Verizon, SBC IPTV (and Muni Ban) Setback

Texas 'single franchise' bill stumbles

In order to speed up their deployment of IPTV services (and eliminate having to haggle with towns and cities), SBC and Verizon are trying to eliminate the local TV franchise concept, instead writing laws that would pass single, state-wide franchise provisions. Their attempt to do so in Texas has not gone as planned, their State bill failing to gain approval. "Competition for video services will occur much slower without a statewide video franchise," warns a regional Verizon president. (It would have been slow anyway; they still need to build the network).

Victory... first round. (From SaveMuniWireless)
The Texas Legislature has declared sine die: the session is over. HB 789 is dead. Texas has turned its back on special interest legislation to ban muni networks.

There were some tense moments after the conference committee adjourned. The phone company lobbyists refused to admit defeat and continued pushing for their legislation. Now, however, it's beyond the reach of even the powerful telco lobby.

So, we win—for now.

Although we prevailed this time, the struggle continues. Our challenge is to turn this debate around. Rather than battling special interest legislation, we need to develop a true broadband policy that serves the interest of Texas.

Thanks to everybody who has supported us and helped to achieve this remarkable victory. Please stay tuned. There is an awful lot of work to do.

Gates: Must be from Texas b/c that's a lot of bull!

Gates Says: No AV, No Problem

So then why buy Microsoft OneCare?

"During the last year, if you had up-to-date Windows, you would have been safe if you didn't have" antivirus software, Bill Gates tells attendees at a Wall Street Journal conference (WSJ via Techdirt). The comment was slammed by an employee of Zone Labs, who noted the company's plan to charge for their OneCare security service was "like something out of The Godfather". As Mike Mesnick at Techdirt points out, if no AV is needed, why buy Microsoft's upcoming OneCare?

How a T1 line works

Most of us are familiar with a normal business or residential line from the phone company. A normal phone line like this is delivered on a pair of copper wires that transmit your voice as an analog signal. When you use a normal modem on a line like this, it can transmit data at perhaps 30 kilobits per second (30,000 bits per second).

The phone company moves nearly all voice traffic as digital rather than analog signals. Your analog line gets converted to a digital signal by sampling it 8,000 times per second at 8-bit resolution (64,000 bits per second). Nearly all digital data now flows over fiber optic lines, and the phone company uses different designations to talk about the capacity of a fiber optic line.

If your office has a T1 line, it means that the phone company has brought a fiber optic line into your office (a T1 line might also come in on copper). A T1 line can carry 24 digitized voice channels, or it can carry data at a rate of 1.544 megabits per second. If the T1 line is being used for telephone conversations, it plugs into the office's phone system. If it is carrying data it plugs into the network's router.

A T1 line can carry about 192,000 bytes per second -- roughly 60 times more data than a normal residential modem. It is also extremely reliable -- much more reliable than an analog modem. Depending on what they are doing, a T1 line can generally handle quite a few people. For general browsing, hundreds of users are easily able to share a T1 line comfortably. If they are all downloading MP3 files or video files simultaneously it would be a problem, but that still isn't extremely common.

A T1 line might cost between $1,000 and $1,500 per month depending on who provides it and where it goes. The other end of the T1 line needs to be connected to an ISP, and the total cost is a combination of the fee the phone company charges and the fee the ISP charges.

A large company needs something more than a T1 line. The following table shows some of the common line designations:

• DS0 - 64 kilobits per second
• ISDN - Two DS0 lines plus signaling (16 kilobytes per second), or 128 kilobits per second
• T1 - 1.544 megabits per second (24 DS0 lines)
• T3 - 43.232 megabits per second (28 T1s)
• OC3 - 155 megabits per second (84 T1s)
• OC12 - 622 megabits per second (4 OC3s)
• OC48 - 2.5 gigabits per seconds (4 OC12s)
• OC192 - 9.6 gigabits per second (4 OC48s)

(Credit: How Stuff Works)

Bellsouth - Caught with Hand in Cookie Jar!

BellSouth. By any means necessary?

Fighting municipal fiber builds isn't a cause that justifies throwing away all your ethics. Bellsouth's behavior in Louisiana should have consequences throughout the company. When BellSouth's Bob Blau makes a speech in D.C., the respect he's earned is diminished if his company falsifies the truth down south. Some great work from the Lafayette Independent, picked up by David I. and Broadband Reports.

"Engaging in the sleazy business of push polling is a bridge too far for us.... Cox Communications allegedly used the tactic last summer when City-Parish President Joey Durel announced his fiber-to-the home intentions. But this latest incident was the first time that the sponsors behind this type of blatant push polling were immediately identified and we could pin the tail on the donkey. As soon as the push poll started last week, a number of city residents contacted local media when they were dragged through the spin cycle. ...

