« October 2005 | Main | December 2005 »

November 30, 2005

... and maybe it ain't so (or maybe it ain't quite as so as I might have thought it was) -- Some Follow-up on Israel's Recently Announced VoIP Restrictions

I apparently struck a nerve with my blog posting yesterday about the Israeli Government's recent activity to limit some degree and some types of international VoIP traffic. I am still sorting out truth from fiction and greatly appreciate everyone's insights, particularly those willing to visibly post to my blog.

This morning I received an email from a friend in Israel who wrote:

"Hi Jeff,

it ain't so.

ISP's were sent a letter requiring them not to sell high-speed data lines to pirate companies that terminate here on grey routes, either through bezeq or "tellulars" to the GSM network. no one was required to block voip, or filter traffic, or anything like that. I can reiterate that we are strongly committed to net freedom, that we consider it one of our most important regulatory roles to make sure that internet service providers and infrastructure providers do not filter traffic, interfere in any way with various uses, or attempt to monitor their customers use of the public internet. We also know such an attempt is doomed to failure, in addition to being morally indefensible.

There is no intention to block or filter any form of pc-to-pc voip, nor are we going to require packet sniffing against people in Israel with vonage boxes.

Additionally, there are currently more than 10,000 voip lines in Israel supplied by licensed providers under a market experiment scheme (including local numbers and officially sanctioned interconnect), and we are currently working on giving these licensed providers permanent licenses to allow them to develop further.

I hope i've cleared this up, it was a bureaucratic issue and not a policy one."

***

I don't yet understand the nuances of what Israel is prohibiting. I also am not sure whether the public outcry is overstated. I, however, am glad we are having this dialogue.

I do suspect that, if Israel has not prohibited international VoIP to the extent that would justify the industry and public backlash, I think Israel could use a better publicist.

In any case, I am not sure if this preliminary explanation directly addresses all of the concerns of the VoIP industry, particularly the concerns of the VoIP providers that interconnect with the public switched telephone network to provide international calling.

I come from the peer-to-peer world and do not want to be the one advocating for VoIP as purely an international arbitrage play, but occasionally I fall into that role in my effort to advance the what I believe is the greater good of IP-based communications innovators, entrepreneurs, users and enthusiasts.

The Ministry of Communications does seem to have prohibited "something" in an effort to preserve revenue streams for traditional international providers, so some restrictions are likely being placed on international VoIP traffic, at least by providers unaffiliated with a licensed international carrier. I still seek further insight on what Israel has prohibited and what the ramifications might be.

I, however, have some renewed hope that Israel is trying to figure out the right balance and, at least, is openly debating the issues (unlike some other countries). I would expect nothing less from the country that paved the way for IP-based communications. Let’s hope my concerns are overstated, and Israel does the right thing and continues to be a leader in advancing IP-based communications.

Posted by jeff at 09:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (48)

Say It Ain't So - Israel to Prohibit International VoIP?!

Apparently the Israeli Ministry of Communications has instructed ISPs to ensure that their systems do not carry international calls using IP technology, because such services cut into the traditional revenue streams of Israel's sanctioned international phone companies. Israel?

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Israel spearhead much of the VoIP industry in the early days? Didn't I just go to Israel six months ago to pay homage to the pioneers of the VoIP Industry? Didn't I also meet with several Israeli Cabinet Ministers about ensuring Israel's ongoing role in advanced Internet-based communications? Aren't I planning to host VON Israel specifically because of the innovative, entrepreneurial, enterprising and forward-looking approach to communications and the Internet emanating from Israel?

And, didn't I just blog last week about how America seems to have flipped roles with Australia in leading the way to advance IP-based communications?

Is Israel -- the one country I thought we could count on to be a haven for IP-based communications -- flip-flopping? Is Israel following America's lead in turning its back on the burgeoning industry in order to preserve existing, but now illogical, revenue streams? I thought that the Israelis, if anyone, would know that disruption is inevitable and should not be stifled, but, rather, should harnessed and nurtured to advance the best possible future.

I call out to my respected friends and colleagues in Israel to tell us what is going on - but you better send an email, or call me the old-fashioned way at $1.00/minute and without any of the other bells and whistles that IP technology would otherwise enable. ;-(

Tags: voip, fcc, Israel , policy

Posted by jeff at 12:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (64)

November 29, 2005

Yesterday really was a “Cyber Monday” in the USA:

I find it real interesting that the press deemed yesterday "Cyber Monday" – the day to watch on what happened on Internet sales. The growing importance of Internet sales as a harbinger of economic gains is truly a coming of age for the Internet. Yet isn't it ironic that on the same day, the government has taken specific steps to limit the sale of Internet services - in this case VoIP? Perhaps it's another harbinger of Internet induced economic gains - or the avoidance thereof. Yesterday truly was a cyber Monday.

Tags: voip, fcc, e911

Posted by jeff at 03:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (17)

2006 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Inductees Announced:

During the past few years I've been a supporter of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and have been fortunate to have a seat at the induction ceremonies at the annual Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremonies in New York City. ( 2005, 2004 pictures )

Each of these events are totally surrealistic for most people who don't have relatives who are insiders of the music industry. This has become one of the annual events I always look forward to being a part of.

Congratulations go out to the artists, their families and the fans of the artists who will be inducted in the Class of 2006: Blondie, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Black Sabbath, Miles Davis and the Sex Pistols as well as Herb Alpert and Jerry Moss, the founders of A&M Records.

Posted by jeff at 07:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (44)

November 28, 2005

Today is Compliance Day for "Interconnected VoIP Providers" in the USA:

Today, November 28th, is the deadline by which US based "Interconnected VoIP Providers" must be in compliance with the FCC's E-911 for VoIP Order, and, at a minimum, will be precluded from marketing VoIP services in areas where they have not implemented an E-911 solution. As a practical matter, that means VoIP providers will have serious problems signing up new customers anywhere in the country, because there will always be a place where a nomadic VoIP service will be beyond the reach of an E-911 accessible Public Safety Access Point (PSAP). If the VoIP service can be taken anywhere (including a place without E-911 service), then the VoIP service can be taken nowhere - it must essentially be locked down to a fixed location with a guaranteed localized E-911 receiver. As I have said many times within my blog, this means precluding many Americans from availing themselves of one of the best features of VoIP - the ability to take your service with you, wherever you go. Like mobile phones, VoIP provides an ability to call a person, not a location.

But that is not why I touch on E-911 within this particular blog post.

I'm writing this blog entry to point to another example of misdirection and false advertising. I have had many conversations with those that have E-911 solutions for the VoIP industry. First of all, I applaud their innovations and attempts to pave the way for a nationwide emergency response capability for IP-based communications. Their entrepreneurship and perseverance is what the Internet economy should be encouraging. I do have some concerns that these companies are not being entirely forthright with themselves, their potential customers, and policymakers over all their motivations. The FCC's imposition of backward-compatible E-911 obligations, without an obligation to allow VoIP providers DIRECT access to the necessary network elements needed to reach an emergency responder, is in the best financial interest of those companies that will provide the intermediating services between emergency response centers and VoIP providers. Thus, the solution that the FCC has required, and that these emergency response facilitators endorse, has serious financial benefit to these access providers. I, for one, think their arguments should be prefaced with such a disclaimer. I, frankly think it would give their arguments much more credibility.

I would never suggest that government require such disclosures, but I do think, we all should take it upon ourselves to disclose our biases and the reasons.

Tags: voip, fcc, e911

Posted by jeff at 08:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (69)

Truth in Advertising (and Blogging) in the Blogosphere:

Something I've been thinking about for quite some time is that the time has come for us, in the Blogosphere, to take it upon ourselves to offer some degree of "truth in advertising" in our blogging. That is to say, when we find ourselves shamelessly self-promoting or hawking a product and/or service, let's reveal tag our true intentions.

Since the launch of my Blog in 2003, I have sometimes used it to promote one of my upcoming conferences. And while I may think that my motivations are pure and my purpose is quite obvious when I plug the events I produce in this manner, from this point forward I intend to include an "advertisement" tag when using my blog to directly promote such activities.

Most of the time, I, however, use my blog to share my passion for quite a number of unrelated products and services and websites simply because I believe in them, as well as my passion for poker and baseball and most enabling technologies. And there are times when I use my blog as a platform to share my position on a public policy issue and again there is no hidden agenda there, just a voice and an opinion on a given topic.

Of course, there are times where I use my blog to provide information and updates that relate directly to some of my business interests, mostly in cases where I am a primary source for such information. And while this is a bit of a grey area, most of my blog posts of that nature are informational and not intended as advertisements.

Going into 2006, I would like to see other bloggers subscribe to the concept of flagging their own blog posts that are really ads.

How about you?

Tags: voip, advertising

Posted by jeff at 08:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (112)

November 27, 2005

Susan Crawford: The New Regulatory Capture II

Susan Crawford blog: The New Regulatory Capture II

"...It's all pretty astonishing and pretty abusive, and the DC Circuit will have its say soon. The CDT coalition just filed a very strong request for a stay of the CALEA order with the FCC, and will file a similar request in court on December 7 if the Commission doesn't respond. The stay request points out that the FCC has effectively delegated its authority to decide how CALEA will be complied with to the DOJ..."

"...But if you listen to VeriSign, we're all being silly, the world has moved on, and we should just shape up and get with the program. I feel sorry for the well-meaning professional staff at the Commission. They're under tremendous pressure."

And I do as well.

Tags: voip, fcc, CALEA, verisign, DOJ

Posted by jeff at 04:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (22)

Tom Evslin on AlwaysOn: "Don't Buy DSL From This Man (If You Can Help It)"

Nice to see Tom's "Don't Buy DSL From This Man (If You Can Help It)" blog posting get additional exposure on AlwaysOn.

Posted by jeff at 09:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (17)

November 26, 2005

This week in my corner of the Blogosphere:

This started off with more interesting news in the "Broadcast 2.0" space with the announcement that it will soon be possible to download TV shows from TiVo to an iPod.

This was also the week that Capitol Hill addressed the E911 VoIP issue with Bipartisan support where members from the US Senate and the House Weighed in on Emergency Response.

Kudos to Australia for their announced VoIP Policy Framework which includes a separate non-geographic numbering scheme.

And perhaps due to the relatively slow news week brought on by the US Thanksgiving Holiday, this also seemed to be the week that the Skype Paparazzi, including: Andy Abramson, Alec Saunders, Om Malik, Mark Evans and a few others chimed in, including, Skype Paparazzi wanna be Mike over at Utopia/IP.

It will be interesting to see whether or not the FCC reevaluates on Monday, their designed E911 D-Day for VoIP service providers in the US.

