Sidecut Reports

Since we couldn’t make it to Aspen this year to participate in the expected discourse on one of our favorite topics — network neutrality — we here at Sidecut Reports humbly offer our “Top 10″ list of net neutrality influencers, the people leading the debate into 2009, what we are calling Phase II of the net neutrality deliberations.

With no further ado, the drumroll please:

SIDECUT REPORTS PRESENTS
THE NET NEUTRALITY TOP 10 INFLUENCERS

The movers and shakers in the net neutrality debate, as of August 2008:

1. Jim Cicconi, AT&T — Still the man with the most pawns and the best grasp of the board.

2. Kevin Martin, FCC Chairman — A lame duck, but with a few big quacks left.

3. Rick Whitt, Google — Looks like Phil Mickelson, and his company plays policy like Phil — sometimes a champion, sometimes hitting from behind the concession stand and off a tree. Capable of major victories, but still not Tiger-solid.

4. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. — Driving the House Bus. A big bus but not a tank.

5. Joe Waz, Comcast — I get knocked down, then I get up again… just like another famous fighter from Philadelphia?

6. Ben Scott, Free Press — Riding the big wave of momentum. How long can the Silver Surfer stay afloat?

7. Lawrence Lessig, Stanford – Always effective as the lone voice storming the castle; can he compromise if he is on the other side of the ruling walls?

8. Tom Tauke, Verizon – Maybe not even the real source of power at Verizon but a former congressman who knows which strings to pull. Can pull hard with Ivan Seidenberg behind him.

9. Blair Levin, Stifel, Nicolaus — If not the next FCC commissioner, he will know who it is before anyone else (and will explain why to Wall Street).

10. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. — First he has to win. Then Reed Hundt’s troops can take over.

Honorable Mention: Tim Wu, Columbia Law School; Kyle McSlarrow, NCTA; Eric Schmidt, Google; Walter McCormick, USTA; Chris Libertelli, eBay/Skype; Gigi Sohn, Public Knowledge; Jessica Rosenworcel, Senate Commerce Committee; Jonathan Adelstein, FCC; Phil Weiser, University of Colorado; Preston Padden, Disney.

Need to know more about net neutrality, or why such leading influencers think that 2009 will be a big year for possible passage of net neutrality legislation? Then order our Sidecut Report on Net Neutrality, which contains complete analysis of the recent FCC decision, as well as a net neutrality timeline and interviews with all the top players in the debate.

As you can tell from our spiffy new button to the right, our promised report on net neutrality — Net Neutrality Phase II: The Battle of 2009 — is now live and ready for ordering via instant download. By combining our long background of reporting and analysis of the issue with interviews of leading legislators, top policy execs from the biggest companies, as well as representatives of the leading public-interest groups, we have produced a definitive in-depth look at the network neutrality issue, which by all accounts is headed for a big year in 2009.

While I’ll get to some of the report highlights in a bit, I want to point out first that here at Sidecut Reports we have no agenda and no skin in the network neutrality game, something that makes us much different from many players in the debate. By trying to stay as objective as possible, our goal was to produce an agenda-free look at network neutrality, which we consider a vital issue in any discussion about the future of broadband, networks, and the digital economy.

So what’s in the 34-page report? Starting with the FCC’s recent order punishing Comcast for its blocking of peer-to-peer applications, our report examines all technical and political parts of the debate, and how proponents and their opponents will position themselves following the November elections. Highlights of the report include:

• Why the FCC’s recent Comcast order isn’t much more than a starting point for the “next phase” of the net neutrality debate
• Why some close observers put the odds of Congress passing some kind of net neutrality legislation “better than even” in 2009, especially if Barack Obama wins the Presidential election
• What the big telcos, AT&T and Verizon, are planning to do and say to prevent passage of any new net neutrality legislation
• How Google and consumer groups Free Press and Public Knowledge are teaming up to educate the public and regulators on why they think there is a need for baseline net neutrality rules
• How any and all outcomes might affect the investment outlook for companies from startups to large service providers
• Why the debate is getting less rhetorical and moving toward more collaboration between opposing sides

The report also contains a network neutrality historical timeline, as well as the Sidecut Reports ranking of the “top ten” individuals influencing the network neutrality debate. The new report is available for immediate download.

