October 2009

Will Network Neutrality hurt or help the economy? Amid a stubborn recession, that question will take center stage as critics and proponents debate how new rules at the Federal Communications Commission would impact investments in the Web. At a high level, the arguments are straight forward. But the details supporting those views -- which will likely be debated for months at the FCC -- become vastly more complicated. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and proponents of new rules say the next Google or Amazon being cooked up in some garage may not see the light of day if a policy isn't put in place that ensure they'll make it on the Web. Opponents of his plan say ISPs need flexibility to manage their network traffic and keep down costs. They want to make sure some bandwidth hogs aren't ruining the experience for other consumers. And shareholders need to be assured they will get a return on their investments without the uncertainty of new regulations. Blair Levin, a former Wall Street analyst who is now heading the FCC's creation of a National Broadband Plan, said at a 2006 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on telecommunications competition that regulation doesn't move the needle on investments. The promise of a competitive marketplace, however, can be a bigger incentive for investment, he said. "Ultimately, to serve the goal of stimulating a rising standard of living for Americans, the challenge for government is to assure a broadband environment characterized by survival of the fittest, as selected by the market, rather than survival of the friendliest, as selected by the network owners or government," he said.

The Federal Communications Commission on Friday wrote to Google requesting information about its Voice service, which lets people sign up for one number that can route incoming calls to a cell, office or home phone. Is Google Voice just another online service — like search or Google Maps — or is it a phone service? That question is at the heart of the FCC's inquiry. Google Voice allows consumers to use one Google-issued number for home, office and cell. The free service also transcribes voice mail and offers unlimited free texting. Among other things, the FCC asked Google to explain how Google Voice allows users to place calls, and whether calls to particular telephone numbers are restricted. Google has until Oct. 28 to respond. The letter was sent by the FCC's wireline bureau, which oversees AT&T and other telecoms. The missive came on the heels of a letter — signed by more than 20 members of Congress — asking the agency to investigate. If the FCC determines that Google Voice is, indeed, a phone service, the Web giant could wind up being subjected to some of the same requirements as traditional carriers.

Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn said, "The FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau today asked some very legitimate questions about the nature of Google Voice, beginning an inquiry that PK Legal Director Harold Feld on Oct. 1 urged the Commission to undertake. In trying to determine how the service works, and what place it has in telecommunications law, the Commission is starting down a worthwhile path to examine the changing nature of today's telecommunications service. That inquiry should be more far-reaching than this relatively isolated case. We learned recently that another VoIP provider, Speakeasy.com, reserved the right to block calls to rural areas. We should be clear that the Commission's inquiry has nothing to do with issues of an open, non-discriminatory Internet, as AT&T alleged when it brought the issue of Google Voice to the Commission's attention last month. Neither does it have anything to do with denying service to rural customers, as others have said. It has to do with the clash between traditional telephone services and new technological realities. We urge the Commission to act quickly to resolve these difficult issues."

[Commentary] For media, this is the best of times and the worst. The best because the cost to publish news, make a video or distribute a song has never been lower. But also the worst because it's hard to find a company, new or old media, that has emerged with a sustainable business model. Consumers are left wondering how much longer their favorite sources of news and entertainment will be around. Content creators from musicians to authors can sidestep the middlemen who were once required to package and deliver the content. This means that as consumers, we have unprecedented choice in many areas. Media companies also have options. They can become more efficient, find new revenue streams from their most engaged consumers, and add new services. Still, no one knows which brands will survive in a world where the traditional advantages are the new disadvantages and where so many new-media companies don't survive the pace of change they helped accelerate. The challenge for all media—old and new—is the same, even if the difficulty level is higher than ever before: Focus on what makes each brand different and more valuable than the ever-increasing number of alternatives that technology makes inevitable.

While email continues to grow, other types of communication services are growing far faster. In August 2009, 276.9 million people used email across the US, several European countries, Australia and Brazil, according to Nielsen, up 21% from 229.2 million in August 2008. But the number of users on social-networking and other community sites jumped 31% to 301.5 million people. "The whole idea of this email service isn't really quite as significant anymore when you can have many, many different types of messages and files and when you have this all on the same type of networks," says Alex Bochannek, curator at the Computer History Museum. We all still use email, of course. But email was better suited to the way we used to use the Internet—logging off and on, checking our messages in bursts. Now, we are always connected, whether we are sitting at a desk or on a mobile phone. The always-on connection, in turn, has created a host of new ways to communicate that are much faster than email, and more fun. Why wait for a response to an email when you get a quicker answer over instant messaging?