Wireless Community

Icon

March 27, 2006 • 3:00 pm 0

NYCwireless Meeting on March 29th at 7:15pm

_All are invited – please re-post everywhere!_

*Wednesday, March 29th, 2006 at 7:15pm*

“*Bway.net*”:http://www.bway.net — “Google Map*”:gmap
568 Broadway at Prince St, NE corner
Suite 404
New York, NY 10012

_Please note: Bway.net’s offices are still under construction — we apologize in advance for our appearance. Also, everybody will need to sign-in in the lobby._

*Agenda:* What the future holds for wireless… (speaker TBA Shortly)

*”Join/Renew Your NYCwireless Membership”:2 — Only $30* — Members get exclusive use of NYCwireless Safe Mail Account

_”NYCwireless”:http://www.nycwireless.net is a non-profit organization that advocates and enables the growth of free, public wireless networks._

[gmap]http://maps.google.com/?q=568+Broadway,ny+ny+(Bway.net)
[1]http://www.nycwireless.net/membership

Filed under: Community Wireless, Event, New York City, NYCwireless

March 26, 2006 • 11:35 pm 0

What does FCC chair Kevin Martin mean when he says he supports "tiering"?

Mediageek has a “great post”:1 questioning FCC Chair Kevin Martin’s support for “tiering”:

bq. Martin also expressed support for “tiering” broadband packages, allowing providers to charge more for richer content. Yet it doesn’t seem clear to me whether Martin is just supporting the idea that a consumer would pay more to get a 10 megabit connection than for a 2 megabit connection, or if he actually supports the ability of AT&T to charge content providers in order to reach households via their internet connections. He might even support the ability for an ISP to charge consumers a higher price to receive internet content from providers that haven’t struck a deal with that ISP. It’s simply not clear.

bq. There’s a crucial difference between these interpretations of “tiering” and because this word is being thrown around so much it’s often difficult to know who’s supporting what.

I, for one, would like Martin to be crystal clear on this subject, since his interpretation of “tiering” is critical to the Net Neutrality debate.

[1]http://www.mediageek.net/?p=1370

Filed under: Network Neutrality, Policy

March 20, 2006 • 1:18 am 0

Appearing at Building the Broadband Economy 2006: Municipal Broadband

Mark your calendars! I’ve been invited to speak at the *”Building the Broadband Economy”:1* conference being held by the Intelligent Community Forum and Polytechnic University. The event promises to be an “idea exchange for government officials from around the world and their private-sector partners in telecom, IT, consulting, finance and real estate.”

[1]http://www.intelligentcommunity.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=16

Filed under: Community Wireless, Event, Muniwireless, NYCwireless, Policy

March 16, 2006 • 1:06 am 3

Internet Freeloaders – Should Google have to pay for the bandwidth it consumes?

“Adam L. Penenberg”:1, an assistant professor at New York University and assistant director of the business and economic reporting program in the school’s department of journalism, “writes a great piece for Slate”:2 that if Telcos honestly can’t sustain their networks, then they should just start charging people based on usage:

bq. If the telcos and cable companies get their way, we’ll have a Balkanized Web. Content providers who can afford to pay for premium service will market superior products to consumers with fast connections. Everyone else will make do with second-class companies at second-class speeds.

bq. The business model that this most resembles is cable television. There’s one key difference, though. In the cable world, the service providers pay channels for the rights to broadcast their shows. In the system that telco-cable is proposing for the Internet, the content providers—who provide the services that make customers clamor for broadband in the first place—would have to pay for the privilege of being included.

bq. Not all content providers are taking this lying down. Business 2.0′s Om Malik reports that Google has been buying up miles of “dark” fiber — unused fiber-optic cable — at severely depressed prices. Malik believes that Google plans to “blanket major cities with Wi-Fi,” including San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and New York. Given Google’s ethos, its Wi-Fi would probably be free, with revenue derived from targeted advertising. Obviously, the telcos and cable companies would have trouble competing with that. Even if telco-cable is successful in implementing a two-tiered Internet plan, another workaround could be municipal wireless networks, like those being built in Philadelphia. (No wonder Verizon has been fighting them tooth and nail.)

bq. There’s a far better solution than Verizon charging Google to use its bandwidth or Google becoming a service provider itself. What about having subscribers pay for the bandwidth they consume? Just like you buy variable rate cell-phone plans and pay for electricity based on how much you use, your broadband bills should be calculated the same way. That way, heavy Net users could subsidize the Internet for those who don’t use it as often, and access would be available for anybody who wants it. Then content would remain free, and everyone would benefit.