In case you are new to Sidecut Reports, a little background: We are an independent editorial research company that provides business professionals with deep background, up-to-the minute information, and decision-making analysis on pertinent topics that goes far beyond blogs at a price far less than that charged by traditional analyst operations. Led by longtime industry journalist Paul Kapustka, Sidecut Reports provides in-depth looks into topics at the intersection of telecommunications, the Internet and public policy. The net neutrality report is our second report, following the release earlier this year of our Sidecut report on WiMax, which looks at the current market for WiMax wireless services in the U.S.

(UPDATE: Adds Clearwire response.) As we predicted in our Sidecut Report on WiMax, the “new” Clearwire deal, with its heavy-hitter lineup of investors and their $3.2 billion in capital, was sure to attract the attention of the big telcos, namely AT&T and Verizon. In our predictions we guessed that the big telcos would turn up the heat on Clearwire any way they could, and today it looks like we were right since AT&T just filed a rather lengthy complaint with the FCC, suggesting that Clearwire’s merger application needs a bit more work.

While politely suggesting that AT&T “does not fundamentally oppose the underlying transaction,” the big telco nevertheless accuses Clearwire of not accurately disclosing the full amount of 2.5 GHz spectrum it has access to, perhaps in an attempt to escape greater FCC scrutiny. Of the several complaints AT&T has, this seems to be the most worthy, especially since (as AT&T points out), other carriers (like itself) have been held to very strict spectrum accounting methods during mergers. As AT&T says:

While AT&T does not fundamentally oppose the underlying transactions, the regulatory process must be consistent for all providers, and the FCC must subject Sprint Nextel and Clearwire to the same standard under which it reviews all other carriers.

(What that really means: Hey Kevin, slow these guys down!)

Being somewhat cynical in nature, we had asked Clearwire CEO Ben Wolff specifically about the company’s FCC filing in our recent interview with him, since it appeared even to our non-legal eyes that there was a mountain of spectrum-transfers that looked ripe for questioning. At that time, Wolff said “all the feedback we’ve gotten [on the FCC filing] is generally positive. There don’t seem to be any concerns, nothing contentious.” Wolff did say that Clearwire expected to have a “higher profile” with the new deal, and had always kept a significant presence in Washington to handle regulatory matters. “The wind is blowing in our direction,” said Wolff about regulatory issues. “We can never be too lax, but we are on the right side of the story.”

A quick parsing of some of the comments already filed on the proposed merger does find many in support of Clearwire’s intentions, including WiMax provider DigitalBridge and Voice over IP provider Vonage. In an email reply, Clearwire spokesperson Susan Johnston added: “in detailed spreadsheets and text spanning more than 300 pages, Clearwire and Sprint documented all of their spectrum holdings in minute detail and described the myriad public interest benefits of the transaction. With this filing, the FCC has all of the data and information it requires to perform any competitive analysis it might find warranted.”

Still, given AT&T’s clout with the Kevin Martin-led FCC, it should be interesting to see if and how the commission reacts to the telco’s complaint.

If there is any doubt that Clearwire might be a worthy competitor, it may make sense to read what both AT&T and Verizon have to say. In its complaint, AT&T offers the following statement:

In June 2008, Sprint Nextel Corporation and Clearwire Corporation filed at the Federal Communications Commission its application for merger approval. Our attached FCC filing shows that the combined company will become the largest holder of licensed and leased mobile spectrum of any other carrier, have a service that will be commercially available later this year, have financial backing from Google, Intel, and three of the nation’s largest cable television companies and be fully capable of substantially impacting competition in the mobile communications market.

Verizon, in a filing regarding its proposed merger with Alltel, had this to say about Clearwire:

A new competitor will soon be entering the wireless broadband market. Sprint Nextel and Clearwire recently announced a deal with cable providers Time Warner, Comcast and Brighthouse, chipmaker Intel, and google, under which Sprint Nextel’s and Clearwire’s next generation wireless broadband businesses will be combined to form a new wireless communications company. The combined company will have access to an average of 150 MHz of spectrum in the top 100 markets and an average of
100 MHz in areas outside of the top 100 markets - making it the largest spectrum holder in the Unites States. The merger of ALLTEL and Verizon Wireless will enable Verizon Wireless to compete more effectively with this significant new player. The Clearwire venture plans to serve a substantial portion of the U.S. population by the end of 2009, and must be considered a strong entrant in the mobile marketplace.

