isen.blog

I don’t get it. The President promised, “I remain firmly committed to Net Neutrality so we can keep the Internet as it should be — open and free.”

The FCC, with the President’s own technology visionary as Chairman and a 3/5ths majority, has the means, motive and opportunity to make sure the Internet remains open and free. But the FCC is behaving as if the Internet’s future will be decided by big communications companies that paid no attention to the Internet until it became a threat to their business. Why, oh why is the FCC letting big business negotiate away our Internet in secret?

The Supreme Court has declared (in the Brand X decision, 2005) that “the Commission is free within the limits of reasoned interpretation to change course if it adequately justifies the change.” In other words, the FCC has a priori Supreme Court approval to regulate Internet access as basic Telecommunications, whereby, “Telecommunications carriers … must charge just and reasonable, nondiscriminatory rates to their customers … design their systems so that other carriers can interconnect with their communications networks,” etc. In Brand X, the Court said the FCC could classify Internet access as a Title 1 service (i.e., an Information service). But it spoke very generally to the issue of the FCC’s authority to decide whether a service is a Title 1 (Information) or a Title 2 (Telecommunications) service — it said that the FCC had plenty of authority to decide.

Last year Earlier this year, a lower court decided that the FCC could not stop Comcast from messing with Bittorrent (and other peer-to-peer protocols) because it had previously (under chairmen Powell and Martin) decided to regulate Internet access under Title 1. It left open the question of reclassification of Internet access under Title 2. But the Supreme Court’s Brand X opinion had already made it explicitly clear that the FCC had full, unambiguous authority to decide the Title 1 -Title 2 question, and to change its mind as market conditions changed.

Then, last May, FCC Chairman Genichowski floated a very sensible proposal to restore the FCC’s ability to ensure that broadband access to the Internet is non-discriminatory by classifying the transmission component of Internet access as a Telecommunications service with as light a hand as possible.

Now Chairman G’s proposal has gone nowhere. In its place, we have Google and Verizon making back-room deals, while the other elephants do a slow, cheek-to-cheek grind.

I don’t get it. The Chairman of the FCC proposed a way to do it, the Supreme Court has already pre-approved it, and Commissioners Copps and Clyburn would be HAPPY to provide an FCC majority vote. So what’s with this FCC Chairman? One stroke of the pen, and the fundamental success factors of the Internet would be firmly guaranteed.

Who runs the White House? Larry Summers?

Technorati Tags: BarackObama, BrandX, Comcast, FCC, Google, JuliusGenachowski, Scotus, Verizon

Why is all the anger landing on Google in the most recent flap about the pwning of the Internet?

If you’ve been off-grid, here’s the bare-bones summary: (a) secret negotiations at the FCC (with Comcast, Verizon and AT&T on one side of the table, and Google, Skype and the Open Internet Coalition on the other), (b) outrage by Internet users over the secret talks, (c) breakdown of these secret talks, and (d) a two page “Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal” [.pdf] that falls way, way short of what a national Network Neutrality policy must be and raises more questions than it answers. In response to the Proposal, Move On and Free Press, two organizations that I usually hold in high regard, staged a “Don’t be Evil” rally at Google headquarters.

These organizations are framing the onus on Google. A quote from a Free Press press release captures the sentiment:

“Google has a choice,” said Becky Bond, political director of CREDO Action. “Remain true to its users and the cause of Internet freedom, or sell out and align itself with the big telecom companies like Verizon and AT&T that have spent millions trying to kill Net Neutrality. We want Google to stay true to its principles and abandon this shocking, cynical backroom deal.”

Here’s my problem: “Carriers versus Google” is a false framing of Net Neutrality. NN has been consistently framed by Mainstream Media (and some loud anti-Neutrality activists) as a battle between Comcast, AT&T and Verizon versus Google. It’s an easier story to tell than stories like bottoms-up citizen empowerment, or radically cost-reduced market discovery and product distribution, or the next great company (and nobody knows what it does yet), or the rapid spread of ideas for which there is no economic beneficiary. In the most recent flurry, even people who should know better, such as Free Press, Move On, Credo Action and even my friend David Weinberger, are reinforcing this false Carriers versus Google framing.