Tags: voip, skype, fcc, e911, communications

Posted by jeff at 03:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (16)

Enough with the Skype! Gossip:

Maybe one day the IP Communications industry will be so mainstream that the tabloid magazines that publish the photos the paparazzi take of Hollywood celebrities and music icons will include the stories of the scorned teams that helped make a company happen and whose dreams were taken away because a strategic deal got in the way. O.K. there already was that story about Skype in Vanity Fair Magazine right after the story about Jennifer Aniston, but, until this really happens, we only have our friends who have joined the Skype Paparazzi crew (including: Andy Abramson, Om Malik, Mark Evans and others) who have decided to gossip about the “dark days ahead” of the company. Guess it must have been an otherwise slow news week.

Like it or not, the eBay/Skype merger was a transformational event in the world of computing and communications and it helped drive home the concept that in the land of IP Communications, voice is just an application and not a service.

Right from the launch of Skype it was pretty clear that Skype represented the second wave of the IP Communications revolution and it has been a fun watching them do what they do best. Disrupt the status quo.

While the success of Skype didn’t kill SIP, Skype provided a much needed wake up call to the IP Communications industry and has encouraged a new generation of developers to rethink their approach to how to facilitate peer to peer communication. To their credit, Skype launched a product that was easy to use, navigated NATs and Firewalls so that the consumers didn’t have worry about such things, licensed great technology from Global IP Sound so that their product would have a high quality sound and could be used as a speaker phone (with built-in echo cancellation) . Oh and Skype also embraced the developer community and published an API to encourage others to add value to their platform.

A number of friends who make career bets on the success of SIP are now embracing the latest SIP trend, Peer to Peer SIP and their drive and dedication of making Peer to Peer SIP a reality has come from watching the success of Skype.

What happens next in the life of Skype is in the hands of their current management. The impact that Skype has had in the world of IP Communications can not be taken away and they are a living case study of: “How to be a Disruptor.”

Tags: voip, skype

Posted by jeff at 09:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (79)

November 25, 2005

FWD's "Call-Me" feature upholds the End-to-End Principle (According to Aswath):

As the "festive" Aswath pointed out in a recent post, whenever FWD's "Call-Me" feature is used, the "end-to-end principle is upheld."

It was nice to see Aswath draw attention to something that has been available with FWD since 2003, and something which today is still unique to the FWD service.

Tags: voip, FWD

Posted by jeff at 02:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (18)

Business 2.0 on Vivox:

B2DAY: Startup Watch: Vivox (VoIP Apps for Dating and Gaming Sites)

"As I've said before, the interesting thing about VoIP is not cheap phone calls. It is the new voice applications VoIP allows you to create. A startup called Vivox is taking this notion to heart. One of Vonage co-founder (and VoIP conference impresario) Jeff Pulver's companies, Vivox powers Pulver's FreeWorldDialup PC-to-PC phone service. Recently spun off from Pulver.com, Vivox is now hawking its VoIP backend services to dating and online gaming sites."

Posted by jeff at 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)

Looking for a post-Thanksgiving “Black Friday” on the Net:

In the United States, while the Friday after Thanksgiving has been known as the largest retail shopping day of the year, my bet is that within a year or two, this spike in sales traffic will move even more significantly to the Internet.

Now while I am pretty confident there will always be some group of people (including some relatives of mine) who seem to have nothing better to do with their time then to wake up before dawn and drive to various retail stores, then proceed to wait in long lines for the stores to open, personally I try to do everything I can to avoid the traffic, the people, and the really long lines.

The challenge for the retailers will be to find a way to report daily retail internet sales in a way that can be monitored and measured just as easily as what happens when a TV station sends a lazy reporter to a shopping mall and then reports on the buzz of crowds in the stores and how busy the parking lot looks. Otherwise, as we reach the tipping point for retail sales on the Internet, the media may misinterpret what it means when there are smaller crowds in the shopping malls on “Black Friday.”

Welcome to “Black Friday” on the Net. Now you can just stay at home and shop.

Posted by jeff at 08:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (40)

November 24, 2005

Happy Thanksgiving Day!

Thanksgiving Day in the United States is a day that I’ve traditionally known as a day where: families gathered, upon reflection we offer thanks, the day I listen to "Alice's' Restaurant", a festive holiday meal is shared, and a time to watch a football game or two.

Looking back at 2005, the Worldwide IP Communications Industry has a lot to be thankful for and I can’t help but appreciate how much has changed in a good way during the past twelve months. Of course with our growth, does come the continued challenges. I can only imagine how interesting and exciting the next twelve months are most likely going to be.

Today is also one of those days when I really miss members of my own extended family who used to be there to share in our Thanksgiving Day festivities.

Happy Thanksgiving Day to All!

Tags: voip, thanksgiving

Posted by jeff at 03:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (17)

November 23, 2005

First the Senate, and now the House Weigh in on Emergency Response - When Will the FCC Get the 411 on 911?

On Monday, a bipartisan coalition of 10 Senators told the FCC that they thought the FCC's marketing restriction imposed on VoIP providers who cannot offer a ubiquitous E-911 capability might "impede competition and unnecessarily delay deployment of 911." And yesterday, the leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (from both sides of the aisle, and including the Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee and the Co-Chairs of the E-911 Caucus) suggested that the FCC should appoint an interim pseudo-automatic number identification routing number administrator to help ensure that VoIP providers can comply with E-911 obligations. According to the sentiment expressed in the letter signed by Reps. Barton, Dingell, Upton, Pickering, Gordon, Shimkus, and Eshoo, the FCC should provide nomadic VoIP providers additional time to implement the pseudo ANI solution and to deploy E-911. The letter acknowledged that nomadic VoIP providers do not have all the tools necessary to satisfy the FCC's E-911 requirements.

Obviously, the interconnected VoIP providers owe another debt of gratitude to the Representatives who have interceded on behalf of the nascent industry and the early adopters and pioneers of IP-based communications in seeking to allow the industry the time and resources needed to abide by the FCC's E-911 mandate.

I, however, am forced to wonder how we got to where we are today. Why is Congress forced to intercede on behalf of the industry that just one year ago seemed to be the golden child that everyone wanted to nurture? Why are we and Congress forced to "applaud this Commission's actions on E-911?" And why is Congress' course of action to buy time and give the industry the resources to build a backward-compatible capability into IP-based networks? And why is the industry compelled to stop its progress in building an i3 or next generation emergency response solution, a solution that could allow Americans to take advantage of an all IP infrastructure to radically enhance emergency response capabilities? And why doesn't anyone care about a petition I submitted four years ago, in the wake of the tragedy at the World Trade Center that would dramatically improve in-building wireless emergency response capabilities? If you have an IP line in an office building, the provider is obligated to track the user's location, but if you have a mobile phone in a building, there is no compulsion for the wireless provider to track the user's location? Could the answer to my last question be because it would cost the wireless industry too much money - money better spent on lobbying? Now wouldn't that be money wasted? I guess this just depends upon who you are.

In a similar vain, I wonder who caught the announcement that StanaPhone is no longer
an ``Interconnected VoIP Provider''?

In announcing its self-reclassification as something other than an "Interconnected VoIP Provider", the company has essentially affirmed to the powers-that-be that it is not obligated to meet the FCC's November 28th E-911 for VoIP deadline.

StanaPhone basically changed its offerings so that it now provides five different and separate services, including separate 'Stana-IN' and 'Stana-OUT' services. StanaPhone adds that "it is not designed as a replacement for a traditional household or office landline, that it will not be marketed as such, and that our users should not expect 911 functionality."

This is a work-around that I had indicated the FCC was compelling when it first adopted the E-911 for VoIP Order back in May. But why should a provider, particularly a provider of a free service (like my own FWD), be compelled by regulatory fiat to jump through such hoops if it wants to provide some degree of connectivity to the PSTN? Isn't it enough that the consumer is made aware that its service does not offer a traditional E-911 capability? How many other providers of varying flavors, with varying degrees of PSTN-connectivity and varying degrees of resemblance to traditional telephone services will feel compelled to embark on such convoluted, kluged work-arounds or cease business or charge for an application that it was willing to give away?

And how many other entrepreneurs will also decide to leave the connected VoIP marketplace in the States? In the wake of the FCC's imposition of backward-looking emergency response obligations on forward-looking application providers, a number of would be entrepreneurs and investors who would have be involved in offering interconnected VoIP services in America are choosing not to. And how many others will come to their senses (or give themselves over to reckless abandon - depending on your point of view) and take the regulators to task for stifling innovation and imposing backward-looking regulations on forward-looking technologies, instead of continuing the refrain "we applaud the FCC's actions on E-911?"

Tags: voip, fcc, e911, communications

Posted by jeff at 06:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (15)

November 22, 2005

Australian VoIP Policy Framework Includes a separate non-geographic numbering scheme:

Scientists have theorized that over the course of millions of years, the Earth's magnetic poles might flip. Are recent policy developments Down Under the first sign that North is South, East is West, Australia is New America, and America is Old Australia?

The Australian Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has released recommendations, which will be implemented by the Australian Government, on a policy and regulatory framework for VoIP.

The report is available at:
http://www.dcita.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/34194/VOIP_Report_November_2005.pdf

The Minister's Release is available at:
http://www.dcita.gov.au/tel/internet_and_broadband_services/emerging_voice_services.

The Australian Government comments: "As broadband access technologies become increasingly available and widely adopted, a range of voice, data and multimedia services will be enabled over a single broadband connection. VoIP services offer consumers a number of benefits, including greater functionality, nomadicity (the ability to use the service in different locations) and, depending on their circumstances, cost savings."

Not a bad starting premise for a government policy framework.

The report found no immediate need to significantly change the regulatory framework, but recommended some small adjustments to existing numbering, emergency services and customer service regulation to accommodate VoIP services.

Among other things, the report noted that Australia will introduce a new number range to facilitate the development of VoIP services. A new non-geographic number range will be established for VoIP services to allow providers to offer VOIP services which are not location specific so a customer can keep the same number when moving house.

According to the Australian Government, "Innovative VOIP services are increasingly becoming available to Australian consumers. VOIP has the potential to offer consumers benefits in terms of price and convenience. By establishing a new number range for VOIP services, providers will be able to market the unique features of their services without existing phone number information being compromised."

I have been somewhat alone among many VoIP advocates in suggesting that a special number block might allow VoIP services to evolve in a regulation-free zone without any confusion among consumers expecting all telecom services to behave the same. I had suggested that the FCC allocate the "500" Area Code to IP-based communications, with the latitude to develop next-generation solutions to social goals such as emergency response and disabilities access. I, in no way, have suggested that VoIP providers be "ghetto-ized" and precluded from availing themselves of traditional numbering resources. But, as the FCC has made clear, use of traditional, limited resources and a tendency to replicate traditional telecom services, will subject the VoIP industry to traditional telecom regulations and stifle innovation and differentiation.

We have not had a chance to digest the substance, nuances and ramifications of the Australian framework, but I thought it was important to share another government's approach to enabling IP-based communications while ensuring the public good. pulver.com submitted comments last year to the Australian Government in this proceeding. At the time, I had some concerns that Australia would not take as forward-looking an approach as I expected from the Americans. Scientists have speculated that over the course of millions of years, the Earth's magnetic poles might flip. Is this the first sign?

