Techdirt. Stories filed under "telecom"

White House: We Will Not Support An ITU Treaty That Blurs Telecom Infrastructure With The Info That Crosses Over It

Mike Masnick — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:28:00 PST

While the US's position on the ITU discussions at the World Conference on International Telecommunications has been pretty clear from the beginning, to put an exclamation point on it, the White House put out a statement saying that it will not support an agreement that tries to expand the ITU's mandate beyond telecom infrastructure and into the world of what happens on that infrastructure. The key paragraph:

But we should not confuse telecommunications infrastructure with the information that traverses it. The global consensus for a free and open Internet is overwhelming. Millions in the United States and around the world have already added their voices to this conversation, and their position is clear: they do not want the WCIT to govern the Internet or legitimize more state control over online content. Our Administration could not agree more – and will not support a treaty that sets that kind of precedent.

This is the key point. Many in the ITU seem to want to blur the distinction between the infrastructure itself and the information that runs over it. They believe that their mandate over "telecommunications" includes the specific "communications" that run over those networks. That's a massive rewriting of history. Their mandate is supposed to be focused on the technological infrastructure, rather than how it is used.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Microsoft To US Gov't: Hey, Only We Should Be Able To Use Patents To Shakedown Other Companies!

Mike Masnick — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 06:22:00 PDT

When former telecom giant Nortel was reduced to just a pile of questionable patents, we knew there would be a fight over who got them. Google made a lot of news a couple months back, by placing a $900 million stalking horse bid on those patents. The company has made it pretty clear that it's mainly looking to buy those patents to keep them out of the hands of someone else who might shake down innovation in the mobile ecosystem. Obviously, Google would prefer that the Android ecosystem not be slowed down by patent trolling.

However, there is one company that's quite worried about all of this: Microsoft. Even though it's not clear who will win the bid for Nortel's patents (and many expect Google to be outbid), Microsoft has officially objected to Google's attempt to buy the patents, saying that it has a perpetual royalty-free license to those patents, and under the terms of the sale, any buyer could end that deal.

And here's why Microsoft is a steaming pile of hypocrisy on this subject: Microsoft has ramped up its own anti-Android patent trolling efforts, lately. It's been demanding licensing fees and/or suing all sorts of companies who use Android. In fact, some reports suggest that thanks to all this effort, Microsoft makes significantly more money from Android phones than from its own mobile platforms. Clearly, shaking down others with patents is good money.

And Microsoft doesn't think it's fair that someone else could do the same thing to it:

For Microsoft to complain is pretty rich, of course. Here it is, using patents to attack companies employing Android in an attempt to slow down the uptake of that rival to its own Windows Phone smartphone system. That's a clear abuse of the patent system to dissuade companies from signing up with a competitor (which, interestingly, it doesn't attack directly), rather than to protect real innovation (an aim that was thrown out of the patent system long ago.)

After all, those deeply innovative ideas that Microsoft is claiming that companies are infringing include “natural ways of interacting with devices by tabbing through various screens to find the information they need, surfing the Web more quickly, and interacting with documents and e-books”. Tabbed screens - yeah, right.

And yet when there is the prospect that Google might be able to threaten in exactly the same way, by pulling existing licences - not, admittedly, a very nice thing to do, but all's fair etc. etc. - Microsoft suddenly wants the government to intervene to protect it from this bullying.

I mean, let's be consistent here: if you want to abuse the patent system, expect to be on the receiving end of similar abuse. On the other hand, rather more laudably, why not stop abusing, in which case you can take the moral high ground when others start abusing the system to attack you?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

One Congressional Loss That Hurts: Rick Boucher

Mike Masnick — Wed, 3 Nov 2010 05:07:49 PDT

I mentioned on Twitter yesterday that it was really sad how difficult it was to find any candidates I actually wanted to win in the election yesterday. In most cases, the more familiar I was with any candidate, the more I felt they didn't deserve to be elected (and that included both the leading candidates in many elections). There was one exception, however: I hoped that Rick Boucher would win re-election. There is a very, very small number of Congressional Representatives who actually seem to really get technology, telecom and copyright issues, and Boucher is was one of them. Despite easily winning re-election in many past elections (he didn't even have any real competitor last time around), it looks like Boucher has been swept out as part of the anti-incumbent sentiment. Trust me, I understand the desire to get rid of incumbent politicians, but Boucher was one of the rare politicians who actually seemed to get the issues that many of us find important.

