« June 2006 | Main | August 2006 »
Thanks to the consumerist for pointing out this upcoming article at BW. Looks like I’ll have some reading on the train home this afternoon.
Here is the Essay: The Phone Companies Still Don't Get It
They block competition and charge too much. You call this a communications revolution?
This is an image from the article:
I’ll be writing back to the Governor to try to convince him that Net Neutrality is not a federal-only issue. There are many internet content providers and developers in NJ. Combine that with the fact that NJ residents are some of the highest per capita internet consumers in the country and you can see very clearly that Net Neutrality is an issue of great importance to our state.
Cable competition is one form of competition that New Jersey residents will benefit from; but it is not they only form of competition that needs protection right now. I’ll encourage him to use his conditional veto power to ask for changes in NJ’s state wide cable franchise bill so that it addresses competition on the internet, to ensure that as well as having choice in cable providers we will have choice in internet services as well.
I received this letter from the Governor. I have some thoughts about it that I’d like to share but my laptop battery is drained. So please be patient and wait for my commute home this afternoon to hear my full thoughts on it. – Tom
(Click on the image below for a bigger version.)
The NJ house passed the state wide cable TV franchise bill about a month ago. From my recollection Governor Corzine has 45 days sign the bill into law. I have been keeping an eye out but I have not seen any updates in the news regarding Governor Corzine’s plans.
I and others have encouraged the Governor to consider the telecommunication’s industry plans for the future of the internet as decides whether or not to sign the bill into law.
If anyone has more information on the Governor’s plans regarding this legislation please drop me an e-mail at tom @ redbanktv.org
I have an intel mac mini hooked up to my sony hdtv in my living room. So I was interested to hear the latest rumors that Apple will soon be renting movies via their iTunes service. I’ve never bought a Video On Demand movie before, mainly because I use a CableCard instead of a cable box and that precludes me from using Comcast’s VOD services.
I also don’t subscribe to many premium movie channels. I only subscribe to HBO (Sopranos/Entourage). I use a subscription to NetFlix to keep movies on hand.
So how would Apple VOD affect me? Well for starters, I think I would be able to drop the Netflix subscription. Second it would allow me to use VOD on my TV, something I haven’t been able to do with Comcast. Third, when we do get FiOS TV I will have a direct competitor to Verizon’s VOD services, in fact I might just stick with the CableCard model I have and not install a Verizon box at all. And if Apple does High Def downloads then I won’t have to get caught up in the HD-DVD format wars, I won’t need HD-DVD or Blue-Ray, I’ll already be downloading and playing HD movies on the mac.
quick post of a news item:
BellSouth Stock Downgraded On Reg Uncertainty
... said the broker. "Our specific concerns include the intensity of the net neutrality debate in the U.S. Senate" ...
The New York Times has a short write up today about Marshall Brown, the guy behind the NYC WiFi in the parks. Brown, a geek, former Harvard teacher, and now internet entrepreneur, says: “the end point is that all the major cities are covered by the Internet umbrella, there is world-pervasive computerization, and people get all content all the time.”
Check out the times to read more: A Visionary Seeking to Connect the World, Wirelessly (free reg required)
Katie Fehrenbacher attended a training session for Google’s WiFi service in Mountain View California last night. Google’s WiFi is entering the testing phase now but Om reports that they hope to have the official launch day during the “summer of 2006”.
More and more cities and towns around the country are building WiFi networks. In New Jersey Summit seems to be the city closest to ours that is exploring WiFi. Summit is looking to contract with a third party wireless provider to build and run the network at no cost to Summit taxpayers. In response to their Request for Information Summit received responses from many nationally recognized wireless companies.
I’ll be following Summit’s progress closely and be especially on the lookout for Verizon’s reaction. Hopefully they won’t do anything to hinder their progress.
Verizon EVP Tom Tauke, former Democractic Congressman from Iowa, spoke today at The Media Institute’s Communication Policy Forum, Thanks to ipdemocracy & Cynthia Brumfield for providing the links.
Tauke spoke of hypothetical deals that Verizon might enter into with content providers.
“For example, online video gaming is a growing business, and consumers of those sites expect a seamless experience for their role-playing and action games. Let’s say a gaming company has a game that requires 24 megabits of capacity. Consumers may be paying for Internet access speeds anywhere from, say, five megabits to 15 megabits. That company could enter into a commercial agreement with Verizon to provide online gamers the megabit burst they require for a quality experience.”
As I’ve been saying all along, this is the real way that the telcos plan on implementing tiering. Not by blocking or restricting access to site but instead to enter into deals with partner content providers and provide them “private” bandwidth.
Mr. Tauke’s plan sounds innocuous enough; what gamer wouldn’t want an extra boost of speed when they need it? You may be asking: How can you have a problem with that?
Here is why I think such boosting is bad for content providers and content consumers:
It’s not just video games that Verizon wants to do this for. It’s all areas of content delivery. What you’ll end up seeing is that those providers who enter into a “commercial agreement to provide … megabit bursts” with Verizon will start to produce lesser and lesser quality product; while those providers with who Verizon does not partner with will be locked out.