Tags: voip, fcc, Australia, policy communications

Posted by jeff at 09:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (11)

Senators Send E-911 Letter to FCC -- Sometimes a Letter Is a Better Emergency Response Mechanism than a Phone Call:

We in the IP-based communications industry owe a special thanks to Senators Stevens, Burns, Smith, Allen, Sununu, Snowe, DeMint, Clinton, Lautenberg, Ensign, and Corzine.

It seems that this bipartisan group of 10 Senators, from across the political spectrum, sent a letter to Chairman Martin yesterday suggesting that the FCC should take the unanimous vote of the Senate Commerce Committee on S-1063 - "The IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act of 2005" -- as strong indication of the preferred policy direction of Congress. The letter suggested that the FCC should take the substance of the Bill seriously because Congress will likely pass an E-911 bill that would allow more latitude for IP-based communications providers to build a better emergency response capability than that currently compelled by the FCC's E-911 for VoIP Order without stifling deployment of IP-based technologies and services.

In commenting on the FCC's recent Public Notice advising VoIP providers that they need not disconnect any existing customers come November 28th, the Senate letter pointed out that the FCC's "[public] notice and the marketing restriction contained therein may impede 911 deployments by inadvertently encouraging third party competitors to deny VoIP providers access to essential 911 elements. This restriction could impede competition and unnecessarily delay deployment of 911. . Although it is unlikely that S-1063 will become law by Nov. 28, we have no reason to believe that it will not eventually be signed into law."

I think it is important for those of us attempting to promote and deploy IP-based communications services to recognize, thank and support those Senators who recognized the need to strike an appropriate balance between encouraging the rollout of new and innovative VoIP services desired by consumers in a competitive market, and obliging interconnected VoIP providers to deliver E-911 nationwide while providing them the necessary access requirements to meet that obligation.

What I find remarkable and encouraging is how broad the political spectrum is represented on this letter. To me, this demonstrates two things: (1) protection and promotion of the Internet and IP-based communications is not a partisan issue; and (2) there are some in Congress who are willing to support a cause simply because it is the right thing to do and in America's best long-term interest. Again, "Thank You" to those Senators who got past the easy short-run sound-bite and platitudes to see the bigger picture and the better, IP-enabled, future.

Tags: voip, fcc, e911, communications

Posted by jeff at 05:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)

November 21, 2005

And Now TiVo and iPod are Communicating:

For the past few Mondays, there has been an accumulating number of announcements that when pieced together have a significant impact in the quick-paced evolution of the “Broadcast 2.0” space.

On a flight to Boston this morning, I read with interest a story in the Market section of the Wall Street Journal that discussed the fact that TiVo will be enabling the ability for people to store an unlimited number of TiVo programs on an iPod. While it is already possible to store MPEG2 and MPEG4 files on a video iPod, this move by both companies will accelerate the time when eventually the majority of people view TV content for the first time at the time that is convenient for them to view it. “Time shifting” of TV viewing started with the advent of the commercial VCR, but it is the commercial success of products like TiVo that is helping to usher in the way the “broadband generation” will be experiencing TV. Over time we should expect to see other devices become supported destinations of TiVo files.

Earlier this year I discovered an Open Source project known as MythTV that can be described perhaps as ‘TiVo on Steroids.” Those of you who have some time on their hands and have an interest in building a more powerful personal TiVo, should consider taking a hard look at the work that is currently be done within the MythTV group. There is no limitation to the way some people will be able to access TV content.

2005 will be known for a number of things, and one trend that wasn’t so apparent at the start of the year is that 2005 will be known by those in the traditional broadcasting industry as the year their industry was disrupted.

Tags: tivo, ipod, broadcast 2.0

Posted by jeff at 09:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (15)

Counting Crows will be playing Spring 2006 VON!

Adam Duritz, Charlie, Matt and the rest of Counting Crows will be performing at the 10th Anniversary Spring 2006 VON Party (Concert) on the night of March 16th in San Jose.

I've been a fan of the Counting Crows for quite some time and have spent the past year listening to their music while driving in my car.

In the ten years of producing our VON events and planning our VON parties (and concerts), we have had a number of great artists who gave memorable performances including: Larry Carlton, Spyro Gyra, South Side Johnny, Eagle Eye Cherry, John Cafferty and the Beaver Brown Band, Third Eye Blind, The "Voices" of Classic Rock, Stroke 9, Smashmouth, The Commitments, Lifehouse, Train, Nine Days, The Calling, Herding Cats, Liz Phair, Goo Goo Dolls, Heart and most recently, Huey Lewis and the News.

I'm already looking forward to Spring 2006 VON and sharing the fun at our 10th Anniversary "All Conference" Party. Hope you can join us! :)

Tags: voip, counting crows, von, events

Posted by jeff at 05:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (11)

November 20, 2005

BBC News Media Delivered to your Desktop:

Once again the BBC has taken the lead of media exploration on the web.

"For the first time, BBC News video and audio is available via RSS"

Details on the BBC Website

Posted by jeff at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)

November 19, 2005

This week in my corner of the Blogosphere:

This week the pulvermedia team traveled to Las Vegas and co-produced the first edition of IP.4.IT together with CMP. While I was in Las Vegas I gave a keynote on Tuesday and spent some time taking pictures of the event and shared a book signing with Henry Sinnreich. I enjoyed reading the accounting of IP.4.IT in Information Week.

The week opened with Om’s positive comments on the state of VoIP based on numbers from Telegeography.

On Monday AOL continued down their "Broadcasting 2.0" path and announced "IN2TV" where they will distribute full-length TV episodes of TV series own by Warner Bros.

On Monday I asked if the White House trying to send a signal to FCC Chairman Martin on VoIP, an issue that came up again on Friday.

On Tuesday I explored what are the implications of the FCC’s E-911 Order on Wireline, Wireless (CMRS), Satellite, and other providers who cannot provide E-911 service to Rural America by Nov. 28? It's Saturday and I'm still wondering...

On Wednesday Sony announced the launch of their "skype-like" service right on the heels of the Yak for Free announcement.

On the flight back from Las Vegas I thought about my Languishing Wireless E-911 Phase III Petition.

This week Aswath blogged about Iotum, a company whose vision I've been impressed with ever since Alec and Howard visited the friendly confines of pulver.com back in early September.

The other day I re-discovered my inner Pac-Man and have become hooked playing a pretty amazing flashed-based clone of the original Pac-Man game.

Blog posts of note:

* Tom Evslin Bubble 2.0 – It’s The APIs
* Tom Evslin Bubble 2.0 – Why Not APIs?
* Doc Searls - Linux Journal: Saving the Net: How to Keep the Carriers from Flushing the Net Down the Tubes

Tags: voip, fcc, e911, ip4it

Posted by jeff at 03:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (10)

Mets Give Mike Cameron to the Padres and get Who???

Since this is the start of the holiday season, it almost comes as no surprise to see that the Mets are now in a gift giving mode and decided to give Mike Cameron to the Padres in exchange for someone no one has ever heard of, except maybe his mother, a player known as: Xavier Nady.

The good news for Mike Cameron is that 2006 will be a super season for him, since he is destined for greatness now that he has left the Mets. This is one of the great traditions the Mets are known for.

As a season ticket holder who only went to a handful of games in 2005 and who had trouble giving away the tickets to the last 40 days of the season, I'm still looking for the Mets to make that move that convinces me that 2006 will be the year the Mets really become a contender, or at least have a chance to share some fun with their fans.

One post-season acquisition the sports press didn’t pick up on is the move that the majority owner of the NY Mets, Fred Wilpon’s Sterling Equities recently made in Melville, NY. In an ironic twist of fate, pulver.com has a new landlord, Sterling Equities, who picked up our building from the portfolio of Blumenfeld Development Group.

Tags: mets

Posted by jeff at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (17)

DSL Prime: Moore's Law Too Fast For D.C

DSL Prime: DSL Prime: Moore's Law Too Fast For D.C.

Dave Burstein discusses the 2005 Marconi Society Dinner Gala and our recent Peripheral Visionaries' Summit.

Posted by jeff at 08:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (12)

November 18, 2005

President Bush's Chief Science and Technology Advisor Speaks at WSIS in Support of Internet Communications:

Following up on my earlier blog of Nov. 14 ("Is the White House Trying to Send FCC Chairman Martin a Signal on VoIP?), it really does seem like the White House is still trying to send the FCC (and others) a signal about not denying citizen access to Internet voice communications.

Speaking at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) this week, John Marburger, the President's Chief Science and Technology Advisor said, "It is the role of governments to ensure that this freedom of expression is available to its citizens and not to stand in the way of people seeking to send and receive information across the Internet." The WSIS' stated objective was to narrow the digital divide and ensure that everyone everywhere has access to Internet communications.

Associated Press: Technology Summit Wraps Up in Tunisia

Tags: voip, fcc, e911, policy

Posted by jeff at 02:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Pac-Man: "Unofficial Clone" by Paul Neave

Fans of Pac-Man should consider giving Paul Neave's Flash-based Pac-Man clone a try.

Posted by jeff at 07:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (16)

Show Coverage of IP.4.IT: Going IP, A La Google

Information Week: Show Coverage: Going IP, A La Google

"Is your IT department ready to roll out flexible services built on top of an open, IP-based architecture? It better be, say tech leaders at this week's IP.4.IT show, pointing to Google as the perfect working model."

Posted by jeff at 06:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)

November 17, 2005

Sony sort of launches their own Internet Phone Service:

Associated Press: Sony Unveils Internet-Based Phone Service

Sony announced the launch of their IVE, "Instant Video Everywhere", “skype-like” service.

But does Sony realize what the implications are for being a company associated with offering both a connected and non-connected VoIP Service in the USA?

Maybe they do.

Quoting from the story:

'...This doesn't mean that Sony Electronics wants to be a telephone company.

"We are a manufacturing company that sells hardware ... we're not going to become a voice telephony provider," said Eric Murphy, vice president of video conferencing at Sony Electronics."

Sounds like the spin doctors at Sony are still trying to figure this one out.

Tags: voip, sony, e911, skype

Posted by jeff at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (14)

My Languishing Wireless E-911 Phase III Petition:

For those of you following my blog, you might have noticed that I have spent a lot of time criticizing the FCC for its backward-looking and anti-innovative approach to emergency response, and for singling out the VoIP industry for more onerous compliance obligations. I think I have to reiterate that my criticism of the FCC’s approach is NOT motivated by any aversion to emergency response. I want IP technology to revolutionize America and the World’s best emergency response capability as soon as possible. But I am baffled about the disparate treatment towards the nascent IP-based communications industry vis-à-vis other more established, richer and more connected industry players.