This is bad news for copyright and for consumers. Not that he was all that successful in passing the laws that mattered on that subject, but he was one of the few who would ask the key questions, and actually try to fix those broken laws -- such as his repeated attempts to fix the DMCA and support fair use, as well as more recent attempts to stop the massive boondoggle that is the Universal Service Fund. Boucher was so respected on these issues, that even Public Knowledge's Gigi Sohn and ITIF's Richard Bennett agreed that this was bad news. I've known both Richard and Gigi for a while, and I can't recall them ever agreeing on anything. Gigi wrote up a blog post about what a loss this is for consumers and innovation. Hopefully we'll find out that one of the newly elected representatives actually understands some of these issues -- or perhaps some of the "survivors" will step up and recognize the issues. But Boucher's loss is bad news.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Anti-Anti-Muni Bills Take Hold In Congress

Carlo Longino — Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:54:05 PDT

Efforts by incumbent telcos to stifle municipalities' attempts to roll out municipal broadband projects may not get the press they did a few years back, but the carriers are still at it, trying to get state legislatures to pass laws banning or hamstringing muni broadband. This week, though, a bill was introduced in the house that would prevent states from passing such laws. It follows similar legislation that was introduced in the Senate, and appears to already have a broad base of support -- but given the power of the telco lobby in Washington, we won't count the eggs before they've hatched.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

FCC Pays Open Access Wireless Networks Some Lip Service

Carlo Longino — Wed, 1 Aug 2007 10:56:53 PDT

The FCC yesterday approved the rules for the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum license auction, scheduled for early next year. This is an important auction because of the quantity and quality of spectrum it covers, making it particularly suitable for wireless broadband networks. A coalition headed by Google has been pushing the FCC to adopt four "open access" principles for the spectrum, which would require license winners to open their networks to any compatible device, allow users to access any service they wish, and to sell wholesale access to their network to third parties. Google even said it would bid at least $4.6 billion in the auction if the FCC adopted the four principles. Unsurprisingly, the FCC didn't, instead going with rules that were largely along the lines of what Chairman Kevin Martin had earlier proposed: licenses for 22 of the 60 MHz on offer will require winners to allow any compatible device on their network and not block access to any services, but will not have the wholesale requirement that Google and its partners were looking for.

Without question, there's some gamesmanship going on here. If Google really wants to own spectrum licenses and have a network that follows its open access principles, there's nothing preventing it from bidding in the auction, winning licenses, and either running its network that way, or leasing the licenses to somebody who will. What's more likely, though, is that Google simply wants the ability to buy wholesale network access, rather than own licenses or build its own network. Again, there's nothing preventing it from entering into such a deal with any license holder, but requiring all the license holders to wholesale access would create a more competitive market and drive down prices. But perhaps the bigger game here is the political one by the FCC. These open access rules, really, are pretty toothless, and perhaps that's best illustrated by the fact that both AT&T and Verizon support them. The device requirement could easily be rendered meaningless by the winning bidder's choice of technology for their network. Using a proprietary or unpopular technology would likely mean that the only outlet to purchase compatible devices would be from the network provider. The open access to services requirement is one the operators would likely follow anyway, since blocking access to certain sites and services wouldn't make their wireless broadband services too popular with consumers.

While perhaps these rules represent a small first step for the FCC towards fostering a more competitive broadband, they seem much more like a missed opportunity to affect some real change. It seems like more than anything, this is a bit of smoke and mirrors that makes it look, to the casual observer, like the FCC's done something significant, when it's actually done very little -- and that would fit with the persistent whispering about Martin's political ambitions.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

What Happens To Customers Whose Providers Disappear?

Carlo Longino — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:04:24 PDT

Last week, VoIP provider SunRocket pulled the plug, and it looks like it will be joined on Tuesday by mobile virtual operator Amp'd. But in addition to out of work employees and unpaid creditors, there's another group of affected people here that seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle: these companies' customers. As the comments to one of our posts about SunRocket attests, the company's customers were left hanging in the wind, with no real information about what would happen to their service, or their phone numbers. Amp'd users got a helpful text message ("AMPD MSG: Your svc may be disconnected on 7.24 @ 12:01am. Go to http://www.ampd.com or contact the location where you activated your service for further info.") and a hastily written FAQ. It's not like these companies will really care about their ex-customers, and acting in the name of morality, or even just being decent, won't pay their bills. But the bigger issue here is what this means for other upstart companies, particularly in entrenched industries like telecom. For all their faults and downsides compared to VoIP providers, it's unlikely that companies like AT&T or Verizon will go out of business and leave their customers in the lurch -- and that could make it harder for newer, smaller companies to pull in users.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Another VoIP Company Makes A 'Free Calls For Life' Offer