Consider its dark side. Think about the unsuspecting recipient of a call who believes he or she is actually participating in a genuine and straightforward "information gathering" exchange with the caller. Push polling slyly attempts to switch off our political message "defense filter" by convincing us the purpose of the call is to get our opinion on the topic. But, of course, that's not why they're calling. The greatest danger from the practice is its capacity to spread lies and disinformation about candidates or issues without the perpetrator having to take ownership of the lie. Consider some of the questions from last week's poll:

• 'Since LUS rations water, how would you feel about receiving your cable 2-3 days a week?'
• 'Since the law separates church and state, how would you feel about losing your cable-based religious programming?'
• 'Do you want Big Brother watching your Internet and e-mail usage?'

When negative political advertising runs on TV, as disgusting as it often is, campaign finance laws require disclosure of the source of the ad, and we can measure the disinformation with the credibility of the opposing candidate or camp. Push polling tries to deny us, as voters, the ability to connect the dots between the lie and those who benefit from its telling. It should have no place in Lafayette."

It's time for Duane Ackerman to make sure his company lives up to his ethical standards. Bellsouth already donates too much money to the sleaziest folk in politics, lining up alongside Verizon and SBC with literally millions of dollars.

(Reprinted from ISP Planet.)

Over 16,000 free iPods shipped

Have you gotten yours yet? Go get it now.

Innovative Online Marketing Firm Has Given Away More Than 16,000 Free Apple iPods Since June 2004

Five-Year-Old Company on Track for Strongest Year Ever

In celebration of its fifth anniversary, leading online marketing firm Gratis Internet announced it has given away more than $8 million worth of products completely free of charge, including free postage. Included in that total are more than 16,000 Apple iPods, iPod Shuffles and iPod Photos, valued at more than $4.5 million, that Gratis has given away in the last 12 months alone.

Gratis' network of Web sites host advertising offers from a variety of highly rated companies such as Citibank, Blockbuster, AOL, Columbia House and BMG, among others. When a visitor to a Gratis site signs up for an offer from one these advertisers, Gratis is paid by that advertiser for delivering a customer lead. Using those revenues, Gratis pays for the items it gives away.

Gratis' high-quality giveaways are attracting record numbers of new users and, as a result, large businesses are acquiring a steady stream of new customers from the valuable demographic that comprises the Gratis user base. Last year, Gratis was named the 95th fastest growing company in the U.S. in Inc. Magazine's prestigious Inc. 500 ranking.

"In the last five years, Gratis has revolutionized the online customer acquisition sector," Gratis co-founder Peter Martin said. "Online giveaways used to revolve around low-value items such as t-shirts, caps and tote bags. As a result, the level of consumer interest was correspondingly low. We thought there was a better way - one that offered more value to both consumers and to our own customers, the online advertisers."

"Our vision was to increase dramatically the quality and value of free goods available - giving away Apple iPods, flat screen televisions and video game systems, instead of low-value items - and, by doing so, drive radically higher levels of traffic. The concept has proven to work well for our advertisers, who are looking to acquire high-quality new customers, and our users who enjoy getting something really cool for free," Martin said.

Addressing the natural skepticism that exists around "free" offers on the Internet, Gratis co-founder Rob Jewell said it is important to understand how Gratis' business model works. "Gratis succeeds when we attract people to try our advertisers' online offers," he said. "In order to do that, we decided to offer expensive, high-quality, sought-after items to our Web visitors - the things people really want, such as desktop PCs, designer handbags, and gaming systems."

"Our system is simple and straightforward," Jewell said. "For example, to get a free Apple iPod from us, simply go to freeipods.com and register. Try one online offer and refer five friends, each of whom need to try one online offer. When the fifth friend's offer is completed we send you your free iPod. There's nothing complicated about it. Right now, we're sending out between 400 and 600 free iPods every week."

In Cities Facing Budget Deficits, Cellphone Becomes a Taxpayer

By KEN BELSON (The New York Times)

Last year, the City Council in Baltimore faced a budget shortfall so bad that it considered laying off 186 city police officers, reducing some fire department operations and scaling back trash collection. Then it found an untapped honey pot: cellphones.

Starting in August, the city began collecting $3.50 a month from each of Baltimore's 238,000 mobile phone subscribers. The extra income has helped to strengthen the city's finances and is expected to help the city fix up schools and trim the property tax.

"I can't remember the last time we've had such an easy budget year," said Sheila Dixon, the president of the City Council. "The bulk of our taxes come from property tax, but when you can't diversify and the federal and state taxes are drying up, you need other income."

