IP Convergence: Beyond VoIP, Beyond Cost Savings - net neutrality

and from the "No taps for you" department...

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:06:53 +0000

This one is a beauty - on Jan. 10th of this month, the ACLU issued a statement that reported that a FBI wiretap was "unplugged" due to a lack of payment. The ACLU is quick to point out that this action was taken from the same telecoms that permitted the tap without the proper approvals...

From Michael German, ACLU National Security Policy Counsel: "It seems the telecoms, who are claiming they were just being "good patriots" when they allowed the government to spy on us without warrants, are more than willing to pull the plug on national security investigations when the government falls behind on its bills."

Adam "voiploser" Uzelac
DISCLAIMER: The comments here are mine only. They don't necessarily reflect intelligence, refined thoughts, or anything that the reader should take too seriously. Should the reader expect a polished thought process in the content addressed here, then a strong dose of medication should be prescribed to address that misconception.

Don't grease the squeaky wheel just yet

Wed, 21 Nov 2007 23:29:35 +0000

The fallout from Comcast’s alleged traffic management practices continues with the filing of a petition by Vuze, Inc., an Internet distributor of high definition content. This petition follows on the heels of the complaint filed by a coalition of consumer groups.

The Vuze petition asks the FCC to “adopt reasonable rules that would prevent the network operators from engaging in practices that discriminate against particular Internet applications, content or technologies.” Vuze says that it does not object to “traffic management” practices, but asks the FCC to ensure that such practices meet the following conditions –

1. The network operators’ network management practices should be based on actual impact on the network, rather than targeting or disproportionately impacting specific services or technologies;

2. Network management practices should be transparent and publicly disclosed, providing consumers, content providers, applications developers, and service
providers greater certainty that their preferred technology and services are acceptable and not subject to interference on broadband networks; and

3. Network management practices should not used as a pretext for discriminating against particular types of content or services that the network operators may view as unacceptable or potential sources of competition.

While I certainly can appreciate Vuze’s interest in establishing such rules, I again have to ask, as I have throughout this entire “net neutrality” debate, why otherwise entrepreneurial people would run to the government for help with what is essentially a problem in their distribution chain? Who is advising these companies to seek redress before the FCC and why are they being listened to? Even a cursory review of the FCC’s record would show that they are a terrible forum for these types of disputes.

More broadly, why is everyone trying to invite the FCC to regulate the Internet? Has the FCC done such a great job regulating telecommunications, cable, and broadcasting that we want them now to regulate the Internet? Think through what jurisdiction over the Internet could encompass. Network operators, ISPs, content providers, equipment manufacturers, software developers, hardware manufacturers, service providers, the list is endless. By the time all is said and done, the FCC would have jurisdiction over an enormous segment of the economy. Is this what we want? If ever there was a sure way to retard our technological progress and innovation, this is it. I said it before and I will say it again, the cure (FCC regulation) in this case is likely far worse than the disease (alleged discrimination).

Parties should try working these issues out amongst themselves before asking the FCC to get involved. No where in Vuze’s petition do they say that they tried to work it out directly with Comcast. Perhaps if they did, they would find a mutually beneficial solution. Perhaps not. But that doesn’t mean “there ought to be a rule.” As I said the other day, there are a host of relationships that need to reach equilibrium before the Internet matures. It would be a shame to freeze some of these relationships in place just to grease the squeaky wheel.

A net neutrality storm

Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:21:45 +0000

Following recent reports that Comcast “actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files on line,” a coalition of consumer groups filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) seeking an injunction against the practice. The coalition also is asking the FCC to declare that degradation of service in the manner that Comcast is alleged to have engaged violates FCC policies and principles, particularly the FCC’s Internet Policy Statement . Even before this action, the reports about Comcast’s actions sparked members of the Senate to request hearings on the matter.

I have to admit that I was surprised at the sophistication of the practice as it is alleged, and perhaps more so that it was Comcast and not Verizon or AT&T. I don’t mean that in a pejorative sense, it’s just that AT&T and Verizon are generally more experienced in this field, particularly with their Internet backbone networks. In any event, this has all led parties to once again whip up the net neutrality frenzy, even infecting the Presidential campaign.

