As usual Jeff Pulver puts it all down in words. SBC fired the first
shot.But Bell South has basically confirmed it was more then a misquote.
Phone companies think they can control the Internet and select the
content their paying customers get to see.
"his company should be allowed to charge a rival voice-over-Internet
firmso that its service can operate with the same quality as BellSouth's
offering."
These grey haired over-stuffed and over-paid executives that think they
are going to re-invented the Internet from a cell phone on the 18th hole
of their country club have another thing coming. This war is just
getting started!
If you have not taken part in the the NYCwireless Network Neutrality
Challenge please get involved NOW.
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallenge
What is the point of having a FCC if they don't jump in on stuff like
this??????
- Dustin -
---
The Second Glove Is Thrown Down - Let the Communication Wars Begin:
Is BellSouth just sucking up to Ed Whitacre in hopes of acquisition, or
are the Bells really throwing down the gauntlet against the Internet
Application Providers?
As I have said before, the new battlelines are emerging in the
communications war. The battle -- once waged between ILECs and CLECs,
between cable and LEC, between wireline and wireless, between
terrestrial and satellite -- has officially morphed into a battle
between Internet Access Provider and Internet Application Provider.
This did not have to be the case; the battle could have persisted
between and among Internet Access Providers, with each trying to gain
the support of the Internet Application Providers to offer their users
more compelling content, services and applications. Instead, it appears
as if the Internet Access Providers are on theverge of opting for a more
"cartel-like" approach, hoping that they can all, in concert and using
their collective control over last-mile and first-mile access
facilities, extract as much additional revenue from the Internet
Application Providers who cannot reach end-users except through one or
the other of their bottleneck facilities.
And, here I was, naively assuming that Ed Whitacre was the outlier, the
only Bell exec publicly threatening to charge Internet Applications
Providers for access to users. Well, it might just be that Ed Whitacre
was simply the pioneer, the public water-tester, the one foreshadowing
the preferred approach of the other LECs and the other providers of
Internet access. Frankly, I am floored by their premature flagging of
this battle, and their desire to serve as the gatekeeper/toll-collectors
to the Web, to IP-based applications, and to the broader Internet. If I
were the spokesperson for an Internet Access Provider, I think I would
not have revealed my hand quite so early. I think I might have waited a
few more months, orat least until the final and irreversible removal of
all vestiges of government oversight - laws, regulations, and antitrust
precedent -- that would have ensured that users would have a choice of
service and application providers.
I still cannot understand why the Bells don't embrace the virtuous cycle
between Internet Access Provider and Internet Application Provider? The
proliferation of worthwhile Internet applications is what will drive
broadband uptake and increase Internet access revenue from users,
itching to avail themselves of Web 2.0, Voice 2.0, Internet 2.0?
Perhaps they will recognize this synergy if and when a Google or a Yahoo
buys an SBC or a Verizon.
In any event, here is the current state of the battle:
BellSouth's Bill Smith, whom I have always respected as a forthright,
forward-looking technologist with a genuine desire to bring broadband
and new services to consumers, was quoted as saying that "his company
should beallowed to charge a rival voice-over-Internet firm so that its
service can operate with the same quality as BellSouth's offering."
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113002109.html>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113002109.html</A>
(As an aside, I cannot think of a VoIP provider with a codec that uses
more than 200 Kbs -- below the FCC's generally-recognized definition of
broadband. Indeed Skype, Vonage, and FWD can operate at or even below
64 Kbs. So, if the Bells are truly offering broadband -- at least 200
Kbs, and advertising FIOS and other fiber-based services at 15 Mbs (give or
take) -- why wouldn't their service stand up to their advertised quality
standards, and why would they have to charge more to offer a service
thatmeets their advertised bandwidth standards?)
In any case, we had anticipated this battle, but not quite so soon.
Apparently, net neutrality means different things to different people,
depending on whether you control the network and user access or not. To
the Bells, net neutrality and nondiscrimination means that the Internet
Access Provider may not block or discriminate against Web content or
services by degrading their performance, but the Internet Access
Provider may charge for superior access, above and beyond a baseline
service level that all content providers would enjoy.
I guess "nondiscrimination" means different things to different people,
depending on where you stand in the Internet food chain.
And the second glove is pulled off in what might now become a
bare-fistedfight between the Internet Application Providers and Internet
Access Providers. The first glove was removed when Ed Whitacre used the "F"
word, calling the VoIP providers "free-riders", using HIS network to
reach HIS customers.
Actually, there was a less-public third indication of the coming war
backin the Summer of 2004. I recall Larry Babio, Verizon Vice Chair,
sayingat the Progress and Freedom Foundation's Aspen Summit that the
unaffiliated VoIP providers were free-riders. I do not understand; or
is it they who do not understand that unaffiliated VoIP providers DO pay
for access to "their" network, just like any other large volume user or
enterprise? The problem emerges because the Internet Access providers
think they have the right to discriminate between the user who uses the
network to sell pizza and the user who uses the network to provide voice
communications. Perhaps if the Bells were to expand their operations to
provide pizza as well, the pizza lobby would see the problem too. The
truth is that the ability to discriminate against unaffiliated IP-based
application providers does interfere with the ability of ALL end-users
to maximize their communications and Internet experience, by the
creation of Internet Access Provider-controlled walled gardens.
Hearing this from BellSouth's most honorable CTO the other day just
verifies that we are not being paranoid. The Bells seem collectively
committed to renege on the promise and the vision of Arpanet, and to
supplant theopen, public Internet with their own walled gardens.
Perhaps the baseline principle might have to be that providers of
Internet access cannot discriminate against end-users in terms of price
and bandwidth capability. Now that Moore's Law has allowed the service
or application to be disintermediated from the access provider, an
application or service provider can simply be an end-user purchasing
connectivity from an Internet access provider. Is it fair for the
Internet access provider to charge one rate for the enterprise that
delivers pizza and a premium to the enterprise that delivers Internet
applications? This is the principle that seems absent from the debate,
from proposed statutory reform, from proposed regulatory reform.
I fear that one day soon, the Internet Access Providers' true goal will
be revealed - to create walled gardens, in which it would be, at best, a
Hobson's Choice for a user to pick any service or application other than
that which is spoon-fed to the end-user by the Internet Access Provider.
I look forward to the day in which the Internet Application Providers
become as adept at lobbying and working the legislative and policy arena
as the Internet Access Providers. Admittedly, it is a steep learning
curve and the Internet Access Providers have a few decades head-start.
<http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/003386.html>
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
