April 05, 2010

Guest Blogger: Trefor Davies - UK Gov't plans to break the internet on Tuesday 6th April if we don't stop them now

As a general principle and in support of the rule of law, nobody involved in the campaign process against the implementation of the Digital Economy Bill (DEB) supports the theft of someone else's property as is the case when downloading a pirate copy of a music track. However, before we examine the history of the legislation, let's take a reality check about where we are.

The cat is well and truly out of the bag. The downloading of copyrighted material is now so widespread and with faster and faster broadband and bigger and bigger hard drives it is never going to stop. Infringers will just move on to alternative means - encrypted P2P for example. On this basis all the hard work on the DEB is likely to be a complete waste of time. It is also very difficult to prove who has used a specific broadband connection to indulge in this copyright infringement; what's more the burden of proof in this bill lies with the accused to prove themselves innocent. This is totally wrong and goes against all the principles of modern UK society.

The creative industry have not helped themselves as they do not make it easy for a company to offer cost effective music services - up to 44 separate licensing arrangements are needed to sell music online internationally with every country having different laws and approaches. This is a hugely expensive exercise which does not encourage competition.

The modus operandi of the creative industries encourages copyright infringement - pre release pump priming creates a demand for a product that people can't buy yet but which quickly becomes available on torrent sites. The same applies to material released in one country a long time before another, a trait from a bygone era. Many infringers would be happy to pay for this material if they could do so.
The issue of how to stop online copyright infringement has been going on for some years now. Discussions have been taking place between rights-holders and the ISP industry since at least 2008. These centred around ISPs assisting rights holders by sending letters to end users identified as "alleged infringers" on the basis of their IP address and evidence of the music, movie or software being downloaded, notionally via a torrent. These talks were being conducted on behalf of the music industry by Feargal Sharkey, CEO of UK Music.

Whilst initially rights holders were after the termination of broadband connections of repeat offenders they had appeared to relent on this. The whole process was presented by ISPs as fraught with difficulties, human rights, privacy and how to identify the real culprits being some of the issues.
The process did not appear to be going anywhere. There was an element of ISPs seeing the creative industry as wanting all the benefits without having to carry any of the costs. Also they didn't appear to be, or perhaps weren't able to be interested in changing their business models to accommodate the massive change in consumer habits brought about by the internet. It still isn't easy for a service provider to offer a cost effective online music product.

At the end of summer 2009, Lord Mandelson took things into his own hands after what turned out to be a well publicised (after the fact) lunch with music industry executive David Geffen. The result was the Digital Economy Bill as laid out before us today.

The DEB is multifaceted and covers a long list of subjects loosely arrayed under the banner of Digital Britain. These include:

• General duties of OFCOM
• Online infringement of copyright
• Powers in relation to internet domain registries
• Channel Four Television Corporation
• Independent television services
• Independent radio services (digital switchover)
• Regulation of television and radio services
• Access to electromagnetic spectrum
• Video recordings

I don't propose to go through all of these points. All that we need to know at his stage is that the three main political parties support most of the bill which, digital switchover aside, is deemed to be non-contentious for the purpose of this article. The Digital Switchover is likely to leave 120 local radio stations stranded and 120 million radio sets in the UK redundant but that is a topic for another time.
The one aspect of the DEB that is creating a huge controversy is the online infringement of copyright. This is basically what Lord Mandelson brought back from his lunch in the sun.
In a nutshell, and nothing is ever that simple, the UK Government wants to help rights holders clamp down on music piracy by imposing a process that gradually applies stricter measures to offenders. They want to do this by giving government ministers powers, as a last resort, to impose technical measures on infringers. For technical measures read "throttle your bandwidth" or "cut off your broadband". The government also wants to stop access to sites that promote illegal copyright infringement.

The problem for all of us lies in the fact that not unreasonably the government wants to help the music industry, and has up until now been supported in this goal by both Conservative and Liberal Democrat opposition.

Amendment 120

Two weeks ago, the Liberal Democrats passed an emergency motion at their spring conference supporting Freedom, Creativity & the Internet. This motion opposed DEB Amendment 120A, a part of the bill that gave rights holders the to ask ISPs to block access to sites that the rights holders themselves considered to be hosting copyright infringing material. The fact that 120A was actually introduced by the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords in the first place was immaterial.
The effect of Amendment 120A was going to be devastating in the UK. If an ISP refused to block the site in question and a rights holder was subsequently granted a court order then the ISP would have to pay all the costs of the case. The effect was going to mean ISPs potentially blocking a site every time they were asked to do so rather than risk incurring the costs.

The Lib Dems made a fuss and the Government kicked Amendment 120A out in any case, resorting to the original plan of giving ministers the powers to decide what to do.

The problem here is, aside from the wholly undesirable concept of an ISP blocking your internet access, is where do you draw the line? Websites such as YouTube and Facebook might never again be able to take off if the user generated content they carry is deemed to be illegal. If you take the concept to the extreme you would even block access to search engines.

Perhaps an equally worrying issue is that this bill would set a precedent. Copyright infringing sites today - some other type of site that the UK Government doesn't like tomorrow.

The Lib Dems have now gone a stage further and said that they will completely oppose the online copyright section of the bill because it has not had adequate parliamentary scrutiny.

The Parliamentary Process

At this point it is worth taking a look at the whole parliamentary process as it is being applied here. Normally a bill begins life in the House of Commons, moves on to the Lords and back to the Commons for the final vote, being subjected to scrutiny by a committee at each stage of the process and with time for expert input to be provided. This process can take a long time - a year maybe. We don't want to rush things and make mistakes.

In the case of the DEB the Government didn't have a year—they knew that there would be an election in the spring. In order to short circuit the process they quite legitimately began the Digital Economy Bill in the House of Lords. The Bill had two reading in the Lords and is being rushed through to the House of Commons. It is normally possible to go to eight readings in the Lords, indicating how fast this legislation is being rushed through.

The Digital Economy Bill is now in the Commons and is due to have its second reading on 6th April. That's tomorrow! This coincidentally, is the same day that Gordon Brown is expected dust down his best suit and head over to Buckingham Palace to ask the Queen to dissolve parliament, and call an election.

This however means that despite the fact that the DEB will have had barely any scrutiny, it is likely to end up in the 'wash-up' process. This is the process at the end of a Parliament where all parties get together for a bit of horse trading. "I'll let you have that bill if I can have this one". It can all be over in an hour! As long as a bill has had its second reading, this is all legal.

There is no precedent for a bill to be rushed through in this manner. As we get nearer to the wire the voices of reason have been crying out and in particular, as previously mentioned, the Lib Dems have said they will oppose it. On their own, I doubt that they can succeed. However the hope is that enough noise has been made in regard of the anti-democratic nature of this process that other MPs will object. A number of Labour MPs have already come out against the bill. In the words of Tom Watson MP "A bill that is made in haste is a bad bill".

Campaign organisation 38Degrees is raising cash to fund widespread newspaper advertising on the day of 6th April to draw the attention of the MPs to the lack of scrutiny the Digital Economy Bill has received. Not many MPs are likely be around during the wash-up as many will be out on the campaign trail. This last minute effort is seen as vital.

Trefor Davies is co-founder and Chief Technology Officer at Timico and a member of the Council of the Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA). You can read his blog here.

Posted by jeff at 09:01 AM | Permalink

July 23, 2008

Answering the call for breakthrough 911 advances

Today President Bush signed into law hugely importantly legislation that finally provides VoIP providers with better tools for direct access to the 911 network and the liability relief necessary. The VON Coalition's press release is below. This is the first major piece of telecommunications legislation signed into law this year -- and it happens to be a bill designed to help advance VoIP.

The bill provides tools that the FCC failed to provide 3 years ago when first adopting rules for VoIP 911. Even without these tools, VoIP providers have made extraordinary efforts and now provide E911 to a greater percentage of subscribers than any other kind of voice service. Its been the fastest and broadest onetime implementation of E-911 in the history of public safety. As a result of these unprecedented effort by VoIP providers, Americans who dial 911 using interconnected VoIP services can now rest assured they can reach help in an emergency. It is a particularly remarkable achievement considering that no underlying network connectivity provider can yet offer VoIP providers the ability to connect to all selective routers nationwide. This bill now gives VoIP providers a chance to expand their base, and VoIP consumers assurances that they can be safe and secure using a dependable VoIP service.

But more importantly, thanks to the work of the VON Coalition, the bill also recognizes that when we put VoIP at the heart of the 911 network itself, we can achieve breakthrough new advancements in emergency service for all Americans -- regardless of the type of service you use. It’s no secret that America’s 911 network is still providing 911 and E911 today using 1960s-era technology. The bill calls for a new national strategy for upgrading the nation's entire 911 network from 1960s era technology to 21st century IP and VoIP technologies at its core to help make Americans more safe and secure.

The nation’s 9-1-1 system is based on a communications technology that most businesses have moved far beyond. There is now a growing consensus on the shortcomings of the present 9-1-1 system and the need for a new, more capable system. When we can harness the power of VoIP to transform the 911 network itself, we can help unleash a host of breakthrough emergency advances never before possible. By migrating to such a VoIP based emergency network, 911 calls might one day include:

- Automatic language preferences. By pre-selecting a user’s language preference, an emergency call could be automatically routed to a call taker that speaks the caller’s native language, potentially saving time and saving lives.

- Pictures and video. Getting pictures and video from cell phones at the scene of a crime or in the midst of an emergency directly into the hands of first responders can further improve emergency response.

- Information on a caller’s medical status. If consumers choose to pre-enter vital medical information (e.g., whether an Alzheimer patient lives at the registered location; the heart medicine a subscriber uses), call takers and emergency responders could access critical information that could make the difference between life and death.

- Maps and other location specific information. Call takers could access maps of commercial buildings or notes about hazardous on-site chemicals – data that could prove critical to emergency responders.

- Ensure that all 911 calls can be answered. Katrina underscored the limitations of the current 9-1-1 infrastructure. During Katrina, some 36 PSAPs went down and couldn’t answer 911 calls after a single tandem failed. A VoIP enabled emergency network, using a network designed to withstand nuclear attack, allows call to travel over any available network and for overflow calls to be rerouted just like a modern call center. For massive emergencies, such overflow could be critical. A VoIP network also allows nomadic 911 calltakers to take calls from a remote location in an emergency in the event that a primary sight is taken offline. And by converging communications over a single IP network, it means 911 can become another node in broader IP based emergency response network.

The advent of VoIP, including interconnected VoIP services, is ushering in a new era of disaster-proof communications systems. VoIP and other IP-based communications services increasingly serve as the foundation of “survivable” networks that provide reliable and efficient connectivity in emergency situations even when key infrastructure has been disabled or destroyed. Because it operates over decentralized IP networks with redundant paths between any two points, interconnected VoIP service mitigates the dire consequences that can otherwise result from single points of failure.

The VoIP communications industry is justifiably proud of the technology’s achievements in the public safety arena, and it continues to make emergency services a key priority. Yet in light of interconnected VoIP’s impressive track record and largely untapped public safety potential, VoIP providers need this new law to help remove the barriers that can make these vital public safety technologies available in more regions and in more ways.

Back in March, 1996 when I helped start the VON Coalition, I had no idea that all these years later the leadership of the VON Coalition would be able to directly affect legislation like the bill the President signed today.

Big kudos to those who made this possible and for supporting a vision that protects both public safety and innovation, while recognizing that VoIP can be harnessed in new ways for enormous public gain.

The text of the legislation (H.R. 3403) can be found here.

---

VON Coalition Press Release: VoIP Leaders Applaud New Law Unlocking Future 9-1-1 Capabilities

BACKGROUND: Today, President Bush signed into law the “New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008” (H.R. 3403.) The legislation will help accelerate VoIP 911 solutions by providing direct access to the 9-1-1 network, enabling equivalent liability relief for call-takers, and requiring the creation of a national plan for a next generation 9-1-1 system that uses VoIP to provide breakthrough advances in emergency communications.

The following statement can be attributed to Caitlin Clark-Zigmond, President of the VON Coalition.

“This is a huge step forward for public safety, broadband users, and innovators alike. Enabling consumers to take advantage of transformative technologies like VoIP and answering the call for the modernization of our 911 network will help ensure that all Americans will be more safe and secure in an emergency.

Dialing 911 can be the most important call a person ever makes. That is why VoIP providers have made providing 911 emergency service in an Internet world a paramount priority. Interconnected VoIP providers have gone to extraordinary lengths to make astonishing progress under a very ambitious timetable. We are proud that Interconnected VoIP services now provide E911 to more than 97 percent of their subscribers -- the fastest and broadest onetime implementation of E911 in the history of public safety. And America is safer for it. As a result of this unprecedented effort, Americans who dial 911 using interconnected VoIP services can now rest assured they can reach help in an emergency. It is a particularly remarkable achievement considering that no underlying network connectivity provider can yet offer VoIP providers the ability to connect to all selective routers nationwide.

This legislation is important public safety legislation. Critically, this bill:

- Gives public safety, interconnected VoIP providers and others involved in handling 911 calls the same liability protections when handling 911 calls from interconnected VoIP users as from mobile or wired telephone service users.

- Gives interconnected VoIP providers access to the same tools for implementing 911 and E911 as mobile service providers, on the same rates, terms and conditions. This ensures that 911 component suppliers receive a fair price, including a reasonable profit, but precludes profiteering on components for interconnected VoIP 911 services or use of critical 911 components as a tool to delay competition from interconnected VoIP.

- Advances the development of next generation IP-based 911 systems, so that we can have a 911 system that uses 21st century VoIP technology, not network technology from the 1960s.

- Precludes the FCC from creating a technology-specific 911 and E911 mandate.

- By utilizing the FCC’s definition of interconnected VoIP services, maintains the focus of 911 and E911 obligations on those services that are telephone replacement services.

These are critical steps forward for accelerating life-saving E911 solutions across the country and for enabling consumers to take advantage of transformative technologies like VoIP throughout the country.

Tags: E911, FCC, voip, VON Coalition, 911, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 06:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (510)

March 11, 2008

Guest Blogger: Jonathan Kinger - "Help Stop the Censorship of the Internet in Israel"

Last week the Israeli Knesset approved an Internet Censorship act proposed by MK *Amnon Cohen *and supported by the Minister of Telecommunications, *Ariel Atias*. This act is now at the first stage of three votes on the Israeli Parliament and is a national threat for the free economy and speech in Israel.

While the act is presenting itself as "Protecting Children", it has no relevance to on-line child protection. This act creates an ISP based filter to screen all internet traffic, causing proxy-related security flaws and allowing shaping, spoofing and monitoring of all Internet browsing. Moreover, according to the new act, all internet users will be censored and filtered unless they specifically request to be removed from the filtering and be added to shame list (further commentary see http://2jk.org/english/?p=47).

Our main objective in our struggle against Israeli Censorship is to present an alternative which assists children and allows adults free flow of information.

*It is highly important to note that censoring the net may be a trade barrier to Israel and may prevent businesses and start-ups from dealing with the EU & US*. We, as bloggers eager for free speech, understand the implications of a slippery slope and hope that you can assist us in our struggle by either writing to your elected official (either in the US or Israel) or help in any other way: Mail this post to your friends, prepare viral videos for distribution or even organize rallies in your area.

Feel free to contact me to get more information.

--

Jonathan Joseph Klinger, Attorney at Law;

Tel : +972-52-3436436
Email : info@jonathanklinger.com
Website : http://www.jonathanklinger.com
Blog : http://2jk.org/english ; http://2jk.org/praxis
Skype : JonathanKlinger

Tags: Jonathan Klinger, Israel, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 10:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (30)

March 08, 2008

Help stop the Censorship of the Internet in Israel

Back in May, 2007 I first wrote about the Internet Censorship Law Proposed in Israel. Since then the situation has gotten worse (if you believe in an uncensored Internet). Jonathan Klinger and Gadi Shimshon are some of the Israeli bloggers who are speaking out against the Censorship of the Internet in Israel.

Yesterday afternoon during a friendly game of poker, the topic of the censorship was raised by me and I took out my Nokia N95 and broadcast the conversation live on Qik. Heard in the conversation were the voices of Jonathan Klinger, Gadi Shimshon, Nimrod Kozlovski, Yotam Tavor and Gilad Zirkel.

(I won the hand in play without looking at my cards.)

Tags: Gadi Shimshon, Jonathan Klinger, Israel, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 06:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (62)

March 07, 2008

Voice on the Net Coalition Announces New Leadership

"A Voice For The VoIP Industry And The Policy Framework That Enables It"

Back when I founded the VON Coalition in 1996, I had hopes that one day the VON Coalition would represent the leading companies on the cutting edge of developing and delivering voice innovations over the Internet. The VON Coalition was on my mind today when they announced new leaders to help promote a policy framework that will allow consumers, businesses, and the economy to take full advantage of VoIP benefits.

The VON Coalition elected Caitlin Clark-Zigmond of New Global Telecom as its Chair of the Board, Angela Simpson of Covad as its President, Kathleen Ham of T-Mobile as Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Staci Pies of Skype as Vice President of State Affairs, and Paul Kenefick of Earthlink as Treasurer. The Coalition also re-elected Jamie Hedlund of Yahoo! as Vice President of Legislative Affairs; and Kevin Minsky of Microsoft as Vice President of International Affairs.

In addition, the VON Coalition held board elections and confirmed for 2 year terms the following board members: Caitlin Clark-Zigmond of New Global Telecom, Carl Ford of Pulver.com, Kathleen Ham of T-Mobile (re-elected), Paul Kenefick of Earthlink (re-elected), Christopher Libertelli of Skype (re-elected), Ellen Schmidt of iBasis, and Angela Simpson, Covad (re-elected). These are in addition to the Coalition's existing board members which include: Paula Boyd of Microsoft, Jeff Campbell of Cisco, Margie Dickman of Intel, Chris Reese of i3networks; and Rick Whitt of Google.

In a prepared statement, Jim Kohlenberger, the VON Coalition's Executive Director said, "As VoIP continues transforms the way we communicate, I am delighted the VON Coalition will have such an impressive group of forward-thinking industry leaders helping to shape the future. On the horizon are a set of transformative improvements in the way we communicate that harness the power of the Internet to deliver new voices, choices, and services. These leaders recognize that with the right policy framework, emerging Internet-based voice communications can boost broadband demand, make talking more affordable, businesses more productive, communications more accessible, and Americans more safe and secure."

If you have an interested in VoIP Public Policy concerns, please make sure to attend the "Town Hall Meeting" taking place at Spring 2008 VON.x on the evening of March 17th in San Jose.

---

Tags: VoIP, Public Policy, FCC, VON, VON Coalition, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 03:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (22)

June 02, 2007

Tom Evslin: Time to Write the FCC about the pending 700 Mhz Spectrum Auction.

"Within the next month the Federal Communications Commission is very likely to issue final regulations governing the auction of valuable 700MHz spectrum, which, by law, must start at the beginning of 2008. Now’s the last chance to have a voice in this process and it’s worth taking a minute to respond."

If you live in the United States, please take a moment and make sure your voice is heard.

Tom's blog post has some great suggestions for responses.

---

Tags: FCC, Tom Evslin, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 03:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (51)

May 29, 2007

An Internet Future to Avoid in ANY Country: Internet Censorship Law Proposed in Israel

A week from now I will be visiting Tel Aviv and spending time with a number of people involved in the Israeli Hi-Tech community. And some of these people are very concerned about the possibility of a new proposed law in Israel which would obligate Israeli ISPs to block access to all "Adult Content" (pornography, violence and gambling) websites.

The Shas party together with the Israeli Minister of Communication, Mr. Ariel Atias, are the ones promoting this new bill.

In emails received this weekend, various friends have shared their feelings that this bill is "...Completely ridiculous." and that they would like to believe that "...there's zero chance THIS law will actually be passed." The fact that such a bill could even have passed to a parliament committee that is responsible for creating a bill should be of a great concern for all of the current and future users of the Internet in Israel.

It seems that this proposed law comes on the heels of a similar prohibition that is now in effect of over mobile telephones in Israel.

While I have been a long time supporter of the hi-tech innovations developed in Israel which have helped advance the Internet, I am NOT a fan of the proposed Israeli Internet Censorship Law and I would strongly encourage everyone who can, to STAND UP and work together to STOP THIS from happening. Not only today but in the future. This is one "product" I hope never gets exported outside of Israel.

---

Blogs of Note:

- Gilad Lotan: Internet Censorship Law Proposal in Israel

- Gadi Shimshon: Say Nicely Goodbye to your Internet

- Blonde 2.0: Internet Censorship In Israel?

- Jonathan Klinger: Amnon Cohen interests the tip of my finger

---

Tags: Gilad Lotan, Gadi Shimshon, Blonde 2.0, Jonathan Klinger, Amnon Cohen, Israel, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 12:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

May 13, 2007

Tom Evslin: Flash! Vermont Legislature Passes E-State Bill

Tom Evslin: Flash! Vermont Legislature Passes E-State Bill

"An hour or so ago the Vermont House and Senate both gave final approval to a bill designed to make Vermont the nation’s first e-state. As defined in Vermont, e-stateness means cellular and adequate broadband coverage – fixed and mobile – everywhere in the state by 2010. The initial definition of adequate fixed broadband is 3 megabits per second service in at least one direction; but the bill contains a mechanism for ratcheting that up as requirements escalate. It is estimated that this requirement may be as high as 20 megabits in both directions by 2013...

..The bill encourages both public and private provisioning of service. It includes authorization for up to $40 million in revenue bonds by the State to build infrastructure like radio towers and middle-mile fiber. The State is NOT authorized to become a retail ISP but the plan is to encourage private wireless ISPs (WISPs), wireline ISPs, and cellular operators – as well as municipalities – by making infrastructure broadly available at a reasonable cost even in areas where the short term economics are tough. The bonds need to be repaid out of revenues but this will be “patient” money...

...Vermont towns and cities which want to emulate the successful fibering of Burlington or pursue other municipal broadband projects are aided both by a blanket approval to do so (Burlington needed a charter change) and by access to the Vermont Municipal Bond Bank to help with these projects.

The law gives every building owner the right to put up small antenna like the one Mary and I have on our house so that one house in a neighborhood can serve as a hub for providing wireless broadband to everyone else. WISPs find this an effective way to extend coverage into hollows and behind hills without having to put big towers everywhere.

Of course, this bill is just a beginning. Now the State, the towns and the private sector all have the huge but greatly worthwhile task of making this vision come true by 2010."

---

Tom Evslin together with the State of Vermont is providing a technology vision for the United States to follow. It is great to see Tom's efforts reflected in this result.

Congratulations Tom!

Tags: Tom Evslin, Vermont, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 12:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (44)

April 19, 2007

And the Fees for VoIP Providers Just Keep Mounting

First came fees to ensure that VoIP providers can connect to and be backward-compatible with non-IP-enabled local emergency response centers.

Then came fees to support the Universal Service Fund, a fund to which VoIP providers are not eligible.

Then comes the possible fees that VoIP providers might have to pay Verizon to license the patent for IP-PSTN translations and use of VoIP in WiFi hotspots.

... and now, the FCC has released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking tentatively concluding that Interconnected VoIP providers should pay regulatory fees to the FCC in order to fund the FCC's enforcement and rulemaking activities. Nice to see that the FCC thinks the VoIP industry should be footing the bill for all the rules it has begun imposing on the VoIP providers.

Specifically, the FCC tentatively concludes that:

"providers of interconnected VoIP service should pay
regulatory fees. During FY 2006, the Commission concluded that providers
of interconnected VoIP services should contribute to the Universal
Service Fund. Based on section 9's broad mandate that the Commission
'assess and collect regulatory fees to recover the costs' of regulatory
activities and our analysis in the 2006 Interim Contribution Methodology
Order, we tentatively conclude that the Commission has the legal
authority to extend regulatory fee obligations to interconnected VoIP
service providers. We seek comment on whether we should assess
regulatory fees on providers of interconnected VoIP services based on
their revenue, which would be consistent with the regulatory fee
methodology used for interstate telecommunications service providers, or
whether we should assess regulatory fees using a numbers-based approach,
which would be consistent with the methodology used for CMRS providers."

And still no conclusion as to whether VoIP providers are "telecom service providers". None of the rights ... all the responsibilities.

Tags: FCC, VoIP, AT&T, intercarrier compensation, Access Charges, USF, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 06:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (45)

April 18, 2007

The Domino Effect: Preserving the Unregulated Nature of Internet Video

Yesterday, while Jonathan Askin was in Washington advocating on behalf of Internet video, a few people asked a few similar questions:

(1) Why did you guys submit a petition to the FCC asking that Internet video not be regulated like cable or broadcast tv? (http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/network2/Network2%20Petition.pdf)

(2) Why did you guys start the Video on the Net Alliance? (http://www.videoonthenet.org)

The questioners (apparent allies) all seemed to believe the self-evident proposition that Internet video is qualitatively different from cable and broadcast tv. Internet video does not require use of limited public resources and implicate substantial barriers to entry that resulted in the pervasive regulation of broadcasters and cable operators who serve as stewards of scarce public resources. Surely, any rational policymaker would recognize this truism and have no inclination to regulate Internet video. Or would they? Well, I think these folks have no memory of the ten-year ordeal we've been living through to try to keep Internet-delivered voice free of unnecessary government interference. Eleven years ago, when I started the VON Coalition, some were skeptical of the need for an advocacy organization to protect the unregulated nature of Internet communications (even in the midst of a petition by long distance resellers trying to protect their guaranteed revenue streams by otlawing Internet "telephony". Sure enough, after ten years of incessant fighting, VoIP, to varying degrees, is regulated like telephony, in America and in many nations around the world. And, to a large extent, these regulations have stifled VoIP and slowed the Internet communications revolution. I have no doubt that, ultimately, VoIP will emerge as the primary mode of voice communication and become an integral part of the unified Internet communications, media and entertainment future. But, short-sighted, regulatory obstacles have slowed our progress.

We must not let the same fate beset the emerging Internet video industry.

And, guess what, the dominos are already beginning to fall. And they might fall faster than any of us realize. We have to be prepared and mobilized to protect the emerging industry.

Why do I say this? First, we got indications from the UK and the EU that the distinctions between Internet video on the one side and cable and broadcast tv on the other side are too subtle for regulators to distinguish among and that one-size-fits-all regulation might become the law of the land. Like the guy who has one tool - a hammer - the nascent Internet video industry might be struck hard with the cable/broadcast regulatory hammer.

And now it looks like Canada is embarking on a proceeding to figure out the proper regulatory structure for Internet video. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/04/13/crtc-review.html So far, Canada's CRTC has impressed me with its foresight by issuing an order exempting video on the Internet from regulation. And, candidly, Canada also surprised me (positively) with regard to VoIP. Jonathan and I testified in Canada a couple years ago out of concern that Canada would apply backward-looking policies to VoIP. It turns out, Canada actually seems to have established a more progressive approach to VoIP than the United States. But these are not reasons for us to become complacent. A lot can happen during the course of a regulatory proceeding when the lobbyists pull out all the stops. I intend to participate in Canada's proceeding to make sure that the Internet video entrepreneurs, innovators and enthusiasts are allowed to advance Internet video in the most positive and timely manner.

Finally, I would hate to see America become a wallflower at the Internet video revolution. For that reason, Jonathan and I have submitted our petition with the FCC asking that Internet video not be regulated like cable or broadcast tv. We think we might have to roll out similar petitions with regulatory bodies around the world at least as an educational tool and to stave off potential, misguided and backward-looking regulation of Internet video.

And, for this reason, we have also launched the Video on the Net Alliance, because the price of advancing Internet video is eternal vigilance.

Tags: von, Video on the Net Alliance, Internet TV, Jonathan Askin, voip, CRTC, public policy, FCC, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 09:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (51)

April 13, 2007

When Arbitrage is a Good Thing, or at Least a Wake Up Call -- The Dispute Over Access Charges for Conference Call Traffic Terminating in Iowa

So, I am hearing an escalating furor regarding the battle between Iowa rural telcos and conference-calling companies on the one side and the major telcos including AT&T, Qwest and Sprint on the other side over the rates for terminating traffic in Iowa. Perhaps the issue will come to a head this week when parties meet at the FCC. Perhaps this is the incentive the carriers and the FCC need to finally move away from the unworkable, patchwork, intercarrier compensation regime.

For me, it's interesting to see the shoe on the other foot. Although the rural carriers have always had VERY strong allies at the FCC, in Congress and in the state commissions, so have the largest telcos. Now that they are going head-to-head, perhaps the largest telcos are feeling a little vulnerable and recognize the absurdities of the kluged and archaic inter-carrier compensation regime.

The small carriers seem to have the law on their side. As best I can tell, if their rates have been properly filed with the Commission, the telcos must terminate traffic to these rural carriers and conference centers. There was some effort to block traffic to these rural LECs and conference calling centers, but I think the FCC has historically ruled that carriers cannot block traffic if the tariffed rates were legally filed and unchallenged. That is not to say the law is right. But, it is a system that the largest telcos have allowed to persist for ten years, in part, because they have typically been the net beneficiaries. And, in those rare situations where they have been the net losers, that have generally succeeded in stalling or undermining or reversing the payment process (e.g., the recip comp for ISP-bound traffic battles; the phantom traffic and FX traffic scenarios; the charging of access rates, rather than recip comp or no rate, for VoIP traffic).

This Iowa traffic termination situation, to me, is a clear demonstration that the current inter-carrier compensation regime is unsustainable. This is an instance where Qwest, at&t and Sprint are the net payors and it is they who are screaming fraud, bloody murder, and the dirtiest of words - "arbitrage". Well, it is arbitrage, but so what? Arbitrage is just real world evidence of the market failure of an inter-carrier compensation that the biggest telcos have propped up for ten years. When the inter-carrier compensation regime ensured they were the net recipient of revenue, that regime was great. In the few instances where the biggest telcos have been the net payors, they have screamed fraud and arbitrage. Well, they cannot perpetuate a system that only allows for arbitrage and usurious rents when they are the net beneficiary. Perhaps this is the final impetus all the carriers need to come to the table and finally break the stalemate and allow their friends at the FCC to pass an omnibus reform of the inter-carrier compensation regime that will move to either bill and keep or a compensation scheme that more adequately reflects costs.

Tags: USF, FCC, VoIP, AT&T, intercarrier compensation, Qwest, Sprint, Access Charges, Iowa, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 06:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (148)

March 29, 2007

Ofcom Releases Statement on VoIP Regulation - do I long for the Days of British Subjugation?

The UK's Ofcom issued its long-awaited statement on VoIP regulation, which becomes effective May 29, 2007. The full framework is available at: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/voipregulation/voipstatement/voipstatement.pdf and the Ofcom statement can be found at: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/voipregulation/voipstatement/

I submitted comments in the UK proceeding. I like to believe that that effort was worthwhile, and that Ofcom found value in some of the comments presented by members of the VoIP community. The Statement seems to suggest that Ofcom recognized the potential of VoIP to transform the ways in which we communicate and tried to balance the needs of the providers, innovators, and entrepreneurs with the goals of ensuring the social good and an informed consumer base.

The ruling lays out a code of conduct with which VoIP providers must adhere. It does not take immediate steps to require emergency service (999) access. Instead, Ofcom plans to take another look at this area later this year and consult on whether, and how, emergency services calls access might be made a mandatory requirement in the VoIP world.

The framework also explains Ofcom's current thinking on other VoIP related issues including naked DSL, net neutrality, approach to regulation of nomadic services and the European Framework Review.

Specifically, the new code of practice requires VoIP providers to make clear:

- whether or not the service includes access to emergency services;
- the extent to which the service depends on the user's home power supply;
- whether directory assistance, directory listings, access to the operator or the itemization of calls are available; and
- whether consumers will be able to keep their telephone number if they choose to switch providers at a later date.

If consumers choose to take up a service that does not offer access to emergency services or which depends on an external power supply, the code also requires VoIP providers to:

- secure the customer's positive acknowledgement of this at point of sale (by checking a box, for example);
- label the capability of the service, either in the form of a physical label for equipment or via information on the computer screen; and
- play an announcement each time a call to emergency services is attempted, reminding the caller that access is unavailable.

Recognizing that VoIP services have the potential to offer significant new benefits to consumers, including more competition and choice, lower prices and new services such as second lines and nomadic services, my first read suggests to me that Ofcom tried to strike a workable balance between promoting innovation and protecting traditional social goods.

Personally, I prefer the UK's approach to VoIP to what I have seen in the US over the past two years. It seems more thoughtful and better balanced, and seems to focus on what I think should be the central, perhaps only bona fide role for regulators in this emerging space -- ensuring consumers are well informed.

Tags: von, voip, Ofcom, public policy, FCC, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 04:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (78)

February 21, 2007

Skype's Petition to the FCC on User Empowerment, Edge Device Deployment and Internet-Application Innovation in the Wireless Market

Our friends at Skype filed what I think will prove to be an important and logical petition with the United States Federal Communications Commission today, making the eminently reasonable request that the FCC ensure that its (and, by extension, all) users of mobile devices and networks have the freedom to communicate over wireless networks. Specifically, Skype has asked the FCC to 1) enforce its "Carterfone" rules in the wireless market, 2) to start a rulemaking proceeding to determine the legality of the carriers' restrictions on subscribers' full access to Internet-based applications and 3) to oversee a private sector group that would work to set open standards and transparency in wireless networks.

I think this petition should have important ramifications for all those that wish to attach devices or provide Internet-based voice and video applications over wireless networks. As things stand now, users are beholden to the wireless gatekeepers who unilaterally determine what devices, what functions, what applications may attach or ride or be accessed from the wireless networks.

I ask our friends who care about innovation in the wireless space, edge devices and Internet applications to take this petition seriously, shine a spotlight on the issue and help move the FCC in the right direction. The Petition should be posted on the FCC's Website within a couple of days. For those of you not familiar with navigating the FCC's Website, I'll try to post the link when it becomes available. For those of you who want a copy of the petition more immediately, please send an email to my Wartime Consiglieri Jonathan Askin. This promises to be an intense battle and might require us all to call out our Wartime Consiglieri to promote maximum innovation in wireless devices and applications.

Tags: Jonathan Askin, Mobile VoIP, Skype, FCC, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 08:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (1158)

February 12, 2007

I Almost Forgot An Anniversary - February 12, 2007 was the Third Anniversary of the FCC's "Pulver Order"

Three years ago, the FCC granted the "Pulver Order", declaring voice communications services that do not touch the public-switched telephone network to be "Information Services" not "Telecom Services." At the time, I and others advocating on behalf of Internet-based communications considered it to be the first positive regulatory statement on the unregulated nature of Internet communications.

A lot has happened since that most auspicious date. To the extent that communication continues to evolve without the need to connect with the legacy public telephone network, such that broadband empowered consumers have ways to directly communicate with each other, the Pulver Order has provided clarity as to the regulatory treatment of such services in the United States and provides a model for many other regulators around the world. Over the past three years we have seen the commercialization of VoIP shift into high gear, as well as the launch of quite a number of companies and services all focused on helping to make end-to-end IP a reality.

But, we have also seen some retrenchment. As VoIP services, particularly those that connect to the PSTN become mainstream, we have seen the heavy hand of regulation stifle innovation by attempting to place VoIP in old regulatory constraints. Our work is still cut out for us to demonstrate how Internet-based communications are qualitatively different than traditional modes of communications, and how and why the old rules might need not apply.

Tags: Michael Powell, Pulver Order, voip, VON, FCC, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 11:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (53)

The DC Circuit Reviews the FCC's Order Imposing Universal Service Contribution Obligations on VoIP Providers:

The DC Circuit Court heard oral arguments on the appeal of the FCC's VoIP Universal Service rules on Friday. (The VON Coalition was an Intervener). I don't want to elevate hopes, but the Court appeared skeptical of some of the FCC's argument.

Last year, the FCC required VoIP providers that connect to the public-switched telephone network to contribute a percentage of their "long distance" revenue to the US Federal Universal Service Fund. Some argued that the amount of funding required of VoIP providers was excessive. Frankly, I think the oral argument focused on the wrong issues.

The primary issue on review was whether 64.9% of VoIP traffic should be considered interstate for calculation of universal service contributions. We should not be haggling over the percentage of VoIP traffic that is interstate for purposes of USF contributions. That argument is based on archaic conceptions of what voice communications were. They make no sense in an IP-enabled world where physical geography is irrelevant and where communications means so much more than voice telephony.

