Recently in Legislation Category

This week Verizon and Google put together a proposal on Net Neutrality.  Many in the “free as free beer as opposed to free speech” Net Neutrality crowd found the announcement to be a little less than they expected from Google.

Grant Gross’ analysis was excellent in terms of laying out the FCC role ( or more to the point, lack of a role… ) in the proposal. My favorite quote from the piece was/is:

"The agreement is even worse than previously thought, as it would remove rulemaking authority from the FCC and force them to give deference to a technical body," said Gigi Sohn, president of digital rights group Public Knowledge. "To have Google give in like this at the 11th hour is hugely disappointing."

Verizon’s position is not surprising to me.  They want to provide the backbone that makes companies competitive ( they also want to charge for it… ).  Google surprised me a bit just as they did other groups.  However, I think this shows that Google is seeing where the US stands in terms of broadband access speeds.

I believe the issue that for “free as free beer” Net Neutrality groups like Public Knowledge is that Google is starting the view Internet access as something that can be a competitive advantage rather than just a given.  Telecom carriers aren’t purposefully NOT implementing bandwidth… They are just looking for the business model that makes viable.

How do you view Google’s “change”/adjustment in Net Neutrality position?

Post your comments below or email (John.Myers@BlueBuffaloGroup.com) / twitter (@BlueBuffaloGrp) me directly.

I have to say that I always appreciated the concept of “leaving sleeping dogs lie” or its rough equivalent in the western states… “if you mess with the bull, you will get the horns…”.

In its case against the FCC, I fear that Comcast may awaken the legislative process and/or get an unwanted dose of the “horns” of the FCC.

In a very good piece by Jolelle Tessler, Comcast appears to have a bent on getting a ruling that states the FCC does not have the ability to enforce Net Neutrality rules.  My favorite part of Tessler’s piece is the following:

“An appeals court ruling that rejects this argument could draw Congress into the matter to give the FCC the power to regulate broadband as an information service. Several key lawmakers have already drafted legislation to mandate network neutrality. Or it could force the agency to consider reclassifying broadband as a more heavily regulated telecommunications service that would be subject to non-discrimination rules.”

By putting this case into the legal process, Comcast could very well close out any wiggle room associated with the FCC on the definitions of Net Neutrality and even make the world of Internet access even more regulated rather than less…

How do you view the wisdom of the Comcast legal strategy?

Post your comments below or email (John.Myers@BlueBuffaloGroup.com) / twitter (@JohnLMyers44) me directly.

“Fans” of my blog have read the following before:

“When Google does it, it is cool.  When the NSA does it, it is creepy…”

I usually use to to frame an argument that looks at how many people give private organizations lots of power to look at their personal data and complain when government organizations do similar things…

I believe that telematics offers a great opportunity for both telecom service providers and car owners to provide a level of service and information that we/I can even imagine right now. Therese Cory does a great job of looking at some of new telematics developments in Europe.

However, I have to ask if the information that telematics will base its value on will outweigh the risk to personal information?

Cory’s article talks a lot about saving energy with telematics to reduce carbon footprint as well as increase safety of the roadways.  However, can this information be abused?

Will the governments who hope to increase safety issue “virtual tickets” to drivers who speed?

Will vendors or telecom providers mis-use the data associated with telematics and violate privacy laws?

These are all key questions that I think should be answered sooner as opposed to late.

NOTE – Jeff Jonas is one of the smartest people that I have ever seen speak. His blog is one of the great places for discussion of information management and privacy topics… Get it out when you get a chance.

The winds of regulation and change are blowing… even when the FCC and Congress have better things to do….

Cecilia Kangr looks at how the Senate and the FCC are asking questions about exclusive agreements between handset providers and telecom carriers.  In the wonderful world of wireless handsets, there are lots of people who have issues with the arrangements between carriers and providers.

However, most of people understand the concept of “barriers to entry” and the reasons why AT&T pays a subsidy to Apple for the iPhone…. Then again most people who REALLY want an iPhone either switch to AT&T or drop another chip into an “unlocked” iphone…. :)

What do you think about the renewed interest in exclusive handset agreements?

Post your comments below or email (John.Myers@BlueBuffaloGroup.com) / twitter (JohnLMyers44) me directly. 

I found this article from Joshua Rhett Miller recently on President Obama’s “broadband plan” and I thought that the follow quote was interesting:

“Just 57 percent of Americans use broadband services, although 91 percent of American homes have access to them, according to a report released last month by the Pew Internet & American Life Project.”

While I am not in a position to argue about the specifics relating to the penetration of broadband in the US, I am perfectly willing to argue against the concept that if people access to broadband and do not use it then they are not interested.

Those users might not be interested in that particular price point ( … particularly in these economic times… ) or may not have the “PC literacy” to take advantage of broadband access.  But I can definitely say that a lack of participation cannot be equated to a lack of interest.

The Insight Research Corporation has a recent study that says:

“Even amidst so much economic uncertainty, the fact remains that telecommunications is a key input factor in economic growth. Telecommunications is a facilitator of socio-economic advancement and is a critical utility for economic development, much like water and energy.”

So in this particular case, I agree with President Obama position on broadband access to encourage economic growth.  However, I’m probably at odds with the administration on exactly how that broadband access should be provided…. Simply “berating” the telecoms into providing cheaper access isn’t the answer.  Nor is probably simply subsidizing broadband access.