Baltimore is not alone. The city of Springfield, Ore., for example, recently enacted a 5 percent tax on cellphones and land lines, which would help finance a new jail. Residents and utilities opposed to the tax, which is yet to take effect, have forced a referendum to be held on Tuesday.

Dozens of other cities and states have already passed cellphone taxes. Many other states and municipalities, including some in Louisiana and Missouri, are debating similar measures as they compile their budgets for the next fiscal year.

Officials are particularly eager to tax cellphones because the amounts individuals pay each month are small enough to go virtually unnoticed, but in aggregate can be substantial. Cellphone subscribers nationwide paid an estimated $17.8 billion in federal, state and local taxes last year.

But mounting taxes have led wireless companies like Verizon Wireless and Sprint to form unlikely alliances with consumer advocates and tax reformers to fight new city fees. They argue that consumers are taxed twice in states and cities that also impose sales taxes, and that the extra burden is particularly hard on retirees and low-income subscribers and also reduces overall demand for mobile service.

The cellphone taxes, when added to existing federal excise and state sales taxes, as well as fees for 911 service, mean that $8.75, or 16.7 percent, of the average monthly cellphone bill of $52.50 now goes to government agencies - about twice as much as on many other services, according to CTIA-the Wireless Association, a wireless industry trade group. While cellphone subscribers in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey pay some of the highest tax rates in the country, the states do not levy a wireless-only sales tax.

The carriers say they do not oppose collecting taxes on behalf of governments, but they object to being subject to special taxes as tobacco and alcohol are.

"We have no problem with the revenue needs of the localities," said Steven Zipperstein, general counsel for Verizon Wireless. "But we have a big problem that a certain class of customers or services should be singled out for excessive taxation."

Cingular Wireless, Verizon Wireless, Sprint and T-Mobile filed a lawsuit in February in Maryland Tax Court against Baltimore and Montgomery County, which has its own wireless tax. They contend the cellphone fee is effectively a sales tax, which only the state has the right to impose.

They also say that cities have no authority to collect taxes on services consumed outside their borders, noting that many of the cellphone calls made in Baltimore go outside the city limits.

"Some portion of what they are taxing is outside their boundaries, so it's defective for that reason," said Kenneth H. Silverberg, a lawyer at Nixon Peabody, the firm representing the carriers.

Others have joined the move to repeal the fee. At least one Baltimore councilman wants to exempt senior citizens from the wireless tax. Progressive Maryland, a nonprofit group that promotes "pro-working-family legislation," said Maryland lawmakers should raise the corporate tax and scale back taxes on consumers.

"When you have a thriving corporate sector paying less and less tax, the taxes get foisted on working and middle-class families," said Tom Hucker, executive director of the group.

The National Black Caucus of State Legislators called on state and local governments last December to roll back taxes, including flat taxes, on wireless services because they "disproportionately burden low-income, low-volume cellular telephone subscribers."

But a Baltimore municipal spokeswoman said the city felt it was on firm ground. The telecommunication tax was "crafted and implemented with the expectation that it would stand up to a legal challenge," said the spokeswoman, Raquel Guillory.

The tussle over the right to levy taxes on wireless services comes as phone providers and federal regulators struggle with how technology is changing the meaning of a phone call. Some lawmakers argue that to encourage the spread of new technology, new services should not be taxed as heavily as traditional ones. Others, intent on cutting and streamlining local taxes, want to limit the power of states and cities to introduce their own special fees.

Yet city councils and state lawmakers with budget holes to plug argue that "a phone call is a phone call," regardless of how it is placed. With consumers increasingly using cellphones instead of land lines, local governments are eager to start taxing wireless services just as they have taxed traditional phone lines for years.

In Baltimore, the $3.50 tax on cellphones extends to land lines as well. Businesses operating multiple phone extensions also pay 35 cents a line. Under the previous tax structure, the city charged a 12 percent tax only on land lines.

By moving to a flat fee for all phones, the city expects to raise $26.1 million in the fiscal year ending June 30, double what it received under the old formula. Of that total, $8.81 million, or 34 percent, will probably come from cellphone users, money the city did not receive before.

To be sure, the expanded phone tax is only one reason the city's finances have improved. Baltimore also nearly doubled its tax to record deeds and it expanded fees on utilities. The property market has also been booming in the area.

The income generated by Baltimore's broader phone tax has become a model for other cash-short cities. Council members in Portland, Ore., are debating whether to include cellphones for the first time in the city's utility license fee on phones. Cities in Missouri as well as the state legislature are considering similar measures.

Wireless companies point to Pennsylvania as a state with lofty taxes on cellular services. In 2003, lawmakers there extended the 5 percent gross receipts tax on land lines to include mobile phones. That tax goes on top of a 6 percent statewide sales tax.

