The Next Net

What Will You Ask On The CNN-YouTube Debates?

Tonight's questions for the Democratic presidential debate on CNN will all come in the form of YouTube videos.  Whether this comes off as a leap forward in participatory democracy (and participatory media) or just as a stunt will depend on how good the videos are.  Most of the nearly 3,000 videos uploaded so far simply show someone sitting at a desk or in their living rooms asking a question.  That is not going to make for good TV.

But some uploaders have been a little more creative.  I've picked a few questions I'd like to see tonight.

Here's a good one about Iraq:

Here's one that uses cleverly-edited CNN footage to ask a question about government surveillance:

Here's one in the form of a music video, asking, "Who would you pick as your running mate?":

Google Starts the Wireless Bidding at $4.6 Billion

From inside a rainbow..., originally uploaded by jerikojosh.

The auctions for the largest chunk of wireless spectrum to become available in several years have not even started yet and Google (GOOG) is already starting the bidding at $4.6 billion.  That commitment, though, is only good if the FCC agrees to play by all of Google's rules: open apps, open devices, open services, and open networks. 

What is really going on here is that the FCC is still determining what the rules of the auction are going to be, and Google is trying to influence that process.  In the opposite corner are the big telcos like Verizon and AT&T who are deploying their substantial lobbying muscle to make sure the auction rules go their way.

Google is serious about the wireless Web, to the tune of at least $4.6 billion, and it wants to make sure it does not get locked out of it.  As Vanu CEO Vanu Bose put it to me in a recent conversation:

There are two aspects to openness: unblocked and unlocked. Unlocked means you can buy any phone and connect it to any network. But unblocked is open unfettered access to content, not a walled garden. The FCC should mandate that you cannot block access to Google.  Where it really hurts is applications.

What Google is trying to do is to impose Net neutrality on the wireless world.  Agrees Bose:

That is exactly what it is.  This is wireless Net neutrality.

But we know who is winning the Net neutrality wars (the telcos).  So why should wireless be any different?  But Google is at least willing to put its money where it's mouth is in this case.  (It also knows how auctions work better than most companies, so that $4.6 billion could just be an opening bid that it is calculating will be trumped by someone else—and thus it will never actually have to pay it out or build out a wireless network.

Spectrum Auction to Be Run By Google Rules

  From inside a rainbow... 
  Originally uploaded by jerikojosh

It appears that the FCC is going to adopt open-access rules backed by Google and other tech companies in its upcoming spectrum auctions.  This is not good news for incumbent wireless carriers.  What Google (GOOG) wants is for the resulting 4G networks built on top of the auctioned spectrum to be more like the Internet, so that you can plug in any device or run any application on it no matter who happens to be billing you for your wireless broadband access.  Google's principles going into this are: 

   

* Open applications: consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire;
* Open devices: consumers should be able to utilize a handheld communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer;
* Open services: third parties (resellers) should be able to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis, based on reasonably nondiscriminatory commercial terms; and
* Open networks: third parties (like internet service providers) should be able to interconnect at a technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee's wireless network.

It might not get everything it asked for, but even one or two concessions would make it much more likely that Google will decide itself to bid for some of the spectrum.  If such rules were in effect today, you would be able to buy an iPhone and not be locked into AT&T's network. 

It's nice to see Internet rules finally winning the day in Washington. 

Google to FCC: Get the Rules Right For Spectrum Auction

  From inside a rainbow... 
  Originally uploaded by jerikojosh.

As the FCC considers which rules will govern one of the last great spectrum auctions in February 2009, some of the most interesting proposals are coming from startups and companies outside the wireless business.  The latest suggestion comes from Google, which thinks the FCC should adopt an auction process much like the one it uses to sell advertising via its AdWords.  That way winning bidders who end up not using as much spectrum as they pay for could reaction it to other companies.  That would certainly make for a more efficient use of the spectrum.

Google (GOOG) says it has no plans to bid itself for the air waves (which belong to the old UHF spectrum being given up by TV broadcasters as they go digital).  So why does it care?  It wants to make sure that the incumbent phone companies who most likely will walk away with most of the new spectrum can't lock others out as easily as they have in the past.  (Or as the phone companies may try to do in the future on the wired Internet as they try to buck net neutrality principles).  They want wireless networks to be more like the Internet, with equal access for everyone.

It is no coincidence that Google's proposals are in line with startup Frontline Wireless, which was founded by former FCC chairman Reed Hundt and includes among its investors Ram Shriram.  Shriram was one of the earliest angel investors in Google.

Frontline's proposal seeks to ensure that any device can connect to any  wireless network to be built upon this new spectrum, just like any device can connect to the Internet today.  In other words, if you buy an iPhone from AT&T, it should work on Sprint as well.  That is a radical departure from how the wireless industry works today, where each carrier has complete control over its network, along with who or what connects to it.

Making wireless networks more like the Internet would certainly be good for both consumers and wireless startups, not  least of which would be Frontline.  It has the technology to make all of this flexibility possible, as well as to switch any network over to safety and emergency officials on an as-needed basis.  It's called "software-defined radio" and another one of Frontline's investors, Vanu Bose, is providing it via his startup, Vanu.

You can be sure the telcos and wireless carriers are already lobbying hard to squash these rules (and Frontline with them).

Battle Brewing Over Next-Gen Airwaves

  Air Waves 
  Originally uploaded by wottheduk.

