From: Steve Stroh
Subject: (list name supressed) My one rant
Date: January 23, 2006 09:04:48 PST
To: (list email supressed)
This was submitted as a Letter To The Editor of Boardwatch Magazine in response to a Bruce Kushnick column. The letter wasn't published, nor did I ever get a response from Bruce. I think we discussed years later at a F2C conference, and there's no angst on my part - Bruce was busy.)
I think the points made are still relevant, and representative of my "parting company" from the "shame on the telcos" attitude that I see here.
Yes, the telcos did damnable things and completely perverted any semblance of public interest. I simply don't see that situation as fixable. Punishable, perhaps, with an incredible amount of work, but it still won't FIX the the problem with them.
In 2006 and beyond, I view there are only two viable courses of action that can guide the US to a broadband future equivalent to what other countries are enjoying now.
1) Get legislators behind a movement to prohibit content discrimination (I'm using this phrase loosely and imprecisely) on telco and cableco networks.
2) Encourage, in all manner, the construction of alternative methods of broadband delivery - more spectrum, including license-exempt, allow water companies or any other entities to carry Internet, repeal stupid laws that restrict government entities to build alternative broadband
networks, etc.
That's it. You can't punish or dragoon the telcos and cablecos into submission on this issue. They're too big, too powerful, then, and especially now. You can only help to accelerate the Darwinian evolution that will inevitably result in the deaths of the telcos from their incredible corporate stupidity.
All this said... I admire Bruce's incredible hard work, his attention to detail, his determination to hold the telcos accountable. Someone should do this and I'm glad that Bruce IS doing it. Perhaps Bruce's work is first step of shock therapy to help the country realize just how bad of a shape this country is in from a international competitive posture and the incredible campaign that was waged against the best interest of the country by the telcos.
But in the bigger picture, I don't see how any of this will FIX the problem. Understand how we GOT there, perhaps. But nothing I've seen helps to FIX things. Punishment / atonement isn't FIXING the problem. Even if what's been discussed could help fix it, being in the legal / regulatory domain, it will take YEARS... and the gap grows wider by the month.
So... back to building alternative infrastructure Broadband Internet Networks for me.
Thanks,
Steve
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 06:19:15 -0800
To: Bruce Kushnick
From: Steve Stroh [old email address removed]
Subject: Wireless as an alternative
Cc: Boardwatch Letters To The Editor
Bruce:
Enjoyed your column in the January, 2001 issue of Boardwatch. For the most part, I agree with your conclusions... as far as they go.
But, I think you've fallen into yet another trap set by the telcos and that's to ignore wireless as an up-and-coming alternative to wireline services. The popular perception is that "Fixed Wireless is a promising technology, but not quite there yet". I'm not sure when it WILL finally "be there" in most people's minds, but increasingly, factually, wireless IS available as an alternative to wired Internet service.
1. Your point 1 - "the primary phone wire into the home is still controlled by the Bell companies" is correct. It's a monumental hurdle to get over that point. And it's unlikely that use of that wire will ever be truly competitive. The only way it could is if the "copper plant" were to be divested from the "services", allowing you to dictate what goes over YOUR wire. In that scenario, CLEC's and the telco would truly be on equal footing for the use of the wire. In reality, I just cannot see that happening. It would be a rational thing to do from a policy perspective, but the Bells can fight a delaying action for years, effectively rendering the point moot.
But think outside the box a bit - what if you don't NEED the wire? Increasingly, that's the case. This IS happening; it's not off in the distant future, it's here, now. One example of this is, (and I say this with no small amount of irony) is AT&T's Fixed Wireless Broadband system (formerly known as "Project Angel"). It's operational in three cities - Dallas / Fort Worth, San Diego, and Anchorage, with two additional major markets by March. With a small antenna on the side of
the house, you can get up to 4 phone lines and Internet access bursting up to 1 Mbps. Your entire connection - every bit of it, does NOT involve the local the Bell monopoly.
2. Your point 2 - "The majority of America's 7,000-plus ISPs have had to spend massive amounts of staff time just to handle the problems being caused by the Bells." is also correct.
Wireless ISPs, of which there are hundreds, likely thousands, don't have this problem. They OWN, and more importantly, MANAGE, the entire path between their POP and their customers. They can see problems begin to occur before the customer notices. If there's a problem, the customer has only one number to call - the ISP. In an increasingly common scenario, the ISP, instead of developing their own (expensive, painful) wireless expertise can turn to a "Wireless CLEC" such as Clearwire Technologies, now providing DSL-like services in numerous markets. Again, the entire connection - every bit of it, does NOT involve the local the Bell monopoly.
3. Your point 3 - "The person who orders DSL from an ISP does not want to have problems getting the advertised service." is again, correct. DSL (and in fairness, a number of fixed wireless systems) require a visit from a skilled technician to make it work.