Google’s interests are not identical to the interests of the small Internet user. They haven’t been since Google was a small Internet user itself. Today Google is a big, profitable company. It is looking out for its own interests, duh. (Do we expect trucking companies to look out for the needs of automobile drivers?) Up until now, Google’s interests have included Network Neutrality. Now — let’s open our eyes — maybe, but maybe not. Or maybe in a different form.

Notice that, “Don’t be Evil,” is a lot different than, “Never do Evil.” The former allows for choice of a lesser-evil, such as the choice to do business in China. In the case of Network Neutrality, the choice may be to do a little divide-n-conquer with Verizon, which, among the big carriers, is the dinosaur most likely to turn into a bird. And it seems to be working; after weeks of hard-line stonewalling, AT&T now says the Proposal is a positive sign . . . in the direction of a reasonable agreement. Increasingly, Google pursues its interests via strategy games. To the extent that their interests are correlated with ours, good. To the extent that they’re not, bad.

However, let’s get over the idea that Google will (or could) save the Internet **we** know and love for **us**. We have different interests in Network Neutrality than Google does. We should not go to Google with a, “Please sir,” attitude. If we want Network Neutrality defined our way, we’re going to have to get it ourselves. Repeat. **we** are going to have to do it.

Let’s not forget who the prime movers against Network Neutrality are! They’re AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and the other big Internet access providers who want the “freedom” to reach up through the value chain and extract payment for value provided by somebody else.

In the anti-Google/Verizon Proposal protest, the anti-Verizon part didn’t exist. It should have. After all, the whole idea of Network Neutrality is to constrain **carrier** behavior, not Google behavior. The protest missed a more appropriate target, Verizon.

Zoom out. The reason Network Neutrality is under attack is that the telephone companies and the cable companies want their vertical business models back. These companies didn’t build the Internet, but now they want to own it. They’re who we should be protesting.

I’m not saying that Google is blameless. Google has huge market power. If Google decided to withhold its apps from a carrier’s Internet services, that carrier would suffer. Google could play a harder game if it wanted. So even though I realize intellectually that Google’s interests diverge from mine, in the pit of my stomach I, too, am disappointed that the “Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal” caves so deeply.

Nevertheless, let’s remember. AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and the other big Internet access providers are attacking Network Neutrality. They’re the ones we should be protesting. If we get any help from Google, well OK, but we shouldn’t be blindly disappointed when they don’t take the lead on **our** issues.

Disclosure: Google supports isen.com events. I have some really good friends at Google. I like Google apps most of the time and use them every day. Verizon has also supported one isen.com event. I respect several Verizon employees and think of them as colleagues. I’m a Verizon customer to the tune of several hundred dollars a month. Comcast threw a very nice reception at SuperNova that I attended a few weeks ago. I’m a Comcast customer in the <$100/mo range. Maybe these relationships influenced the above, I don’t know.

Technorati Tags: AT&T, Comcast, DavidWeinberger, DontBeEvil, FCC, FreePress, MainStreamMedia, Press, Verizon

David Kurtz at TPM writes

Our long-term structural unemployment crisis and the long-term decline, indeed decay, of our public infrastructure are screaming for a joint solution. Put people to work rebuilding, repairing and maintaining the public infrastructure. We’re not just talking roads, bridges and other transportation systems. It includes schools, teachers, public health, parks, and a whole array of public services we’ve intentionally neglected.

Let’s suppress the urge to say duh. Let’s not assume that just because it’s obvious, it should go unspoken.

Yes, Internet infrastructure should be included.