I think we have to recognize that the old way of assessing charges to promote universal service no longer serves the public good. We have to stop putting the fingers of the Internet innovators into the old voice telephony support dike. We need to rebuild the system. We have to rethink what we want to achieve through a universal service fund.

I must reiterate a couple of thoughts that I and others have stated like a broken record over the years, but do not yet seem to resonate. What is the public good we want to promote? I think it is ubiquitous and robust broadband that would enable each user to better control and maximize her media, Internet, communications and entertainment experience. How do we get there? I don't think we get there by compelling VoIP providers to prop up the narrowband public switched telephone network. Rather, I think it is a concerted national effort to role out broadband, with all its rich features and functionalities, to all Americans, so that they no longer need to rely only on a narrowband voice connection. Short of that, universal service funding should be based on the premise that we should be encouraging broadband rollout and uptake. To that end, universal service contributions and distributions should focus on the broadband pipes and not on the global applications that ride those pipes. Frankly, unaffiliated VoIP providers were already paying into the universal service fund, but indirectly, as users of broadband pipes and telecom services. Why is the provider of a voice application more obligated to contribute to a fund (particularly a fund from which it cannot draw support) than any of the other non-voice applications that also rely on broadband pipe to reach end users? VoIP providers are simply large volume users of telecom services. Their telecom service providers are the ones who are assessing universal service contributions on the VoIP providers and turning around and submitting those funds into the Universal Service Fund. Unless and until the VoIP providers are considered bona fide "telecom service providers" with all the rights of telecom service providers, they should not bear the burdens of telecom service providers, particularly when they already contribute as customers of telecom service providers.

And let's not forget how we got to this dilemma over a shortfall in Universal Service funds in the first place. The FCC reclassified DSL and other broadband access providers as "information service providers". Since they were no longer "telecom service providers" they were relieved of their obligations to contribute to the Universal Service Fund, resulting in a several hundred million dollar shortfall in the Universal Service Fund. The FCC looked to the emerging VoIP providers to make up for this shortfall (even though hitting up these upstarts could only account for a small percentage of the lost funding). In any event, the FCC has never designated these VoIP providers as "telecom service providers". If the argument for relieving the DSL and other broadband service providers hinged on their reclassification as something other than "telecom service providers", how could the FCC have imposed those same obligations on VoIP providers, none of whom have been designated "telecom service providers"?

Tags: Kevin Martin, voip, VON, FCC, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 05:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (28)

February 02, 2007

Conference Spotlight: Spring 2007 VON Policy Summit

This Spring’s VON Policy Summit is designed to bring technologists, innovators, investors and entrepreneurs into the policy arena to share ideas and cross-pollinate with lobbyists, policymakers and advocates, in an effort to create a more favorable business and policy environment for Internet and communications innovation. We are committed to bringing the technology visionaries face-to-face with the policymakers and advocates. Too many great ideas are lost to the ages, as government crafts law and policy with a blind eye towards how best to advance technology for the public good.

Policy 2.0 in a Web 2.0 World:

• (M) Jim Kohlenberger, Executive Director, The VON Coalition
  
• Blair Levin, Managing Director, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc.
  
• John Nakahata, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, LLP
  
• Robert Pepper, Sr. Managing Director, Global Advanced Technology Policy, Cisco Systems
  

Keynote Address: Ambassador David Gross, U.S. Coordinator for International Communications & Information Policy, US Department of State

Peripheral Visions of Peripheral Devices, Peripheral Applications and Peripheral Geography:

• Andy Abramson, Editor-Blogger, VoIP Watch
  
• Jeffrey Carlisle, VP, Government Relations, Lenovo
  
• Jenny Hansen, Project Coordinator, Next Generation 9-1-1
  
• (M) Jason Oxman, Vice President – Communications, Consumer Electronics Association
  

Peripheral Communities in a Virtual World:

• Jonah Gold, Electric Sheep
  
• Christopher Libertelli, Senior Director, Government and Regulatory Affairs, Skype
  
• Om Malik, Editor, Gigaom
  
• (M) Steve Smith, Chief Scientist, Lavalife
  
• Monty Sharma, VP, Product Development, Vivox
  

Erupting from Within/Disrupting from Without:

• Andrew Baron, Creator & Co Producer, Rocketboom
  
• (M) Sean Garrett, Partner, 463 Communications
  
• Shelly Palmer, Managing Partner, Advanced Media Ventures Group LLC
  
• Patrick Ross, Senior Fellow and VP-Communications & External Affairs, The Progress & Freedom Foundation
  
• Marty Stern, Partner, K&L Gates
  

If you would like to save up to US$ 500 on attending the Spring 2007 VON Conference, please take advantage of our "Early Bird" registration and register by tonight (Feb 2nd).

Tags: voip, von, FCC, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 06:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (32)

February 01, 2007

"The KGB-Like Atmosphere at the FCC"

I must confess that I felt a little uncomfortable during today's Senate Commerce Committee grilling of the FCC Commissioners earlier today.

The most awkward moment for me came when Senator Boxer took Chairman Martin to task for a joke he made at the FCBA Chairman's Dinner back in December, 2005 about "the KGB-like atmosphere at the FCC." You see, back at Fall VON 2005 I made an off-the-cuff comment to the effect that the "FCC is run like the KGB." Wouldn't you know it, the trade press picked up on my rather flip, spontaneous utterance. Those who know me, know that I am not always the most politic. In any, event, the quote made the rounds in DC policy circles.

So, a few months later, the statement was apparently still resonating, and Chairman Martin joked during his speech at the Chairman's Dinner and stated something to the effect that "the Number 1 reason why it is fun to work at the FCC is that the KGB atmosphere kind of grows on you after a while." While some might think his comment too flip and give short shrift to, and make light of serious process issues at the FCC, I kind of had to admire his ability to take himself a little less seriously (but, then again, I don't have to work at the FCC -- I run my own "KGB-like" compound in New York).

I put down my guard that night and felt a genuine sympathy for Chairman Martin. I saw his self-deprecating humor as opening the door for a real opportunity to rebuild lines of communication. In fact, I took that opportunity to invite Kevin Martin to speak at the next VON (at the time, he indicated that he probably would join us, but would have to confirm his schedule - subsequently, his staff informed me that he was unable to join us for Spring VON 2006).

Now, to be candid, I typically agree strongly with Sen. Boxer's views on communications and tech policy, and, as most of you who follow my blog are aware, I have not always been aligned with Kevin Martin's approach.

I admire Sen. Boxer's pull-no-punch legislative style, but, frankly, my sympathies rested with Kevin Martin today as they did that night 14 months ago. That night at the Chairman's Dinner, I genuinely respected Kevin Martin for putting aside policy and political disputes and tensions to engage in a bit of self-deprecating humor. I am convinced that if we could all, at least occasionally, take ourselves a little less serious, we could probably build a lot more mutual understanding.

I was quite looking forward to the next Chairman's Dinner (typically the second week of December in DC). The Dinner was postponed this year. It is now slated for a time I will be away on a family vacation, so I, alas, shall be unavailable. But I sincerely hope that Chairman Martin does not feel chilled from taking himself and all of us a little less seriously, at least for an evening.

Tags: Kevin Martin, FCC, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 04:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (75)

January 10, 2007

Kevin Martin at CES: What was said; what was not said; and some speculations on the future of voice and video on the Net

Kevin Martin just finished a Q&A session with CEA Chief Gary Shapiro. They really covered the whole range of issues confronting the FCC … with one glaring exception. Conspicuously absent from the discussion? Four letters: V-O-I-P. (Need I remind you all that the V now stands for “voice” AND/OR “video”?)

My question(s) which was not asked: "What shall be the regulatory treatment of video delivered over the public Internet? Will such applications be regulated like cable? Like information services? Like non-regulated web-based applications? Will the logic of the "Pulver Order" (voice applications that do not touch the public switched telephone network shall not be regulated as telecom services) extend to Internet-delivered Video?"

Kevin Martin gave very encouraging words about balancing and promoting broadband, Internet applications and edge device deployment. I think those words and concepts would resonate well if applied affirmatively by the FCC in an effort to encourage and speed the evolution of Internet video, user-generated content, the disintermediation of video and other applications from the facilities upon which they ride, and the transformation of media, the Internet, communications, and entertainment.

Chairman Martin also spoke of “cable ala carte” as an important goal to allow consumers to better control their viewing experience. To the FCC, I think “ala carte” means the ability to pick and choose from among the couple hundred “channels” that the cable provider is willing to offer each consumer, without compelling the consumer to purchase larger bundles of channels. I don’t think the FCC is even thinking about ala carte as the ability to pick individual programs (the true product that viewers care about. I care about getting “Lost” (the program, not the physical or spiritual condition). I don’t really care about ABC (or whatever channel happens to provide a home for “Lost”) or ABC’s other programming.

To me, “ala carte” could and should mean SO MUCH MORE in an Internet-enabled world than the ability to choose a single or a few channels from among the cable provider’s menu of channels. To me, it is even more than the ability to choose a single or series of programs from the menu of programs offered by a cable provider or TV network.

In an Internet-enabled world, ala carte cable offerings really are inconsequential and should become largely meaningless going forward, or, at least, I should hope they are. It is access to the growing and potentially infinite supply of video (not to mention other Internet-based content and applications) that we should think of when we think of “video ala carte”. The ability to pick a channel or, marginally better, the ability to pick a program? Big deal! Give me access to the open, broadband internet and the ability to pick and choose from the virtually infinite array of channels, programs, videos, mash-ups that the Internet has to offer. … Now that is ala carte.

And, with the right policy to allow Internet-based applications to bloom and flourish, maybe the FCC won’t even have to confront the backward-looking and, ideally, soon-to-be-irrelevant issue of cable ala carte channel offerings. In an Internet-enabled world, the user is in control, and the offerings are ALL ala carte, unless you have opted for another Internet-based application that filters or “curates” content for you (hmm, sounds like a little company I am launching called Network2.tv -- but I really didn’t intend this blog post to be a commercial for Network2, although I did intend it to reveal some of the potential of what Internet-delivered video could be under a preferred policy framework that would foster Internet innovation and entrepreneurship).

Tags: Kevin Martin, CES, FCC, Jeff Pulver, Internet Video, VoIP

Posted by jeff at 06:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (22)

January 04, 2007

AT&T - BellSouth merger: Revestiture continues

Wisconsin Technology Network: AT&T - BellSouth merger: Revestiture continues

"There is so much blog analysis on the recent approval of the AT&T-Bell South merger that the true issue has been overshadowed. This is not a Democratic or Republican victory or defeat, as some blogs have reported.

All of the fighters and crusaders for net neutrality better take a second look at what they really won because to me, it does not look like they really got much. Some of the analysts got it right by saying that AT&T did not give up much to get the merger approved."

Tags: FCC, Net Neutrality, AT&T-BellSouth Merger, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 07:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (44)

January 03, 2007

NY Times Net Neutrality Editorial

NY Times: Protecting Internet Democracy

"One of the big winners in the last election may turn out to be the principle, known as net neutrality, that Internet service providers should not be able to favor some content over others. Democrats who are moving into the majority in Congress — led by Ron Wyden in the Senate and Edward Markey in the House — say they plan to fight hard to pass a net neutrality bill, and we hope that they do. It is vital to preserve the Internet’s role in promoting entrepreneurship and free expression."

Tags: FCC, Net Neutrality, AT&T-BellSouth Merger, NY Times, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 09:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (36)

December 31, 2006

David Isenberg: Blogosphere's buzzin on AT&T/BellSouth

isen.blog: Blogosphere's buzzin on AT&T/BellSouth

---

Like David, I too question why the rush to close the deal before the end of the year. The reason might have been that if they couldn't close the deal in 2006, the deal wasn't going to close in 2007.

While it will be interesting to watch what kind of tech policy legislation passes in 2007 and 2008, my bet is that Q1 2009 will be one of the busiest and most productive Congressional sessions in 40+ years.

Happy New Year.

Tags: FCC, Net Neutrality, AT&T-BellSouth Merger, David Isenberg, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 05:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (36)

December 29, 2006

Beware the Fine Print Buried in the AT&T-BellSouth Merger “Concessions”?

Many pundits will likely claim that the concessions put forward by AT&T last night in order to gain merger approval before the end of the year advance the cause of Net Neutrality and the open Internet. Most in DC policy circles are likely to point to the concessions as the last best chance for the Internet application providers to gain meaningful Net Neutrality provisions and to preserve the open nature of the Internet. The logic goes that AT&T is pretty desperate to get their merger resolved before Jan. 1, which would suggest that, today, AT&T should be willing to make significant concessions that it otherwise might not make if it had the luxury of time. Afterall, AT&T essentially promised Wall Street that the merger would be done by year's end.

But are the concessions a bona fide commitment to meaningful Net Neutrality going forward or merely the “sleeves off the vest” of AT&T as it builds out its new network for “IPTV”? Won’t this network ultimately become AT&T’s broadband Internet access network and communications network of tomorrow? And hasn’t AT&T simply sequestered its new network from Net Neutrality obligations?

I know it's a tough balance to strike. I know the Net Neutrality forces have worked tirelessly to get meaningful concessions in the context of the AT&T-BellSouth merger. And, I know Commissioners Copps and Adelstein have fought vigorously to incorporate meaningful Net Neutrality provisions into the merger conditions.

I, however, do fear that, in the long run, AT&T might have given up nothing to the FCC, nothing to the Internet application providers, nothing to the users of the Internet and broadband networks.

A few years ago, the Bell Companies, in the context of a prior FCC proceeding, generally agreed (or were ordered by the FCC, depending on your view of the lobbying and regulatory process) to continue to unbundle “copper” networks, but would be largely free not to unbundled new fiber networks. If all the new networks are fiber, then, in time, no unbundling obligations would persist. Perhaps this was a “fair” compromise (if the goal was to give the Bells sufficient incentive to build out fiber networks), but should the same exemption apply to Net Neutrality in a world where the entire AT&T network might (perhaps hopefully) be an “all-IPTV” network?

Advocates and pundits will differ widely. Some will argue that Net Neutrality was never intended to apply to IPTV networks – that the IPTV network too closely resembles a cable network, and that the Bells should be free to cut exclusive or discriminatory deals with content channels. Imposition of such rules to channel content on IPTV networks might tend to wrap us in all sorts of tortured discussions about Internet must-carry and redound in “Internet” regulation and other unwanted government oversight. Perhaps, the forces for the Internet application providers got as much as they could reasonably hope to achieve and avoid opening a new can of legal, regulatory and operational worms. Their approach centered around ensuring, to the fullest extent possible, a neutral pipe alternative to AT&T’s IPTV service, for things like new video and other Internet applications that will ride over the top of AT&T’s broadband-ready pipes.

But, if the entire network becomes an "IPTV" network, then is AT&T’s commitment to Net Neutrality largely irrelevant to the new network, and are the Internet application providers living in a pipe dream?

The theoretically correct or pure answer might have been to apply Net Neutrality to the entire pipe. We, however, might have to acknowledge that, if we urge that result, we would have upset the existing cable content delivery model. If we applied a wider application of Net Neutrality, would we become enmeshed in all sorts of questions about whether existing cable/programming relationships? For example, cable guys currently have the right to discriminate against unaffiliated set top boxes. I don’t really believe that such tacit discrimination is the best answer for consumers in the long-run, but if Net Neutrality applied to cable, we would have essentially upended that rule too. Instead, the attitude of the Net Neutrality forces seems to be “why not have ‘Carterfone for the Internet’ and achieve a similar result through a less siloed model that doesn’t come with all the baggage that cable regulation includes? In the end, I think what the pro-Net Neutrality forces are trying to do with Net Neutrality is create an entirely new, Internet-ready policy environment that doesn’t get bogged down in existing silos.

Is the better position for the Internet application forces to grab as many positive policy statements for Net Neutrality, wherever possible, and to live to fight another day? Should we simply be working to allow some semblance of an open Internet application model to exist wherever it may, and to allow the power of the user-controlled open Internet to slowly but surely overtake the spoon-fed cable content delivery model that cable and the Bells will try to subject on users. Users will still get some taste for the promise of the open Internet and user empowerment and, as they taste it more and more, the cable and IPTV spoon-fed model will be replaced with an open Internet model. Perhaps we don't need to pry open their closed network approach. Perhaps the door will slowly open wider over time.. Or, perhaps, this is just wishful thinking.

***

In any event, I thought I should share Dave Burstein’s parsing of AT&T’s concessions and his take on the potential implications of the merger commitment:

“I call them the black ninjas. They work by night and are very, very good.” FCC Chairman Bill Kennard explaining telco lobbyists

“Jim Cicconi and Bob Quinn are the best lobbyists in Washington,” President of SBC `Bill Daley lamented after they beat him a while back. They now work for AT&T, and have proven their brilliance by convincing most of D.C. they accepted network Neutrality to get the BellSouth merger approved, while burying on page 10 a sentence that made their concession almost meaningless. Their proposal came out Thursday night and I’ve worked all night. Apologies to non-U.S. readers for putting this first, but AP reports they plan to sneak it through Friday before the holiday.

AT&T offer on Net Neutrality sounds good, and might be a model to countries like Japan that are considering Net Neutrality rules. AT&T agreed “not to provide … any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet transmitted over AT&T/BellSouth's wireline broadband Internet access service based on its source, ownership or destination.”

A seemingly innocuous later sentence effectively makes that almost meaningless. “This commitment also does not apply to AT&T/BellSouth's Internet Protocol television (IPTV) service.” AT&T has always intended to give paying customers priority by routing them over the “IPTV” part of their network, with Alcatel routers and Microsoft software designed for QOS. They don’t even have the equipment for that kind of QOS on what they call “wireline broadband Internet access service.” The lawyers fighting this in D.C. won’t even discover they’ve been bamboozled until afterwards if the commission goes ahead and rushes this through. The entire set of “concessions” remains so insignificant that Merrill Lynch’s “immaterial” judgment still holds.

The other stuff in the 20 pages adds surprisingly little substance. For example, the 85% DSL promise happens to be the level BellSouth has already reached. Most of the special access rates they agreed to freeze are ones AT&T CEO, Rick Lindner, told Wall Street “have been declining as a result of competition.”

Incredibly effective persuasion, which at least in early drafts even bamboozled public interest advocates and Commission Democrats. With luck, they’ll analyze the final filing, released late Thursday, before making up their mind. It would be scandalous if an $85B merger goes through on terms revealed only 12 hours before.

***

Only time will tell which pundits will be proven correct. Time might also demonstrate that this was our last best chance to preserve and advance the open Internet and the ability of users to control and maximize their communications and Internet experience without subjugation to an interceding gatekeeper.

Tags: FCC, Net Neutrality, AT&T-BellSouth Merger, Dave Burstein, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 10:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

First John Edwards announces on YouTube. What Happens Next?

During my flight back to the States yesterday, a Washington, D.C. policy reporter who was covering the John Edwards YouTube announcement emailed me a request to do an interview. While I would have been happy to talk using Skype at 35,000 feet, everyone around me was sleeping so I was emailed a series of thought provoking questions.

[Looking back at my replies, they were my immediate reactions to the questions.]

-----

Q1. Do you think more candidates will use online video to get their message out in 2007 and 2008?

A1. Yes. By 2008 every candidate will have to have their TV/IP strategy in place. What we saw today was a foreshowing of the future.

---

Q2. Do you think online video will affect the way politicians spend money on TV advertising at all?

A2. In the beginning no, but it will slowly grow over time. It comes down to what demographic they want to reach. If they are looking for the 59 and older crowed, TV is the only way to go. ;-)

---

Q3. Can you address some of the legal issues raised by these types of videos? Broadcasters, for instance, aren't allowed to censor or edit political messages when the candidate appears on screen. That frees them from liability in the event the candidate lies or defames his opponent. Do you think similar rules should apply online?

A3. No I don't. Welcome to the Internet.

---

Q4. Should online video sites like YouTube fact check politicos' videos and edit out errors? Are there provisions of the DMCA that shield them from liability?

A4. With regard to the politicos' videos, online video sites should have no responsibility or liability. TV on the Net is not regulated and should not be. Not now. Not later. NEVER.

-----

In all fairness, I do believe the person who asked these questions raised a number of very interesting points which will no doubt be the subject at cocktail parties in DC during 2007 and 08. What happens next is hard to tell, but this is why I believe we all need to be vigilant when it comes to the very real regulatory threats that the emerging TV on the Net space will be facing in the immediate future.

The last thing anyone needs is to see legacy broadcasting rules applied to the Internet.

Tags: videoblogging, John Edwards, public policy, TV on the Net, Disruptive Broadcasting, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 03:24 AM | Permalink

December 15, 2006

VON Coalition Calls on Trading Partners to Stop Blocking Consumer Access to VoIP

Today the Voice on the Net (VON) Coalition, the voice for the VoIP industry, has filed papers with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) charging more than a dozen trading partners with creating market barriers and prohibitions that are stifling Internet based communication technologies like VoIP. The VON Coalition asks U.S. Trade negotiators to help open markets to new technologies.

The VON Coalition outlined actions taken around the globe that stifle Internet based voice competition, potentially can prevent U.S. troops and business travelers from calling home, and limit investment in new markets. As VoIP technology gets integrated into more types of software and web applications, the barriers to VoIP can have a chilling effect that will inhibit a much wider range of applications, services, and devices.

In some cases, incumbent telephone carriers who also control the broadband network have unilaterally blocked users from communicating with VoIP over their broadband network. In several of these cases, the regulator has been complicit in efforts to curtail Internet voice communication. It doesn't just impact a call to a loved one or business colleague, it also threatens to disconnect U.S. troops serving oversees from their families, and thwart the kind of communications essential for lifting economies into the information age. It is for these reasons that Congress just passed the Call Home Act of 2006 (S. 2653) - to ensure that armed forces personnel serving overseas are able to affordably call home including through the "deployment of new technology such as voice over internet protocol" and by seeking "agreements with foreign governments to reduce international surcharges on such telephone calls."

Several countries have kept high entry barriers for traditional voice services and extended these barriers to Internet based voice services. In other cases, ambiguities about VoIP service classification have allowed incumbent phone companies to unilaterally block or restricted the ability of any entity, foreign or domestic, to supply VoIP services over their broadband network. In some cases the limitations on licenses over a borderless communication medium or access to and the cost of telephone number fees have proven to be a significant barrier to market entry, as is the ability to interconnect to the legacy PSTN network.

However by lowering these barriers and prohibitions, VoIP-led innovation has immense potential to extend the power of Internet communications to new corners. Consumers throughout the world will be able to use VoIP to do things never thought possible, businesses may increase efficiency and productivity and transform the way they operate, and broadband enabled communications can help economies to become engines for innovation and the creation of higher-paying Information Age jobs.

A copy of the filing can be found at: http://www.von.org/usr_files/Intl%20--%20USTR%201377%2012-15-06.pdf

Tags: VON Coalition, USTR, VoIP, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 04:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (42)

And this just in from the US Department of Transportation on Next Generation 911:

The U.S. Department of Transportation seems to be looking ahead and figuring out ways to deploy IP technology to IMPROVE emergency response and preparedness, rather than compelling the Internet communications innovators to be backward compatible with legacy phone networks:

DOT has announced the selection of Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH) to support the USDOT Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) initiative.

The $4.4 million dollar contract requires the team spearheaded by BAH to develop and validate requirements for the NG9-1-1 system, define a system architecture, and develop a transition plan that considers responsibilities, costs, schedule, and benefits for deploying IP-based emergency services across America. The system will be evaluated to determine how it supports emergency call initiation, routing, and processing that will ultimately fulfill public safety emergency response information needs. The contract's period of performance is expected to be two years.

The growing market penetration of both cellular and Voice-Over-Internet-Protocol (VOIP) telephony have underscored the limitation of the current 9-1-1 infrastructure.

Anticipated benefits to be derived from a next-generation system include:

* Quicker and more accurate information delivery to responders;
* Better and more useful forms of information: real-timetext, images, video, and other data;
* More flexible, secure, and robust Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) operations; and
* Lower public capital and operating costs for emergency communication services.

NG9-1-1 is one of USDOT's major ITS research initiatives. For detailed information on NG9-1-1 and the other major ITS initiatives, go to the USDOT's ITS Website at www.its.dot.gov
--

Tags: E911, USDOT, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 03:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (26)

DC Circuit Upholds the FCC's decision requiring providers of interconnected VoIP services to provide E-911 service:

The DC Circuit upheld the FCC's decision requiring providers of interconnected VoIP services to provide E-911 service.

Specifically, the Court conclude that the E911 for VoIP Order's 120-day deadline for VoIP providers to be in compliance with FCC rules was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The Court deferred to the FCC's judgment on the FCC's decision to require VoIP to connect to the Wireline E911 network without a corresponding obligation on ILECs. The Court also found that because the FCC had asked about 911 in its IP enabled services proceeding, their was sufficient process under the Administrative Procedure's Act.

The Court, however, did not address, and was not asked to address, whether the FCC's marketing and sales ban was lawful. Judge Kavanaugh, wrote a separate statement to express his agreement with the FCC Order's suggestion that the 911 requirement would be "justified even if VoIP providers could not feasibly meet the 120-day deadline." Although apparently not a view shared by the other judges, he goes on to argue that, "In my judgment, the FCC possesses the statutory authority, which the Commission may reasonably choose to exercise, to address the public safety threat by banning providers from selling voice service until the providers can ensure adequate 911 connections. And the FCC's greater authority to ban sales of voice service without adequate 911 capability necessarily includes the lesser power to ban such sales beginning in 120 days." ... "The broad public safety and 911 authority Congress has granted the FCC therefore includes the authority to prevent providers from selling voice service that lacks adequate 911 capability."

Tags: E911, FCCJeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 03:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (47)

November 14, 2006

Nice write up on podcamp Boston: An Insider’s View from the Podcamp “Unconference”

adotas: An Insider’s View from the Podcamp “Unconference”

"So what’s a “PodCamp?” Where Apple employees or cheesy sci-fi horror extras take their summer vacation?

Nope. Originating from the BarCamp movement, PodCamp is an informal, “Unconference” conference where people who are passionate about podcasting/videocasting/social and new media gather to share ideas, network, and eat lots of snacks."

Tags: Chris Brogan, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 12:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (21)

November 13, 2006

Second Life Insider: Jeff Pulver and the new political climate

Second Life Insider: Jeff Pulver and the new political climate

"...While most of the other commentary I have read talked about the changes coming for the White House, the Iraq War, and other matters that would find place them squarely outside of the domain of a the Second Life Insider, Pulver hit the heart of the issue that should be on the minds of every Second Life resident, net neutrality..."

Tags: Second Life, Pulveria, Net Neutrality, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 06:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

November 10, 2006

Blogosphere Reaction to my post-Election Public Policy Observations:

Sometimes one needs to create their own "Meme Moments"

In reference to: Shift Happened: How Might a Democrat-Controlled Congress Affect Media, Internet, Communications and Entertainment?

- Voxilla: Pulver and the New America

- Perilocity: Politics and Net Neutrality

- The 463: I, For One, Welcome Our New San Francisco Overlord

- Andy Abramson: Will There Be Changes In D.C?

Tags: Net Neutrality, FCC, VoIP, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 09:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (76)

November 09, 2006

Shift Happened: How Might a Democrat-Controlled Congress Affect Media, Internet, Communications and Entertainment?

So, I feel a little like Rip Van Winkle. I leave America one day in late October and return early November to the dawning of a new political era. Although I was only out of America for two weeks, the beginning of an epic change in the way in which government views and governs the Internet and communications may have occurred in my absence.

I must confess a little delinquency on the policy front the last few months. Frankly, I have been so monomaniacally focused on Internet video and my international ventures, that I have not kept close tabs on Beltway politics, particularly as it relates to VoIP regulation. To some extent, I had given up on America and the prospect that it would develop a regulatory framework that might enable Internet entrepreneurs. In my mind, other countries have been supplanting the US as the havens for Internet innovation. The midterm election, however, has reminded me that, in a democracy, there is always room for a rethink, a do-over, an opportunity for a dramatic policy shift when the national consciousness wakes up and recognizes that its policies might be leading the nation down a backward-heading path. Admittedly, it is like changing the course of a massive ocean liner, but it is doable if we have the courage of our conviction and the will to participate and engage government. Could we use the shifting balance of power as a vehicle to change the trajectory of Internet and communications policy in America? At a minimum, we should stop to think about the policy implications of the change in the balance of power on voice and VoIP, in particular, and on all media, Internet, communications and entertainment (MICE) applications, services and technologies, more broadly.

The shifting of the balance of power from Republicans to Democrats on Capitol Hill will likely have dramatic consequences on US foreign military/diplomatic policy and on domestic social policy. We will see no end of pundits speak to the dramatic and subtle effects of the power shift. So far, however, I haven't seen too much about the effects of the power shift on the evolving media, Internet, communications and entertainment industry.

Perhaps the responsibility falls to us -- the emerging entrepreneurs, innovators, and potential thought-leaders in this community -- to figure out what the shifting political makeup means to the ever-morphing world of the Internet, communications, media, and entertainment.

I know most of us are pretty green in political and lobbying circles, but as Congress, regulators, and governments around the globe place their critical gaze on us as we revolutionize the ways in which the Internet is used to deliver communications and entertainment, we had better start to care and engage and be proactive with government. For these reason, I ask for your thoughts on what the election results might mean for our community, and what we might do to anticipate and engage legislators and policymakers in the most effective manner possible. My first thought is that folks join the VON Coalition, which has been fight for the rights of voice application providers for 10 years, and is now well-positioned to take its knowledge and extend it to video and other Internet-delivered applications, content and services.

My first relatively obvious observation is that the shift in power tips the balance to the Net Neutrality forces and puts the Bells on the defensive for the first time since passage of the "96 Telecom Act" as they continue their efforts to obtain video franchising relief. Perhaps this means there is a potential compromise in the works - video franchising relief for a more meaningful iteration of Net Neutrality?

But is it all good news for the Internet voice/video/media/entertainment disruptors? I know, given the vast resources devoted on all sides of the debate to Net Neutrality, one might conclude that Net Neutrality is the only issue that matters, but it is not. While the Internet application providers and users might win on the Net Neutrality front, I harbor no great expectations that the Democrats will be any less paternalistic than their Republican corollaries on the social issues affecting the Internet and communications, particularly the inertia pushing traditional emergency response, lawful intercept, and now indecency statutes and regulations on Internet applications, without any serious regard for the deleterious effects on innovation and progress.

Bottom line, however, is that I no longer expect Congress to pass any significant, Internet-affecting, legislation this year. I, however, do expect that the FCC might try to fill the breach and try, itself, to move on video franchising reform, universal service contribution methodology and access charge reform, and continuing down the path of imposing traditional telecom- and broadcast-like regulation on Internet applications, while further deregulating the transmission media. I also expect that many of the battles might move back to the states as Congress becomes less fertile turf for the traditional carriers.

But, how much time does this FCC have before a Democrat-controlled Congress gets increasingly critical of the current FCC and its recent efforts at media consolidation, Bell and cable and other access provider deregulatory efforts and Internet regulatory efforts? I suspect that the festering conflicts will boil and erupt between the now-Democrat-controlled Congress and the Republican FCC. There will be a reckoning, and I expect Mr. Martin will be called to the Hill to answer a few questions. Report has it that soon-to-be- Chairman Dingell has already suggested that the AT&T/BS merger application slow down, while folks consider the antitrust implications a little more thoroughly before the rush to judgment.

And, Ed Markey as Chairman of the Telecom and Internet Subcommittee. It is no secret how instrumental Mr. Markey has been in holding the line and defending the Internet and communications innovators and enthusiasts.

I also want to point to one small victory for the forces of Internet communications. Probably not on too many people's radar, Gil Gutknecht, the Minnesota Representative who proposed applying access charges, universal service and state rules to VoIP without any consideration of the consequences on innovation or technological progress, was defeated. While other issues were in play in that race, I nonetheless understand that innovative VoIP tools were used to help unseat him. I'd like to think that the Internet communications industry played some recognizable role in his defeat and that there should be a lesson learned that this emerging industry is becoming a force with which to be reckoned.

Tags: Net Neutrality, FCC, VoIP, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 01:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

October 15, 2006

Business Week: AT&T: Waiting for the FCC's Call

Business Week:AT&T: Waiting for the FCC's Call

"Another area where AT&T may need to compromise: fees for Web companies that provide content via AT&T's connections. AT&T may need to agree not to charge some companies higher rates for priority service. "There is a possibility that this could be a landmark set of statements that are made," says Jeff Pulver, an expert in Internet-based call technology. "But whatever sound bites come out of this meeting, I don't believe that anything substantial will happen. I understand [Martin] to be someone who always gets what he wants." And right now, Martin wants this merger to be approved, fast and with as few conditions as possible."

Tags: voip, AT&T, FCC, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 04:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (46)

October 12, 2006

Me and You, Mike McCurry, on Neutral Turf (not your Astroturf) to Debate Communications Policy

I was conflicted about whether or not to respond to a recent astroturf mischaracterization and attack of my views. If you are reading this blog entry, I guess that means I have opted to respond.

Check out the hatchet job that Mike McCurry and the "Hands Off the Internet" astroturfers did on me and my speech at Fall VON, which they apparently never actually heard.

Here is their mischaracterization: Pulver-izing Logic

Here is the stream of what I actually said: (captured in Second Life by David Siegel).

Normally, when I am so seriously misunderstood or maligned for such obvious self-serving purposes, my inclination is not to shine a spotlight - attention tends to lead to further mischaracterizations and a dangerous ripple in perpetuity on the Web. In this case, however, the folks at Hands Off the Internet, the astroturf organization fronting for the Internet gatekeepers, so missed the point (and almost suggested that I was an advocate of child pornography) that I had to respond.

Now, to set the record straight, I am not an extreme advocate for Net Neutrality at all costs. I like to think I have developed a more nuanced approach that would recognize some need to encourage broadband investment by those with the deep pockets needed to bring us to the day of ubiquitous broadband. I, however, do not want users and would-be edge innovators to become captive to the financial self-interest of a few bottleneck access providers.

What I find particularly disturbing is that Mike McCurry has been co-opted to advance the astroturf agenda. First, let me state that I am a huge fan of Debbie Tate (even when I might disagree with her). Commissioner Tate, as she has been on every encounter, was most gracious in joining us for Fall VON in Boston last month. Commissioner Tate offered the VON Community a candid and logical assessment of where regulation is likely to go in order to protect Americans from potential social threats. All I suggested at VON is that regulators must remain vigilant to ensure that regulations are sufficiently narrowly tailored to resolve any immediate public policy objective while not stifling innovation.

Shame on Hands Off the Net for latching onto misleading secondary source material, taking my views out of context, and severely misinterpreting my views. Next time, come to VON and participate in the discussion.

So, it bothers me that Hands Off the Internet is fronted by former Clinton spin doctor Mike McCurry. His group is accusing me of doing "a flip". If anyone has done a flip, well it is you, Mr. McCurry.

If Mike McCurry has such venomous words for me because of my support for open networks, I wonder what he would have to say about Bill Clinton's support for open networks.

Back in 1993, before Mike McCurry even joined the Clinton White House, President Clinton had a vision for a broadband world with an open access mandate. In 1993, the President called for legislation that would eventually become the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Much of what President Clinton called for spurring the Internet was visionary and indeed enacted into law. Eventually, technological innovation that resulted from the Internet would drive two thirds of all economic growth - helping lead to the greatest economic expansion in American history.

To get there, President Clinton laid out 5 key principles for telecom reform. Number three was to "Provide Open Access to the Network"

Here is how Mr. McCurry's Vice President described it:
(http://clinton6.nara.gov/1994/01/1994-01-11-remarks-by-vice-president-al-gore.html)

"Our view of the entry of local telephone companies into cable
television also balances the advantages of competition against the
possibility of competitive abuse. ... But to increase diversity and
benefit consumers, we will permit telephone companies to provide video
programming over new, open access systems.

Even these measures, however, may not eliminate all scarcity in the
local loop -- those information byways that provide the last electronic
connection with homes and offices. For some time, in many places, there
are likely to be only one or two broadband, interactive wires, probably
owned by cable or telephone companies. In the long run, the local loop
may contain a wider set of competitors offering a broad range of
interactive services, including wireless, microwave and direct broadcast
satellite.

But, for now, we cannot assume that competition in the local loop will
end all of the accrued market power of past regulatory advantage and
market domination.

We cannot permit the creation of information bottlenecks that adversely
affect information providers who use the highways as a means of
supplying their customers.