The Progress and Freedom Foundation (“PFF”) tried to put the issue in perspective with a release pointing out that this wasn’t so much a net neutrality problem as it is a pricing problem that Comcast (and other ISPs) have. The primary reason net neutrality is even an issue is not because ISPs have nothing better to do than sit around and figure out how to mess with particular services and applications (at least not yet). It is because certain services and applications place a disproportionate burden on the Internet infrastructure. Due to the nature of Internet connectivity and routing, often times the compensation for service is not direct or entirely clear. But as the following example illustrates, all parties are being compensated.

Assume Content Provider A purchases its Internet connectivity from Carrier X. Carrier X is directly compensated by Content Provider A for the capacity it requires. If, however, Carrier X peers with Carrier Y on a settlement free basis and passes Content Provider A’s traffic through the peering point, Carrier Y may complain that it is not being compensated for the capacity required to carry Content Provider A’s traffic. And while it is true that Carrier Y is not receiving direct payment within the framework of a settlement free peering arrangement, Carrier Y does have the right to pass its own traffic to Carrier X on a settlement free basis and therefore is “compensated” in that fashion. The settlement free peering is maintained so long as Carrier X and Carrier Y continue to believe they are receiving roughly equal value from the relationship. Moreover, if Carrier Y is still not satisfied that it is being fairly compensated, Carrier Y can compete for Content Provider A’s business and obtain the direct compensation it seeks.

Now assume Carrier Y has a transit arrangement with ISP 1 whereby ISP 1 pays Carrier Y for Internet transit services. When Carrier Y passes Content Provider A’s traffic to ISP 1 for delivery to ISP 1’s end user customer, ISP 1 is actually paying Carrier Y for that traffic. Of course, ISP 1 is also compensated by its end user for Internet access. So, the traffic flow and money flow for the above example looks as follows –

If Carrier X is setting the right price to Content Provider A and Carrier Y is setting the right price to ISP 1 and ISP 1 is setting the right price to its end user, then everyone should be happy. The fact that some parties are not happy is a result of either (1) their own pricing, (2) their inability to compete effectively for certain market segments, or (3) they are greedy. In either event, it is the party’s problem and not a defect in the Internet.

Some carriers want to charge premium prices for “premium” delivery of content in the belief that this will improve their lot. Others suggest carriers simply need to add more capacity as that is a less expensive alternative to the sophisticated traffic management tools that Comcast and others are beginning to employ and would be required to support premium delivery.

At this point, I don’t think anyone knows what the right answer is. This is one reason why it would be foolish to impose a net neutrality mandate at this time. As the above example and diagram illustrates, there are a host of market factors that need to come into equilibrium in order for the market to function smoothly. Considering how early we are in the growth curve of the Internet, those who advocate legislating an equilibrium now run a very high risk of getting it wrong. It is also presumptuous to think that a “problem” even exists just because of a vocal minority. AT&T and Verizon are but two of many Internet backbone operators. Just because they are complaining doesn’t mean there is a problem. Similarly, just because some heavy users complain that their Internet experience is being disrupted doesn’t mean that the rest of us aren’t happy.

So before everyone gets their knickers in a bunch over Comcast’s alleged actions, maybe they should give some serious consideration as to what the problem really is, who is affected by the problem, and what the consequences of action at this time are.

Virtualization – Part 2 - The Abstraction of the Computer

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:16:06 +0000

Here's the second part of our Virtualization series and a continuation of Virtualization - Part 1 – The Abstraction of the Internet.

A computer consists of several key elements that along with software (and firmware) provide useful applications like the browser you are using to read this blog from our web servers.

Here are some of the items that are noteworthy:

Central Processing Unit (CPU) – aka Pentium for you wintel folks, is the heart of the computer and executes instructions (software or firmware) that are programmed by a software engineer.

Input/Output Devices – Provides a method to enter , display or share information from the computer, for example: Display, keyboard, mouse.

Random Access Memory (RAM) – Is memory that is accessed by the CPU which losses its contents when you remove power. RAM (Typically) is the fastest memory that a CPU and “read” or “write”.

