Print 

Morphing of Capitalism from Closed and Mercantilist in the US to Open and Collaborative Abroad

Thoughts on What these Changes Mean for Telecommunications and Innovation in the US and in the Global Economy

How to purchase this issue. $325 or $1100 group. The January - February 2006 issue looks at telco attempts to monitize eveything thier customers do and examines local attempts to build infrastructure: Villages Branches in Quebec and Champaign Urbana Community Wireless Network. Our Symposium members continue to dissect IMS and comment on the telco's innability to innovate. They pick appart the self-serving nature of the LEC's network neutrality bandwagon. Regulatory issues of common carriage, FCC Voip 911 shenanigans, the sale of Skype to eBay, and Google's dark fiber plans are scrutinized. We include an interview with JP Rangaswami of DRKW.

January 17, 2006 Ewing, NJ -- Capitalism in the United States in the 21st century has not moved forward with the rest of the world. We are still embedded in the post World War II mindset of America as the great economic power at the peak of the industrial age. While many of our giant corporations are shrinking in size, in 2005 in American telecom there were two major exceptions to a trend in the technology area of downsizing driven by increasing commoditization as companies try to become more nimble in order to compete in a globalized economy.

 

The two largest local phone companies swallowed the two largest American carriers. SBC merged with ATT and became the “new” ATT and Verizon took over MCI. ­ Motivated they claimed by the goal of economies of scale, CEOs Whittacre and Seidenberg asserted that they could eliminate duplicative infrastructure and save money. What they did not explain was the cost of adding more debt to their core business and the expense of merging two huge and complex organizations with complex billing systems. They also ignored increasing enterprise customer anxiety as sources of redundant network infrastructure vanished. Some observers speculated that the real reasons for the mergers were the acquisition MCI and ATTs global IP backbone’s free traffic interconnection with the other major global players. In an increasingly all IP world, these resources had the potential to enable more cost-effective competition in the efforts of what some began to call Bell East and Bell West’s efforts to provide television over their IP networks ­ efforts to compete with the MSO's cable modem service that will very likely fail.

Meanwhile, despite the downward trend in wireline voice revenue minutes and continued loss of land lines, the LEC coffers remained flush. What was wrong with this picture? Many things it turned out. LEC lobbying had ensured friendly treatment in Congress and at the FCC and the technically ignorant Bush administration applied its “ownership” philosophy in such a way that the two mega lECs and two lesser lECs got everything they could possibly want. Furthermore as befitting the “ownership” society where vital national infrastructure is placed in private hands to benefit the equity holders under the guise of property rights, the “owners” of the New ATT were to be protected. Whittacre scoffed that: if Google thought it was going to send its content on his networks with out paying the price he set, Google had another think coming. In early 2006 Seidenberg made similar remarks on behalf of Verizon.

During 2005 we saw an assault on the FCC that was coordinated with a local assault at the state level PUCs. Verizon and SBC, followed by Qwest and BellSouth, set about their agenda of taking back complete control of the newly built Internet protocol infrastructure at everyone else’s expense. They were trying to preserve their way of life and, if at the end of the day, the shareholders were enriched, fine.

But the share holders were not enriched. Over the past five years SBC/ATT shares have fallen by 50% and those of Verizon by about 40%. In 2005, the year of the great triumph, Verizon’s share price fell by 25% from 40 to 30. The price earnings ratio was 10.27 on January 13 and market cap was $89 billion. Over the same five years SBC/ATT lost half its value from $50 to $25 a share with a market cap of $82 billion and price earnings ratio of 21.6. In 2005, the year of its triumph the price was flat line ­ virtually unchanged at $25 a share. Late on January 13, 2006 S&P downgraded Verizon’s debt rating and placed the debt of Bell South and SBC/ATT on credit watch.

One might expect that if they were serving share holders, they would take a long term point of view rather than preserve the old way of doing things. One has to look very hard for any sign that the telco’ s understand the Internet except as an alien body to be controlled and channeled to fill their coffers.

