worth reading more on : Telco's Arrogant Stand on Content

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Date: January 7, 2006 7:30:05 PM EST
To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: RE: [IP] more on : Telco's Arrogant Stand on Content

I had a lot of conversations about these issues at CES and want to  
write a more complete summary.

For now I’ll just pass on some of what I learned. In particular, I  
spoke to someone who claimed to be a fATT (faux ATT) technologist who  
didn't know anything about policy but he was able to spout the party  
line.

He said that fATT is upping the speed of copper instead of deploying  
fiber -- I actually agree with that. It makes more sense. He said  
they were getting 25 to 30 mbps (which does demonstrate that DSL can  
go much faster than VZ claims).

The IPTV stream is within this space and competes with the users’  
other activities. They prioritize voice, then video and the rest of  
the packets.

From a bellhead perspective this makes perfect sense -- after all, a  
25 to 30mbps path isn't all that large if you want to run 10mbps  
video streams.

But then he spouted the party line about investing 50 billion  
dollars. Unfortunately he had already said he was late for another  
meeting so I didn't get a chance to ask him to reconcile the $5e10  
which was the number given for a fiber buildout with the more  
sensible (http://www.frankston.com/?name=dimcopper) approach which  
should cost far less – about the cost of DSL which is being deployed  
anyway. The premium is far closer to zero billion than fifty.

I did get a chance to ask him what would happen if a city did its own  
fiber and let fATT use it for free. He mumbled something about  
needing to control quality and having run it themselves. Even though  
I have a 15mbps connection from Verizon fATT wouldn’t want to sell to  
me.

The story about video priority is not really about video priority –  
it’s about purchased priority. The bit is set if one makes  
arrangements with fATT. They are open in that they will take extra  
money from anyone who pays enough.

It’s unclear how well the fATT approach scales for those with  
multiple TVs (or viewing services). Is this the same thing as the  
VDSL that USWest (now Qwest) once touted? They are provisioning it to  
assure scarcity for their applications so as to require their selling  
priority. They have a responsibility to shareholders to keep capacity  
limited. It would be irresponsible to worry about antitrust if the  
FCC is there to protect you.

Verizon’s story is confused – the VZ people say they do the VOD in- 
band but the rest is via emulated traditional cable. The Microsoft  
people disagreed but I haven’t yet done the definitive research. I do  
note that the VZ STB looks identical to the Comcast one down to the  
Coax connection though probably is different inside. The Scientific  
Atlanta fATT STBhas an Ethernet connection. There’s also a Coax but  
supposedly that’s for IP over Coax – a standard pushed by the HomePNA  
organization (originally created for my phone wire networking).

It’s interesting to compare the VZ and fATT stories. What additional  
value is the fiber giving VZ over copper? I like getting FIOS speed  
as long as the VZ shareholders are generously donating their money to  
cover the costs.

The confusion works to the benefit of the incumbents.

I had a chance to learn more about Vongo – the next generation of the  
StarzTicket service I wrote about recently. Aside form lower price  
and increased selection, Vongo goes more directly and uses Akamai  
caching rather than going through Real. Apparently Real was a  
chokepoint which might’ve been the source of the problems that I had  
viewing the Starz live. Vongo may work much better but I haven’t  
gotten it to work because of something deep in the DRM bowels of my  
system that I have yet to resolve. I’ll continue to try to find a  
solution.

There was an IPTV section at the show and it showed the confusion  
between IPTV as a closed offering and a more general video over IP.  
This works to make IPTV (closed) seem to be forward looking. We need  
to make sure we distinguish between the two. I am trying to say video  
over IP vs IPTV. Too bad I missed Kevin Martin’s visit to the booths  
but apparently no one asked him impolite questions.

I’m still wondering where fATT parked fifty billion. Is that more  
than MCI and Enron combined? But is VZ better if they actually spent  
it? I’m sure other readers can provide some more information here.

If fATT is indeed letting all packets through does that mean I can  
get my video from anyone as long as I don’t foolishly subscribe to  
their prioritized bits? If everything is encrypted can they play  
favorites?

If fATT can run DSL at 30mbps why not 100mbps or more? And why is  
treating 7mbps as a bold experiment?

The incentives are skewed and the numbers don’t add up.

Next I’ll ask about cell towers and why a million dollar 3G tower  
lets the users do less than a $25 802.11g packet router. OK, coverage  
is wider but that’s a matter choice of radio technologies and density  
and has nothing to do with 3G.