Disk Drive – Is memory that is also accessed by the CPU which doesn’t lose its contents when you remove power. Disks are slower than RAM.

Flash Memory – Is like RAM but has the characteristics of a disk drive.

Data Bus – Depending on the CPU (8 bit, 16 bit, 32 bit or 64 bits wide) is where the CPU can read or write data from or to the various memory devices, Input/Output devices. Each bit is a “1” or “0”.

Address Bus – Also dependent on the CPU , this is where the CPU (using bits) selects the location in memory to read or write data.

Firmware – aka BIOS for wintel folks, is software that is used to “boot” (restart from a known state) the computer that resides in Flash memory or a Programmable Read Only Memory (PROM).

Software – eg Office.

Operating System – eg Windows, is a layer of software that abstracts the hardware and controls the overall operation of the computer.

Networks – Are communication systems that allow computers to share information.

Programming Languages – A CPU can only understand binary (“1” or “0” s) for the instructions it executes. There are various instructions to read , write, add, multiply, subtract , divide and move data. However, Humans need to abstract the instructions into words to make it easier. These languages define the way words are used forming a grammer (just like English or Spanish) . The first form of languages are assembler languages which are specific to a CPU and not portable, the subsequent languages like C, C++, FORTRAN, Pascal provided more functionality with Database languages like 3GL, 4GL etc..

A computer can be a main frame, a desktop or your laptop which were confined to a area (room, your desk or your lap).

Advances in networking have provided efficient methods of distributing the CPU from Disks, Input/Output devices.

Storage Area Networks are clusters of disk drives that are no longer directly connected to the computer using the various buss’s described above. This is a key level of abstraction which has allowed distributed computing to evolve into GRID computing where the software is one place, the CPUs in another and memory in yet another. Distributed computing provides more efficient use of computing at unparalleled level of disaster recovery.

Why is this important?

Computing has and will continue to be the mother of invention for advances not only in the hardware or software but also in the networks that connect everything together like the Internet or also an Enterprise VPN.

More later :

Virtualization – Part 3 - The Abstraction of Applications
Concepts of a Application Programmers Interface (API), examples and pitfalls for APIs and the abstraction of Web Services.

Process is Important

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:34:07 +0000

The Department of Justice voiced its opinion on the issue of net neutrality the other week when it filed comments with the FCC concerning the FCC’s review of broadband industry practices. It was no surprise to see the Department come out opposed to net neutrality regulations and they certainly cited all the right reasons for their position. But there was one aspect of their comments which gives pause.

In their comments, the Department states –

“Anticompetitive conduct about which the proponents of regulation are concerned will remain subject to the antitrust laws and enforcement actions by government as well as private plaintiffs, and the Department will continue to monitor developments, taking enforcement action where appropriate to ensure a competitive broadband Internet access market.”

Coming from previous Administrations, these words may have been somewhat reassuring, but from this Administration, they ring somewhat hollow. Funnily enough, the Department cites its review of recent mergers in the telecommunications industry, including SBC’s acquisition of AT&T and Verizon’s acquisition of MCI, as evidence of their “antitrust enforcement and competition advocacy efforts.” Considering the consensus view that the Department’s review of these mergers was less than adequate, it is not very reassuring to know that the Department is the only option in this arena.

And that brings me to my main point. Anti-trust actions are a terrible instrument for justice in the telecommunications industry and exclusive reliance on anti-trust enforcement will not prevent the sort of behavior with which so many parties are concerned. Indeed, anti-trust enforcement is a terrible instrument in any industry in which there are numerous new entrants and one or more dominant incumbents. Anti-trust actions take a great deal of time, evidence and resources, are extremely costly, and new entrants rarely have the financial resources to withstand a protracted anti-trust enforcement against an entrenched incumbent. Typically, by the time they have resorted to an anti-trust action their ability to attract continued capital is crippled. Even if they do “win” an anti-trust action, the damage to their business is already complete and the victory is pyrrhic indeed. Not to mention the fact that the bar to a successful anti-trust action has been raised extremely high as a result of recent Supreme Court rulings.

