Monthly Archives: March 2007

Universal Service Considered Harmful

Fine-sounding slogans are fine ways to hide restraint of trade:
…when the Bell System’s Theodore Vail made up the term “universal service” in 1907 what he was really trying to do was squelch competitive phone networks — there were a lot of them, and they were doing very well, and Vail wanted to convince everyone that one phone system would be a far better idea. So the idea behind universal service in the early 20th century wasn’t spreading phone connectivity (competition had been doing a good job at that) or underwriting costs (because costs were being pushed lower by competition). It was, instead, the notion that being able to reach everyone on a single, centrally-managed phone network was a good idea.

—Universal service, by Susan Crawford, Susan Crawford blog, Tue 13 Mar 2007 09:33 PM EDT

In other words, interconnectivity. But with a centralized aspect, which wasn’t necessary technically, yet was optimal for building a monopoly. Thus the notion was used to squelch small competitors. Continue reading →

Wireless Net Neutrality Redux

Tim Wu’s paper, Wireless Net Neutrality: Cellular Carterfone on Mobile Networks, continues to draw reactions. This one is a bit puzzling:
First, Wu writes as if this were a new issue. Just like the broader debate over network neutrality, in reality this is another version of an extensively debated topic: when should a network operator be forced to allow users particular types of access to its network? Wu ignores the history of this type of regulation.

Wireless Net Neutrality? by Scott Wallsten, Progress Snapshot, Release 3.2 February 2007,

Puzzling because the subtitle of Wu’s paper mentions Carterfone, as in the FCC decision that began net neutrality as we know it. Wu’s paper proceeds to discuss Carterfone on several pages, even including a picture of the actual physical object. Continue reading →

Vonage Lost in Patent Thicket

Previously I noted that even if allocating spectrum won’t work to keep small players from disseminating traditional services such as radio over the Internet, nonetheless copyright could do the trick. And patents can serve the same purpose, this time regarding Voice over IP (VoIP):
Vonage, which recently lost a court battle against Verizon Communications, is also facing a patent lawsuit from Sprint Nextel. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kansas, in October 2005 will likely go to trial in September, a Sprint representative said Wednesday.

Vonage legal woes continue, by Marguerite Reardon, C|Net News.com, March 14, 2007 1:32 PM PDT

Ah, patent thickets! A traditional way to keep out the upstarts. Continue reading →

Telco BLocking as Symptom of Universal Service

Tom Esvlin points out that the former SBC sued the former AT&T in 2004 over much the same issue the current combined SBC+AT&T+Cingular is suing other telcos:
The complaint alleges: “… AT&T orchestrated and implemented a fraudulent scheme to avoid tariffed ‘access charges’ by delivering its long-distance calls for termination over facilities that AT&T obtained under the express condition that they be used for local traffic, and thereby disguising its long-distance calls as local calls.”

Now at&t is alleging that FuturePhone calls are being described as domestic long distance when they’re really international.

Local? Long distance? International? Why’s it important anyway? Not because of actual costs. Costs on the Internet over which these calls are being routed isn’t sensitive to distance at all; and, truth to tell, other than international tariffs and other monopoly rents, switching costs and not distance are the main cost component on POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service). Certainly the cost to terminate a call on a local network has nothing to do with where that call originated.

— at&t and FuturePhone – POTS Calls the Kettle Black, by Tom Esvlin, Fractals of Change, February 2007

Continue reading →

AT&T vs. Superior Telephone Cooperative, et al

Chris Herot interprets the AT&T Iowa lawsuit of 29 January 2007:
AT&T’s argument is that Superior is not entitled to charges for “termination” since connecting to the gateway is not considered termination but instead is just an intermediate routing in order to terminate the call elsewhere.

More on AT&T vs. Superior Telephone Cooperative, et al, Christopher Herot’s Weblog, 14 Feb 2007

Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but isn’t that what net neutrality advocates are arguing for on the Internet? Flat fee peering and end users only pay their own ISPs? Kind of ironic, if so.

In any case, Chris includes a link to the complaint.

-jsq

More Telcos Blocking

Jim Thompson dug up some background that indicates that the telcos blocking freeconferencecall.com are losing money due to various free conference call services using loopholes in telephone termination fees, and are suing.
“This is just the latest in a long line of get-rich-quick schemes that bilk others to make a profit,” said an AT&T spokesperson. The lawsuit claims that operations like FuturePhone’s are in violation of several statutes, including Iowa state laws as well as previous FCC decisions.

— AT&T’s ‘Free Call’ Bill: $2 Million, by Paul Kapustka gigaom.com, Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 5:00 AM PT

Continue reading →

Good Farmer Google?

Google is opening plants in obscure locations, such as Lenoir, North Carolina:
Last month, the Internet search giant Google announced that it would take advantage of the area’s underused electric power grid, cheap land and robust water supply to build a “server farm” — a building full of computers that will become part of the company’s worldwide network.

Google says it hopes laid-off furniture workers, most of whom never graduated from high school, will be among the 250 employees at two facilities on the 215-acre site, much of which was once a lumberyard.

— Google Is Reviving Hopes for Ex-Furniture Makers, By SHAILA DEWAN, The New York Times, March 15, 2007

Is google doing this out of the goodness of its googly heart? Doubtless not primarily; obviously google is looking for a good deal. Continue reading →

Telcos Blocking Freeconferencecall.com

According to a letter the free telephone conferencing service freeconferencecall.com has sent to many of its customers:
As of Friday, March 9, it’s come to our attention that Cingular Wireless has begun blocking all conference calls made from Cingular handsets to selected conference numbers. If you call our service, you receive a recording that says, “This call is not allowed from this number. Please dial 611 for customer service”.

Earlier this week, Sprint and Qwest joined in this action, blocking cellular and land line calls to these same numbers. This appears to be a coordinated effort to force you to use the paid services they provide, eliminating competition and blocking your right to use the conferencing services that work best for you.

These are some of the very same telephone companies that claim that we have nothing to fear if there is no net neutrality. Continue reading →

Google, Good or Bad?

Well, that depends on the subject and who you ask. It does seem everybody wants to know where the “Do no Evil” company stands. One day there’s a report that Google is maybe going to change its stand for net neutrality. The next there’s a report that it’s definitely not. So who got the scoop on that? The New York Times? Washington Post? Washington Times? The Sun? Continue reading →

Internet Slacker

Previously I wrote: “If you happened to be a corporation that recognized market demand when you saw it, you’d find a way to promote and capitalize on emergent global Internet dissemination of music and politics.” Maybe something like Slacker:
At the SXSW festival in Austin, Texas today, Broadband Instruments launched the potentially disruptive “Slacker” music ecosystem, which combines interactive webcasts, satellite radio, and traditional MP3 playback in a next-generation device that could make Apple’s iPod – and even its upcoming iPhone — look, well, a little unconnected.

— Slacker Steals the Show at SXSW, Eliot Van Buskirk Wired Blogs: Listening Post, Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Hype? Maybe. But notice iPod and iPhone are the benchmarks, not Hollywood or ClearChannel or AT&T or cable TV. Continue reading →