-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 18:26
To: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: [IP] more on : Telco's Arrogant Stand on Content







Begin forwarded message:



From: Fritz Mills <fritz () fritzmills com>

Date: January 7, 2006 5:58:03 PM EST

To: dave () farber net

Subject: Re: [IP] more on : Telco's Arrogant Stand on Content



I don't have any problem with the notion of paying for Quality of

Service, but I think the argument, as it's been presented so far, is

completely confused. First, the statement quoted below from Budde

makes no sense. Google, Vonage, and others do not use the internet

for free. Like everyone else, they pay for access and they pay for

the bandwidth they use. They may not pay SBC, but that is beside the

point. I, on the other hand, am a customer of SBC, and I pay them for

access to the internet, and I pay for a certain amount of bandwidth

(throughput). I may or may not choose to use my access to connect to

Google or to use Vonage's services, but the point is, that *I* am

their customer, not Google or Vonage, and if they want to charge me

more to guarantee a certain level of quality of service for some or

all of my internet access needs, that's something we can negotiate,

but that has nothing to do with Google. Conversely, even if I do

choose to use my access to visit Google, It is because I have paid

SBC for the bandwidth to do so. Google has paid their provider for

the bandwidth to accept my visit, but they should have no obligation

to pay SBC as well.



To put it in terms that perhaps the telcos can better understand: If

I pick up my telephone and make a call to Google, I must pay my telco

for my phone line and telephone service, and Google must pay their

telco to provide the telephone service that allows them to answer my

call, but there is no obligation on the part of Google to pay my

telco, too. Nor is it true in that situation that Google has "used

[my telco's] pipes for free."







> Begin forwarded message:

>

> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>

> Date: January 2, 2006 5:25:14 PM EST

> To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>

> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: Telco's Arrogant Stand on Content

> Reply-To: dewayne () warpspeed com

>

> [Note:  This comment comes from reader Andrew Odlyzko.  DLH]

>

>> From: odlyzko () dtc umn edu (Andrew Odlyzko)

>> Date: January 2, 2006 8:34:30 AM PST

>> To: dewayne () warpspeed com

>> Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] Telco's Arrogant Stand on Content

>>

>> Dewayne,

>>

>> There is plenty of arrogance on both the telco and content provider

>> sides.  But statements such as this one from Budde, and Whitacker's

>>

>>    "What [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my

>>    pipes free. But I ain't going to let them do that."

>>

>> make clear is that the key issue behind much of the posturing about

>> open access and deregulation is the division of revenues from  
content

>> sales between the content owners and the service providers.

>>

>> I don't know what Budde is referring to when he talks of telcos

>> getting under 50 percent of revenues from content.  In general,

>> service provider takes are far higher.  If you look at cable

>> companies,

>> they spend around 25 percent of their revenues on content, and get

>> to keep 75 percent or so for the maintenance of the networks,

>> profits, ...

>> Satellite radio pays someplace between 5 and 10 percent of its

>> revenues

>> for the music they play.  And NTT DoCoMo's i-mode pays only about

>> 15 percent of its revenues for content.  (I don't know what the

>> revenue

>> split is on cellphone music ringtone downloads.)  So it is natural

>> that the content industry is salivating at the prospect of getting

>> more competition in delivery, and boosting their takes.  Getting

>> something like 50 percent would do wonders for their finances.

>>

>> But what both the content industry and the telcos forget is that

>> there simply is not enough money in content to pay for all the

>> telecommunications networks.  Connectivity, not content, is where

>> the real money is, as has been clear for a long time,

>>

>>   <http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_2/odlyzko/>

>>

>> So yes, the content providers and Internet companies like Google and

>> Yahoo! can build backbones, but they can't afford to provide

>> universal

>> local connectivity.

>>

>> Happy New Year,

>> Andrew

>>

>> P.S.  There are lots of other comments one could make about this

>> piece

>> by Budde.  For example, his rosy prediction for tele-presence

>> flies in

>> the face of numerous failures in video telephony.  But that is

>> another

>> subject.

>

> Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>

>

>

>

> -------------------------------------

> You are subscribed as fritz () fritzmills com

> To manage your subscription, go to

>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

>

> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-

> people/







-------------------------------------

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/



-------------------------------------
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/