Some cities in the state, like Philadelphia, have general sales taxes, too. Cellphone subscribers also pay into a fund for an emergency response system for wireless users. And then there is the federal excise tax of 3 percent. In all, taxes make up 19.05 percent of the average monthly wireless bill in Pennsylvania, one of the highest levels in the country.

Some state and local lawmakers are already thinking beyond cellphones. One idea is to create a uniform use tax that covers all forms of telecommunications: land lines, mobile phones, Internet-based phones, high-speed data lines and programming provided by cable and satellite companies. By spreading the tax to services like satellite television, which are subject to very little city or county taxes, the fees on phone services could be lowered.

"We've had a tax system based on technology as a utility for almost 60 years," said Steven J. Rauschenberger, a state senator from Illinois and the president-elect of the National Conference of State Legislators. "But with the convergence of technology, we need to rethink the system."

ACC Hosts Award Luncheon

ACC Business hosted its first-ever award luncheon at the Channel Partners Conference & Expo.

On March 15, the company recognized the top 2 percent of its sales agents for their 2004 productivity. The top 1 percent — eight master agents — won 2004 Platinum Cup Awards, while the remaining winners received 2004 Outstanding Sales Achievement Awards.

Back row left to right : Michael Heath, JD Baker, Steve Gerhardt, Bill Mansfield, Bill Pino; Sitting: Brent Saxon; Front row left to right: Frank McGuire, Vince Bradley Curtis Roth, Joe Petretee, Sandra Butler Buchanon, Ben Ho Adam Edwards of Telarus with ACC's Ben Ho

“For years we’ve worked closely with agents to improve the value of our products and services to help them succeed,” said John Baker, president and CEO of ACC Business. This formula has been a real success, so we’re proud to be recognizing their hard work and celebrating our mutual success.”

The following master agents are 2004 ACC Business Platinum Award Winners and received an engraved champagne chiller, a bottle of Perrier Jouet with matching flutes, and a token monetary gift: Simplify Telcom, Infolink Communications, Intelisys Corp., Technology Brokerage Group, Worldnet Communications, MicroCorp, Telarus and US Telebrokers.

ACC Business also gave out its 2004 Sales Achievement Awards to 10 more top selling agents. Each of these winners received ACC Business award plaques, also engraved with their agency’s name: Northwest W.A.N., Telcel Communication, DM Enterprise Group, Network Management, Global First Communications, Gemini Communication, On Track Communi-cations, Utility Management Solutions, World Telecom Group and The Rockland Group.

Ben Ho, ACC Business national sales director, presented all of the awards, flanked by ACC Business’ Baker. Also representing AT&T at the event were Michael Heath, president of select accounts and indirect channels; Celine Azizkhan, channel chief; and Rob Dapkiewicz, marketing vice president of select markets.

“I was delighted to be able to recognize nearly 150 of our agents and, in particular, celebrate the success of our top 2 percent who performed spectacularly in 2004. We have a win-win relationship with these agents that we’re very respectful of,” said Ho.

ACC Business said more than 150 of its agents and channel partners took part in the luncheon.

As seen in Phone+ Magazine.

Take control of Internet Explorer...

Take control of Internet Explorer...
before spyware does

By David Piscitello, President, Core Competence, Inc. (From WatchGuard LiveSecurity Updates)

Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE) is still the most widely used Web browser. The majority of Web-based spyware infestations also target IE. While critics and experts can debate whether this is due to sloppy code and inherent flaws in IE, or abuse of a well-intentioned program customization called the Browser Helper Object (BHO), you have more important concerns. For security's sake, any network administrator must decide whether to deploy an alternative Web browser, or to minimize the organization's exposure by locking down IE and deploying spyware countermeasures.

Dump Internet Explorer?

Frustrated with spyware and a seemingly endless stream of security patches, many users are choosing an alternative Web browser. Browsers such as Mozilla/Firefox, DeepNet Explorer, and Opera natively support many attractive features:

• SSL-capability
• Built-in search bars
• Popup killers
• Tabbed browsing
• Integrated RSS readers and e-mail clients.

These browsers don't support BHOs and are thus immune to browser hurtful objects, the "spyware" BHOs that hijack home pages, favorites, and search engines. Various antispyware software vendors claim to detect and block an estimated tens of thousands of spyware variants responsible for hijacking, URL tracking, and intrusive advertising. BHOs and rogue toolbars that plug into IE account for approximately one thousand of these pests and parasites.