Nor can we can permit bottlenecks for information consumers who desire
programming that may not be available through the wires that enter their
homes or offices.

Preserving the free flow of information requires open access, our third
basic principle. "

Specifically, the President laid his broadband proposal out this way:
(http://clinton6.nara.gov/1994/01/1994-01-25-white-paper-on-communications-act-reforms.html)

"The Administration proposes adding a new Title VII to the
Communications Act to apply, on an elective basis, to providers of
two-way, broadband, digital transmission services, offered on a switched
basis to end users. The Administration would emphasize these services
because, well into the 21st century, they will connect and empower the
American public by providing them with a variety of voice, data, video
services, and other information that will enhance our nation's economic
competitiveness and the quality of life of our citizens.

A new Title VII would provide a unified, symmetric treatment of
providers of two-way broadband services, in contrast to the present
disparate treatment of common carriers and cable operators under Titles
II and VI of the Act. It also would provide important incentives to
promote private sector development of this part of the NII and spur
availability of advanced services on a widespread basis. The
Administration recognizes that communications services are developing in
a rapidly changing technical and marketplace environment. A new Title
VII would create a regulatory regime that should stand the test of time
by providing the FCC with the flexibility to adapt its regulatory
approach in light of changes in market and technological conditions. "

Under these Title VII broadband services, President Clinton proposed a
new Title VII which "would impose the following broad requirements (to
be implemented by the FCC) to apply to Title VII broadband services and
the services that share broadband facilities with them: Open access
obligations (including access for the disabled) to enable all persons to
send information over the firms' broadband facilities"

A couple things stand out. First, the Clinton Administration had said more about promoting broadband by 1993 (their first year in office), then George Bush has said in the last 6 years. Second, if Mike McCurry had been a part of the Clinton policymaking team focused on accelerating Internet policies, he would have understood why open broadband networks are essential to economic growth and the vitality of the Internet. "Hands off the Internet" isn't just the name of McCurry's astroturf organizations, hands off is also the role McCurry played in the President's successful broadband policy.

So, I don't know with whom he is (Mc)Currying favors, but I think Bill Clinton got it right by understanding that when we got to a broadband world with two broadband providers (cable and bell) - we need to ensure nondiscriminatory and open access to the network by law.

So Mike McCurry, you missed the discussion on my turf; I take issue with your discussion on your astroturf; let's try to find common ground or at least a fair debate on neutral turf. ...and let's hope the Mets win the World Series on natural turf.

Tags: Mike McCurry, Astroturf, FCC, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 06:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (15)

October 05, 2006

Welcome to the Blogosphere, Verizon. Seriously.

On August, 21, 1981, Apple Computer took out a full page ad in The Wall Street Journal welcoming IBM to the personal computer age. Fast forward to October 3, 2006, and Telecom company, Verizon takes a daring step forward into the blogosphere by creating its own PoliBlog, positioning itself as a technology and policy telecommunications policy blog. So, to borrow from the famous Apple ad, "Welcome to the Blogosphere, Verizon. Seriously."

It will be interesting to see how Verizon draws the line between serving its own business needs and opening up to the blogosphere to engage in meaningful policy conversations, especially as it expands into video delivery with its FiOS service.

While it is premature to comment on the blog itself (so far, just a few days of content), my hope is that Verizon will look beyond its own corporate needs and let this blog serve as a platform for self-examination on policy while serving the needs of its customers, stockholders, and of course compliance with the FCC.

I understand that many large corporate enterprises have trouble messaging in the context of a blog, given marketing and business pressures, but I suspect that if any corporate spokesperson can walk this line and do justice to the Verizon's corporate interests and the policy debates, it is the silver-tongued Tom Tauke, always a compelling voice ... even when I disagree.

I welcome Verizon to the Blogosphere, and I hope you use your power for maximum good, not just corporate gain.

Tags: Apple, VoIP, Verizon, Tom Tauke, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 07:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (48)

September 22, 2006

pulver.tv: Jonathan Askin Interviews Robert Cresanti

pulver.tv: Robert Cresanti

At Fall 2006 VON, Jonathan Askin interviewed Robert Cresanti, Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology and Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Commerce the Department of Commerce, who spoke about transforming Communications in a post 9/11 world.

Tags: VON, VoIP, Post-Disaster Communications, Jonathan Askin, Robert Cresanti

Posted by jeff at 07:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (14)

September 17, 2006

pulver.tv: Jonathan Askin Interviews FCC Commisioner Deborah Tate

pulver.tv: FCC Commisioner Deborah Tate.

Tags: VON, VoIP, Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Tom EVslin, Jonathan Askin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 05:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (23)

August 26, 2006

Tom Evslin: Will AT&T Voicemail Work in an Emergency?

Tom Evslin: Will at&t Voicemail Work in an Emergency?

"It would be nice if at&t would listen to these hurricane survivors and stop opposing the petition that Jeff Pulver and I filed with the FCC requiring that voice mail be available on all landlines during a disaster. But don’t hold your breath."

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Tom Evslin, Jeff Pulver
(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 02:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (34)

August 17, 2006

dLife Seeks Urgent Revision of TSA Security Guidelines as a Result of Life-Threatening Demands Made on Travelers With Diabetes

dLife recently announced that the company is spearheading an effort to institute a new medical task force charged with reviewing transportation security initiatives. The announcement came in response to reports that airport security guards have been demanding that travelers wearing insulin pumps remove them and pack them in checked luggage.

Although the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) clearly stated that diabetes supplies and insulin were still allowed for both domestic and international flights, many travelers wearing insulin pumps are being harassed and pressured to remove their life-saving medical devices. "Separating a person with diabetes from their insulin supply
can cause extreme illness, and in some cases, death. In addition, erratic temperatures in the cargo hold may cause insulin stored inchecked bags to lose its potency," explains Nicole Johnson Baker host of dLifeTV and an insulin pump wearer herself.

dLife has sent an urgent letter to Congressman Peter King, Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, asking for the medical task force to be included in the review process for creating and executing transportation security initiatives.

"Last week when the national security threat level was raised at U.S. airports there were some critical miscommunications regarding on-board security clearance for insulin pumps," stated Howard Steinberg, dLife CEO. "When you are dealing with millions of travelers and a national security crisis, it's difficult. But it's our hope that a medical task force can help prevent future misunderstandings as new travel security sanctions are enacted. With the amount of life-maintaining devices a person with diabetes is required to carry, the task force can be instrumental in saving lives. dLife will be ready to serve on this task force as needed." Those wishing to enlist their support for the measure can go to www.dLife.com and leave their comments, which will be compiled and given to the Homeland Security Committee.

###

About LifeMed Media and dLife - For Your Diabetes Life LifeMed Media, Inc. is the first multimedia healthcare marketing company focused on aggregating and organizing chronic disease populations as lifestyle - a breakthrough approach. dLife is a division of LifeMed Media. dLife represents the first integrated media network for the estimated 21 million people living with diabetes, plus their families and those at risk of developing diabetes - some 80 million in all. dLife provides expert information, insight, advice, and inspiration to this group through dLifeTV, dLife.com, dLifeRadio, and dLifeDirect. For further information about dLife and diabetes, visit www.dLife.com.

For more information, please contact: Tom Karlya at dLife, +1.203.221.3453
email: karlya@dlife.com

Tags: Diabetes , dLife

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 03:17 PM | Permalink

August 09, 2006

pulver/Evslin Comments in Response to FCC's post-Disaster Communications Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

This past Monday, Tom Evslin and I responded to an FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Post-Disaster Communications. Back in March, Tom and I had filed a Petition requesting immediate action from the FCC to ensure that no one is left without a communications lifeline (at least a functioning voicemail service) in the wake of a public catastrophe that brings down communications networks. We thought it was appropriate to include our proposals within the FCC's current rulemaking on post-disaster communications.

As FCC Commissioner Debbie Tate has aptly noted, "(w)hen disaster strikes, our first reaction is to reach out to those we love." We thought so too. Our thinking was that adopting the pulver.com/Evslin Consulting proposals would better enable disaster victims and their loved ones to communicate in the event of a catastrophe by mitigating the effects of widespread, long-term outages. Specifically, we had proposed that requiring E911 providers to establish alternative communications service in the event of a long-term outage through the use of voicemail would create a technically feasible and reasonable means of ensuring that consumers remain connected during emergencies. Adopting our proposals would aid displaced family members, friends, and colleagues desperately seeking each other in an emergency, help emergency relief workers to avoid wasting time searching homes where residents have already safely evacuated, free shelter operators and volunteers from much of the task of locating missing family members sothat they can concentrate on other vital aspects of relief, and dispel the fear of being unreachable as a result of evacuating during an emergency.

I hope the FCC might act expeditiously and adopt our proposal or something similar.

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Tom Evslin, Jonathan Askin, Jeff Pulver
(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 02:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (96)

August 08, 2006

Ray Gifford Steps Down as President of the Progress and Freedom Foundation -- sure, this means Freedom and Progress for Ray, but what's in it for PFF?

Ray Gifford, my friend, occasional ally, and more occasional honorable adversary, is leaving the helm of the Progress and Freedom Foundation to run the communications, Internet and IP practice at Kamlet Shepherd Reichert in Denver.

I've enjoyed our intellectual back and forth on the great Internet and communications policy debates of our day. In fact, I just rediscovered this link from a CNBC Squawk Box discussion that Ray and I had over the merits of Net Neutrality.

Ray is a most worthy and honest thinker (even on issues in which we disagree). I often felt that if we sat down a few more times, perhaps locked in a room and denied the right to leave until we had resolved the best policy to govern the future of the Internet and communications, we could have done it with Ray's involvement. (I guess being locked in a room to hammer out the great policy issue of our day, would fit in line with the Progress and Freedom Foundation's commitment to "Progress", but perhaps being locked in a room would violate PFF's efforts to preserve and advance the "Freedom" prong of PFF's mandate). I used to joke that the entity is better labeled "Progress or Freedom, Pick One". But with Ray as its President, I was always confident PFF was striving for both.

Tags: Ray Gifford, voip, CNBC, Net Neutrality, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 10:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (66)

August 04, 2006

Update on our Appeal of the FCC's CALEA for VoIP Order:

Last week, pulver.com along with the Center for Democracy and Technology, the American Library Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Media Access Project sought en banc review of the DC Circuit's ruling upholding the FCC's Order extending CALEA obligations to VoIP and broadband Internet access services. We had lost the case before a three-judge panel a few weeks ago, and had asked the DC Circuit for a rehearing. I am glad to report that the DC Circuit has directed both the FCC and DOJ to file 15 pages responses to the rehearing petition that we filed.

The fact that the Court has asked for responses from the government means that at least the Court is carefully considering our petition. Rehearing petitions are not often granted, but we will be keeping our fingers crossed. And we will keep you posted.

We are trying to fight to uphold the broader principle that Internet applications (be they voice, video, data) should not be subject to onerous, legacy regulation. As I have mentioned before, it strikes me as absurd that the traditionally-regulated telecom services are no longer subject to telecom regulations, while traditional regulations are being imposed upon the emerging Internet-based applications that ride on those unregulated telecom services. We are moving inexorably into bizarre world, where the monopoly services are unregulated and the competitive applications (beyond US jurisdiction) are regulated.

Tags: CALEA, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 04:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (25)

July 31, 2006

Guest Blogger: Jason Oxman, Managing Director, Law Media Group

(we welcome contrary thoughts, and hope the Internet-enabled marketplace of ideas will enable the best policy to prevail)

Recent disclosure that AT&T and Verizon cooperated with the federal government in disclosing tens of millions of our private phone records was troubling. Even more troubling was the revelation that the Federal Communications Commission, supposedly an independent regulatory agency, would refuse to even open an investigation in response to thousands of citizen complaints. And as William Black, the Deputy Public Advocate for the State of Maine, wrote recently in the Providence Journal, perhaps the deepest affront to the public is what AT&T and Verizon appear to have received in return - regulatory favoritism, including rapid endorsement of anti-competitive mergers (SBC/AT&T and Verizon/MCI). See http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/projo_20060703_03ctblack.30b2847c.html.

Until recently, it appeared as if the latest Bell merger-to-monopoly, AT&T's acquisition of BellSouth, would continue that series of favors handed by the federal government to AT&T. Fortunately, this seemingly cozy relationship between the mega-Bells and the Administration hit a speed bump last week - one that AT&T has been trying desperately to squelch. A little-known provision of federal law - the Tunney Act - has thrown wide open for public scrutiny the Administration's failure to abide by the antitrust laws and its sweetheart treatment of AT&T and Verizon. And the Judge in this case has demonstrated his dedication to the law by rejecting a request by the Administration and AT&T/Verizon (yes, the government and Bells are on the same side of the case) that he simply rubber stamp the DoJ's favorable treatment of the Bells.

The Tunney Act was introduced in Congress during the Nixon Administration to prevent the DoJ from making "sweetheart" settlements with powerful corporations. Specifically, the Act (named for Senator John V. Tunney, a Democratic Senator from California who introduced the legislation) was adopted in response to consent decrees that settled three antitrust cases against corporate giant ITT. There was widespread sentiment at the time that the settlements - which were undertaken behind closed doors and outside of public view - were in reality special corporate favors. As such, Congress sought to provide for independent judicial review of decisions by the Department of Justice not to pursue antitrust action against giant corporations. The Tunney Act was introduced by Senator Tunney on February 6, 1973 and signed into law by President Ford on December 21, 1974. The Tunney Act remained largely obscure and unused until developments in 2004 led Congress to enact sweeping changes.

In 2004, the Bush Administration settled its antitrust investigation of Microsoft on terms that many considered extremely favorable to Microsoft and detrimental to the public interest. Congress responded by tightening the Tunney Act to make full judicial review of DoJ settlements mandatory. The legislative history of the 2004 amendments to the Tunney Act reveals that Congress modified the Act because "it would misconstrue the meaning and Congressional intent in enacting the Tunney Act to limit the discretion of district courts to review antitrust consent judgments." In brief, Congress amended the Tunney Act to make a strict, independent review of DoJ's actions compulsory, rather than permissive. Congress accomplished this by changing the word "may" to "shall" before delineating the factors the federal court must use in evaluating DoJ's actions (before the amendments, Congress said the court "may" consider certain factors; post-amendment, the court "shall" consider such factors).

The review of the SBC/AT&T and Verizon/MCI mergers marks the first test case using the recently revised statute. The Tunney Act requires a federal court to determine whether a proposed antitrust settlement is in the "public interest." Under the recent congressional revisions to the Tunney Act, DoJ bears the burden of proving that it satisfied the standards of law applicable to merger review. This is the first time since the Tunney Act was overhauled by Congress in 2004 that a merger challenge has been allowed to go to a hearing. Indeed, it was over the strenuous objections of the government and the merging companies that the judge assigned to the case ordered full briefing and a hearing. Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last week rejected the DoJ/Bell request for a rapid review and instead scheduled additional proceedings and demanded additional evidentiary submissions from the government for his review. Judge Sullivan also granted a request from a coalition of competitive carriers, the New York Attorney General, and the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA) for an opportunity to review and respond to the government's evidence.

Even putting aside the enormous impact this judicial proceeding will have on the AT&T/SBC and Verizon/MCI mergers, the impact on the pending merger of AT&T and BellSouth could be even greater. The core claim of petitioners in the Tunney Act case is that DoJ violated its statutory obligation to conduct a thorough review of these mergers, choosing instead to rubber stamp approval. Any remedy ordered by the court in this proceeding would obviously impact the pending review of AT&T's purchase of BellSouth. Moreover, many have even suggested that DoJ's failure to obtain dismissal of this case will have a dramatic impact on the pending review of AT&T/BellSouth because DoJ will be operating under the watchful eye of the court.

The Tunney Act was designed to prevent a cozy relationship between a business-friendly Administration and the giant corporations it is supposed to regulate. The fact that a fair and independent federal judge is reviewing the DoJ's favorable treatment of AT&T and Verizon should give hope to all of us who fear the remonopolization of the telecommunications network. Judge Sullivan may be the only chance we have of bringing this era of Bell favoritism to an end.

Jason Oxman, Managing Director, Law Media Group LLC

Jason Oxman is Managing Director of Law Media Group LLC, specializing in telecommunications law, public policy, and media strategy. Prior to joining LMG in 2006, Oxman was Senior Vice President, Legal and International Affairs, at COMPTEL, the nation’s largest competitive telecommunications trade association. Oxman joined COMPTEL following its merger with ALTS, where he served as General Counsel. Oxman also spent five years as Vice President and Assistant General Counsel at Covad Communications Company. He began his telecommunications career at the Federal Communications Commission, serving as a staff attorney in the Common Carrier Bureau and as Counsel for Advanced Communications in the Office of Plans and Policy. Oxman, a former broadcast journalist, is a cum laude graduate of Amherst College, and holds both a J.D. and a M.S. in Mass Communications from Boston University.

Tags: SBC, Jason OXman, AT&T, FCC

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 09:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (29)

July 27, 2006

Improving America's Tomorrow by Appreciating Yesterday's Government Releases

Yesterday was a most auspicious day, presaging what could be in store for America's future and suggesting mechanisms to improve that future.

First, the Federal Reserve released a report indicating the economy is beginning to slow. The President indicates that putting money back into people's pockets is the best vehicle for spurring continued economic growth. So what can this community do to put money back in consumer's pockets?

Well, coincidentally, the FCC issued two important reports yesterday that speak to the future of digital communications in America and a powerful way to sustain our economic prosperity. First, in its annual competition report the FCC reports that there are still 175 million phone lines that have not yet been switched to VoIP. These Americans obviously haven't been to a VON show or read my blog to learn VoIP's vast benefits. Switching from a $50 a month POTS line to a $25 a month VoIP service could put an extra $300 bucks a year into people's pocket books while also delivering a suite of amazing new features and functions not possible with their old phone service. If all 175 million switched, it would pump $52 billion a year into the economy - a bigger boost in personal spending that the President's much touted tax cuts.

So how do we achieve it? Well for starters, it takes achieving the President's ambitious goal of universal broadband by the end of the year. So the second FCC report released yesterday is its broadband access report. This report found that while we are making progress important progress, only 50 million Americans have broadband.

So how do we do both - jumpstart consumer savings and boost broadband take up? The answer of course it to create the right incentives for the swift rollout of the technology that bridges yesterday's legacy PSTN network with tomorrow's broadband network. The key enabling technology that connects the PSTN to broadband is VoIP. Studies like those by Yankee research and Parks and Associates show that VoIP plays a critical role in driving broadband demand and boosting broadband take up. As the President says, if you want something to grow, don't tax it. That's why I still don't get the FCC's $2 a month fee increase on broadband users (set to begin to take effect on Tuesday.) Instead, the President would be wise to extend the deregulatory approach his administration has applied to broadband, and extend it to broadband drivers like VoIP. Without taking deregulatory steps to promote broadband services like voice and video over broadband, this President can not achieve his universal broadband campaign promise by the end of the year. We will be left to toil in 16th place in global broadband penetration. I know America can do better. Our economy, our ompetitiveness, and our economic well being depend on it.

Tags: VON, VoIP, FCC, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 06:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (14)

July 24, 2006

A Little Rant on the Ongoing Mis-application of CALEA and E911 and Universal Service on Voice Applications and Some Ironic, Illogical Results:

 

CALEA:

 

On Friday, pulver.com joined the Center for Democracy and Technology, the American Library Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Media Access Project, in seeking en banc review of the DC Circuit’s ruling upholding the FCC’s Order extending CALEA obligations to VoIP and broadband Internet access services.  Particular kudos to John Morris of CDT for taking much of the intellectual lead in our effort to get the law right.

 

We thought it was particularly important to argue to the court that VoIP really is simply just one of many applications that ride on telecom transmission media.  VoIP has never been legally designated or construed as a telecom service, and it seems disingenuous and illogical that the historic telecom regulations are being extended to VoIP applications while they are simultaneously being removed from telecom transmission services.  The ever-growing litany of FCC Orders over the past year (from Brand X to the Wireline Broadband Order, to the elimination of the Computer Inquiry rules, to the E911 for VoIP Order, to the CALEA for VoIP Order, to the USF for VoIP Order, to the Calling Card Order), reveals a remarkable flip-flop in the regulatory structure governing the Internet and communications.  In the process the FCC has redefined most telecom services as information services free of telecom regulation, BUT has used its ancillary jurisdiction to impose telecom regulation on SOME of those “information services” – the unaffiliated, but interconnected, VoIP applications.

 

Frankly, I do fear that, if push came to shove, the FCC might ultimately determine that the telecom transmission facilities are “Information Service” and the applications that ride those services are “Telecom Services” (unless, ironically, if that application is being delivered by a traditional telecom carrier in conjunction with its broadband Internet access services).  I know this all seems a bit complicated, convoluted and difficult to digest, but, hey, I didn’t write the contradictory rules.  I am just trying to interpret them.  Good luck to anyone else who tries.

 

I have some concerns that we might be pushing the FCC to define, officially and once-and-for-all, the voice application as the “Telecom Service” as it grapples to maintain some authority over communications in an Internet-enabled world in which it has already gone down the path of deregulating the telecom transmission services.  It would indeed be strange if, by application of Brand X, a voice application bundled with a telecom transmission service is an unregulated “Information Service” while a voice application not bundled with a telecom transmission service (because it is offered by an unaffiliated application provider), is miraculously converted into the regulated “Telecom Service.”  But that is the path down which we are heading, and by challenging the FCC logic, we might be pushing it to make that ultimate conclusion that will lead to broader regulation of all Internet applications, not just voice.  I also have grave concerns that a victory in the Court will only drive Congress to pass legislation broadening the scope of the CALEA statute to explicitly include Internet-delivered voice applications (and perhaps other Internet applications).

 

In any event, I am, at least for the moment, pleased that we have raised more aggressively the argument that THERE IS NO FOUNDATION TO CONCLUDE THAT CALEA SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO REACH VOIP SERVICES:

 

“In 2004 [in the pulver Order], the FCC declared (for purposes of the Communications Act, not CALEA, but using the very similar definition of information services that appears in both Acts) that peer-to-peer Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) was an information service.18 In the CALEA context, however, the FCC has flatly refused to state – one way or another – whether any VoIP is or is not an information service. As detailed above, information services are excluded from CALEA (even if such services could be covered under the SRP), and thus the FCC simply cannot extend CALEA to “interconnected” VoIP without deciding whether it is an information service. At a bare minimum, this Court must vacate the FCC’s extension of CALEA to VoIP and remand this matter to the agency for a determination of this critical question. Although the undersigned believe that VoIP is an information service, this FCC has not made that determination in the first instance, and thus its extension of CALEA to any VoIP cannot stand on this record.

 

“This need for the FCC to clearly explain its treatment of VoIP is even stronger when viewed in light of CALEA’s own definition of “electronic messaging service” in § 1001(4), a definition that is specifically incorporated in CALEA’s definition of information services that are excluded from the statute. In § 1001(4), CALEA defines “electronic messaging service” to mean “software-based services that enable the sharing of data, images, sound, writing, or other information among computing devices controlled by the senders or recipients of the messages.” This definition precisely describes Voice over IP services. The FCC cannot extend CALEA to cover VoIP without explaining why it is not excluded as an information service, which incorporates the § 1001(4) definition of electronic messaging service.

 

“It is perhaps theoretically possible that, on remand, the FCC could craft an explanation as to why “interconnected” VoIP is not an information service (and thus could be covered by CALEA) even though peer-to-peer VoIP is clearly an information service. The question of the classification of VoIP was squarely raised in comments before the agency, yet the FCC wholly failed to address this question. Until such time that the Commission makes such a determination, this Court cannot allow the FCC’s extension of CALEA to any VoIP to stand. …”

 

 

***

 

A Bit of Irony on CALEA Compliance:

 

One particularly ironic point that we have recently discovered is that all interconnected VoIP providers will have to be CALEA compliant by next May, but, after 10 years, only 10-20% of wireline switches will actually be CALEA compliant.  At current rates, it will take wireline companies 50 to 100 years to be 100% CALEA compliant.  As the Bells said of VoIP, “there should be no safe haven for terrorists.”  Thus, they should also become compliant by May of next year, or not be able to market or sell voice service where they are not compliant if there is a CALEA compliant service that can serve those customers – helping to ensure that in a post 9/11 world that there are no safe havens for terrorists.

 

***

 

A Bit on Irony on the E911 and Universal Service Rules:

 

I also think it is especially ironic that the deep-pocketed wireless carriers are still not fully E911 compliant after 17 years.  Meanwhile, the VoIP providers must be E911 compliant or cannot offer services.  AND, the nascent VoIP providers now have to pay into a Universal Service Fund to which they are not eligible but to support wireline and wireless operators who, themselves, are allowed to offer and market services where they, themselves, are not E911 or CALEA compliant.

 

***

 

I would love to build a matrix that actually included all of the FCC decisions that touch upon regulatory classifications and demonstrates just how irreconcilable the competing rules are becoming and just how shaky is the foundation of this every growing house of cards.  At this point, the VoIP providers are obligated to reconfigure their networks, services and technologies to offer everything (and more) that the non-VoIP providers offer.  Meanwhile, the traditional providers are not similarly obligated to reconfigure their networks, services and technologies to offer everything that the VoIP providers offer.

 

Tags: CALEA, e911, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 07:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (28)

July 21, 2006

I hold out hope that Kevin Martin will speak at Fall 2006 VON -- they say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one ...

I was pleased to hear that President Bush addressed the NAACP yesterday after five years of rejections.

To be candid, I was primarily happy because, if President Bush can put aside some early differences of opinion and approach, take the high road and address the NAACP, perhaps Chairman Martin and the FCC Commissioners might join the Internet communications industry at Fall 2006 VON. I know we all, both industry and policymakers alike, only want the best possible future to emerge as quickly, as efficiently, as effectively, as broadly, and as profoundly as possible.

Given the critical juncture in which we in the Internet communications industry find ourselves, we would love the opportunity to share ideas with the FCC's leaders as they craft the rules that will shape the future of the Internet and communications in America.

I actually had a great experience at the FCC last week, and while Chairman Martin had to miss our meeting because of the unavoidable delay in the FCC's Open Meeting to vote on the Adelphia merger, his staff was most gracious and most supportive and gave us great guidance as we tried to help improve America's post-disaster communications capability.

Every FCC Chairman has spoken to the industry at VON since VON's beginning ten years ago. I think each Chairman found value in mixing and mingling and cross-pollinating ideas with the leaders of the emerging industry. Now that the industry is more involved in policy and the regulated space than ever before in our brief history, it is more essential than ever that we open the lines of communication with America's chief regulator.

Tags: VON, VoIP, Kevin Martin, FCC, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 05:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (25)

July 18, 2006

Fall 2006 VON Conference Spotlight: Internet and Communications Policy Summit

The US VoIP Industry has been directly affected more by public policy in the past 12 months than anytime in the proceeding 10 years. In Boston on September 11th, our Internet and Communications Policy Summit will be taking a look at the issues effecting the VoIP industry today and what we can expect in 2007 and beyond.

Our conference opens with Tim Wu, Professor, Columbia Law School, Author of "Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World", who will be sharing his introductory remarks focused on “What Future for the Internet?”

This will be followed by a panel on Lawful Intercept, "Reconciling Privacy with National Security in an IP-Enabled World." Moderated by Glenn Richards, Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, this panel includes: Susan Landau, Distinguished Engineer, Sun Microsystems; Joel Margolis, Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, Drug Enforcement Administration; Angela Simpson, Senior Counsel, Covad Communications; Lee Tien, Sr. Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation; Michael Warren, Vice President, Fiduciary Services, NeuStar.

Additional topics covered in the summit include: Emergency Response – 911 on 9/11, Emerging Policy Issues Surrounding Internet-Delivered Video, USF Workshop and we will be ending the day by taking a look at Policy Issues Around the World.

If you would like to save up to US$ 500 on attending the Fall 2006 VON Conference, please take advantage of our "Early Bird" registration and register by July 28th.

Tags: voip, von, FCC, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 06:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (13)

July 17, 2006

Heading to the July InfraGard Alliance Meeting

This morning I am heading to New York City to speak at the July meeting of InfraGard, taking place at Cisco's New York City Office.

InfraGard is providing me with a platform to continue the discussion of an idea I had for "Internet Field Day", an exercise where both Ham Radio Operators and Internet Communication Enthusiasts could work together and become better prepared to contribute their time, effort and energy in post-disaster communications.

Today's agenda will bring together people from: ARES, ARRL, Cisco, FCC, FBI, REACT and WNET Thirteen and looks to be a great platform to move the idea of "Internet Field Day" forward.

Special thanks to Keith O'Brien for helping to make this happen.

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, FBI, ARRL, Cisco, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 06:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (26)

July 16, 2006

Voicemail for Disasters – Reader Comments on Price

As a follow up to comments Tom posted about our meetings at the FCC last week, two readers of Tom's blog (DG Lewis and Craig Walker) commented about the costs to implement our suggested voicemail solution.

Tom Evslin: Voicemail for Disasters – Reader Comments on Price

"Telcos sell voice mail to their customers for between $4 and $7/month. We’ll assume that there is NO profit at $4, that this is the true cost to them. I know this assumption is absurd but I want to prove a point. Now let’s assume that, in any given year, one percent of a telco’s customers need to be given free voice mail for an average time of three months each. Again a very exaggerated assumption. If the telco is going to recover this cost by increasing prices to the whole customer base (because this is insurance for the whole customer base), the monthly price increase would be one penny."

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Tom Evslin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 05:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (72)

July 15, 2006

techdirt: Should Telcos Provide Free Voicemail As Disaster Relief?

techdirt: Should Telcos Provide Free Voicemail As Disaster Relief?

"...Pulver and Evslin worked out the details and realized this was incredibly inexpensive to implement, and figured it made sense for the FCC to mandate it. Not surprisingly, though, the telcos immediately trashed the proposal, claiming it was prohibitively expensive -- though Pulver and Evslin don't see how that's possible. On Thursday, Evslin and Pulver spent the day at the FCC, trying to talk to folks there about the plan. It sounds like they found interest and guidance, but it still sounds like there's an awful lot to be done, and the telcos don't seem willing to go along. If the original calculations are correct, it really isn't that expensive to provide -- and the goodwill gained (and the lack of news stories trashing the telcos for having no service at all) seems like it would greatly outweigh the cost."

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Tom Evslin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 08:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (18)

July 14, 2006

Tom Evslin on our Day at the FCC:

As I noted yesterday, Tom Evlsin, Jonathan Askin and I spend yesterday at the FCC. In Tom's blog post about the meetings he wrote:

"Frankly, Jeff and I had been disappointed in the lack of action on our petition. Sadly but not surprisingly, both the telcos and the cablecos filed strong comments against it. There is no mention of our plan to provide voice mail to displaced victims of future disasters in the official report of the Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina. So that’s why our field trip.

Afterwards we’re encouraged by the questions, advice, and general support we got. We’re daunted by the amount of work that still has to be done if what we think of as a simple idea is actually to be implemented in time to help with the next big emergency or even the one after that."

Our meetings provided the guidance and encouragement that was needed. Tom and I are committed to stay the course and continue the work needed to turn our vision into reality.

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Tom EVslin, Jonathan Askin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 07:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (44)

July 13, 2006

FCC Efforts to Ensure Communications Lifelines for the Next "City in Exile"

Tom Evslin, Jonathan Askin and I had great meetings at the FCC today. There was a lot of activity all day in the Commission Meeting Room because of the FCC's approval of the Adelphia merger, but we were at the FCC for entirely different reasons. I think most of the officials and staff with whom we met were rather surprised that we decline to talk about Internet communications. (I think Jonathan was pretty surprised too.) We were at the FCC to speak about the petition that we filed to ensure that refugees and exiles, displaced after a public disaster may have a communications lifeline. Every time Jonathan or an FCC staffer tried to move the conversation to a discussion of the proper regulatory framework for Internet communications, Tom and I steered the conversation back to post-disaster communications.

We had thought several months ago that our proposal was straightforward, easily and affordably implementable, and a proposal against which no one could logically argue. We were wrong, the Bell companies and the cable companies opposed our petition, although I still don't fully understand their rationale. We had simply proposed that, before the next hurricane or other public catastrophe, each provider that is obligated to provide E911 service to residential customers have a mechanism in place to ensure that its customers have voicemail service activated so that friends and family may be able to reach one another or at least inform friends and family of their safety and whereabouts. By our calculations, such a proposal would not have cost more than about one cent per customer. By Bell accounts, "the economics were not justified."

At a minimum, I think it is essential for the FCC, in the absence of a rule, use its power of persuasion to encourage all providers to offer such a free virtual voicemail service in the wake of the next public catastrophe.

We received great guidance from Chairman Martin's Office, from all of the other Commissioner Offices and from the Wireline Competition Bureau on how to build momentum and work to realize our objective of ensuring that no one is left without a communications lifeline during the next public crisis that brings down the communications networks. We intend to continue to work the process to try to have something simple and effective implemented before the next public catastrophe, before we experience the next "City in Exile."

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Tom EVslin, Jonathan Askin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 09:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (68)

July 12, 2006

Paul Kapustka on the FCC USF Order

Paul Kapustka: USF -- The new telcom battleground

"With network neutrality now safely a mainstream topic, it's time to look to what will be an even messier battlefield: the specter of reworking the Universal Service Fund, a billions-large taxing infrastructure that now appears to be the big telcos' latest weapon against innovators, especially Voice over IP providers."

Tags: USF, FCC, VoIP, Jonathan Askin, VON Coalition, Paul Kapustka

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 05:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (23)

Blogosphere Feedback on Daniel Berninger's USF Guest Blog:

Bruce Stewart: Does the USF Do More Harm Than Good?

Techdirt: Universal Service Tax On VoIP Will Actually Hold Back Universal Service

Complaint Hub: New tax on VOIP to go to . . . nothing

Tags: USF, Daniel Berninger, VoIP, FCC

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 05:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (31)

July 10, 2006

Guest Blogger: Daniel Berninger - "Universal Service Fund generated remarkably meager results for $50 billion spent"

* An open letter to Congressional Commerce Committees *

July 10, 2006

The Honorable Ted Stevens, Chairman
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation

The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman
House Committee on Energy and Commerce

Dear Chairman Stevens and Chairman Barton:

The importance of achieving universal access to telephone service motivates a request that your committees open hearings to account for how the $50 billion spent by the Universal Service Fund (USF) over the last 20 years contributed to the cause of universal service.

More than five million households remain without regular access to telephone service in the United States. Penetration rates increased 2% from 1985 to 1995 as the USF consumed $7bn in the program's first decade and an additional 1% of households got telephone service between 1996 and 2005 as the USF spent another $43bn (see FCC Trend report). This might seem like progress albeit small and expensive ($16,000 per additional telephone line) until one notices the penetration rate for telephone service grew 2% in the 70's before the USF existed.

Per capita income doubled since the USF was created from $14,000 to $30,000 (see US Bureau of Economic Analysis), so one expects affordabiliy of telephone service to improve. The income improvement probably should have produced an even larger benefit in penetration rates, except the local telephone monopolies increased prices at about the same pace as income improvements. According to the FCC, the average price of a local access line increased 70% from $14 to $24 over the period. The habit of introducing separate charges for services formerly included in the basic rate (e.g. activation and directory assistance) likely makes the increase for equivalent services 100%.

The USF serves to preserves monopoly which is the root cause for our failure to achieve universal service. The FCC's recently announced plans for USF assessments on VoIP companies illustrates the problem. Imagine a policy where IBM manages to extract revenue from the emerging PC industry in order to subsidize access to 1970's era mainframes. The FCC implemented just this policy in extracting revenues from VoIP companies to subsidize local telephone monopolies. Even worse than a tax, the assessment gets made on gross revenues. If some clever VoIP startup manages a 10% pre-tax income margin like present day IBM, the FCC's 7% gross revenue assessment sends 70% of this profit to the incumbent monopolists. A company like Vonage already pays 30% of revenues toward terminating calls on the PSTN. Poof. Now its 37%. This sort of regulatory fiat underlies the reluctance of capital markets to fund the competition necessary to lower prices.

The anti-competitive structure of the USF in assessing low margin (competitive) LD revenues to subsidize high margin (monopoly) local access defies common sense. The price increases for local telephone lines persisted over the years even as the labor and equipment costs declined and as competitive segments of the industry achieved significant price reductions. Average per minute LD rates declined from 35 cents in 1983 to 5 cents recently. The price of cellular calls decreased by a factor of 20 since 1986. Note that VoIP companies will pay into the fund, but they can't apply for support from the fund. The FCC concluded the new assessment obligations would have minimal impact on (monopoly) ILEC's, but the FCC did not even feel the need to address the impact on (competitive) VoIP companies.