[1]http://www.penenberg.com/
[2]http://www.slate.com/id/2134397/

Filed under: Network Neutrality, News

March 15, 2006 • 10:04 am 0

Great quote by Wendy Seltzer

USA Today “has a great quote”:1 by Wendy Seltzer, formerly a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and now a Brooklyn Law School professor of internet law:

bq. Without forcing some commitment to net neutrality from Internet providers, small start-ups may never get a chance to see where their ideas could lead, advocates say. The very vitality of the Internet will be threatened.

bq. “That’s certainly something that the net neutrality forces will be trying to argue,” says Ms. Seltzer. “Network neutrality might be a little bit of regulation, but it’s regulation that’s good for [promoting] a lot more free market.”

[1]http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-03-14-tiered-web_x.htm

Filed under: Network Neutrality, News, Policy

March 15, 2006 • 1:02 am 0

Stop using Broadband

No, I don’t mean that you should cancel your high-speed internet connection. What I mean is: Stop using the term “broadband”.

I think that we need to change how we argue our points against the teleco and cable monopolies. You see, “Broadband” isn’t the internet. Its just a way to get access to the internet. Most other countries understand this, but in the USA, we’re so blinded by the marketing and PR of our Telco and Cable companies, that instead of pushing for high-speed access to the internet, something that should be available to everyone (you should especially know this if you read this blog!), we’re talking about “Universal Broadband”.

“Universal Broadband” has a great ring to it. But its wrong. Broadband is a marketing term that has been co-opted by Telco and Cable companies to mean whatever “high-speed” network *they* provide. And this is where things get confused. We’re starting to see legislation that promotes “Universal Broadband”, which is good in theory. But when we phrase it like that, we’re implicitly promoting certain *ways* to get high-speed internet access. In effect, we’re using legislation and our own PR efforts to market for the type of crappy, slow, restricted internet access that our Telco and Cable companies offer.

*Instead, we should be pushing for and talking about “High-speed Internet”, high-speed connections to that cloud of services and content that we’re all providing for each other, in whatever form makes sense to you, the end user.* In many cases, it will be broadband dsl and broadband cablemodem service. But it might also me your local municipal or private Wi-Fi network, or satellite-based service. Or something we haven’t thought of yet.

Filed under: Community Wireless, Network Neutrality, Policy

March 14, 2006 • 11:41 pm 0

The New Yorker: NET LOSSES

The “New Yorker has a great commentary”:1 on exactly why we are fighting for network neutrality.

bq. The logic of the tiered-access approach is simple: broadband companies do the work of providing Internet access, so they should be able to charge what they can for it. Telecom executives say that the revenue from tiered access would let them invest more in adding bandwidth and improving download speeds, and argue that Web sites are parasites taking, as A.T. & T.’s chairman, Edward E. Whitacre, Jr., put it, a “free ride” on the pipes the broadband companies own. But these companies have pipes into people’s homes in the first place only because of a long history of government regulation, and people want to use those pipes only because of all the value the so-called parasites have created. And it’s that value which tiered access—even if it does improve the Internet’s infrastructure—will put in harm’s way. The Internet has become a remarkable fount of economic and social innovation largely because it’s been an archetypal level playing field, on which even sites with little or no money behind them—blogs, say, or Wikipedia—can become influential. If the Internet turns into a zone of tiered access, it will be harder for noncommercial sites or startup companies to compete with bigger firms.

