Comments on: One nation under Internet Protocol

J. William Gurley considers the likely timetable for a single, super fast pipe into the U.S. home.

[David Mohring]

Cspan: Panel on the Internet & Broadband

http://www.cspan.org/search/basic.asp?BasicQueryText=Broadband
[i]Vinton Cerf, Stanford Law School's Lawrence Lessig & FCC Commissioner Michael Copps speak at a panel on the future of the Internet & broadband.
3/26/2004: WASHINGTON, DC: 1 hr. 25 min.[/i]

It covers the issues of broadband and internet regulation in the USA.

It's worth watching the for comments of FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, the speaker after Vinton Cerf.

[David Mohring]

Cspan: Panel on the Internet & Broadband

http://www.cspan.org/search/basic.asp?BasicQueryText=Broadband
[i]Vinton Cerf, Stanford Law School's Lawrence Lessig & FCC Commissioner Michael Copps speak at a panel on the future of the Internet & broadband.
3/26/2004: WASHINGTON, DC: 1 hr. 25 min.[/i]

It covers the issues of broadband and internet regulation in the USA.

It's worth watching the for comments of FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, the speaker after Vinton Cerf.

[msansing]

Content aggregation in the all-IP world and other thoughts

Surely studios fantasize, as Mr. Gurley suggests, users coming directly to their websites to access movies, enabling them to completely cut out the middlemen that today suck up too much of the take (in the minds of the content owners anyways). Fat chance! Consumers don't generally know which studio produces what, and they will want to go to at most just a few sources to get their content. Value will accrue to those that can aggregate and suggest desirable content to users--preferably in one place. And having unique proprietary content that you have developed or exclusively licensed (think HBO) will give you an advantage. While the cable providers will clearly be at risk for becoming dumb pipes, who the winners will be is interesting to ponder. I suspect some of today's leading programming aggregators in traditional media (HBO, MTV, NBC, ESPN, Blockbuster, etc.) and the Internet (Yahoo, AOL, etc.) will emerge as players in the all-IP world, although they will all have to go head-to-head as their separate distribution channels meld and all content starts flowing down the same IP pipes.

As for the IP pipe operators, the twisted-pair last mile bottlenecks would seem to put the RBOCs in an untenable position as super-fast connections are needed to bring media to users. But I imagine wireless technology like WiMax might allow them to connect users directly to their backbone lines, which I suspect are much more robust. Given their technological shortcomings, the added disadvantage of the regulatory discrepancy between telco and cable networks is disgraceful--the FCC must level the playing field one way or the other.

And it will be interesting to see if Microsoft can use WM9 as a Trojan Horse for the Windows OS once they allow WM9 to run on other OSs, which I believe they may have already done in order to get it accepted as a standard for next-gen DVD and TV broadcasts.

[msansing]

Content aggregation in the all-IP world and other thoughts

Surely studios fantasize, as Mr. Gurley suggests, users coming directly to their websites to access movies, enabling them to completely cut out the middlemen that today suck up too much of the take (in the minds of the content owners anyways). Fat chance! Consumers don't generally know which studio produces what, and they will want to go to at most just a few sources to get their content. Value will accrue to those that can aggregate and suggest desirable content to users--preferably in one place. And having unique proprietary content that you have developed or exclusively licensed (think HBO) will give you an advantage. While the cable providers will clearly be at risk for becoming dumb pipes, who the winners will be is interesting to ponder. I suspect some of today's leading programming aggregators in traditional media (HBO, MTV, NBC, ESPN, Blockbuster, etc.) and the Internet (Yahoo, AOL, etc.) will emerge as players in the all-IP world, although they will all have to go head-to-head as their separate distribution channels meld and all content starts flowing down the same IP pipes.

As for the IP pipe operators, the twisted-pair last mile bottlenecks would seem to put the RBOCs in an untenable position as super-fast connections are needed to bring media to users. But I imagine wireless technology like WiMax might allow them to connect users directly to their backbone lines, which I suspect are much more robust. Given their technological shortcomings, the added disadvantage of the regulatory discrepancy between telco and cable networks is disgraceful--the FCC must level the playing field one way or the other.