The FCC and Universal Service Administration Company (USAC) don't appear concerned about the lack of results, because they don't actually track the impact of the fund in terms of universal service metrics. The USF represents a bureaucrat's dream, because there exists no accountability for results. Success gets judged purely in terms of collecting and spending money. (The USAC's annual report) does not mention penetration rates or any other metric that might qualify as a measure of universal service (i.e. fund results) rather than money (i.e. fund input.) The fact that the telephone industry insiders dominating the USAC board remain silent about the lack of results further shows the program exists to serve telephone companies not the cause of universal service. The FCC's 150 page NPRM that accompanied the order assessing VoIP companies does not include a single mention of how or whether the funds contributed to the USF actually further the cause of universal service.

Tracking the number of households participating in the USF's Low Income Program is as close as the FCC comes to tracking results. The monies collected and distributed by the Low Income Program doubled from $400mn to $800mn since 1997, but the nature of local telephone monopoly keeps people disconnected. The program provides on average $8 per month subsidy for qualifying low income telephone customers, but the subsidy does not solve the affordability problem given an average telephone bill of $50 per month. Even aside from basic rates that increase year after year, setup charges, strict credit terms, and demand for deposits keep as many as 20% of households in low income areas without telephone service. Competition from VoIP companies recently led Verizon to advertise a price reduction of $17 per month (i.e. twice the USF Low Income subsidy) on its unlimited usage plan. VoIP companies serve less than 3% of access lines, so this represents only the beginning of the industry's competitive potential. Yet, the new USF assessment helps defeat VoIP competition.

The lack of results deserves attention, but the lack of results coupled with rapid growth of the fund represents a crisis. The FCC's plan to assess VoIP does not come near to solving the funding challenges. The USF grew from $1.5bn in the year before the changes implemented by the Telecom Act of 1996 to $6.5bn in 2005. The fund continues to grow 12% annually in recent years, so at this pace it will double again in the next six years. LD revenues have declined 50% from a peak in 1999, so the FCC mandated revenue assessment grew twice as fast as the fund (from 1.2% in 1997 to 10.7% in 2005.) It does not help matters the Bells find ways to minimize USF contributions even as they increase their share of LD revenues. In 2005, the Bell LD division USF contributions amounted to about 1/3 of those by the former LD pure plays (i.e. AT&T, MCI, and Sprint) even given about equal market share positions. Note that FCC removed USF obligations on Bell company DSL revenues at the same time it asserted them on VoIP companies.

The Schools and Libraries Program can point to some results in getting schools and libraries wired for Internet, but the inability of the FCC to cope with fraud by applicants to the fund leaves the program in a shambles. In any case, more than half of the $1 billion in funding commitments during 2005 cover the provision traditional telephone service. The disconnect between funding commitments and disbursements exceeds 12 months in many cases, and no competitive provider of telecommunication services can wait a year to get paid. The school districts do not ultimately pay the bill, so they do not complain about the fact telephone companies extract a 50% premium above the usual $50 ARPU for bills paid through the USF. Schools end up with expensive centrex services where they pay per minute for local calls, 15% of the bill arises moves and adds, and 10% of monthly costs arise from directory assistance.

The High Cost Fund (HCF) grew from $56mn in 1986 to $3.6bn in 2005. There exists no doubt the cost of connecting customers in low density areas of the country exceeds the costs in high density areas, but the USF's record of collecting and spending money has worked against bringing communications to rural areas. Keep in mind the issue of high cost revolves around the one time fixed cost of deploying outside plant to reach remote areas. The variable costs of delivering service in rural areas after the copper or fiber gets deployed does not differ substantially from any other location. The FCC's data shows the number of access lines in the 25 states that get more from the HCF than they contribute grew from 50mn to 55mn between 1997 and 2003. Its not clear the HCF deserves credit for any of 10% increase, because applications for HCF payments require claims of expenses not the actual deployment of access lines. The vast majority of the money goes to subsidizing access lines deployed before the fund existed. The expectation of these monies actually preserves operating inefficiencies, because reducing costs means lower HCF payments.

There will exist positive stories arising from the USF's consumption of $50bn, but the program does far more harm than good. The fact it serves the interest of telephone monopolies not universal service is illustrated by how very little communication the $50bn purchased. There needs to be some measure of accountability for the fund to further the cause of universal service.

Anyone that cares about the cause of universal service cannot support the continuation of the USF as currently organized.

Sincerly,

Daniel Berninger, Senior Analyst, Tier1 Research

Daniel Berninger, VP and Senior Analyst, Tier1 Research

Daniel Berninger joined Tier1 Research in August 2004 as Senior Analyst covering telecom. Daniel has over a decade of experience that includes helping to launch three prominent VoIP startups - ITXC, Vonage, and Free World Dialup. His expertise on the intersection of telecom and the Internet has been sought by Congress, FCC, Federal Reserve, and state PSCs. Daniel led early VoIP deployments at Verizon, HP, and NASA for VocalTec Communications. He won the 1999 VON Pioneer Award for co-founding the VON Coalition and worked on the original assessment of VoIP at Bell Laboratories. He completed doctoral studies in preparation for a Ph.D. in System Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania.

Tags: USF, Daniel Berninger, VoIP, FCC

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 05:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (2697)

July 08, 2006

Nice to see the Blogosphere WAKE UP and talk about the FCC's USF Order

While I was initially worried that the FCC's recent USF Order would go mostly unnoticed by the blogosphere, it has been great to see quite a number of our friends address this topic and share their perspective on the situation during the past week.

I stand by my initial read of the situation and remain highly concerned about the outrageous injustice served by this order by the FCC on the US IP Communications industry. This isn't an issue that will be going away anytime soon.

The issue at hand requires the continued attention of the blogosphere. If you haven't done so already, please take a moment and share this issue with the people who read your blog. We need to continue to do everything we can to help save the nascent IP Communications Industry.

Tags: USF, FCC, VoIP, Jonathan Askin, VON Coalition, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 01:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (29)

July 07, 2006

Here's One for the Net Neutrality Irony Files - "Do as we say, not as we do"

The US House of Representatives will not support Net Neutrality, but a congressional subcommittee passed, by acclamation, a bill that would essentially require Net Neutrality of other countries and companies abroad. Maybe, if this bill were to impose the same obligations on the US and US-based companies that Congress would impose on other nations and foreign companies, the bill could fill our domestic Net Neutrality needs. It is good to see that Congress recognizes the need to maintain the integrity of the open Internet - at least abroad, where liberty (not to mention American hegemony, corporate influence and market reach) compel it.

News.com: Perspective: Let global online freedom ring?

A commentary on the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006 (HR 4780), a bill "to promote freedom of expression on the Internet, to protect United States business from coercion to participate in repression by authoritarian foreign governments, and for other purposes." The bill provides the following statement of policy for the United States to: "Promote the ability of all to access and contribute information, ideasand knowledge via the Internet, and to advance the right to receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers as a fundamental component of United States foreign policy"; "Use all instruments of United States influence, including diplomacy, trade policy and export control, to support, promote and strengthen principles, practices and values that promote the free flow of information"; and "Prohibit any United States business from cooperating with officials of Internet-restricting countries in effecting political censorship of online content." The bill proposes a process whereby the President would designate certain foreign countries as "Internet-restricting" regions that are "directly or indirectly responsible for a systematic pattern of substantial restrictions on Internet freedom during the preceding one-year period."

***

I think it is important to give the issue a little context. As we Americans celebrated our independence this week, the North Koreans tried to challenge our independence by testing missiles in order to gain the capability to launch a nuclear strike at the U.S. Our first line of defense consists of the 30,000 U.S. troops stationed on the ground in South Korea. But we had an IP Communications near miss last week that was dodged at just the last minute. Officials decided to temporarily lift the decision to block VoIP which would have blocked our troops stationed in South Korea from communicating. Donald Rumsfeld says it took him just about a minute to learn of the Korean launch tests. But imagine what would have happened if the communications that our troops rely upon for much of their communication had been blocked just days earlier. As the President and the Senate contemplate the message we send in response to North Korean missile test, we also need to ponder the response we send to the still pending decision to block VoIP services and block our troops ability to communicate. It should come as no surprise that when the US Senate spoke last week on Net Neutrality, they launched a powerful message heard by Internet users and providers around the globe (nearly as powerful a message as Kim Jong Il's missile launch) that it is OK to block Internet freedom, VoIP, and our troops ability to call home. There is still an opportunity for Senator Stevens and those on the Commerce Committee to speak out and send their own message to be heard round the globe that VoIP blocking and extraction of tolls on the Internet puts our national security at risk and can never be tolerated under any circumstances.

Tags: Congress, Net Neutrality, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 06:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (64)

July 05, 2006

A Cataract-Eyed Vision of an Internet-disabled Future:

As some of you may know, the US Senate Commerce Committee held a series of hearings and a multi-day mark-up of communications "reform" legislation that culminated last week in the Committee's passage of a kluged-together bill, a bill which demonstrates a remarkable misunderstanding of the nature of the Internet and the future of communications.

This lack of understanding is underscored by the very words of the Committee Chairman. Parsing through Chairman Stevens' analysis of the Internet and communications cannot do justice to the degree of misunderstanding. Best for you to hear his words (and the words of his colleagues) with your own ears. My analysis would be dismissed as "hyperbolic hyperbole squared." I direct you to the "abridged truth." For those of you who do not want to waste time sitting through the inane discussion, or simply can't stomach it, a few transcribed highlights are available at: Wired Blogs. The full audio can be found here.

A few personal highlights from the audio of Alaska senator Ted Stevens' comments at the Markup re: Net neutrality:

"An internet was sent by my staff..."

"We don't know enough to turn the Net into a two-tier system, which is exactly what Net neutrality would do"

"We're using the Internet for personal communication. We're not using it for commercial purposes."

Did I mention that this is the man in charge of writing the rules that will govern the future of the Internet and communications?

We actually were on tap to testify before the Senate over the past couple of months, but, for some reason, our invites were revoked, leaving virtually no one to communicate the needs of the Internet community to the Senate.

Ten years ago, our friend, perpetual iconoclast, cognitive dissident and original peripheral visionary, John Perry Barlow wrote "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace." In the manifesto, which has grown in import as government has attempted to reign in the Internet, Barlow declared to all governments that cyberspace was "naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us....Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are based on matter. There is no matter here."

Barlow's "Declaration" came in response to Congressional passage of the 96 Telecom Act. Barlow, in a prescient moment, wrote, "This bill was enacted upon us by people who haven't the slightest idea who we are or where our conversation is being conducted. It is ... as though "the illiterate could tell you what to read."

At least, ten years ago, we had an FCC that had a forward-looking vision and eye towards advancing communications and the Internet, an FCC that did not seem as captive to large corporate interests.

Ten years later it would be great if we could somehow make sure that every legislator and regulator has some level of "Internet competency" before they are allowed to weigh in on our digital future, but in reality this is just a dream or a nightmare in the making depending upon your perspective. We now have to deal with the fact that while many Senators and Representatives are not clued in as to the nature of the Internet, they are the same people who are attempting to rewrite the rules that will shape the future of the Internet and communications. Sounds like a bad plot twist in a science fiction novel. Unfortunately this is our reality. Once again, I give you Chairman Stevens and the Senate Commerce Committee's rearview mirror view of communications.

So now, I don't know where to turn. We have some luddites in Congress moving legislation without any vision of what an IP-enabled future could be. We also have a few junior luddites at the FCC captive to the "moral" right and corporate interests. Maybe it is the time to think about joining the campaign of someone who might become the next US President with the hope of addressing these tech policy issues after the 2008 elections.

Then there are some who say that none of the political debate really matters. Like the Zax in the Dr. Seuss allegory of a world that grew up in spite of those stubbornly clinging to the past, many in our community genuinely believe that government in consort with the corporate establishment cannot stop the inevitable progress of the Internet. I do hope they are right, but we cannot trust that they will be right.

Whether we ultimately prevail in our efforts to revolutionize the ways in which we interact in an IP-enabled world, I do think that politicians and policymakers can do a lot of accidental damage along the way. Maybe, I am just impatient for the inevitable revolution, but I think it is still essential for us to engage government if we are going to see the fruits of progress in our lifetimes. Whether we like it or not, we do not live in a virtual vacuum exempt from the influence of real-world politics.

This is a time to be engaged and to make sure your voice is heard in Washington. By staying quiet in this process you are only ensuring that voices other than your own will prevail.

Tags: VoIP, Congress, Net Neutrality, FCC, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 07:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (267)

July 03, 2006

FCC USF Order Starting to Get Read by the IP Communications Blogosphere:

During this long July 4th holiday weekend in the United States, it is refreshing to see that some members of the blogosphere including: David Beckemeyer, Cynthia Brumfield, Jack Decker, Eric Hernaez, Phone Boy, Alec Saunders, Richard Stastny, VoIP Man and Phil Wolf joined Bruce Stewart and Paul Kapustka and have taken notice of the outrageous injustice that was served upon the IP Communications Industry last week by the FCC with their USF order.

I can only hope that other bloggers take a moment and continue to share this issue with the people who read their blogs. As a community, we need to be doing everything we can to help save the nascent IP Communications Industry from BAD regulations.

Tags: USF, FCC, VoIP, Jonathan Askin, VON Coalition, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 09:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (15)

July 02, 2006

South Korea temporarily lifts decision to block VoIP services

Stars and Stripes: South Korea temporarily lifts decision to block VoIP services

"The decision to block South Korea-based U.S. military community members from making phone calls via the Internet has been put on hold.

The South Korean Ministry of Information and Communications and Dacom, the Internet service provider that serves about 12,000 base customers, agreed late Thursday to a U.S. Forces Korea request to suspend Saturday’s deadline to begin blocking the service.

Dacom and the two other major ISPs, Korea Telecom and Hanaro, want to ban U.S.-based voice over Internet protocol, or VoIP, companies that are not in compliance with the country’s Telecommunications Business Act.

South Korea agreed to “suspend their decision to block these services pending the results of further discussions with USFK,” according to a military news statement released late Friday."

Tags: Korea, VoIP, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 09:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (11)

June 30, 2006

Time for the IP Communications Blogosphere to WAKE UP!

While it was great to see Bruce Stewart and Paul Kapustka take notice of my comments yesterday on the FCC's recent USF for VoIP Order, the issue at hand requires the attention of the entire IP Communications blogosphere.

Please take a moment and share this issue with the people who read your blog. This isn’t about “link love.” This is about doing everything we can to help save the nascent IP Communications Industry. An outrageous injustice was served upon the IP Communications Industry this week by the FCC.

Your voice is important and needs to be heard by your community NOW!

So, the next time you come in from out of the sun during your summer vacation, please take a moment and blog about this. And in your blogs, please take note of the VON Coalition and consider working together with us to help fight an injustice served upon the IP Communications industry in the USA.

Our only saving grace is that other governments from around the world DO NOT follow the lead of this FCC and mirror their disruptive policies towards VoIP in their respective countries.

Tags: USF, FCC, VoIP, Jonathan Askin, VON Coalition, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 07:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (334)

June 29, 2006

Has Anyone Read the FCC’s USF for VoIP Order yet? To lift from Stephen Colbert, “Is it bad or the worst thing we have ever seen out of Washington?”

In a monumental act of misdirection, the FCC released an Order making all prior regulations of VoIP (both Interconnected and potentially peer-to-peer) look like kindergarten musings.

All I can do is ask: Was recent DC activity on Capitol Hill a calculated effort of misdirection of David Copperfield proportions (David Copperfield of modern magic and Claudia Schiffer fame, not the David Copperfield of Dickens fame, although many a VoIP provider might, as a result, find itself living in a Dickensian “Bleak House” as a result)?

How come we couldn’t see the humungo elephant right in front of our eyes? While we were amassing all our troops on the hill trying to protect our flank on the eastern front, we were getting wiped out this week on the western front.

Frankly, many of us got sucked up in the hysteria on Capitol Hill. Perhaps we should have figured out a better way to divide and conquer. I kind of hate the analogy, but I feel a little like Germany in World War I (World War II is simply too disturbing an analogy), fighting a war on two fronts – the Eastern Front on Capitol Hill and the Western Front at the FCC. While we were amassing all of our troops on Capitol Hill with our current allies (e.g., Google, yahoo, Amazon, eBay), we were quietly getting wiped out on the Western Front with little news of the massacre reaching us on the Hill.

What were we fighting for on the Hill? To move the line of scrimmage a few inches towards Net Neutrality? Maybe we should have left that political battle to the better heeled, better connected behemoths of the Internet. It turns out we had a fight for our lives on the Western Front.

I must confess some negligence on my part. Jonathan Askin and I have been abroad trying to cut deals to advance Internet communications (and our stake in its future), while leaving the US battlefield largely unattended. To its credit, the VON Coalition was single-handedly trying to defend the entire industry (VON member and non-member alike) against an absurd misapplication of the Vonage Order and misguided efforts to claim that VoIP is a telecom service. Jim Kohlenberger and Staci Pies were largely left to fight the battle alone, with an occasional nod from the rest of us. A few more Jim’s and Staci’s fighting for our survival would have come in handy last month.

By way of excuse (which does nothing to set things right), none of us knew what the FCC was up until a couple of weeks before adoption of the FCC Order. I don’t know that we had sufficient time to affect any positive change within the Order, even if we were fully committed to the project. Like global warming, it was probably too late by the time we saw the signs. But to our credit, we did flag the issue as soon as we saw it rear its ugly head on June 14th.

At first review, the Order appears to be a laughable, legally suspect, misapplication of the state of the law and prior rulings and an unsubstantiated gross mischaracterization of the opinions of the VoIP community and VON in particular.

To be candid, we have not had a chance to digest the 151 Page Order and Further Notice, (some might say “only” 151 pages to undue years of precedent and forward momentum in the evolution of the Internet and Communications). We felt compelled to red flag the Order and issues for our friends and colleagues attempting to advance Internet communications, before you embark on your Independence Day Holiday. The Order should make for some riveting beach reading.

And let’s not forget that the Founders of American Democracy wrote the Declaration of Independence over this same weekend exactly 130 years ago and declared their independence from the tyranny of the old guard at the dawn of the Industrial Age. Well, perhaps we should be preparing our own Declaration of Independence as we enter the Dawn of the Internet Age and declare our independence from the tyranny of the old guard.

***

Below is an initial summary of some very surprising findings in the FCC’s USF order.

Overall the order:

• Is not limited to calls that touch the PSTN – includes IP to IP calls (pg 20)
• circumvents the Vonage decision to allow state regulation of VoIP, if you report actual revenues (pg 29)
• requires pre-approval of traffic studies – but not for wireless providers because pre-approval would be disruptive to wireless, but not VoIP (pg 30)
• requires double payments of USF fees for 2 quarters – waiving the “carrier’s carrier” rule so that wholesale providers also have to pay USF for the same service (pg 30)
• Includes new VoIP registration requirement with the FCC
• does not include a transition period
• indicates a desire to expand the definition of Interconnected VoIP in the future (pg 20)
• includes international traffic
• ignores Small Business Administration arguments (pg 121)
• Does not discuss this decision’s impact on VoIP providers, but finds it will have minimal impact on LECs (pg 13)
• requires VoIP providers to pay into USF at the highest rate of any service
• buried deep in footnote 209, relieves DSL of USF obligations

What VoIP providers need to do:

Interconnected VoIP providers will need to register with the Commission using FCC Form 499-A to obtain an FCC Registration Number and file an FCC Form 499-Q beginning on August 1, 2006. Interconnected VoIP providers are also required to begin filing FCC Form 499-A on April 1, 2007 where contributors report gross-billed and actual collected end-user interstate and international revenues. Beginning on page 53, they have the proposed new forms – which still must be approved by OMB. They are seeking emergency OMB approval of the paperwork.

USF – Interconnected VoIP Order Summary

A VoIP Provider has 3 choices:
1. Pay at the 64.9% safe harbor rate (which is presumably higher than actual interstate revenues)
2. If you want to use a traffic study to prove a lower rate, you must petition the commission and it must be pre-approved by the FCC (unlike wireless). If they don’t immediately approve the traffic study (as is presumed), you must pay at the 64.9% safe harbor rate. (pg 29)
3. You can pay on actual revenues, in which case you would “no longer qualify for the preemptive effects of our Vonage Order and would be subject to state regulation.“ (page 29).
Taken together, these seem to back providers into using the seemingly discriminatory and arbitrary 64.9% safe harbor.

FCC’s Rationale:
• Decision to Apply USF to VoIP Will Have Minimal Impact on LECS. Rather than addressing its impact on VoIP providers, the commission noted that “the structure of the telephone bills of a typical local exchange company customer should not change as a result of this Order,” and therefore concludes (para 20), that it will have “minimal operational affect” and “the changes can and will be implemented in time for contributions for the fourth quarter of 2006.” At the same time, they ignore the individual impact on new VoIP filers. (para 20, pg 13)
• No Classification of VoIP as telecom or information service: While there is no classification made on whether Interconnected VoIP is a telecommunications service or an information service, they specifically “find that interconnected VoIP providers are ‘providers of interstate telecommunications’ under section 254(d)”. (p. 20)
• FCC says VON Coalition conceded FCC’s authority to impose this requirement. Erroneously, “[w]e note that both Vonage and the VON Coalition have stated on the record in this proceeding their belief that interconnected VoIP providers should be required to contribute to the Fund, apparently conceding that the Commission has the authority to impose such a requirement.” (para 35, pg 20) They base this on our statement that, “The VON Coalition agrees that applying USF contributions to Interconnected VoIP services is primarily a question of ‘how’ as opposed to ‘if’ or ‘when.’”

Scope:
• Applies whether or not the call involves the PSTN, and may expand interconnected VoIP definition. “We emphasize that interconnected VoIP service offers the capability for users to receive calls from and terminate calls to the PSTN; the obligations we establish apply to all VoIP communications made using an interconnected VoIP service, even those that do not involve the PSTN.” They also note that they “may need to expand” the definition of Interconnected VoIP service. (para 36, pg 20).

Rationale for 64.9% Safe Harbor:
• Disagree with VON Coalition that Interconnected VoIP services do not provide telecommunications. They find that VoIP “transmits” over the Internet and thus is telecommunications – an ominous finding that could have enormous implications for other Internet applications like e-mail, instant messaging, streaming media that also could be said to transmit communications over the Internet. (para 40,41, pg 22) They also specifically, “disagree with the VON Coalition’s assertion that interconnected VoIP providers do not provide telecommunications and that the use of permissive authority is therefore inappropriate.”
• FCC Finds it “Reasonable” To Apply Treat VoIP Traffic as 100% Interstate. Because the VON Coalition and others argued in advance of the Vonage decision that VoIP services are “interstate in nature” and that VoIP traffic is “jurisdictionally interstate”, the FCC finds “that it would be reasonable for us to treat the interconnected VoIP traffic as 100% interstate for USF purposes.” (Footnote 178, page 27, 28)
• Study they used: They relied upon this study to say that 64.9% of VoIP traffic is interstate or international: http://www.ilocus.com/ui_dataFiles/news16sept05.htm

Forces choice between highest 65% save harbor, or undermining Vonage decision. “to the extent that an interconnected VoIP provider develops the capability to track the jurisdictional confines of customer calls, it may calculate its universal service contributions based on its actual percentage of interstate calls. Under this alternative, however, we note that an interconnected VoIP provider with the capability to track the jurisdictional confines of customer calls would no longer qualify for the preemptive effects of our Vonage Order and would be subject to state regulation. “ (page 29)

Forces Double Payment of USF for two quarters. Erroneously arguing that this addresses the VON Coalition’s concerns about double payment of USF (footnote 195), they find that “carriers supplying telecommunications services to interconnected VoIP providers who are not themselves carriers should continue to include the revenues derived therefrom in their own contribution bases for two full quarters after the effective date of this Order.” (page 30) They also find “wholesale carriers may not exclude these revenues by invoking the “carrier’s carrier” rule during this interim period” – and find that it is not illegal because it is interim.

Footnote 206, relieves DSL of USF contribution. Buried deep in footnote 206, the FCC relieves DSL providers of USF payments, finding a provider “is not required to contribute to the universal service fund based on the revenues derived from providing that transmission service”

Further Notice:
In the Notice, the Commission requests comment on a number of items related to the safe harbors established, as well as on the appropriate means of establishing the jurisdiction of calls for traffic study purposes. For example, some parties utilize the originating and terminating telephone numbers as a proxy for determining the jurisdiction of a call. Because of the "nomadic" nature of mobile wireless services and interconnected VoIP services, others have asserted that merely comparing originating and terminating telephone numbers is insufficient to establish the jurisdiction of a call. The Commission also seeks comment on whether and to what extent it can (and should) adopt a revised methodology for interconnected VoIP providers to contribute to USF. Comments are due 30 days after the Notice is published in the Federal Register, and reply comments are due 60 days after publication of the Notice.

Well, count me fully in. We cannot be asleep at the wheel while the rules continue to undermine the future of the Internet and communications. I will not watch from the sidelines or from abroad while the FCC sabotages Internet communications.

I think we probably have to appeal this FCC Order. It won’t be easy and it won’t be cheap. Frankly, I thought we would win in our challenge of the FCC’s Order imposing wiretapping obligations on VoIP providers, so I might be out of touch with what is legally suspect. For this reason, I ask for input from legal and policy experts out there. We need to wage a challenge immediately, but thoughtfully, and we need everyone’s support. Perhaps this is the time for all of you who base your livelihood on Internet communications or just care about its sustainability and advancement, to join the VON Coalition or, at least, demonstrate your support. But first, let’s all read the Order.

Tags: USF, FCC, VoIP, Jonathan Askin, VON Coalition, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 09:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (592)

June 21, 2006

Marketplace: Phone Bills May be Going Up

Marketplace: Phone bills may be going up

"Internet phone calls have been cheaper than regular landline calls until now. But those bills may rise after the FCC approved a new plan today to fund phone subsidies. Lisa Napoli has more."

Tags: USF, FCC, VoIP, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 11:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (10)

June 20, 2006

"Save the Net" Viral Ad Contest Winner Announced

Congratulations to Chris Burke for claiming the US$ 1000 prize in our "Save the Net" Viral Ad Contest. We intend to use the submission to spread the word in policy circles to ensure that government crafts policy that best advances the open Internet to allow for maximum creativity and innovation.

Chris' winning entry is available at:

http://www.thisspartanlife.com/video_temp/Blog05_New_Titles_S3.mov

Here are a few of the better runners-up:

http://www.anders.com/video/save-the-net.mov

http://67.15.182.229/nn.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7050009655852167999&q=save+the+internet

***

Here Comes Round II:

We are now launching Round II of the "Save the Net" Contest. And we are upping the prize. The Winner will receive US $5,000 for Round II. Resubmissions or revised submissions are acceptable. Our goal is to get as many cool ideas out there as possible, to harness it and become a marketing force to advance the open Internet.

Please make submissions to www.pulver.com/savethenet by August 31, 2006. We will announce the Winners at Fall 2006 VON in Boston, Sept. 11-14.

***

A Brief Epilogue for Round I:

A little Monday morning quarterbacking on "Save the Net" Round I and the battle to protect and advance the open Internet:

While I was pleased with the quality of the top submissions, I still have grave fear that we are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the legislators and policymakers. They do not see what the Internet could be if we are afforded the best policy framework to innovate on the open Internet.

So, for now, the Jury is still out on the future of the open Internet and our role in protecting it. The Internet community has not yet been found Guilty - we are not yet complicit in the destruction of the Internet and communications.

But in a parallel Civil trial, the Internet community has been found Negligent. In our act of nonfeasance (turning a blind eye to activities in DC and in the corridors of power), the Internet community has not risen to its own defense, and the penalty is death, or at least a life sentence of mediocrity.

But in a Kafka-esque allegory, the trial is never really over. And we will have to continue to fight to protect the open Internet for many years to come. The price of Internet freedom is eternal vigilance.

We have to dig deeper into our creative core and figure out how to combat the US$ 100 million Madison Avenue campaigns of the largest established corporate players. We don't have US$ 100 million to wage a war to Save the Net, but we do have the collective and individual genius of all of us innovating on the open Internet. Send us your best ideas (video, flash ads, songs, poems, cartoons) that you think might illustrate to policymakers and the public what the Internet could become if allowed to evolve with user-created input. Help us to win over the hearts and minds of those writing the rules that will shape our future.

Again, send us the link to your submissions to http://www.pulver.com/savethenet.

(We had a few unfleshed out ideas that were very clever but incomplete. I encourage those of you who submitted only seeds of submissions to try to finalize those products.)

Tags: Save the Net, Net Neutrality, Congress, Internet Marketing Contest, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 12:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (18)

June 17, 2006

LA Times: Proposed Fees May Hike Cost of Net Calls

James Granelli: Proposed Fees May Hike Cost of Net Calls

"It's got me to the point of absolute depression," said Jeff Pulver.

I spoke to Jim after I posted: I cannot COPE Anymore and The Week I Wish that Wasn't -- Down and Out in Washington, DC and before The Internet Tax May Be Creeping Up on Us in the Guise of Imposing the Universal Service Fund on Internet-delivered Voice Applications.

Tags: USF, FCC, VoIP, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 05:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (11)

“Save the Net” Contest Winner…

…will be announced on Tuesday, June 20th

Tags: Save the Net, Net Neutrality, Congress, Internet Marketing Contest, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 12:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (25)

June 15, 2006

Union Square Sessions June 2006: Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Public Policy

Today I will be spending the day in New York City with a number of alumni from our VON events, joining them as an invited participant attending Union Square Sessions June 2006: Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Public Policy.

"For the last 30 years information technology venture capitalists and the entrepreneurs they backed were largely insulated from the impact of public policy. Today, however, proposed telecommunications and consumer privacy legislation, and case law interpreting outdated intellectual property law has a big impact on the opportunity for start up companies...Our goal with this event is bring the voice of the venture capital community into this debate at a critical moment when policy is unsettled and change is possible.

The format will be a moderated discussion. There will be no speakers, or panels. Rather, we will expect the active participation of everyone who attend."

Tags: Net Neutrality, FCC, Tom Evslin, Fred Wilson, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 05:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (14)

June 14, 2006

The Internet Tax May Be Creeping Up on Us in the Guise of Imposing the Universal Service Fund on Internet-delivered Voice Applications

Given the number of questions I have received regarding my recent statements at GLOBALCOMM praising the FCC for moving to impose USF obligations on interconnected VoIP providers, I thought it would be helpful to clarify my comments.

I have repeatedly called for VoIP providers that offer services intended to be nothing more than a replacement for plain old telephone service to step up to the plate and meet the regulatory obligations of traditional telephony providers. In fact, the Voice on the Net Coalition, the voice for the VoIP industry in the US, has also supported meeting the basic economic and regulatory obligations that ensure a robust and ubiquitous public switched network.

For the record, however, I have to reiterate that many, if not all, of the current regulations do not make sense in a world where voice is an application riding on top of broadband transmission services. The current Universal Service Fund ("USF") contribution methodology, which requires service providers to determine whether its revenues are derived from intrastate vs. interstate or international services, telecom services vs. information services, or even customer premises equipment ("CPE"), is one of the many regulatory schemes that no longer work in a geographically irrelevant, converged, IP-enabled world. As the VON Coalition has repeated in many of its filings over the last few days, applying USF assessments on VoIP services that act like replacement phone services is not a matter of if or when, but a question of how. To this end, while I do support the assessment of USF contributions on the companies that the FCC refers to as "interconnected" VoIP providers, first, the FCC must reform the assessment mechanisms so that VoIP consumers are not hit with a discriminatory, inequitable, and arbitrary tax simply because they have chosen to utilize advanced IP technology to make voice calls, as opposed to wireless or circuit switched services. Chairman Martin has called for a new contribution system based on working telephone numbers. This is just one better way of ensuring that the transmission service (or the connection) contributes, rather than the application.

If IP-based services include voice as an application, just one of many rich applications deliverable thanks to IP technology and the Internet, it should not be mired by the legacy regulatory superstructure. By attempting to assess USF contributions on the application rather than the underlying transmission service, the FCC would be moving away from a stable and predictable funding source (i.e. contributions on DSL revenues) towards attempting to quantify and assess the rapidly changing applications that ride over the transmission facilities.

***

So, where do things stand at the moment?

For those of you coming at communications from the historically unregulated Internet and computer space, be aware that the FCC is about to take us further down the path of regulating Internet-based software applications (while it continues to deregulate bottleneck, telecom transmission services).

Rather than engaging in much needed comprehensive USF reform, the FCC is poised to apply the current telecommunications revenue-based Universal Service obligations to interconnected VoIP users. Press reports indicate that at its Meeting on June 21, the FCC is likely to determine that 64.9% of revenues from interconnected VoIP traffic are interstate and therefore subject to universal service contributions. This is more than double the rate currently paid by wireless services (begging the question what is the right rate to apply to IP-based wireless voice applications).

Reports from the FCC are that VoIP users will be required to subsidize the shortfall in USF that will result from the FCC's decision from last August that eliminated the obligation of DSL and other Internet access services to continue making USF contributions. USF. As you might recall, the FCC, last year, reclassified DSL as an information service, which made it (like cable modem service) exempt from having to contribute to the Universal Service Fund. At the time, it was believed that the FCC would have established a longer-term USF contributions in order to offset the estimated $350 million loss of contributions based on DSL revenue. Again, under a contribution methodology that measures connections to the PSTN all providers, including VoIP, would contribute on a technologically neutral, equitable and non-discriminatory basis. However, the FCC's current proposal inordinately taxes users of IP technology.

Let's try to put this in some broader universal service and Internet communications context. Who recalls the FCC Order precluding Interconnected VoIP providers from offering and marketing services to areas where the VoIP provider cannot guarantee E911 service? Isn't it odd that VoIP users are being asked to subsidize millions of, mostly rural, phone lines that are today marketed and sold without E911, while VoIP providers are not allowed to offer rural Americans a VoIP service that includes basic 911 and could cut consumer phone bills -- not by the small amount that universal service supports -- but a decrease in costs of 40 to 60%? So, VoIP providers subsidize traditional telecom services that don't offer E911 under the guise of providing more affordable communications, rather than VoIP providers being enabled to provided even more affordable communications. Whose interest does that serve? Oh right, the rural LECs.

Then there is the legal issue at the heart of this debate over who pays for universal service. And, isn't the move to impose contributions on Internet-based communications providers essentially an Internet "tax". During the debate over the e-rate (universal service funding for schools and libraries), conservatives like FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth(for whom Kevin Martin worked) argued that the e-rate was a "backdoor tax increase by unelected officials." Isn't there something screwy with the fact that the Bush administration has just eliminated the Spanish American War "tax on talking" last week only to replace it with an Internet "tax on talking".

***

I know some of you must, by now, think I am a broken record when I say that "Voice is just and application." But, I think the FCC is still missing the point that "voice" is, well, just an application. The voice application riding on the broadband network is being asked to be the application subject to paying into the Universal Service Fund. Isn't it time that the FCC recognized that it is the access that is the universal good and that American consumers should be allowed to do whatever they want with that access (within the confines of the law). And, if the FCC doesn't see this logic, why hasn't it begun taxing e-mail, text messaging and instant messaging, which have been demonstrated to be the biggest reason for the reduction in long distance revenues and the drop in the USF contribution base?

And now the FCC is poised to impose an outdated, economically irrational charge based on an arbitrary assessment of revenues on applications such as VoIP that run over the transmission layer, while freeing the transmission layer of its universal service contributions. By transforming voice communications into a software application, VoIP can integrate communications and data in entirely new ways. Soon a voice component can be added to any type of device, application or service that uses a microprocessor or touches the Internet. By attempting to impose the revenue-based USF assessment on the application rather than the underlying transmission, the FCC would be moving away from a stable and predictable funding source towards attempting to quantify and assess the rapidly changing applications that ride over the transmission facilities.

The logic of this backwards approach escapes me (unless the goal is to tax the Internet, to stifle IP-based communications, and to relieve the access providers of universal service funding obligations). What is the universal good that America should be working to achieve? In 21st Century America, isn't it about getting ubiquitous broadband, to ensure that all Americans can take full advantage of the digital/broadband/Internet revolution, to transform the ways in which humans communicate and interact? To that end, shouldn't USF be about collecting from pipes to support pipes, not software? Isn't it a better world where American businesses can "insource" jobs to an IP-enabled rural America (e.g., JetBlue call-centers), than to outsource jobs to cheaper labor abroad (e.g., any number of formerly US-based call centers)?

