The issue of net neutrality isn’t only a factor in the wireline broadband access space. As Forbes points out, it’s also starting to emerge in the wireless 3G space.
The creators of Slingbox…have another clever idea: Let consumers watch their home TV on handheld devices. One catch, though: In order for Sling Media’s mobile service to work, it will need the assent of the major wireless carriers before its scheduled March launch. And the carriers don’t seem interested in playing along.
None of the three big carriers with high-speed networks capable of carrying the service…have publicly agreed to sign on so far. “We have no immediate plans to run that service,” says Jeffrey Nelson, spokesman for Verizon Wireless…”What runs on our network are our services.” A spokesman for Sprint declined to comment on Sling Media, while a Cingular spokesman says the company “will have to look into it.”
Mike at Techdirt, describing the position expressed by Verizon’s Nelson as “backwards and short-sighted,” also raises questions about whether Sling Media “even needs permission or partnerships with the mobile operators.”
All [Sling Media] need[s] to do is create the app that works and make it downloadable. They have the app already. As long as the mobile operators actually sell “unlimited data plans,” then it would seem that there’s really nothing else that needs to be said. Users can just choose to use it.
Mike goes on to consider the possibility of wireless carriers taking steps to proactively block access to the new Slingbox service, even for customers that sign up for their unlimited-use service plans.
Of course, we all know those plans really aren’t unlimited. However, the operators would really need to proactively step in and block things like the Slingbox — and that’s only likely to stir up a negative PR storm they probably don’t want (not that it’s always stopped them in the past).
Mike points to a post at MobHappy by Carlo Longino entitled “Operators Don’t Sell Internet Access.” Citing the above quote from Verizon’s Nelson, Carlo says:
That’s the problem — a closed attitude that operators have to be at the center of everything, instead of empowering other content and service providers and working out an ecosystem through which everyone can profit. How many times will carriers’ closed systems have to fail before they learn this?
This kind of development reminds me once again of Bob Frankston’s argument that “Connectivity is a Utility” and how difficult it is to create the ecosystem Carlo refers to when broadband connectivity is provided by a very small number of service providers who have economic incentives to bundle connectivity with in-house services.
A good example on the wireline side is AT&T’s plans for the 20-25 Mbps it expects to be able to deliver on its next-generation fiber-to-the-node network.
AT&T plans to use most of this bandwidth for an in-house video entertainment service likely to deliver pretty much the same content already available via cable and satellite, albeit with some extra IP-enabled functionality that, from the users-perspective will probably be pretty similar to what AT&T’s competitors will be delivering in the same general timeframe.
But what will this much-touted next-generation IP network deliver in terms of access to the massively innovative public Internet, where companies like Brightcove are developing technology and business ecosystems to support potentially explosive expansion of media content and business models?
According to a recent presentation by an AT&T executive, the company plans to offer three tiers of Internet access on its Project Lightspeed FTTN network. All will feature 1 Mbps of upstream capacity, which is a marginal improvement from today’s typical services. On the downstream, Lightspeed will deliver speeds ranging from 1.5 Mbps to 6 Mbps, the latter already exceeded by some of today’s broadband offerings.
I don’t blame AT&T execs for their bandwidth allocation decision. Their primary obligation is to do what they think is best for their shareholders. And, as someone who follows the RBOC’s quarterly financial reporting, I understand that this is not easy to do in today’s environment and is a significantly riskier proposition in an Internet-centric market versus one in which Walled Gardens fortified by strong barriers to entry can be nurtured and where revenues and cash flows are reasonably predictable and controllable.
And I’m admittedly biased—if I had to choose, I’d gladly give up my cable TV service in exchange for the kind of video ecosystem envisioned by Brightcove and many others active in the Internet video space (in fact, my wife and I just unplugged the TV based on our latest cost-benefit analysis of its impacts).
And, yes, it is challenging at best for Congress and/or regulators to come up with policy solutions that are acceptable to all parties and that actually do more good than harm.
But I can certainly empathize with passionate advocates of net neutrality rules and municipal broadband/community Internet projects. Given all the problems our country and our world face, do we want to compromise (even a little bit) the great promise of the Internet to insure that incumbent service providers can more fully satisfy Wall Street analysts and better manage their cash flows by throttling access to the open Internet in exchange for the ability to add IP-based voting to high-margin reality TV shows? Though I’d like cable and telephone companies to remain financially healthy in the future, policies that make this kind of trade-off strike me as dangerously shortsighted.
As I said in an earlier post that discussed potential new broadband access alternatives, including open-access community-controlled networks, Goolink-like private-public hybrids, broadband over powerline (BPL) and unlicensed use of broadcast spectrum (which has recently attracted bi-partisan support in the Senate):
It’s hard to predict the prospects for any of these emerging access models, all of which would face intense competitive pressures from incumbents. But, given the value of increased competition as it relates to concerns about network neutrality, retention of a vibrantly innovative Internet, and potential anti-competitive behaviors by access incumbents, I’d urge policymakers at the federal, state and local levels to avoid any measures that increase the already formidable barriers to entry these newcomers face. Instead, they should adopt policies that enable new entrants to leverage their unique strengths and assets in ways that promote healthy competition and increase the value of services delivered on our nation’s broadband infrastructure.
Mitch Shapiro at 1:23 PM|Comments(1)
You nailed it Mitch. There is a gathering storm on the horizon. It will sweep aside the telephone and cable television networks like the public motor vehicle road network swept aside private toll roads. Keep up the good work at IP Democracy. mike
Posted by: Mike Bookey at March 1, 2006 2:16 PM
Blogs We Read
