Courtesy of David Isenberg, author of “Rise of the Stupid Network,” I stumbled upon some interesting comments on IMS (which might be described as “Quest for the Smart Network”) by John Waclawsky. Waclawsky is a member of the Mobile Wireless Group at Cisco Systems involved with standards activities, product requirements and architectures.
While much of Waclawsky’s article in Business Communications Review was fairly technical, his comments at the start and end of his piece discussed industry strategy. Amidst the current debate over network neutrality and “two-tiered” Internet strategies, Waclawsky’s comments seemed worth citing:
Out of the wireless standards consortium called 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) comes a slow-growing and complicated collection of carrier network functions and processes that collectively are referred to as IMS, which stands for the IP (or Internet) Multimedia Subsystem. The IMS standards promise an operator-friendly environment for real-time, packet-based calls and services that not only will preserve traditional carrier controls over user signaling and usage-based billing, but also will generate new revenue via deep packet inspection of protocols, URI and content.
IMS was conceived for the evolution of cellular telephony networks, but the benefits of user signaling and billing controls have attracted the endorsement and involvement of wireline network operators and standards makers…In the U.S., cable multiple systems operators (MSOs) are also showing interest in IMS as part of the recent CableLabs PacketCable initiative, and network operators recently approached the WiMAX Forum’s Network Working Group, asking that IMS be included in its forthcoming reference architecture.
IMS is part of a huge 3G gamble by the mobile telephony operators around the world, with assistance from traditional telephony vendors, to obtain control of the vast new Internet medium and monetize it.
…IMS is complex and costly, provides very little (if any) end user value, offers little (if any) in the way of new applications…and plans to use several new and unproven technologies…on a grand scale. There are performance concerns already.
Perhaps most ominously for IMS, there is no end-user (consumer) pull similar to what the market experienced with cell phones or Wi-Fi. In other words, IMS is a VERY high-risk strategy.
…the release schedules of the 3GPP’s IMS and TISPAN’s…even with their delays, are still faster than the traditional carrier networks and their suppliers can implement, yet much slower than the ongoing actual evolution of technologies and business models. In other words, and as always, real innovators are outside the “standards process.”
Clearly, however, IMS is part of a grand plan of sorts by incumbent network operators and supported by entrenched telephony vendors…This is the emerging, consensus view: That IMS will let broadband industry vendors and operators put a control layer and a cash register over the Internet and creatively charge for it. It is this monetization of the Internet that makes IMS extremely appealing to all communications operators.Posted by Mitch Shapiro at 11:48 PM | Print | Comments (1)
Brian Ward at the Deal’s TechEffect blog may have unwittingly (or perhaps slyly knowingly) created the first “separated at birth” picture related to the topic of net neutrality.
As I mentioned earlier, both Michael Stipe of R.E.M. and Moby have come out in favor of net neutrality regulations as they help kick off a coalition called “Artists and Musicians for Internet Freedom.”
Check out Brian’s side-by-side picture of Stipe and Moby by clicking on the thumbnail.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 5:26 PM | Print | Comments (1)
At TPMCafe, Art Brodsky, communications director for Public Knowledge, a DC group that works on intellectual property and telecom issues, has an interesting analysis of Senate Commerce Committee players and political dynamics with regard to telecom legislation.
A key focus of Art’s piece is net neutrality, which is backed by his organization. For those who don’t support net neutrality, be forewarned that Art speaks as an advocate. But his analysis of the players and dynamics seems worth reading, regardless of where one stands on the issue.
Posted by Mitch Shapiro at 4:33 PM | Print | Comments (0)Stiffening its resolve to be heard as telecom reform legislation moves through the Congress, the House Judiciary Committee thumbed its nose at its rival, the Commerce Committee, today when two leaders introduced a bill that would mandate net neutrality regulations. House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) and senior Democrat John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) today introduced legislation (HR 5417), or “The Internet Freedom and Non-Discrimination Act of 2006,” that would make certain kinds of discriminatory acts violations of the antitrust laws and that would further bar broadband providers from selectively “enhancing” content or applications they pass through their networks.