I am also forced to wonder why the FCC has never acted on a petition I filed on September 20, 2001 to the FCC to consider an E-911 Phase III initiative to improve in-building mobile coverage. I was motivated by the horror of 9/11. I worked at Cantor Fitzgerald Securities at One World Trade Center until 1996. Cantor lost seven hundred employees that day, including many very close friends and former colleagues. And I resolved to promote better emergency response capabilities in buildings. I am convinced that many of my former colleagues and friends did not know what to do when the planes struck the World Trade Center. Back in 1993, after the World Trade Center truck bombing, we were told to head to the 108th floor and go to the roof. I am sure many folks did just that and that may have contributed to their inability to evacuate the building. Sadly, the need for improved indoors tracking was clearly demonstrated during the tragic events of September 11, 2001 at the New York World Trade Center.

So, four year ago, I petitioned the FCC to consider issuing an E-911 Phase III directive aimed at reducing the response time for wireless emergency 911 calls in large buildings and similarly structured interiors. Improving emergency response time in these environments would entail new accuracy requirements for locating mobile phones in indoors settings.

Now we live in a world where only the VoIP providers are Federally-obligated to provide fully-compliant E-911 obligations to business users. Mobile providers do not have to provide full location based emergency response tracking the user to a precise floor or location. Neither are multi-line business phones that use traditional TDM or circuit-based technology. For some reason, once a traditional PBX is replaced with an IP-PBX, that phone is now subject to increased obligations.

Why is the new technology and the new provider subject to deadlines and obligations that, to date, have not been imposed upon the much more prevalent and established services and technologies that have had many more years to implement a solution? Why does the IP-PBX phone at the Commerce Department have to be E-911 compliant but the non-IP multi-line phones at the FCC do not? And what about the fate of my E-911 Phase III Petition?

Tags: voip, fcc, e911, policy

Posted by jeff at 08:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (171)

Doc Searls on The Future of the Net:

Linux Journal: Saving the Net: How to Keep the Carriers from Flushing the Net Down the Tubes

"We're hearing tales of two scenarios -- one pessimistic, one
optimistic -- for the future of the Net. If the paranoids are
right, the Net's toast. If they're not, it will be because we
fought to save it, perhaps in a new way we haven't talked about
before. Davids, meet your Goliaths.

This is a long essay. There is, however, no limit to how long I
could have made it. The subjects covered here are no less
enormous than the Net and its future. Even optimists agree that
the Net's future as a free and open environment for business and
culture is facing many threats. We can't begin to cover them all
or cover all the ways we can fight them. I believe, however, that
there is one sure way to fight all of these threats at once, and
without doing it the bad guys will win. That's what this essay is
about."

Posted by jeff at 07:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (14)

November 16, 2005

Announcing Spring 2006 VON: March 14-17 in San Jose

Our 10th Anniversary VON event, Spring 2006 VON will be taking place March 14-17 2006 at the San Jose Convention Center.

As a reader of my blog, you can once again take advantage of a special offer, which is valid for the month of November only. Register using priority code JPBLOG1 and save an additional US$300 off the current pricing for either the "VON Package" or "Full Conference" registration options.

In addition, you can register for FREE access to the exhibit hall using the JPBLOG1 priority code.

Looking forward to seeing everyone in San Jose in March.

Tags: voip, events, von, policy

Posted by jeff at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (20)

Additional Images from IP.4.IT:

Posted by jeff at 02:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (12)

November 15, 2005

Microsoft and Cisco: Ready to Rumble?:

BusinessWeek: Microsoft and Cisco: Ready to Rumble?

"There's not a market that's safe from Microsoft," says Jeff Pulver, one of the leading authorities in VoIP"

Posted by jeff at 05:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (35)

What are the implications of the FCC’s E-911 Order on Wireline, Wireless (CMRS), Satellite, and other providers who cannot provide E-911 service to Rural America by Nov. 28?

As the Nov. 28 Deadline for compliance with the FCC E-911 for VoIP Order approaches, I have decided to issue a Pop Quiz to my friends in the Blogosphere, mostly because I need a reality check.

(1) Does the FCC E-911 for VoIP Order only apply to VoIP providers who do not have the backing of an ILEC, a cable company or a satellite company?
(2) Are those who have not implemented IP technology exempted from the E-911 for VoIP obligations?
(3) Are those wireless, satellite, cable companies or rural telcos who have incorporated IP technology somehow exempted from the E-911 for VoIP obligations?
(4) What separates the carriers in the proceeding question from the stand-alone VoIP providers directly implicated by the Order?
(5) Should it be relevant whether or not a provider has incorporate IP technology in determining whether the provider is allowed to offer service?
(6) Do rural LECs have to stop marketing service where there is not an E-911 solution in place?
(7) What would be the motivation to single out IP technology from the other technologies used to deliver voice communications?
(8) It cannot be possible that the only reason the unaffiliated VoIP providers are being singled out for more onerous restrictions and excluded from providing service to potential consumers is that they might take business from carriers with deeper pockets and political connections, can it?
(9) Is there any logic to any of this?

On November 28, two weeks from now, VoIP providers will not be allowed to market VoIP services where there is not an E-911 solution available in that vicinity. As I have mentioned, this is the first time, to my knowledge, that the FCC has determined that consumers in vast swaths of America should not be allowed to avail themselves of a service or technology with a willing vendor or supplier. Wireless (CMRS) providers, satellite providers, other mobile providers, rural providers across vast stretches of America will not be able to provide E-911 to these very same regions, and yet, it seems that they will be allowed to continue marketing their services to these consumers. In fact, the FCC is currently considering a petition to extend the deadline by which mobile handsets must include GPS chips. The wireless industry, even backed by the deep pockets of their Bell parents, has had some 16 years to provide E-911, and still cannot provide it to much of the country.

Answers (as verified by Magic 8-Ball): (1) Most Likely; (2) Signs Point to Yes; (3) Ask Again Later; (4) Cannot Predict Now; (5) Reply Hazy, Try Again; (6) Very Doubtful; (7) Concentrate and Ask Again; (8) Better Not Tell You Now; (9) My Sources Say No.

I welcome other answers. Let’s triangulate our Magic 8-Balls. That would be as logical as the FCC’s current approach.

Tags: voip, fcc, e911, policy

Posted by jeff at 09:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (24)

Images from IP.4.IT:

Our welcome reception for IP.4.IT took place last night
at the Rio Hotel in Las Vegas. Below are some of the images from the event:

Posted by jeff at 09:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (21)

November 14, 2005

Is the White House trying to send a signal to FCC Chairman Martin on VoIP?

A week ago today, there were two critical yet contradictory statements impacting the future of VoIP -- one from the President's top telecom advisor, and one from the head of the FCC. Michael Gallagher, head of NTIA - the agency that is the President's voice in speaking to the FCC - delivered an inspired presentation on promoting broadband and the importance of advanced technologies for rural America.

He concluded by outlining the President's vision:

* "The President has a vision for making advanced technologies available to all Americans - by creating the economic and regulatory environment to enhance competition and promote innovation."

...

* "The President's goal will ensure that all Americans have the personal and economic benefits of high-speed Internet applications and services."

But on the same day, the FCC Chairman took a starkly different approach to these same technologies. He released a public notice which appears at odds with the Presidents stated goals of the same day. Rather than making advanced technologies available to "all Americans," the FCC's Public Notice would for the first time limit competition and specifically ensure that all Americans cannot take advantage of high-speed Internet technologies. The FCC's public notice would prevent an estimated 98 million mostly rural Americans from taking advantage of VoIP while E911 is being deployed. Gallagher says the President's goal will "ensure all Americans have the personal and economic benefits of high-speed Internet applications and services." I read that to mean that all Americans should have access to VoIP - and I agree.

So I'm scratching my head, is the FCC Chairman out of step with the President's goals? Or is Gallagher out of step with the FCC Chairman? I don't know. But I find it interesting that after the FCC's unusual public notice to specifically prevent the marketing of advanced broadband applications to millions of Americans that the White House quickly nominated Deborah Tate as a new FCC commissioner. She has a specific track record focused on enabling Americans to take advantage of VoIP. Are they trying to bring some balance to the FCC decision-making on VoIP? She, for example, had previously told the FCC about the promise of VoIP, saying "There is no doubt that IP-enabled services hold great promise for bringing competitive choice to consumers. I suggest that we greet the transformative IP technology with an equally transformative approach to regulatory environment for communications."

Personally, I think the President gets it on VoIP. During the campaign last year he said this: "I support innovative communications technologies like Voice Over Internet Protocal (VoIP), and believe they will lead to more communications choices for consumers. VoIP will benefit from the deployment of broadband, and that is one of the reasons I have set an aggressive goal of having affordable broadband access available to all Americans by 2007. We must work toward creating regulatory certainty, which provides companies with the incentive to invest in new technologies and services. Internet telephony by its nature relies on technology that does not distinguish geographic borders. This requires us to take a hard look at the appropriate role of Federal and state regulators with respect to a technology that may be more similar to email than to regular telephony, at least in the way the signal is transmitted." (From CompTIA's October 2004 questionnaire on tech policy 10/29/2004)

Lets just hope that the pro-VoIP views of Bush, Gallagher, and Tate prevail over the "turn it off" views of Martin.

Tags: voip, fcc, e911, policy

Posted by jeff at 08:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (14)

The Evolution of Broadcasting 2.0 Continues: Warner Bros. TV Series will soon be available for viewing on AOL.com

With AOL's announcement of "IN2TV", AOL is actively leveraging assets across their own ecosystem which gives them a competitive advantage in the newly disrupted world of broadcasting, a world what some may consider to part of the "Broadcasting 2.0" space.

It makes complete sense to me that AOL would distributed full-length TV episodes of TV series own by Warner Bros...and while their initial focus is on distributing series that are currently not being syndicated, it is just a matter of time, (and not if), when they will launch new "TV series" on the broadband internet.

Looking at some of AOL's programming assets, across the extended AOL family is a vast programming library that none of their on-line rivals can directly compete against. They will try, but AOL has the initial advantage with existing content.

This is just another sign that we are on the second wave of the dot com evolution. As time goes on, many of the concepts and visions that fueled the first dot com wave back in 1998-2000 may end up being proven right. The only thing that was off was the timing of when this all was going to happen. The companies that were able to stay the course and are fortunate to be around at a time that broadband penetration has reached a critical mass number of worldwide consumers may end up becoming the winners this time around.

It is great to see AOL finally start to leverage the benefits of what many saw was possible back when AOL and Time Warner first announced their merger back in the glory days of January, 2000.

Tags: aol, broadcasting 2.0, disruptive broadcasting

Posted by jeff at 03:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (19)

November 13, 2005

Images from Westhampton Beach: Fall 2005

Posted by jeff at 08:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (14)

Next Stop on pulver.com's 2005 World Tour: Las Vegas

Later this morning I'm leaving for Las Vegas where IP.4.IT will be taking place tomorrow through Wednesday.

IP.4.IT is focused on the effects of IP Communications in the enterprise and the resulting challenges and opportunities this represents to the office of the CIO.

