Exploring the impact of broadband and technology on our lives, our businesses, and our communities.
One of the big flaws in the whole telecom debate is a chronic focus on the past. The telecom companies and the FCC both tend to rely on looking backward, and by extension, it's a problem at the state level because the incumbent providers have been much better at getting their message to state legislators than purchasers of telecom services.
Here's a concrete example of what I mean. The Times-Picayune has a story today on the fast-growing "iPod Economy," which is the exploding market for iPod accessories. According to one researcher, iPod owners spend half as much as the cost of their iPod on accessories. With most iPods selling for between $200 and $300, that's a lot of money. And iPod sales itself grew 525% last year. By some estimates, iPods account for as much as 80% of the total portable audio player market.
So what's the point? The point is that very few people could have predicted this three years ago. Technology innovation is creating incredible business opportunities. If you browse through the companies selling accessories, none of them are "big name" companies, and many of them are garage start-ups, especially those that make protective sleeves and cases for the iPod.
The telecom discussion tends to be framed by what is called the "triple play," which is voice telephony, video, and (Internet) data. I've seen a lot of business cases that "prove" that communities can't recover their costs using a triple play model. I think the reports are right, but for the wrong reason (which makes them wrong overall).
It's really a quadruple play, with voice, video, data, and what I call "advanced services." Advanced services are anything that will be delivered via the Internet that we have either not thought of yet or just are not including. My favorite example is network backups. Knowledge Economy startups like Data Ensure are growing rapidly by playing in the Advanced Services arena, and Data Ensure, in particular, is creating jobs in a remote part of southwest Virginia. They just happen to be in a vertical business incubator with fiber in the basement--part of a regional fiber project.
Who could have predicted, five years ago, that the old coal town of Norton, Virginia would have world class fiber and a Knowledge Economy "advanced services" business? It's the advanced and emerging services, the fourth part of the telecom equation, that make community investments in broadband practical from a business model perspective, and sensible from an economic development perspective. If you leave that whole chunk of business out, well, yea, you end "proving" that you can get what you need from the phone or cable company.
Why are advanced services being left out? Because the phone and cable companies hate competition. They want to control what we do with broadband, and don't want third parties like Data Ensure getting some of your money. So they conveniently frame the discussion in a way that favors their arguments and weakens arguments for community investment.
Trying to jam the telecom debate into a one hundred year old model can only produce one hundred year old results--we call that the Manufacturing Economy, which is long gone.
One of the things driving the iPod Economy is broadband. Every day, thousands of iPod users are downloading "podcasts" to their iPods via a broadband connection. Podcasts, are portable talk radio. The audio equivalent of bloggers are recording commentary, posting it to their Web sites, and listeners are using RSS-enabled podcast feeds to squirt the audio files directly into their iPods. Typically, they listen to them in the car on the way to or from work. Podcasts are one of the things that are killing commercial radio as we know it. Who could have predicted podcasting two years ago?
How about your community? Are your leaders still thinking about the local economy in terms of what it was? Wouldn't it be better to think about what it could be? The first step, maybe, is to get an iPod, or at least talk to someone who has one. This is not about the music...it's about the economy, and the emerging markets being created while you read this. For all you know, you may have an iPod accessory maker in your community, selling their products over the 'net from their home. If you did have one of those companies, would you even know? I can almost guarantee those startups aren't joining the Chamber of Commerce.
And that begs another question--why not? But we'll save that for another day.
Congresswoman Heather Wilson of New Mexico calls it the "emerging duopoly. This Washington Post article discusses the impact the telephone mergers may have on communities and telephone users. The duopoly refers to a community that has just two telecom companies--one large phone company and one large cable company. These big firms can engage in cartel-like behavior, and the pattern so far has been not to compete on a level playing field but rather to simply buy competitors.
James Carlini has a must-read article that has some solid data on the value of municipal investments in broadband, as well as some fascinating historical data that shows community investments in "new" infrastructure pay off.
