Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks?

Asked about Internet firms such as Google, Microsoft Corp.'s MSN and online phone service Vonage, Whitacre told Business Week that those companies were dependent on SBC's lines -- or "pipes" -- for their success in reaching consumers.

"Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using," he said, according to Business Week Online's edited excerpts of the interview.

"Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes free is nuts," he said.

SBC CEO Ed Whitacre - a Man in Full after gaining approval of the acquisition of ATT

SBC spokesman Michael Balmoris said Whitacre was not talking about charging companies for letting customers access their Web sites. Rather, he said, Whitacre was referring to access Internet companies may want to the "managed and secure" portions of the fiber-optic network SBC is building largely to deliver video to customer homes.

"SBC has not and will not block or limit access to lawful content or applications on the Internet," he said. "Mr. Whitacre's comments are being misinterpreted. They were not made in the context of the Internet, but rather SBC's $4 billion investment in its new fiber network to provide Internet-based video services," Balmoris said. The spokesman said SBC might strike commercial agreements with companies such as Google, Yahoo and Vonage to give them access to that part of its network.

Hmmmmmmmmmm ... that dog won't hunt in my house...

SBC Head Ignites Access Debate When is a monopoly not a monopoly? Can a former monopoly act like a competitive company, even as it turns back into an even larger company and takes back its old name? Can former monopoly executives stick to their new scripts? Stay Tuned!

Watch for more Freudian slips as cable companies and telecom companies learn how to compete in this newly deregulating world - in this particular clip you'll find an amusing series of events as PR types try to spin SBC CEO Ed Whitacre's comments that applications coming over "his pipes" would have to pay a toll charge, saying to let those applications flow unimpeded would be "nuts." Has Ed W ever surfed the Internet?

Content providers like Yahoo, Google, and most especially, Vonage, are not altogether reassured that their content will proceed unimpeded over "SBC's pipes" - what would be the appropriate analogy here? How about: Ford having roads that Ford cars can use for free, but Chevrolets will have to pay a toll? Something is fishy about this reasoning.

Add this item to your file of why the company that owns the infrastructure should not be the same company as the company that provides the content.

So,if this is ridiculous behavior on the Internet, how can it be tolerated over other networks? Well, it can, I guess, if its a cable network, which wrote the book on monopoly content...check this this item I ran across the other day in Forbes at the doctor's office.Playing Hardball is about Comcast's buying the exclusive broadcast rights to pro sports games, leaving viewers on competing infrastructure networks without the content.

As the Philadelphia Phillies struggle for a wild-card spot, fans are glued to Comcast's SportsNet. Except fans who happen to have DirecTV or EchoStar satellite service. A quirk in the 1992 Cable Act known as the "terrestrial loophole" allows Comcast (and any other broadcaster) to withhold programming if it is transmitted from a stadium to cable boxes entirely over wires as opposed to satellite. Comcast takes advantage of the loophole to keep games in Philadelphia away from DirecTV and EchoStar.

And you wonder why Philadelphia wants its own network? Seems that if you have satellite TV and live in a town where Comcast has purchased the rights to the hometown team, then you are SOL.

This could get even more ugly as we proceed down this path, and viewers will lose out even more. Will infrastructure owners compete to lock up exclusive content, instead of competing on offering the best service?

This is the road that monopolies would like to go down, leveraging their size or market power to gain further monopoly control over content and using it to hurt their competitors, users be damned. Sheeeeeesh.

Posted on November 07, 2005 at 08:43 PM | Comments (0)

Rearranging Deck Chairs

Senate Rejects Big Bump In Communications Budget In my previous blog, I expressed the hope that Congress would step out of their "business as usual" mode and address the problems highlighted by the Keystone Kops disaster response shown by FEMA, state, and local authorities after Katrina hit. Let's just say that I will probably not be holding my breath on this.

This article shows that speedy action to addresss such shortcomings will be, well, how can I put it - "somewhat less speedy than it could be" is the nicest way to phrase it. Despite the obvious gaps, despite the pressing need for a better system, despite the continued exposure of the public to natural disasters and terrorism, despite the highly likely repeat of past confusion after a disaster, such a snail's pace of reform is likely to continue at the federal level. It is truly distressing and depressing.

So I'm banking on some well-publicized examples of telecom solutions by an unimpeded private sector, or local government efforts for that matter, to show our political leaders how to lead. Action is needed on communications reform, not more debate.

But, as my hope ebbs away amid my depression, maybe things are not as bleak as they appear. Check out this article Katrina spurs federal action on VoIP | CNET News.com, whcih provides a different perspective, indicating a fresh look at TV spectrum may be coming in a couple of weeks. This article has a good detailed description of the communications breakdown as well.

Posted on October 06, 2005 at 10:22 PM | Comments (0)

IP v. Analog

Sununu, for one, expressed dismay at the state of the nation's emergency communications infrastructure, which failed miserably in the aftermath of Katrina. According to Sununu, Congress has spent billions of dollars on homeland security communications projects, "and there still appear to be significant interoperability problems," he said. "Shame on me for assuming that money was well spent."

The IP communications industry, Sununu said, needs to step forward now and "clearly level criticism where it's due" about the existing communications infrastructure, which did not stand up to the floods or winds brought by Katrina to the Gulf region.

"IP, in the long run, will be more reliable and secure than the analog system[s]" Sununu said. "I think there is a lingering false assumption [in Congress] about the performance characteristics of an IP system, and that it will always be what it is today."

Advanced IP Pipeline | Sununu: Katrina's Effects May Split Telecom Legislation Business as usual should not continue in Congress, now that our nation's weaknesses have been exposed. The prevailing presumption in conversations I've had is that the rewrite of telecom legislation will take "at least a couple of years" because the impact is so great and so many powerful parties are impacted.

Perhaps that's why Sen. Sununu highlights the potential of spectrum issues to be split off the main legislation, so that some emergency spectrum can be allocated to first responders. This article also stresses the need for education among lawmakers - my fear is that too much of what legislators hear is provided by powerful lobbyists for incumbent interests, who give the background briefs a slant that favors existing technologies over new technologies.

Posted on October 06, 2005 at 10:06 PM | Comments (1)

On Broadband Policy - No, we don't have one, and Yes, we do need one

Does the United States have a broadband policy? I asked that question a month ago in our online survey and you responded - in a word (or two) - "Uh, duhhh, NO, as if!" Fully 3/4 of respondents had some variation of No - only a slim 3% stood with our government's claim to have a broadband policy in place that was working. A more charitable 23% said yes, we have one, but it needs improvement. Call those the Benefit of a Doubt-ers.

The overwhelming majority of survey respondents, however, two out of three, said not only do we not have a national broadband policy, but we also are in dire need of one. Readers of this website, by and large watchers of our nation's halting efforts at broadband infrastructure development, agree on one thing - we are a country In search of leadership when it comes to broadband. I'll limit my political commentary on leadership at that, but I could go on.....

In last months poll, I asked "Does the United States have a Broadband Policy?" You replied:

Yes, and it's working 3%
Yes, but it needs improvement 23%
No, and we need one soon 63%
No, but it doesn't really matter 10%

Posted on September 28, 2005 at 08:54 PM | Comments (0)