Having worked as a consultant on Wall Street for a number of years, as well as inside the IT group at Cantor Fitzgerald Securities, I had direct experience of what it was like when a new technology was introduced to the business that one would think could not otherwise be ignored. In many cases, it turns out that “change” was not always welcome, even if it represented a better way of doing something.

Fast forward ten years and having watched the evolution of IP Communications in the Enterprise, I thought the time had some to put together an event for Enterprise CIOs, CTOs, IT strategists, enterprise architects, and telecom managers to share ideas and evolve their thinking for the possibilities for IP Communications in the Enterprise. This in turn lead to the creation and now the launch of our new event, IP.4.IT.

See you in Las Vegas!

Tags: voip enterprise, ip4it, events

Posted by jeff at 08:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (11)

November 12, 2005

This week in my corner of the Blogosphere:

This week both Tom Evslin and Aswath Rao shared their reaction to Ed Whitacre's recent "FreeRider" statements. And looking back, I'm still amazed at what he said.

On Monday the FCC issued a Public Notice which has the effect of preventing the marketing of new VoIP services, an action which I am still trying to understand. My blog thoughts on the subject were covered in news stories written by both Infoworld and ZDNet. And I'm not alone.

On Monday the disruption of the Broadcast Industry continued with announcements of a "pay-per-view" strategy from both CBS and NBC Universal. This was summarized nicely on Blogma.

On Tuesday the second round of the Communications Policy War started to unfold. Tuesday night I was in Atlanta for the annual dinner of the Atlanta Telecom Professionals and enjoyed the opportunity to keynote their event.

On Wednesday, the House Subcommittee on Telecom and the Internet Debated IP-based communications (Voice and Video) and Focused on Net Freedom.

On Thursday our second Peripheral Visionaries Summit took place. Some of the people who blogged about the event included: Andy Abramson, Andy Abramson (II), Cynthia Brumfield, Cynthia Brumfield (II), Cynthia Brumfield (III), Susan Crawford, Alec Saunders. While at the Peripheral Visionaries Summit I enjoyed the opportunity of meeting Milo Medin and giving him our first Peripheral Visionary Award.

Blog posts of note:

* Tom Evslin: Open Letter to FCC Chairman Martin on Preparing for the Next Disaster
* Brough Turner: End-to-end overtakes Multicast

Tags: voip communications, fcc, policy

Posted by jeff at 05:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)

Blogosphere Coverage of our Peripheral Visionaries's Summit:

Andy Abramson: Peripheral Visionaries Wrap

Andy Abramson: PV-Jonathan Seelig

Cynthia Brumfield: Broadband Regulation: Intelligent Design v. Evolution

Cynthia Brumfield: No Easy Tech Answers to the Broadband Toll Gate Problem

Cynthia Brumfield: The FCC Does The Best It Can

Alec Saunders: Through or Around?

Posted by jeff at 12:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (43)

Tom Evslin's Open Letter to FCC Chairman Martin:

I thought it was great to see Tom's blog post of his Open Letter to FCC Chairman Martin and appreciated Aswath's follow up comments posted in Learning From Katrina.

I have been contact with some of the people who have tried to make a difference in the weeks after Katrina and have gotten to know the folks at Contact Loved Ones. I am looking forward to listening to the people on the After Hurricane Katrina: Lessons in Disaster Recovery panel taking place on Tuesday night in Las Vegas at IP.4.IT.

Personally, I still believe what we need to see is making a Soft-Line service mandatory of all wireline, cable and wireless service providers. This is a tech innovation that could play well for the broadband generation and serve the dual purpose of enhancing the ability for people to communicate when their preferred communications platform is not otherwise available.

Tags: voip communications, fcc, policy

Posted by jeff at 09:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (24)

November 11, 2005

Peripheral Visionaries -- Building bridges (rather than burning them) in DC:

First of all, I have to say that it was great to be in DC among so many friends and allies. In recent months, I have felt a bit lonely on my trips to DC -- a bit of a pariah among regulators set on imposing their will (in the name of the public good) on the Internet. Apparently, I haven't cultivated the fine art of lobbying -- better known as kissing ass. Apparently, policymakers don't appreciate much critical discourse these days. At least they know I won't be quiet when I feel that policy is moving in the wrong direction -- undermining both technological advancement and the public good.

But I digress. I met with some 200 other Peripheral Visionaries from dawn on Thursday to pretty close to dawn on Friday. I am naturally exhausted, but it's that great exhaustion that comes from feeling like we accomplished something and are on to something big. I am now more convinced than ever that the Peripheral Visionaries' Summit will snowball and evolve into something quite unique, possibly profound, and truly essential to both the IP-based communications industry and to policymakers.

I think this event was even buzzier than our First Peripheral Visionaries' Summit last May. We were obviously fortunate to follow on the heels of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Hearing on IP and Broadband, so everyone was already naturally buzzing. I suspect our next Peripheral Visionaries Summit will be even more worthwhile, enlightening, volatile and productive, when we import even more technologists and thought-leaders to DC. I commit to continue the momentum and make sure the Summit produces long-lasting positive results for those pushing the limits of IP technology, the Internet and communications and for those attempting to promote the public good and evolving public policy for the Internet Age.

We all go to a lot of great technology conferences and many of us even go to great policy conferences. Heck, I like to think I run some of them. There are times when these conferences, however, fail to bear fruit. I have become convinced that when conferences fail to produce long-lasting results, it is because we all tend to get complacent with our own isolated community and complain that other communities just don't get it. Technologists tend to talk among themselves without the ears of policymakers and without their immediate input and reaction. Then, the technologists criticize the policymakers for not getting it. Policymakers create policy in a vacuum and then complain that technologists don't respect public policy or don't engage policymakers in the formulation of tech policy. Regardless of how brilliant our isolated discourses might be, our insights usually occur in our own echo chambers without any lasting effects. By bringing to DC bleeding edge technologists, academics and analysts, who don't generally get much exposure to regulators and legislators, I hope that the policymakers might get a better sense for how technology could evolve under the right policy framework, and I hope that the technologists might leave with a better appreciation of how policy evolves.

The real problem to me seems to be that we -- the IP-based communications innovators -- don't go to DC enough. And now that such a public spotlight has been shining on the Internet (particularly as the Internet can now be used to replicated regulated services), we had better be more engaged.

I think we assembled a pretty amazing collection of big thinkers for yesterday's Summit, the likes of which DC might never have seen in such a setting before. My intention is to bring even more of these unique minds to mix with the DC policy folks next time. If Peripheral Visionaries can be seen as a mecca, a pilgrimage by IP innovators to DC, I think Peripheral Visionaries will play an essential role in the overlap between technology and policy, by serving as a place where innovators, entrepreneurs, academics, analysts, critical commentators, legal minds, advocates, and policymakers might cross-pollinate to seed a mutual virtuous cycle for technology and policy.

Tags: voip communications, policy

Posted by jeff at 05:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (13)

Milo Medin Receives First Peripheral Visionary Award:

Milo Medin

I was honored to present Milo Medin with the first Peripheral Visionary Award yesterday.

Milo has been a pioneer and leading proponent and catalyst for the Internet and broadband. As the founder and CTO of @Home, Milo really was the brains behind the commercialization and rollout of the cable modem, and his vision and commitment truly helped to usher in the communications revolution. Without Milo's genius, dedication, and seminal efforts, we likely would not see the degree of commercial broadband deployment that we see today. And without the emerging broadband ubiquity, we would not see the proliferation of Internet-based applications and the radical transformation in the ways in which we communicate and avail ourselves of the ever more robust Internet. In short, we in the IP-based communications industry and the broader Internet owe our existence to such pioneers as our Peripheral Visionary recipient.

Milo also lived through many of the policy, technology, and business battles that foreshadowed many of the battles we are encountering today. We picked Milo as our first recipient, not just because his drive to rollout broadband paved the way for the dramatic changes in the Internet and the proliferation of IP-based communications applications, but also because his early battles should serve to guide the emerging IP-based communications industry as it enters its adolescence and experiences market and regulatory battles similar to our recipient's early battles to bring broadband to American consumers.

Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.

Yesterday, Milo gave us all a great history lesson, and shared with us a vision for the future.

Posted by jeff at 04:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (11)

More Images from our Peripheral Visionaries's Summit:

Posted by jeff at 06:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (12)

November 10, 2005

Images from the Peripheral Visionaries's Summit

Posted by jeff at 02:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (10)

Talk to the HandBlog:

During the past couple years, there have been a number of times when a reporter who was working on a story at deadline, used a quote from one of my blog posting instead of, for whatever reason, reaching out to actually speak with me. This concept works for me since my blog is also my (virtual) voice. While in the past this has mostly happened with stories for the trade press, it is also starting to happen with stories written by the business press. While I do enjoy the opportunity to be interviewed directly, I also appreciate it when my blog ends up being an attributed and acknowledged source for a story.

This trend continued this week with a couple of stories that covered the FCC's E911 Deadline:

ZDNet: FCC abandons E911 deadline

InfoWorld: Latest FCC E911 decision rankles VoIP providers

With my hectic travel schedule, I appreciate the fact that the "virtual me" can at times also speak for the "real" me.

Tags: voip, fcc, e911, communications, policy

Posted by jeff at 06:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (13)

The Return of Ben Charny: A Most Excellent Story for eWeek

I last saw and heard from Ben Charny back at Spring 2005 VON when he was a writer for CNET. Ben’s is silent no more as he has recently jumped ship and went over to Ziff Davis where he is still covering the VoIP space.

Ben’s most excellent story: VOIP No Longer for the Underdog.

Tags: voip, fcc, e911, communications, policy

Posted by jeff at 01:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (23)

November 09, 2005

House Subcommittee on Telecom and the Internet Debates IP-based communications (Voice and Video) and Focuses on Net Freedom:

Jonathan Askin and I tried to make it back to DC this morning from Atlanta for the House Energy and Committee, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Hearing on draft legislation to create a statutory framework for Internet Protocol and Broadband Services. We certainly cannot be critical of our colleagues in IP-based communications if we are not actively engaged ourselves.

We ended up getting back to DC at 1 pm and were stuck on the airplane for a while thereafter due to a security breach at Reagan National Airport. At that point, Jonathan and I had to divide the duties for the day, so he went down to cover the Hearing with a physical presence, while I had to opt for more limited, EvDO-enabled virtual presence through the Webcast. As an Internet evangelist, I hate to admit it, but participating in the physical world still beats Internet-based participation - I ask again, where is the real-time 3D holographic imaging that George Lucas foreshadowed 30 years ago with the first R2D2 unit?

In any event, the Hearing started at 10 am and the first panel (a cross-section of Industry representatives, including both Internet Access providers like SBC, and application providers like Microsoft) was not completed until 2:30 pm.