And it will be interesting to see if Microsoft can use WM9 as a Trojan Horse for the Windows OS once they allow WM9 to run on other OSs, which I believe they may have already done in order to get it accepted as a standard for next-gen DVD and TV broadcasts.

[ksakhpara]

802.16

Dear Sir,
in your article you mention that investing into fibre optic pipes into every home as the only option for RBOCs to get advantage over cable service providers since their copper wires are too slow to deliver data.

The assumption that IP can only be delivered over wires is not true. With wireless technologies like 802.16 offering broadband wireless access, the whole point of having pipes into homes becomes redundant.

--Ketul

[ksakhpara]

802.16

Dear Sir,
in your article you mention that investing into fibre optic pipes into every home as the only option for RBOCs to get advantage over cable service providers since their copper wires are too slow to deliver data.

The assumption that IP can only be delivered over wires is not true. With wireless technologies like 802.16 offering broadband wireless access, the whole point of having pipes into homes becomes redundant.

--Ketul

[msilverton]

Indexing the Billion Channel Universe

Along the lines of who or what will aggregate and organize the billion channel IP audio/video universe, I've been very impressed with the ease of use in the newest WinAmp. Well worth checking out.

WinAmp 5
http://www.winamp.com/

Also, we booted SBC several months ago in favor of Comcast cable and Vonage. Not a single regret, Vonage is awesome. I can't imagine a scenario where it would be legal for Comcast to break what I'm already paying for. But then, I also couldn't imagine a scenario where Sand Hill Rd. wouldn't understand that we needed to start building 100mbps to 1000mbps Ethernet To The Home (ETTH) when we built the first such networks in Palo Alto from 1999 to 2001, so what do I know?

[msilverton]

Indexing the Billion Channel Universe

Along the lines of who or what will aggregate and organize the billion channel IP audio/video universe, I've been very impressed with the ease of use in the newest WinAmp. Well worth checking out.

WinAmp 5
http://www.winamp.com/

Also, we booted SBC several months ago in favor of Comcast cable and Vonage. Not a single regret, Vonage is awesome. I can't imagine a scenario where it would be legal for Comcast to break what I'm already paying for. But then, I also couldn't imagine a scenario where Sand Hill Rd. wouldn't understand that we needed to start building 100mbps to 1000mbps Ethernet To The Home (ETTH) when we built the first such networks in Palo Alto from 1999 to 2001, so what do I know?

TWC wants to charge me over $25,000 - who would pay that? we stay on dialup

TWC wants to charge me over $25,000 (US dollars) for CABLE installation.
They also cant get my address right, neither the town nor the zip code.
There is not another area left in the country with this problem!!
I live in Highland NY, with zip code 12528.
The houses with addresses on Swartekill Road numbered greater than 300 have
Time Warner Cable/ Road Runner. The houses with addresses under 200 have
Cablevision/Optimum online. Those of us between 200 and 300 on Swartekill Rd
have no CABLE TV (for 3 decades) and no chance of getting DSL either.
Survey's done by Time Warner are now over $25,000; but they are sent to wrong
address and list our town (200 - 300 Swartekill Road) incorrectly. TWC insist
we are in Town of Esopus at zipcode 12429. Our correct town is Highland NY
with zipcode 12429. Would you accept a survey result of $25,000 and hand over
that much money to a company that can't even straighten out their customer
database, and have the addresses correct?
Lastly, because our addresses are incorrect in their (TWC) database
our are requests are not being counted correctly - not being counted at all!
In fact, when I call TWC for service they insist that I am not in there area.
It takes several minutes to convince their rep that this is TWC area. I am sick
of this conversation. For 6 years I have been calling TWC every month and
getting no where. Everybody else can get high speed for free installation
or $59 installation charge, Why do I have to pay $25,000 installation charge?
and then have my address in the wrong town and zipcode yet.
I still on dialup - probably forever.