Well, if they say so!

Need to know more about WiMax? Order our recently updated WiMax report, with full analysis of the “new” Clearwire deal and the motivations for investors Comcast, Google, Intel and others.

From the looks of it, the second round of the Net Neutrality debate is going to be a lot like the first: Lots of blather and not a lot of attention paid to facts, as warring factions try to tilt public perception in their favor. Surprising? Hardly, given the stakes of the game. Disappointing? Certainly, especially for those who were hoping that there could be more consensus-building discussions instead of the he-said/she-said arguing of the past, which hasn’t really served either side well.

Today’s editorial by Richard Bennett in the San Francisco Chronicle is a case in point: While Bennett, a self-proclaimed networking expert, makes valid points about the need for regulators to closely examine the market power of Google’s search advertising deals, his emotional one-offs on several items raise two red flags: Not only are some of them inaccurate, but their almost word-for-word mimicry of similar opinions voiced recently by the major telcos, AT&T and Verizon, shows there might be more to his argument than just the concerns of an average netizen.

In recent interviews for our upcoming Sidecut Report on Net Neutrality, I was reminded once again just how good the telcos are at playing the lobbying game by synchronizing their messaging. In separate interviews at the recent NXTcomm show, the top policy execs for both big telcos — AT&T’s Jim Cicconi and Verizon’s Tom Tauke — both stressed the ideas that A) the Net Neutrality debate was started by, and mostly run by, Google; and B) that privacy concerns, especially those related to online advertising, were a much bigger problem than net neutrality, which was already being solved anyway by business-to-business solutions. Clearly, I thought, these are the new marching orders for the telco side of the issue.

Both those ideas are embodied in Bennett’s essay, in which he accuses Google of a “political head-fake,” using net neutrality to distract regulators from the privacy concerns. I would posit that you could flip that coin on its head, and say that it’s the telcos who are raising a big stink about privacy in order to try to move net neutrality to a back burner. To me, they seem like two separate issues that should be resolved on their own merits. But neither am I naive! Welcome to Net Neutrality, Round Two.

While I still hope to interview Bennett for the upcoming report — it’s clear from his writing and public testimony that he knows more about networking than your average law professor — there are several points in his column that shouldn’t go unchallenged. The first is his claim that net neutrality is a topic that “Google thrust into the political spotlight two years ago.” The reality is that Google, if anything, was late to the game and supremely unorganized in its approach to net neutrality, not really getting its act together until it hired former MCI lobbyist Rick Whitt in early 2007. If anything, it was former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre’s not on my pipes bromide that made net neutrality a front-page topic, more so than anything Google did or said.

Bennett also says Google gets a free pass from the tech press, and that despite its “squeaky-clean” image, Google also has relations with “Washington power brokers,” perhaps an attempt to sketch Google as some nefarious broker of back-room deals. I’m not sure where Bennett is reading his so-called “cheerleading” for Google — most everything I can find in searches on the topic are straightforward, balanced news accounts, with plently of growing cynicism about Google and its endeavors in things like Street View. My pal Om has been anything but a Google cheerleader, like others questioning how Google will square its open networking ideals with the exclusive partner deals that were part of its $500 million investment in WiMax provider Clearwire.

On the D.C. influencer side, all I can say is it wasn’t Google who convinced Congress to change its mind and grant immunity to telcos in their FISA-related lawsuits. According to AT&T’s Cicconi, he oversees a staff of some 700 people. Google’s Whitt, on the other hand, is one of only three Google people “on the Hill,” and he is still the only one with a focus on the FCC. So who exactly is to be feared in Washington?