When we met with the FCC last week, the question presented to us was "Is the 64.9% safe harbor too high?" And if less than 65% of VoIP traffic Interstate should the FCC overturn its landmark decision finding that interconnected VoIP services are jurisdictionally interstate? Too me that is a loaded question along the lines of "When did you stop beating your wife." The better analogy is perhaps the old joke that goes: "Will you have sex with a stranger for $1 billion dollars?" If you say yes, than you are designated a prostitute and you are just haggling over the rate. It misses the point to say that X % of VoIP traffic is local or interstate or international. One of the fundamental points of IP-based communications is that geography is irrelevant. Which is precisely what the FCC determined in the Vonage jurisdictional order. It did not, as some have suggested, find that more than 50% of the traffic crosses state or local exchange boundaries (concepts which are anathema in the IP world). What is not irrelevant is the fact that facilities are still within the jurisdiction of local and federal regulators, and the public good is too ensure the deployment of the most robust networks possible and to ensure that the user might maximize the value of that network. To me that means not assessing discriminatory taxes on the Internet-delivered voice application to finance the physical layer. That will only stifle innovation of Internet-delivered applications. Instead, the FCC should take the bold step of finally reforming the way providers contribute to the Universal Service Fund. The fund is being rapidly depleted, through no fault of the VoIP industry, and the FCC should not delay making necessary reforms to ensure support for our nation's networks.

Tags: USF, FCC, VoIP, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 06:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (216)

June 13, 2006

The Week I Wish that Wasn't -- Down and Out in Washington, DC

For those of you keeping score, the Internet lost a couple big battles in Washington, DC last week, and that losing streak will likely continue.

First, on Thursday, the US House of Representatives lobbed a few late anti-Internet communications bombs into the COPE. Frankly, in my opinion, the COPE Bill wasn't horrible as of Thursday morning. COPE included some good language to enable VoIP providers to move towards a next-generation, IP-enabled emergency response network without being overly-saddled by backward looking, narrowband obligations. Then, the Net Neutrality amendment went down. AND then, out of nowhere, the anti-Internet communications forces mustered an amendment that could serve to pull the Internet communications industry into the archaic quagmire that is the intercarrier compensations and universal service regime. I believe that the Internet communications industry should contribute to promoting ubiquitous broadband, but the amendment proposed does nothing more than compel the emerging Internet application providers to line the pockets of the narrowband telecommunications providers.

Then, on Friday morning, the DC Circuit released its opinion upholding the FCC's Order imposing CALEA's wiretapping obligations on VoIP Providers. To me, that was just icing on the insult-to-injury cake that was last week in the history of Internet communications in the US. Frankly, unlike many of my fellow Petitioners in the appeal, I did not believe that the DC Circuit would do right by the Internet application companies. (See my posting from the hearing at http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/004484.html.) My read was that the panel, particularly Judge Edwards, saw the nonsense of the FCC's logic in applying CALEA to the broadband access services that the FCC had simultaneously reclassified as "Information Services" rather than "telecom services." Somehow, the FCC succeeded in convincing two judges on the DC Circuit, that broadband Internet access services can be "information services" for the purposes of relieving Bells and cable companies of traditional telecom regulation, but these very same broadband Internet access services can be "telecom services" for the purposes of the CALEA statute. I did not believe that we adequately convinced the judges that Internet-delivered voice applications were "information services" beyond the scope of the CALEA statute. As hard as it is to believe that Internet-based voice applications could somehow be telecom services, while the underlying telecom transmission services are information services, that seems to be the path the FCC (and now Congress and the Courts) is bring us down. It certainly is bringing me down!

What the week of backward-looking policy and judicial pronouncements made clear to me is that the US government - neither the legislators, nor the regulators, nor the judiciary get that "Voice is just an Application," deployable from anywhere to anywhere, and beyond the jurisdiction of local, state OR Federal regulators. Maybe we aren't saying it LOUD enough. Maybe they will only get this when America is so obviously watching the Internet communications revolution from the sidelines.

What is clear is that Americans won't really be able to participate (be it via voice, video, text, IM, or any heretofore unknown mode of IP-enabled communications) in the revolution. At least, not on a level playing field with the lucky subjects of those countries that get it. I had been tracking the state of Internet communications policy around the world through efforts with the Global IP Alliance and the VON Coalition. Most specifically, we posted a Global Policy Matrix and a user-supported Global Policy Wiki at www.globalipalliance.net>. But, as the battle for the future of the Internet heated up in America this year, we amassed most of our troop on the US front. To the extent possible, I commit to reviving our efforts to compile and update our sense of global policy developments.

For the moment, suffice it to say that there is an emerging divide between those countries that get it and those that don't, and, I hate to say it, but in just two short years, America has switched sides.

Tags: VoIP, CALEA, COPE, Net Neutrality, E911, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 04:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (289)

June 08, 2006

I cannot COPE Anymore

Under the guise of advancing IP technology, the US House of Representatives perpetrated a monumental disservice to the Internet and passed the COPE Bill, with several 11th hour amendments that reveal a remarkable misunderstanding of what the Internet could be. I am too discouraged by the alleged pinnacle of democracy to say any more at the moment. Suffice it to say that the Net Neutrality amendment went down and the misapplication of Access Charges and Universal Service to applications rather than the underlying transmission facilities that benefit from access charges and universal service, passed.

I only hope the Senate can learn from this, and pass a meaningful net neutrality provision.

Tags: VoIP, COPE, Net Neutrality, E911, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 10:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Shout out to the Internet Communications Industry -- Help Oppose VoIP Stifling Hill Amendment

We – the Internet communications industry, entrepreneurs, innovators and enthusiasts -- need your help. And we need it today. In addition to the US House of Representatives voting the COPE Bill -- designed primarily to allow the Bell Companies franchising relief to deliver IPTV services (ho hum –I that is all that the IP revolution is about, we will be all the poorer – but I diverge), an amendment to the House Cope Bill has just been approved for a US House floor vote tomorrow morning. The Amendment, offered up by Rep Gutknecht would serve to Boost Charges on Internet Communications. The Amendment would do the following:

1) reverses the landmark Vonage decision asserting exclusive federal jurisdiction over VoIP and subjecting VoIP to a potential patchwork of conflicting 50 state regulatory frameworks,
2) would raise rates on VoIP service by requiring the FCC to apply the broken access charge regime to VoIP, and
3) gives the FCC the green light to apply their current USF proposal that would require VoIP to pay into USF at more than double the current wireless safe harbor.

I think we should encourage Members of Congress to oppose the rate raising Gutknecht Amendment which would apply the broken access charge system, meant for the 100 year old telephone network to Internet voice communications. This amendment failed at both the subcommittee and full committee level, and should not be adopted on the floor.

The Gutknecht amendment should be opposed because it would:
• raise rates on our troops trying to stay in touch with their families while serving their country – VoIP is often the only form of voice or video communication available to our troops.
• increase the costs of broadband applications and slow the President’s goal of achieving universal broadband deployment by 2007 at a time when America has fallen to 16th in the world in broadband deployment
• Consumers could miss out on the new services, competition, and lower prices that VoIP can deliver
• stunt voice competition, one of the core tenets Congress adopted in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 – which is just beginning to appear in the marketplace.
• eliminate the flat-rate VoIP plans that are so popular with constituents, by applying per-minute access charges

Gutknecht Amendment Reverses Congressional Sentiment for allowing VoIP to Thrive Without a Patchwork of State Regulation. A bipartisan group of more than 60 members of Congress told the FCC that VoIP, enabled by the global Internet, must develop without the threat of a patchwork of state regulations stifling innovation. This resulted in the FCC’s “Vonage decision” to assert exclusive but limited federal jurisdiction over VoIP. The Gutknecht amendment will reverse this key decision, and potentially subject Internet voice services to a set of 50 different potentially conflicting state regulatory frameworks – creating new market uncertainty and slowing consumer benefits.

Congress Should Not Adopt Rate Raising, Growth-Sapping, Innovation Reducing Application of Access Charges. At the dawn of a new era in voice communications, Congress should continue its pro-growth, pro-innovation policies that for 20 years have ensured that Internet communications are not saddled with the broken access charge regime. There is no evidence of any compelling need for such a rate-raising, growth-sapping, innovation-reducing policy change. Instead, the FCC has a regulatory proceeding already underway, as required by Congress, to seek comprehensive intercarrier compensation reform.

Phone Companies Are Already Compensated For Use of Their Networks. Applying the broken access charges regime to VoIP service is unnecessary because incumbent phone companies are already fully compensated for their costs when Internet phone calls are terminated on their networks. When a phone company terminates VoIP services on its network, along with its subscriber fees the phone company receives reciprocal compensation or some other cost-based rate which fully compensates incumbent phone companies for the cost of terminating the traffic.

Consumers and Businesses Would be Harmed. If Congress changes course and subjects tomorrow’s technologies to yesterday’s broken systems, consumers and business users will miss out on the new services, increased choices and lower prices that VoIP can deliver.

Commerce Committee Specifically Chose Not To Address Universal Service in the Bill. On Universal Service, the Commerce Committee specifically decided not to address comprehensive universal service reform in this bill. Cable VoIP services already pay into universal service at the same rates as wireless providers pay – and the FCC Chairman has made universal service contribution reform one of his top priorities. A telephone or connections based contribution reform would capture all services equitably in a world without geographic distinctions.

Automatically applying yesterday’s rules to tomorrow’s technologies could stifle emerging innovations. We are on the verge of a vast new wave of VoIP-led technological innovations that has the potential to fundamentally revolutionize the way we communicate. This transformation will enable consumers to do things never before thought possible, businesses to transform the way they do business, and the economy to become an engine for higher paying information age jobs.

The Gutknecht amendment will stifle innovation, increase rates, stall these important consumer benefits, reverse Congressional efforts to advance new technologies, and slow demand for broadband.

***

Again, this bill will be on the House floor Friday morning. We are encouraging you, friends and colleagues who are trying to realize the promise of Internet communications to speak against the Amendment. Please help get the message to your Member of Congress. (You may find your member at www.congress.org

Please let Congress know that you oppose efforts that would stifle innovation, increase rates, stall these important consumer benefits, reverse Congressional efforts to advance new technologies, and slow demand for broadband.

Tags: Access Charges, Universal Service, VoIP, Congress, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 02:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Net Neutrality Issue of the Day: Craigslist is being blocked by Cox Interactive!

Silicon Valley Watcher: Craigslist is being blocked by Cox Interactive - is this a net neutrality issue?

Just the kind of scenario we were hoping never to see in practice.

Even if the intentions are not malice but simply technology incompetence due to Cox's implementation of some security software, the effects are the same.

Tags: Craigs List, Net Neutrality, Cox Interactive, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 08:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (19)

June 06, 2006

Today is the last day to Enter our "Save the Net" Contest

I just want to remind everyone that you only have until close of business today (June 6) to submit your entry into the "Save the Net" Viral Ad Campaign Contest. Details are available at www.pulver.com/savethenet. I am giving US$ 1000 to the winning submission. You will also gain the glory and satisfaction in knowing that you have done your part to help save and advance the open Internet.

Tags: Save the Net, Net Neutrality, Congress, Internet Marketing Contest, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 07:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (11)

Carl Ford talks back to Alec and Martin in regard to his Features Discussion:

Carl Ford's recent post on feature interaction created a little dialog between Carl and some members of the IP Communications Blogsophere.

Yesterday Carl shared his feedback to comments made by both Alec Saunders
and Martin Geddes.

In response to Alec's posts, Carl wrote:

"Scott Bradner would tell me I should be able to use a cookie to when voice mail is left behind. I don’t have to poll and in theory the presence of my voice mail box could be marked available, once.

But that would mean that everyone had agreed that what my presence meant.

If I can't get the concept of state right and agreed to, what chance do I have for features being transferred?

I feel like we have enabled chaos.

The model of a Vonage feature with mobile is a good one, since they are not in control of the wireless network (yet ;<)). But even if they were it would an issue of transferring the information appropriately.

If you and I both wrote a feature called, "Charge Me" what are the odds that it would look the same? Work the same? So lets say you and I are talking and we invoke the feature, what happens next and why?

My sense is that the end device will be the key manager of this feature and therefore, a proxy could become irrelevant.

It could be your charge me bills my account, and my charge me gives you a static electrical impulse, but that bottom line is ... we are both in for a shock."

and to Martin's post, Carl wrote:

"The fear I have is that the PSTN and SKYPE may in the end be exactly the same - closed networks with small points of interconnection and little interoperability.

I am Globalcomm and I sat in and listened to the ESPN and Sprint folks talk about MVNO's. If I wanted to something really cool on an MVNO of my own, what hope would I have with interoperability? practically - none, unless I had total control of the end point?

What happened to Interoperability?

I can paint a picture of the future that we have more devices that represent specific interests, Each with have bells and whistles that are cool and they may even use SIP! But I doubt I will reach them via Proxy unless its my proxy and my end point."

Tags: VoIP, SIP, Martin Geddes, Alec Saunders, Carl Ford

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 12:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (20)

June 05, 2006

Thomas Anglero: End of Telecom; The Emergence of Utilicom

Thomas Anglero: The End of Telecom; The Emergence of Utilicom

"...Utilicom is the emergence of the only global industry with more money, political importance (the US is currently fighting a war to protect it) and arrogance to usurp the global Telecommunication industry without realizing that that small bump it just drove-over was the death of a 150 year-old industry. Utilicom is the emergence of the Utility companies upon the world stage of communication.

The average utility company has been in the same business as the average Telecom company in regards to providing a necessary service that by its very nature creates an addictive "dependency", has established a personal (trust) relationship which is recorded in a database with information about "you", and financially prospering by keeping a low-key profile to a very high margin business. The utility companies have the "right-of-ways" and easements directly into the bedrooms of each one of us and lie higher on the totem-pole of Big Business by controlling "the" most important element in Telecom...Energy!..."

Tags: telecom, Thomas Anglero

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 07:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

June 01, 2006

Net Neutrality and Snakes on Rocketboom today

Not that we ever need an excuse to get our daily dose of Rocketboom, but in today's episode, Amanda Congdon covers Net Neutrality in between her rants on Snakes on a Plane.

Tags: Net Neutrality, Rocketboom, Amanda Congdon, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (21)

Multichannel News: Cable USF Payments May Soar

MultiChannel News: Cable USF Payments May Soar

"Cable operators that offer VoIP service could see their federal phone-subsidy payments more than double under a proposal supported by FCC chairman Kevin Martin."

Tags: voip, FCC

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 06:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (18)

May 31, 2006

"Save the Net" Submissions Due by June 6th

I just want to remind folks that you only have until June 6 to submit your entry into the "Save the Net" Viral Ad Campaign Contest. Details are available at www.pulver.com/savethenet I am giving $1000 to the winning submission. You will also gain the glory and satisfaction in knowing that you have done your part to help save and advance the open Internet.

To reiterate, Congress is ensconced in debating Internet and communications policy and might rewrite the rules governing the Internet over the next few months or year. We need to win the hearts and influence the minds of Congress and the policymakers. So far, the Internet appears to be losing and gaining no ground. Most in Congress do not get what the Internet could become if innovators are allowed to innovate and users are allowed to maximize their Internet experience. We have to let them see a glimpse of what the next-generation Internet could be.

I figured you folks out there on the Internet would summon forth some inspiration and provide videos, cartoons, songs, rants or other messages that could inspire government to understand the needs of the Internet innovators and help us to win over their hearts and minds. If you agree with our mission (of harnessing the individual and collective genius of the Internet community to promote better Internet and communications policy), please direct people to www.pulver.com/savethenet, and encourage folks to think outside the box and come up with clever, catchy, meaningful ads.

As I have mentioned, the contest itself is VERY open-ended. We did not pre-establish what people should say or what positions they should invoke in their ads/messages. This open-endedness is intentional. We did not want to limit anyone's creativity or compel them to adhere to any of our pre-conceived notions of the issues, the battle, the preferred approaches. We might be wrong in providing so little guidance, but we wanted to err on the side of allowing a wide array of perspectives. Who knows what some fresh blood and ideas could bring to the issue?

In any event, if you haven't watched television in DC lately, you might not be aware that the Bell companies, the cable companies and the media conglomerates have launched multi-million dollar ad campaigns to win the hearts and minds of Congress as it rewrites the communications laws and sets the rules that will govern the future of the open Internet. They each claim to speak for the Internet and that, if Congress acts appropriately, the future of the Internet will be assured and protected. But, there are no ads during the Sunday morning talk shows from the true Internet innovators and thought leaders -- us.

We don't have millions of dollars, but we do have access to the collective genius of the untapped millions of Internet enthusiasts and innovators. We need to figure out how to cheaply harness that genius to take over the messaging in DC and around the world.

We are thinking the best way to do this is to encourage those Internet creative geniuses to make short marketing pieces for us, allow us to pick the best of the bunch, and start a viral flood of our own Internet-delivered ads and messages so that we can win over the hearts and minds of the legislators and policymakers.

As it is, Congress and policymakers are already falling for the Madison Avenue ad campaigns of the corporate conglomerates who are claiming to speak for the future of the Internet.

It is time for us - the Internet community -- to start speaking for ourselves.

We need soundbites of our own, messaging of our own. We are allegedly the revolutionaries of the Internet and communications. Shouldn't we be the ones revolutionizing the way advocacy is done and communicated in the Internet Age? Shouldn't we be the creative forces verifying that the medium is the message? Who better than us to harness the enabling power of the Internet to bring our message to legislators, to policymakers, to the public? Let's throw away the old rulebook and try to think outside the box to send a message to Congress from the global community of Internet innovators and enthusiasts.

We need short creative ideas - videos, flash ads, other Internet-based gimmicks -- that might effectively communicate to Congress that they must write rules to enable us -- the Internet innovators -- to transform the Internet and communications experience.

We need to plant the seeds in hopes that a thousand flowers might bloom. Even if we get only one great 3-minute video, that could be enough to convince Congress what is at stake as it rewrites rules that might forever shape the nature of the Internet. That single, clever video would certainly be more than we have now.

Please remember to enter the contest by June 6th.

Tags: Save the Net, Net Neutrality, Congress, Internet Marketing Contest, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

May 25, 2006

My Worlds Collide on Capitol Hill Today

The House Judiciary Committee held a Full Committee Markup on several pieces of Internet-related legislation , including H.R. 5417, the “Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006”; H.R. 4777, the “Internet Gambling Prohibition Act”; and H.R. 4411, the “Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006”. Internet Gambling and Net Neutrality -- two subjects I care a great deal about, but two subjects that have rarely been discussed in the same platform.

Meanwhile, the Senate Commerce Committee held a Hearing on S. 2686, the Communications, Consumers' Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006. We thought it would be sufficient for Jonathan Askin to cover the House Judiciary Committee Markup, given the fact that Staci Pies was going to testify at the Senate Hearing on behalf of the VON Coalition. Well, yesterday afternoon, the VON Coalition was removed from inclusion on the panel. So, the Senate was left with no one expressing the views of the Internet communications industry and the effects that the Senate Bill might have on the emerging industry.

In any event, Jonathan could not physically be in two places at once. He opted to sit in on the House Judiciary Hearing, given that the Senate Hearing was just another in a long line of redundant hearings on communications reform legislation with the same old, stuffed shirt, hired gun lobbyists, spouting the usual platitudes on communications policy. It would have been great to see someone speak for the would-be innovators and entrepreneurs, but, once again, that was not the case in the Senate.

***

The House Judiciary Committee kicked off with a heated discussion and introduction of a series of amendments on Internet Gambling.

The bills would serve to curb online gambling. To me, this is just another example of interfering with individual autonomy and the ability of the user to maximize the value of and control her own Internet experience. It gets increasingly confusing to me every time I hear an alleged advocate for Internet Freedom come out against specific instances of Internet Freedom, such as online gambling. Just give me a big broadband pipe and get out of the way, thank you. Stop trying to legislate my morality and worry about your own ethical transgressions, which have a much broader impact on society than whether or not I am playing poker online. And, get back to more important business, like making sure the Internet continues to transform society and revolutionize human interaction.

The debate on Internet Gambling was mostly beset with bad wordplay based on gambling and racing cliches: “I don’t have a horse in that race”, “I don’t want to beat a dead horse,” (which frankly might be in poor taste, given the events at Saturday’s Preakness), blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum.

***

Net Neutrality

Then the House Judiciary Committee got around to marking up and voting H.R. 5417, the “Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006”

As I have mentioned, the Judiciary Committee, composed of many champions of the Internet and competition, is coming from a very different place than the Commerce Committee. Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers both gave strong endorsement for Net Neutrality. The Committee voted in support of the legislation 20-13. Every Democrat voted for it, and a majority of Republicans voted against it. The bill uses antitrust law to enforce network neutrality. Given this and other dynamics, the chance of telecom reform legislation being passed this year continues to decrease.

Tags: Net Neutrality, Congress, Internet Gambling,
Jonathan Askin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 02:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (40)

May 24, 2006

Multichannel News: FCC Can Impose Net Neutrality

Multichannel News: Copps: FCC Can Impose Net Neutrality

"The Federal Communications Commission has authority under current law to ensure that broadband-access providers -- currently mainly cable and phone companies -- do not discriminate against Web-based providers of content, search services and applications, FCC commissioner Michael Copps said Tuesday.

Speaking to reporters, Copps stressed that it was essential for the agency to go beyond hortatory policy principles and adopt enforceable rules that guarantee network neutrality and shield Internet companies without wires into millions of homes from potential misconduct by companies that control those wires."

Tags: Net Neutrality, FCC

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 12:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (31)

May 23, 2006

Reminder - Take part in the "Save the Net" Contest. Entries due by June 6th:

Since the launch of our Viral Market Contest to Save the Internet, I've been mapping the viral spread of the news of our contest around the Blogosphere, in the media and around the world. Special thanks to EVERYONE who is helping to make this the viral marketing contest that we had hoped this would become.

The contest itself is VERY open-ended. We did not pre-establish what people should say or what positions they should invoke in their ads/messages. This open-endedness is intentional. We did not want to limit anyone's creativity or compel them to adhere to any of our pre-conceived notions of the issues, the battle, the preferred approaches. We might be wrong in providing so little guidance, but we wanted to err on the side of allowing a wide array of perspectives. Who knows what some fresh blood and ideas could bring to the issue?

Together, perhaps, we might just reinvent the way marketing and advocacy can be done in the Internet Age. And, in the process, we might just show the World what the Internet could be (given the right policy framework) and win over the hearts and minds of government and the people.

Please help to continue to spread the news of the "Save the Net" contest and please encourage as many people as you can to participate in the contest. Please showcase your creative side and enter the contest on your own!

Please remember to enter the contest by June 6th.

---

We need soundbites of our own, messaging of our own. We are
allegedly the revolutionaries of the Internet and communications. Shouldn't we
be the ones revolutionizing the way advocacy is done and communicated in the
21st Century? Shouldn't we be the creative forces verifying that the medium is
the message? Who better than us to harness the enabling power of the Internet
to bring our message to legislators, to policymakers, to the public? Let's
throw away the old rulebook and try to think outside the box to send a message
to Congress from the global community of Internet innovators and
enthusiasts.

We need to harness your individual genius and our collective genius (for isn't
it the collective power of the Internet that makes it so remarkable?) to save
the Internet, and we are willing to pay and give you eternal glory (or at least
glory for as long as the Internet lasts).

Send us short*, creative ideas -- videos and other Internet-based gimmicks --
that you think might effectively communicate to government that they must write
rules to enable us the Internet innovators to transform the Internet and
communications experience.

The prize and glory goes to whoever comes up with the message (viral video ad
or other creative marketing tool) that we use to spread the word and save the
Internet. In order to be eligible for the prize (and also to ensure maximum
impact during the great policy debate, both in DC and around the globe),
entries must be submitted by June 6, 2006. Please refer to the specific rules to enter.

The contest runs until: June 6, 2006. The battle to save OUR Internet is
underway!

*( Note: 30 Second and 60 Second spots are highly recommended for viewing
purposes)

---

Tags: Save the Net, Net Neutrality, Congress, Internet Marketing Contest, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (86)

May 15, 2006

Daniel Berninger: "If it's not neutral it's not Internet"

Daniel Berninger: If it's not neutral it's not Internet

"The opposition to net neutrality arises like all regulatory debates as themeans to raise prices, but people in the US already pay more for lessbandwidth than citizens of Europe and Asia."

Tags: Net Neutrality, Daniel Berninger

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (28)

May 14, 2006

Tom Evslin: Penny per Customer Cost for Disaster Mitigation Too Much for Bells

On Friday, with the help of Aswath Rao, Tom Evslin and I filed our response to the negative comments which the Bells had unanimously filed with the FCC on our petition.

"The Bells (AKA ILECs) whined that their networks might not be able to route calls out of stricken areas to voicemail or call forwarding and that voicemail facilities themselves might go down in a flood. I’m sure that answer came from their lawyers and not their engineers who must have hid their heads in embarrassment. They also said that the proposed disaster relief would be too expensive."

see Tom Evslin: Penny per Customer Cost for Disaster Mitigation Too Much for Bells

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Katrina, Tom Evslin, Aswath Rao, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 04:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (26)

May 13, 2006

FCC Releases Second VoIP CALEA Order

The FCC has released its Second Order on VoIP CALEA wiretapping rules. We haven't had a chance to review the rules, but it does seem somewhat ironic (contradictory perhaps?) that the FCC chose to release an order enabling more calling data to be collected, when the front pages of the US papers are filled with stories about the government collecting TOO MUCH calling data.

Well, Which is it? Is government a personified incarnation of the zen koan, unsolvable riddle?

It's like the time my mom bought me two sweaters, and I came downstairs wearing one of the new sweaters. She goes, "What's wrong, you don't like the other sweater?" I'll leave it at that.

Tags: CALEA, FCC, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 02:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

May 10, 2006

Dan Berninger: Why Even Bells Need Net Neutrality

Daniel Berninger: Why Even Bells Need Net Neutrality

Tags: Net Neutrality, Daniel Berninger

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 05:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (13)

May 05, 2006

Quick Take on the CALEA Oral Argument in the DC Circuit this Morning

This morning the DC Circuit heard oral argument in the challenge of the FCC’s Order imposing CALEA lawful intercept obligations on broadband Internet access services and VoIP. pulver.com was one of the Petitioners and Jonathan Askin sat in on the argument and reported back to us:

The legal conclusions that will come out of this case could have quite profound consequences on the future of Internet technology, applications and regulation, well beyond even the immediate question over the legality of applying the CALEA statute to VoIP and broadband Internet access.

Candidly, I have serious fear that VoIP (most immediately) and all Internet-based applications (in the long run) might have been thrown under the bus in order to protect broadband Internet access services from CALEA and telecom regulation. I think it is entirely possible that the Opinion that comes from the DC Circuit might further send us down the path where the underlying telecom transmission facilities (the paradigmatic essential, bottleneck facilities within the control of too few players) will have virtually no government oversight (oversight needed to ensure competition, innovation and fair pricing), while the Internet applications (particularly the voice applications) will more and more be construed as the telecom services subject to regulatory oversight. This flips 40 years of Computer Inquiry (and 400 years of common carrier regulation) on its head.

It seemed pretty clear (although, according to Judge Edwards, he is skeptical of any attorney who prefaces argument by stating that something is “clear”) that Judges Edwards and Sentelle were quite skeptical about the FCC’s extension of the CALEA statute to services that the FCC has defined as “Information Services.” Let’s recall that the same day the FCC adopted the CALEA for VoIP Order (August 5, 2005), the FCC also adopted the Wireline Broadband Internet Access Order, which defined broadband Internet access services as “Information Services”, not “Telecom Services.” Both Judges Sentelle and Edwards took the FCC to task for the obvious disingenuity and illogic of saying that broadband Internet access services are “Information Services” for the purposes of the “Telecom Act” but “Telecom Services” for the purposes of CALEA. Judge Edwards pointed out that the FCC made an immutable “technological” determination that must apply across FCC Orders that the “Information Services” component of a broadband Internet access service cannot be “disaggregated” from the telecom transmission component and therefore the whole communication. While I tend to disagree with that FCC conclusion that the application/service cannot be “disaggregated” from the transmission facility, I, like Judge Edwards, believe that the FCC cannot have it both ways depending on how the FCC’s result-oriented objectives. The bottom-line is that the FCC dug itself a logic hole from which it cannot extricate itself (particularly with brilliant logicians on the DC Circuit watching over it).

Ever since last Summer, I have been trying to line up the logic of the FCC’s Wireline Broadband Internet Access Order with the logic of the FCC’s CALEA Order. Both were adopted on August 5, so I would think the logic for each Order should have been fresh in the minds of those who voted the items (admittedly, the CALEA Order might not have been fully fleshed out at the August 5 vote, not having been released for 7 weeks).

So until today I have been wondering about the FCC’s convoluted logic in applying telecom regulation to the Internet in order to impose social obligations (so far CALEA and E-911) on Internet communications providers, while simultaneously removing telecom regulations from wireline broadband Internet access providers in Order to relieve them of their access obligations? Any minor distinction in the definition of telecom services and information services between the Telecom Act and the CALEA statute cannot possibly justify the radically distinct regulatory approaches within the two orders and the contradictory analysis distinguishing and then analogizing broadband and narrowband and narrowband services within the two orders.

Why are broadband services construed as information services for purposes of relieving Internet access providers of access obligations, but virtually all broadband and narrowband services are construed as telecom service for purposes of CALEA (and E-911)?

So, with this confusion over the FCC’s logic, I was at first concerned when Judge Sentelle started questioning of counsel for Petitioners by suggesting that CALEA’s definition of “Information Services” could be different from the Telecom Act’s definition of “Information Service”, but I think both Judge Sentelle and Edwards essentially acknowledged that the FCC cannot play a definitional shell game and apply two technologically distinct definitions to “Information Services”, one to apply in the context of the Telecom Act and another in the context of CALEA. Judge Edwards said on more than one occasion that the FCC’s argument is laughably “disingenuous.” According to Judge Edwards, the FCC has concluded that, as a technological matter, broadband Internet access services are “Information Services.” The FCC cannot get away from that technological conclusion.

Judge Edwards also pointed out that the FCC has also concluded that the “Information Service” (e.g., email) cannot be “disaggregated” from the telecom transmission and, pursuant to Brand X, as memorialized in last Summer’s FCC Order on Wireline Broadband Internet Access Services, the entire broadband service is an “Information Service”, not a telecom service. The FCC cannot, with a straight face, talk its way around that broad technological conclusion.

Sounds good? Sort of, but I am concerned about how this ultimately plays out, first for Internet-delivered voice, and then for any Internet-delivered application.

We might have already lost the battle when the FCC “won” the Brand X case at the Supreme Court and used that Opinion as a vehicle to deregulate broadband Internet access services and remove broadband Internet access service from traditional telecom regulation. Having lost its telecom regulation hook over the telecom transmission facility, the FCC looked around for ways to reimpose regulation on communications – and the answer seems to have come in the form of regulating the application (starting with voice, at least those voice applications that “substantially replace” traditional telephony) that rides the now unregulated facilities.

Sentelle and Edwards both seemed to conceive VoIP as a “Substantial Replacement” for telephony and therefore CALEA might arguably apply to VoIP, if not to broadband Internet access services. This conclusion, if memorialized, could be devastating to Internet communications innovation. The problem seems to be that the judges and counsel did not consider how revolutionary Internet communications is (or could be under the right regulatory framework) . I think the judges were only thinking of those services that are marketing themselves as substantial replacements for traditional telephony. As I have said repeatedly, ad nauseum, if that is all VoIP is and becomes, we deserve our fate. But the law should enable us to innovate and transform communications well beyond merely serving as a replacement for plain old telephone service. Not all flavors of VoIP are mere broadband-delivered replications of POTS (e.g., FWD, Skype, GoogleTalk, yahoo!, AIM, etc., etc., etc.). I fear that we have all been lumped into the same category and it becomes a slippery slope to begin regulating one voice application that looks like POTS and down the slope to regulating P2P IM platforms that happen to have an incidental voice application.

So, Judges Edwards and Sentelle seemed to suggest that “VoIP” is a “Substantial Replacement” for telephony service, and therefore might be regulated like a telecom service that it has replaced. I am not sure how the Court or the FCC gets past the concept that the “information service”, even if it is voice, cannot be “disaggregated” from the telecom transmission. Judge Edwards clearly recognized the FCC’s logic in saying that email (if not VoIP) cannot be “disaggregated” from the telecom transmission facility. Now, just between us, I disagree with that conclusion. IP technology and Moore’s Law have allowed the application to be clearly disaggregated from the telecom transmission facility upon which it rides. But this fact draws the opposite conclusion from where the FCC has been taking us and where the DC Circuit might further drive us – regulation of the Internet applications and nonregulation of the transmission. Regulate where there is an infinite supply of innovative competitors from around the globe and beyond the jurisdiction of any national or localized regulator? Don’t regulate where there is a clear bottleneck, subject to monopoly control and within the jurisdiction of a national or local regulator? Am I the only one who thinks this is 180 degrees backwards?

Unfortunately, our counsel did not take the opportunity to address this issue over the proper regulatory treatment of Internet-delivered voice (and other) applications. Perhaps that was the right approach given the context of the oral argument. We were not here to relitigate Brand X, but I would hate to think that the end result will be the regulation of the Internet application – first VoIP where it is a “Substantial Replacement”, then voice VoIP where it is a purer disaggregated applications on a P2P network, then to all Internet-delivered applications, then to ubiquitous regulation of any application traversing the global Internet.

In any event, I fear there is potential for the worst of all possible results, and a conclusion that both defies logic and turns 40 years, maybe 400 years of common carrier regulation on its head. The essential bottleneck facility is not regulated as a telecom service, but the infinite supply of voice applications riding the facility could be regulated as a telecom service.

Tags: CALEA, FCC, Jeff Pulver, Jonathan Askin

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 02:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (10)

May 04, 2006

At Risk: Online Poker and our Net Freedoms

According to Techdirt, Congress Moves Forward On Putting Online Poker Players In Jail. Specifically, "The current law is ambiguous on this (and ambiguous on whether or not poker is considered "gambling"), but the Justice Department has made statements claiming that players of online poker and similar online games involving better could be committing crimes. To help clarify this, some Congressman have put forth legislation that makes these things illegal (subject to five years in jail)."

In a year where the discussion of "Net Neutrality" has have moved front and center in the national public policy debate, there are people in Congress who apparently plan on challenging our Net Freedoms and specifically the Freedom to Use Applications. Consumers should be able to run applications of their choice.

If these people in Congress ever have their way and make it illegal to play online poker while you are in the United States, I have to wonder where the virtual line in the sand will be drawn in the enforcement against the people who choose to continue to play Online poker. Does Congress plan on searching our desktops and look for well known poker applications? Do they plan on tapping our VPNs and looking for online poker traffic? Or are they just going to be sniffing all our packets at popular NOCs looking for online poker games? Has the commercial internet evolved to such a milestone that specific applications on the public internet will one day become regulated? And what happens if you are visiting a state which has legalized gaming and you are running an application that gives you virtual access to a game that is also taking place at a local casino in that state? Will that also be illegal? Will we be restricted to playing online poker only when we are on Wi-Fi enabled airplanes that are flying about 15,000 feet and effectively flying in "off shore" airspace?

If Congress is able to ban a specific application today, where does this stop tomorrow?

Looks like now is the time for some of us to join the group of people lobbying on behalf of the Online Poker industry, before it is too late.

Tags: poker, Net Neutrality, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 07:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)

May 03, 2006

ZDNet: FCC Approves Net-Wiretapping taxes

ZDNet: FCC approves Net-wiretapping taxes

...Jonathan Askin, general counsel of Pulver.com, likened Wednesday's vote to earlier FCC rules extending 911 regulations to VoIP. "It essentially imposed a mandate on the industry without giving the industry the necessary support to abide by the rules--and the same thing seems to be happening here," Askin said

Tags: CALEA, Jonathan Askin

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 11:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (11)

This Week in CALEA History

At this morning’s FCC Open Meeting, the FCC unanimously adopted a 2nd report and order on Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (“CALEA”) for VoIP. (On August 5, 2005, the FCC adopted the 1st Report on CALEA for VoIP, which extended the CALEA wiretapping statute to Interconnected VoIP providers). Here are some of our initial thoughts on the FCC’s 1st CALEA Order for VoIP The industry has been waiting six months for the FCC to give some guidance on what might satisfy the FCC’s Rule.