Technorati Tags: GreatDepression2.0, Infrastructure

Attorney Marvin Ammori has written a really good analysis of the action surrounding the secret talks going on at the FCC on keeping the Internet free, open, innovative and democratic. He says,

Net neutrality proponents want to prohibit ISPs like Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T from (1) blocking or discriminating for or against traffic (2) on the Internet, (3) whether consumers access the Internet through cable and DSL or wireless connections, (4) unless it is reasonable network management to ensure the operation of a nondiscriminatory network. And these advocates want (T1) a legal process that even start-ups could use, with clear rules and expedited procedures built on (T2) solid jurisdictional footing.

The carriers only need one loophole (1-4: discrimination, specialized non-Internet services, wireless, reasonable network management) or one trapdoor (T1-T2: ineffective process or lack of jurisdiction) to win. You can bet they are angling for all of them, and may “concede” one of them, to reach the goal they have spent millions trying to reach: no net neutrality. They have not suddenly found religion.

Ammori goes on to analyze how each point could compromise the Internet away.

His writing reinforces the widely-held opinion that current FCC Chairman Genichowski is a total wuss who is afraid to back up President Obama’s promise to “Take a back seat to no one” on Network Neutrality. Ammori says Chairman G is looking for political cover — even from Bell-funded astroturf groups — for a compromise.

The parties to the secret FCC meetings are rumored to be Comcast, Verizon and AT&T (Cohen, Tauke and Cicconi) on one side of the table, and Google, Skype and the Open Internet Coalition (Whitt, Libertelli and Erickson) on the other. What’s wrong with this picture? Even bad old Chairman Martin consulted with Free Press, Public Knowledge, the Media Access Project and other public interest groups, even though he spoke as if we, the users of the Internet were consumers, not citizens. Apparently, Chairman G doesn’t want consumers or citizens at the table. Very disappointing.

Meanwhile, Barbara van Schewick has written a good legal analysis of the enforcement difficulties inherent in a “six principles” approach to network neutrality that’s well worth a read.

And Art Brodsky has reminded us powerfully that the telephone companies have a history of forgetting the pro quo in any agreement with a quid pro quo once they’ve got the quid.

I wrote about this in 2007 and again in 2009 as well.

We can only hope that these attempts to shine some sunlight into the secret negotiations at the FCC will shame Chairman Genichowski into standing up for the citizen-users of the Internet. And even if he does, we can expect that unless the telcos and cablecos get what they want — a legal way to use their last mile access to the Internet like a toll booth — they will lobby, litigate, legislate and use the best PR money can buy to distort the issue to the public. Until, that is, we the people reorganize the access providers into a utility-like provider of connections without ties to applications like TV, telephony, payment processing, etc.

While the nations with fiber optic infrastructure are wondering whether to charge $16 or $26 a month for a gigabit fiber connection from home to Internet, in the U.S. we are arguing about the color of the carpet in the telco tollbooths. How silly. Stand up, Mister Chairman Genichowski. We need you to be OUR voice — the voice of the citizens — at the table.

Technorati Tags: Astroturf, AT&T, Comcast, FCC, Google, NetworkNeutrality, Skype, StructuralSeparation, Verizon

First there was consumer, then prosumer, now — hat tip to Karl Bode of DSL Reports! — fauxsumer.

Bode tweets (Wed 14 Jul 14:10 via TweetDeck):

Cable company carriage dispute rhetoric getting very fauxsumer and astroturfy, don’t you think? http://bit.ly/9V9KEz

I googled fauxsumer at 2:20 PM EDT. As of that moment, there were four hits, all hyphenated: faux-sumer.

Coinage: Bode. Nice work Karl.

Technorati Tags: Astroturf, Consumer-NOT, WordoftheDay

First they wanted to put a cell tower near an elementary school, then they wanted to put it on conservation land. The citizens of Greenwich, Connecticut got upset. All the usual dogs and ponies came trotting out; ugly antenna towers, use of public lands, health risks.

Health risks? It’s hard to explain to people that even when the physical basis for risk is weak-to-non-existant, if you look at enough studies you can still find enough random variation that can tempt editors to write headlines like, Cell Phones Pose Tumor Risk, Report Says, even though the third paragraph of this particular story says that the authoritative, ten-year study, “didn’t find an increased risk of tumors among cell-phone users.”

