Category: politics

John C. Dvorak’s Blog got blocked by Google because it was infected with malware. Even though the infection was removed pretty quickly, it took them days to remove the block. This was really obvious by the lack of donations for the best podcast in the universe on Sunday’s show.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 5:43 — 5.4MB)

How to Subscribe to PhoneBoy Speaks: iTunes | RSS feed | SoundCloud

Find PhoneBoy on: Twitter (@phoneboy) | App.Net (@PhoneBoy) | Facebook (phoneboy) | Google+

Apparently the masses are continuing their assault against Rush Limbaugh’s sponsors, which is having a massive impact on Clear Channel. Imagine if people focused that energy on their Congress Critters instead…

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 5:30 — 5.2MB)

How to Subscribe to PhoneBoy Speaks: iTunes | RSS feed | SoundCloud

Find PhoneBoy on: Twitter (@phoneboy) | App.Net (@PhoneBoy) | Facebook (phoneboy) | Google+

US Senator Rand Paul Filibustered the nomination of John Brennan for CIA Director for nearly 13 hours. I participated in my own way by following the #StandWithRand hashtag on Twitter. And recording this podcast about my experience

Meanwhile, check out the resolution that Democratic senators refused to vote on that may have prevented this filibuster.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 4:32 — 4.1MB)

How to Subscribe to PhoneBoy Speaks: iTunes | RSS feed | SoundCloud

Find PhoneBoy on: Twitter (@phoneboy) | App.Net (@phoneboy) | Facebook (phoneboy) | Google+

From The 19 Senators Who Voted To Censor The Internet:

This is hardly a surprise but, this morning as previously announced, the lame duck Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to move forward with censoring the internet via the COICA bill — despite a bunch of law professors explaining to them how this law is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Whats really amazing is that many of the same Senators have been speaking out against internet censorship in other countries, yet they happily vote to approve it here because its seen as a way to make many of their largest campaign contributors happy. Theres very little chance that the bill will actually get passed by the end of the term but, in the meantime, we figured it might be useful to highlight the 19 Senators who voted to censor the internet this morning:

My senators (Cantwell and Murray) aren’t on this committee. Not that I think they wouldn’t vote for this bill if given the chance. But I can guarantee that Feinstein (who was on this list) made some enemies in California with this vote.

Of course, the government fails to understand that the Internet routes around this kind of censorship. Always has, always will.

A little more than a week ago, l met with Chris Guttman-McCabe, Amy Storey, and David Redl of CTIA. This time around, the subject was net neutrality and how it should apply to mobile network operators. The operators have significantly more challenges to work through than wireline operators. While, in my mind, these unique challenges do not completely give the wireless operators a pass, the rules–assuming the FCC decides to apply them to the wireless operators–do need to take into account the special challenges wireless operators face.

Capacity

Wireline Internet providers can capacity plan their network fairly easily. They know, with a fair degree of certitude, how many customers that could potentially use their service at any given time. All they have to do is count the number of houses they can potentially serve at a DSLAM or cable headend and supply the appropriate amount of bandwidth. Done.

Wireless is a different story. Sure, they can make educated guesses based on the number of people in a given area, and get the appropriate towers and backhaul set up, but the reality is: that can change at a moment’s notice. Consider what happens to AT&T’s network during any high-tech trade show at Moscone Center, or worse, when a large number of people congregate in a rural area where the mobile phone networks aren’t set up to handle that many people.

In the case of Moscone Center, you’d think, given how often problems occur there, not only would AT&T have microcells throughout Moscone, but fiber backhaul to serve it. However, getting more bandwidth out to the sticks to an area that doesn’t usually see a lot of traffic is difficult to damn-near impossible.

The iPhone presents a unique challenge in all this. It uses the network like no other phone did before it. It’s as if each iPhone represents a half dozen (or more) users of conventional mobile phones in terms of usage. You get a bunch of people on iPhones showing up in one location on any one network, it will become a steaming pile of fail. We blame AT&T today–the “exclusive” carrier of the iPhone in the US–but if Verizon, Sprint, or T-Mobile get the iPhone, their network will become a steaming pile of fail, too. Mark my words on this, folks.

The fact is, wireless carriers have limited bandwidth and can’t sufficiently estimate the usage–especially with high-usage devices like the iPhone. While more spectrum and more backhaul are clearly needed, these things won’t come quickly. As a result, the mobile network operators have to do some level of network management. The FCC principles aren’t against this, but they do want providers to be very transparent about how they manage their networks.

Handsets, Applications, and Net Neutrality

The other thing that gets dragged under the “net neutrality” debate is what happens on handsets in terms of applications. One could say the FCC overstepped its bounds when it called Apple and AT&T to the carpet over the Google Voice app rejection. The other thing that gets dragged in is the concept of handset exclusivity and what handset makers want to allow (or not) on their handsets.

For me, it’s really simple: the network operators should not be allowed to dictate to end users anything beyond the technical specifications needed to connect to (and not harm) the network. Applications are not part of this specification. It’s Carterfone, but for wireless handsets and totally within the jurisdiction of the FCC to enforce.

In terms of what handset makers choose to do on their handsets, including (dis)allowing applications or certain types of uses, that’s the handset makers domain and, in my opinion, completely outside the FCC’s jurisdiction. There are two exceptions to that: the radios within mobile phones (which are FCC territory) and the locking a handset to a specific carrier (an extension of Carterfone principles). In fact, it should be illegal to lock a handset to a specific network.

Handset Exclusivity

Handset exclusivity is a non-issue for me. If a carrier wants to make an exclusive arrangement to sell a particular handset (with optional handset subsidy) or a handset maker wants to make a deal with a particular carrier to be the exclusive operator, that’s fine by me. The only exception to that rule I would make is that the handset must also be available at an unsubsidized price and not locked to a specific operator.