Alternative browsers claim to be more secure than IE. Firefox bases this claim on the success of the Mozilla project specifically, and open source policy in general (see "Release early, release often"). Opera was designed from the beginning with security in mind, and doesn't support ActiveX controls. The DeepNet Explorer renders HTML just like IE, but doesn't support BHOs. However, none has proven immune to bugs, so as an administrator, you must weigh the strengths and weaknesses of each contender as they affect your organization.

Consider other factors before you commit to converting your organization to a new browser:

• Does your organization actually use legitimate BHOs or ActiveX controls?
• Is your (Intranet) Web server environment IIS- and IE-centric? If so, what steps must you take to confirm that the browser you choose is compatible with your server?
• How will the change affect your patch management?
• How will the change affect user training, helpdesk and support? Do you anticipate any internal political backlash?

The answers to these questions might force the conclusion, "Let's stick with IE." If so, then your next step is to deploy it as securely as possible.

Five steps to a more secure IE configuration

Draw from the accumulated experience of others who combat spyware, and implement these measures to protect your IE users:

Maintain IE Patch Currency. As exploit paths and vulnerabilities are identified in IE, patch as early as possible to eliminate them. Investigate central patch management solutions. If you must leave patch management in the hands of your users, make certain they understand the consequences of neglecting this critical process. If your users are responsible for patching, conduct regular audits to ensure they are keeping up with patches.

Improve your (IE) Zone Defense. You can adjust settings for IE's security zone so that you maintain a secure and productive user experience for your organization. But doing so is not as simple as consumer anti-spyware pages (CyberCoyote.org, SpywareInfo.com) suggest. If your business applications are developed by .NET partners who do not sign components with Authenticode, or your users routinely visit business partner sites that use ActiveX components, your IE security configuration must allow access to these particular components. In such situations, make use of IE's Trusted Zones and include these sites as reputable and trustworthy.

Assess your organization's needs, and develop an IE security policy that meets the security-usability requirements of your organization. If you use Active Directory, use the Group Policy Object Editor to create an "IE configuration" GPO. Configure your IE policy under User Configuration => Windows Settings => Internet Explorer Maintenance => Security; then link the GPO to the appropriate organizational units.

Block Ad Server Domain Names. Several anti-spyware activists maintain lists of known adware server sites and domains. If you block a spyware agent from communicating with its ad servers once the agent lands on your network (assuming it manages to elude your other countermeasures), you negate the impact of that spyware. Add known spyware/adware servers to the Blocked Sites lists at your Firebox. Use a hosts file or DNS to resolve the adware hostnames to local host (127.0.0.1); or, use a registry script like IE-SPYAD to incorporate these into the IE Restricted Sites list. Here again, if you use Active Directory, you can include this countermeasure in a GPO.

Hamstring hijackers. Take advantage of the software developed to identify and block malicious BHOs. Be aware that some BHOs have legitimate purposes. Examples of legitimate and useful BHOs are privacy preference clients like AT&T Privacy Bird P3P Client, Citibank's Virtual Account Software, Yahoo! Companion, certain toolbars and Web accelerators. If you want to give your users some flexibility in their browser look-and-feel, run BHOlist on a sampling of the PCs in your organization. Identify any legitimate BHOs and toolbars used by your organization, and compose an Approved BHO List. Install anti-spyware software that provides browser hijack protection at each client. Configure blocked exceptions for all approved BHOs on your list. Free and donateware such as the tandem applications SpywareGuard and SpywareBlaster, Ad-Aware, or SpyBot Search&Destroy are widely acknowledged as legitimate, effective alternatives to commercial anti-spyware software for the budget-impaired.

Try a different cup of Java. Recent flaws exposed in Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine prompt some anti-spyware experts to suggest using Sun's VM instead. Before you choose to uninstall Microsoft's Java VM, be certain this decision meets the organization's long term objectives. If, for example, you are going to migrate from Java/J2EE to a .NET framework, and will eventually disable Java entirely, is this step necessary? Do any business applications needed by your organization require a specific version of JVM?

Conclusion

Internet Explorer has its share of problems, and you may conclude your organization is better off with an alternative Web browser. But your organization doesn't have to be easy prey for spyware. With some planning, you can implement appropriate measures to minimize your IE-related spyware vulnerability profile. Switching browsers or locking IE down are both valid options. Doing nothing is not. ##

Further Reading

Spyware Risk: It's Time to "Get Smart"

Spyware Remediation: It's Not "Mission Impossible"

Dave's Spyware and Anti-Spyware Resources

The Internet Explorer Answer: "Have a Freaking Clue" (exclusive interview with Tim Mullen from BlackHat 2004)

SBC, not Verizon, is Biggest Bell of Them All

If you would look at the shares of Verizon this morning, you would come to a conclusion - VZ is the biggest phone company in the US. Well, that is just not true. At the end of first quarter 2005, SBC is the largest baby bell company. Yes, that’s right - bigger than Verizon, which for some odd reason gets more props on Wall Street than SBC. “I am challenging anyone to justify the 25% premium enjoyed by VZ shares relative to SBC,” says Dan Berninger, senior analyst with Tier1 Research. Maybe because Verizon made more money this quarter than SBC? ($1.8 billion versus $885 million for SBC?)