You could keep picking Bennett’s essay apart — claiming Google had “largely abandoned” net neutrality earlier this year is just laughable — but at some point you just get tired of the game, and wish there was a better way. Fortunately, many of the other players on both sides seem to be eager to work together to find solutions that don’t require political endgames; today’s surprise agreement between Vonage and Comcast to work together on networking concerns is just another signal that maybe there is a better place for the debate, centered around what is reasonable network management, and how it can be achieved so that both sides feel their concerns have been considered, and become part of the implementation. Other interviews we’ve done with folks like Public Knowledge and Comcast reflected such ideas.

Given Bennett’s past calls for more technical expertise and less political interference in debates about matters Internet, it’s surprising to read that he now thinks that regulators, and not market players, should intervene. But it is pretty clear who agrees almost exactly with everything he says today.

“The carriers try to frame this as being between themselves and Google — I’m a veteran of MCI so I saw this in the ’90s,” said Whitt in our recent interview. “They came after MCI as the poster child of the CLEC side, and unfortunately, they did a pretty good job.”

Will the same game work again? That will be one of the questions we ask in our upcoming report, which unfortunately has been slowed a bit by my recent surgery. If you want an email update when it’s ready, drop me a line at kaps at sidecutreports.com and I will ping you when it’s done.

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.

According to Don Clark of the Wall Street Journal, Monday’s big WiMax announcement is going to be about a “patent pool” spearheaded by Cisco, Intel, Samsung and others, aimed at reducing the amounts developers (especially device developers) might have to pay for WiMax-related patents.

For Clearwire, Sprint and other service providers, having a group with Cisco and Alcatel/Lucent in it can’t hurt, since both those companies can probably bring big patent portfolios to bear. But until the real heavyweights of the wireless world sign up — as Clark notes in his story, neither Qualcomm nor Motorola is part of Monday’s pool party — the patent pool is somewhat on the shallow side.

Why is a patent pool important to WiMax’s development? While the “openness” of the planned Clearwire WiMax network may be attractive to independent device developers, the patent problem could be a bigger deterrent. Sure, it sounds great to think that you could build a device, and as long as it meets WiMax standards, you can sell it at Best Buy and customers could instantly connect to the Clearwire network. Sounds good.

But since that device isn’t subsidized or supported by Clearwire, don’t expect them to help out a lot should Qualcomm or say, Verizon’s lawyers come calling, asking for a piece of your profits should your device suddenly turn successful. Ask Jeff Citron how those battles end up.

Of course, Sprint is not shy when it comes to filing patent lawsuits, so at least the WiMax pool party will have someone around who knows how this game is played.

UPDATE: Cisco and Intel hosted a very disjointed press conference/webcast, with some speakers live in studio, some on the phone and some on webcast. Questions had to be submitted to a moderator, which meant that execs on the conference could dodge questions without complaint. (I asked the panel about what would happen if a non-alliance member sued an alliance member, and whether the alliance would help fight the lawsuit, and got a non-answer answer. Press release on the alliance is here on the Cisco site.)

Need to know more about WiMax? Order our recently updated WiMax report, with full analysis of the “new” Clearwire deal and the motivations for investors Comcast, Google, Intel and others.

There was no shortage of headlines after the historic May 7 announcement of the joint venture and $3.2 billion in funding that formed the “new” Clearwire, and its plans for a nationwide WiMax network. But in the course of putting together our comprehensive research report on the topic, we uncovered several interesting factors you may not have heard about, in regards to both the big new investors — Google, Comcast, Intel and Time Warner Cable — as well as Clearwire’s top competitors, AT&T and Verizon.

In no particular order of importance, here’s our list:

1) The new Clearwire network will use the “mobile” version of WiMax.
There seems to be a lot of confusion around this point, mainly because the “old” Clearwire had been using a so-called “fixed” version of the wireless broadband technology in the networks it’s been building since 2004. The new networks (including those inherited from Sprint’s Xohm operations) will use equipment based on the newer, mobile standard, which supports cellular-like roaming. Clearwire had previously said it was upgrading its networks to Mobile WiMax anyway, so this is not a big change. But when the mobile gear goes live, it will offer a much different experience than previous WiMax deployments.