While all around us in NY State's mid hudson valley, every body else has at least 1 broadband option these 15-20 houses have none. I've heard it
said by too many folks that 'everybody is on broadband now', they are obviously uninformed.

Satellite (starband nor directway) is not an option as the VPN to corporate network slows down
to dialup speeds (due to technical issue: each VPN packet is run thru IPSEC security - which slows down to dialup speeds).

TWC wants to charge me over $25,000 - who would pay that? we stay on dialup

TWC wants to charge me over $25,000 (US dollars) for CABLE installation.
They also cant get my address right, neither the town nor the zip code.
There is not another area left in the country with this problem!!
I live in Highland NY, with zip code 12528.
The houses with addresses on Swartekill Road numbered greater than 300 have
Time Warner Cable/ Road Runner. The houses with addresses under 200 have
Cablevision/Optimum online. Those of us between 200 and 300 on Swartekill Rd
have no CABLE TV (for 3 decades) and no chance of getting DSL either.
Survey's done by Time Warner are now over $25,000; but they are sent to wrong
address and list our town (200 - 300 Swartekill Road) incorrectly. TWC insist
we are in Town of Esopus at zipcode 12429. Our correct town is Highland NY
with zipcode 12429. Would you accept a survey result of $25,000 and hand over
that much money to a company that can't even straighten out their customer
database, and have the addresses correct?
Lastly, because our addresses are incorrect in their (TWC) database
our are requests are not being counted correctly - not being counted at all!
In fact, when I call TWC for service they insist that I am not in there area.
It takes several minutes to convince their rep that this is TWC area. I am sick
of this conversation. For 6 years I have been calling TWC every month and
getting no where. Everybody else can get high speed for free installation
or $59 installation charge, Why do I have to pay $25,000 installation charge?
and then have my address in the wrong town and zipcode yet.
I still on dialup - probably forever.

While all around us in NY State's mid hudson valley, every body else has at least 1 broadband option these 15-20 houses have none. I've heard it
said by too many folks that 'everybody is on broadband now', they are obviously uninformed.

Satellite (starband nor directway) is not an option as the VPN to corporate network slows down
to dialup speeds (due to technical issue: each VPN packet is run thru IPSEC security - which slows down to dialup speeds).

How about Power line internet?

This article provides great strategic vision of the future. Although one potential player in an all-IP world is completely ignored here. That is the power companies, who are on their path to provide broadband over power lines. Investments in power line technology will soon increase the bandwidth comparable to cable networks. They have an added advantage of being present everywhere, and being indespensable for the consumer. Nothing works without power.

How about Power line internet?

This article provides great strategic vision of the future. Although one potential player in an all-IP world is completely ignored here. That is the power companies, who are on their path to provide broadband over power lines. Investments in power line technology will soon increase the bandwidth comparable to cable networks. They have an added advantage of being present everywhere, and being indespensable for the consumer. Nothing works without power.

[bjbrock]

The Internet is not the Internet.

What we call the Internet today is a far cry from the efficient, self sustaining, and autonomous grouping of managable networks that was once a true Internet. Ask those that fashioned the Internet and ensuing WWW. They provided everything in the original design that was needed to insure a technology that was quite able to survive issues which are crippling today's sorry excuse for an Internet. What was once trully a web of small managable networks with interconnectivity that could not be brought down, has now become a few large unmanageable networks with infectious trash that can't be controlled. Big business changed the technology to make a buck and destroyed many of the self sustaining features that were built in from the start. You don't agree? Do your homework and then consult with the Internet developers. Then make an educated decision on what we now have. Only after big business took control did these problems of security and managability come to be. Maybe the government should nationalize the whole thing and take profit out of the issue. If the structure were as it was in the beginning, we would not need large companies to provide any Internet services. Pipes between the small web of networks could easily be maintained by only those net's with conections. The small nets would then require small management and autonomous management as well. It is the huge infrastructures that big business has created that have the managability issues. There is nothing wrong with the Internet these days, it just doesn't exist.