Still Dan’s argument is quite valid. In an apple-to-apple comparison, Verizon’s 1Q-2005 revenue was $18.18 billion, while SBC came in at $18.34 billion. As an aside, the two companies have roughly the same number of local access lines -Verizon 52.2 million and SBC 52 million. Verizon’s proportional share of wireless customers, is 25 million or 55% of 45.45 million, while SBC’s 60 percent share of Cingular’s 50.4 million brings the company 30.2 million wireless customers. Verizon has 3.9 million DSL customers, SBC has 5.6 million. Verizon has 18 million long distance customers, while SBC has 22 million. High capacity data revenues: Verizon $2.1 billion versus SBC $2.8 billion.

Techdirt on Verizon Wireless’ killer quarter. More from Om Malik.

VoIP Calculations

# of Simultaneous Calls	Voice Traffic	T1 Bandwidth	Cable/DSL Bandwidth	Cable/DSL Bandwidth
Using G729	Kbs	1500	500	350
1	40	1460	460	310
2	80	1420	420	270
3	120	1380	380	230
4	160	1340	340	190
5	200	1300	300	150
6	240	1260	260	110
7	280	1220	220	70
8	320	1180	180	30
9	360	1140	140	-10
10	400	1100	100	-50
11	440	1060	60	-90
12	480	1020	20	-130
13	520	980	-20	-170
14	560	940	-60	-210
15	600	900	-100	-250
16	640	860	-140	-290
17	680	820	-180	-330
18	720	780	-220	-370
19	760	740	-260	-410
20	800	700	-300	-450
21	840	660	-340	-490
22	880	620	-380	-530
23	920	580	-420	-570
24	960	540	-460	-610
# of Simultaneous Calls	Voice Traffic	T1 Bandwidth	Cable/DSL Bandwidth	Cable/DSL Bandwidth
Using G711	Kbs	1500	500	350
1	96	1404	404	254
2	192	1308	308	158
3	288	1212	212	62
4	384	1116	116	-34
5	480	1020	20	-130
6	576	924	-76	-226
7	672	828	-172	-322
8	768	732	-268	-418
9	864	636	-364	-514
10	960	540	-460	-610
11	1056	444	-556	-706
12	1152	348	-652	-802
13	1248	252	-748	-898
14	1344	156	-844	-994
15	1440	60	-940	-1090
16	1536	-36	-1036	-1186
17	1632	-132	-1132	-1282
18	1728	-228	-1228	-1378
19	1824	-324	-1324	-1474
20	1920	-420	-1420	-1570
21	2016	-516	-1516	-1666
22	2112	-612	-1612	-1762
23	2208	-708	-1708	-1858
24	2304	-804	-1804	-1954

Why It's Tough To Find WiFi In Japanese Hotels: It's Not Needed

These days, if you're traveling in the US, it's increasingly likely that the hotel you stay at will offer WiFi -- often free. It's certainly not universally available, but many hotels have realized that it's something of a requirement for many travelers (especially business ones). However, someone who recently traveled to Japan noticed that none of the hotels he visited had WiFi (or ethernet!). When he asked someone about it, he was told that no one really needed it, since most people had mobile data service from a wireless carrier -- and since that was plenty fast and ubiquitous, it made other forms of internet access much less interesting. This is the type of story, of course, that thrills the carriers. Of course, what the story leaves out is the pricing differential. WiFi is often free. In many places, mobile broadband data services are insanely pricey. However, it does show how a decent speed and ubiquity when done right (a big if) certainly can trump higher speeds and hotspots going forward.

We're already seeing this in the US among people who are using EV-DO wireless broadband access where it's available -- and claim it's rid them of the need to use WiFi. The two technologies certainly can co-exist for quite some time. There are a variety of issues (technology, business models, interference, capacity, etc.) as to why one technology is unlikely to completely obsolete the other -- but the models will start to converge, and that's going to leave quite a few companies without much of a business model at all.

Program bypasses cookie-deleting

Corporate IT Security ALERT:

United Virtualities is offering online marketers and publishers technology that attempts to undermine the growing trend among consumers to delete cookies planted in their computers. The company unveiled what it calls PIE, or persistent identification element, a technology that's uploaded to a browser and restores deleted cookies. In addition, PIE, which can't be easily removed, can also act as a cookie backup, since it contains the same information.