All of this is not to say that the Department is wrong or that we need net neutrality regulations. I continue to believe there are marketplace solutions to the net neutrality concerns that are far superior to new regulations. But it is to say that we need something other than traditional anti-trust enforcement to stop abuses as they are happening and not after the fact. I have long been a critic of the traditional regulatory, legal, and political process that currently consumes so much of this industry’s resources and serves to simply protect the status quo.

More than ever this industry needs a rapid, efficient and effective alternative dispute resolution process. Instead of bashing the Department for its substantive stand on the issue, net neutrality proponents should instead be more concerned about the process for remediation proposed by the Department. If the potential for harm is as bad as net neutrality proponents claim, anti-trust enforcement is a lousy tool indeed and offers no relief to the start-up run out of business because they were blocked from accessing consumers on the Internet.

Ready for a scary thing? Deep Packet Inspection!

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:57:49 +0000

According to Wikipedia Deep Packet Inspection is “a form of computer network packet filtering that examines the data part of a through-passing packet, searching for non-protocol compliance or predefined criteria to decide if the packet can pass. This is in contrast to shallow packet inspection (usually called just packet inspection) which just checks the header portion of a packet.”

First off, this is a very real technology. A quick search via google brought the company Bivio Networks to my attention. (* Disclaimer: I have no interest, financial or otherwise with this company.) Bivio’s 7000 series claims that
“when fully configured, the 7000's application processing subsystem offers 45,000 MIPS -- enough to run "any IP network service" at wire speeds up to 10Gbps -- including IDS/IDP, firewalling, VPN, network surveillance, lawful interception, and application traffic management. Developers can use any of the standard Linux components (such as iptables) as part of their deep packet processing applications.

Now let’s look at some of the implications of DPI. A very interesting article on here from ars technica puts things in an interesting light:

“Imagine a device that sits inline in a major ISP's network and can throttle P2P traffic at differing levels depending on the time of day. Imagine a device that allows one user access only to e-mail and the Web while allowing a higher-paying user to use VoIP and BitTorrent. Imagine a device that protects against distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks, scans for viruses passing across the network, and siphons off requested traffic for law enforcement analysis. Imagine all of this being done in real time, for 900,000 simultaneous users, and you get a sense of the power of deep packet inspection (DPI) network appliances.
Although the technology isn't yet common knowledge among consumers, DPI already gives network neutrality backers nightmares and enables American ISPs to comply with CALEA (government-ordered Internet wiretaps) reporting requirements. It also just might save the Internet (depending on who you believe). “
The power of this technology is simply awesome, and the impacts it can have are serious. The current state of government mandated network monitoring forces some network operators to consider implementing this. One word jumps to my mind, and that’s SCARY – and I am not referring to my driver’s license picture either!

By the way, did I mention that the above Bivio 7000 is listed at $10,000!

Virtualization- Part 1 - The Abstraction of the Internet

Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:00:45 +0000

A key element of virtualization is the concept of abstraction. Abstraction can take many forms and many applications with profound benefits.

This is the first of a five part series on the evolution of virtualization, with the following planned articles:

Virtualization – Part 2 - The Abstraction of the Computer
The definition of a computer (CPU, data bus, memory, input/output, and disk) , the abstraction of programming a computer (machine code, assembly language, 3rd generation programming languages (3GL), 4GL and 5GL), the separation of a CPU from disk and the application of a Storage Area Network (SAN), blade servers and the realization of GRID computing.

Virtualization – Part 3 - The Abstraction of Applications
Concepts of a Application Programmers Interface (API), examples and pitfalls for APIs and the abstraction of Web Services.

Virtualization – Part 4 – Virtualization of Voice Communications
Telephony basics in the circuit switched voice network and the evolution of the packet switched voice network , aka VoIP.

Virtualization – Part 5 - Real World IT Examples and Benefits
The anatomy and benefits of Virtual Data Centers and Call Centers

We’ll start the series on a model that is near and dear to our hearts – the Internet.

