Sidecut Reports

In case you missed it there was a superb show on tech policy here in Silicon Valley last week — and the good news is, you can sample some of the discussions on archived video.

Not surprisingly, we are highlighting the panel Sidecut Reports moderated, having to do with the state of the state of broadband in California:

The lingering, won’t-go-away question about whether or not AT&T’s wireless networks are up to snuff reached a bit of a critical mass this past weekend, first with a critical story in the New York Times that was followed by reports of iPhone Disconnectus at SXSW.

Though Ma Bell tried to soothe the interactive crowd’s Twitter explosion of contempt by adding more cell capacity in Austin, Om does a good job of asking the bigger question of what’s up with the network anyway, and wonders if making AT&T fess up or fix it is a job for the new FCC.

But as our non-typo headline suggests, maybe this is really a task for the Federal TRADE Commission, which regulates things like truth in advertising and false product claims. If you want some regulatory action in this calendar year, the FTC might be a better bet because it probably doesn’t need new regulations passed to start wondering in a very legal sense if saying things like “More Bars in More Places” isn’t worth the same protection or information the FTC provides about things like automobile undercoating.

As I have stated before, I am no lawyer. But there’s no shortage of legal talent at the FTC, including its new leader Jon Leibowitz, who is among those making noises about getting involved in the whole net neutrality/telco regulation debate, a tussle previously fought mainly on the FCC’s turf. Maybe a good place for the FTC to start poking around is with the wireless data networks, where in the U.S. there are billing and advertising norms that would never be accepted in other industries. Could you imagine going to buy meat or milk, and the only guidance you had was a sticker saying “our meat is the best,” or “the best milk ever,” with no way of knowing even what animal it came from or where those animals live?

An extreme and weak comparison, perhaps, but why do we allow wireless providers to sell a product without disclosing how much of it we actually can use, or where it might be most available? Why isn’t there regulation of some sort that forces providers to disclose exactly where cell towers are and how strong a signal might be in any given location — so that you can actually consume the service you are paying for?

Again, these are very broad thoughts and suggestions for tightening the focus are welcome. But given that incoming FCC chairman Julius Genachowski probably won’t take over until late spring or early summer, and only then might start talking about necessary new legislation or regulation, why not let the FTC take a stab right now at bringing some clarity to wireless networks by helping to eliminate the fuzzy advertising, weak claims of “it’s working” and bring some measurement to the process? Forget about net neutrality, let’s start with just getting customers what they pay for, or making providers live up to or change their advertising claims.

BOULDER, Colo. — I apologize beforehand for the expected brevity of this post; since it’s late here in Boulder I really don’t have the time to give justice to the incredible explosion of energy that was Day 1 of this year’s Silicon Flatirons conference here. But stay tuned for more posts this week, because there was a massive amount of intellectual interchange that deserves a wider audience than the folks who crammed the CU Law School auditorium for a full day of discussion on “Imagining the Internet’s Future,” the stated title of the yearly confab hosted by Phil Weiser and the great team here at CU.

And despite the conference’s attempts to cloak the topic in a different title, there was no escaping the idea of net neutrality Sunday. As we said in our net neutrality report from last summer, an Obama victory would probably mean the advent of some form of net neutrality legislation or regulation in 2009. Sunday in Boulder this idea was such a given that most of the discussion was centered around not if, but HOW the new regulatory agenda would or should proceed in 2009, with complete overhauls of the FCC and its goals something under serious consideration.

Perhaps even more important to note at first was the mood of the event, which seemed a little bit like what might have happened after the Jedis blew up the Death Star in the last good Star Wars movie. With the repressive FCC regime of Kevin Martin now thankfully relegated to history, intelligent folks from all sides of the political spectrum seemed genuinely passionate and excited about the prospect of real change for the better, using telecom policy as a way to jump-start entrepreneurs and business in general to help get the country’s economy moving forward again.

Read the rest of this entry »

News of note around the ol’ Internets:

Senate Ready for DTV Delay: Sen. Rockefeller says it’s a disgrace that the DTV transition needs to be delayed. Vote is next week?

WiMax Forum Wants to Make Roaming Easier: The industry group launches a plan to help providers, device manufacturers and others synchronize WiMax services for easier roaming.

Sprint Dials Up a $2B Public Safety Plan: The good folks at Sprint have an idea about how to spend some of that stimulus cash, to build a network for public safety personnel.

Wireless Providers Want Cash, Not Conditions: Meanwhile, the big cellular telco lobbying organization, CTIA, says stimulus cash is great, but please hold the “open network” conditions, thanks.

VoIP a Winner over 4G: A study says that Voice over IP will be a big winner on 4G networks. (We agree, and plan to cover the topic in our WiMax Focus research service later this year.)

There is a nice, long meaty piece on Wired.com today about how AT&T, Microsoft and others are teaming up to fight Google in the hallways and offices of Washington, D.C. Of course, readers of our Net Neutrality report (released last summer) know all about AT&T’s attempts to make Google Public Enemy No. 1, publicizing the search giant’s flaws in an effort to help stave off net neutrality legislation.

The Wired article is a good one, and helps explain why the Google-Yahoo deal went off the rails so quickly. Then again our Net Neutrality Report is a good one too, with plenty of background information on the players in the debate and why AT&T and Verizon have picked Google as a target. And since it’s now free, there’s no reason not to download it and catch up before the real fun begins this year.