireless industry and innovative services may be found in what some claim to be nothing more than the latest net neutrality mutation – that the wireless business has no business being exempt from such rules, never mind the fact that no one seems to be able to agree on what rules should be applied to wireline and cable in the first place, or if they should apply at all.
Others see a perhaps more nuanced future, where connectivity principles, reinforced, and not net neutrality rules, with additional amendments, influence how wireless carriers market their services, and including what the “closer to the consumer” equipment providers, such as handset and mobile computing device makers, may view as a viable sales channel separate and apart from the services provider stream, which stream apparently constitutes around 95% of today’s market in the US.
Since many observers have, over the years, grown quite accustomed to the wireline sector taking more than its share of brickbats, it is with some surprise that we find the wireless sector in hot water from changes in technology, accompanied by demands that the regulatory picture change accordingly.
It looks like this ballgame will be played out at the federal level, given yesterday’s US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit decision affirming the FCC’s Vonage VoIP order, which preempted state regulation of the new technology. A number of state public utility commissions, including the national association of state utility commissioners, joined Michigan in appealing the decision.
Since “it ain’t over ‘til it’s over” we’ll patiently watch for an update, and ponder goings on in various states: on Tuesday the Maryland House of Delegates Economic Matters Committee reviewed a bill sponsored by Committee Chairman Dereck Davis (HB 1379) that would make VoIP and IP enabled services the sole purview of federal authorities.
The 8th Circuit’s opinion offers a good deal of insight about the type of questions that may arise when trying to make new technologies fit with legacy rules, and the ongoing nature of such a challenge; stating that
"we emphasize the limited scope of our review of the FCC's decision. Our review is limited to the issue whether the FCC's determination was reasonable based on the record existing before it at the time. If, in the future, advances in technology undermine the central rationale of the FCC's decision, its preemptive effect may be reexamined."
Decision at page 17.
Judging by the participants, interest in the FCC’s VoIP decision was very high, including a number of companies or entities intervening on behalf of the respondent FCC. The list reads like an overview of digital leadership, including long haul and local telcos, VoIP providers and equipment manufacturers, as well as cable and content companies: Vonage; Time Warner; Time Warner Cable; America Online; Level 3 Communications; Charter Communications; the High Tech Broadband Coalition; 8 X 8; Bellsouth; Qwest; Verizon; the Voice on Net Coalition (VON); pulver.com; Pacific Lightnet; and AT&T.
As may be expected, the case raised a number of questions about the appropriate classification of VoIP service – whether VoIP is an interstate information service to be handled at the federal level or a telecommunications service subject to state regulation as well. Distinctions about “nomadic” or “fixed” VoIP services are addressed, and the impact on 911 emergency services – which brings me back to the wireline versus wireless contrast in regulatory obligations that I began discussing above, only to get quite wildly sidelined along the way.
By this explanation, I might add that I do not wish in any way to diminish the contributions a reader made by sending me the Vonage decision, and wondered if a blog might be forthcoming; I simply combined this suggestion (VoIP preemption) with some ideas that I had already been kicking around (whither wireless regulation, and wireless broadband, applications and devices, to be more specific). Therefore, I'll be happy to admit, the digression in subject matter is purely intentional.
A very sophisticated reader (and self-described “crazy” golfer) pointed out a salient fact in the FCC’s recent Video Franchise Order: the 90 day deadline imposed on Local Franchise Authorities (or LFAs) to decide on video applications will operate like “forbearance” petitions filed with the FCC, which are deemed to be granted if not acted upon in time. The timeframe for applicants with existent rights of way carries a 90 day shot clock, for all others, the timeframe is 6 months.
Before I leave the relevant issue, I might add that describing oneself as a "crazy" golfer doesn't necessarily winnow down the field any, as far as most golfers are concerned, but that's ok too.
Another emerging issue with the Video Franchise Order is that the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asks whether the deregulatory conditions imposed by the Order should also be applied to the cable industry, in order to encourage competition within the same technological platform. Said another way, the VFO pits telcos against cable, so why not pit cable against cable as well?
In last week’s House Energy and Commerce Committee FCC Oversight hearing, Commissioner Robert McDowell encouraged such a move, so we'll turn to paragraph 139 of the Commission's Video Franchise Order for more details (footnotes omitted):
"NCTA [National Cable Television Association] argues that if the Commission establishes franchising relief for new entrants, we should do the same for incumbent cable operators because imposing similar franchising requirements on new entrants and incumbent cable operators promotes competition."