bq. Broadband providers insist that they have no plans to block access or degrade service to those who don’t pay a premium rate. But if some companies are getting better service, then all the others are getting worse service. Besides, there have already been examples of active discrimination. Last year, a rural telecom company in North Carolina blocked its users’ access to the Internet-based phone service Vonage, and in Canada the telecom company Telus blocked access to a Web site supporting the telecommunications workers’ union. Market forces will offer some check to this kind of interference—if a particular provider goes too far, customers will take their business elsewhere—but, in the world of broadband, market forces are weak, because most cities have only two major providers. More than ninety per cent of Americans get Internet service from either their local phone company or their local cable company, and A.T. & T.’s newly announced acquisition of BellSouth means that there will soon be only three major phone companies in the entire U.S.

bq. …

bq. Decisions that once were made collectively by hundreds of millions of Internet users would now be shaped in large part by a handful of telecom executives. It used to be said that the Internet was all about “disintermediation.” With the end of network neutrality, the middlemen are striking back.

[1]http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060320ta_talk_surowiecki

Filed under: Network Neutrality, News, Policy

March 14, 2006 • 1:00 am 0

Unstrung: Hotspot Invaders

I was interviewed in an “Unstrung: Hotspot Invaders article”:1 on alternative revenue models for public wireless networks:

bq. Offending users and network operators could be another roadblock for these revenue models. Ad-supported muni WiFi is a terrific idea, says Dana Spiegel, executive director of NYCwireless, which provides free WiFi in Manhattan — but “It’s critical that this advertising shouldn’t interfere with the use of the network.”

bq. NYCwireless uses splash pages that appear when users log onto the network that contain a usage agreement plus an area for logos from supporting organizations. The ads — essentially just logos for the organizations that help fund the network — are confined to the splash page.

bq. “The idea of artificially inserting ads into Websites that are viewed on the network is an appalling idea that has another name: adware,” says Spiegel. “NYCwireless would never endorse any program like that, and we feel it would create a bad experience for the people that use our networks.”

[1]http://www.unstrung.com/document.asp?doc_id=89087&WT.svl=news2_1

Filed under: Community Wireless, Interview, Muniwireless, News

March 13, 2006 • 12:28 pm 0

New York State Community Access Networks Bill by State Senator Brennan

“State Assemblymember Brennan”:1 has introduced “Bill A09937, the Community Access Networks Bill”:2, into the New York State Assembly. This bill is innovative in that it seeks to create “free internet access across New York State” by requiring that any local or state governments that are creating or sponsoring any wireless information networks — including New York City’s private public safety wireless network — “either create a community access network or allow for collocation of a community access network”.

The bill highlights that New York State lags behind other states in broadband competition, noting especially that 42% of New York zip codes have four (4) or fewer broadband providers.

bq. Here in New York, the effort to create free internet zones has been piecemeal, most notably private volunteer groups like Nycwireless.org (sic) have created free internet access in public places, at a handful of New York City parks. This legislation seeks to expand such kinds of access so that it can be enjoyed by all New York State residents. A statewide initiative like this seeks to create new opportunities all across our state.

The bill rightly notes that by encouraging the creation of a state-wide wireless network, “Governments and first responder groups could have a communications system which is cheaper to tap into because off the shelf components could be used to access CANs instead of other, more expensive equipment.”

Brennan highlights that “In the same way that road and shipping lanes served the manufacturing economy, information conduits and connectivity power the information age” and that “Part of the goal of government is to help people help themselves.” These are two ideas that NYCwireless has long supported and promoted. The only way to build sustainable networks and communities is to allow and help local residents and organizations to help themselves.

The specifics of the bill itself are worth noting. Brennan’s bill requires that “OPERATORS OF AN APPROVED INFORMATION NETWORK SHALL NOT EXERCISE ANY EDITORIAL CONTROL OVER ANY PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL, OR GOVERNMENTAL USE OF CAPACITY PROVIDED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, EXCEPT THAT THEY MAY REFUSE TO TRANSMIT ANY CONTENT WHICH CONTAINS OBSCENITY, INDECENCY, OR NUDITY.” Non-discriminatory access to content is critical to any network that is intended to help serve underprivileged residents.

