Comments Off

Netflix, Tumblr wanted 1995 not 1934

Internet Innovation Alliance’s Bruce Mehlman wrote an insightful blog post last Friday about the second thoughts companies like Netflix are having about the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to reclassify broadband services as plain old telephone service.  Netflix’s befuddlement over the FCC’s decision to use Title II to drop the regulatory hammer on the internet ecosystem has me wondering how much on the same page were these net neutrality proponents?  The push for net neutrality may be an example of how dysfinctional the left can be when it sells a narrative to multiple classes within its big tent and has the manage the disappointment that ironically occurs when it gets what it wants.

Netflix’s insistence that heavy Ttle II regulation was not a part of its end game has me wondering if progressives had really settled down on a definition of a “fair and open” internet.  The left apparently has not.  To Netflix and other Silicon Valley giants, fair and open appears to mean an internet where they can interconnect in a pre-1996 manner; under some bill and keep methodology with any type of technology they deemed appropriate regardless of a broadband provider’s discomfort.

To the end-users, the four million confused members of the masses, “fair and open” was a rallying cry of the democratic wish; that a fair internet will respect their rights to communicate with whatever website of their choice and move data equally to the end-user no matter the source of the content.

Narrative managers like Public Knowledge and Free Press were successful in conflating the two narratives but were probably inept in educating their supporters, like Tumblr‘s David Karp, as to the downside of using Title II as a mechanism for reconciling the two narratives.  Title II, Mr. Karp and the rest of his Silicon Valley cohorts should have been told that their content operations, particularly the agreements that they enter into to connect to broadband networks, were not guaranteed to escape fees for the exchange of data nor was privacy from prying consumer or competitor eyes or noninterference from the government going to be avoidable.

The FCC may find itself a big loser resulting from its participation in a disingenuous conflation of varying narratives.  It must now deliver on a basket of promises to the consumer as it answers complaints from an an ill-informed electorate regarding every perceived slight in service practice and rate assessments.  It won’t be able to tell consumers or the markets that it never intended to regulate rates.  Consumers won’t stand for that because improving their consumer welfare calls for what they believe is a long awaited initiative to regulate rates.

You wanted 1995?  You may have to settle for 1934.

Comments Off

What regulators say about the internet of things

For the past two or three days the chairmen of the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission have been clarifying their regulatory agendas for and approaches to the Internet.  FCC chairman Tom Wheeler plans to issue net neutrality rules around 5 February with the full FCC voting on those rules on 26 February.  Media reports have Mr. Wheeler outlining what he believes the benefits consumers would enjoy from reclassifying broadband as an old school, run-of-the-mill telephone company.  For example at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas Mr. Wheeler reportedly said the following:

“So, there is a way to do Title II right, that says there are many parts of Title II that are inappropriate, and would thwart investment, but that a model has been set in the wireless business.”

CTIA-The Wireless Association has taken the position that given the level of competition for mobile broadband that net neutrality rules should be “mobile broadband specific” and that mobile broadband has never been regulated under Title II.

Mr. Wheeler, in an attempt to keep net neutrality advocates happy, appears to be willing to use Title II regulation to strike down deals between content providers and broadband operators where content providers pay to have their traffic given higher priority over other providers.  Mr. Wheeler wants the role of determining which transactions and agreements are commercially reasonable and how that traffic should be moved from content provider to broadband provider to ultimate end user.

FTC chairman Edith Ramirez’s approach appears to focus more on transparency of participants in information markets.  Her concern, as shared with CES participants, is about privacy and the Internet of Things. As more devices connect to each other via the internet, more devices become subject to hacking and a wealth of data, thought by consumers to be private, becomes subject to misuse, theft, or fraud.

Ms. Ramirez’s focus on the consumer is not surprising given the nature of her agency’s work, but it also seems the slightly, and I mean slightly, better approach to overseeing market behavior versus individual business behavior.  The internet is a platform for information exchange between information generators and information seekers.  The more information that a provider has on how her information is going to be used in the markets helps her make better decisions not only on whether she should make it available but also on its value and how best to monetize her data. Information gatherers will simply have to provide better incentives to information providers to get them to give up their data.

What kind of growth does the market see for the Internet of Things?  According to Cisco’s Internet Business Solutions Group, some 25 billion devices will be connected to the internet by the end of 2015.  That number will climb to 50 billion connected devices by the end of 2020.  That’s a lot of broadband infrastructure for the FCC to oversee and more hacking access points for the FTC to worry about in five short years.