In January 2006 the mega LECs and their two smaller siblings have gained a stranglehold over the Internet. But the stranglehold begins to look like one built on quicksand. With the mergers and the successful attack on the FCC and increased rates pushed through at the PUCs during the 1990s, the phone companies have entered a race to deliver television to the American consumer. At the same time they also denied their customers the advantages of the symmetric broadband networks the committed to build in return for higher rates. They did this according to a new book: $200 Billion Broadband Scandal by Bruce Kushnick that shows they sold in the early 90s new regulatory regimes to the majority of the fifty states whereby, in return for blanket rate increases totaling 200 billion dollars, they committed to build out across the country a modern fiber based infrastructure. The infrastructure for the most part was never built, instead through lobbying and legal attacks on any municipality that wanted to build its own network, they acted to preserve their earlier way of life. The COOK Report will begin to outline this story in its March 2006 issue.

How ironic that the US created the Internet, forced it on the rest of the world along with telcom liberalization and then used the first five years of the new century to march backwards undoing within its borders the new Internet and delivering to the telcos and cable companies the ability to create a "faux" Internet that not only has no open access but preserves their way of charging for everything --“Internet.” This pseudo “Internet” is one that is to be operated in such a way that the local citizens will be stuck with an architecture and terms of service that will prevent them from running the kind of infrastructure found in the home-based business or the SME shops that predominate in East Asia and are revolutionizing the economy of that part of the world. The Bell's insistence that their interests come first are forcing American small business to compete globally with its hands tied behind its back.

The Ownership Society is Closed Capitalism and Mercantilism

The bottom line is stark and simple. The “ownership society” in the US is about closed capitalism where in the outmoded 20th century manner, infrastructure vital to this nation’s future is divided up and then resold to the highest bidder. It is about a patent system run amuck and a copyright system gone wild. It is about the 20th century ideas of content creation where the studios turn out a handful of good films in the face of dozens that are variations on 30 years old themes of mindless violence ­ and the studios wonder why attendance is declining!

Closed-ownership, American-style capitalism applies large resources to zero-sum content lawsuits as it fails to recognize the changes in content creation and ownership brought about by the Internet. The leadership of the closed duopoly can only look backwards to its version of their “Internet” as a means of content delivery of television to a nation of couch potatoes.

Fred Goldstein has described it well: "'Ownership' isn't about productivity or societal wealth creation, the theoretical underpinnings of capitalism. It's about private wealth retention and acquisition, wherein government acts on behalf of private interests. In a mercantilist economy, there is no such thing as public good, somebody else pays the taxes, and thus everything possible is privatized, no matter what the cost."

This government-sponsored “mercantilism” flies in the face of the small-scale Asian process networks chronicled by John Seely Brown and John Hagel in their book The Only Sustainable Edge. Such networks will not exist in the US given the duopolies’ stewardship of closed broadband networks that, by Asian standards, are crippled. As a result the small-scale, distributed businesses that build “capability” in Asia will operate at a large disadvantage in the US, if they can operate at all. As Skype changes the face of telephony, amazingly the telco engineers that attend standards meetings are reported to be unaware of its existence because management has forbidden its use.

All this goes on both in the face of new rounds of lay offs in the large IT and telecoms companies and the continued withdrawal of these companies from the funding of their pension programs. Even as Whittacre and Seidenberg tout economy of scale to their stock holders, they slash workers, merge with other companies and eliminate “redundant” infrastructure. They explain that these actions give them more leverage to cut people when in fact their entire industry cost structure and food chains have flipped upside down. In other words given the new technology they can do many times more with fewer people and resources. An issue that is not understood is how these men and women will ever fit back into the global economy. If they bothered to look at the new IP world, they might understand that they don’t need the mergers and the alleged economies of scale. They will do more with fewer people regardless. The problem is they won’t share any of the attendant benefits with their customers whose actions in using their services they try to micro-manage. With the miserable 20th century backward-looking infrastructure that the duopolists are installing, we will be mired in the past while the rest of the world moves on.

Public Infrastructure Betrayed

Meanwhile in the US, the term national or public interest has been effectively destroyed by the “conservative” ascendancy of the last 35 years. Americans have become largely convinced that government, by definition of simply being government, is incompetent. The unfortunate outcome of this is that, especially under the current Bush administration, private interests rule, and as the current scandals are beginning to show, all too often capture public funds which are then used for personal benefit. Because there no longer is any viable “public good,” giant, antiquated, backward looking private corporations have been given, over the past 5 years free reign over broadband in the US ­ this while the rest of the world moves forward with national broadband infrastructures that are far superior to ours.

Consequently the telcos and cable cos are fighting over backward versions of something that is the 21st century equivalent of our 20th century interstate highway system ­ something without which we cannot compete in a global economy. They are telling the entire nation that they will have it their way or not at all as they use their billions to take to courts any local group of citizens that dares to develop local initiatives to build their own infrastructure.

