Leave it to a bunch of Brits to point out how we continue to circumvent our democratic system. TelecomTV, along with many other publications, reported that the Senate has passed a bill that will allow the president to shut down the Internet in the United States for up to 120 days without any Congressional approval. The passage of this bill occurred with no mention in the mainstream media, which is not surprising since they still view the Internet as a threat to their arcane business models. The bill was passed with a simple voice vote despite protests from many civil libertarian groups and the fact that the majority of the public is against giving the president this level of control without any checks. Once again it just proves that the current Administration and Congress are not in office to represent the American people and what is best for the economy. I find it hypocritical that Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton publically denounce China for having that same control over the Internet that they are pushing through Congress. Let’s hope that we can persuade the House not to pass their version of the bill.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Circumventing Due Process for the New World Order
I like to keep this blog more analytical and less political, but there are times when we need to use our industry expertise to shed light on policy issues when they impact our industry. Entertainment copyright holders for well over a decade have been seeking greater powers to stop digital piracy despite the fact that the GAO has debunked the figures the enforcers throw around on the damage to the economy. The Motion Picture Association (MPAA) and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) have failed to convince Congress to pass laws stronger than the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), so they have turned to the United Nations for help. For the past year, a committee of the UN has been secretly working on an agreement that will hold Internet Service Providers (ISP) accountable to content copyright holders for policing the Internet.
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is being prepared secretly within the UN as a treaty to avoid scrutiny and proper vetting by country’s legislative bodies. It has even escaped the transparency of the Obama Administration probably because they are in agreement with the principles contained in the agreement and keeping in-line with the vision of Obama and is ilk of “one world government.” A draft of the agreement was leaked out by of all sources the EU Trade Commission. Provisions contained in the agreement make ISP liable for damages and legal action should they not comply with blocking and take-down notices from the copyright holders. There is no due process to ensure that copyrights are actually being violated. The ACTA forces the ISP to be the watchdog instead of pursuing the offender directly through proper law enforcement. This new tactic resulted from the MPAA’s and RIAA’s ineffectiveness suing copyright violators directly.
The fact that the ACTA provides policing powers to copyright holders is scary enough but couple it with the fact that this agreement can be enacted through bypassing the democratic and legislative process in many countries is even scarier. The United States use to be a bastion for personal privacy, freedom, and due process. It is amazing that they are a party to the secretive and undemocratic process of ACTA. If this event would have happened during the Bush Administration, left-wingers would have been screaming fascist. Since it is occurring during the Obama Administration, it is hardly being mentioned. The result is no different; private organizations are being given policing powers by circumventing national sovereignty.
Yes piracy is illegal, but is it as damaging as industry protectors say? No. May it even help sales of media? Perhaps. Do we need to discard privacy, rule of law, and sovereignty to protect the wealth of companies? NO. Individual rights and freedoms are being taken away increasingly for the financial gain of other parties. As an industry we are enabling this erosion through the use of our technology. We need to stop it and take a stand for liberty. The Internet and communications technology has been a great tool that has speed liberty and democracy throughout the world. Let’s not destroy this great forum at the behest of monetary interests.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Incumbent Carriers Use Political Muscle to Stifle Competition
Time Warner Cable and other incumbent communications carriers in the state of North Carolina are pushing for a bill that would prevent municipalities from building or even repairing broadband networks. An article in Indy Week states that state senator David Hoyle is introducing a bill in the NC senate that would prevent municipalities from building their own broadband networks unless they spent taxpayer dollars for a referendum on the issue. This bill is backed by Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and Embarq (CenturyLink). I am all for transparency in government, and I believe that any use of taxpayer money should be fully vetted, but requiring an election on the issue could add more than a million dollars to the price of the network. The resulting impact would stop most municipalities considering building their own infrastructure. If a city was bold enough to put the issue on the ballot, such as Longmont, Colorado did in 2009, the incumbents would campaign hard to defeat the issue. The bill is clearly aimed at erecting as many roadblocks to municipal broadband deployment as possible. The cost of a ballot measure is equivalent to wiring at least 1,000 homes. Please read the article then come back for the rest of my analysis.
I do not like this bill for two reasons. The first reason is that large public corporations are using their money and political muscle to stifle potential competition from smaller companies. We need to stop allowing big corporations from manipulating the law for their own benefit. You would have thought we would have learned our lesson after the telecom and housing bubbles, but we did not! Corporations continue to buy influence through PAC and other organizations. The second reason I do not like this bill is that the incumbents are not making the investments in infrastructure to remain globally competitive. Structurally they cannot make these investments and provide a decent ROI to their shareholders. Municipalities are realizing this fact which is why they are pursuing building of these networks themselves.
This last reason is why incumbent carriers should embrace municipal broadband networks instead of fearing them. They can leverage the long-term investment capabilities of local governments to build the infrastructure in which they can deliver their services. Cable and telephone companies frequently refer to the cost of building these networks as reasons why they cannot offer more channels and higher speeds or greater download capacities. By working with municipalities in the design of this open-access infrastructure, they can lease their last-mile access instead of spending the capital to build it which looks better on their balance sheets. True they will face competition from other carriers, but they can use their size for economies of scale and innovation. The problem is that they like the stasis that a duopoly provides.