Investors will see the biggest gains in the infrastructure space of the Internet of Things.  Leading growth in this space will be manufacturers of processor chips, wifi networks, sensors, and software.  Investors should also be concerned with factors that impact demand for devices that talk to each other and I believe the factor that has the heaviest weight is the consumer privacy factor.  Devices aren’t just talking to each other but are gathering information on consumer likes and habits and storing this data for the information gatherer’s future use.  Privacy is an immediate and long term issue because it concerns one half of the parties involved in the information market transaction: the consumer.

As for the FCC’s open access approach it is too short-sighted.  Mr. Wheeler’s focus on competition for broadband service and equal treatment of traffic may have a nice sounding populist ring, but in the internet eco-system what matters is the consumer’s choice of product obtained through broadband.  That product is content and the price the consumer pays in exchange for that content is, ironically, content in the form of personal data.  Consumers already have wireless and wireline choices for broadband access.  The value play for consumers lies in the quality of content available online and consumers are more than capable of deciding that for themselves.

What the government can do is what it does best (albeit it is not the best at it, but work with me); government should adjudicate privacy and other consumer disputes and make available to consumers information that they may not be able to gleen readily from the private sector.  The FTC’s focus on privacy and consumer protection does a better job at this than the FCC.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that the private sector is taking care of the FCC’s mandate of ensuring a nationwide communications network.  The FCC’s focus given the growth in the mobile market and the increasing need for devices to wirelessly connect should remain on allocating spectrum and assuring the reliability and safety of wired and wireless communications infrastructure.  Any other endeavor is waste.

 

 

Comments Off

The FCC does not owe Marriott an unencumbered revenue stream

According to a petition filed with the Federal Communications Commission by Marriott International and other hotels, Marriott would like to the FCC to declare that a hotel’s management of its wifi networks does not violate section 333 of the Communications Act if management of its wifi operations interfere with wifi hot spots authorized under the FCC’s rule 15.  Sounds more like the hotels would like to protect one of their revenue streams.

From a business standpoint I’m not surprised, but if the FCC allows Marriott’s petition, in my opinion they run the risk of contradicting themselves on the policy of an open Internet, specifically the policy of allowing consumers to attach any lawful devices to the #internet for use by the consumer.

In addition, Marriott would like the public and the FCC to believe that this is not a #netneutrality issue. Granted I’m no fan of net neutrality but if you want to promote consumer access to websites of their choice, shouldn’t the FCC ensure that the consumer can access those sites using the lawful devices of their choice?

Given the proliferation of hot spots, it makes better business sense for hotels to discontinue their wifi services. Over 80% of consumers have cell phones and hot spots are less expensive than phones. Simply put in your brochures that you do not offer wifi and that you better buy a hot spot from AT&T or Verizon or a hot spot enabling smart phone before making that business trip.

The FCC does not owe Marriott or any other hotel an unencumbered revenue stream.

Comments Off

Internet commerce flourishes because of market demand not regulation

One peeve I have had with the Federal Communications Commission in past and today is its penchant to describe its role in the broadband market as a facilitator of growth and innovation.  It’s like having cousin Louie visit for a weekend, overstay his welcome, and claim that he helped to build your house.  I’ve had to ask myself if I missed something during my two decades in the regulatory game.  Where did the Commission facilitate growth in the online markets?

There are probably a number of different sources to look at.  I try to keep things simple, so I decided to take a look at what professional market watchers have seen over the past four years.  Not a formal analysis that wreaks of regression analysis and all that, but an albeit cursory review of the findings from three Morningstar reports that covered a broadband provider; an online bookseller; a media company; and an over-the-top video distributor.  Since the Commission continuously refers to the entire internet ecosystem as its unit of regulatory analysis, I figured looking at companies that play in different but connected boxes in the internet ecosystem was an allowable approach.  So here goes.

First, lets go back to a Morningstar analysis of Amazon conducted on 6 December 2010.  The analysis discusses the advantages that Amazon has over brick and mortar companies such as Barnes and Nobles and Borders.  Amazon has been able to leverage the internet to deliver books at the lowest cost point, a cost point achievable because of low overhead costs.  Amazon has also been able to leverage the internet to produce and distribute e-books which, according to Morningstar, has a compelling advantage over hardcover books.  The main reason e-books have been successful is that production and distribution costs are near, if not, zero.  This ability to keep production costs near scraping the bottom has translated into lower prices for consumers.