They use their cash to manipulate the political and regulatory process. They have paid for creation of an environment favorable to themselves. They have made it clear that will have it their way and will build us a rutted toll road or nothing at all

Just how stark that manipulation has been is shown in a new book by Bruce Kushnick, 200 Billion Dollar Broadband Scandal to be published as an E-book at the New Networks web site by January 30, 2006. Bruce makes the point that we are on the razor’s edge. We have essentially lost the broadband Internet needed to be competitive in the global economy. Whether we can gain it back depends on whether public interest groups like Bob McChesney’s FreePress and John Podesta’s CAP can join with bloggers and the regular press to drum sufficient outrage into the public at large and have that spill over into a Congress that currently is basically anesthetized by Bell contributions.

On reviewing Bruce’s materials I have done something that for the COOK Report is unprecedented. ­ namely set up a new mail list dedicated to discussion of his book and to establishing a follow up strategy for what we see as the “tipping point” for the Internet. I am making my network of people from the first 14 years of publication available to Bruce ­ the new list currently has 95 members who form a very good cross section of the parties interested in this issue. Lots of people are helping out to extend the boundaries of the effort well beyond those of just “my” network.

Basically it is Bruce’s contention that, starting with a 1991 Deloitte Touche study on behalf of NJ Bell and directed at the NJ Board of Public Utilities, a plan called “Opportunity New Jersey” was instituted whereby the LEC entered into an agreement with the NJBPU to run fiber to every home and business in the state over the next decade. (In 2003 Part 2 kicked in giving Verizon to 2010 to complete the job. In 1997 the NJ Ratepayer Advocate wrote a blistering report as a result of which they began “Access New Jersey” targeted at NJ schools and libraries.)

But the process turned rotten. In May 1999, given the euphoria of the dot com boom, no one seems to have noticed that the NJ BPU banned public input from its dealings with Bell Atlantic. On May 13, 1999 the Bergen County Record wrote

“For the second time in two years, state regulators have voted to bar public interest groups and consumer advocates from direct participation in hearings concerning Bell Atlantic. Consumer groups, the New Jersey Ratepayer Advocate Division, and other telephone companies had asked to present witnesses and cross-examine Bell Atlantic on the status of its $ 176 million commitment to build high-capacity communications networks for schools, libraries, and residential customers by 2001. The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, however, citing the need to speed the examination process along, voted to accept only written questions from the ratepayer advocate, an independent state agency.”

New Life for Old NJ Documents

Bruce contends that the Bell perversion of state PUCs started with the 1991 Deloitte Touché study on New Jersey which was promptly exported to 25 other states in Vrerzon or SBC territory alone.

In return for the expenditure of capital necessary to fiberize the state, the NJBPU allowed NJ Bell, then Bell Atlantic, and finally Verizon to increase the billing of all phone company customers on a year-by-year sliding scale from less than one percent in year one to approximately 5% in year 10. Starting with 2003 the NJBPU extended the program for another seven years this time with rate increases of 10% per year. For this Verizon had pledged first to build out fiber to every home and business in the state and then to have symmetrical 45 megabit per second data access state wide.

I remembered reading - while at the Office of Technology Assessment in 1991 - part of the study promising to do just what Bruce lays out in his book. Curious I went to my rusty OTA file cabinet in my basement and found my file copy of the 65 page overview and executive summary of the 1991 study ­ a document that Teletruth has been so far unable to pry out of the hands of the BPU in Newark. Working with another ally I also found Verizon’s Access NJ reports to the BPU from 1999 through 2003. These reports make assertions about Verizon’s “progress” in delivering its promised Broadband Digital Service of 45 Mbps to ‘residential and business’ customers,” that I believe are not likely to withstand public scrutiny. Certainly I found it rather amazing that as I complete my 14th year of publication here in NJ I had never heard anything about the continued existence of Verizon’s “deal” with the NJBPU.

Bruce concludes that the ratepayers in NJ have since 1993 paid over $5 billion for a fiber network that was never built. Furthermore he points out that in the early 90s, Deloitte Touche sold the 1991 New Jersey concept across the country to the majority of state PUCs. He has tracked what happened only in Verizon and SBC/ATT states and points out that in 25 additional states (one of which being Ameritech’s Access Indiana that I skewered in a series of three different issue in 1995) the New Jersey experience was repeated. Totaling the amount that users paid in higher rates across these states, Bruce gets more than $200 Billion dollars for advanced networks that were never built.

