Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) unveiled his net neutrality bill today during a media conference call (MP3 here), outlining the bill’s provisions, which include the following:
- Broadband providers will not be allowed to interfere with, block, degrade, alter, modify or change traffic on the Internet;
- Broadband providers will not be allowed to create a priority lane where content providers can buy quicker access to customers, while those who do not pay the fee are left in the slow lane;
- Broadband providers must allow consumers to choose which devices they use to connect to the Internet while they are on the net;
- Consumers should have non-discriminatory access and service; and
- The broadband world should have a transparent system in which consumers, Internet content, and applications companies have access to the rates, terms, and conditions for Internet service.
The bill also has provisions covering a complaint-filing process at the FCC, which aggrieved parties could use in the event of a problem.
During the call, Wyden was a forceful defender of the open Internet but, like so many net neutrality advocates, didn’t handle well questions regarding what kinds of specific market-based transactions would run afoul of the proposed legislation.
Wyden said his bill is “designed to make sure our country doesn’t face an information superhighway that is strewn with discriminatory hurdles. Unless you treat equal content with equal treatment, it seems to me the genius of the Internet will be undermined.”
He tried to dispel a misconception about his legislation; namely that it would bar the sale of different tiers of broadband service. “My legislation is still going to allow consumers to purchase higher speeds,” he said.
Wyden was questioned by reporters on several variations of the following question: What would be wrong with allowing a content provider to pay the operator for some kind of enhanced delivery given that under this scenario, the cost burden would shift away from the consumer and toward the content provider?
Or, another way of putting this question: Would Wyden’s legislation prohibit a content provider from paying extra to the broadband provider for improved delivery? Wyden couldn’t easily answer these kinds of questions, but simply said that he opposes a world in which non-transparent deals inject latency into access web sites (where one site with a “sweetheart deal” might take five seconds to appear but another site with no such deal might take five minutes to appear).
Wyden seemed to say as long as the sweetheart deals are transparent, his legislation would not bar such relationships. “The heart and soul of this legislation are the transparency provisions - you get all those deals out there in the open.”
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 5:27 PM | Print | Comments (0)
Russell Shaw, who sometimes “takes the temperature” of the Vonage user community by reading posts at the Vonage Forum, says he’s “been noticing a growing number of posts… complaining about the quality of Vonage calls over Comcast broadband connections.”
It’s interesting that there are relatively few similar complaints about the quality of these Vonage calls over other broadband provider networks. Occasionally you’ll read about Verizon or AT&T complaints, but rarely.
But something has happened. Two weeks ago, a Vonage Forum Member named rdstoll began a Vonage Forum thread called Comcast vs. Vonage. The last time I checked, this thread had 116 posts and nearly 7,000 page views. That’s an exceptionally high number.
Russell points out that “many of these complaints are from Vonage users and Forum Members who have been around for awhile, and are more used to giving problem-solving advice in the Forum then venting about it.” The Comcast vs. Vonage thread was started at the end of December.
Visiting the site today, I found 15 pages of posts on the “Comcast vs. Vonage” thread, some of which included diagnostic test results, e-mail exchanges with Comcast tech support, and talk of complaints to state PUCs and Attorneys General. Joscelin from Voip-news.com also posted, inviting users to send her test results for use in a news story.
Russell cites one post that concludes with “a little intentional ‘oopsie’ goes a long way toward discrediting VoIP…”
The same can be said for a little “unintentional oopsie,” which highlights the vulnerability of Vonage and other independent VoIP providers that rely on companies that manage their networks with other priorities in mind, even if intentionally messing with their competitors is not one of them. This, in turn, highlights the potentially murky gray areas where network neutrality rules bump up against operators’ rights and needs to manage their network.
The pushback from the Vonage Forum also suggests that this type of “oopsie,” whether intentional or unintentional, could also have negative repercussions for Comcast, especially in an environment where net neutrality is a hot-button issue and web-word-of-mouth is both rapid and unpredictable.
In addition to Russell’s post, this development got Slashdotted today. It’ll be interesting to see if it has legs, both on the web and in Washington, or fades from site as Comcast fixes the problems. My guess is that these problems are not intentionally aimed at Vonage, but I also wonder if they’re an indicator of the kind of sporadic or even chronic hurdles Vonage and other “indies” will face as Comcast and other pipe-owners manage their networks with their internal priorities in mind…you might call them “unintentional but competitively significant oopsies.”