I read through that report looking for some acknowledgment of the Federal Communications Commission.  I saw none.  Based on this report it seems that the idea of storing books in warehouses and shipping them out to consumers as the result of receiving an order online was part of a business model developed by an engineer by the name of Jeff Bezos.  No mention of the Commission or the Communications Act.

In September 2011, Morningstar sounded kind of so-so on Netflix.  Morningstar made it clear that content owners held the upper hand with the ability to enter into shorter licensing agreements for content and repricing at a higher amount.  Morningstar also noted in 2011 that Netflix faced heightened competition from new entrants and the lack of access to higher quality content.

Fast forward three years.  Netflix has built its own house of cards where orange is the new black.  Just like the Amazon analysis, Morningstar makes no mention of how the Commission’s regulation of the internet contributed to Netflix’s business model or its decision to go outside the box and not just deliver DVDs but stream video as well.

Speaking of content, Morningstar’s July 2012 analysis of Time Warner proceeded from the premise that quality content is king and that Time Warner has been able to take a strong competitive position in content.  The quality of Time Warner’s content, according to Morningstar, increases in value because it can be consumed on multiple devices, including laptops, smartphones, and tablets in addition to televisions.

The decision to deliver it via multiple platforms via multiple devices appears to have been made by private actors with no input, appropriately, from the Commission.

And how about the broadband provider portion of the ecosystem.  The Commission, along with net neutrality advocates, has been harping on the need for robust competition in the broadband space, but according to Morningstar’s August 2012 analysis of broadband provider CenturyLink, for the company to stay competitive with cable companies it would have to invest in network enhancements that facilitate faster download and upload speeds.  Not only does CenturyLink have to compete with cable in providing broadband access, they also compete with cable to distribute video.  Their provision of fiber-to-the-tower finds them competing with not just cable companies but with other competitive local exchange carriers.  CenturyLink also competes with Amazon, Salesforce.com, and Verizon in the provision of cloud management services.

Again, nothing in Morningstar’s analysis that speaks to the Commission’s requirement or even suggestion that CenturyLink enter into these markets within the internet ecosystem.

Growth and innovation have been occurring within the internet without the Commission’s persuasion or regulation and so far the Commission has not demonstrated why applying Title II regulation could add any value to the market-driven actions taken by the firms I just discussed.

Comments Off

The liberty to choose content based on value is what civil rights groups should rally on

The civil rights perspective regarding broadband access is severely misplaced.  The narrative in general has been that access to information exchanged over a medium based on internet protocol is a civil right; an enforceable right or privilege guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution which when interfered with by another gives rise to am action for an injury. Civil rights belong to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments.

The last time I checked the U.S. Constitution, there was no language in there that expressly supports my access to a communications medium powered by internet protocol.  The Constitution didn’t even guarantee U.S. citizens access to communications networks powered by smoke signals, the telegraph, or even the telephone.  One could argue that in today’s modern telecommunications world that the Communications Act of 1934′s mandate that the Federal Communications Commission ensure the a nationwide communications network universally accessible by all Americans creates that right.  I would argue that it doesn’t and that the Act’s supporters in Congress got lucky in that the universal accessibility requirement of the Act was not challenged.

In some ways I’m surprised that Free Press or Public Knowledge have not turned the NAACP or the National Urban League’s “broadband is a civil right” argument into a “right to access a common carrier” argument thus buttressing their incorrect argument that broadband should be regulated as a Title II common carrier or public utility.  Ironically some civil rights groups like ColorofChange.org and the National Hispanic Media Coalition support public utility-like regulation of broadband and could likely add fuel to Free Press or Public Knowledge’s positions.  Unfortunately for Free Press and Public Knowledge their accusations that legacy civil rights groups are nothing but money-taking hacks for phone and cable companies has provided enough of a taint that most civil rights groups, no matter their position on net neutrality, would prefer stand closer to a spraying skunk that ally with Free Press or Public Knowledge.

Rather than risk getting to close to the edge of inadvertently pushing broadband into a common carrier box, civil rights should push a purer market-based consumer welfare argument when it comes to broadband in general and net neutrality in particular.  Their policy statement should be that federal and state government should not interfere with a consumer’s choice to have certain content delivered to their broadband-enabled devices and recognize that the consumer can enter agreements with internet access providers and content providers based on the value the consumer recognizes in particular content.

Rather than push a civil rights argument that has consumers asking for the government to define access rights, civil rights advocates should take the position that the liberty of consumer choice is a given and that public policy should recognize and respect that.