The bill amends the Clayton Act (which deals with anticompetitive and antitrust matters) by making it unlawful for a broadband provider to:
The heart of the bill, however, is a provision that basically bars broadband discrimination in terms of service enhancements a network provider may offer. The bill says that if a broadband provider enhances a particular type of data (e.g. video), it must enhance that type of data across-the-board.
If a broadband network provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, it must prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type (regardless of the origin or ownership of such data) without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or enhanced quality of service.
This latter provision, while aimed at eliminating everybody’s worst fears about a discriminatory Internet “fast lane,” seems, to me, unworkable. Although this if-you-give-it-to-one-you-must-give-it-to-all philosophy has appeared in other net neutrality legislative proposals, I don’t see how this would work practically. In essence this kind of requirement would result in no service getting a boost or improvement or enhancement because most broadband providers can’t take on all comers.
So, in essence, nobody gets prioritized because this legislation would ban such prioritization, if not in a de jure sense then in a de facto reality. That’s OK, if that’s the intent; but will the courts ever uphold something like this?
I wish that a more sophisticated proposal would surface that doesn’t bar broadband providers, even in a practical sense, from doing anything interesting while also limiting their ability to favor certain services over others. Maybe this is a pipe dream.
Clearly network neutrality proponents are pleased. Gigi Sohn, President of Public Knowledge, said in a statement:
“The bill squarely addresses the issue of the enormous market power of the telephone and cable companies as the providers of 98 percent of the broadband service in the country. The bill restores the principle of non-discrimination that allowed the Internet to flourish in the dial-up era, making certain that the same freedom and innovation will flourish in the broadband era without burdensome regulation.”Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 4:07 PM | Print | Comments (3)
It may not be big news, but the comment by Comcast CEO Brian Roberts cited by the Wall Street Journal today, that “video will become the dominant way people experience the Internet over the next five years,” is a reminder of the importance of today’s Internet policy debate.
Given that this statement was made by the head of the nation’s largest provider of cable TV and broadband Internet access services, a company that also has substantial holdings in and ties to the content business, it underscores the likelihood that the next five years will witness a growing convergence and transformation of the Internet and video content industries, both technically and in terms of services and business models. And, as I’ve said before, this process is likely to have significant implications for our political system and the wider economy, including America’s place in the global economy.
As the WSJ piece suggests, Brian Roberts is rightly focused on his company’s future in this new world of Internet video as, I’m sure, are Ed Whitacre, Ivan Seidenberg and other corporate CEOs.
My hope is that members of Congress are taking the broader view of what’s best for our country, and can find the time to think seriously about the complex issues at play in what is likely to be a heated political season in which much is at stake.
Posted by Mitch Shapiro at 3:46 PM | Print | Comments (0)
There’s an old saw among actors which goes something like this: Dying is easy but comedy is hard. The Internet, however, is making it easier for comedians to break through the clutter and establish reputations if not club bookings. This Wall Street Journal piece by David Kesmodel takes a serious look at how the web is changing the face of comedy through venues such as MySpace, CollegeHumor.com and StupidVideos.com.
The poster child for web-driven comedy stardom is Dane Cook, who shot to fame through his MySpace profile and website (warning: if you click on this an audio or video clip of Cook’s routines may automatically play and they’re not all for the faint-hearted.)
Another comedian who made it to Comedy Central and “Late Night with Conan O’Brien” by virtue of web comedy virtuosity is Eugene Mirman.
Mr. Mirman, 31, who has appeared on Comedy Central and “Late Night with Conan O’Brien,” doesn’t promote his site during stand-up performances. But he often tells the audience to simply type “Eugene” into the Google search engine, where his site often appears among the top results. “My goal will be to at some point exceed Eugene, Ore., as the most popular Eugene,” he said. “I’ve already beaten [the late playwright] Eugene O’Neill, but he probably doesn’t have much of a Web presence.”Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 3:41 PM | Print | Comments (0)
Given that two committees in the Republican-controlled House appear to be at odds regarding net neutrality, and the possibility that a similar dynamic could unfold in the Senate, the news that the Christian Coalition has come out in support of net neutrality legislation takes on particular significance—especially so amidst the real possibility that Republicans could lose the House and possibly even the Senate in this year’s election.