Vint Cerf is one of the founding fathers of the internet and created a transport model of moving packets from one network to another. Seems pretty straight forward but, back in the day this was not an easy task as the networks were typically homogenous deployed by a single hardware vendor (DEC, AT&T, NCR, Apollo, Banyan, etc… ). Each vendor had their own proprietary methods of defining a ‘packet’ (that is,   the number of bits in a ‘packet’; the order of the bits in a ‘packet’; the number of bytes in a ‘packet’; and the meaning of each bit/byte in a ‘packet’), and the way these computers spoke to each other (i.e. the protocol).

The first major challenge was to allow these desperate networks to exchange data. The challenge was met by defining common communication protocols (i.e. TCP/IP, UCP, etc …) , and   a common packet & addressing structure.

This allowed high powered users (Scientists at the world's research institutions) to efficiently communicate across an environment largely made up of heterogeneous computers. Within this structure, application developers at each vendor (DEC, AT&T, NCR, Apollo, Banyan, etc…) developed tools, using the agreed upon common protocols , to transfer files (FTP), login into another computer (TELNET) and exchange email (POP3, SMTP).

Tim Bernes-Lee was one of those high powered users and wanted to find an easier way of navigating thru the internet without having to issue ftp commands or walk thru folders ( i.e. directories). He created an abstraction between what the internet looked like and the commands that facilitated communications . Tim created the notion of the world wide web. The world’s first web site was brought online in 1991.

Tim is credited for creating the following words we all use everyday: www, http and HyperText Transfer Protocol.

These abstractions have lead to an unprecedented number of users to the internet in very little time.   A concept that some call, “Internet Time” .

“Internet Time” is defined by Wikipedia   as:

“Internet time was a common catchphrase that originated during the late-1990s Internet boom. In this period, people who worked with the Internet had come to believe that "everything moved faster on the 'net", because the Internet made the dissemination of information far easier and cheaper. Fast-moving developments were therefore said to run "on Internet time".

Efforts in virtualization of the internet are focused in/around layer 3 of the OSI stack, in the next article in this series we will take a dive into the machines themselves to understand abstraction as it relates to their operation and subsequent evolution, in Part 2 - The Abstraction of the Computer.

We’ll then take a quick look at the applications that ride over them in Part 3 – The Abstraction of Applications.

After understanding the abstraction of the Application, we’ll look at a very basis of communications – Voice , in Part 4 - Virtualization of Voice Communications.

In the final article we will put all of these pieces together in understanding the anatomy and benefits of Virtual Data Centers and Call Centers , in Part 5 - Real World IT Examples and Benefits.

The Politics of VoIP in Developing Nations

Thu, 03 May 2007 13:29:55 +0000

The Politics of VoIP in Developing Nations

Recently I had an opportunity to meet with a native of Malawi. The meeting came about due to a group of visiting “ambassadors” from Africa. One of the participants was a gentleman by the name of Frank Mvalo. Per his bio:

Frank Mvalo from Malawiworks in the private sector in management and IT systems as a management consultant. During the exchange, Franks wants to learn more on strategic management and business planning, monitoring tools for the field of development, and the management of IT development projects. Frank speaks 3 languages and is married with one child. (http://www.rotary7120.org/GSETeams.cfm)

He requested a series of meetings with folks while in the US that are in the IT and Telecommunications field. The visit was organized by the Group Study Exchange (GSE) program of the Rotary Foundation. While I am not a Rotarian, I know a number of people that are. They reached out to me, and earlier this week I sat down with Frank for lunch to discuss telecommunications technologies like VoIP, and it’s potential applicability in developing nations like Malawi. The conversation quickly moved away from the technology to regulations. I learned in areas of the world where the impacts of technological advances could have the greatest impact, prohibitive regulations by corrupt governments in these developing nations prove to be the biggest stumbling block.

Later that evening, as a result of this eye-opening discussion, I decided to learn more. I performed a simple google search with the key-words “voip in third world countries” – and of the 1million plus hits, result number 1 and 3 are titled:

1) » Third World VoIP blocking has the stench of corruption 2) Techdirt: Put Down The VoIP Phone, And Come Out With Your Hands Up

From the first article:

“Namibia is the latest nation to go absolutely convulsive over the prospect of some of its citizens bypassing the local phone monopoly by selling and using VoIP. Five people have been busted.”