I was pleasantly surprised by the level of discourse, and the subject and tenor of the debate. Most of the discussion seemed to center around net neutrality and how best to achieve it. If that continues to be the primary topic of the debate as Congress explores communications policy reform, perhaps the results will be better than I had feared. After all, who could legitimately argue with promoting consumer empowerment and net freedom? The debate would have to focus on how best to achieve that laudable goal - pre-existing rules or after-the-fact enforcement. SBC and the cable rep did, however, spend a lot of time obfuscating the issue with concerns over network management and security and the confusion, regulatory support, and litigation that would result from guessing what Congress meant when it codified net neutrality. Frankly, I think more confusion and litigation would ensue if the industry did not have some guidance of what constitutes unlawful behavior in violation of net neutrality.

Earthlink and Microsoft seemed particularly lucid in their technological expertise and in their plea for connectivity principles. Frankly, it was good to see Microsoft step up in support of the issue so publicly, particularly in light of its IP-TV relationship with SBC.

What was best to see was Mr. Markey, ranking member of the Subcommittee rise to the occasion. I have not heard too much from Markey in recent months about communications policy reform, but he sounded like a bona fide champion for consumer empowerment and net freedom. At one point, he indicated that he tended to believe Microsoft more than SBC when it came to whether or not there are network management and security problems that should compel some degree of control over Internet access that might tend to preclude delivery of Internet-based applications. I tended to believe Microsoft more also. In fact, when Jim Ellis of SBC was asked about Ed Whitacre's comments regarding charging for the delivery of voice applications over the Internet, he attempted to obscure the debate by distinguishing between rights and obligations on public Internet versus the private Internet. Ellis stated that SBC's video services would never touch the public Internet. Microsoft and Earthlink, as well as Mr. Markey, called into question precisely how they would prevent use of the public Internet when their customers are using the video service. SBC also avoided the question of whether Whitacre's comments meant that they would discriminate in some way other than out and out blocking.

As I indicated, I did miss the early hours of the Hearing, so I might have missed some Congressional Member involvement, but, by the time I checked in, there were not many Members engaging the panelists. As best I could tell, Mr. Markey came across as the champion for the Internet. I will continue to watch as the debate plays out through the next Term.

I am looking forward to gaining new insights tomorrow at our next Peripheral Visionaries' Summit from others who participated in or observed the Hearing.

Tags: voip, sbc, communications, policy

Posted by jeff at 05:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (15)

The FCC's Ongoing Game of Charades with VoIP E-911, Congress, the DC Circuit, the Industry and Users (At least Charades Does Not Include a "Voice" Application):

In thinking about the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau's Public Notice released on Monday, I cannot help but conclude that the release is little more than lip service to Congress and to the DC Circuit, and a huge bow to the incumbent phone companies in their pursuit to maintain control over captive consumers for as long as possible. My bottom line thinking is that the FCC Public Notice was an attempt to achieve a seemingly palatable pro-VoIP sound bite, but it really is a charade -- window dressing, designed to assuage the DC Circuit in the Nuvio challenge of the FCC E-911 for VoIP Order and to appease Congress in the wake of last week's Senate Commerce Committee message to the FCC that it should not shut off VoIP services.

The FCC guidance, however, is still way too vague and opens the door for selective enforcement of the FCC's rules. No one could know for certain which products and services would be in compliance, beyond an after-the-fact arbitrary decision by the FCC. I am still uncertain why AT&T's "Heartbeat" solution was singled out for FCC kudos as being sufficiently compliant. I don't believe the Heartbeat solution satisfies the letter or spirit of the FCC Order any more than any other provider's preferred approaches. The Heartbeat solution could leave a user with NO SERVICE unbeknownst to the user (simply because power was temporarily disrupted). In a time of crisis, a user could be left with no way for someone to reach the user, nor with access to a local emergency responder. Other VoIP providers have solutions that could better ensure that user service is not disrupted and better ensure that a user could better access a live emergency responder and a responder closer to the user's geographic location.

Most problematic is the fact that the FCC precludes VoIP providers from marketing services and gaining new customers where there is not absolute compliance with the FCC's regulatory- mandated, cookie-cutter E-911 solution. Who does this conclusion benefit? Certainly not rural consumers. Perhaps it benefits incumbents trying to hold on to a captive user base. But their customers are more likely to switch to wireless from wireline than from wireline to broadband. I cannot think of any other instance where the FCC has prevented a new service or technology from being marketed where it does not have a full E-911 solution -- wireline, wireless, satellite all lack E-911 in areas where these services are marketed and sold. I am baffled as to why the FCC felt compelled to single out the nascent IP-based communications industry to more onerous regulation. All this does is deny rural America a choice of a VoIP provider and the right to participate in the communications revolution. With policies like this in place at the FCC, the US is destined to continue to follow other countries in broadband deployment than ever become a leader.

Tags: voip, fcc, communications, policy, e911

Posted by jeff at 08:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (15)

Images from 2005 Atlanta Telecom Professionals Annual Gala:

Posted by jeff at 07:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)

November 08, 2005

Looks like we are in for a full week as we enter Communications Policy War, Round II:

As it turns out, the next Peripheral Visionaries' Summit could not have occurred at a more auspicious moment in the history of communications policy. It seems the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, is planning to hold its first (perhaps only) Hearing TOMORROW, the day before the Peripheral Visionary Summit, on draft legislation to create a statutory framework for Internet Protocol and Broadband Services.

We understand that there might some disarray among the members of the Committee. The Republicans have essentially gone it alone with the latest iteration of the staff draft legislation. It had appeared that the Committee was looking for broad bi-partisan support (and the first staff draft legislation and industry outreach seemed to suggest some degree of cohesion and consensus, at least among the leadership and ranking members of the Committee). It appears that there might now be some dissension in the ranks and between the parties among the proposed approach to communications policy reform legislation.

I like to think that I was somewhat prescient in my Nov. 4th blog posting. I had indicated that I thought the sides are not as clear cut as they had been during the debate over the '96 Act and its aftermath, and that the current tension within Congress exists because the Members are grappling to figure out how IP technology and Moore's Law affect the evolving policy debate and are vying for position as we enter Round II of the Communications Policy War. I would like to think that the IP-based communications innovators could play an important role in shaping communications policy reform. Alas, the latest iteration of the draft legislation gives me pause for optimism.

In any event, I am all the more convinced that we cannot sit by idly while the sides are drawn and the tenor and framework for the communications policy debate is established over the next couple of days.

I will probably be stuck in Atlanta through Wednesday morning, but I do hope that we, the Internet innovators, are recognized at the Hearing and are treated as a positive force and worth include as Congress presses on.

Wednesday's Hearing will quite likely serve as the impetus to move for a markup of a communications reform bill, and, while it is unlikely to be enacted this term, it will likely serve as the template for whatever Congress does next term. This legislation could prove to be the most dramatic reform in communications law in 10 years, if not 70 years, if not ever.

I suspect the Hearing will give us a lot of fuel for discussion at the Peripheral Visionaries Summit.

As the first post-hearing conference, I think the Peripheral Visionaries Summit should be an important event to help the industry and policymakers digest the substance of the Hearing and help focus the discussion as we enter Round II of the Communications Policy War.

Tags: voip, fcc, communications, policy

Posted by jeff at 09:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)

Disruption of the Broadcast Industry Continues: CBS and NBC Universal sort of follow the lead of Disney

Just a few weeks the announcement of the Disney/Apple deal, as expected, CBS and NBC Universal Corp. have both separately announced plans to offer viewings of selected hit shows from their respective portfolios for $.99 cents a viewing, but not on an iPod. Not yet.

CBS has teamed up with Comcast and NBC Universal has partnered with DirecTV.

One day soon I expect to see all the major networks to realize the value of launching an Internet based, “Direct to the Consumer” strategy and offer selected episodes for sale for both on-demand viewing and/or future viewing on MPEG4 devices. But for now CBS and NBC Universal seemed to have taken the easy way out and leveraged the video on demand technology engines of their respective selected business partners.

So while today’s announcement is of a “video on demand” service, it is a start. I do find their selected price points interesting, considering that for only $1.99, Disney is offering their content to be available for download to an iPod and viewed on a whenever / forever basis.

###

Speaking of NBC Universal, kudos to them for making their NBC Nightly News available for viewing on the Internet. It may be just one small step for them, but for some friends at NBC, a giant leap forward in their Internet strategy.

Tags: NBC, CBS, disruptive broadcasting

Posted by jeff at 07:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (14)

November 07, 2005

FCC To Prevent Marketing of New VoIP Services:

This afternoon, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau issued a Public Notice offering some guidance to Interconnected VoIP providers grappling to meet the Nov. 28 deadline to be in compliance with the FCC E-911 Order.

In the Public Notice, the Enforcement Bureau set forth the specific information that interconnected VoIP service providers must include in the Compliance Letters required by the FCC in establishing enhanced 911 requirements for IP-enabled service providers.

According to the Public Notice, Compliance Letters must be filed with the FCC on or before November 28, 2005.

The Public Notice commended AT&T's "Heartbeat" proposal as a viable means to comply with the FCC E-911 for VoIP Order and "strongly encouraged" other providers to adopt similar measures.

Importantly, the Public Notice indicates that "the FCC will not require providers that have not achieved full 911 compliance by November 28, 2005, to discontinue the provision of Interconnected VoIP service to any existing customers, the FCC DOES EXPECT THAT SUCH PROVIDERS WILL DISCONTINUE MARKETING VOIP SERVICE, AND ACCEPTING NEW CUSTOMERS FOR THEIR SERVICE, IN ALL AREAS WHERE THEY ARE NOT TRANSMITTING 911 CALLS TO THE APPROPRIATE PSAP IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMISSION'S RULES."

While the decision not to compel service shut-offs is an important move in the right direction by the FCC, I am not aware of any other instance in which the FCC has prevented a new technology from being marketed where it does not have a full E911 solution -- wireless, wireline, satellite, or MLTS all lack E911 in areas where they are marketed and sold. I am still baffled as to why the FCC has felt compelled to single out the nascent IP-based communications industry as subject to more onerous regulation.

Tags: voip, fcc, e911, policy

Posted by jeff at 09:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (21)

So How Much is Your Blog Worth?

Dane Carlson has put together a "Blog Worth" calculation tool, that takes advantage of the Technorati API that was inspirated by research done by Tristan Louis.

Give the Blog Worth Tool a try.

You may be surprised with the results. :)

Posted by jeff at 08:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (48)

Another Week on the Road:

This week starts off with a cameo appearance at my office in Melville (one of only 3 scheduled this month), followed by a trip to Atlanta for the Atlanta Telecom Professionals annual gala, followed by a trip to Washington, D.C. for meetings on Wednesday and our next Peripheral Visionaries' Summit on Thursday.

Along the way I will be working on my keynote for next week’s IP.4.IT event in Las Vegas.

Posted by jeff at 07:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (46)

November 06, 2005

Tom Evslin on the Arrogance of Ed Whitacre:

Fractals of Change: Don’t Buy DSL From This Man (If You Can Help It)

"...More importantly, Whitacre’s arrogance led him to take on too many opponents at once. He might have gotten away with considerable pressure on the VoIP providers. But he chose to take on Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo at the same time. Although these companies are just learning how to lobby, they have the money to do it successfully..."