When it comes to spectrum auctions, it is hard to bet against the incumbent cell phone carriers with their deep pockets and legions of lobbyists.  But the upcoming auctions of radio waves about to be freed up  by the transition to digital TV will have some interesting new contendors from Silicon Valley.  Legendary venture capitalist John Doerr and entrepreneur Jim Barksdale (of Netscape fame) are partnering with former FCC commissioner Reed Hundt to make a run at some of those radio waves.

Hundt certainly knows his way around the FCC bureaucracy.  His plan to build a digital wireless network whose airwaves will be accessible to police and other safety officials during emergencies will certianly win points in the halls of Washington. 

Don't worry about the carriers.  They will get their slice.  But the more competition, the faster we'll see these new wireless services and (hopefully) the cheaper they will become.

Kings of the Net Are Eyeing the Wireless Web

  7162 
  Originally uploaded by travísimo.

As the Federal Communications Commission prepares to auction off a big chunk of broadcast spectrum that analog TV stations must return to the government after 2009, Web giants eBay (EBAY), Google (GOOG), and Yahoo (YHOO) are teaming up to influence how the auction is held.  The spectrum could possibly be used for broadband wireless services, which could help the Web content companies if current broadband providers like cable and phone companies begin discriminating against them.

Whether or not the likes of Google or Yahoo would actually bid for any spectrum themselves, which would likely cost billions of dollars, it is in their interest to make sure the auction favors new competitors over the incumbent telco and cable companies who oppose net neutrality principles.

The New Ma Bell, Net Neutrality, and IPTV

In order to get its merger with BellSouth approved by the FCC, AT&T offered some last-minute concessions, including a promise to respect network neutrality for two years and a few other minor items.  After that, Net neutrality could be dead in the water unless the Democratic Congress picks it up again and passes legislation to enshrine it.  (Last spring, the Republican Congress killed a similar amendment).

Today, all bits on the Internet are treated pretty much the same, but Web companies like Google and Yahoo are afraid that telcos in the future will want to discriminate between bits and perhaps charge them extra tolls to have data from their Websites delivered over the high-speed lanes the telcos plan to build out for things like video and phone calls.  In fact, if you read the fine print of AT&T's proposed agreement with the FCC, you will find that it wants to exclude its planned IPTV network from any Net Neutrality rules.  IPTV is the technology the telcos want to use to compete with cable companies and deliver hundreds of TV channels to consumers.  AT&T is expanding its IPTV trials to 15 cities in the U.S.  Initially, the service is more of a private network that uses the Internet Protocol to deliver video.  So just as a cable company reserves the right to pick which channels it will offer over its network, AT&T wants to be able to do the same thing.

As long as we are talking about traditional TV, there is not much to object to here.  But the way IPTV works is that you get at least 30 megabits per second download speeds (compared to 786 kilobits to 3 megabits per second for DSL and cable today).  When you are watching IPTV, you are using that bandwidth to stream video to your TV.  But what about when you are not watching TV?  AT&T's desire to exclude IPTV from any Net neutrality provisions indicates that it may want to also use that bandwidth to offer its customers a mega-broadband service.

Robert Scoble: Political Operative?

  scoble_505.jpg 
  Originally uploaded by scobleizer.

Blogger Robert Scoble apparently has been enlisted by John Edwards' campaign to help announce the former VP hopeful's presidential bid in New Orleans tomorrow.  He confirms on his blog that is where he is headed, but it is not clear if he is being paid by the Edwards campaign or is simply covering the event.  (Update: The trip is legit.  He says he is just covering the event and paying his own way).

Is this the triumph of "you politics", or the age-old political art of embracing those with influence?  (I guess Edwards is going for the geek vote).

Ask the All-Knowing NSA

Just as General Michael Hayden, the former NSA chief and current CIA director nominee, was testifying before Congress yesterday at his confirmation hearings, this Dear NSA spoof site went up.  It's motto is: "Mining  our collective wisdom since  2001 — we really listen to your problems!"

Go ahead.  Ask it a personal question, and it will give you an answer.  Those folks at the NSA know everything.

Wireless Broadband for Everyone—Yeah, Right.

   
  Originally uploaded by Len's gaff.

As the FCC is getting ready to allocate new wireless spectrum, a Silicon Valley startup called M2Z backed by Kleiner Perkins, Charles River, and Redpoint Ventures is floating a novel proposal.  The startup wants the FCC to grant it the spectrum for free in return for five percent of its revenues after it builds a nationwide wirless broadband network (at an estimated cost of $400 million).  The catch is that this network would be free and supported by ads, along the lines the free municipal wireless broadband network being built in San Francisco by Earthlink and Google. 

Why would the FCC even consider such a plan?  Because it would make broadband access available to everyone in the country.  (Broadband, in this case, is being defined as a middling  512 kilobits per second).  One of the goals of spectrum allocation, after all, is to turn it into the backbone for useful services that as many citizens as possible can enjoy.

It's a nice dream.  But as our resident broadband expert, Om, puts it:

The blue-sky proposals such as this one, always make me queasy. It is easy to plan such massive scale networks, except when reality comes knocking. @Home comes to mind. What was the name of that ill-fated nationwide WiFi network backed by IBM, AT&T (the original), and a score of others.. Cometa was it?

Though earnest in its desire, the M2Z plan, is quite likely to be stuck in the quagmire called the Beltway. The spectrum owners - the wireless phone companies and others like Clearwire - would ensure that this plan doesn’t even get off the ground. Others who are planning to buy spectrum in a forthcoming auction would raise holy hell, if this deal was approved. But more importantly, the duopoly with its enormous clout in DC, is going to work hard to ensure that this remains a Silicon Valley dream.

As I have said earlier, between the wireless broadband utopia and Silicon Valley, there is Washington D.C.

Ah, politics.