Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Powell: Don't Rewrite Telecom Act
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:03:28 -0500
------ Forwarded Message From: Bob Frankston <rmf31a () bobf frankston com> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 00:52:24 -0500 To: <dave () farber net>, 'Ip' <ip () v2 listbox com> Cc: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () dandin com>, Kevin Werbach <Kevin () werbach com> Subject: RE: [IP] Powell: Don't Rewrite Telecom Act The headline sounds more negative that it is -- the point is that a simple statute presuming IP is a positive step and the only viable choice. I was pleased that he started his talk by emphasizing the goal of IP connectivity and the effort to educate the FCC about IP. He made a good point about lawyers being incrementalists and I appreciate his attempt to move things forward but it's hard to take a giant step after having your feet bound in regulatory minutia for so long. When I spoke to him afterwards I asked about the implications of IP given that the "communications" function of the FCC is premised on the assumption that the transport and social policies are tied together. With IP they are distinct. Whatever one thinks of the social policies (even as he emphasized it was the "will of the people"), an IP layer would force the policies to stand on their own. He didn't seem to have a response for that. I also commented that IP fungiblity would lead to a local utility model and that the FCC should allow that option. I'm not surprised that he didn't have a ready answer for that but I am surprised that more attention hasn't been paid to the implications of separating out IP beyond a complex layer regimen within the framework of the Regulatorium. I liked much of what he said as I listened and don't mean to come across as too negative but I feel as if he is close to getting things right but ultimately he is a lawyer (and a moralist). He is impressed by TiVo and cell phones while I find them as closed platforms that are useful but not platforms as they could be. Overall, it was a wonderful conference even if, from my biased perspective, incrementalist. While there was much discussion of spectrum policy and possibilities such as agile radio I found myself most intrigued by Bob Pepper's comments about the innovation in Wi-Fi and the rise of WISPs (wireless ISPs). With all the hype about Spectrum auction I can't see how innovations could participate prior to demonstrating their value. They have to go to the free junk spectrum and there seems to be an unbounded capacity available whereas the single frequency shouting match (http://www.frankston.com/?name=SATNSFSSHS) can't be anything but a dead end -- at least as I see it. This is my extrapolation, not Bob Pepper's. In the short term exclusive shouting room has its advantages. While I appreciate the effort that you and others are putting into making our current spectrum regimen more effective ultimately the goal must be provide fungible connectivity. It's hard to patch up what is either not broken or hopelessly broken depending on your point of view. I had a number of interesting side discussions, in additional to listening to panel comments, about the future of TV broadcast and cable TV (and, perhaps IPTv which may be more cable than IP). The whole broadcast world is aimed at a shrinking audience that is still buying analog TVs. The rationale for the policy is questionable -- apparently a key senator thinks HDTV is "Hard Digital TV" and the 15% of the market that is left represents a decreasingly interesting marketplace. The future is in IP-based delivery since we are already getting the capacity for streaming, let alone precaching. The cost of backbone connectivity may seem to be an issue but if increase the usage that doesn't result in a corresponding increase in the cost of connectivity as the backbone is empty and the money has been spent. There seems to be a sharp difference of opinion between the CableCo' -- the capacity is essentially free. The CableCos complain about the price of connectivity but one of the backbone people said that's because they are building their own networks. This does seem strange considering all the fiber that lines today's highways and byways. (I am leaving out names of individuals as I don't want to quote them out of context -- but I did verify the contentions). There is some awareness of the concept of selling content directly over IP by having brokers that act like facilityless CableCos -- we see a version of this in the requirement that large dish satellite owners be able to buy programming. It's just a question of when, not whether, that business model will come to the fore. My basic point, in questions and conversations, is that IP as a protocol created the abundance of connectivity (at least for now). I can also cite my personal experience making a few leveraged tweaks that enabled home networking. I agree with Powell that petitioning Congress is not just futile, but very risky. They are looking at the industry as a way to balance the budget while we are rapidly removing the value from "telecom" and shifting it into the applications outside the purview of the Regulatory and thus even the current stealth taxes (Universal Service) et all is going go to zero. Unfortunately the fear of the T-word is so great in Washington that it will be difficult for Congress to face up to revisiting the social policies currently co-mingled with communication policy once it's detached from the transport policy. Next year's conference should be very interesting as these issues come to the fore and we face up to failure of incrementalism in face of inexorable technology/concept-drive changes. In the end, it's about evolution. We have millions of experiments yielding a bounty of opportunity but are trying to cope with it as if it we were just following the imperatives of an intelligent design. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ip () v2 listbox com [mailto:owner-ip () v2 listbox com] On Behalf Of David Farber Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 18:34 To: Ip Subject: [IP] Powell: Don't Rewrite Telecom Act ------ Forwarded Message From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com> Reply-To: <dewayne () warpspeed com> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:03:15 -0800 To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Powell: Don't Rewrite Telecom Act Powell: Don't Rewrite Telecom Act By Brad Smith BOULDER, Colo. -- Outgoing FCC Chairman Michael Powell said today he thinks the Telecom Act of 1996 is broken but to completely rewrite the law would be a mistake. Speaking at a Silicon Flatirons telecom program at the University of Colorado, Powell said a better course of action would be to write an IP statute that will take the industry forward. Powell said reopening the Telecom Act to a total rewrite could take seven or eight years and would open it up to a wide range of political influences. He admitted this might leave some companies -- and he specifically mentioned VoIP provider Vonage -- with an early competitive advantage. But he said it would also provide a business reason for incumbents to embrace VoIP. If an IP statute isn't enacted, Powell suggested it could dampen a renewed interest in telecom from Wall Street. An IP statute would make it more attractive for incumbents to get into such things as VoIP services. VoIP is only a beginning of what's going to happen with IP networks, he said; next year, video will be the hot application for IP networks. "The future [of VoIP] is very bright," Powell said. "But it's emblematic of something bigger. We need to get past VoIP." Powell said he disagreed with much of the talk about a telecom triple play. "It's all data," he said. "VoIP is just the first application." Wireless Week <http://www.wirelessweek.com> Archives at: <http://Wireless.Com/Dewayne-Net> [Note: Requires registration] Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com> ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as BobIP () Bobf Frankston com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Powell: Don't Rewrite Telecom Act David Farber (Feb 15)