What is interesting, however, is that Apple is finding by dropping the “exclusive” arrangements with mobile phone operators, they are actually increasing their overall market share. This makes a ton of sense for an iconic device like the iPhone. By tying it to a specific network, they are reducing the number of potential customers who will by iPhones. Once there are multiple choices for carriers, more people will buy them.

While there are some who will choose to go with a specific network to get a specific device, say AT&T for the iPhone, the fact is, most people won’t make that jump. In some cases, they can’t because, say, AT&T doesn’t offer service in their area, or because they know that Sprint has absolutely garbage coverage where they need it most. It still comes down to the network.

Conclusions

More spectrum and bandwidth are needed. The amounts are debatable, but clearly more is needed. Anything that can be done to normalize the spectrum we’re using with the EU would be awesome!

The FCC cannot dictate to handset makers what kinds of restrictions they can put on their application software. This issue is outside the FCC’s regulatory domain and should be left to the handset makers, or at the very least to the FTC, which does have jurisdiction over this area. However, handsets being locked to specific carriers should be illegal.

Handset exclusivity? Sure, as long as I can buy it unlocked for full price and take it elsewhere.

Read FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s speech on net neutrality and then read the CTIA’s response to it. I’m not sure these two letters are about the same thing. Here’s a quote from the CTIA response:

As a justification for the adoption of rules, the Chairman suggested that one reason for concern “has to do with limited competition among service providers.” This is at the core of our concerns.Unlike the other platforms that would be subject to the rules, the wireless industry is extremely competitive, extremely innovative, and extremely personal. How do the rules apply to the single-purpose Amazon Kindle? How does it apply to Google’s efforts to cache content to provide a better consumer experience? How about the efforts from Apple and Android, Blackberry and Nokia, Firefly and others to differentiate the products and services they develop for consumers? Should all product and service offerings be the same?

I will agree there is more competition in the wireless space than there is for wire or fiber-based Internet service. However, the examples that the CTIA is offering up as questions don’t really apply to the FCC’s domain. If anything, Google, Nokia, Apple and others are simply customers of the operators and these new rules would benefit them just fine.

The next paragraph in the CTIA statement says a lot more about what the carriers think about net neutrality:

Regarding spectrum investment, the Commission need only look at the results of the 700 MHz auction to understand the impact on investment. The C Block rules, which included an open requirement, had only two bidders, and sold for significantly less. The other licenses, which sold for significantly more, were sold with the promise that the spectrum would not be subject to the open rules. Now the Commission is considering changing the rules after the auction — impacting companies’ confidence in the auction process — just as carriers are facing a brewing spectrum crisis.

The reason this block of spectrum didn’t garner more money is because the operators are, surprise surprise, against net neutrality principles. They did not want to be subject to open rules, thus they didn’t bid on the spectrum. It speaks nothing about the ecosystem around the network (e.g. the device manufacturers, other service providers), which I expect would flourish under more open rules.

Whether or not the wired/fiber network connections have less competition than their wireless brethren, it doesn’t matter. The FCC is generally proposing to treat wired and wireless Internet under the same rules.  “Robust competition” is not a valid reason for being exempt from these rules, should they come to pass.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Phone companies say ‘no’ to Net neutrality for wireless (news.cnet.com)
• FCC chairman proposes ‘open internet’ rules (cbc.ca)
• Mobile Carriers Tout App Stores to Fend Off Regulators (wired.com)
• F.C.C. Chairman Proposes ‘Open Internet’ Rules (nytimes.com)
• What to Expect From the New Net Neutrality Rules (gigaom.com)

Last weekend, I seriously flirted with the idea of getting an iPhone 3GS. Serious enough that I actually went into an AT&T Store, played with one for a few minute, and actually tried to buy one. But I couldn’t pull the trigger. Not that I didn’t want to, but AT&T did not allow me to.

Let me explain. In AT&T jargon, I am what you call a Corporate Responsibility User. In short, my employer pays the bill directly. Good thing, too, because my bill isn’t exactly cheap with the voice, data, and international calling/roaming addons that I have. The downside to this arrangement is that I am unable to purchase a phone from directly from an AT&T store, even if I pay with my own money.

The reason? Pretty much any phone I buy will involve a change of some sort to my account. As a CRU, I am not allowed to make any changes to my account. Heck, I can’t even call AT&T and complain about service issues as I can’t even get past the initial account check since I don’t have the “secret” information.

In the case of an iPhone purchase, the changes needed to my account would not affect the monthly rate. I have an unlimited data plan already. It would, however, add a contract, which is something I haven’t had on my line in a while. Working for Nokia does have some advantages, since I could get much better phones than AT&T was offering.

Even if I wanted to pay full price for the handset either directly from Apple or from AT&T, because pretty much any handset requires an account change of some sort, I am screwed. I cannot buy it from Apple or AT&T directly. I have to go through my employer, which I plan on doing for the iPhone 3GS within the next few days.

Can someone please explain why AT&T–or any operator for that matter–has to know what kind of handset I have? Shouldn’t handsets conform to the relevant standards and that be enough for the operators? How come this tying of phones to service provider isn’t illegal everywhere?

If an operator tried to tie a phone to a specific landline network, it would be illegal in the United States, thanks to the Carterfone ruling. How come when we add a wireless radio to the phone, that rule suddenly doesn’t apply?

I’m not saying that carriers can’t sell subsidized phones in exchange for a contract commitment. That’s their choice. But making it so I cannot buy a phone outright because it is inexorably tied to my service? It should be illegal.