On page 305 Bruce points out:

“In comparing the Bell profits as compared to Business Week’s Scoreboard “Industry” and “Utilities” (1992-2004)

• Return On Equity 188% Above Other Utilities 1993-2000. From 1993, when the alternative regulation plans were starting to be implemented, the Bell companies’ return on equity went from a 14.9% return to a 29.1% return; a 9-year increase of 126%.

• From 1984 to 1992, the Bell Companies Had Maintained a Steady Return on Equity. On average the return for SBC was 13.2%, Ameritech was 15.3%, and the average was 14.2%

Starting in 1992, there was a major increase to the earnings, created in a large part by the changes to state laws for fiber optic deployments.

Bells’ Poverty a Myth: Profits Were still Excessive from 2000-2004

• Profit Margins Were 155% Higher Than “Industry” and “Utilities” During 2000-2004. The Industry had an average of 5.4%, Utilities had a 4.5% return, while the Bell companies averaged 12.5%

• 132% higher profit margins than the other Industry players

• 177% higher than other Utilities.” I hope that Bruce’s message will get out. So much for closed mercantilist capitalism where private interest always seems to trump the public good. The March 2006 COOK Report will be largely devoted to tracking these developments.

The Rest of the World ­ Cooperation and Collaboration

So much for the mercantilist alliance between the government and the telcos at home. Let me show you how different and better attitudes abroad are. The vignettes that follow are my current primary pieces of evidence. More examples are emerging. I will track them as they emerge and report on them in the pages of the COOK Report.

Granted two men do not a scientific sample make. Yet with eight days (October 27 ­ November 4) I interviewed two extraordinary men ­ both Asian ­ one in the banking sector in London and the other in academic scientific computing in Taipei. Given the Asian emphasis on education and the family and American fixation with acquisition of material wealth that seems to require both parents to work, it is very hard not to begin to look at this as the Asian century.

JP Rangaswamy on pages 64-70 of this two month issue describes how he became Gobal CIO at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein (DRKW). Simon Lin in the March issue will also describe his career path. Both men are broad based visionaries and interdisciplinary “foxes’ who clearly understand how the various parts of an enterprise fit together to make a whole. Both men lead by sharing knowledge and cutting down the boundaries between departments. Both men see the huge value of open source software in running a cost effective effort. DKRW has a public web site devoted to its commitment to open source. Both have restless inquisitive minds that continually test the limits of the accessible. Both look at the technology and see early on how its intelligent use redistributes power.

Rangaswami strikes me as unusual because he is so committed to tearing down barriers to achieve collaboration across divisions. His is an organization founded on human capital and collaboration and rare in the corporate world. He has thrown out standard communication tools. Email is used only one-on-one rather than for one to many. Blogs are used within the bank as one-to-many and wiki’s are for corporate many-to-many use. Rod Hall DRKW’s telco analyst does a public Blog under the DKRW logo. Hall’s corporately sponsored blog is so far unique in the telecom corporate world.

But JP doesn’t just run the technology. He has a vision of what it does and where it is leading. In a follow-up to the interview he outlined his vision on the COOK Report Symposium mail list where he wrote: “Did you send me the O’Reilly piece on open source? It might have been someone else. He, Tim O’Reilly, makes some interesting points. One stream of consciousness I liked was (these are now my words not his), IBM et al. thought the money was in hardware. They gave software away for free, and Microsoft and other software guys cashed in. Then, they in turn thought the money was in software, and allowed us to use the web for free, and Google, Amazon, eBay cashed in. And so on.”

“Each time the incumbent does his best to preserve the past, and tries to build walled gardens to protect the past. But always, by the time the new walls can be built, the value has shifted and the market is once again outside the walls.”

“That set me thinking. What next? Publishers and content providers and telcos are fighting, as they must. But value will keep moving outside the garden walls, despite all the barriers being put up to restrain it. As information and ideas jump over the wall, they too will become free over time, and IP and copyright and patents will tend to be free. Then what?”

“And here I am philosophizing. For the moment, “lost.” But perhaps, as things free up, we will begin to value the one resource that must always be free. Humanity. Value will derive from open networks of creativity and intellect making things, inventing, innovating. And keeping on doing it. The patent’s symbolism of value becomes no longer the “idea” but rather the person.”