While Republican telecom-focused committee chairs Barton and Stevens seem pretty well aligned with the preferred policy positions of incumbent network providers—particularly the RBOCs—their counterparts on the Judiciary committees appear to have a very different view, at least on net neutrality. This certainly seemed in evidence at recent hearings held on the House side.
While some of this may reflect Judiciary’s more anti-trust perspective and its lack of longstanding ties to the telecom industry, the coming elections may also be part of the equation. With its approval ratings down in the 30s with the President’s, the Republican-controlled Congress will probably need to rally all its core constituencies to retain control of both houses. Losing or even weakening support among the Christian Coalition and its allies (and the NRA, for that matter) could strike a crippling blow to Republican prospects for retaining control of Congress. I’ve heard Republican commentators like David Brooks talk about growing panic among DC Republicans. In that environment, I’d think that avoiding any loss of support among fundamentalist Christians and gun owners would be seen as vital.
If the Democrats gain control of the House, the legislative terrain seems likely to change dramatically, with John Dingell presumably taking over Barton’s chairmanship, and Ed Markey, a strong proponent of net neutrality rules, becoming chair of the telecom and Internet subcommittee. Then there’s also the prospect that a Democratic-controlled House would focus much of its resources on hearings to investigate the Bush Administration on a range of fronts, with both political parties spending most of their time and energy focused on non-telecom issues and the 2008 election.
With this scenario appearing reasonably likely, I’d think the RBOCs will continue pushing hard for passage of a statewide franchising bill this session. Expediting their video entry would be a significant competitive plus for them and, without the politically complicating presence of the net neutrality issue, their position on the franchising issue strikes me as more appealing to voters than the opposing views offered by cable operators. But moving forward with legislation that does not satisfy net-neutrality supporters may prove increasingly unacceptable to some key Republicans concerned about the election and the expanding support for net neutrality provisions among some of their core constituencies.
Given how much is at stake for congressional Republicans as a group, and how contentious the net neutrality issue has become, if I had to bet, I’d predict that no telecom legislation will pass in this session of Congress.
There’s that old saying, “There are two things you don’t want to see being made—sausage and legislation.” In this election year, the process seems likely to be even messier and more difficult than usual.
Posted by Mitch Shapiro at 3:04 PM | Print | Comments (0)Cable companies and phone companies may hold all the power when it comes to network neutrality, but proponents of regulations that would bar broadband providers from discriminating against third-parties are definitely more fun. The latest sign that pro-net neutrality advocates are way cooler than the anti-net neutrality camp: Michael Stipe from R.E.M. has joined Moby (with this addition the cool quotient rose substantially) in supporting net neutrality regulations.
“This is yet another attempt by corporations and their congressional buddies to pull our society backward rather than moving us forward,” Michael Stipe of R.E.M said. “These corporations are trying to set up tollbooths on the information superhighway. We need to keep Net Neutrality so the Internet remains a free and level playing field.”
R.E.M actually blogged about the topic last week. Moby, as mentioned yesterday, will join Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) at a net neutrality event today in Washington announcing the formation of a new coalition, “Artists and Musicians for Internet Freedom.”
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 9:27 AM | Print | Comments (7)
An ambitious and unorthodox proposal has been floated at the FCC by three Silicon Valley powerhouses to build a nationwide wireless broadband network. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Charles River Ventures and Redpoint Ventures are financing a firm called M2Z Networks that would use spectrum being made available in upcoming wireless auctions to build a nationwide broadband wireless network.
“M2Z’s ultimate goal, through its own service, is to drive development of the broadband marketplace so that access is affordable and future penetration levels are near-ubiquitous throughout the country,” the company said in a filing with the Federal Communications Commission.