As best we can tell from the FCC Meeting, the Second Order does the following:

1. Reaffirms the CALEA Compliance deadline as May 14, 2007. (18 months from the effective date of the 1st CALEA for VoIP Order).

[The FCC noted that standards are well underway, although the standard is being written by the usual suspects – the Bells and vendors and not by the VoIP providers who will have to build their networks to suit the standard. I keep thinking that there is a role for the VoIP industry to grab the reigns and establish a more technically, economically and operationally viable standard (from the perspective of the VoIP providers).]

2. Applies to ALL FACILITIES-BASED broadband and Interconnected VoIP services.

[The fact that the FCC applies the obligations to “facilities-based” providers gives me some comfort that the FCC recognizes that the CALEA obligations cannot technically extend to strictly software-based Internet communications. This was the first positive clarification I have seen on this issue, and could allow us to innovate without too much fear of debilitating regulatory compliance obligations.]

3. Absent the filing of petitions that standards are deficient, the Commission will rely upon private sector standards processes.

4. Telecommunications carriers can use trusted third party agencies as an option for compliance

5. Did not adopt a national surcharge for recovering costs

On Friday, the DC Circuit will hear Oral Argument on our challenge of the FCC’s First CALEA Order (adopted August 5, 2005). We suspect the FCC “rushed” adoption of the Second Order to dispel likely Court criticism of the FCC’s failure to give the VoIP industry any guidance on how to comply with the technical mandate in CALEA Order. The question remains whether the FCC will actually release the Second Order prior to Friday’s Oral Argument. Don’t forget it took the FCC seven weeks from date of adoption to actually release the First CALEA for VoIP Order.

Tags: CALEA, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 11:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

Reuters: Financial sector awakens to Net neutrality issues

"The U.S. financial sector, a powerful force in Washington, may be gearing up to jump into a Capitol Hill fight over the future of the Internet and stop an effort it says could add billions in costs just to maintain current offerings."

Reuters: Financial sector awakens to Net neutrality issues

Tags: Net Neutrality, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 06:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (14)

May 02, 2006

Markey Introduces Stand-Alone Net Neutrality Bill

Ed Markey, Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, introduced a stand-alone Net Neutrality Bill today.

Here is Mr. Markey's Floor Statement

It is such a moving Statement, I felt compelled to include portions of it below:

"Broadband networks, Mr. Speaker, are the lifeblood of our emerging digital economy. These broadband networks also hold the promise of promoting innovation in various markets and technologies, creating jobs, and furthering education. The world-wide leadership that the U.S. provides in high technology is directly related to the government-driven policies over decades which have ensured that telecommunications networks are open to all lawful uses and all users. The Internet, which is accessible to more and more Americans with every day that goes by on such broadband networks, was also founded upon an open architecture protocol and as a result it has provided low barriers to entry for web-based content, applications, and services.

Recent decisions by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and court interpretations, however, put these aspects of broadband networks and the Internet in jeopardy. The corrosion of historic policies of nondiscrimination by the imposition of bottlenecks by broadband network owners endanger economic growth, innovation, job creation, and First Amendment freedom of expression on such networks. Broadband network owners should not be able to determine who can and who cannot offer services over broadband networks or over the Internet. The detrimental effect to the digital economy would be quite severe if such conduct were permitted and became widespread."

Mr. Markey’s Bill includes the following:

(1) The first part articulates overall broadband policy and network neutrality goals for the country, and spells out exactly what network neutrality means and puts it into the statute so that it will possess the force of law.

(2) The second part embodies reasonable exceptions to the general rules, such as to route emergency communications or offer consumer protection features, such as spam blocking technology.

(3) And the final part of the bill features an expedited complaint process to deal with grievances and violations within thirty days.

Mr. Markey concludes:

“Do we really have to wait till these corporate giants divide and conquer the open architecture of the Internet to make that against the law? These telephone company executives are telling us that they intend to discriminate in the prioritization of bits and to discriminate in the offering of “quality of service” functions – for a new fee, a new broadband bottleneck toll – to access high bandwidth customers, we cannot afford to wait until they actually start doing that before we step in to stop it.

“Once they start making money by leveraging that bottleneck position in the marketplace, will a future Congress really stare them down and take that revenue stream away?

“… if we don’t protect the openness of the Internet for entrepreneurial activity, we’re ruining a wonderful model for low barrier entry, innovation, and job creation. Broadband network owners should not be able to determine who can and who cannot offer services over broadband networks or over the Internet. The detrimental effect to the digital economy would be quite severe if such conduct were permitted and became widespread. The deterioration of significant policies of nondiscrimination by the imposition of artificial bottlenecks by broadband network owners imperil economic growth, innovation, job creation, and First Amendment freedom of expression on such networks.”

***

We also expect Sens. Snowe and Dorgan to drop their Net Neutrality Bill in the Senate today.

***

It looks like momentum is moving in the direction of the forces fighting to protect and advance the open Internet. Let’s keep up the pressure. I am still looking for the killer ad in our ”Save the Net” Viral Video Contest.

I am also considering hosting the “Internet Freedom Rally” on the steps of the Capitol to drive home the message and to build on the momentum for Net Neutrality that is finally building within the public zeitgeist. We have held two prior Internet Freedom Rallies over the past seven years, but never before has there been so much public awareness, understanding and concern for the issues at stake. I think we have a great opportunity to build momentum and harness the growing passion. I suspect we will have no trouble getting the most eloquent advocates for Net Neutrality from within government and the Internet community to participate, but it would be great to find a couple bands that recognize the need to protect and advance the open Internet.

I would welcome any leads or contacts you might have to bands and artists that would help us to build the energy for this movement to Save Our Internet.

Tags: Net Neutrality, Ed Markey, Save the Net, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 12:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (30)

The Senate Commerce Committee Weighs In on Communications Reform:

Well, Senator Stevens' Office has released its Staff Working Draft of Communications Reform Legislation ("Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006"). The Draft Bill deals primarily with video franchising and Universal Service, but the Draft does implicate IP-based communications in several parts, particularly where the Bill considers Net Neutrality (Title IX), Municipal Broadband (Title V), Universal Service (Title II), and Title I ("War on Terrorism"). Interestingly, the E911 for VoIP provisions, which the Senate had passed unanimously a few months ago and contained very positive provisions to protect the Internet communications industry and to allow us to advance next-generation emergency response capabilities (and represented a dramatic improvement over the FCC's backward looking approach to E911), has not been incorporated into the Bill (at least not yet).

The Draft Bill is 135 pages, so we have only been able to give it a quick review. This will undoubtedly serve as the template for Senate discussion over the weeks and months ahead.

Committee staff expects to hold two hearings in May to take testimony on the Bill. We understand the Bill will not get floor time this month, but the Committee will likely hold a mark-up shortly after the Memorial Day recess. We expect there to be at least two weeks before the first hearing.

The Bill does not appear to have broad bipartisan support. Perhaps the strong Democratic support for Net Neutrality in last week's House Commerce Committee Mark-up and the overwhelming support emerging from the House Judiciary Committee might suggest that this Bill failure to promote Net Neutrality might be a stumbling block for both Democrats and forward-looking supporters (both Republicans and Democrats) of application layer competition. Senator Inouye is nominally cosponsoring the Bill, but, in his statement, he noted that this is a draft bill "of the Majority Staff, and I have numerous, substantive objections to the bill in its current form."

In any event, here is a down-n-dirty, rough analysis of the Draft:

As I mentioned, this Senate Draft, like the House's COPE Bill is primarily designed as a vehicle to relieve the Bells of a lot of local video franchising obligations. That is all well and good as far as I am concerned. I think there should be no limitations on Internet-delivered applications, be they voice or video or otherwise, except where monopoly control or excessive marketpower might tend to stifle innovation. The Bill, however, like the House Bill, still misses the point on what video delivery could be and simply paves the way for another spoon-fed, Bell-delivered cable-clone offering to couch-potato recipients of video content. Ho-hum. Where is the Bill that will enable us to revolutionize the way people receive AND submit AND control their use of video and other Internet content and applications?

As for the issues that more directly implicate the Internet communications industry:

* Call Home Act. FCC is directed to work with DoD, and the State Department to reduce telephone rates for troops stationed overseas by eliminating fees and charges, increasing VoIP usage, and reducing settlement rates.

* Universal Service Reform.
Applies to all "Communications Services." Definition of communications services includes IP Enabled Voice service which is defined as: IP-Enable Voice Service Definition.- (Appears to be same definition included in Senate E911 bill S. 1063.) The term 'IP-enabled voice service' means the provision of real-time 2-way voice communications offered to the public, or such classes of users as to be effectively available to the public, transmitted through customer premises equipment using TCP/IP protocol, or a successor protocol, for a fee (whether part of a bundle of services or separately) with 2-way interconnection capability such that the service can originate traffic to, and terminate traffic from, the public switched telephone network.'
- Doesn't specify contribution mechanism. Allows the FCC to use revenues, working telephone numbers, network capacity, or a combination thereof and eliminates the intrastate/interstate distinction.

* Includes similar VoIP Rights and Obligations as in House bill(Page 22). (language appears to be borrowed from House COPE subcommittee passed bill - not full committee bill)

* Interconnection -- includes rights and obligations under 251 and 252.

* Disability - includes obligations under 225, 255, and 710.

* IP Enabled Voice Service is Defined again, but appears to use the same definition as above.

* Phantom Traffic (Page 34.) IP-enabled voice service providers (among others) "shall ensure that all traffic that originates on its network contains sufficient information to allow for traffic identification by other communications service providers that transport, transit, or terminate such traffic, including information on the identity of the originating provider, the calling and called parties, and such other information as the Commission deems appropriate."

* Broadband buildout. Creates a "broadband for unserved areas account" under the universal service fund and requires eligible telecommunications carriers to build out broadband within 60 months of passage.

* Municipal Broadband (Page 105). Includes a combination of language from the McCain/Lautenberg bill, the Ensign bill, and Smith bill which would allow communities to offer broadband choices, but give the private sector a right of first refusal.

* Wireless Innovation Networks. Allows use of TV spectrum "white spaces" for broadband buildout.

* Net Neutrality (page 131). Requires an annual FCC study (for the next 5 years.) If the FCC notices any problems (rather than suggesting action), the FCC can include those in its next annual report and make recommendations to Congress on how to remedy those problems (except for recommending additional rulemaking authority.)

Like the COPE Bill in the House, I think the Net Neutrality provisions in this Draft are insufficient to protect and advance and allow us to maximize the value of the open Internet.

I would like to hear your views on where the Bill is deficient so that we might be able to work with the Senate to improve the Draft.

Tags: Net Neutrality, Universal Service, E911, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 06:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (18)

May 01, 2006

Comments in Response to the Evslin/pulver Post-Disaster Communications Petition to the FCC:

In a show of overwhelming opposition to what I believed was a worthwhile, non-controversial proposal to improve communications during and after public catastrophes, the ILEC community balked, demonstrating that it supports regulatory relief in the face of disasters only when it is good for only them.

At least the VON Coalition took the high road in supporting our Petition to create a mechanism to ensure that victims of a disaster expeditiously reestablish communications for even those refugees without a wireless or VoIP lifeline.

And, I would like to thank the 40 or so other individuals who posted comments in support as well as the tireless efforts of Tom Evslin.

Comments to the FCC related to the Post-Disaster Communications are available for viewing at http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi and entering RM-11327 in under "Proceeding."

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Katrina, Tom Evslin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 05:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (118)

CNNMoney.com: BellSouth nixes disaster proposal

CNNMoney.com: BellSouth nixes disaster proposal

"...Hoping to remedy the problem, veteran tech bloggers Jeff Pulver and Tom Evslin filed a petition with the FCC in March calling for regional telcos to institute voicemail for all customers in the event of major, prolonged disasters. For a while, the FCC appeared to be stonewalling on the issue, but in early April the agency announced a period of public debate on it. Yesterday, Evslin reported that BellSouth's lawyers have come out against the petition, arguing that "it is nonsensical to impose additional requirements on communications providers following a disaster or other catastrophic event." No doubt BellSouth's opposition comes down to the expense of the proposal, but in comments on Evslin's post, readers agree that the technology required is not complex and the idea makes eminent sense."

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Katrina, Tom Evslin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 01:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (18)

April 30, 2006

Tom Evslin: If You Liked FEMA, You’ll Love BellSouth

"BellSouth doesn’t want to be required to provide voicemail and/or call forwarding to its customers in the next disaster. Disappointing but not surprising. Apparently they think the steps they took after Katrina were adequate. Apparently they learned nothing from the tragedies of their customers who were cut off from normal communication, from the agonies of families who couldn’t reunite, from the precious time wasted and lives risked by rescue workers looking for people who had safely evacuated but were missing because they were unreachable."

Fractals of Change: If You Liked FEMA, You’ll Love BellSouth

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Katrina, Tom Evslin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 09:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (16)

April 27, 2006

Fortune Innovation Forum: Jeff Pulver's quest to save the Internet

The Business Innovation Insider: Jeff Pulver's quest to save the Internet

Tags: Save the Net, Net Neutrality, Congress, Internet Marketing Contest, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 06:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (19)

Reminder: FINAL DAY to File Comments on our Post-Disaster Communications Petition

Special thanks to everyone who has taken the time to spread the word about the Post-Disaster Communications Petition that Tom Evslin and I filed at the FCC which is now out for "Public Comment." The Deadline is TODAY, April 27th!

If you have not yet filed your own comments yet on the petition, PLEASE do so. The FCC has made the electronic comment filing procedure VERY simple. All you really need to do to weigh in is go to: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi, enter RM-11327 in the first line where it requests the "Proceeding" (this is the Petitions "RM" number), fill in the other minimal contact info requirements, and submit a brief statement.

I am looking forward to reviewing all of the submitted comments and working on our "Reply Comments" which are due at the FCC on May 12th.

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Katrina, Tom Evslin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 05:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (152)

April 26, 2006

Alyssa Milano and Me...

I don't get it either but it seems that we are both mentioned in the following WebProNews story on Net Neutrality - WebProNews: Alyssa Milano Chimes In On Net Neutrality.

Tags: Alyssa Milano, Save the Net, Net Neutrality, Congress, Internet Marketing Contest, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 06:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Parallel Universes or a House Divided Among Itself: -- the Turf War Begins: Commerce Committee vs. Judiciary Committee

The House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Telecom and Antitrust held an Oversight Hearing on "Network Neutrality: Competition, Innovation and Nondiscriminatory Access." It was a world away from the Hearings and Markups we have experienced in the House Commerce Committee in the past few weeks.

Does Judiciary offer us a glimpse of a better world? I'm inclined to say yes. Others might disagree. It, however, is hard to believe that these two Committees represent the same constituency, the same country. How could two adjoining Committees suggest two such radically different policy results? The Commerce Committee is large predisposed against Net Neutrality. It was hard to find a harsh sentiment towards Net Neutrality in Judiciary. In fact, the Judiciary Hearing was, for the most part, a total dogpile on Walter McCormick, the President of USTA, the trade association for the Bell Companies and other ILECs. As best we could tell, virtually all the members, across the aisle in Judiciary, were generally inclined towards ensuring a competitive marketplace, and using competition to drive innovation.

The Judiciary Hearing was not accessible via the House's videocast. Ironic? I know I am just being paranoid, but I was forced to wonder who controls the Judiciary Committee's videofeed. Was there some sort of blocking, impairment or degradation of service -- or, what do they call it these days, packet prioritization (to put a positive spin on the inability of anti-Bell sentiment reaching the Internet)? In any event, it was apparently pretty difficult for the outside world to witness, in real time, the beating that the Internet access providers took in the Judiciary Committee Hearing room.

Then, there was a wake up call when the Commerce Committee began opening statements on the COPE Bill at 5pm down the hall in the Commerce Committee Hearing room. The House Markup continues tomorrow morning, and, I guess, the writing is on the wall - the COPE Bill will likely sail through Committee and the Net Neutrality amendment will likely fail. I suspect that the Net Neutrality amendment would pass overwhelmingly in the Judiciary Committee. By the way, I think that Commerce Committee Markup was readily viewable via videocast.

It was suggested by one advocate, that if the Judiciary Committee were the Committee with original jurisdiction over communications policy, than the Bells would have won the day in Judiciary, and lost in Commerce, as the Commerce Committee vied for some authority. Maybe. ...But, I also suspect that the Bells and other established players would have more control over the Commerce Committee under any circumstances. Judiciary did seem generally less inclined to bow to industry lobbying tactics and more inclined to push for the right policy result. The probing of the panelists to get beyond the rhetoric was actually quite ennobling and reassuring. It made me think our Republic had some capacity to search for the right result rather than force the best interest of the most powerful constituency. But I think this Hearing was more of teaser of what could be in a better parallel universe. The Judiciary Hearing seemed more like an experiment, a glimpse of what could be if industry lobbyists did not wield so much sway in Congress.

What is clear is that there is a brewing turf war between Commerce and Judiciary, and Judiciary made a strong case today for jurisdiction over issues implicating Net Neutrality. I suspect House leadership might have to weigh in at some point soon.

The Commerce Committee Mark-up will resume today (Wednesday morning). We expect some more wrangling over Net Neutrality, with a strong amendment to save and advance the Open Internet. We also expect a few amendments and discussion on E911 and disability access obligations for VoIP providers.

It is still not too late for us to play a positive role in the outcome.

This is still a marathon and we are still in the first few miles. A Bill may not even pass through the Senate this year, let alone reach conference. Which means we still have time to influence the debate, to win the hearts and minds of Congress and the public. I don't know all the tools we have to participate in the battle. We should probably hold another Internet Freedom Rally on the steps of the Capitol (I have already hosted two in prior years when the Internet was in jeopardy and I am willing and inspired to host another). We should also find the right way to channel the Internet with viral ads demonstrating what the Internet could be under the right policy framework ensuring Internet Freedom and Consumer Empowerment. I guess we have to stop dwelling on what we could do and just start doing. Once again, I ask you to spread the word and send us your viral video or other ads, and compete for cash and epic glory in our "Save the Net" contest.

Tags: Net Neutrality, Internet Freedom Rally, Save the Net, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 06:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (40)

Reminder: ONLY ONE MORE DAY to File Comments on our Post-Disaster Communications Petition

Special thanks to everyone who has taken the time to spread the word about the Post-Disaster Communications Petition that Tom Evslin and I filed at the FCC which is now out for "Public Comment." The Deadline is tomorrow, April 27th.

If you have not yet filed your own comments yet on the petition, PLEASE do so. The FCC has made the electronic comment filing procedure VERY simple. All you really need to do to weigh in is go to: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi, enter RM-11327 in the first line where it requests the "Proceeding" (this is the Petitions "RM" number), fill in the other minimal contact info requirements, and submit a brief statement.

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Katrina, Tom Evslin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 06:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (114)

April 25, 2006

Another Full Week in Congress:

At 2pm today, the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Telecom and Antitrust will hold an Oversight Hearing on "Network Neutrality: Competition, Innovation and Nondiscriminatory Access." I suspect that the Net Neutrality advocates will have a better audience within the Judiciary Committee than it has had in the Commerce Committee.

At 5pm, down the hall and around the corner (a few feet as the crow flies), the House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a full Committee Mark-up of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006, which passed overwhelmingly out of the Telecom Subcommittee a couple three weeks ago.

The Commerce Committee Mark-up will continue Wednesday morning and might run all day (if the Subcommittee Mark-up was any indication). We expect some more wrangling over Net Neutrality, with Mr. Markey offering another strong amendment to save and advance the Open Internet. We also expect a few amendments and discussion on E911 and disability access obligations for VoIP providers.

It looks like a little jurisdictional turf war might be building between the Commerce Committee and the Judiciary Committee. Particularly in light of a recent letter that the Chair of the FTC sent to Rep. Sensenbrenner, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, (asserting FTC jurisdiction over broadband Internet access services, particularly to the extent that broadband access services are no longer construed as "common carrier" services), it does look like the House Committees are vying for turf -- feeling out what their respective roles will be, as well as the respective roles of the FTC and FCC, in the communications future.

For now, our friends in DC have to put up with yet more of the old school ads between the cable companies and the Bells over who gets to provide people their video content. I am looking forward to seeing a few Internet generation ads that we might be able to lob at the Congress and the policymakers before their views and policies are etched in stone by Stone Age thinkers and Stone Age advocates. Again, let's show them all what the Internet could be, and let's start by showing them how we can harness the Internet and our collective genius to revolutionize marketing and advocacy. Send us your viral video or other ads, and compete for cash and glory in our "Save the Net" contest.

Tags: Net Neutrality, Save the Net, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 07:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (22)

April 24, 2006

Help Save OUR Internet! Take part in the "Save the Net" Contest

Since the launch of our Viral Market Contest to Save the Internet, I've been mapping the viral spread of the news of our contest around the Blogosphere, in the media and around the world. Special thanks to EVERYONE who is helping to make this the viral marketing contest that we had hoped this would become.

The contest itself is VERY open-ended. We did not pre-establish what people should say or what positions they should invoke in their ads/messages. This open-endedness is intentional. We did not want to limit anyone's creativity or compel them to adhere to any of our pre-conceived notions of the issues, the battle, the preferred approaches. We might be wrong in providing so little guidance, but we wanted to err on the side of allowing a wide array of perspectives. Who knows what some fresh blood and ideas could bring to the issue?

Together, perhaps, we might just reinvent the way marketing and advocacy can be done in the Internet Age. And, in the process, we might just show the World what the Internet could be (given the right policy framework) and win over the hearts and minds of government and the people.

Please help to continue to spread the news of the "Save the Net" contest and please encourage as many people as you can to participate in the contest. Please showcase your creative side and enter the contest on your own!

---

We need soundbites of our own, messaging of our own. We are
allegedly the revolutionaries of the Internet and communications. Shouldn't we
be the ones revolutionizing the way advocacy is done and communicated in the
21st Century? Shouldn't we be the creative forces verifying that the medium is
the message? Who better than us to harness the enabling power of the Internet
to bring our message to legislators, to policymakers, to the public? Let's
throw away the old rulebook and try to think outside the box to send a message
to Congress from the global community of Internet innovators and
enthusiasts.

We need to harness your individual genius and our collective genius (for isn't
it the collective power of the Internet that makes it so remarkable?) to save
the Internet, and we are willing to pay and give you eternal glory (or at least
glory for as long as the Internet lasts).

Send us short*, creative ideas -- videos and other Internet-based gimmicks --
that you think might effectively communicate to government that they must write
rules to enable us the Internet innovators to transform the Internet and
communications experience.

The prize and glory goes to whoever comes up with the message (viral video ad
or other creative marketing tool) that we use to spread the word and save the
Internet. In order to be eligible for the prize (and also to ensure maximum
impact during the great policy debate, both in DC and around the globe),
entries must be submitted by June 6, 2006. Please refer to the specific rules to enter.

The contest runs until: June 6, 2006. The battle to save OUR Internet is
underway!

*( Note: 30 Second and 60 Second spots are highly recommended for viewing
purposes)

---

Save the Net - Blog & Media Report: (As of April 24th 8AM EST)

April 24:

Om Malik: Save The Internet. Why? And For Whom?
Shelia Lennon: eBay Express opens; Neil Young album streams Friday; Da Vinci Code game; Save the Internet; Windows shortcuts; Books kids choose; Affordable Europe
iTnews.com.au: Net neutrality debate heats up
Alan Weinkrantz: IP Communications Pioneer, Jeff Pulver, Launches Viral Video “Save The Net” Marketing Contest

April 23:
Stewart Mader: time to blog about Net Neutrality
Andrew Raff: Save the Internet
Bernie Goldbach: Save the internet or exit now

April 22:
Mary Godwin: Net Neutrality
John Wilson: Save the Internet, viral campaign
Liz Strauss: How to Tell People Who Won't Be Told?
Pajamas Media: Save the Internet

April 21:
Doc Searls: Save now or lose
Russell Shaw: MoveOn.org's "net neutrality" petition is naive and silly: Pulver's Save the Internet initiative is not
Cynthia Brumfield: Groups Jostle to "Save the Internet"
Richard Stastny: So long and thanks for the fish
tingilinde: jeff pulver and saving the net
Alexandra O'Neal: 378th entry: Fight anti-Net Neutrality legislation
Sean-Paul Kelley: Net Neutrality Notes
Ken Yarmosh: Winds of the Web - 04/21/06
Daniel Davenport: Jeff Pulver: Save the Internet, Win $1,000
Internetweek: Net Neutrality: The Great Internet Divide

April 20:

David Weinberger: Save the Internet: The Contest!
Howard Rheingold: Can smartmob creativity help save the Internet?
Ken Camp: Contest to "Save the Internet"
VoIP You: The Battle for Neutrality Rages On
Geoffrey Mendelson: Save the Internet!
PhoneBoy: Save the Net
Mark Goldberg: Save the Internet
James Enck: Guerrillas in the mist
Stephen Baker: Save the Internet--and tell me why it's in danger
Erick Schonfeld: Save the Internet, Win $1,000
Richard Stastny: Save the Net
Jack Decker: Jeff Pulver starts viral marketing contest to save the Internet
JP Rangaswami: Unauthorised and un-paid-for advertising

April 19th:

Jon Arnold: Save the Internet - and Win Fabulous Prizes!
Paul Kapustka: Get creative -- Make your own 'Save the Net' Message
VoIPNuke: Jeff Pulver Call to ARMS==Save the NET!!!

Tags: Save the Net, Net Neutrality, Congress, Internet Marketing Contest, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 08:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Reminder: Only 3 Days Remain to File Comments on our Post-Disaster Communications Petition

Special thanks to everyone who has taken the time to spread the word about the Post-Disaster Communications Petition that Tom Evslin and I filed at the FCC which is now out for "Public Comment." The Deadline is April 27th.

If you have not yet filed your own comments yet on the petition, PLEASE do so. The FCC has made the electronic comment filing procedure VERY simple. All you really need to do to weigh in is go to: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi, enter RM-11327 in the first line where it requests the "Proceeding" (this is the Petitions "RM" number), fill in the other minimal contact info requirements, and submit a brief statement.

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Katrina, Tom Evslin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 07:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 22, 2006

Net Neutrality Debate: April 25th in Silicon Valley

Some of my friends in Silicon Valley are holding a "Net Neutrality Debate" on Tuesday April 25th and they asked me to help spread the word of their event. If you're local to Silicon Valley, you may want to send part of the evening of April 25th in Santa Clara and be an active part of the discussion.

---

INTERNET NEUTRALITY DEBATE | TUESDAY APRIL 25

TOD COHEN, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of Worldwide Government Relations, eBay
ALLEN HAMMOND, Program Director of Law and Public Policy, The Center for Science, Technology, and Society
MIGUEL HELFT, Editorial Writer, San Jose Mercury News (moderator)
JOHN SUMPTER, Vice President, Pac-West
Other panelists TBA

"The Internet has provided users with an open and interconnected forum -
free from control of content and services. But Internet neutrality has
become one of the most hotly debated issues in Congress, where the
outcome of pending government regulations could undoubtedly shape and
define the future of the Internet. E-commerce and networking industry
experts will discuss pending regulations and how customers and business
both large and small would be affected by such policies."

6:30 p.m., Check-in/Light reception | 7:00 p.m., Program | Recital Hall,
Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara | $9 for
Members, $15 for Non-members, free for Students (with valid ID; to
reserve student tickets call 415-597-6705)

To register visit: http://www.commonwealthclub.org/sv.html

Tags: Net Neutrality, Silicon Valley

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 09:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (15)

April 21, 2006

ZDNet / Russell Shaw: MoveOn.org's "net neutrality" petition is naive and silly: Pulver's Save the Internet initiative is not

ZDNet / Russell Shaw: MoveOn.org's "net neutrality" petition is naive and silly: Pulver's Save the Internet initiative is not

"...A far better strategy for net neutrality's backers would not involve preaching to believers, or to those who for whatever reason, refuse to believe.

If it is done right, a winning entry in Jeff Pulver's Viral Marketing Contest to Save the Internet could be so much more effectual. If crafted with the right petina, such a winning entry could actually change minds.

Which MoveOn.org's petition will not."

Tags: Save the Net, Net Neutrality, Congress, Internet Marketing Contest, Russell Shaw, Jeff Pulver>

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (51)

CBS News: In A Crisis, Will Your Phone Work?

Special thanks to CBS News for helping to inform the public about the Post-Disaster Communications Petition that Tom Evslin and I filed at the FCC which is now out for "Public Comment."

I especially appreciated seeing the information on how to file a comment on the petition included in the news article, in addition to quotes from both Tom Evslin and Jonathan Askin.

CBS News: In A Crisis, Will Your Phone Work?

If you have not yet filed your own comments yet on the petition, PLEASE do so. All you really need to do to weigh in is go to: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi, enter RM-11327 in the first line where it requests the "Proceeding" (this is the Petitions "RM" number), fill in the other minimal contact info requirements, and submit a brief statement.

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Katrina, Tom Evslin, Jonathan Askin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 07:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (63)

April 20, 2006

Reminder: Only 7 Days Remain to File Comments on our Post-Disaster Communications Petition

Special thanks to everyone who has taken the time to spread the word about the Post-Disaster Communications Petition that Tom Evslin and I filed at the FCC which is now out for "Public Comment."

If you have not yet filed your own comments yet on the petition, PLEASE do so. The FCC has made the electronic comment filing procedure VERY simple. All you really need to do to weigh in is go to: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi, enter RM-11327 in the first line where it requests the "Proceeding" (this is the Petitions "RM" number), fill in the other minimal contact info requirements, and submit a brief statement in support.

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Katrina, Tom Evslin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 07:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (148)

April 19, 2006

VIRAL MARKETING CONTEST TO SAVE THE INTERNET:

Ok, I am officially putting my money where my mouth is. I am initiating a Viral Video "Save the Net" Marketing Contest.

I am fed up with the current wave of soundbites, platitudes, ads and marketing flooding the airwaves that profess to speak for the advancement of the Internet and communications. These ads are influencing the U.S. Congress and governments around the World as they write the rules that will shape the future of the Internet and communications.

But, where is the voice and message of the Internet community -- the Internet innovators, entrepreneurs and enthusiasts -- in this world-changing discussion? We are primarily sitting out the battle, or perhaps comfortably blogging and Monday-morning quarterbacking on the sidelines. Sure, we'll be able to point to our blogs and do a big "I-told-you-so" if the rules ultimately prove to undermine the promise of the Internet. But, we will not be justified in our criticism if we don't at least try to affect a positive result.

Rules have to be written to enable us. If we do not participate in the debate, if we do not transform the messaging, the rules will not be written with our best interests at heart. And, frankly, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. We have to take over the messaging, both within the corridors of power and within the public zeitgeist.

We need soundbites of our own, messaging of our own. We are allegedly the revolutionaries of the Internet and communications. Shouldn't we be the ones revolutionizing the way advocacy is done and communicated in the 21st Century? Shouldn't we be the creative forces verifying that the medium is the message? Who better than us to harness the enabling power of the Internet to bring our message to legislators, to policymakers, to the public? Let's throw away the old rulebook and try to think outside the box to send a message to Congress from the global community of Internet innovators and enthusiasts.

We might not have the lobbying muscle, money, resources, or connections of the entrenched players in the communications debate, but we surely have the individual and collective will and creativity to transform the debate.

Here is my pitch:

We need to harness your individual genius and our collective genius (for isn't it the collective power of the Internet that makes it so remarkable?) to save the Internet, and we are willing to pay and give you eternal glory (or at least glory for as long as the Internet lasts).

Send us short, creative ideas -- videos, flash ads, other Internet-based gimmicks -- that you think might effectively communicate to government that they must write rules to enable us the Internet innovators to transform the Internet and communications experience.

I send out this call to arms to all you next-generation Internet-based Scorseses. I even send it out to all you potential Ed Woods of the Internet. (Who knows where genius will strike?)

The prize and glory goes to whoever comes up with the message (viral video ad or other creative marketing tool) that we use to spread the word and save the Internet. In order to be eligible for the prize (and also to ensure maximum impact during the great policy debate, both in DC and around the globe), entries must be submitted by June 6, 2006. Please refer to the Save the Net Contest Rules to enter.

The contest starts today and will run until June 6, 2006.

Let the battle to save the Internet begin!

Tags: Save the Net, Net Neutrality, Congress, Internet Marketing Contest, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 07:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (405)

April 18, 2006

Guest Blogger: Daniel Berninger - "Net neutrality means don't tread on the Internet!"

Companies selling Internet access argue for property rights as the basis for unwinding long standing net neutrality. However, the companies deriving revenues from Internet access do not own the Internet any more than a company making money from a port owns the ocean. No one entity public or private can own the Internet as in the case of an ocean. An Internet access provider does not assume ownership of the content of communication transiting its network any more than a port assumes ownership of packages loaded onto ships. The Internet access provider like a shipper can assess risks in the sense of whether a package contains liquids, perishables, or hazardous material, but customers reserve the right make decisions about the nature of transport. The telephone network implementation of network neutrality known as common carrier rules prevent AT&T from discriminating against particular users. They prevent Verizon from asking about the purpose of a call before connecting it.

Net neutrality prevents discrimination by limiting billing for transport to generic measures of performance and capacity rather than the nature of the user or usage. Neutrality allows for Internet enabled alternatives to monopolist voice and video providers that also happen to dominate Internet access, so the desire to end neutrality, even if it leads to the death of the Internet, comes as no surprise. Limits on business models pursued by Verizon or AT&T will get criticized as socialism, but government has never escaped the need to assert non-discrimination principles to facilitate commerce. The issues surrounding the present net neutrality debate have arisen with different labels since the Roman Empire. The desire to discriminate against particular users or usage as the means to defeat competition or other nefarious purpose arises in communication (telegraph, telephone, and Internet); transportation (railroads, highways, taxi cabs, and buses); and supporting facilities (hotels, restaurants, gas stations.)

The magnitude of alarm arises from the lack of market forces to discipline anti-customer activities of dominant providers of broadband in the US. A market has to exist for market forces to work. The idea of a telco taking kickbacks to distort Internet access experience would not present much of a problem if alternative suppliers existed. Changing Internet access providers in the US involves moving to a different state. Craig McCaw's wireless startup Clearwire implements a non-neutral policy in a financial arrangement that gives Bell Canada's VoIP offer special status while requiring that non-affiliated VoIP companies submit to certification. Ed Whitacre's AT&T announced a special Internet access offer for VoIP companies. The deal conveniently preserves the usage based access fees in exchange for some undefined quality of service benefit. AT&T's plans represent more of a problem than Clearwire's, because AT&T can enforce its certification demands.

Opposition to net neutrality arises to preserve market power in the $300bn voice market not the pursuit of "investment incentives" necessary to improve US broadband penetration rates. AT&T and Verizon claim to need new sources of revenue to fund the "billions and billions" it costs to expand their access networks, but the poor performance of the US broadband ranking traces to the expense of broadband offers not availability. Broadband penetration rankings reflect the cost of broadband around the world. AT&T et al already extract more revenue per bit than carriers in other countries. The proposal of a new revenue stream from advertisers or Google et al will decrease not increase penetration rates. Pew Internet & American Life polls show annual growth in percentage of people with access to the Internet (broadband and dial-up) in the US has already nearly stopped. Ending net neutrality will only reduce the number of people interested in access to the Internet.

Proposals do not even clearly yield a net increase in revenues as implementing a non-neutral policy makes networks less valuable to end users at the same time it makes them more expensive to build and operate. The loss of net neutrality means the Bells would likely end up paying for some content as the price of getting paid for distribution of other content. Neutrality works in both directions. It prevents content and application companies from using their market power. The absence of common carrier status means the cable companies pay for content as Verizon already discovered in a video deal with CBS. Costs go up with the complexity of tying revenue to usage and users to the point where implementation of billing could easily cost more than the underlying service. Loss of net neutrality means the loss of the inherent liability protection. Carriers can not be held liable for illegal uses of their networks to the extent they don't control use or user. The loss of net neutrality in access will trigger expensive re-negotiation with uncertain outcome of all the network interconnect agreements associated with the "inter" in Internet.