These thoughts might have been derisively dismissed as new age “froth” a few years back. But stop and think. JP Rangaswami’s enterprise is to enable the most effective communication possible with a 6,000 employee global investment bank. Given the trends that I am seeing, I believe DRKW and others like it will become the financial engines powering the new 21st century globally-cooperative capitalism.

 

Meanwhile We Shift from London to Taipei

But open source, collaboration and cooperation is happening not just in London. Change is occurring in Taipei, Taiwan. A bit more than 25 years ago, at the University of Edinburgh, Simon Linn was Peter Higgs’ last PhD in theoretical physics. Unable to get a teaching job in his discipline because there were too many graduates for the number of positions open, Simon went into computational science at Academia Sinica. In effect the Academy of Sciences for mainland China transplanted across the Straits of Formosa to Taipei when Mao came to power in Beijing.

A few years later, as the Internet burst on the world, he saw the opportunities that would be opened by being an early Internet hub. Consequently, the government of Taipei became one of the first in Asia to connect to the NSFnet backbone at DS3 speed. Taipei spearheaded high-speed networks across the Pacific region. At home Academia Sinica led in the use of dark fiber and in the use of open source Linux clusters and non-proprietary collaborative efforts to build a national digital archive. Not only of books and paintings and scrolls but of zoology, botany, geology anthropology, ethnography, general mass media and maps are archived with a common meta language.

Something never done before and something I predict that other countries will feel compelled to do for themselves Academia Sinica also became the leader along with Rutherford Labs of the worldwide effort to build the global grid of 100,000 computers necessary to massage the data generated by the Large Hadron Collider in its search of the “god” particle - the Higgs Boson.

Academia Sinica also played a major role in the development of an Open Science Global Grid designed to democratize science on a global scale. The grid would use open source Linux clusters and open source public domain, non-proprietary software to put nearly cost free tools into the hands of scientists collaborating across national boundaries across the globe. Science that is not open and transparent by definition is not science.

Simon points out that the problems facing humanity had grown too large and too complex to be solved by any one effort. Cooperation and collaboration on a global scale represent the only way forward. Except in the United States where the ideology of the Bush administration has closed science surrounding it with a walled garden of what is and what is not politically acceptable. It comes down to the morphing of capitalism from the 20th century American-led, “bigger-is-better” to the 21st century broadband connected globally cooperative and collaborative capitalism led by men and women with a vision of compatible national interests and leadership styles. These styles are totally different from those of the American and European mega-corporations that preach economy of scale and personal aggrandizement with compensation for their superstars at the top that ranges upwards of $100 million dollars a year every year. Year after year.

Contrast this with Simon Linn’s vision. Simon said at the end of our talk: “Look at my closing slides (his Pacific Neighborhood Consortium plenary on November 1) for further evidence of my beliefs ­ data, collaboration, and complexity reduction on the IT side of things. Lao Tsu offers the most important vision ­ to lead by enabling others to feel that they have accomplished goals that they want and for which they take the credit but which goals are the examples you have set.

Not to own anything is to own everything.”

In early January I shared these ideas with a friend who was commenting on the super-star executive point of view within his employer’s leadership and the boss’es perplexity as to why they were having difficulty getting business within Asia. Somewhat to my initial surprise he said “that Lao Tsu style of leadership is military leadership. You don’t command men to risk their lives for you. You inspire them with a commonly held vision and beliefs. Leadership in the military is the art of influence such that men and women are part of a larger whole of commonly held beliefs and aspirations.”

He added “one of the most affirming and comforting thoughts of that experience was that if I were killed, my unit would be perfectly capable of surviving without me since no one person was indispensable to the success of the larger endeavor. Contrast this to the executive style within my current company where the definition of the successful executive is one who holds knowledge indispensable for the success of the company. When I look around me I see the superstar system at work, inflating egos in pursuit of private gain and isolating our country from the emerging trend of global cooperation and collaboration.”

A Postscript

This issue does of course cover the normal topics. Google’s plans, the sorry mess of the “regulatorium.” Community networks, broadband at home and abroad. I trust that readers won’t mind looking in the other sections of this two month issue for what suits their fancy.

This essay is rather stark. I welcome letters to the Editor. I do NOT mean what I have taken to be read as a conspiracy. It is more likely the result of greed, political bumbling and incompetence. Anything as complex as telecom policy doesn’t need a conspiracy to get things wrong. The problem is regardless of motivation that we better begin to get right what we have gotten so wrong or we will be shaping a country that most of us would not want to leave our children.