In a twist, however, M2Z is promising to offer free broadband service of 512 kbps download rates along with faster, premium broadband options. In another twist, M2Z is asking the government to let it buy the spectrum outside the usual bidding process — it promises to pay the U.S. Treasury 5% of its gross revenues from the premium broadband options.
The company, which says it has access to $400 million to build this network, is headed by John Muleta, former chief of the FCC’s wireless bureau, and broadband pioneer Milo Medin, who was key to the launch of cable high-speed consortium @Home.
Not everybody, however, is buying this vision. So many companies have tried to build national wireless broadband networks (anybody remember the costly flameouts of boom-era fixed wireless providers Teligent and Winstar?) and have failed miserably. Too much capital is required and too many years are needed to get the job done.
Moreover, M2Z would be building out into an increasingly competitive market dominated by powerful cable and phone companies, which also carry a lot of swack at the FCC.
Om says it succinctly
The blue-sky proposals such as this one, always make me queasy. It is easy to plan such massive scale networks, except when reality comes knocking. @Home comes to mind. What was the name of that ill-fated nationwide WiFi network backed by IBM, AT&T (the original), and a score of others.. Cometa was it?
Though earnest in its desire, the M2Z plan, is quite likely to be stuck in the quagmire called the Beltway. The spectrum owners - the wireless phone companies and others like Clearwire - would ensure that this plan doesn’t even get off the ground. Others who are planning to buy spectrum in a forthcoming auction would raise holy hell, if this deal was approved. But more importantly, the duopoly with its enormous clout in DC, is going to work hard to ensure that this remains a Silicon Valley dream.
Still, wouldn’t it be cool if M2Z managed to accomplish its goal? Wireless broadband access is such an iffy proposition, as any business traveler knows well. And, without quixotic ideas, big things don’t get done.
Update: Somehow I missed this in Om’s piece but Silicon Beat takes an even dimmer view of the venture. Calling M2Z a Hail Mary pass, Matt Marshall says:
Frankly, we find this a little bizarre, because of the competitors out there, and because ten years is a long time to plan in this industry, especially when telecom service is tending toward zero cost (look at Skype and Vonage blood battle over VoIP).Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 8:17 AM | Print | Comments (3)
The Personal Democracy Forum held a conference earlier this week on How Technology is Changing Politics and keynote speaker Eliot Spitzer, New York Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate, took advantage of the event to spell out a new campaign plank: affordable broadband for all.
In his speech, Spitzer raised the usual statistics that the U.S. lags in broadband penetration and argued that a child in South Korea gets broadband service that is ten times faster than the service a child in the South Bronx receives.
That’s why today I am proposing that New York launch a comprehensive statewide broadband initiative to ensure universal access to affordable, high-speed broadband service for every New Yorker. We must make New York State the most connected and technologically advanced place to live and do business in the world. The problem isn’t a lack of resources, it’s a lack of imagination and a lack of leadership.
To solve the broadband problem, Spitzer proposed several initiatives. The first is “authorize any local municipality to adopt the broadband strategies necessary to make Internet access affordable and fast.” Secondly, he wants to use the state’s infrastructure to encourage deployment in rural areas — among the tasks he advocates is an evaluation and mapping of all taxpayer-owned fiber optic networks, as well as of all state-owned rights of way, throughout the state.
Third, he wants the state’s CIO to “lead a taskforce of private sector information technology leaders, local government representatives and academics to develop statewide broadband policies” to leverage the resources uncovered in the mapping. He also urges the federal government to step in and do more, particularly in the area of universal service funding.
Spitzer said that the Internet is the “dial-tone” of our era:
In 1934, the federal government passed the “Universal Service Act,” which guaranteed dial tone to every single residential address in the country, regardless of location. The Internet is the “dial tone” of our time and it is time we guarantee every citizen of New York State the right to access it and use it to advance themselves and advance the economy of this state. To that effect, we should urge the federal government to consider expanding the Universal Service Fund to include Internet service, which could provide a major federal funding source for making universal Internet access a reality.Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 7:51 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