State and federal governments must not be swayed by the political contributions and lobbying from big telcos and cable and allow competition to flourish. Once again we have to look to public/private partnerships to rewire America. One hundred years ago it was cost prohibitive to wire every house so the FCC and state governments made a deal with AT&T for them to provide service to every household in return for a monopoly. This public/private partnership gave AT&T the economies of scale to economically wire 80% of homes and rate-of-return regulation enabled them to wire the rest of them. Now it is time to enter into new public/private partnerships to rewire America that encourages competition. Enlightened local governments realize the benefits that an open-access broadband network brings to their community. On one hand the process should be open and transparent so the community understands how the network will be financed and built. It should not be cross-subsidized by other sources unless taxpayers agree. On the other hand, governments should not be swayed by vested interests that may block competition just to preserve their own revenue sources. Elected officials work for their constituents not the corporations. Open-access networks can be built taxpayer neutral that can serve incumbent service providers and competing service providers alike. We need to eliminate barriers to spur competition, not erect them.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Why Boulder Is Ideal for 1 Gbit/s Broadband Network from Google
I started this article weeks ago before the RFI was due and never found the time to finish it. The problem was that there was too much content to keep confined to a short article. After looking at my draft and realizing that readers, including Google, did not want to read a 10,000 word explanation, I condensed it to a bullet list. So here are the reasons that Google should choose Boulder, Colorado to for their Google Fiber for Communities Project:
- 69% of our residents have bachelors’ degrees or better
- We have the highest per capita number of software developers in the nation
- Boulder ranks #3 in the number of inventors
- Boulder ranks #7 in the number of entrepreneurs
- 10% of our businesses are home-based and over 25% of people work from home
- Home to the $100 million SmartGridCity™, the nation’s first fully integrated electricity system
- Seven federally funded laboratories
- University of Colorado at Boulder
- Industries such as green energy companies, biosciences, health care, foods, clothing and footwear, outdoor and biking companies, electronics manufactures, computer companies, storage companies, defense contractors, venture capitalists, and several other industries but let’s not forget Google!
- Silicon Flatirons Center as a center for telecom and technology debate and discussion
- Telecom companies with several decades experience building last-mile fiber networks including working with leading edge vendors and operation of these networks
- Many Existing facilities to support the build-out of the network
- 96% broadband penetration so we know how to use bandwidth
- Headquarters to a few globally known advertising, public relations, and media firms
- More Asian restaurants per capita than San Francisco or New York
CenturyTel Acquires Qwest: What’s In It for Qwest?
The unwanted step child of the Baby Bells has finally found a suitor to help it beyond its awkward years, but is this acquisition good for Qwest? After the previous CEO’s failed attempts to sell the lumbering giant to AT&T and Verizon, CenturyTel (CTL) finally a agrees to purchase Qwest (Q) for $22.4 billion including debt. Although this is big news for CenturyTel and Qwest, the purchase will not have any major impact on the telecommunications industry or their customers. The transaction is rather ho-hum after thinking about it. CenturyTel’s growth has come through acquisitions of smaller players and purchasing access lines from Ameritech and Verizon. The previous growth spurt came through the purchase of Embarq (history). The Qwest purchase brings it from the fourth largest local phone company to the third largest with 17 million access lines and 5 million broadband users.
The advantages to CenturyTel are obvious. It goes from a $2.6 billion per year revenue company pre Embarq acquisition to a $20 billion per year revenue company, and it increases its presence to 37 states. The larger jewels are Qwest’s business and government customers which will more than offset the loss of land line customers all local providers experience. CenturyTel’s business customers are mainly small and a few regional medium sized companies. Larger companies purchase business services from AT&T, Verizon, and other carriers. The addition of Qwest’s business services and government customers provides new and growing revenue sources. Additionally, combining the business assets of Embarq and Qwest make the new CenturyLink a formidable competitor to AT&T and Verizon in their territories. Once the mergers are complete and cost savings mostly realized, expect CenturyLink to make a significant wireless purchase. Leap Wireless comes to mind.
For Qwest the advantages are difficult to find. Qwest is clearly the acquired party with the name changing to CenturyLink and Glen Post remaining the CEO. Watch for other executive retirements and departures in the next few months. CenturyTel is known for its frugality so expect it to squeeze out every penny of the announced $625 million in cost reductions from mostly the Qwest assets. Qwest employees should expect large staff reductions in marketing, accounting, operations, and engineering. Denver and Minneapolis will be hit the hardest. Local telephone operations will undergo a major restructuring with activities centered in Monroe, LA. Although no one will call Qwest an innovator, CenturyTel’s services are definitely farther on the right side of the technology adoption curve. Expect a simplification of residential and small business services to cut costs. Also at stake is Qwest’s relationship with DirectTV since CenturyTel uses DISH. Many of the long-haul assets will be written down in value and retired because least 33% of Qwest’s long-haul fiber routes cannot support 80-channel DWDM. CenturyTel will leave business and government operations will remain mostly intact because those are not duplicated by the current operations and they do not want to tamper with the revenue flow. For shareholders, the result will be a much leaner, efficient organization with a solid cash-flow.
Consumers will be impacted by the name change and a potential switch of video providers when the DirectTV contract is up; otherwise, things will stay mostly the same. There will be no net negative impact to Qwest customers. On the other hand, no one should expect any new innovative services or major investments in network upgrades like fiber-to-the-home or faster Internet services until the debt load is dramatically reduced. The combined companies are firmly entrenched in DSL and will continue delivering industry average speeds at competitive prices. This service strategy allows them to continue to milk the profits out of the old copper in the ground to pay down on the debt. If communities are looking for faster Internet or video competition, they need to look elsewhere.
All in all, Qwest shareholders and CenturyTel benefit the most from this acquisition. Qwest employees not in government or business services will be impacted the most and consumers are no better or worse off.
Related Article: Qwest Deal Is Risky Bet for CenturyTel's Chief - WSJ.com