For the rest of the issue you will have to subscribe.

Contents

Understanding Economic Impact of Broadband Related What is Your Convergence Strategy? -- Listening to and Enabling Your Customers or Using IMS to Own and
Control Them? - Will the Future Belong to Open Environments or Closed Networks? -

How Will Collaborative Tools Affect Global
Education and Learning? p. 1

How Do You Relate to Your Customers? By Means of Control and Rationing or by Means Listening and Enabling? p. 6

Is There an Alternative to a Policy of Control by IMS? p. 7

Early Adaptors of Course are Out of Sync with the Masses p. 8

Meanwhile IMS is Still Coming p. 9

But It’s My Network and I Will Sell it on the Terms That I Please p. 10

What Strategy for What Market? p. 11

Interview

Villages Branches - A Short History to Illustrate Condo-Fiber’s Fate in Quebec Regulatory Environment and Political Will to Enable 18,000 Kilometers of School and Municipal Infrastructure at Project Completion

Building Condo Fiber Networks for Quebec Schools and Local Governments p. 12

The Incumbents Try to Undermine the Effort p. 13

Local Government Involvement and the Condo Cost Sharing Formula p. 15

The Purpose of the Call for Private Partnership p. 17

Regulatory Mayhem p. 18

Villages Branchés Program Done to Circumvent Incumbent Take Overs
While Incumbents then Act in 2002 to Circumvent the Program p. 19

Gaining Political and Legal Wisdom from Putting Theory into Practice p. 21

Conclusions p. 22

Interview

Community Wireless Networks Built as Wireless LANs with Aim to Give Areas Served Access to Independent Media of All Kinds Sascha Meinrath Explains His Role in Development of CUWiN

CUWIN Founded to Make Technology Available to Local Community p. 23
In 2004: the Soros Grant, Wireless Conferences and Community LANs p. 24
INDY Media and the Psychology Department p. 24
Building Wireless Meshes in 2002 p. 25
Champaign-Urbana Wireless Network Infrastructure p. 26
Low Power FM and Technology Ignoranc p. 27
Coordinating Katrina Relief and Building a Gulf Coast Broadband
Wireless Network p. 28

Symposium: September 14 - October 18, 2005
Wireless Hurricane Disaster Relief
Google Does WiFi and Discussion of
Propreitary Protocols in Consumer
Devices

FCC Special Meeting in Atlanta p. 31
Hurricane Wireless Recovery Efforts p. 32
Google Offers Wi-Fi to San Francisco p. 34
Use of Proprietary Software in
Consumer Grade Equipment p. 36

Symposium: September15 - October 15, 2005
Skype and eBay: Meaning of the Buyout - Was the
Strategy Wise or Foolish? Opinions from John Hagel, Kevin Werbach and Comments from Parker, Goldstein and
Others

Kevin Werbach: Ebay-skype: A Glimpse
of The Next Phase Of The Net? p. 38
John Hagel “The Curse of the HighMultiple.” p. 40
“eBay + Skype = S[t]imulant for mass adoption of IMS?” p. 43

 

Symposium, September 30 - October 10, 2005
Uses for Devices of Multiple
Capabilities Cannot Always Be
Predicted or Channeled
IMS, Skype, Revenge of DWDM
and Sloppy FCC Decisions
In Search of Billable Mobile Features p. 45
Cellphone Messaging Finds Its Voice p. 45
IMS Again p. 46
What Assets or Skills do the Telcos Shave? p. 50
Skype: Hazardous to Network Health? And Other Issues of Security,
Congestion and Quality p. 51
The Revenge of DWDM p. 53
Balhoff Rowe Muni ‘Study’ p. 55
Welcome to Vint Cerf and Common Carrier Issues p. 56
Madison River - An Information Provider Grown Selective p. 58
Comments on the FCC DSL Order p. 60
Raw IP Backbone Transport and Common Carriage p. 62

Interview

At Dresdner Klienwort Wasserstein
JP Rangaswami Runs
Collaborative Operation --
CIO’s First Priority: to Break
Down All Information Fiefdoms by
Relying on Open Source, non
Proprietary Solutions and
Commodity Technology -- A Case
Study in Where Innovative
Management is Heading