It was great to see Tom come forward and share his voice on the Whitacre “freerider” issue. I’m just not so sure that Yahoo! will be that quick to fight SBC (or Verizon) due to their ongoing financial relationship.

Tags: voip, sbc, whitacre

Posted by jeff at 01:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (22)

Tuesday in Atlanta: Atlanta Telecom Professional of the Year Gala

I'm looking forward giving the keynote at this year's Atlanta Telecom Professional of the Year Gala.

Please feel free to drop me a line if you will be at the event.

Posted by jeff at 09:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)

November 05, 2005

This week in my corner of the Blogosphere:

On Monday I woke up looking for Aristotle and for answers regarding the FCC's approach in Deregulating Telecom Services and Regulating Information Services. It's now Saturday and I'm still looking for answers...

On Tuesday I finally had it with the growing "Voice 2.0" hype and felt compelled to share my realization that Voice 2.0 is PURPLE.

And then on the heals of the approval of the SBC/AT&T and Verizon/MCI mergers, I couldn't believe the "Freerider" remarks directly attributed to Ed Whitacre.

On Wednesday, the Senate Commerce Committee sent a 9-1-1 message to the FCC when they UNANIMOUSLY approved S. 1063, the "E9-1-1 Improvement Act." Kudos to Jim Kohlenberger and the VON Coalition for their contributions to this bill.

On Thursday the Internet Voice Coalition, a working group of the VON Coalition launched a campaign to help educate consumers about VoIP. News about these efforts was picked up by some of the trade press including: America's Network, New Telephony, Computer Business Review, PC Pro, CNET and well as BusinessWeek and the International Herald Tribune and the UPI.

A special highlight of the week for me was the time spent at the 2005 Marconi Society Dinner Gala.

Cities visited this week included: Boston, NYC (twice), Philidelphia, Toronto.

Blog posts of note:

• Guy Kewney: Purple Minutes, and other good causes
  
• Tom Evslin: Bubble 2.0 – Why Walls Come Down
  
• Marc Cantor: Breaking the Web Wide Open
  

Tags: voip, purple minutes, fcc, jeff pulver

Posted by jeff at 04:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (29)

2005 Marconi Society Dinner Gala:

Marconi Fellows

Last night the 2005 Marconi Society Dinner Gala took place at the Waldorf Astoria in NYC. This is the same venue used for the annual Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremonies. It turns out that the Marconi event is the equivalent of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremonies, but for Engineering. The assemblage of Marconi Fellows in the room representing various elements of innovation in the computing and communications industry were perhaps even a more powerful gathering than having the all original members of: The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Grateful Dead, Cream together with Bob Dylan, Jimmy Hendrix and Janis Joplin, all in the same room, in 2005. The Marconi Fellows represent technology innovators that on a collective basis have had a positive impact on the way many of us work and live.

Since 1975 the Marconi fellows include: James Killian, Professor Hiroshi Inose, Dr. Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor E. Colin Cherry, Professor John R. Pierce, Professor Yash Pal, Dr. Seymour Papert, Dr. Arthur C. Clarke, Professor Francesco Carassa, Sir Eric Ash, Dr. Charles Kuen Kao, Professor Lenard Kleinrock, Robert W. Lucky, Federico Faggin, Dr. Robert N. Hall, Andrew J. Viterbi, Paul Baran, Dr. James L. Flanagan, Izuo Hayashi, Dr. Robert E. Kahn, Professor Jacob Ziv, Dr. Gottfried Ungerboeck, Dr. G. David Forney, Jr., Dr. Vinton G. Cerf, Dr. Robert M. Metcalfe, Professor Martin Hellman, Dr. Whitfield Diffie, Dr. Herwig Kogelnik, Professor Allan Synder, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, Professor Robert G. Gallager, Sergey Brin, Lawrence Page, Claude Berrou.

Congratulations to Claude Berrou for receiving the 2005 Marconi Fellowship Prize and to Gordon E. Moore for receiving the 2005 Lifetime Achievement Award

Tags: computing, communications, Marconi society

Posted by jeff at 09:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (45)

November 04, 2005

Images from BCE Capital Reception:

BCE Capital - Toronto Office:

Posted by jeff at 03:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (22)

The Tao of Poker: One of the Best Poker Blogs Around

For those of you who also share my passion for poker, Pauly and his Tao of Poker blog is one of the best I've found.

I especially enjoyed reading his coverage of the main event of the 2005 World Series of Poker.

Tags: poker, wsop, texas hold'em

Posted by jeff at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (22)

The Emerging sides in Communications Policy War, Round II:

The release of the second iteration of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Discussion Draft Telecom Bill, combined with the Senate Commerce Committee Markup on the VoIP E-911 Bill were pretty revealing. These events were revealing not just for the substance of the issues or the quality of the discourse, but more so for hinting at the evolving political process that will ultimately shape communications and Internet policy.

There is no doubt that, substantively, the Senate Commerce Committee Markup revealed an overwhelming sentiment that the FCC might not have adequately considered the benefits of letting the IP industry proceed without excessive government intrusion to create a better next-generation emergency response network. Frankly, this was probably the most significant victory for the IP-based communications industry in recent memory. But, I don't know that this is, necessarily, a presage of things to come. It certainly is not a sign that we can now rest on our laurels.

The Commerce Committee discussion revealed, more importantly, that the old battle lines that had applied through debate over the passage of the 96 Telecom Act and through the years of implementation of the 96 Act are now subject to being redrawn. Members of the House and Senate are trodding down uncharted terrain and are looking for new constituencies, new policy rationales, new visions of how to achieve the broadest public good. No, IP technology, Moore's Law and Metcalf's Law have obliterated that, now quaint, debate. As a result, it is no longer as simple as choosing one of two teams (one team believing that immediate deregulation is best means to encourage the deepest pockets to build the most robust networks; the other team believing that regulatorily-guaranteed competition is the best method to advance communications where unfair market power otherwise precludes competition). New sides and new alliance will emerge as we move further into the debate over the proper legislative and regulatory structure to advance communications and the public good. The IP-based communications industry cannot sit by idly while the teams are drawn up for the coming battle. If we do not participate now during this formative period leading up to next year's likely rewrite of the Telecom Act, we might be left out of the debate.

Some brief background on the recent history of the Telecom Wars:

Since passage of the 1996 Telecom Act, the sides in the telecommunications policy debate had become pretty well laid out. Most obviously, the sides were ILEC vs. CLEC. Cable was a somewhat tenuous ally to the CLECs -- largely under the philosophy that my "enemy's enemy is my friend." CLECs and cable were also allied to some extent because of AT&T's (the largest CLEC and most powerful adversary of the Bells) acquisitions of MediaOne and TCI. Also, cable companies, to some extent, were attempting to use the CLEC unbundling rights to compete against the ILECs for local voice customers. The precarious alliance between CLECs and cable was particularly difficult for the CLECs - primarily because of the parity/symmetry argument that ILECs should be subject to more onerous regulatory obligations than cable companies. The CLECs were largely silenced on the cable open access debate, which was often construed as inconsistent or even hypocritical (but now is not the time to delve into the intricacies of the historic, tangling alliances).

Through Moore's Law and improvements in IP technology, VoIP became ready for prime-time. Many have come to view VoIP as the vehicle to inject competition in a less onerous, less contentious manner, and in a manner that would simultaneously promote broadband deployment, broad-based competition, and service differentiation. The Bells have certainly used the existence of VoIP competition as the means to do away with their historic wholesale obligations towards CLECs.

Today:

Members of Congress are now sizing up the players and choosing sides. It is no longer as simple as choosing to be on the side of the ILECs or the CLECs. The wholesale model, frankly, is largely disfavored on the Hill. I, personally, do believe that the CLEC model injected necessary competition and spurred investment and innovation, but that does not appear to be the popular view of the CLEC experiment.

In any event. IP technology, as I have said repeatedly, dramatically changes the competitive paradigm. Now that voice, data, video really are just bits and applications agnostically riding on any transmission media, competitive providers no longer need to be carriers with their own pipes or wholesale access to someone else's pipes. Because the voice, video and data applications can be "disintermediated" from the pipes on which they ride, providers now may provide services by obtaining services simply as broadband users, like any other Internet access retail customer.

Emerging Battle Lines and the Retail Dilemma:

The ability to disintermediate the service from the facility changes the competitive model because competitive providers can now compete while being merely retail, not wholesale, customers of their communication provider rivals. This should be a much more palatable model for those that control end-user access facilities - no longer do the ILECs, in particular, have to provide cost-based access to their rivals (as long as they provide unfettered access to the Internet, do not choke capacity upstream or down, and do not discriminate against end-user customers).

One current dilemma appears to me to be that no one in Congress is truly acknowledging this possibility that a retail customer could be a service provider rival or, at least, its own service provider. Nor are the teams currently lining up as I believe they should line up.

As I mentioned, the House Energy and Commerce Committee put out a Staff Working Draft Bill, and released a second iteration yesterday. The Draft would revise the Communications Act, ostensibly to account for the revolution brought on by IP technology. Unfortunately, the draft legislation is still stuck in many of the old lines of argument. Most notably, the legislation is still committed to recognizing the "service silo" regulatory model. Most particularly, different regulations apply to voice, as if voice were somehow still so superior, so necessary, so sacrosanct, that it deserved heightened regulatory treatment. What ever happened to all those wonderful speeches from Congress to the effect that "a bit is a bit is a bit?" During the Tauzin-Dingell Battle several years ago, advocates of competition argued that an ILEC could not get out of its unbundling obligation, simply because the pipe is now broadband and capable of delivering other services beyond voice. While Tauzin-Dingell passed the House, the argument had resonance. I do not hear that argument today, even though "a bit is a bit is a bit" is truer than ever.

Today, an end-user can take control of her own communications experience, become her own service provider, or the service provider for her friends, colleagues, or own customers. Similarly, an enterprise can take control of its own communications, both internally and externally, unless legislation or regulation stymies that ability. This is obviously a scary proposition for those who have relied upon the per-minute service model revenue stream. But it is a promising proposition for those who acknowledge the value of providing robust pipes to more and more end users.

The Problem:

So, here is the problem. The current debate largely sidesteps the concept of end-user empowerment and ignores the perspective of retail customers, including retail customers capable of self-provisioning communications services for themselves and their own communities of interest. No one seems to be talking about precluding discrimination between various end users. Now that an end user can download an open source IP-PBX and become their own service provider, no one is talking about how to ensure that the end user may control their own communications experience. Everyone is giving lip service to the concept of "Net Freedoms", but unless there is a fair price associated with unfettered access to the Internet, Net Freedom might not amount to much. Without a non-discrimination principle attached to end user access, nothing will keep a control of a last-mile facility from charging one rate to a pizza parlor (an end-user who does not threatened the last-mile access provider's core business - voice, video, data delivery), and a much higher, debilitating rate to a VoIP application provider (an end-user vying to offer services that might compete directly with the last-mile access providers core business).