The town of Greenwich appointed a commission. I was invited to testify.
The local paper, cleverly named the Greenwich Time, picked up the story. It said, in part,

Dr. David Isenberg, a Cos Cob resident and telecommunications consultant, rejects health concerns linked to cell towers.

Although he said there might be some “slight, marginal reasons to be concerned” about electromagnetic radiation generated by towers’ cellular transmissions, he said the risk is extremely low.

“I don’t believe there are any health concerns,” Isenberg said. “For god’s sake, most of us hold these telephones up to our ear next to our brain and think nothing of it and it’s the exact same electromagnetic radiation.”

There are far greater risks in everyday life than cellular emissions, Isenberg said.

“The risks are somewhere way down in the noise,” he said. “The effect of a cell tower is certainly low among the other major risks of modern life.”

Isenberg pointed to driving as one of the major daily hazards, yet people accept the inherent risk.

The story continued,

Tall, freestanding cell towers may not be the only answer for increased wireless coverage.

Isenberg, who says he neither supports nor opposes new cell tower construction, said other technologies like Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and mini towers known as femtocells, may provide alternatives to cell towers.

Distributed Antenna Systems use shorter utility or telephone poles, or buildings, to carry antennas for wireless service. Although less intrusive to the general public, it is more expensive for wireless carriers who have to maintain more sites compared to one large cell tower.

“Let me get out my violin for the wireless carriers,” Isenberg said sarcastically about wireless carriers facing additional costs by using DAS.

The second option are femtocells, which allow businesses or homeowners to install the mini towers in their offices or homes to improve coverage. The femtocells range in size, but many are similar to routers used in homes for wireless Internet. Femtocell users must provide and pay for an Internet connection to route the device traffic, as well as often pay fees to their wireless carriers.

Regardless of the decision, Isenberg said demand for wireless communication continues to grow and meeting that demand is going to require choices.

“Every time you put in public infrastructure you have a disruption and a benefit and they have to be weighed, and I am not saying one side outweighs the other,” he said. “I think the time is probably right in expanding wireless infrastructure (nationally). Will we overbuild? Will today’s infrastructure become tomorrow’s eyesore? I think that remains a valid question.”

Of course, femtocells are not towers. They’re not even mini-towers. And a lot of subtlety was lost in translation. However, in general, the reporter got the bulk of my thinking right.

There are two issues in the article that bear comment.

The first issue involves false analogy. Greg Schulte, a Greenwich resident and an elected Town Meeting Representative, invokes the Precautionary Principal; he’s quoted saying,

“It’s like cigarette smoking; people were told everything was fine and years later studies came out saying it was (a health concern),” he said. “We have to err on the side of caution especially with kids involved.”

There’s a difference between smoking and cell towers that invalidates the analogy. There was plenty of evidence that smoking was bad, but there was a confusing PR campaign to the contrary. With cell towers, the evidence of harm is weak, non-replicable and refutable.

The second issue is about actual risk and perceived risk. The article says that I “pointed to driving as one of the major daily hazards, yet people accept the inherent risk.” Well, yes, but the context was about perceived risk versus actual risk. With driving there’s a real risk of death and injury, yet people aren’t upset by it. With cell towers, people are upset, but the demonstrable risk is small. It’s not just about risk, it’s about how that risk is seen.

Technorati Tags: Cellco, MobileApps, WirelessNetworks

Rob Pegoraro at the Washington Post has penned a workmanlike article entitled, For now, there’s little to do about a bad Internet provider. He hits the key facts but keeps it simple. He avoids the vocabularies of telco and cyber-left, of lawyer and geek. Meanwhile, there’s not one gloss-over that would conflict with a deeper explanation.

Pegoraro recites the shriveling of Internet access competition, beginning with dial-up. His history covers the birth and death of line-sharing, the hyping and failure of broadband-over-powerline, the recent Verizon decision to curtail FIOS and the National Broadband Plan’s weak stance on competition. In so doing, he sets the context for the recent appeals court decision in the Comcast case that the FCC exceeded its Title 1 authority to regulate the Internet.

