Sidecut Reports

Anyone who’s followed broadband policy matters knows that the FCC’s previous attempts to define what broadband is and how much of it is around has pretty much been a joke. Now that the Bush Administration’s promise of broadband everywhere by 2007 is seen as nothing but a hollow promise, politicians are waking up to the fact that it would be a whole lot better if this country had an actual strategic plan for advancing broadband deployment.

But as Karl over at DSL Reports so wonderfully points out, relying on the current incumbents to draft that plan may not be such a good idea. Our friend Drew Clark, who is trying to build a broadband census of his own, also weighs in on the current kerfluffle.

(Hat tip to Stacey H at GigaOM for the link.)

Back in February, we reported how frustrated FCC commish Jonathan Adelstein was at the pace of broadband deployment in the U.S. While we liked his idea of national broadband summits, at the time it seemed like a good idea without much behind it.

Tuesday, Google and a few of its friends got behind the idea in a big way, launching something called Internetforeveryone.org, which is clearly a place for Google and others to promote their ideas for open, more-available Internet to the masses.

Google, which explains the new endeavor on its public policy blog, is continuing its all-in push into public policy by backing the Adelstein/Lessig/Free Press idea. By holding the as yet-unscheduled summits, Google and its partners can also produce dialogue that with any luck won’t be as scripted or stilted as the FCC hearings that pass for the best discourse on public policy and broadband matters.

Since our next report (due out soon) is about network neutrality, we couldn’t agree more that the level of debate on broadband policy needs to be increased. No better time than now.

Maybe it’s a tussle that only telecom policy wonks could love, but if you are at all involved in the regulatory sphere you’ve just got to love that the battle of the corporate titans has now moved, Web 2.0 style, into the blogosphere, with Verizon and the Cable companies now using blogs to take pokes at each other.

The issue at stake is a complaint filed by some cablecos, who argued that Verizon’s practice of calling departing customers with last-ditch offers was inappropriate use of private data. Putting aside the whole kettle-calling-the-pot-black part of this argument, it’s neat to see that Verizon’s top policy dawg Tom Tauke used Verizon’s blog to criticize the pending decision. Who knew former Congressmen could learn WordPress or something similar?

Not to be outdone, Kyle McSlarrow, the leader of the cable lobbying association, takes a swing back at Tauke on the NCTA’s own blog, showing good blogging practices by linking back to Tauke — who then responded with a comment on the cable blog!

If you are really interested in the argument, follow the links and join the conversation. We are going to spend the rest of the day worrying whether or not direct competitor blogging means that pundits are out of a job — again!

UPDATE: Cynthia Brumfield at the wonderful IP Democracy site has more details.

Good stuff from our friend Drew Clark on the ongoing white spaces spectrum battles, which heated up recently in D.C. after Google’s Larry Page weighed in on the matter.

Drew drills way down for all the details, the politics and a sidebar on spectrum math. Good reading if you are interested at all in finding more bandwidth for broadband.

In our previous analysis of Google’s participation in the Clearwire funding deal, we surmised it made sense both from a business standpoint as well as a public policy standpoint. In the first public comments about Clearwire we’ve seen from him since the deal was announced on May 7, Google CEO Eric Schmidt tells the German publication FAZ that the search giant’s half-billion dollar commitment “is a good business and it also supports the principles of openness.”

For more of the Q&A, which also touches on mobile advertising, here’s the link.

And here’s a taste of the analysis from our upcoming (very very soon!) revised version of the WiMax report (hint: if you order now, you automagically get the new version), which details our take on Google’s $500 million investment:

GOOGLE: While the search giant’s commitment of a half-billion dollars puzzled some observers, it’s easy to see some big wins for Google in both the technology development and policy arenas. On the mobile broadband front, Google now has a captive provider to test out its Android open-source mobile-device operating system, a technology that might have had an extremely tough time finding a handhold on the cellular networks run by AT&T and Verizon. On the policy side, Google can now quiet the complaints of the big telcos (who have charged Google and other Internet application providers of being “free riders” who don’t adequately contribute to the costs of the networks that provide their customers). By actively funding an attempt to build the so-called “third pipe” of broadband in the U.S., Google removes a big arrow from its competitors’ policy quivers.

Just like Eric said, makes sense for business and policy. More soon!

Great post from Glenn Greenwald over the weekend, adding up the figures to find out that AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have spent $13 million on lobbying so far this year, partly to help Congress see its way clear to offering the providers amnesty from the FISA lawsuits they are facing.

It’s a longish post but there is good stuff at the bottom too, about prospective Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s ties to — surprise! — lobbyists from the telco arena. Guess which way McCain is voting on amnesty.