Carlini has new data on the Waterloo, Iowa and Cedar Falls, Iowa comparison (here is a one page summary--look for the handout titled Case Studies). Waterloo, Iowa decided to let the cable and telelphone company decide what kind of broadband the community had. Twenty-five miles away, Cedar Falls, with less developable land and some other economic development disadvantages, invested in community fiber. Five years later, Cedar Falls lowered taxes slightly, and Waterloo had to raise taxes. Why? Because business investment in Cedar Falls boomed because of the community fiber, and economic development in Waterloo stalled.
Carlini also provides some historical data on St. Louis and Chicago. At the end of the Civil War, St. Louis was the major gateway to the West because it dominated water-based trade. Chicago was much less prosperous, and decided to really push railroads. St. Louis decided to pass laws that discouraged railroad development, and tried to protect water routes by discouraged railroad bridges across the Mississippi. The result--Chicago's population boomed from the economic development the railroads brought, while St. Louis barely grew at all.
We're at the same place today. The telephone and cable companies are trying to get our legislators to hold back the railroads to protect canal barge traffic. Does your community want to be St. Louis or Chicago? Waterloo or Cedar Falls?
A bill under consideration by the New Hampshire legislature would give municipalities and regions the statutory authority to use bonds to build out telecom infrastructure. This is exactly the right approach. For one, it's a familiar and successful model that has been used for decades to finance other kinds of public facilities (e.g. roads, water, sewer, industrial parks, etc.). More importantly, it recognizes that there is an issue of the common good here, and that community investments are important to the future of communities.
Let's hope this gets passed. We need some good models for the rest of the country.
A lot of phones are beginning to look a lot like iPods, and I don't think that is a coincidence. By some estimates, Apple has as much as 80% of the portable music player market, and the latest entry, the iPod Shuffle, which is incredibly small, is enormously popular, despite a lot of naysaying from competitors who claim it lacks features. Apparently they don't read the reviews of their own products, in which a frequent criticism is that there are too many controls and widgets that are too hard to figure out.
Sony (invented walk around music with the Walkman) Ericsson have released several new phones that all have iPod form factors, play music, take pictures, and oh, yes, make phone calls too.
The problem with cellphones generally is that you can't pick a phone indepdendent of the service. The cellular companies have a lock on the marketplace and try to control marketshare by obtaining exclusive rights to certain phones. Hence, as a U.S. Cellular customer, I can't get a Treo, period. Cingular has a contract with Treo, and U.S. Cellular does not.
This is a bad thing for consumers, who are being whipsawed by (surprise) phone companies trying to keep customers by manipulating the market rather than on the quality of their service.
Costa Rica's countrywide telephone monopoly is trying to make it a crime to make a Voice over IP telephone call. From the article:
"One Costa Rican official of an agency seeking to promote the Central American country's software industry said last week that ICE's proposal would be "disastrous" to the country's efforts to grow its software development and outsourcing businesses."
That's exactly right, and applies equally to any region of the U.S. trying to encourage the growth of Knowledge Economy businesses. The telecoms really need to face up to the fact that they are no longer in the telephony business--they are in the data transport business, and they need to start acting that way. If they accepted the notion that they are selling bandwidth, not dialtone (or TV programming, for that matter), and upgraded their systems to support the demand for bandwidth, they would find that they could make pretty good money doing that.
But pigs may fly first.
Google has wads of cash, and has to spend it on something. So the company has been experimenting with Orkut, a "social software" platform similar to other services like LinkedIn. It has also started offering Google Maps, which now works with more browsers. Unlike Mapquest and some other similar services, Google Maps is fast and produces legible maps. I've always found Mapquest an exercise in frustration; not only are the maps fuzzy and hard to read, the zooming feature is extremely slow.
Google has also rolled out a Local feature that tries to compensate for the otherwise completely useless search for local information. It's nicely done, and seems to be borrowing from Snap and other search engines that actually return inbound link information, and of course, it's tied to Google's map feature. But it seems to aggregate from a rather large area, and many of the inbound links seem to come from link farms, meaning the value of the ranking is suspect. But my guess is that Google has larger fish to fry. By providing customized local searches, Google can continue to vacuum up ad dollars from smaller and smaller companies who know they will get better placement because of the local feature. Will it be worth it? Time will tell.