He writes:

So if the court ruling [on Comcast] has sent the refs off the field, and if the closing of the American broadband market isn’t about to be reversed, now what?

At one extreme, we could do nothing. The FCC could publicly scold Internet providers; hopefully, the pain of bad publicity would force them to correct their conduct. Presumably, we can use this tactic on Wall Street next.

Some firms would rather see the Federal Trade Commission take over policing Internet providers, enforcing its rules against false advertising and abuse of market power. But when companies get to shop for a regulator, they have the funny habit of picking the most lenient one.

A third option would be for Congress to pass a law giving the FCC specific net-neutrality authority. You’d just need Congress to pass one bill . . . despite deep partisan divides . . . in an election year.

The hand grenade on the conference table is “Title II reclassification.” Here, the FCC could — without a permission slip from Congress — decide it erred in 2005 when it classified Internet providers as “information services” to end line sharing.

Pegoraro concludes:

I hope you like your Internet provider, because you may be stuck with it for a while.

It’s a nice piece of work.

Technorati Tags: Competition, NetworkNeutrality, WashingtonPost

FCC General Counsel Austin Schlick has written a remarkably clear statement of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s proposed “Third Way” framework for ensuring Internet openness.

The lede, however, is somewhat buried. The headline might have read, “FCC Proposal OK with Supreme Court.” Here’s why:

In 2002, the FCC classified cable modem service as an information service.

In April 2010, the Court of Appeals struck down the FCC’s ability to regulate Internet Access Provider behavior. The Appeals Court found that the FCC did not have sufficient authority to regulate Information Services in the case where Comcast secretly messed with its customers’ lawful use of the Internet.

However, in the Brand X case, in 2005, a six-justice majority of the Supreme Court held that the FCC had clear authority as an “expert agency” to classify cable modem services as it saw fit. The other three justices argued vigorously that cable modem service was in part (the transmission part) a Telecommunications Service and in part (the applications and content) an Information Service.

Thus, if the FCC were to re-classify Internet access to be a Telecommunications Service, then all nine members of the Brand X Supreme Court would agree. Six would agree because the FCC has the authority, and three would agree because the FCC would be doing the right thing.

Schlick’s summary goes on to explain why the FCC’s regulation of the Telecommunications Service part of the Internet should be with a light hand, and it’s hard to disagree (except if your salary might seem to be at stake). It’s quite educational to read the whole thing. The FCC’s Legal Framework Glossary for Brand X is pretty good too!

h/t to Susan Crawford for pointing out Schlick’s essay!

Technorati Tags: BrandX, FCC, NetworkNeutrality, Scotus, SusanCrawford

This story continues (and perhaps even concludes) the saga that began on March 20 [here are parts one, two and three of that story] and continued with the most recent FIOS outage here, here, and here.

About 6:30 yesterday evening, a bucket truck and two splicing vans arrived! I spoke with one of the crew guys. He said they were actually going to replace the cable.

At the height of the action, around 8:30 PM, there were two reel trucks and another bucket; a total of six vehicles.

From a cursory drive-by, it looks like they’ve done the job right. I hope. I’ll take a more careful look today.

Last night around 10:00 PM we had dial tone and Internet connectivity on our FIOS line.

Technorati Tags: CustomerService, fiberoptics, FIOS, FTTH, Verizon

FIOS Outage, continued from here and here . . .

At 8:30 AM, the Verizon home repair rep appeared at the front door to say that the CX&M crew was on the scene. As we talked, a bucket truck went by. I know that splicing a 144 fiber cable takes a while. About 90 minutes later, I walked down the street to take a look. Here’s what I saw:

That’s right, folks. Two orange cones. Right now, about 24 hours after the most recent outage, the progress has been deployment of two orange cones.

I just called Supervisor Chad, and he’s determined that the dispatch center is closed. Magnificent.

Technorati Tags: CustomerService, FIOS, Verizon