Posted by Mitch Shapiro at 3:58 PM | Print | Comments (0)
Youth-oriented, MTV-owning Viacom plans to jump into the social networking business, but isn’t sure how to make money from it. Viacom CEO Tom Freston told a Reuters conference today that “I would expect within this year you’ll see some good social networking capabilities in our company.”
But it’s clear that Freston isn’t quite sure how to make money with a social networking site, such as MySpace (which Freston contends Viacom did not bid on, despite rumors to the contrary.) “You’re asking people to advertise between conversations between two people.”
Freston also seems concerned about advertiser reaction to indecency on such sites as MySpace, not the usual topic when it comes to the business of social networking. But, this is the company that produced the Janet-Jackson-Super-Bowl half-time show and is obviously still scarred from that episode.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 1:36 PM | Print | Comments (0)
The phone companies won a big victory in Indiana this week when the legislature passed a new state-wide franchising bill. The bill removes jurisdiction for cable franchises from municipalities to the state PUC, and deregulates telecommunications services in the state starting in 2009.
The phone companies hail the passage of the legislation, which seems destined to be signed by Governor Mitch Daniels, saying that it will spark competition in video services. But, consumer groups and cable operators are gnashing away over the loss. Citing estimates that the phone companies spent $1.1 million in getting this legislation passed, one critic, Grant Smith, head of the Indiana Citizens Action Coalition (not a front group as far as I can tell) said “Make no mistake, this bill was purchased.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress is making progress on its own franchising bill, a draft of which is expected later this week or early next week.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 12:51 PM | Print | Comments (0)
The New York Times’ Saul Hansell has this piece today outlining Yahoo’s about-face regarding its ambitious plans to develop original TV programming. Lloyd Braun, controversial head of Yahoo’s Media Group, is retreating from his TV network-inspired ideas to develop original entertainment shows for the web.
The company instead will primarily look to other content suppliers to fill its video holes, and is talking up the concept of user-generated content. But Braun is clearly chastened, and in a gambit that seems orchestrated to portray Braun as someone who has seen the error of his ways, the former Chairman of ABC Entertainment is contrite throughout Hansell’s piece.
I realized I have to check my ego at the door for a moment, and forget whatever expectations people had about me because of my former life, and really take a hard look at who should this business be built for the long term — a business that is not dependent on a series of expensive one-off’s to survive.
Even though Braun is talking publicly to quash the rumors that he’s being pushed out of Yahoo for his Hollywood-ish ways, Hansell’s piece notes that Yahoo CEO Terry Semel wasn’t available for comment. Ouch! COO Dan Rosenzweig is quoted as saying “We are happy with Lloyd,” but that’s almost worse than no corporate affirmation because it only highlights the fact that Semel, who brought Braun on board, isn’t backing his executive.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 12:20 PM | Print | Comments (1)
Dow Jones Newswire reports on some details of Earthlink’s agreement with the city of Philadelphia to deploy and operate a citywide Wi-Fi network. According to the story, “the city and Wireless Philadelphia - a nonprofit charged with overseeing the Wi-Fi initiative - have signed agreements with EarthLink,” and Mayor John Street has urged the city council to approve the 10 year deal.
The 135-square-mile network is expected to be completed next spring. The contracts call for EarthLink to rent space on 4,000 city light posts for its equipment, and pay the city $74 annually per light post - for a total of nearly $300,000 a year. EarthLink also agreed to give Wireless Philadelphia 5% of its access revenue.
The money will be used to provide 10,000 computers and training to children and low-income households. EarthLink will also provide Internet access for up to 25,000 low-income households at $9.95 a month, and give the city government free or discounted access. Moreover, EarthLink will operate free Wi-Fi hotspots at 22 locations.
Wireless Philadelphia said it would cost EarthLink between $20 million and $22 million to build and operate the network. The Wi-Fi speed will be at least 1 Megabit per second, slower than some DSL or cable connections but much faster than dial-up.
EarthLink will charge a wholesale rate of under $12 a month to other Internet service providers…up from the original estimate of $9. The goal is still to keep retail prices under $20 a month.Posted by Mitch Shapiro at 11:49 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