Another little know Google feature which is potentially a privacy problem is Google's phone number lookup. Type in your phone number on the Google search page, and Google will return your street address. Handy, or great for stalkers and psychopaths who want to find out where you live? Note that you can opt out that.
It will be interesting to see where Google will be in five years. Google is starting to look an awful lot like Microsoft--the market leader with a huge audience, and so much money it can offer virtually any online service quicker and better than competitors. But Microsoft's day has passed, and Google may wane much more quickly.
Broadband legal policy expert Lawrence Lessig has a nice summary of the issues swirling around community investments in broadband.
He makes an interesting point regarding industry criticism that community projects are "unfair." With reference to public WiFi projects in community spaces (e.g. streets, parks, public buildings, etc.), Lessig points out that public street lights did not put electric companies out of business. He also provides other examples of public/private competition: public buses compete with private taxis; police departments "compete" with private security forces (like Pinkerton).
It's a short article with a tall dose of common sense, and it would be good to print a copy and mail it to your favorites local and state legislators.
There are many advantages to working out of the home, but snow days are not one of them.
Normally, the neighborhood cable network is reasonably responsive during the day, because kids and parents are at work. I can get done what I need to do without waiting.
But with six inches of snow on the ground and more falling, schools and many businesses are closed, and apparently many people have headed for the Internet, completely bogging down the cable modem service. It's very pokey, with long waits for simple things like loading a Web page.
And that's a perfect example of why cable and DSL, over the long term, simply don't have what it takes to deliver broadband. If one snow day makes my neighborhood broadband service slow to a crawl, imagine what will happen as more and more users get on and do more and more high bandwidth stuff like Voice over IP and IP television.
We're thirteenth in the world in terms of broadband cacpacity and deployment, behind places like Finland, Norway, and South Korea. And here is where I remind you of my favorite suggestion for a community economic development slogan: "Our town--almost as good as South Korea." It is a pretty sad situation when it comes to that, and it has.
Here is an excellent article on the growing movement in Washington to take another look at the 1996 Telecom Deregulation Act. There is growing agreement that a) the law worked poorly, if at all, and b) it's now beginning to make things much worse.
Unlikely advocates are emerging to support new legislation. The phone companies want to get into the TV business, which was formerly the exclusive playground of the cable companies. The phone companies are going to go straight to Internet TV. They can do this because more people are tossing dial up over the side of the boat every day and signing up for broadband. And the protocols for delivering video have improved immensely over the past several years. Broadband can deliver TV, at least in a limited way, but the phone companies have realized it is their only way out of the mess they are in--free or very low cost phone service via VoIP is killing them.
The cable companies always tend to be a bit behind, which is pretty damning when you think about it. Would you want to claim you are almost as forward thinking as the phone company? The cable companies want to get into the telephony business, and already claim to have millions of customers. This is a bad direction to head because as I just said, the phone business is dead on the vine. The cable companies have decided to pick some very rotten fruit.
The '96 Telecom Act complicates all this tremendously because the government, in '96, treated TV and telephony differently. Today, both those services are just a stream of electrons shooting down the broadband pipe. It's absurd to view telephony as something deserving of special regulation and a pile of really dumb taxes.
Communities lack a strong, clear voice in Washington, although a few legislators realize this is important stuff. The really smart thing to get rid of the FCC entirely, but there are too many sacred cows who depend on complex rules and complicated taxes. It's hard to know what the current administration will do; when free markets and special interest business monopolies collide, the results are not often pretty.
The phone and cable companies are attacking on all fronts. They are pouring millions into state level lobbying efforts to keep communities from controlling their own future. And the Washington monopoly lobbyists are surely working overtime to keep things hideously complicated--that makes it more difficult for small, nimble Knowledge Economy companies to compete with firms that spend hundreds of millions on lawyers.
This is no kerfuffle by any means; this is a major mess that hits every community in America right between the economic development eyeballs.