Dear reader, please take a look at the big picture here. Verizon and the telcos’ plans are bad for the future of the internet, not matter how innocuous their lobbyist make it sound, as ISPs get into the role of King Maker on the internet we will see reduced innovation and competition and we may very well end up with an internet that looks a lot less like the wide open American innovation engine it is today and a lot more like cable TV.
[ edit: updated links ]
"Some people look at broadband and see an uncertain future. We look at broadband and see unlimited possibilities," "The power of broadband to innovate, integrate and equalize in the marketplace will not come from imposing limitations, but in lifting them."
"We have a window of opportunity to step into a new world of broadband and consumer choice, or we can step back into the old world of limited innovation and limited opportunity for consumers," "The stakes are high. The time to act is now."
"FiOS is transforming the speed and flexibility of the Internet"
All of those quotes are from Verizon VP Tom Tauke in a press release put out by Verizon today.
I agree with his statements. He just happens to be speaking to Congress about Net Neutrality legislation; whereas I think his comments make more sense when applied to his company’s future plans for the internet.
I agree FiOS is transforming the speed and flexibility of the Internet. I fully believe that the only foreseeable competitor for FiOS will come in the form of muni-WiFi networks and we have seen how Verizon feels about muni-WiFis. That is why I want Verizon to promise not to oppose muni-WiFis.
I agree that “The stakes are high and the time to act is now”. That is why I think Net Neutrality should be address as part of any cable TV franchise application.
I agree that "The power of broadband to innovate, integrate and equalize in the marketplace will not come from imposing limitations, but in lifting them." That is why Verizon should pledge to keep the internet a level playing field.
Just wanted to point out a public Net Neutrality debate going on over at CNET. Molly Wood and Scott Clealand are going back and forth on the issue; as an added bonus readers are allowed to post comments.
Should be some interesting reading. Take a look for yourself: Net neutrality: bring it onDrew Clark has an excerpt of his new Net Neutrality article at the National Journal posted on his blog. I’m looking forward to reading the whole article over the weekend. ( Actually I just read that the National Journal’s yearly subscription price is somewhere around $1800, I wonder if it is something I can even buy at a newsstand; anyone have a copy they want to share? )
The telco industry can act like heavyweight thugs, using law suits and legislation when it’s to their advantage; what I don’t get is how they also are able to pull the wool over some people’s eyes when it comes to Net Neutrality. They proffer the impression that they are keen to keep government out of their internet business but they are the first ones to call for legislation or use the courts when it suit’s their needs.
As yet another example of a telco using courts to further their needs I suggest you read Nate Anderson’s article at Ars Tecnica on how Verizon is suing a county in Maryland over their IPTV (FiOS cable TV) negotiations. According to the article, Chief Administrative Officer (of Montgomery County Maryland) Bruce Romer said that the lawsuit "is evidence that Verizon is unwilling to play by the same rules that apply to their cable competitors."
I hope we don’t run into the same problems here in Red Bank. Here is a link to Nate’s article:
Verizon sues Maryland countyMitch Ratcliffe on his blog Rational Rants at ZDNet titled “Verizon treads into the realm of The Prince” in which he covers some recent developments regarding Verizon’s wireless data services. I am a heavy user of Verizon’s EVDO service. It is the wireless broadband connection I use while taking the train to and from New York, so Mitch’s article is of particular interest to me. It is Mitch’s coverage of the Net Neutrality angle however; that I am most interested in.
I’ve written before that I believe that if Verizon had a choice it would restructure (from a business model point of view) the internet so that it more closely resembles its wireless network. Mitch helps point out some of the problems with Verizon’s wireless broadband network.
For example, Verizon’s says that user’s are not allowed to stream video over their EVDO network unless it is their VCast brand of video streaming. Why is that? I have the technical capacity to turn on my slingplayer and view streaming television to my laptop, I’ve tried it and it works every bit as good as the VCast service. The reason why Verizon does not want me to do this is: quite simply, because Verizon does not generate any additional revenue from that slingbox, Verizon only makes money off of my monthly subscription fee. Verizon has partnered up with select media providers to provide video streaming via their VCast service and through those partnerships they generate revenue from the content provider. So not only do they make money off of my monthly subscription fee they also make money by effectively charging content providers to gain access to their network.
Does anybody disagree that in Verizon’s perfect world they would like to expand this model to the internet as well? Let’s set aside technical and regulator barriers for a second. Given its druthers, don’t you think that Verizon prefers their Wireless model to their landline ISP model? I do. That’s why I am concerned that the very smart people at Verizon are looking at very creative ways to slowly change the model of the internet to more closely resemble their Wireless paradigm.
NJ’s State Legislature and the Governor are fighting over the state budget and thus have brought NJ state government to a halt.
I think this affects our discussion in two ways. 1. I believe the state Board of Public Utilities is shut down. This means that they won’t be discussing Verizon’s application to provide cable TV to Red Bank. 2. With the Governor consumed with the tax battle it is unlikely that he will take us signing the state-wide cable franchise bill.
So at the state level we are probably at a stand still till they resolve the budget impasse.
I’ll be catching up as we go through the week. -- Tom
