Author Archives: John S. Quarterman

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 →

TV Band Internet

A group of companies wants to use unused TV bandwidth for the Internet:
The coalition, which includes Microsoft and Google, wants regulators to allow idle TV channels, known as white space, to be used to beam the Internet into homes and offices. But the Federal Communications Commission first must be convinced that such traffic would not bleed outside its designated channels and interfere with existing broadcasts.

The six partners — Microsoft, Google, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Intel and Philips — say they can meet that challenge. Today, they plan to give FCC officials a prototype device, built by Microsoft, that will undergo months of testing.

If the device passes muster, the coalition says, it could have versions in stores by early 2009.

— Tech Firms Push to Use TV Airwaves for Internet, Cable, Phone Companies Watch Warily, By Charles Babington, Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, March 13, 2007; Page D01

Well, that’s an unusual combination of companies. But if it brings some competition to the telco/cableco duopoly, I’m for it. Continue reading →

The Internet is their CBGB

If you happened to be a corporation depending on centralized mass media for your livelihood, this might be what you fear:
…one who has loved rock ’n’ roll and crawled from the ranks to the stage, to salute history and plant seeds for the erratic magic landscape of the new guard.

Because its members will be the guardians of our cultural voice. The Internet is their CBGB. Their territory is global. They will dictate how they want to create and disseminate their work. They will, in time, make breathless changes in our political process. They have the technology to unite and create a new party, to be vigilant in their choice of candidates, unfettered by corporate pressure. Their potential power to form and reform is unprecedented.

— Ain’t It Strange? By PATTI SMITH, Op-Ed Contributor, New York Times, Published: March 12, 2007

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.

We’re talking the Reformation here. Do you want to continue selling indulgences and suppressing Galileo, or do you want to be in the middle of a new information revolution?

-jsq

Internet Radio Priced out of Its Market

Internet radio is an increasingly popular service, providing both online feeds of on-air radio stations and eclectic Internet-only services. Internet radio was operating under the Small Webcasters Settlement Act of 2002. On March 7, 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board released new rates. Rates that will end up with the average Internet radio station paying more than it makes in revenue. And the rates increase annually through 2010. Ah, yes, plus retroactive collection for 2006.

Regarding how radio back in the 1920s used to be so cheap and popular that people would run up a mast in the backyard and sgtart broadcasting, I wrote “The trick used with radio of allocating spectrum won’t work for the Internet.” That was the trick that closed down most radio and left that medium to a few big mass media. There’s always another trick, though, and copyright may work for Internet radio.

This isn’t strictly about net neutrality, because it’s not ISPs that are effectively shutting down Internet radio. This whittling away at services will happen much faster without net neutrality, however.

-jsq