SBC Rejects Vonage 911 Collaboration

Competitive fears keeping SBC from doing the right thing?

As a continuation of this morning's story on Vonage VoIP, Red Herring notes that SBC is refusing to work with Vonage on joint testing of improved VoIP 911 systems. This ZDNet columnist believes SBC doesn't want to improve the feature-set of a rival. "What might be aggressive competitive policy is not responsible social policy," the columnist opines. He's posted a follow up that includes an SBC response to his criticism.

How does a T1 line work?

Most of us are familiar with a normal business or residential line from the phone company. A normal phone line like this is delivered on a pair of copper wires that transmit your voice as an analog signal. When you use a normal modem on a line like this, it can transmit data at perhaps 30 kilobits per second (30,000 bits per second).

The phone company moves nearly all voice traffic as digital rather than analog signals. Your analog line gets converted to a digital signal by sampling it 8,000 times per second at 8-bit resolution (64,000 bits per second). Nearly all digital data now flows over fiber optic lines, and the phone company uses different designations to talk about the capacity of a fiber optic line.

If your office has a T1 line, it means that the phone company has brought a fiber optic line into your office (a T1 line might also come in on copper). A T1 line can carry 24 digitized voice channels, or it can carry data at a rate of 1.544 megabits per second. If the T1 line is being used for telephone conversations, it plugs into the office's phone system. If it is carrying data it plugs into the network's router.

A T1 line can carry about 192,000 bytes per second -- roughly 60 times more data than a normal residential modem. It is also extremely reliable -- much more reliable than an analog modem. Depending on what they are doing, a T1 line can generally handle quite a few people. For general browsing, hundreds of users are easily able to share a T1 line comfortably. If they are all downloading MP3 files or video files simultaneously it would be a problem, but that still isn't extremely common.

A T1 line might cost between $400 and $1,500 per month depending on who provides it and where it goes. The other end of the T1 line needs to be connected to an ISP, and the total cost is a combination of the fee the phone company charges and the fee the ISP charges.

A large company needs something more than a T1 line. The following table shows some of the common line designations:

• DS0 - 64 kilobits per second
• ISDN - Two DS0 lines plus signaling (16 kilobits per second), or 128 kilobits per second
• T1 - 1.544 megabits per second (24 DS0 lines)
• T3 - 43.232 megabits per second (28 T1s)
• OC3 - 155 megabits per second (84 T1s)
• OC12 - 622 megabits per second (4 OC3s)
• OC48 - 2.5 gigabits per seconds (4 OC12s)
• OC192 - 9.6 gigabits per second (4 OC48s)

FCC Said to Rule in Favor of BellSouth on DSL Lines

I say: "Oh crap! There goes Earthlink and every other competitive DSL provider."

From the LA Times:
Federal regulators have freed BellSouth Corp. from state rules requiring it to sell high-speed Internet service to voice customers of rival firms, people familiar with the matter said Friday.

In a 3-2 vote Thursday that has yet to be announced, the Federal Communications Commission ruled that states no longer had authority to regulate digital subscriber lines offered by BellSouth and others.

BellSouth government affairs spokesman Bill McCloskey said a commission ruling favoring the company could affect about 8,000 customers in four states who take DSL from BellSouth but local and long-distance phone service from rival carriers.

"The larger impact is that it would put the commission on record saying that there should be a national broadband policy and not one any state could opt out of," McCloskey said.

The vote, taken late Thursday before Michael K. Powell left as chairman, is expected to be released after commissioners turn in written statements explaining their votes.

The decision would give the regional network owners, including SBC Communications Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., the ability to bundle Internet access with local calling plans to dissuade customers from defecting to high-speed service offered by cable TV firms.

Vonage Holdings Corp. and other smaller carriers say forcing customers to buy Web access and local service from the same operator will limit competition.

FCC spokesman Mark Wigfield declined to comment.

The Future of N11 Service Codes ??

In the pre-divestiture days, the (monopoly) telephone company, AT&T, was mostly totally in charge of how N11 codes would be used, although there were some local exceptions. And as has been discussed, 11X codes as used in SXS areas until N11 codes (as used in Panel/#1XB areas) became the "standard" in ALL areas including SXS by the 1960s/70s, 11X codes were still used exceptionally in several non-Bell places (Centel in Tallahassee FL well into the 1970s, Lincoln NE Tel & Tel well into the 1980s, GTE's British Columbia Tel also well into the 1980s).