The requirement of accepting all users and all uses on non-discriminatory terms does not foreclose offering different quality of service tiers or non-neutral policies in the name of network management. Quality of service tiers already exist in terms of reliability, performance, and bandwidth, although quality of service guarantees through bandwidth reservation remain a function of private networks. The complexity of business and technical implementations and inherent inefficiencies in bandwidth utilization not net neutrality prevent the extension of quality of service guarantees between networks. Network access providers limit distribution or charge extra for IP addresses, block port 25 use for outbound SMTP, assert narrow Acceptable Use Policies, and consider heavy usage cause for termination. The policies do not violate net neutrality where there exists a plausible linkage to network risks. Net neutrality means users get to choose level of service. In other words, Verizon can't force one group or another sit at the back of the bus if Google or Amazon refuse to pay a protection fee.

The track record of communication policy apparatus in serving corporate interests over the public interest underlies a sadly compelling argument against making net neutrality rules enforceable. Ironically, government facilitated the accumulation of Bell company market power by granting risk free funding of infrastructure through exclusive monopoly, priceless unconstrained access to public rights-of-way, as well as, no cost spectrum to launch wireless divisions in the 80's. Consider the speed of Congressional action when Verizon and AT&T say they need national video franchise rights. Consider the fact that Verizon quickly turns to FCC when it finds cable companies pursue non-neutral advertising policies. The Bells point to the failure of communication policy as rationale for yet more concessions rather than admiting a connection to twenty years of incremental regulatory relief. The alignment of government with the monopoly Bells drives up the cost of broadband in the US and slows economic growth no less than the much discussed high cost of energy.

The survival of net neutrality depends on the undemonstrated ability of citizens to get engaged in communication policy developments. The long legal history of common carriage provisions in communications provides a framework to push back in the courts. Entrepreneurs will do their part by creating businesses that probe every weakness in the Bellco defenses. The relative expense of broadband continues to throttle growth of the info tech industry, but info tech appears divided between defending the Internet and reluctance to challenge powerful anti-Internet forces. A letter pushing for strong enforcement of net neutrality sent to Commerce Committee Chairman Barton by the CEO's of Amazon, Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, and eBay keeps hope alive. Its seems at least possible average citizens will mobilize like they have in the past when essential freedoms come under threat and rally around a flag that reads "Don't tread on the Internet!"

Daniel Berninger, VP and Senior Analyst, Tier1 Research

Daniel Berninger joined Tier1 Research in August 2004 as Senior Analyst covering telecom. Daniel has over a decade of experience that includes helping to launch three prominent VoIP startups - ITXC, Vonage, and Free World Dialup. His expertise on the intersection of telecom and the Internet has been sought by Congress, FCC, Federal Reserve, and state PSCs. Daniel led early VoIP deployments at Verizon, HP, and NASA for VocalTec Communications. He won the 1999 VON Pioneer Award for co-founding the VON Coalition and worked on the original assessment of VoIP at Bell Laboratories. He completed doctoral studies in preparation for a Ph.D. in System Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania.

Tags: Net Neutrality, Daniel Berninger

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 07:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (85)

April 15, 2006

Updated Roundup of Bloggers who are Spreading the World on our Post-Disaster Communications Petition at the FCC:

Special thanks to everyone who has taken the time to spread the word about the Post-Disaster Communications Petition that Tom Evslin and I filed at the FCC which is now out for "Public Comment." If you haven't done so yet, please submit your COMMENTS on the Petition.

If you have a blog, PLEASE post a blog entry about the petition, and drop me a line so I can add your name to the growing list of bloggers below.

I can only hope that this positive momentum can carry forward into the week ahead as there are only 12 more days to file comments (deadline is April 27th), and we need our message to reach as large an audience as possible.

Special thanks to the following people for sharing the message:

- Om Malik: PSTN versus VoIP
- Cynthia Brumfield: Post-Disaster Communications Petition Needs Support
- Jack Decker: Tom Evslin's and Jeff Pulver's Post-Disaster Communications Petition
- PhoneBoy: A sane approach for post-disaster communications
- Owen Linderholm: Comment Period Opens for Public Input To the FCC for Disaster Communications
- Irwin Lazar: The Jeff Pulver Blog: SOS to the Blogosphere: Please Comment and Spread the Word on our Post-Disaster Communications Petition at the FCC
- Russell Shaw: Pulver's Post-Disaster Communications Petition now in FCC public Comments period
- Luca Filigheddu: Jeff's SOS on FCC petition
- Aswath Rao: Post-Disaster Communications Petition
- Paul Kapustka: Concerned about this year's hurricanes? Add your voice to the Pulver/Evslin petition
- Ted Shelton: Comment and Spread the Word on Post-Disaster Communications Petition at the FCC
- Jeff Jarvis: Recovery 2.0: The phone solution
- Andy Abramson: Comments Due From You
- Ken Camp: Public Comment the Post-Disaster Communications Petition
- Signal Quality: Petition to the FCC
- Alan Weinkrantz: Your Opportunity to Comment on Post Disaster Communicaitons Petition
- Geoff Mendelson: Write to the (US) Federal Communications Commission
- utopiaoverip: Post-Disaster Communications Petition at the FCC needs your input!
- Bruce Stewart: Comments Open on Post-Disaster Communications Petition
- VoIP You: Hello? Hello? -- Preparing the Nation's Phone Service for the Next Hurricane Season

Podcasts:

- Tom Evslin: Tom Evslin - Better Communication in Disasters – One Step Closer
- Andy Abramson: podcast from KenRadio

Again, If you have not yet filed your own comments on the petition, PLEASE do so. The FCC has made the electronic comment filing procedure VERY simple. All you really need to do to weigh in is go to: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi, enter RM-11327 in the first line where it requests the "Proceeding" (this is the Petitions "RM" number), fill in the other minimal contact info requirements, and submit a brief statement in support.

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Katrina, Tom Evslin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 08:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (148)

April 14, 2006

SOS Heard: Thanks for Continuing to spread the word about our Post-Disaster Communications Petition at the FCC

Special thanks to the following people who in the past day have helped spread the world about our Post-Disaster Communications Petition at the FCC:

- Luca Filigheddu: Jeff's SOS on FCC petition
- Aswath Rao: Post-Disaster Communications Petition
- Paul Kapustka: Concerned about this year's hurricanes? Add your voice to the Pulver/Evslin petition
- Ted Shelton: Comment and Spread the Word on Post-Disaster Communications Petition at the FCC
- Jeff Jarvis: Recovery 2.0: The phone solution
- Andy Abramson: Comments Due From You
- Ken Camp: Public Comment the Post-Disaster Communications Petition
- Signal Quality: Petition to the FCC
- SAtechBlog: Your Opportunity to Comment on Post Disaster Communicaitons Petition
- Geoff Mendelson: Write to the (US) Federal Communications Commission
- utopiaoverip: Post-Disaster Communications Petition at the FCC needs your input!
- Russell Shaw: Pulver's Post-Disaster Communications Petition now in FCC public Comments period

If you have not yet filed your own comments on the petition, please do so. The FCC has made the electronic comment filing procedure VERY simple. All you really need to do to weigh in is go to: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi, enter RM-11327 in the first line where it requests the "Proceeding" (this is the Petitions "RM" number), fill in the other minimal contact info requirements, and submit a brief statement in support.

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Katrina, Tom Evslin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 09:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (183)

April 13, 2006

SOS to the Blogosphere: Please Comment and Spread the Word on our Post-Disaster Communications Petition at the FCC

On Monday the FCC put out for public comment the Post-Disaster Communications Petition that Tom Evslin and I filed back in March. While there was some “blogosphere buzz” around the initial filing of the petition, now that it is out for public comment, we need to engage the public to comment on the petition.

So if you agree with the simple request in the Petition, I ask URGE you to participate in the Comment cycle and spread the world amongst others that might care.

Comments are due by: April 27, 2006 so the window is short for both spreading the word and for submitting comments.

The FCC has made the electronic comment filing procedure VERY simple. All you really need to do to weigh in is go to: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi, enter RM-11327 in the first line where it requests the "Proceeding" (this is the Petitions "RM" number), fill in the other minimal contact info requirements, and submit a brief statement in support.

If you are a blogger and if you would also like to see something positive put in place before the next public disaster, so that refugees and other victims who have lost access to their phone number and traditional mode of communication are assured a communications life-line, PLEASE spread the word of this petition, and take a moment and submit your own comments.

Special thanks to: Bruce Stewart and VoIP You for already blogging about this. I can only hope that more people take a moment and add themselves to this list.

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Katrina, Tom Evslin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 08:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

April 11, 2006

Guest Blogger: Jonathan Tregear - Implications of the Net Neutrality Debate that aren't Being Considered

Thanks Jeff for giving me the opportunity to provide a perspective of the network neutrality debate that to my knowledge hasn't been considered. While there has been much debate about the desire by telecommunications and cable network service providers to charge Internet communications and media service providers differentially to access "enhanced" network services, the debate has been narrowly focused on large Internet media service providers and as long as the debate has been framed in this context it's been an us vs. them debate between large corporations (and their lobbyists) and it's difficult to feel too sorry for either group. However, Internet media technologies have broadly expanded the definition of who can be a communications and media service provider and this "democratization" means that not only are the Googles and Yahoos of the world media service providers, but also universities; health care institutions; libraries; and federal, state, and local government are also potential (or actual) Internet media service providers.

For example, the University of New Mexico (where I work as an analyst for communications and collaboration technologies at the Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center) currently provides Internet based media services using the identical media technologies and providing similar media services that the telecommunications and cable network service providers would like to charge extra for. We are also using IP videoconferencing and voice over IP services that the network providers would also like to charge extra for. We use these technologies to do things like support distance education between faculty and rural students, support academic research collaboration between UNM and researchers worldwide, and to support remote telemedicine services to rural patients throughout New Mexico. So, the University of New Mexico is a media service provider.

All of these services would benefit greatly from "enhanced" network services. Will we and all of the other public institutions that need these services begin to receive additional bills from the network service providers for "enhanced" network services? Eventually, will our students and patients begin to receive additional charges on their broadband access bills for "enhanced" educational or "enhanced" health care services especially in the case of services like videoconferencing where they also will be media service providers?

As another example, I note that the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology delivers its hearings live and on-demand from its website. So the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee is a media service provider. Internet delivery of those hearings would also benefit from "enhanced" network services in the ability to stream larger and clearer versions with improved audio. Will the Senate Commerce Committee start receiving a bill for "enhanced" network services from the network service providers?

Until now the debate has proceeded as if institutions like universities and other public institutions don't have a dog in this fight. Well, we all do. The federal government, through media services provided by committees like the Senate Commerce Committee and through other sites like NASA, is a media service provider. Not just Google. The Senate Commerce committee should ask its internet service provider how much they pay for the bandwidth to stream committee hearings now. They should also ask the telecommunications and cable network service providers how much they will have to pay in addition to this for access to "enhanced" network services.

The likely response from the telecommunications and cable network service providers is that we are small providers and they have no intention of blocking our Internet access. That is not the same thing as gaining access to "enhanced" network services that they will provide for a fee to preferred providers or for their own services. I also note that recent statements by telecommunications and cable network service providers carefully frame their commitment to continued unfettered access to the Internet as the ability to go to any site on the Internet. Well, the Internet isn't just about surfing websites anymore. Those statements say nothing about unrestricted access to Internet based communications and media services, especially those services that are likely to compete with services network providers intend to provide themselves.

As long as public institutions and their constituents are willing to settle for marginal video and substandard audio everything will be fine in their view and given the current status of the debate that might be the best case scenario. Speaking for myself, that's not good enough. I work with physician's who would benefit greatly from the availability of high quality video conferencing services that would allow them to examine and consult with patients. I also work with faculty who up until now have had no way to conduct a group voice conversation (not to mention a video conference) with rural students or collaborate with colleagues in foreign countries other than by paying prohibitive voice conferencing or international calling charges.

From my understanding of the current status of the debate, access to enhanced network services for public institutions and their constituents is now about to disappear in the name of not "interfering" with the Internet. Access to "enhanced" network service will be limited to those able to pay right of carriage fees that are beyond the capacity to pay for either public institutions or especially their constituents. If that is the case, these innovative educational, health care, and public media services will probably just disappear. A democratization of access was and is the promise of the Internet and that is about to be replaced by a closed network that, while it will use Internet networking technologies, won't be the Internet at all.

Tags: Net Neutrality, Jonathan Tregear

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 06:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (42)

April 07, 2006

Spring 2006 VON Video Spotlight: Dick Notebaert

Dick Notebaert on Net neutrality. "I don't think we ought to be blocking anything," said Qwest's Dick Notebaert speaking at Spring 2006 VON, "what net neutrality means is there is no impediment to anybody's ability to use the net."

Note: the speech was referred to in the following online articles - eWeek, Telephony (1, 2)

Tags: qwest, Dick Notebaert, net neutrality, von, voip

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 07:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

April 06, 2006

Looking for a few friends at the FCC...

Back on March 13th, Tom Evslin and I filed a petition at the FCC on Post-Disaster Communications. It is now April 6th and there is no visible sign that this is going to be sent out for public comment in time for the 2006 Hurricane Season. I hope I'm wrong about this.

My hope is that there are a few good people at the FCC who care enough about the people and can look beyond any politics and reach out and help those who will be affected by the 2006 Hurricane Season and beyond to push this Petition forward and out for public comment so that we can move the dialog along.

To my friends who read this blog and have some sway at the FCC: If you think our Petition has merit, it would be helpful if you could let the FCC know your feelings as soon as possible.

I also know that the FCC reads my blog. I just hope that someone who reads can also take action. Only time will tell. And that time for action is now. Today. We cannot wait until the next hurricane season is upon us.

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, Tom Evslin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 10:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (37)

April 05, 2006

Update from House Telecom Subcommittee: Today's VoIP Amendment Results

After an 8 hour markup today, here is a summary of the VoIP related amendments offered and adopted in the House Telecom Subcommittee:

- Markey net neutrality -- amendment failed 8 to 23

- Stearns - Exclusive federal jurisdiction for VoIP - with new VoIP obligations. This is an amended version of HR 214. It includes exclusive federal jurisdiction for VoIP, but then requires the FCC to develop rules to apply new obligations on VoIP providers including E911, disability access, USF, access charges, etc. Amendment was offered and withdrawn

- Gordon/Shimkus/Eshoo - E911 - VoIP 911 amendment accepted by voice vote without any dissent.

- Stearns - VoIP Alarm monitoring services amendment - requires VoIP companies to notify an alarm company when the service is switched from PSTN to VoIP. Upton said he would like to see an amendment along these lines adopted, but wants to work it through in full committee. Engel said it should also apply to services like "I've fallen and I can't get up." Towns also spoke in favor of it. Barton said defer until full committee. The amendment was withdrawn.

- Stupak -- Requiring VoIP to contribute to universal service and access charges. Upton asked him to withdraw the amendment because USF is not addressed in this bill. Amendment withdrawn.

- Pickering - VoIP provider rights and obligations. Pickering will continue to work on it going into full committee. Markey says he wants to protect special access tariffs at full committee. Adopted by acclamation.

- Inslee/Engel - VoIP Disability access. Applies sections 225, 255, and 710 of the telecom act to VoIP services and hardware that are meant to substitute for replacement services. Barton said there is a real difference between the 100 year old phone network, and VoIP. Barton doesn't want to reinvent regulation for a good cause. Adopted.

- Boucher - Naked DSL. Boucher amendment would allow consumers to purchase DSL without also having to purchase voice service. Adopted

Tags: voip, House Telecom Subcommittee, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 06:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (24)

We – the Internet Communications Community -- Need a Crash Course in Lobbying 101

Freedom-to-Connect, by almost every account, was big success. Lots of interesting people, lots of great ideas, lots of energy. We had about 250 attendees at F2C, and I thought we had inspired at least a few to take the trek down to Capitol Hill for the Mark-up of the COPE Bill. Heck, F2C could not have occurred at a more opportune moment. F2C ended at 4:45 pm last night, and Opening Statement began in the House on the COPE Bill at 5 pm. The Mark-up, itself, began in earnest, at 10 am this morning. We are already in DC talking about these very issues, and lamenting the lack of understanding and the absurd policy paths down which Congress might lead us.

We have to make sure that Congress knows that we care and that will be a force with which to be reckoned in the debate.

So, where are the Internet innovators, entrepreneurs and enthusiasts? As the COPE Bill and/or other bills that will affect the future of the Internet and communications move through Congress, I hope we become more vocal, that we harness our collective passion, creativity and expertise to work with Congress to advance communications and the Internet, for users and innovators, and not just for the traditional entrenched interests. Perhaps a first step would be to join the VON Coalition, which has clearly emerged as the leading voice in Washington for the Internet communications industry.

Jonathan Askin is sitting in the House today witnessing the spectacle of the House Mark-up on the COPE. Most of this is a rehash of the existing battle between Bells and cables, but, I warn you, they are dragging us into the political and regulatory quagmire (under the guise that they speak for the Internet communications revolution). Most of the debate is revolving around the tired debate over the nature and regulatory structure for IP-TV. Ho-hum. This, to me, is a silly battle between cable delivered video and Bell-delivered video without any recognition of the digital revolution occurring around these dinosaurs. The Bells want quick relief to replicate the lame cable broadcast delivery model. The debaters are largely oblivious to the fact that cable and Bell are dinosaurs and that Congress should, rather, be enabling disruptive, internet-delivered applications, be it voice, video, what have you.

Having said that, much of what is going on in the House today WILL affect the future of Internet communications, both indirectly and directly. There are net neutrality amendments, emergency response amendments affecting VoIP, and at least one amendment intended to impose legacy access charges and universal service obligations on VoIP. Please check out the House Energy and Commerce Committee Website so that you can stay engaged.

Amendments are flying fast and loose today in the House, and many of these amendments could do grave harm or great benefit to the future of Internet communications. We have to be seen and heard, and let Congress know that we are participating in the debate.

On another note, we need to learn from the Bells and cablecos and other entrenched interests within the Beltway how to play politics. I know many of us are great innovators, perhaps geniuses, but we are largely ignorant in the ways of Washington.

I found it kind of charming and refreshing that our community does not pull punches. At F2C, we had a community chat board running in real time on a large screen behind the speakers. Quite often, biting comments appeared on screen. At other times, audience members could not contain themselves and shouted comments at the speakers. Now, we made great efforts to invite strong allies and guides from Congress and the policy arena to teach us how to work better to affect positive change in government policy. It is not easy to get not one, but two, former FCC Chairmen to address an audience at a single event. It is not easy to get a current Comm’r bound for the airport to take a detour to give us guidance on how to advocate on behalf of the Internet communications community. It was not easy to get a Congressman, leading the discussion within the House on Internet and communications policy reform, and four Hill staffers to take time away from their Hill duties (particularly during this most pivotal week in the history of Internet and communications policy reform). My gratitude to these noble public servants cannot be overstated. For this reason, I was a bit surprised to hear that we did not hold back on these allies from the ranks of government. I understand that our guests from government took it all in stride and even admired our passion, but I would not want to discourage them from engaging us and championing our cause and advancing the best interests of the Internet and its users and innovators. I go to a lot of conferences, and everyone is always reverential to the government officials (perhaps overly reverential). I do not, in any way want to censor our community, but we might want to figure out a more positive way to engage government, particularly our allies and champions within government.

I know we did not ask to be legislated or regulated, but others have decided to drag our businesses and hobbies into their political fight. Like it or not, we have to participate, and we have to participate on their turf. As such, we have to learn the rules of engagement as written by our analog precursors.

We also need to figure out how to hone our message. While cable and Bell are not very innovative in the delivery of compelling technologies, services and applications, they are geniuses in marketing. Their messages are clear, simple and resonate. We are too clever and varied for our own good. No one knows what our message is. I ask any marketing geniuses out there to help us hone our message – a clear message that lets Congress and the public see what could be if we are allowed to innovate under the right policy framework.

Finally, I have to think that with our collective genius and ability to harness the Internet, we should be able to bring new ideas and processes to the debate.

I was tempted not to let anyone leave the F2C meeting room until we came up with a game plan that would allow us to send a contagious, brilliant, but clear message to Congress and policymakers about how and why and what they must do to enable us to fulfill the promise of the Internet communications revolution.

I welcome any creative ideas you might have. We have hundreds of thousands of innovators and entrepreneurs and hundreds of millions of Internet users and enthusiasts. Between us, we should be able to transform the debate.

Again, I welcome your thoughts.

Tags: Net Neutrality, F2C, voip

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (113)

F2C Video Spotlight: Michael Powell, Former FCC Chairman

Michael Powell @F2C

Former FCC Chair Michael Powell speaking at Freedom to Connect said whenever he sees a big debate in Washington he asks friends and neighbors about it and net neutrality is not an issue familiar to the public. He challenged F2C participants to educate lawmakers and the public about the net neutrality issues. but worned that it's a mistake to expect "surgically crafted" legislation to keep the net open.

Michael Powell - Post F2C Speech Interview

Former FCC Chair Michael Poewll after his talk at Freedom 2 Connect where Electronic Frontier Foundation's Brad Templeton challenged Powell's assertion that it's up to activists to put net neutrality front and center for the public.

Tags: F2C, FCC, Michael Powell

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 06:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (20)

F2C Video Spotlight: Reed Hundt, Former FCC Chairman

Reed Hundt

Former FCC Chair Reed Hundt speaking at the Freedom to Connect Conference called for what he termed a "public thoroughfare" serving everyone in the U.S. with broadband.

Tags: F2C, Reed Hundt

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 06:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)

April 04, 2006

Images from Freedom to Connect (F2C) Day 1:

Tags: F2C

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 10:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)

April 03, 2006

Day 1 of F2C: Internet Innovators, Entrepreneurs and Enthusiasts Invade the Beltway

The pulver crew did some divide and conquer in North America today.

While most of the pulver crew engaged the Internet communications industry North of the Border at VON-Canada, Jonathan Askin co-hosted Day 1 of F2C: Freedom-to-Connect, an event designed to bring leading Internet thought-leaders and innovators to the Beltway to formulate ideas to help shape the legislative and regulatory policy debate currently waging in America, a debate that will likely affect the nature and future of the Internet for decades to come. Our attitude is that, if we do not engage legislators and regulators NOW, the rules will be written by those who do not necessary know or have the best interests of the would-be Internet innovators, entrepreneurs, and enthusiasts at heart.

Coming on the heels of the this week’s Congressional Hearings, Mark-ups, and release of new legislation, and just prior to mark-up of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act (“COPE”) Bill in the House, F2C proved to be more relevant and essential than ever, if we are to play a positive role in developing the best policy framework to govern the future of the Internet and communications.

F2C was apparently a great event by all accounts. It attracted a pretty remarkable assemblage of speakers and attendees. From FCC Comm’r Michael Copps' inspiring kick off of F2C to former FCC Chairman Michael Powell’s “fireside chat” with the F2C community, the attendees heard compelling insights from, perhaps, the decade’s two leading policymakers from both sides of the isle. From Prof. Tim Wu’s conception of the right regulatory structure to advance the Internet to Jim Crowe’s words of wisdom at the evening reception, the participants got a good cross-section of views from one of the emerging academic stars of tech policy and from the pioneer of communications competition. From key Hill staffers fighting over potential Communications Act rewrites to a slew of innovators, entrepreneurs and academics trying to make sense of the emerging policy trajectory, participants got a good glimpse of where the discussion will go over the next year. All in, F2C include an eclectic mix of innovators and thought-leaders interspersed throughout the day, and truly delved deeply into the subtle issues surrounding the evolution and future of Internet and communications policy.

The speaker line-up for Day 1 of F2C included the following:

• FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps
• Blair Levin, Managing Director, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated
• David Isenberg, Principal, Isen.com
• Tim Wu, Professor, Coumbia Law School
• Martin Geddes, Director, Telepocalypse
• Jeff Chester, Center for Digital Democracy
• Michael Calabrese, Vice President, New America Foundation
• Cynthia De Lorenzi, CEO, Patriot.net
• Dewayne Hendricks, CEO, Dandin Group
• Bruce Kushnick, Chairman, Teletruth
• Rick Ringel, Dir. of Engineering, Media Applications Grp., Inter-Tel
• Brad Templeton, Chairman, Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Brad Wurtz, President and CEO, Caspian Networks
• James Assey, Minority Counsel, Senate Commerce Committee
• Drew Clark, Senior Writer, National Journal
• Josh Lamel, Legislative Counsel, Office of Senator Ron Wyden
• Dana Lichtenberg, Legislative Asst., Office of Congressman Bart Gordon, U.S. House of Representatives
• Mike O'Rielly, Legislative Assistant to Sen. John Sununu (R-NH)
• Jonathan Askin, General Counsel, pulver.com
• Tom Evslin, President, Evslin Consulting
• Jim Kohlenberger, Executive Director, The VON Coalition
• Clegg Ivey, Vice President: Business Operations & Strategy, Voxeo Corporation
• Doc Searls, Senior Editor, Linux Journal
• David Weinberger, Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
• Jonathan Krim, Director of Strategic Initiatives, WashingtonPost.com
• Chairman Michael Powell, Former FCC Chairman
• James Q. Crowe, President & CEO, Level 3 Communications

Tomorrow, Rep. Rick Rick Boucher, who demonstrated last week that he will do what he can in Congress to advance the promise of the Internet, will kick-off the Summit before heading back to Congress to prepare for the House Mark-up of the COPE Bill, to begin at the end of the day. And, towards the end of Day 2, former FCC Chairman, Reed Hundt, will share his insights and lessons learned.

Tuesday’s line-up promises another exciting day with leading thought leaders including:

• Dave Hughes, CEO, OldColo.com
• Rick Boucher, Congressman, Democrat, Virginia
• Ed Felten, Professor of Computer Science and Public Affairs, Princeton University
• Jim Baller, Senior Principal, Baller Herbst Law Group
• Om Malik, Senior Writer, Business 2.0.
• Ron Sege, CEO, Tropos
• James Salter, CEO, Atlantic Engineering Group
• Esme Vos, Founder, Muniwireless.com
• Raymond Gifford, President, PFF
• Jeff Jarvis, Creative Director, Advance.net
• Gigi Sohn, President, Public Knowledge
• Reed Hundt, Principal, Charles Ross Partners
• Mark Cooper, Research Director, Consumer Federation of America
• Christopher Sacca, Principal, Business Development, Google

It is pretty clear that F2C could not have come at a more opportune moment. The House and Senate Hearings and Mark-ups this week and last verify that the Internet innovators, entrepreneurs and enthusiasts need to become a much more vocal force in the DC policy debate. With all the industry witnesses in Congress last week, it was remarkable that virtually no one spoke directly on behalf of the would-be Internet innovators and insatiable users. This was disturbing. As the House Energy and Commerce Committee marks-up the COPE Bill this week, we thought it was essential to harness the collective wisdom and energy of the Internet community. F2C seemed to work as a step in that direction. There is no doubt that we, as a community, need to redouble our efforts to ensure that the voice of the would-be Internet innovators, entrepreneurs and enthusiasts are truly heard and considered.

Now is the time for us -- those driving the communications and Internet revolution -- to participate in the dialogue within the Beltway. We cannot leave it to the powerful business interests (even those that currently have many overlapping concerns with us, but are ultimately motivated by their own bottom line). If we do not participate, the rules will be written by those who neither know our concerns nor have our best interests at heart.

After Day 2 of F2C, I suspect many participants will take what we’ve discussed to the halls of Congress. In particular, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will hear opening statements from Committee Members on the COPE at 5 pm on Tuesday, April 4, and continue with the COPE Bill mark-up on Wednesday, April 5. I trust a lot of F2C participants will make sure they are seen and heard in the corridors of Congress this week and as the debate continues during the weeks and months ahead. I feel the momentum building.

Again, we have to make sure that Congress hears our voices as it rewrites the rules that will shape the future of the Internet and communications. We have to become a force with which to be reckoned. To the extent that F2C has helped the Internet innovators to hone their voice and message, I think we are moving in the right direction. Let’s hope we are not too late.

***

And, the final lesson we reaffirmed today in our efforts in Toronto and DC? -- We still cannot replace the value of face-to-face meetings. The road to the virtual world is paved with A LOT of physical travel.

Tags: F2C

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 11:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

F2C, Day 1: Various blog posts from around the Blogosphere

Brough Turner:
- F2C - First Impressions
- F2C Continues
- The Internet Backbone is Different

Paul Kapustka:
- Michael Powell at F2C: Congress Isn't Tech-Savvy
- Martin Geddes at F2C

Cynthia Brumfield:
- Michael Powell: We Need That Third Pipe
- Congressional Staffers: We're Stuck with the FCC
- Preaching to the Converted at F2C

Steve Smith: Links from f2c

Martin Geddes: OPINION://F2C: Network neutrality speech

Erick Schonfeld: FCC's Copps Says We Must Protect Network Neutrality

Tags: F2C, Brough Turner, Steve Smith, Martin Geddes, Cynthia Brumfield, Erick+Schonfeld

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 09:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)

pulvermedia Split Squad Action this Week: Freedom to Connect and Voice on the Net Canada

This week the pulvermedia team will be playing in a "split squad" mode with Jonathan Asking leading a team to support Freedom to Connect (F2C) taking place today and tomorrow near Washington, D.C. while I just arrived in Toronto from Tel Aviv to support our efforts at Voice on the Net Canada taking place today thru Wednesday.

Tags: f2c, voip, VON Canada, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 08:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (11)

March 30, 2006

An Awfully Full Day of Discussion on Internet and Communications Policy in Congress:

(as reported to me by our man in Washington – my “Wartime Consigliere”, Jonathan Askin)

First of all, we would be remiss if we did not draw attention to yesterday’s House Energy and Commerce Committee Hearing on “Digital Content and Enabling Technology: Satisfying the 21st Century Consumer.” The panel included Blake Krikorian (Sling Media), John Feehery (MPAA), Jim Denney (TiVo), Stevan Mitchell (Entertainment Software Association). Blake was particularly great -- forthright, reasonable, enthusiastic, comfortable. The House members present were, generally, not especially favorably predisposed to innovative digital technology and revealed some sympathies to those that would restrict content distribution/redistribution. I don't know how Blake could have done anything more, or differently, to win over the Committee Members. I thought the transformative ideas that Blake, in particular, was trying to convey fell on deaf ears.

I wish there could have been more members, more staff, and more media present to hear Blake’s passion and vision of the digital future. To me, this was a much more compelling discussion on the future of the Internet and communications (and highlighted where the current laws fall short of enabling transformative technologies, products and services), then the same old tired discussions that the House and Senate considered today – rehashing the old battles of the last millennium between cable and Bell, between ILEC and CLEC, between one powerful special interest and another. Blake tried to show Congress what the future could look like, with the right policy framework. Standing room only to hear what the hired guns of the cable companies and Bell companies and the legacy trade associations have to say about how the future could look? Uh, thanks, but no thanks. Virtually no attendance for Blake’s vision? I’ll take Blake’s vision of the future any day. It is a shame that his hearing did not draw the overflow crowd.

***

Back to the present …

There were two hearings and a mark-up today in Congress, covering various aspects of Internet and Communications policy.

House Hearing:

The House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act (“COPE”) of 2006 (aka "Son of a BITS III" or "Grandson of a BITS"), which generally frees the Bells of video franchising obligations but also includes some additional provision of import to Internet communications providers (most notably tepid “Net Neutrality” punting to the FCC,). (See my blog from March 27, for our initial views on the implications of the COPE Bill on IP-based communications).

There was a lot of partisan rhetoric strewn around during the ALL DAY House Committee Hearing and some 12-14 witnesses spouting platitudes without much delving into the serious and subtle nuances of the discussion.

Mr. Markey gave a wonderful opening statement championing Net Neutrality. He also pelted the witnesses throughout the day with brilliant, and pointed, questions, underscoring the need for a policy framework to protect the embryonic, and yet-to-be-conceived, Internet applications, products, technologies and services. It is great to see him in action fighting for competition and the open Internet. For those of you familiar with Dr. Seuss (and our recently-revealed fondness for the late Doctor), I would have to single out Mr. Markey as “The Lorax” of the largely-voiceless, undoubtedly under-represented, would-be Internet innovators and enthusiasts.

Mr. Boucher also stood out as a champion in support of maintaining the integrity and potential of the open Internet. I am honored that Mr. Boucher will be speaking at our Freedom-to-Connect conference in Silver Spring next week. www.pulver.com/f2c

Jersey’s native son, Rep. Pallone, touched on the needs of the Internet communications community in ensuring a better emergency response capability. It was good to hear at least one of the members touch on the emergency response issue in what seemed to be a positive manner, rather than just spouting rhetoric about the need for VoIP providers to provide backward-compatible, cookie-cutter E-911 capabilities.

Mr. Pickering, needless to say, was great (although less vocal than I would have expected). I assume he did the best he could under the circumstances to incorporate as much pro-Internet, pro-competition language within the COPE Bill. Mr. Pickering was one of the co-sponsors (and clearly the most pro-competitive, pro-Internet sponsor) of the Bill. I think his efforts fell short (at least on the Net Neutrality and E-911 for VoIP front), but I know he gave it his best effort and pushed the other sponsors as far as he could. I am grateful that he is in there trying to champion the cause. Without his efforts, the Bill would have likely been much worse from an Internet innovator’s, entrepreneur’s and user’s perspective.

***

Senate Activity:

Concurrent with the House Hearing on COPE, the Senate Commerce Committee held a Committee mark-up on S. 2389, the Protecting Consumer Phone Records Act. The Mark-up occurred simultaneously with the House Hearing. Given the overflow crowd on the House side, I am not sure who made it over to the Senate for the Mark-up. (I posted a blog on the result of the Senate Mark-up earlier today)

At 3:15 pm, the Senate Commerce Committee held a Committee hearing on Competition and Convergence. The House Hearing lasted all day, and we could not make it over to the Senate. Unlike the Bells or Cable companies or other large industry players, we do not have more than one lone person in DC to cover all the auspicious events of the Day. It turns out that watching the Senate Hearing over Ev-DO from the House Energy and Commerce Committee Meeting room (with computer on mute) did not allow for a reasonable understanding of what went on Senate-side. A class in lip reading might have helped (or, at least, a set of earphones). Anyone have any knowledge of anything worth reporting at the Senate Hearing?

Frankly, as the Senate Hearing kicked-in, I think folks grew tired of the House Hearing. What was overflow-room only access all morning became a pretty empty House Committee Meeting room and the energy definitely petered out. I, however, opted to stay House-side, assuming that a hearing on an existing Bill was more relevant than the same-old-same-old, speculative Hearing on Competition and Convergence.

I still hold out hope that when the Senate holds its Hearing on VoIP (which was rescheduled because of Spring VON), that I will be allowed to testify and share my vision of an IP-enabled future and the policy framework that might best realize this vision.

***

Overall Observations:

I was concerned that there really was no one speaking today specifically on behalf of the VoIP or Internet communications community. Sure, Jeff Citron spoke on behalf of Vonage’s business interests (much of which benefits the broader Internet communications community) and Paul Misener spoke on behalf of Amazon’s business interests (much of which benefits the broader Internet application providers – Paul Misener was especially lucid in promoting the Net Neutrality point of view), but no one spoke, more purely, for the would-be innovators and entrepreneurs really trying to drive Web 2.0 and revolutionize the communications and Internet experience.

Perhaps, Mr. Markey was the closest thing the Internet innovators and users had as an advocate, but it would have been nice to have at least one of the 12-14 panelists share his passion and commitment for the Internet. Has Mr. Markey emerged as the Seussian “Lorax” who speaks for the, largely voiceless, would-be Internet innovators and enthusiasts? I also have to give kudos to Mr. Boucher for flexing his intellect and conscience and demonstrating his commitment to protect the open Internet.

So many witnesses and we without our own voice? This is disturbing. We as a community need to redouble our efforts to ensure that the voice of the would-be Internet innovators, entrepreneurs and enthusiasts are truly heard and considered.

Now is the time for us -- those driving the communications and Internet revolution -- to participate in the dialogue within the Beltway. We cannot leave it to the powerful business interests (even those that currently have many overlapping concerns with us, but are ultimately motivated by their own bottom line). If we do not participate, the rules will be written by those who neither know our concerns nor have our best interests at heart.

I must also note, again, the fortunate timing of release of the COPE Bill with our upcoming Freedom-to-Connect Conference on April 3-4 in DC. www.pulver.com/f2c/ I suspect that we will delve deeply into the nuances and consequences of the draft legislation and other efforts to reframe the policy structure governing the Internet and communications. Join us at F2C in the Beltway next Monday and Tuesday (coincidentally, the House Committee will mark up the COPE Bill RIGHT AFTER F2C at 5 pm on Tuesday, April 4). Let's make sure that Congress hears our voices as it rewrites the rules that will shape the future of the Internet and communications. We have to become a force with which to be reckoned.