In a limited number of wireless systems NOW, and sharply increasing in 2001, such "truck rolls" won't be necessary at all. The customer will buy the "access point" at retail, and bring it home to begin using it. An example of this available now is Metricom's 128 Kbps Ricochet wireless Internet access service, available from a number of resellers nationwide. You walk into a retail store, buy the Ricochet wireless modem, bring the package home, select a service provider, plug it into your computer, and at that point you're online. Granted that 128 Kbps service is considered to be on the trailing edge of "broadband" services (it's surprising how fast it "feels"), but it's likely that the speed will increase in the near future, and Metricom won't be alone for long in providing ubiquitous wireless broadband services. And Yes, yet again, the entire connection - every bit of it, does NOT involve the local the Bell monopoly.
4. Your point 4 - "Since virtually all competitors must use the Bell-owned wires into the home, the underlying flaw in the competition model continues to be the Bell's prices to competitors." Agreed.
Another feature of ISPs and CLECs using wireless instead of wireline is that they get to KEEP most of their customer revenues - they're not paying "ransom" to the Bells for "using the wire". Given the same price points for equivalent services, the ISP or CLEC using wireless is at a very decided ADVANTAGE that they are, for the most part, in CONTROL of their costs. They control the cost of the equipment, and the "line charge" doesn't exist (except for the case of an ISP using the services of a wireless CLEC). Yes, it does cost more for a wireless modem than a DSL or cable modem, but those prices are coming down very rapidly as new, more highly integrated silicon makes significant cost reductions possible, and new equipment vendors with innovative new technology enter the market. Sprint, with their Broadband Direct fixed wireless system, has been very open that, using first generation equipment requiring truck rolls, is not profitable enough. Sprint is very encouraged by new technology that will be available in 2001 that will be less expensive, not require truck rolls, and enable it to offer profitable services such as voice, likely transforming Sprint Broadband Direct into "very reasonably profitable". By now, you've guessed it - the entire connection - every bit of it, does NOT involve the local the Bell monopoly.
5. Your point 5 - "The Bells have no incentive to work with CLECs or ISPs", with a supporting list of sins summarized as lack of response to CLECs and ISPs. Again, on target.
One ISP using wireless that I interviewed several years ago uses the "Bell attitude" to great effect, including on a list of bullet points (to the effect of) "... and in conclusion, a final differentiating factor is that WE are NOT the phone company, nor do we depend in ANY way on THEIR services to provide you with Internet access". A number of ISPs have told me that point alone has closed many sales; people ARE fed up with the Bell mantra (epitomized by Lily Tomlin's beloved character Ernestine the Operator's (always spoken in a delightfully nasal twang) "We're the Phone Company. We don't care. We don't HAVE to. We're the Phone Company."
One of the most surprising things I've learned in my writing about Broadband Wireless Internet Access is that in most areas, wireless Internet access is an easy sale. If the price and capabilities are at least roughly equivalent, many companies are DELIGHTED to "jump ship" from the local Bell. In a surprising number of cases, wireless ISPs are offering services that simply DON'T HAVE a wireline equivalent. One example of this is e-xpedient from CAVU, Inc. that is offering 100 Mbps Internet access service in high-rise buildings in downtown areas. CAVU makes very effective use of wireless to provide bandwidth to the building, and then distributes 100 Mbps Internet access throughout the building with Layer 2/3 switch/routers and Category-5 local area network cable. Their prices for 100 Mbps service start at $100/month. And, of course, it does NOT involve the Bell monopoly.
I agree with you with the litany of sins committed by the Bell companies. Where we part company is what to DO about it. Punish them? Yeah, but that doesn't seem to work. Regulating them... well, they have more lawyers on the payroll than the public utilities commission and all the CLECs (though, I recall an infamous quote from the founder of MCI in the heat of the battle between MCI and AT&T, to the effect of "... R&D? No, we don't have an R&D department, but we have a one hell of a Legal department".
I say "get over it". Let the Bells HAVE the wires and do whatever they want with them. The competition IS coming. Increasingly, as in the case of a customer of AT&T Wireless' Fixed Wireless System, the wires will simply be run to the side of a house and left unconnected - no revenue at ALL to the Bell company for THAT customer. Likely the litany of sins will persist, providing ample opportunity and motive to both customers and alternative service providers. If the Bells have an epiphany and begin to provide competitive, reliable services backed with good customer service, then the competitors will have to work that much harder and the customer will be served well.
My guess is that, even if the Bells WANTED to, they couldn't. The price of maintaining that incredible "mess" of copper will rapidly become a noose around the necks of the Bells, as more and more customers defect to alternative service providers. The Bells will try to respond... and simply won't be able to, because the alternative service providers will be using FAR more cost-effective technology to deliver FAR better services, and the Bells simply won't be able to catch up.
How to fix the problem is to look for, and increasingly FIND the alternative service providers (many of whom will be using wireless), and vote with your wallet.
Steve Stroh
Bruce Kushnick has written a new book, 
This isn't news of a newly unveiled system, just an interesting application of BWIA technology in a band not usually used in to-the-home deployments that I've discovered in my ongoing research on BWIA.