In all fairness to the legislators grappling with these evolving issues, the emerging VoIP industry, itself, doesn't seem to fully recognize that it often is simply a user of broadband like every other enterprise or end-user. To the extent that we can revolutionize communications while serving as retail customers for those that provide Internet access, that should be a good thing all the way around - promoting broadband deployment, competition and differentiation. But we have to work to ensure nondiscriminatory retail access.

The obvious allies appear to be the edge device vendors, the application providers, the end-users, and the consumer advocates. I would like to see us come together and become a meaningful force as we enter Communications Policy War, Round II. Unless we work together, I fear no one will speak for the end-users and for those that want to harness and maximize the power to the Internet to revolutionize the communications experience.

Tags: voip, fcc, public policy

Posted by jeff at 07:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (80)

BusinessWeek: VoIP: It's Not a Car or a Brand of Vodka

BusinessWeek: VoIP: It's Not a Car or a Brand of Vodka

"...And another recent survey showed that many people think that VoIP is either a fuel-efficient new car or a brand of vodka..."

Posted by jeff at 12:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (23)

November 03, 2005

It’s Thursday – I must be in Toronto:

I’ve had a whirlwind week so far with meetings in: NYC, Philadelphia, Boston and in between I managed to get the latest edition of the Pulver Report out to about 88,500 people. I’m still trying to catch up with my email for the week. I guess there is always tomorrow. ;-)

Today I’m in Toronto for (more) meetings and the opening of the new BCE Capital office.

The Blogosphere works sometimes in mysterious ways. Just when I was getting used to seeing someone post a comment regarding one of my blog entries, the trend seems to be for someone to instead post an entry in their own blog and I now have to reply on blog search engines to find their replies. While occasionally a blogger would give me a heads up on what they just posted, usually it’s up to me to find what they said.

So, in my own attempt to catch up with the Blogosphere: With respect to my question on Monday - Where is Aristotle When You Need Him?, I enjoyed reading Kevin Werbach’s Does not Compute reply as well as Keith Stevenson’s Lost in Translation.

I especially appreciated Guy Kewney’s Purple Minutes, and other good causes response to my Voice 2.0 is PURPLE blog. Alec Saunders also shared his thoughts on the subject.

...and it was great to hear the voice of the Mad Voiper once again.

Tags: voip, purple minutes, fcc

Posted by jeff at 09:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (80)

Skype for Business: Skype is looking for an Enterprise Product Manager

Looks like Skype is now taking the steps to enter the Enterprise marketplace.

I just noticed their job posting for: "Product Manager Skype for Business: Lead the development of Skype for SMB and enterprise."

This should be a real interesting opportunity for someone with the background who would be interested in working for Skype in London.

Posted by jeff at 08:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (57)

Senate Commerce Committee Sends Emergency Response Message to FCC:

Yesterday afternoon, the Senate Commerce Committee UNANIMOUSLY approved S. 1063, the ''E9-1-1 Improvement Act." The legislation would do the following:

* requires the FCC to develop new rules for VoIP 9-1-1 within 120 days;
* gives VoIP providers direct access to the 9-1-1 network;
* establishes FCC waiver authority to provide flexibility;
* ensures VoIP services are never cut off due to issues related to 9-1-1 capabilities;
* provides equivalent liability protection for VoIP 911 as other phone services;
* acknowledges the importance of industry's role in developing technological standards and solutions for automatically identifying the geographic location of users of nomadic VoIP service; and
* requires the creation of a national plan for a next generation 9-1-1 system that uses VoIP to provide breakthrough advances in emergency communications.

First of all, big kudos to Jim Kohlenberger and the VON Coalition for effectively working with the Senate to produce a fair and balanced bill that managed to garner a unanimous committee vote.

I take this vote as an overwhelming signal from the Senate to the FCC that there should be no VoIP service shut offs come November 28. Instead, the Senate wants the FCC to establish a more equitable framework, a more realistic timeframe, and a more viable and forward-looking technological approach.

I thought Senators Sununu and Allen were particularly strong in fighting to ensure that IP-based communications providers are not saddled with overly-intrusive and unnecessary micro-management by regulators.

Senator Allen's amendment (which passed by acclamation) excluding separate one-way services from the definition of services subject to E-911 obligations was a particularly important addition from the perspective of an IP-based communications provider who is not offering a traditional telephone replacement service.

If the FCC takes to heart the Senate vote, I hope it will recognize that disconnection could impede America's ability to communicate in an emergency. VoIP users can only be harmed by having these potentially life saving VoIP services disconnected because they may only have basic 911 from locations where E911 is not yet available. Requiring the disconnection of residential, business, university, or government users can remove an important communications tool and does not promote the expeditious deployment of E911 for VoIP. No other type of phone service has ever been required by the FCC to disconnect consumers when they are capable of providing basic 911 but not E911. It would be tragic if a customer who today may have 911 as a part of their VoIP service had their VoIP service shut off and then attempted to use that service in an emergency. Moreover, not every emergency requires a call to 911. For instance, a mother may try to call a poison control center; a distressed teenager may try to call a suicide prevention line; a father may need to notify a child about the health of a grandparent; and a student may need to call home from her dorm to tell her parents she arrived at school safely. These are all examples of "emergency" calls that do not involve the dialing of 911.

Posted by jeff at 12:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (107)

November 02, 2005

Whitacre, Once Again (and a little more vehemently), Calls Unaffiliated VoIP Application Providers "Freeriders":

For those of you who missed it, Ed Whitacre was quoted in Business Week as follows:

"How do you think they're [VoIP providers] going to get to customers?
Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what
they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do
that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it.
So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these
pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to
use my pipes?"

"The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable
companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or
anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"

More and more, I hear Bell reps use the "F" word ("Freerider") to describe unaffiliated VoIP applications providers. Last year, Whitacre used the word in the Wall Street Journal to describe Vonage and Skype. (Frankly, I had mixed feelings about his failure to mention Free World Dialup. Can't we be a threat to SBC's existing revenue stream? I've been told that sometimes it's good to be noticed, and sometimes it's better to stay below the radar. I, of course, need to learn a little better about this "staying below the radar" thing).

I also heard Larry Babbio of Verizon make similar accusations last year at PFF's Aspen Summit. And, I certainly hear it a lot from the cable advocates (often the same advocates who fought so long and hard for unbundled access to the Bell network and reductions in access charges).

On the flip-side, I have heard a few Bell reps acknowledge the potential to create a mutually virtuous cycle between Internet access providers and Internet application providers. Interestingly, I've heard this forward-thinking logic emanate most recently from BellSouth employees. This gives me hope. I trust that this is not just transitory rhetoric designed to get us to help them out from under regulatory oversight. I, for one, believe there is a model whereby the proliferation of applications, on the Internet, including voice and other communications applications, could help increase the value of the Bell broadband networks.

In any event, if I were Whitacre's counsel, I would have suggested that he keep his mouth shut for another few months, until SBC had successfully used the VoIP ASPs to achieve its end-game -- no regulation -- and then come after the ASPs as so-called "freeriders," much as they came after the UNE-P providers and then the facilities-based CLECs who preceded VoIP. The slowly escalating assault is how the UNE-P and CLEC wholesale access issues essentially played out. By historic analogy, the existence of local competition by CLECs reselling Bell services through UNE-P ("unbundling" of the entire Bell service platform - essentially allowing CLECs to offer the same tired POTS services that the Bells offer at a 5% discount) was used to get the Bells long distance authority. UNE-P demonstrated "robust", "irreversible" competition. Once the Bells got the right to provide inregion long distance service, however, they went after UNE-P providers as "freeriders." The Bells got long distance authority and then killed the competition that got them there. I have grave concerns that the Bells will start using the "F" word more and more against unaffiliated VoIP application providers, much the way they called the UNE-P providers "Freeriders". We have heard the early rumblings, even while the Bells still need us as the vehicle to get out from other more onerous unbundling and other common carrier obligations.

I believe there are qualitative differences between the value of IP-based communications applications and the value of UNE-P. UNE-P was simply discounted POTS services, adding little additional value to the network. IP-based communications, to my mind, can and should be so much more, and should help drive broadband, and increase revenue streams for the Bells and other Internet access providers (once they recognize the unsustainability charging for metered voice service).

I think there has to be a more forward-looking dialogue between the Bells and other Internet access providers and the Internet applications that do increase the value of the network and help drive broadband uptake. I would really not like to see the future of broadband and advanced Internet-based communications stifled by infighting between all the players trying to harness the Internet and revolutionize the communications experience.

Tags: voip, sbc, freeriders

Posted by jeff at 05:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (580)

November 01, 2005

Voice 2.0 is PURPLE:

Uh, hey, wait a second. “Voice 2.0” is not an original concept. “Voice 2.0” is in fact all about being “Purple.” As in “Purple Minutes.”

With the growing Blogosphere hype surrounding "Voice 2.0" within the greater discussions of "Web 2.0", I feel a bit compelled to stand up and set the record straight regarding the origins of “Voice 2.0.” "Voice 2.0" is really all about the concept behind "purple minutes", a term that I first explored towards the end of 2001 and which I shared the concept of during my Industry Perspective at Spring 2002 VON in Seattle.

A Google on the term “Purple Minutes” yields a few good definitions.

Just for the record, PC Magazine defines "purple minutes" as: "Refers to minutes of IP traffic that are part of an enhanced application. Coined by Jeff Pulver of Pulver.com, purple minutes include voice, data and video content in contrast to "black and white" minutes, which measure standard telephony traffic. I always looked at “Purple Applications” as things that one could do with an IP based platform that never before practical or possible with a TDM network.

Following Spring 2002 VON, Paula Bernier wrote an article for Xchange Magazine, THE COLOR PURPLE, "VoIP Industry Struggles to Deliver More than Transport" which captured the concept and explored the realities of what it meant.

For those new to the IP Communications industry and those who think "Voice 2.0" is a totally new and forward looking concept, I suggest they take a refresher course on the recent history of the IP Communications industry and spent a few minutes reading Paula's story.

It starts off: "...It's more than three years later, but the story remains the same. IP telephony needs to go beyond basic long-distance arbitrage and move into the local arena to deliver not just TDM copycat enhanced voice services, but to bring added value to justify carrier investment in voice over IP and rally customer spending on new, high-margin enhanced services. "Please take a chance," VoIP evangelist Jeff Pulver, who runs the VON trade show, pleaded to the audience at his recent event in Seattle. "I do think it's the purple minutes that will help make things happen." In Pulver parlance, "purple minutes" refers to IP traffic that is more than just plain old telephone traffic (or "black and white" traffic); it's traffic with a value-added component."

Aswath knows about purple minutes, as he referenced the term back in January 2004.

"Purple Minutes" is a concept that I still refer to today.

“Voice 2.0” may be an easier phrase to say and may be more well know in SoHo, but I’ll stick with Purple.

Tags: voip, voice 2.0, web 2.0

Posted by jeff at 07:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (44)