Carlo Longino — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:39:55 PDT

The buzz of the day is about new VoIP company Ooma, which promises free phone calls forever if users shell out $399 for its piece of hardware. The technology sounds interesting, as it handles some of the switching of calls in the boxes themselves, rather than in the network, but outside the hype, there's plenty to be skeptical about. On the tech side, Ooma needs users with local phone service, since that's what it uses to terminate calls. Essentially what happens when an Ooma user makes a long-distance call to a non-Ooma user is that the call is routed to an Ooma box in the corresponding area code that's connected to a standard landline, which is then used for the call to the standard phone network. While this lets the company avoid setting up some network infrastructure, it seems counterintuitive to rely on people buying Ooma for long-distance calls, but keeping their local phone service -- particularly when many VoIP services offer unlimited local and long distance for little premium, if any, over the cost of traditional local service. Ooma's timing isn't great either. It's asking people to make a considerable upfront investment for lifetime service, just a few days after the collapse of SunRocket, which had lots of users on $200 per year prepaid plans, and whose money (and phone numbers) are in limbo. Other companies have made similar lifetime calling offers as Ooma's, but given the upheaval in the VoIP space caused by falling call costs, consumers will be hesitant to shell out large upfront fees for service, lest the provider disappear.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

More Delusion About The Popularity Of In-Flight Net Access

Carlo Longino — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:07:00 PDT

There are plenty of reasons to dislike the experience of commercial flying -- like poor service from airlines, and delays from technical glitches and systemic failures. But a Computerworld columnist is all hot and bothered because people can't get online or use cell phones while they're on planes. Frankly, the piece is so bizarre that it would make more sense as a badly written parody. It claims "Providing low-cost WiFi access in-flight is perfectly doable. In fact, an extremely good service was painstakingly rolled out, then later killed because of a lack of interest and support from the airlines and the government." This isn't strictly true: Boeing shut down its Connexion service because it didn't attract very many users. People were reluctant to pay $30 per flight for WiFi; this made airlines hesitant to spend the $500,000 per plane to equip them with the system. Still, the writer claims that US airlines "failed everyone" -- despite evidence that the real demand for in-flight internet access is nowhere near as great as many people assume.

But things take an even more bizarre turn when the writer turns his rant towards the government ban on cell phones on planes. He focuses on the FAA's ban, which is in place for safety reasons, ignoring the FCC's ban, which is based on the contention that devices on planes could interfere with ground networks. He says that the FAA ban, purportedly on safety grounds, merely exists so that planes' avionics and other equipment don't have to be shielded from interference. His demand is that the ban be lifted, and airlines forced to install shielding -- then that cell phones be banned again, but this time because they'd be annoying to many passengers. That seems rather pointless, but his claim that the current ban is helping terrorists makes it really hard to take the guy seriously: "And terrorists love the ban, because it's another potential way to crash airplanes. The cell phone ban as a substitute for shielding is clearly unacceptable. It's a trivial task for terrorists to look up public information about which phones cause the most interference, then bring dozens of them onboard and turn them on during crucial phases of flight, such as takeoff." Um, yeah. The fact remains that the real demand for in-flight internet service hasn't lived up to the expectations. Regardless of how many people say they'd use such services, there hasn't been enough actual use to sustain their operations. It remains expensive to equip planes with the necessary equipment to offer in-flight net access; given the way things are going at many US airlines, the majority of customers would probably rather see that money spent on things that would help get them and their luggage to their destination on time.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Another Telco Says Muni WiFi Is OK Only If It's Providing It

Carlo Longino — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:00:00 PDT

Telcos' resistance to municipal WiFi broadband projects is pretty well documented, but it's been interesting to see how their position changes once they realize they can make some money from running the muni networks. Over in France, the country's incumbent operator, France Telecom, has filed a legal challenge to Paris' plan to roll out free hotspots (via MuniWireless), saying they will illegally compete with its network of 2,250 paid hotspots in the city. This argument has been made before in Europe, like in Barcelona, where the city was forced to shut down its hotspots after a similar complaint -- even though they blocked access to everything except 60 sites with city information and services. What makes France Telecom's suit even more ridiculous is that its mobile phone unit, Orange, bid on the tender to provide the service for the city. Now, after it's lost out, the company cries foul.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story