Posted by jeff at 04:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (11)

Senate Extends Telephone Privacy Rules to VoIP Providers

Today the Senate Commerce Committee adopted legislation to expand telephone privacy rules and apply them to VoIP providers.

Within 180 days of enactment, the FCC is required to develop new rules for IP-Enabled voice services to apply Section 222 of the telecom act and ensure customer record privacy and security. The Protecting Consumer Phone Records Act outlaws acquiring, selling or soliciting someone else’s VoIP or other phone records without their consent. It also specifically outlaws the fraudulent misrepresentation that a person has given authorization to obtain their VoIP or other phone records, often referred to as “pretexting.”

The legislation increases the penalties on bad actors and provides the Federal Communications, the Federal Trade Commission and State Attorneys General with strengthened enforcement authority. To further boost enforcement, it would also allow VoIP providers and other phone companies the ability to take legal action against data brokers or others who are illegally acquiring VoIP or other phone records to boost enforcement.

The legislation also requires VoIP providers and other phone companies to certify annually that they are in compliance with confidentiality procedures. VoIP providers and other phone companies would be hit with a $30,000 penalty for any violation in which they do not sufficiently protect their subscriber’s phone records.

The committee discussed, but did not adopt, three Sununu amendments dealing with VoIP:

• #1 -- IP Communications is not a Telecom Service -- to be worked out with staff. The amendment clarifies language that IP communications are not considered as telecom services. Sununu said we don’t want to refer to IP communications as a telecom provider. He did not offer this amendment, because he said the staff is close to working something out.

• #2 -- Getting VoIP out of Title II. Sununu said the amendment deals with whether we want to in any way begin putting VoIP under Title II. He said it’s a mistake to begin applying parts of Title II to IP. Sununu indicated Senator Lautenberg had identified a technical problem in terms of how this amendment as written could have unintended consequence for public safety. Thus, he decided not to offer the amendment at this time to work through the public safety issues. Sununu said he would vigorously oppose any bill that would apply Title II rules to IP Voice.
o Stevens again talked about “total communications” – that there shouldn’t be distinctions between types of communications. Stevens said he was happy that Sununu would withdraw the Title II amendment. Stevens said he has a disagreement with Sununu over “whether VoIP providers are carriers.” Stevens said it is easy for VoIP provider to protect information. Stevens said, ”VoIP Is a wonderful new system.” Says “we have a new world.” But has disagreement on applying Title II to VoIP.

• #3 One-Way Limitation. Sununu said the amendment deals with one-way services like instant messengering. His amendment would apply the VoIP definition already passed by the committee in the E911 bill -- S. 1063.
o Boxer asked why we would treat one-way services differently from two-way services – to give consumers less protection. Sununu responded that we don’t want to deal with privacy rules under both FTC and FCC rules.
o Stevens again talked about “total communications” and said we have to protect all phone records. Stevens opposes the one-way amendment. Said it’s the telephone number they are trying to protect.
o Inouye said key words are “total communications” indicating that he also did not support carving out one-way.
o Lautenberg said we ought to deal with this in more global way. Asked, what consumer protection would be diminished by the amendment, and would vote against it.
o Cantwell said applying it to one-way services would overlay a second set of requirements. Sununu said Sen Cantwell is correct, that these involve a variety of different communications (e-mail, instant messaging) that are already covered by different privacy rules. Sununu said it would create a bad precedent of overlapping jurisdiction.
o The fact that information service privacy is already covered under separate statute and subject to regulation by the FTC was new news to the minority. Sen Stevens, in the end, said he wouldn’t oppose this amendment if one-way service were covered by the FTC – and thus under jurisdiction of the Judiciary committee. Stevens asked that Sen Sununu withhold the amendment until the question of whether there would be overlapping jurisdiction could be determined.

(A more complete recap of the entirity of today's -- and yesterday's -- Internet and Communications Policy issue will be posted shortly)

Posted by jeff at 02:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (23)

March 27, 2006

"Son of a BITS III" - The House Energy and Commerce Committee Releases the text of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act (COPE) of 2006:

As Congress now embarks on major efforts to rewrite the laws governing the future of communications and the Internet, I ask you all to consider joining the VON Coalition at this critical moment. This is the year that the policy debate will rage and shape how we communicate and what we might do to evolve the Internet.

Here is the most recent evidence (and please note that we have not had a chance to parse through the entirety of the draft legislation):

Republicans on the US House Energery and Commerce Committee have just released the attached Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act (COPE) of 2006 (aka "Son of a BITS III" or "Grandson of a BITS") and scheduled a hearing on for Thurs. March 30, 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.

There has been broad recent trade press coverage about a partisan breakdown on the bill. Nonetheless, the VON Coalitions efforts to ensure that the bill does not include broad new regulation of VoIP (as contemplated in the original draft) have been successful. The bill also recognizes that VoIP providers also need enabling tools like E911 and has included language (Title III). The bill also includes network neutrality language (Title II).

VoIP E911 Provision (Title III page 27): The bill has modestly improved over the language in the House BITS II bill - but it appears that there are important areas for improvement. The bill differs substantively from the Senate version because it:

* does not include the equivalent liability language (which House sponsors say will be added when it gets to the floor)
* Still appears to have an overly broad definition of VoIP and would potentially include one-way services
* Does not include any waiver language (as the Senate bill did) or any level of flexibility in rural areas
* Does not include the transition to an IP-enabled emergency network
* Does not include the no tech mandates language from S. 1063

VoIP Interconnection Rights: The bill does includes new language giving VoIP providers new interconnections rights including under Section 251 and 252.

Network Neutrality Language (Title II beginning on page 25): There is also a network neutrality language which:
* gives the Commission the authority to enforce the Commission's broadband policy statement and the principles incorporated therein.
* does not give the FCC rulemaking authority
* calls on the FCC to conduct a study with 180 days of enactment

Removes Broad Regulation of VoIP: We were successful in getting the overly broad regulation in the previous BITS bill dropped. That language sought to apply foreign ownership, disability, privacy, fax, pay phone, and virtually every other Title II obligation to an overly broad definition of VoIP.

Municipal Broadband. (Title IV page 33): The language, which is nearly identical to the BITS II language, would allow communities to explore their own broadband options.

Chance of Passage: We understand that the sponsors of the bill are Barton, Rush, Upton, and Pickering. Rep. Pickering has been a particularly great champion of the Internet and of communications competition, so, for that reason alone, I hold out some hope that the Internet, its users and innovators will have some coverage and get a fair hearing. We would note that with a partisan rift in Committee (which can be bridged but will take time), Judiciary committee efforts to assert their jurisdiction, lack of a Senate companion at this point, and only a limited number of days left in the Congressional calendar, the likelihood that this bill will be signed into law is not too high. But it nonetheless, advances the ball and sends a message to other players about Barton's priorities.

We will need to immediately begin developing feedback - both positive and negative - and see which parts of this bill we can COPE with. Please us your feedback immediately so we can see if we can work with the VON Coalition to develop feedback for the committee prior to Thursday's hearing.

Now is the time for us - those driving the communications and Internet revolution - to participate in the dialogue within the Beltway, and within governments around the World.

I must also note the fortunate timing of release of this Bill with our upcoming Freedom-to-Connect Conference on April 3-4 in DC. I suspect that we will delve deeply into the nuances and consequences of the draft legislation and other efforts to reframe the policy structure governing the Internet and communications.

Tags: voip, Net Neutrality, F2C, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 10:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (24)

Tom Evslin on David Isenberg and F2C:

Tom Evslin: David Isenberg and The Rise of The Stupid Network

"...The designers of the Internet way back over thirty years ago had no idea that it would be used for voice, email as we know it, and certainly not for the WorldWideWeb. But the stupid Internet, fortunately, doesn’t know enough to get in the way of new applications. It keeps getting cheaper and fatter bandwidth and new applications are developed to take advantage of fatter and cheaper bandwidth and are also built on top of old applications..."

Tags: voip, F2C, David Isenberg, Tom Evslin

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 07:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (12)

March 20, 2006

Coverage of Richard Notebaert and Net Neutrality @ Spring 2006 VON:

- Telephony: VON stirs Net neutrality pot
- Telephony: VON: Notebaert calls net neutrality a commercial issue
- Telephony: Currying favor
- New Telephony: Notebaert: Qwest Won’t Block Content, but It Will Charge
- Russell Shaw: The three tactics the broadband monopolists are using to fight net neutrality
- Jeff Pulver: Spring 2006 VON Daily Buzz:Time For Open Dialogue On Network Neutrality
- VON Magazine: Notebaert’s Nuanced Net Neutrality Stance
- Forbes: Shifting Out Of Neutral?
- PC Magazine: Notebaert: Qwest Won't Block VOIP Traffic
- Computer Business Review: Qwest boss debunks net neutrality
- TMCNet: Qwest CEO Chimes in on the ‘Net Neutrality’ Debate
- Red Herring: Qwest CEO Supports Net Tolls
- CNet News: Notebaert on Net neutrality (Photo)
- CNet NewS: Qwest CEO supports tiered Internet
- Converge Network Digest: VON Spring: Qwest Promises No Traffic Degradation, Sees Preferred Bandwidth Deals with Content Providers
- Red Herring: VoIP Holds a Pep Rally
- Andy Abramson: QWEST CEO Say's He Won't Block
- K. Matthew Dames: Net Neutrality Debate Heats Up
- James Enck: Blurred Vision
- The Deal.com: There went my last hope
- Paul Kapustka: Dick Notebaert and Net Neutrality at VON

Tags: voip, von, Net Neutrality, Dick Notebaert

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 06:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)

March 19, 2006

Podcast of Press Conference: Jeff Pulver, Jeremy Allaire, Jason Krikorian @ Spring 2006 VON

On the morning of March 15th at Spring 2006 VON, I took part in a press conference that included myself, Jeremy Allaire and Jason Krikorian. The entire press conference was recorded and is now available in a podcast that for presentation purposes was broken into two parts. Jason Krikorian joined us while the press conference was already in progress.

Part one can be heard by clicking here.
Part two can be heard by clicking here.

(Photos by: Peggy Miles)

Tags: voip, von, Net Neutrality, Jeremy Allaire, Jeff Pulver, Jason Krikorian

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 03:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

Coverage of Lawrence Lessig @ Spring 2006 VON:

"Rock Star" Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford University gave one of the best presentations I can remember in the history of our VON events when he took center stage last Tuesday at Spring 2006 VON. His entire presentation was recorded by the pulver.TV team and will be posted in the near future. The Professor Lessig soundbite that I used during my talk the following day is available here.

Media and Blogosphere Coverage of Professor Lessig @ Spring 2006 VON:

- ALPHA - The CNET blog: Lessig champions Net neutrality at VON '06
- Telephonyonline- Carol Wilson: VON: Lessig sounds call to arms
- C|Net - Marguerite Reardon: Debate heats up over Net neutrality
- Paul Kapustka: Larry Lessig And Net Neutrality at VON
- Dan York: Starting VON with a bang - Lawrence Lessig: "Will the network be unlocked or relocked?"
- Steve Smith: VON Day 1, Lessig, Pepper, MMOG
- Anders Brownworth: Net Neutrality at Spring 2006 VON
- Russell Shaw: In a perfect world, Larry Lessig would be on the FCC
- Bruce Stewart: Lessig Impresses at VON
- Richard Stastny: VON Day 0 - Charging for My Pipes Flu is Spreading
- Paul Kouroupas: The View from VON
- Cynthia Brumfield: Net Neutrality Gets Airing at VON

Tags: voip, von, Net Neutrality, Larry Lessig, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (12)

March 18, 2006

News.com: Quest CEO supports Tiered Internet

Now that Spring 2006 VON is history, as my own personal "VON Blur" starts to subside, I'm finally finding a chance to read some of the news stories that originated from Spring 2006 VON.

CNET: Qwest CEO supports tiered Internet

"..eff Pulver, CEO of Pulver.com, the company putting on the VON conference in here this week, doesn't share Notebaert's views on Net neutrality. He believes that network owners should not be allowed to play favorites on their networks or act as gatekeepers, charging different rates for different levels of service. But he acknowledged that some companies may be hedging their bets on the issue.

"I think it's probably true that companies are coming to Qwest willing to pay for better treatment on their network," he said. "But I think they're doing it out of fear. It's legalized extortion."

Tags: Net Neutrality, voip, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 09:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (33)

Net Neutrality Story in Today's NY Post:

NY Post: Price is Wrong

'..At stake is the very definition "of what the Internet is and what being on the Internet is all about," said Jeff Pulver, a co-founder of Web phone service Vonage. "The service providers could choose to charge whatever they wanted for the same open access they offer today for free."

Industry leaders say they'll charge content providers, not consumers, opening an Internet "express lane," for providers who pay more.

Battle lines are quickly being drawn on Capitol Hill. Google has warned against network operators that favor their own sites and services "while degrading" others.

Earlier this month Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), introduced a bill to prevent "the powerful interests who control access to the Internet" from depriving consumers of "the same access, the same content, for the same price..."'

..and now that the Net Neutrality debate has surfaced on the pages of the New York Post, it would be hard to argue that this is not a "mainstream" business issue.

Tags: Net Neutrality, voip, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 09:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

March 17, 2006

Greg Meffert Receives First "VON Medal of Honor"

"If you cut 2 inches or 10 inches out of the string, it don't matter, the tin cans can't talk."

- Greg Meffert, Deputy Mayor and CIO, City of New Orleans, speaking at Spring VON yesterday (noting the single point of failure implicit in the linear structure of traditional telecommunications networks)

Yesterday, pulvermedia awarded the First "VON Medal of Honor" to Greg Meffert for taking decisive and immediate action to deploy IP-technology during a public crisis to ensure ongoing government communications between the City of New Orleans and the outside world.

For those of you who are not aware of Greg's valiant efforts during Katrina, he is the New Orleans official who figured out how to maintain communications with the outside world when telecom networks failed during Hurricane Katrina. (Greg has more recently been instrumental in rebuilding New Orleans communications infrastructure and in attempting to bring WiFi and other wireless technology to help transform communications with the City.)

Here's the story of Greg's efforts, as best I can recount:

Greg broke into an already looted Office Depot in New Orleans; removed the store's own, and only remaining, Cisco router (all the other equipment already having been looted); found a single live connection at a Hyatt hotel; downloaded a Vonage soft-client; and established communications with the outside world, including President Bush. (I guess this also makes Greg the only person officially acknowledging that he looted during Hurricane Katrina. Talk about the necessity defense to criminal offenses!)

What I find particularly poignant (from the perspective of someone ensconced in the VoIP debates) is that only three days before the FCC (at the request of the VON Coalition) had extended the E911 deadline for VoIP users to explicitly acknowledge to their VoIP service providers that they understand the E-911 limitations of their VoIP services. What would have happened if the FCC had not granted the time extension and the Vonage service of the City employee had been disconnected due to non-compliance with the FCC rule? I still hold out hope that the FCC and others in government will find a new appreciation for the enabling (albeit it differentiated) capabilities of IP technology and the resilient and open Internet and what is means when "voice really is just an application" and how useful VoIP can be when deployed during an emergency.

I was in fact quite heartened by Chairman Martin's recent statement at the last FCC Katrina Hearing: the Katrina hearing:

"I would also like to see a greater use of IP technologies that are
capable of changing and rerouting telecommunications traffic. In the
event of a systems failure within the traditional network, such IP
technologies would enable service to be restored more quickly and would
provide the flexibility to initiate service at new locations chosen by
consumers."

Amen!

Jim Kohlenberger and Greg Meffert
Greg Meffert

Tags: voip, von, New Orleans, Greg Meffert

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

March 16, 2006

Spring 2006 VON Daily Buzz:Time For Open Dialogue On Network Neutrality

I'd like to thank Qwest CEO Dick Notebaert for speaking Wednesday and for using VON as the place to make his company's first official statement on Network Neutrality. While I might not agree with all his beliefs, I do understand the business reasons behind his thinking, and am heartened by the great, open dialogue he started with the VON community.

It's great to see the Network Neutrality debate front and center at VON, and it's certainly something I didn't expect to happen, even though I've been writing about the subject for a long time. I look forward to seeing other incumbent telco provider CEOs at future VON events, to establish a dialogue wih the community and to start to find a common goal.

The next step in this whole debate seems to be a "common ground" meeting, where all affected parties could get together to air issues and to eliminate some of the rhetoric that hangs over the industry like a cloud. To me, some of the business descriptions of tiered or pay-for-play services sound like a legalized extortion scheme, where content or application providers are forced to pay more to have a chance at competing. For others, that's simply called business. So we have to find something in the middle that makes sense to all of us.

While Qwest's view of Network Neutrality seems pretty much in line with opinions on the subject from AT&T and Verizon, it was refreshing to have a reasonable, respectful exchange of ideas with a leader of the incumbent provider industry. More open dialogue like Wednesday's exchange seems to be the best way to move forward.

Tags: voip, Net Neutrality, von, Qwest, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 10:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (48)

March 15, 2006

Larry Lessig And Net Neutrality at Spring 2006 VON:

Paul Kapustka's Blog: Larry Lessig And Net Neutrality at VON

"In a talk that focused on the "Network Neutrality" debate -- the issue of whether or not service providers should be allowed to have greater control of pricing and content delivery mechanisms for Internet access -- Lessig warned attendees of the Spring 2006 VON Communications Policy Summit that big telecommunication companies might choke off business opportunity by exerting more control over their networks."

Tags: voip, von, Paul Kapustka, Larry Lessig

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 07:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (18)

March 14, 2006

Blogosphere Coverage of the Pulver/Evslin Post-Disaster Communications Preparedness Petition:

It was great to see: Andy Abramson, Cynthia Brumfield, Ted Wallingford, Ted Shelton, Bruce Stewart and Richard Statsny blog about the Post-Disaster Communications Preparedness Petition that Tom Evslin and I filed at the FCC yesterday.

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, voip, von, ARRL, Tom Evslin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 08:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (157)

March 13, 2006

Pulver/Evslin Petition to the FCC on Post-Disaster Communications:

Today, Tom Evslin and I filed a Petition with the US Federal Communications Commission in an effort to mitigate the effects of long-term telephone outages in the event of natural disasters or other public crises. Our concern is that if the FCC waits too long for formation and formal recommendations before taking any further action to address emergency situations, then communications providers will be unprepared in the case of an immediate emergency. With the threat of terrorist action still looming and the next hurricane season right around the corner, we thought it was important for the FCC to act soon to ensure that the consequence of outages to telecommunications services are swiftly mitigated prior to the time communications links can be restored.

In the wake of Katrina, those who had mobile and VoIP phones could be located quickly. They took their phones with them when they evacuated. They left greetings saying where they were so that, even when their phones weren't operable, loved ones could be reassured and rescuers could be spared searching for them. Even those who had voice mail and call forwarding as features of their PSTN service could quickly reestablish communication. But, as the tragedy made plain, a large percentage of low income people do not have any mobile phones, VoIP, or even the premium features of the public switched telephone network (PSTN). Their numbers became useless once their local lines were inoperable or inaccessible.

Our Petition is pretty straight forward and is NOT intended to serve as a vehicle to extol the merits of IP-based communications. (There is time enough to sing the praises of Internet communications, but we did not want this issue to be held back over a battle over preferred technologies, policies and politics.) We simply want to make sure that everyone has a communications life-line established before the next public crisis.

We primarily ask for a mechanism to ensure that individuals are reachable after a public crisis that causes communications networks to go down. We propose a solution that we think could provide immediate relief before the next hurricane season and before more elaborate rules might feasibly be established. We ask simply that the FCC require any provider obligated to provide E911 services to establish an alternate communications service for affected customers via either: (1) activating for each customer a voicemail service that would be accessed by incoming callers dialing the customer's phone number, or (2) providing expedited local number porting to an alternate service provider selected by the customer, including porting to a number outside of the geographic area and/or rate center. Either of these proposals would provide a technically feasible and reasonable means of ensuring that consumers remain connected during emergencies.

We hope to discuss the Petition and other mechanisms to improve post-disaster communications at Spring 2006 VON. In particular, as a long-time Ham Radio enthusiast, I am looking forward to hearing from Dave Sumner, CEO of the ARRL, and his views on how to improve emergency preparedness. His experience with the ARRL's Field Day provides a lot of insight and experience from which the IP-based communications industry could learn as we figure out how we play a role in preserving and advancing communications during and after public crises.

I am also looking forward to hearing from Greg Meffert, the CTO of the City of New Orleans, whose ingenuity in deploying Vonage service after Katrina allowed a communications life-line to the outside world and President Bush. We also will have several other government officials exploring how best to improve emergency response and post-disaster communications. And we have many innovators pushing the Internet and IP technology in an effort to advance emergency response capabilities.

I just hope we can advance the ball when the IP-based communications industry comes together at Spring VON.

And I hope the Petition we filed today will help ensure that no one is left without a communications life-line during the next public crisis.

Tags: Post-Disaster Communications, FCC, voip, von, ARRL, Tom Evslin, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 10:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (83)

March 11, 2006

The Downside of an IP-enabled Future?

Just a reminder that the Internet can improve privacy and security, but it can also destroy privacy and security.

Please click on this link.

The above example does not mean we give up on advancing communications technology. It is a reminder that, as we innovate and evolve the nature of communications, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Tags: ACLU, privacy, IP Communications, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 11:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (18)

March 10, 2006

Building Momentum from the Internet Communications Industry for "Net Neutrality"

As I have been blogging for so many months/years now, the Net Neutrality issue will be the seminal issue to determine the rules shaping the future of the Internet. It is now clear that Net Neutrality will be at the heart of Congressional debate in the US Congress this year. To that end, we are trying to build a groundswell of support from Internet innovators, entrepreneurs and enthusiasts who might not normally participate in the political process.

Whether we like it or not, the battle for preservation and advancement of the open Internet is raging in DC and in the corridors of power around the World. We, the members of the Internet communications industry, do not have the luxury anymore to sit by idly while Congress writes the laws that will shape the future of the Internet and communications. As such, I ask you all to take a look at the letter below and consider signing onto it while at Spring 2006 VON or by otherwise notifying Jonathan Askin (with a verifiable name and affiliation) that you would like to add your name.

Copies of this letter in support of Net Neutrality will be available at the Spring 2006 VON Communications Policy Summit on March 14, and at various sessions addressing public policy concerns throughout next week's Spring 2006 VON Conference.

I also ask that you consider becoming more active with the VON Coalition, the trade association fighting for the IP-based communications industry.

Text of Letter:

March ##, 2006

The Honorable Joe Barton
Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable John D. Dingell
Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

RE: Protecting the Open and Interconnected Nature of the Internet

Dear Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Dingell and Members of the
Committee:

Everywhere people with a stake in the Internet economy gather, they are
discussing 'net neutrality and, by an overwhelming margin, looking to
Congress to steadfastly defend the Internet and preserve its open and
interconnected nature. 'Net neutrality is the principle that the
Internet should remain open and interconnected-free from gatekeepers
over new content and services-to promote innovation, economic growth and
job creation.

"Net neutrality" is a historic practice that has enabled the success of
the Internet. It must be re-codified as the law of the land. We are
writing to you today because we believe 'net neutrality, as articulated
in the Federal Communications Commission's four principles, is
essential.

Nearly two-thirds of the public uses the Internet and a recent poll
shows that more than two-thirds of the public supports 'net neutrality.
The principle of nondiscrimination and open access to communications
networks has been part of public policy and law for almost a century and
as more of our economic and social life goes online, "net neutrality"
becomes even more important.

As the capacity and bandwidth of the Internet grows, it will become the
platform of choice for commercial development unmatched in our history.
Just as the growth of Amazon, eBay, Yahoo and Google was not foreseeable
five and ten years ago, we cannot now predict the ideas that will evolve
in the next five to ten years. What we do know is that as the capacity
and bandwidth grows, independent creative people will find new valuable
applications, so long as they have unfettered access to that capacity.
In the past 'net neutrality was embodied in laws that applied to the
common carriers that underpinned the Internet. The Internet benefited
from that neutrality.

Recent decisions by the Federal Communications Commission, which are
under review, have eliminated for some broadband Internet services, the
safeguard which protected 'net neutrality by ensuring non-discriminatory
interconnection obligations between multiple competitive broadband
carriers. Up until now, competitive broadband carriers allowed
consumers and innovative e-commerce companies to cast their vote for
'net neutrality in the marketplace. According to Internet pioneer Vint
Cerf, this safeguard "paradoxically" allowed the Internet to remain
"open and 'unregulated' as originally designed."

The risks posed by the fact that today phone and cable operators
together control 98 percent of the broadband market are very real. We
have already seen more than glimpses into the future. VoIP blocking and
Internet outages have already occurred, discriminatory web fees and the
creation of a "two tier" Internet have been threatened and a future of
bandwidth rationing and ubiquitous click fees is in the offing.

We are writing to advise you that outside the beltway, in the market,
there are rumors that 'net neutrality will be stripped away by the House
of Representative's communications policy legislation. We urge you to
put this rumor to rest immediately by affirming your commitment to 'net
neutrality. The dawning realization that the Internet economy-which
must be measured in hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars-has
little or no legal protection against online discrimination can and will
have a chilling effect on investment, innovation and ecommerce.
Congress must address this growing uncertainty.

Broadband carriers are quite correct in saying that bandwidth is not
free and they ought to be able to neutrally charge consumers for
bandwidth usage. But in opposing 'net neutrality, carriers propose a
fundamental change to the Internet economy, the consequences of which
can be foreseen, based on the recent behavior of carriers.

Rights, freedoms and markets we take for granted exist within the
Internet's decentralized and open architecture. We urge you to support
"net neutrality" and the future promise of the Internet.

Sincerely,

###

Tags: voip, Net Neutrality, VON, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 06:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

March 09, 2006

Backstage and on Camera at CNBC's Squawk Box:

Yesterday morning I had a slightly surrealistic experience when I had my first chance to be interviewed on CNBC's Squawk Box. While I did have to get up at 4am, it was for the right reason and I would welcome the opportunity to do so again. It turns out that at 4.45 AM the roads around the metro NYC area are pretty empty so I made it from my home on Long Island to their Green Room in less than 30 minutes. While most of the time I spent at CNBC was in their Green room, the ten minutes I spent on their set and the six minutes that their segment on "Net Neutrality" ran, it was great to be there, sitting at the same desk as the Squawk Box team.

Squawk Box is a program that I've been watching for years and as a fan of the show, it felt great to be there, being interviewed and sitting on their set in the presence of the Squawk Box team.

While I knew the interview was going to include a discussion of "Net Neutrality" I really wasn't sure what kinds of questions would be asked.

When asked about Net Neutrality, what I said on live on Squawk Box was: "It has always been my opinion that the application providers are central players on the web because they provide the ingenuity that can change the world. Our industry should not constrain their creativity by burdening them with incremental costs, but rather, the access providers - who charge end users - should be the ones responsible for ensuring fast, reliable access that enables customers to see what they want to see, and do what they want to do on the web."

Tags: voip, Net Neutrality, CNBC, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 08:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (42)

March 08, 2006

Jeff on CNBC's Squawk Box:

(photo by: Jonathan Askin)
(photo by: Alan Weinkrantz

Note AT&T's stock valuation as I'm talking...

Tags: voip, Net Neutrality, CNBC, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 07:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (17)

VON Coalition: 10 years ago this week -- The Turning Point

10 years ago this week, a little noticed petition was filed at the FCC to ban the sale and distribution of VoIP software and services. Within days of its filing, I founded the VON Coalition as a voice for the VoIP industry, to fight against the ACTA petition, and ensure a regulatory environment that allowed VoIP to grow and thrive.

Thanks to our efforts back then, the FCC never acted on the ACTA petition. The VON Coalition successfully helped educate and inform policymakers about what was at stake in this and the many other challenges that followed. And with an enlightened view of VoIP, policymakers adopted a light touch regulatory environment allowing the VoIP industry to successfully grown up and mature. While ACTA, the organization, has long since disappeared, the challenges that created the VON Coalition have only escalated.

We have been incredibly successful over the last 10 years, but with the resultant industry growth has come new and growing legislative and regulatory challenges.

I point this out for a couple of reasons:

1. We are now facing more regulatory and legislative challenges this year, than we have in the last 10 years combined.
2. As we begin this next phase, we need everyone's help in bringing the industry together under one roof to create an even more powerful voice for the VoIP industry.

In the same way that I reached out to some 100 industry leaders 10 years ago to speak up for VoIP innovation, now is once again the time to take a moment to reach out to other Internet and VoIP leaders and ask them to similarly join our effort to create the right regulatory environment that allows VoIP to continue to grow and thrive.

Please take a moment to contact those colleagues you know from the hundreds of companies that are now a part of the VoIP economic ecosystem and ask them to join the VON Coalition and our efforts. I can't think of a more important investment they can make in the future of their VoIP business.

Companies interested in joining the VON Coalition should contact Jim Kohlenberger.

Jim will be speaking at Spring 2006 VON on Friday morning, March 17th.

Tags: voip, von, Communications Policy, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 05:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (41)

March 07, 2006

Jeff Pulver on CNBC Squawk Box – 6:30 AM (EST) on March 8th

Tomorrow morning at 6:30 AM (EST) I will be on guest on CNBC’s Squawk Box. I will be joined by Ray Gifford of the Progress & Freedom Foundation and we will be talking about “Net Neutrality.”

After watching Squawk Box on CNBC for years, I’m looking forward to being a guest on the show.

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Tags: voip, CNBC, Net Neutrality, Jeff Pulver

Posted by jeff at 08:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (27)

Lyrics to "We Couldn't Stop the Merger" (an Ode to AT&T):

(As a long time fan of Billy Joel, the following lyrics are our own version of "We Didn't Start the Fire" in the spirit of the AT&T / BellSouth deal.)

"We Couldn't Stop The Mergers" (an Ode to AT&T)

Samuel Morse, SOS, Edison's Incandesce
Graham Bell, Ted Vail, Westinghouse or Ma Bell.

Tesla, Marconi, ATT monopoly.
Many networks, such a mess.

CHORUS
We couldn't stop the mergers
They were always clinging
Since the phone was ringing
We didn't start the mergers
No we couldn't take it
And we tried to break it.

Free-for-all, ICC, change the name to FCC.
Carterphone, Hush-a-phone, throw Ma Bell another bone.

MCI, MFS, Bill McGowan had to press.
DOJ, Judge Green, MFJ, change of scene.

CHORUS
We couldn't stop the mergers
They were always clinging
Since the phone was ringing
We didn't start the mergers
No we couldn't take it
And we tried to break it.

'84, '92, '96, law is new.
ILECs, CLECs, IXCs, rejects.

UNE-P, Resale, UNE-L, all will fail.
Long distance, local loop, regulators fly the coop.

CHORUS
We couldn't stop the mergers
They were always clinging
Since the phone was ringing
We didn't start the mergers
No we couldn't take it
And we tried to break it.

Seidenberg, DSL, Northpoint, go to Hell.
Ted Turner, Craig McCaw, some adhere to different law.

Whitacre, Notebaert, try to tear Cartel apart.
WorldCom, MCI, Bernie Ebbers told a lie.

CHORUS
We couldn't stop the mergers
They were always clinging
Since the phone was ringing
We didn't start the mergers
No we couldn't take it
And we tried to break it.

Reed Hundt, Bill Kennard, Michael Powell tried real hard.
Joe Barton, Kevin Martin, I wonder now what they are startin'.

Mr. Moore and Metcalf's Laws, Internet gives them pause.
The rules have changed, it's all deranged.

CHORUS
We couldn't stop the mergers
They were always clinging
Since the phone was ringing
We didn't start the mergers
No we couldn't take it
And we tried to break it.

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.

Tags: voip, AT&T, BellSouth, Jeff Pulver

(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 06:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (217)

March 06, 2006

Pulvermedia Postcast - Baby Bells: Grow up with Dr. Seuss

Earlier today, Jonathan Askin, Carl Ford and I got together at the pulverradio studios and performed a dramatic reading of "Baby Bells: Grow up with Dr. Seuss."

We recorded both an audio postcast and filmed a video for my Video Vault.

The audio podcast is now available by clicking: here.

Special thanks to: Bruce Stewart, Yannick Laclau, Andy Abramson, Elliott Back, Alec Saunders, Jeff Jarvis, Aswath Rao, David Ewait and Jon Arnold for blogging about "Baby Bells: Grow up with Dr. Seuss" today.

Tags: voip, AT&T, BellSouth, Jeff Pulver

(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)

Posted by jeff at 10:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (32)

Baby Bells Grow up with Dr. Seuss:

(Seeing as March 2nd marked Dr. Seuss' 102nd Birthday, I thought it would be appropriate to try to apply the wisdom of that seminal, influential figure in the life of so many American children with today's announcement signaling a new phase in the growth of the Baby Bells. With that said, below is a Seussian account of the proposed AT&T/BellSouth merger.)

Baby Bells: Grow up with Dr. Seuss

Ma Bell,
Break Bell,
Four Bells,
Remake Bell.

Blue State,
Red State,
Ivan State,
Ed State.

The plan has just begun to gel.
Someday soon -- a single Bell.
Say! How did we get back to Hell?

Stale Phone
Ripe Phone
Black Phone
Skype Phone.

Old phone had a little star.
New phone tracks and drives your car.

Some phones are thin.
And some are phat.
The phat one uses
IM chat.

Yes. Some states are red. And some are blue.
Some phones are old. And some are new.
Some offer less.
And some are fresh.
And some will work on Wi-Fi mesh.

Why are they
Less or fresh or Wi-Fi mesh?
I do not know.
Go ask Congress.

But too many of them
are just the same.
Don't ask us why.
It's a political game.

From there to here,
from here to there,
funny rules
are everywhere.

There are some
rules that curb the new.
They keep us stuck
In '92.

Oh me! Oh my!
Oh me! Oh my!
What a lot
of funny rules apply.

Some rules apply
just to voice.
And some rules
limit user choice.

Where do they come from? I can't say.
But I bet that we consumers pay.

We see rules come.
We see rules go.
Some rules speed progress,
And others slow.

Some rules are fair.
And some are not.
E-911 for VoIP
is one that's not.

It applies to VoIP
But not to sats?
How is that fair?
Who keeps the stats?

The rules are random,
Some dishearten.
How did we get here?
Go ask Martin.

Ivan, Duane, Dick and Ed.
Their voices ring in Martin's head.

Martin's reign
is somewhat new.
I wish I knew
Martin too!

Hype!
Hype!
Hype!
Did Kevin ever try to Skype?

Who am I?
My name is Ed.
I do not like
my little bed.

My bed is too small.
This is not right.
My feet stick out
of bed all night.

And when I pull them in,
Oh, dear!
My head sticks out of bed
up here!

We like our new bed.
It is made for three.
Our economies work
best like this,
you see.

We like our new bed
and this is why:
We make more money
when the bills get high.

Hello there, Ed.
How do you do?
Tell me, tell me
What is new?
How are things
in your little bed?
What is new?
Please tell me, Ed.

I do not like
this bed at all.
A lot of companies
have come to call.
A Vonage, yahoo, and a Skype.
Oh! What a bed! Oh! I've got to gripe!

Oh, dear! Oh, dear!
How can I get in gear.
With all these free-riders stalking near?
FCC and DOJ must prick up your ear.
Approve our mergers or I fear
I will not build the broadband pipes.
And then what of the VONs, what of the Skypes?
They cannot serve without my pipes.
So back to the era of Al Sykes.

My network's old.
My pot is gold.
But there's still more money
I'd like to hold.

My gloves are off,
My threat is bold.
I'll build the network
When I'm told:
that the merger's good,
the merger's fine;
then all Americans
will have broadband lines.

And now
my story
is almost told.

I took a look.
I saw a hook.
In my head
I wrote the book.
And in the book
What's mine, I took.

I do not like the
Internet so well.
All my rivals
yell, yell, yell.
I will not have these guys about.
When they come in
I'll put them out.

Hello!
Hello!
I am an IP phone user.
Hello!
I called you up
to say hello.
I said hello.
Can you hear me, Joe?

Oh, no.
I cannot hear your call.
I cannot hear your call at all.
This is not good
and I know why.
A Bell has blocked the line.
Good-bye!

From near to far
from here to there,
funny rules are everywhere.

Some companies provide some aps.
They want our customers
And think we're saps.
Their app