While that's the general idea, this may indicate the state of opposition to this notion:
"The record does not indicate any opposition by new entrants to the idea that any relief afforded them also be afforded to incumbent cable operators."
Therefore...
"[W]e tentatively conclude that the findings in this Order should apply to cable operators that have existing franchise agreements as they negotiate renewal of those agreements with LFAs."
The FCC's Video Franchise Order may be downloaded at the FCC's website, http://www.fcc.gov/.
I’d written previously about the cable industry showing an interest in having some of Big Telco's Lunch Money – the Enterprise market – and from this Spring’s VON conference comes BT with a plan to assist the cable industry in doing just that, along with ISPs, Competitive Local Exchange Companies (CLECs), Tier 2 and 3 providers and wireless companies, by harnessing the capabilities of BT’s all IP 21st Century Network.
BT’s is taking an aggressive approach, and one that also demonstrates the “borderless” nature of today’s communications marketplace. As reported in Telephony Online.
Business Week online reports that Viacom, parent of a number of well-known cable networks (MTV, VH1, Comedy Central), filed a copyright lawsuit against YouTube and its well-known parent, Google.
Yesterday I’d alluded to differences in perspectives on the value of copyright between online file sharing sites and content owners, and I would venture to say that a $1 billion lawsuit would qualify as “differences in perspectives, continuing” and perhaps even quantified.
Under any circumstances, the lawsuit demonstrates the widening gulf between Old Media and New Media, if such labels make any sense (are silent classics such as the Harold Lloyd Collection, rescored and remixed on a set of DVDs, considered Old New Media or Old Old Media?).
It’s also another layer in the complex, still evolving relationship between content owners, network operators, and online titans in today's digital age.
The past several weeks have seen some interesting developments in telecom, which I will do my best to summarize. In addition to the FCC’s Video Franchise Order, released just last Monday, California has also passed its own franchise reform law, as expected. In a nutshell, both actions, by reducing regulatory obstacles, should enable the telcos to speed deployment of their fiber-based, high speed, video-capable broadband networks to consumers.
Then we have the content front: with multiple layers of complexity. Turns out that Google and the media content owners – primarily the broadcasters – have differing ideas about not only the value of their content, such as that which might be posted on YouTube, but also about whether it may be posted online at all without permission from the content owner. Users send in clips showing people doing all sorts of wacky things, and these have tremendous appeal, but clips from broadcast shows also have great appeal, as users both post and thereby rate their favorite segments or scenes.
Whether one could survive without the other is open to question. Cellphone network operators also are reported to be experimenting with online, user generated content, and this might be the place where short video clips, of the type sent in by users really shines, having just the right sort of appeal for someone on the move, or, say, not moving, waiting in line somewhere.
Against this backdrop, Friday’s Wall Street Journal (March 9) reported that the six year old relationship between Yahoo! and the former SBC, now AT&T, may be unraveling as the perceived value of the partnership appears to have changed. So, instead of “I pay you,” let’s try “you pay me” – how’s that for a change in the relationship?
AT&T reportedly pays Yahoo! for the arrangement, but other Internet companies, notably Google, have paid other broadband providers, such as the cable operators, to reach their customers with targeted ads. AT&T has spent the past five years beefing up its broadband pipes, and the explosion in the number of people downloading videos online, or watching video online, or just spending time online, has changed the nature of the game.
The FCC released its Video Franchise Order on Monday, which will help speed the deployment of broadband and bring competition to the video marketplace – both of which are good for consumers. The order imposes a 90 day shot clock on local authorities considering telco video franchise applications and also prevents authorities from pressing unreasonable demands on applicants.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin noted that "[t]elephone companies are investing billions of dollars to upgrade their networks to provide video," and that the FCC had heard of exorbitant demands made by local authorities, which thwarted attempts to bring competition to the video marketplace.
Nine states have also passed their own franchise reform laws, including Texas and California, but telcos were blocked in their bid last year to have Congress pass franchise reform at the federal level. Reform legislation passed the House and was voted out of the Senate Commerce Committee, but never made it to the Senate floor.
One might argue that the reform bill stalled in the Senate largely over concerns about the extent of so-called “network neutrality” provisions, which debate soon may also be making an appearance in the statehouse nearest you: last week Maryland’s Economic Matters Committee heard from several panels of witnesses on the need for, and arguments against, net neutrality legislation in the state.