2) Despite its stated strategic direction toward the long-term evolution (LTE) 4G cellular technology, AT&T currently runs several commercial WiMax networks in the U.S., in Nevada, Alaska and other locations.
Right now there doesn’t seem to be too much to look into here, except for the fact that AT&T may be hedging its bets by keeping its toes wet in matters WiMax. This may be more important in the future, when WiMax standards at the 700 MHz level emerge.

3) There is more bandwidth currently available at WiMax’s main frequency than at the much-heralded 700 MHz band.
This point is a hard one to make, since most people talk about the characteristics of specific spectrum slices, like the ability of 700 MHz signals to penetrate building walls. But when it comes to being able to offer more bandwidth to more folks, the amount of available spectrum may matter more — and right now, there is about 198 MHz available at WiMax’s 2.5 GHz band, as opposed to 60 MHz that is being freed up at 700 MHz. So WiMax may be better able to scale to support more users.

4) WiMax mobile devices are already under development, and should be ready about the same time the Clearwire network launches.
There’s a bit of a trust factor involved here, but we are going on the research we did with Sprint, who said that they had more devices in their labs for testing than they had time to certify. And the debut of Nokia’s WiMax tablet at CTIA in April seems to show that device manufacturers are ahead of the curve here.

5) The new Clearwire will offer day-pass and casual-use billing, which is a departure from the past long-term contracts.
Because Clearwire doesn’t have to subsidize the costs of all the expected WiMax-enabled devices, it can offer ad hoc contracts without the worry or expense of paying for end-user equipment. While it may take a while for Wall Street to wrap its mind around “occasional ARPU,” the incremental adds should bolster, not detract from, a provider’s bottom line.

Sidecut Reports is pleased to announce the new, updated version of our WiMax report, which includes a comprehensive study of the “new” Clearwire WiMax deal and its $3.2 billion of investment from a group that includes Google, Comcast, Intel and Time Warner Cable.

Motivations behind the investments and the combination of WiMax assets from Sprint Nextel and Clearwire Corp. to form the “new” Clearwire are explored and explained in the revised edition of Sidecut’s previous in-depth look at the U.S. WiMax market, a report that all but predicted the inevitability of the deal announced May 7, 2008. In the new report readers will learn:

– The new opportunities and challenges for Clearwire’s national focus, which is a departure from previous plans

– The motivations for Google’s $500 million investment, which go beyond business goals for search and mobility to include public-policy goals

– Why the big telcos, AT&T and Verizon, may not see WiMax as a prime competitor (even as they step up marketing and lobbying efforts to make life harder for WiMax)

– Why cable providers like Comcast may be looking to WiMax to expand their user footprint beyond its current regulatory limits

The report also contains a WiMax technical and historical backgrounder, as well as an updated look at the WiMax business opportunities for enterprises, investors and entrepreneurs in markets including mobile Internet businesses, software development, and mobile device manufacturing. Titled “Game On, WiMax! Why the “new” Clearwire gives WiMax its best chance at success in the U.S. marketplace,” the new report is available for immediate download from our website.

Sidecut Reports, a new independent editorial research firm, all but predicted the blockbuster WiMax investment announcement in our original report, which came out a week before the historic agreement.

“Perhaps the new investors came to the same conclusions we did at the end of our initial report,” said Paul Kapustka, founder and editor of Sidecut Reports. “While there are significant challenges for starting any new network, the already-working nature of WiMax combined with the breadth of spectral and infrastructure assets of Sprint and Clearwire made investing in such a joint venture something close to an even-money bet.”

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.

As we rework our recent WiMax report to include the details of last week’s game-changing announcement, it’s a good time to ask what comes next for the new Clearwire and its bigger, grander plans. After comparing the news to the research we did for our initial report, two changes stand out: First, the new Clearwire will get a bit more time to launch, given the complexities of the funding and the technical aspects of the new joint venture. But second, the company will have to meet more ambitious goals of nationwide coverage and roaming, features neither Sprint nor Clearwire had planned to offer in their early 4G WiMax iterations.

More after the jump, including some housekeeping details on when our revised WiMax report will be ready. (Hint: you can order the old one today, and get a new one free when it’s fully edited)

Read the rest of this entry »