At a time when the digital divide widens between the haves and have nots, it’s sad to see that technical innovation is stifled at times when bridge building across the divide needs to take place. Should you read more, you will see that it’s not just policies of the third world nations, but also restrictions of financial backers. Frankly, the whole thing reeks of corruption.

Adam "voiploser" Uzelac

Put up or shut up

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 02:32:42 +0000

The FCC released the text of its net neutrality Notice of Inquiry. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the inquiry is how narrow it is. The “inquiry” consists of four paragraphs seeking information on packet management practices and broadband pricing practices.

The FCC basically challenges net neutrality proponents to put up or shut up with this statement – “Commenters should provide specific, verifiable examples with supporting documentation, and should limit their comments to those practices that are technically feasible today.”

Despite what the FCC says, I somehow suspect the record is going to be long on rhetoric and short on facts.

The FCC Finally Gets Around to Net Neutrality

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:35:31 +0000

The FCC announced the release of its long anticipated NOI on ne t neutrality. Readers of this blog know where I stand on the issue. I have long said (before Bruce Owen of the Free State Foundation) that the proposed cure is worse than the disease. I have also said that the key to a robust Internet are the peering arrangements that form the “network of networks” which comprise the Internet.

One thing you hear most often from net neutrality proponents is that without net neutrality rules nascent web sites will be deprived of the opportunity to blossom into the next Google, Yahoo!, or YouTube. To the extent that the proponents are concerned with that wouldn’t the simple solution be to require all consumer broadband Internet providers to complete all “calls” (in this case “URLS’) launched by their customers? In the telephony world, carriers are required to terminate all calls originated by their customers unless there is an affirmative block on the call either because the originating customer has placed the block to avoid toll charges, or the originating customer placed the block to avoid the content of the terminating service (e.g., chat lines, pay-per-call services, etc.). Alternatively, called parties can block calls to prevent harassment and other problems. Can’t an analogous rule apply for Internet services?

Such a rule would address the core concern expressed by net neutrality proponents, while at the same time it would ensure that peering negotiations remain dynamic and support a robust Internet without interfering with the management of the underlying network of networks. You see, if a backbone operator has compelling content on its network that consumers want, then even if those consumers are served by a different backbone operator (say one that is integrated with a consumer broadband operator) they would nonetheless be required to interconnect in some way with that backbone operator in order to complete the consumer’s Internet query. Since the FCC allowed certain consumer broadband operators to vertically integrate by acquiring significant backbone assets, it is only fair for the FCC to say that these operators cannot use their massive base of “eyeballs” to unfairly advantage themselves in peering negotiations.

No doubt such a rule would favor to some extent content over eyeballs, but by tilting the balance in favor of content over eyeballs, the FCC is ensuring that the incumbent network operators do not leverage their privileged access to eyeballs to the detriment of new entrants. Moreover, the FCC would ensure that the Internet remains a user-driven, bottoms-up medium and not a top-down medium. And isn’t that what the Internet is all about?

Network2 vs. Apple TV

Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:06:20 +0000

Coincidentally enough as I was reading Jeff Pulver’s Network2 Petition for Declaratory Ruling before the FCC, I received an email from Apple touting its new Apple TV. And it reminded me of the checks and balances that exist between network-based services and hardware-based services.

As Jeff describes it, Network2 “provides a free service intended to facilitate growth of a particular kind of Internet Video: original programming created specifically for Internet distribution that is episodic or continually updated and which meets Network2’s standards for technical quality and production value.”

Apple describes Apple TV as follows – “Now all the hit movies, TV shows, music, and podcasts on iTunes—and your photos, too—can be enjoyed in your living room on your big-screen TV, transferred wirelessly from any Mac or PC in your home.”

While the content may differ between Network2 and Apple TV, aren’t they essentially offering the same service? Aside from the professionalism of the content, the only other difference between the services is Network2 is network-based and Apple TV is hardware-based.