[bjbrock]

The Internet is not the Internet.

What we call the Internet today is a far cry from the efficient, self sustaining, and autonomous grouping of managable networks that was once a true Internet. Ask those that fashioned the Internet and ensuing WWW. They provided everything in the original design that was needed to insure a technology that was quite able to survive issues which are crippling today's sorry excuse for an Internet. What was once trully a web of small managable networks with interconnectivity that could not be brought down, has now become a few large unmanageable networks with infectious trash that can't be controlled. Big business changed the technology to make a buck and destroyed many of the self sustaining features that were built in from the start. You don't agree? Do your homework and then consult with the Internet developers. Then make an educated decision on what we now have. Only after big business took control did these problems of security and managability come to be. Maybe the government should nationalize the whole thing and take profit out of the issue. If the structure were as it was in the beginning, we would not need large companies to provide any Internet services. Pipes between the small web of networks could easily be maintained by only those net's with conections. The small nets would then require small management and autonomous management as well. It is the huge infrastructures that big business has created that have the managability issues. There is nothing wrong with the Internet these days, it just doesn't exist.

[bjbrock]

IT and big business pressure.

IT can't survive under the pressures exerted by big business. It is a marvelous means to many ends. But as the end itself, it can only be destroyed. This whole article is about big business and the Internet. The headlines today pretty much indicates the mutual exclusivity of the two. The Internet can help the business and the social sectors but it cannot be the product itself. Big business has doomed the Internet. Whatever survives will be anything but what the visionaries who framed the Internet had believed the Internet could be. The Internets infrastructure has already changed from its original design to the point of losing many or most of its self managing and self sustaining qualities. And obviously, big business has not figured out how to manually do what the Internet automatically was able to do before its massive redesign by $$$$$$ interests.

[Fray9]

Virtual country

I agree with you there.

The online world is and always has been a country of its own. It inherently has no rules or laws except those created by its inhabitants. So why do we allow other countries to impose laws regulations and big business "visions" on it? Its like saying that the US owns the planet so everyone else has to follow their laws.

Personally I think that the internet needs a government.. its OWN government that doesnt answer to anyone else on the planet. Perhaps then things will be done in the interest of its citizens and not in the interest of those with the money to change it to suit their desires and greed.

Right now there are two other options: Allow the UN to control it in which case all the laws and all the greedy schemes of all the governments of the world will utterly destroy it or let one country run it as they see fit and (mis)use it to suit their own agendas.

I dont like either option personally.

[bjbrock]

IT and big business pressure.

IT can't survive under the pressures exerted by big business. It is a marvelous means to many ends. But as the end itself, it can only be destroyed. This whole article is about big business and the Internet. The headlines today pretty much indicates the mutual exclusivity of the two. The Internet can help the business and the social sectors but it cannot be the product itself. Big business has doomed the Internet. Whatever survives will be anything but what the visionaries who framed the Internet had believed the Internet could be. The Internets infrastructure has already changed from its original design to the point of losing many or most of its self managing and self sustaining qualities. And obviously, big business has not figured out how to manually do what the Internet automatically was able to do before its massive redesign by $$$$$$ interests.

[Fray9]

Virtual country

I agree with you there.

The online world is and always has been a country of its own. It inherently has no rules or laws except those created by its inhabitants. So why do we allow other countries to impose laws regulations and big business "visions" on it? Its like saying that the US owns the planet so everyone else has to follow their laws.

Personally I think that the internet needs a government.. its OWN government that doesnt answer to anyone else on the planet. Perhaps then things will be done in the interest of its citizens and not in the interest of those with the money to change it to suit their desires and greed.

Right now there are two other options: Allow the UN to control it in which case all the laws and all the greedy schemes of all the governments of the world will utterly destroy it or let one country run it as they see fit and (mis)use it to suit their own agendas.

I dont like either option personally.