It apparently wasn’t quite at the level of having members of Congress call high-tech leaders moral pygmies, but Cisco nevertheless got slapped around a bit at a Senate Judiciary hearing Tuesday, with a Cisco exec publicly apologizing for an old product presentation slide that touted the ability of Cisco networking gear to help “Combat Falun Gong evil religion.”

Putting aside the Cisco explanation — it was a low-level employee who did this, we’re shocked and appalled, etc. — don’t be surprised if you see more questions from Capitol Hill about how advanced networking gear may be assisting other governments in their attempts to control their citizens’ Internet usage. While the report quotes Cisco senior VP Mark Chandler asserting that “any employee who tailors its [Cisco’s] routers to help governments monitor or censor Internet activity is in violation of the company’s code of ethics,” a Democratic-controlled Judiciary committee may not want to put a lot of trust in the company’s self-policing efforts.

“The subcommittee has received some troubling information about Cisco’s activities in China,” Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin was quoted as saying.

Don’t think politics is a part of this? Don’t forget that Cisco CEO John Chambers is BFF with probable Republican candidate John McCain.

As of this writing, we are projecting four Sidecut Reports will be completed in this calendar year, with the first one, “Xohm or Go Home: Why 2008 Is WiMax’s Breakout Year in the U.S. — Or Else!” all ready for your credit card on our ordering page.

The WiMax report is the first in our “Wireless Broadband” coverage category. For the purchase price of $149.95, you not only get the full report PDF, you also get a yearly subscription for report updates and news flashes on that topic area for the full calendar year.

Reports will be issued in the following categories as they are completed:

PUBLIC POLICY — Report on “Network Neutrality,” due out by early June, 2008.

INTERNET VIDEO INFRASTRUCTURE — Report due out late Q2 2008.

ADVANCED TELEPHONY — Report due out Q3 2008.

For editorial calendar information or report structure, send me an email to kaps at sidecutreports.com.

Is there such a shortage of news around telecom public policy that normally respectable information outlets still fall so easily for astroturf announcements? If you are a Comcast lobbyist you just have to love the official sound of the lead graf in this non-news missive from IDG “news” service, which asserts that “a coalition of seven civil rights groups” is now banding together to fight off the resurrection of network neutrality, mainly in reference to the recent FCC hearing about Comcast’s network management practices.

C’mon. Please. Does anyone really believe anymore that the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Latinos in Information Sciences and Technology Association, League of Rural Voters, and National Council of Women’s Organizations just happen to have the same viewpoints on net neutrality and cable network management? Or maybe, they are all BFF and on Facebook together, and said “hey, we really need to work together to ensure our voices are heard.”

Right.

Or maybe, they are all organizations that get substantial contributions from large telecommunication companies or cable providers, whose legislative agendas just happen to mesh with those of the civil rights groups. (Or maybe they all just use the same policy PR firm, whose prinicpals have been at this a long time.)

C’mon, InfoWorld. C’mon, Mike. Do some digging before you post — the scoop on these outfits is already out there thanks to the fine work of Bruce Kushnick and many others.

While the Bell companies have been somewhat legendary in their Astroturf funding, a little digging shows that some of these new groups are doing a lot of letter-writing on behalf of cable companies. The National Congress of Black Women, for example, is no friend of AT&T’s — but they seem to be well versed in the arcane subject of video franchising laws and now, apparently, in network management as well.

The point here is not to say that telcos and cable companies don’t have an argument; I think there should be some meaningful debate between the actual parties involved (perhaps at a national broadband summit?), where needs of both sides can be discussed and perhaps some common ground found. And this is not meant to belittle the national groups, some of which no doubt perform important work to ensure that civil rights are continually advanced and upheld. But it’s lame to argue, as the “coalition” does, that:

Network management promotes free speech by ensuring that all online content and applications flow freely over the Internet and are not thwarted by a few heavy users of peer-to-peer (”P2P”) file-sharing services.

As the kids say nowadays, that is fail.

Remember, Astroturf only works if you let it work.

I didn’t get to listen to all of the FCC’s Broadband Network Management Practices forum from Harvard today, but I did get to hear one excellent presentation from Internet legend David Clark, a technologist who offered some great insights on network management and bandwidth pricing — while also wondering out loud if the whole network neutrality discussion couldn’t be conducted with just a tad more civility.

“I would plead with all the actors [in the debate] that when they look over the fence, don’t say ‘enemy’ but say ‘partner,’ ” said Clark at the opening of his remarks, reasoning that if access providers and content creators work better together, there might be hope for a better Internet for all in the future. Not a bad sentiment to embrace as the new season of network neutrality debates kicks off.

Read the rest of this entry »