But this distinction is starting to have real consequences that the industry and policy makers need to heed. Why does Jeff have to be so concerned with regulation while Apple seemingly could care less? (Actually, I am a little puzzled as to why Jeff filed this petition. He cites a European Commission initiative to harmonize the treatment of all video services, but I am not sure I see that necessarily as a threat to his service and in any event, I do not see a threat here in the U.S. But I guess this is an effective way to garner some press for Network2.) Note as well each party’s interest in net neutrality. Presumably net neutrality will be a very important issue for Network2. Not so for Apple TV because it does not rely on real-time delivery.

Does Apple have the superior business model? Is Apple’s approach to video distribution better than Jeff’s because it is insulated from regulation and efforts by network operators to increase revenue? Is Jeff’s model better because it is not subject to the demands of powerful content providers and plagued by DRM demands?

For regulators the question to ask is whether their policies unnecessarily distort the competitive market and provide an artificial advantage to Apple TV. For telecommunications carriers, the question to ask is whether their actions (such as seeking to charge premium prices for premium delivery) are encouraging hardware-based solutions to which they have limited competitive responses.

Om Malik is reporting that "Web Giants Team Up for Wireless Spectrum Auctions".

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:00:45 +0000

Take note as Om Malik is reporting that "Web Giants Team Up for Wireless Spectrum Auctions".

The item to take note is where in the Radio Spectrum the web giants are watching. 700Mhz could be a the space where higher bit rate , non-line-of-sight solutions may develop.

As a general rule of thumb, the available bit-rate increases as you move higher in the Radio Specturm. The 2.4Ghz range provides less available bit rate than say 5.3Ghz. However achieving higher bit rates at 5.3Ghz requires line-of-sight and is more suspectible to packet loss with sources of mositure (rain, snow, leaves, etc...).

The definition of line-of-sight is that the premise radio attenna must have a clear shot at the radio tower, any obstruction in-line will decrease the available bit rate and any trees that are in-line (depending on where you sit in the Radio Specturm) may cause packet loss due to the mositure they carry.

Lower rates of the Radio Specturm offer bit rates that don't require line-of-sight however don't have the bit rates available at higher frequencies.

Let's watch this play out as I'm sure there will be innovation that utilizes past technologies like 'spread sprectrum" that will harness the bit rate at lower frequencies taking full advantage of non-line-of-sight.

My point exactly

Fri, 23 Feb 2007 03:24:15 +0000

David Isenberg’s February 16th post makes my case for opposing net neutrality laws and regulations. Commenting on the FTC broadband workshop, Isenberg proves my point in the net neutrality debate. He states –

“At its FTC Workshop on Broadband Connectivity this week the FTC proved in real time that it was incapable of its mission. Its choice of speakers and the way it ran its so-called workshop made it clear. I was so infuriated I was ready to commit civil disobedience. (Not that FCC kabuki protects us better, but it does not make my blood boil the way this event did.)”

I have seen variations on this comment in various contexts by various parties. So I have to ask, why would you want to put an issue as important as net neutrality in the hands of bureaucracies that you lament are incapable of their mission? This is what I do not understand about net neutrality advocates.

Why would government agencies that have historically shown a preference for the incumbent interest over the public interest all of the sudden get it right with net neutrality? Isn’t it more likely that these agencies will favor the incumbent interests when they adopt regulations implementing a vague Congressional statute? (And you know it is going to be vague because it has to be the subject of compromise in order to garner enough votes.) And won’t this lead to protracted litigation before several layers of federal courts? And don’t the Bell Companies hold the advantage in resources for this sort of war of attrition? After all, AT&T has the legal, regulatory, and political resources of the former SBC, Pacific Bell, Ameritech, SNET, AT&T and BellSouth. For those of us who remember the CLEC wars of the 1990s, any one of these former companies was a formidable foe. Now all of those resources sit under the control of one company! It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how this movie ends.

So I have to ask…what are you thinking?! Why would you place the fate of your business in bureaucrats favorable to incumbent interests? Take advantage of market dynamics and peering arrangements to achieve your goals. Rely on the ability of entrepreneurs to out-compete and out-maneuver the incumbents in an industry that is changing too rapidly for their enormous bureaucracies to keep up. But do it quickly before the incumbents cement their dominance on the Internet.