But the most interesting part of the bill comes all the way at the end: “IF ANY ENTITY IDENTIFIED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (II) OF PARAGRAPH A OF SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION SENDS A STATUS REPORT INDICATING THEIR INTENT TO SPONSOR OR APPROVE THE CREATION OF A COMMUNITY ACCESS NETWORK, THEY SHALL BE GIVEN ACCESS TO DARK FIBER LEASED BY ANY ENTITY IDENTIFIED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (I) OF PARAGRAPH A OF SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION FREE OF CHARGE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CREATION OF COMMUNITY ACCESS NETWORKS OR FOR GOVERNMENT ENTITY USE.” *Free dark fiber usage if you provide free wireless network services.*

I would say that the only potential issue with this legislation, when it comes to issues of public good, is that it doesn’t define the speed of internet access that must be provided for free in order to get access to free dark fiber and free collocation. I would recommend to Assemblymember Brennan that the right way to write this legislation is to require that free wireless network internet access be provided at prevailing broadband speeds, which are between 1mbps-3mbps in New York State. This could be a boon to ISPs small and large, including Verizon and Time Warner Cable, who are having great difficulties rolling out higher speed services (TWC hasn’t even announced anything more than their existing, aging 5mbps network).

For any organization that is seeking to provide large-scale wireless networks in New York City, this legislation is even more important. The “franchise for the New York City lamp post access”:3 hasn’t seen any deployments or announcements since the original 6 private companies were granted their access. NYCwireless has sought access to this franchise, only to be rebuffed by NYC DoITT, claming that no new franchises can be granted. Through Assemblymember Brennan’s legislation, an organization like NYCwireless can get free access to this city resource.

[1]http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=044
[2]http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A09937
[3]http://www.wirelesscommunity.info/2004/12/07/poor-reporting-by-the-bbc-about-nycs-wireless-lamp-post-licensing-deal/

Filed under: Community Wireless, Muniwireless, New York City, Policy

March 13, 2006 • 1:16 am 1

Vonage Requests CRTC Investigation Into Shaw VoIP Charges

“Michael Geist reports”:1 on a complaint that Vonage Canada has filed against Shaw for Shaw’s “quality of service enhancement”, which appears to be the first major discriminatory move against Vonage by a telco or cableco. The issues involved in this case are far-reaching, and particularly pertinent to the “Network Neutrality”:2 issue. If Shaw is providing a proper high-speed internet service, then Vonage users should generally be provided good quality phone service via their high-speed internet connection. But issues with VoIP service might be nothing more than anti-competitive tactics by the incumbent telco or cableco, and the end user would be none the wiser.

bq. Vonage Canada has filed a complaint with the CRTC against Shaw over Shaw’s VoIP premium surcharge. The cable company charges a $10 “quality of service enhancement” fee for VoIP users, which Vonage is characterizing as a VoIP tax. Vonage argues that because it “competes directly with the telephone services of the network operators that also provide the high-speed Internet access, the incentives to discriminate against us are clear. This will result in less innovation, less choice and higher prices for Canadian consumers in the long run.”

bq. This could become a hugely important case since much of the two-tier Internet is based on similar enhancement fees for either customers or web services. The CRTC mistakenly declined to address the net neutrality last year in its VoIP decision, despite considerable evidence that this was an emerging issue that could have debilitating effect on the Internet. In the months since that decision, both the telcos and cable cos have openly discussed their plans for a two-tier Internet. While it appears that Vonage has focused primarily on the need for greater transparency with the Shaw fee, this has opened the door to the CRTC becoming more engaged on network neutrality.

[1]http://michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1147&Itemid=85
[2]http://www.wirelesscommunity.info/network-neutrality

Filed under: Network Neutrality, News, Policy

Twitter

Blog Stats

  • 451 hits
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.