Start of a Foxes’ Journey p. 64
Early ‘90s - Walls Begin to Crumble
and Foxes are in Demand p. 65
The Difference Between CIO and CTO p. 65
Moving Up the Stack to Open Source
Based Collaboration p. 66
In an Open Source World the Role of
an IT Department is Collaboration p. 67
So Where Are We Today? Banishing
Walled Gardens While Keeping the
Regulator Happy p. 68
The Future Holds but Four Basic
Applications, p. 69
Open Source Enables New
Opportunities p. 70

Symposium Discussion October 17 - Nov 21

Part 2: Uses for Devices of Multiple
Capabilities Cannot Always Be
Predicted or Channeled More
IMS, Skype, Revenge of DWDM
and Sloppy FCC Decisions
Mid October Summary of Tropos
in the New Orleans Region p. 71


Wireless ARPU Down and IMS Revisited p. 71
Cingular Buys the Lucent IMS Solution p. 72
Sype-Busting: IMS Is Gonna Takea While p. 75
On the Closed Nature of the Telcos p. 76
The Psychology of the Network Owners p. 78
“Institutional Myopia” at the BigCo’s p. 78
Telco and Cable Co Usage Restrictions – Are They “Real”? p. 79
Business Models Not Easy to Change, p. 80
The Cable Companies Want Control p. 83
MS: What Will It Do for Me? p. 84
Connected Not Channeled p. 85
At SBC It’s All About Scale and Scope p. 86
Google Books p. 87
Question on the Scarcity Rationale for Regulation p. 88
Net Neutrality Demolished p. 91
Importance of Common Carriage p. 92
Enterprise Needs Versus Private Needs in the Internet p. 96
Rod Randell and Fear p. 97
Vint’s Letter to Congress and What to Do Next, p. 98
Forcing Network Neutrality is Bound to Fail p. 99
Brand X and Computer II p. 100
One Solution - Let the Customer own the Network p. 102
Geddes: Net Neutrality Is a Dead End p. 103
Regulation - the View from Europe p. 105
Legislative Approaches Criticised p. 107
Google’s Dark Fiber Plans p. 108
Could Google Do a Bypass Network? p. 113
First Mile or Last? Wireline or Wireless? p. 114
Some Concluding Thoughts on Fiberization Around the Globe p. 116

Highlights p 118

Executive Summary p. 144

Contributors to this Issue


Jim Baller, Partner in Baller Herbst law firm & Expert on Municiple Networks

Vint Cerf, Co-author TCP/IP and Chief Internet Evangelist Google

KC Claffy, Director Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis

Frank Coluccio, President DTI Consulting Inc., New York City

James Enck, telecom Analyst and Proprietor of Eurotelco Blog

Jim Forster, Distinguished Engineer, Cisco

Bob Frankston, developed Visicalc and Lotus and later home networking at Microsoft

Martin Geddes, Consultant and Publisher of Telepocalypse

Vijay Gill, Director Peering, America on Line

Fred Goldstein, Principal of Ionary Consulting, author of The Great Telecom Meltdown

John Hagel, Management Consltant and Co-author The Only Sustainable Edge

Tom Hertz, CTO Fiber Utilities

Dave Hughes, owner Old Colorado City Communications and wireless advocate

David Isenberg, author of the Stupid Network and proprietor of Isen.com

Tony Li, Router Architect at Cisco, Juniper and Procket, recently at Cisco before Departure to Portola

Carlo MacDonald, Ceo CamData Soft, Baton Rouge and New Orleans

Sascha Meinrath, Co Founder Campaign Urbana Community Wireless Network

Franscois Menard, Canadian policy expert and municipal fiber network architect

Frank Muto Co-founder Washington Bureau for ISP Adovacy

Andrew Odlyzko, Director Digital Technology Center, University of Minnesota

Bo Parker, Managing Director of the Global Technology Centre of PricewaterhouseCoopers

David Reed, Internet pioneer, spectrum policy expert, currently with Media Lab & HP

Ron Sege, CEO Tropos

Clay Shirky, recently featured in Time, writes about Internet Economics Culture, Media Open Source

Richard Stastny, Senior Analyst, OeFEG/Telekom Austria

Jeff Sterling, Founder Interconnected Associates

Tom Vest, Research Program Manager Packet Clearing House

Kevin Werbach, Assist. Professor of Telecommunications Wharton Business School

Damien Wetzel, Paris based DSL expert and ISP