Face the Music

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:30:12 +0000

There is an interesting article on BusinessWeek.com about a protest (this English-language article contains a link to the protest in Norwegian) filed by the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman against Apple alleging that the exclusive link between Apple's iPod and iTunes music store violates Norwegian consumer law by preventing iPod owners from playing songs bought from other online services or listening to iTunes songs on rival MP3 players. The article goes on to state that the Dutch Consumer Ombudsman is making similar claims and that a total of seven European Union member countries are looking into the issue.

Recalling my last entry, I really think the sort of exclusivity practiced by Apple is far more pernicious than the potential harms perceived by net neutrality proponents. Apple of course claims their DRM is necessary to secure their partnership with the record labels, but it appears (subscription required) that the recording industry is starting to take a more enlightened view. Let’s hope that the Europeans force Apple to face the music sooner rather than later.

Global Crossing puts dns redirection in the lab

Sat, 27 Jan 2007 03:06:22 +0000

What would you do if you were approached by someone saying that they wanted to enter into a partnership with you that would require little or no money out of your own pocket and would pay you on a monthly basis. If it were an email, you'd dismiss it as just another SPAM, or if it was a phone call you'd dispatch it as you would any tele-marketer.

When paxfire approached us last summer offering exactly that, we didn't kick them out. I'm not saying that you jump on every peice of investment advice that ends up in your junk folder, but haven't you ever been curious enough to look up the ticker symbol to see if the spam campaign has had an impact on the stock price?

We had to hear what they proposed , because the prospect of receiving additional revenue with no COGS means that, if true, our gross margin and margin percentage see direct improvement. Or as the MacKenzie brother's might say, "free beer, eh?"

The arrangement is pretty straight forward. You drop a vendor-supplied appliance in front of your DNS server and it will capture a failed DNS requests, and answer the request with the IP of a search engine page with advertisements on it. Whatever money the company makes off advertising is split 50/50 with the ISP.

Right around the time we started talking to paxfire, net neutrality was one of the hottest topics of debate in the blogosphere. Was this technology a net neutrality issue?

While it is true that this technology could be used to do sneaky things with people's DNS requests, lots of things could be leveraged to do sneaky things with people's packets, and we have no more motivation to make our customers Internet perform slow by tipping the QoS scales in someone elses favor than we would to divert reasonable DNS requests in a manner that paying customers would disapprove of. Having the means to do something doesn't mean you will. Just because you own an ax doesn't mean you'll chop the heads off chickens...maybe you just want to split some wood. Case in point, there is one installation of this technology that uses a subscription-based list of known phishing sites and redirects the person to a portal that explains phishing and then allows them to continue to the originally requested site if they wish.

Right around the time we were debating this internally, the Earthlink news hit the streets. After Earthlink deployed a similar solution from a company called Barefruit, they posted a blog Handling Dead Domains for which they got flamed by their customers (and non-customers) for

a) not telling customers ahead of time,
b) not providing an opt-out capability and
c) in general, breaking the basic functionality of DNS.

The move drew fire from the blogosphere as well, with negative comments by Om Malik, the Tao of Mac, and slashdot.

We are hoping that we've learned from Earthlink's experience. The purpose of this blog is to let customers know with plenty of advanced notice that we're lab testing a similar (but better) solution. If we successfully get through lab tests we will post another blog entry to let people know when it will go live and how they can opt out.

The last issue can be addressed through one of the advanced configuration options available from paxfire (although the difference in ad revenues could be significant). The paxfire solution can be set up so that it only grabs what is referred to as keyword traffic. A keyword is when you just type your search term into the address bar. If you are running a browser that supports an autosearch and you have not configured your browser to use a particular search engine, it will grab those search keywords and re-direct them to a search engine.. Since it's a real DNS name that is hardcoded into your browser application and not a random DNS request that is going to fail, all other applications on your computer continue to work normally, receiving a unknown hostname error if you use the wrong domain. We're currently thinking that we might use this setup on the opt-out servers since it's pretty innocuous, and will experiment with a less-conservative setting in a field trial setting to compare the difference.

Lab testing has gone well so far, and everything is working as advertised, and we'll be announcing a field trial soon. If you're a Global Crossing customer and you have comments or concerns, contact your account manager or drop a comment here.