In the 1920s thru 1960s/70s period, initially in Panel (and later #1XB) urban/metro areas, the "generic" assignment of N11 codes was of the four "even number" ones as follows:

211 Long Distance Operator
411 Information (Directory)
611 Repair Service
811 Business Office

Not all traditionally SXS areas adopted all four of these when N11 codes replaced 11X codes. Virtually everywhere adopted 411 for Information (Directory Assistance). 211 for the LD Operator began to be phased out, since by the 1960s/70s, more and more places had either combined local/toll cord-boards, or else TSP/TSPS/TOPS became the norm, with combined local/toll assistance possible from the same platform. Of course, today, with divestiture, LATAs, and differences between local vs. toll providers, both the US and Canada (even though Canada doesn't have LATAs per-se, one can choose a local provider and a toll provider, each being different), there is 0(#) for the local operator which includes intra-LATA assistance (even if you chose someone other than the LSP for your intra-LATA PIC), and 00 for your inter-LATA PIC operator. (101-XXXX+ code prefixes can be used if you care to use an entirely different operator altogether, or you could use 1-8yy-nxx-xxxx toll-free dialups).

Also, not everywhere adopted 611 for Repair, and even less places ever did adopt 811 for Business Office.

In New Orleans, we dialed seven-digit "POTS-like" numbers starting in the 1960s for Repair and Business Office. Local "oddball" type c.o.codes were freuently used for access though, but it did fit a seven-digit NNX-xxxx format.

"Unassigned" N11 codes in particular places have long been used for telco test purposes (ringback, ANAC, etc).

But for the LONGEST, the "generic intent for universal use" (even though this was never actually realized everywhere in the NANP) was for the above assignments of 211, 411, 611, 811 -- the four "even-number" N11 codes, and note that they were all TELCO provided functions for their customers.

In the late 1960s, the first "government/community/public interest" N11 code began to appear, which has become virtually universal in use, but the intent is for its universal implementation throughout the US/Canada, regardless of what any other telcos might be using it for if they use it for telco test functions, and this is 911 Emergencies.

Nothing much really changed w/r/t N11 codes, even with 1984 divestiture, until the early 1990s. Some LECs (BellSouth specifically, but I think one or two others) began to offer "locally unused" N11 codes on a first-come or maybe "auction" basis (with the nod of respective state regulatory agencies) to non-telco entities, as three-digit PAY-PAY-PAY per call sex/dating/etc. or "info" lines. Or some private ambulance companies bid for N11 codes in some places.

The FCC seemed to become concerned about this non-standard, non-telco, non-public use of N11 codes in this matter, and in a competitive environment (and growingly competitive with the new CLECs and more WSPs coming on the scene), they were concerned that non-standard use would be confusing to a travelling public. The FCC also preferred nationwide uses of N11 codes, and more of them not for ILEC telco functions but rather for carrier-neutral functions or for government/community/public-interest functions.

There was a move in the US and Canada as far back as the early 1990s for 711 to be used for Telecom Relay Services for the Hearing/Speech Impaired. The United Way was "hinting" at an N11 code for some time. The blind advocacy groups were clammoring for an N11 code for audiotext services (ie., newspapers read over the phone), etc.

While the FCC didn't "prohibit" non-telco/non-standard use of N11 codes in the manner that BellSouth was introducing, there was a stipulation that if the FCC introduced a more universal/nationwide function for that code, and if there was a local agency that wanted to implement that code, the "current" info/dating/etc. entitity would be forced off the code, but with something like six-months notice.

In the late 1990s, there was a move by various state/local governments in the US for a special 3-digit "non-emergency" access number to the police (something other than 911) or local government services in general. The federal government/FCC ultimately decided upon 311.

Also in the late 1990s, the United Way and related NGOs petitioned for 211 as an access code.

Since 2000, both 211 for the United Way of Canada, and 311 for non-emergency access to local government services, have also been approved by the CRTC.

In the US, the FCC has approved 511 for ultimate (local) implementation for travel/traffic/transit/road-condition services.

And now, the FCC has approved 811 for a "Call before you dig" nationwide type number.

Very few places in the US and Canada have been using 811 for Telco Business Office, and fewer telcos in the US (and Canada) were using 611 for Telco Business Office. In a competitive local telco environment, 611 and 811 are also becoming more and more "unworkable". Telcos are using standard toll-free ten-digit 8yy-nxx-xxxx numbers for repair and business office.

Some cellcos still use 611+SEND or *611+SEND for reaching customer service, or for certain "romaing" or "tech support" purposes. But if the cellco industry still feels the need for a universal "short-code", maybe the US/Canada cellco industry and industry support groups should come up with a joint resolution to request a *XX+SEND type code from NANPA, that
isn't an N11 code, something that would not conflict with other landline and/or wireless *XX codes, and somthing that could be for the exclusive use of the wireless industry, maybe something in the *2XX range.

According to NANPA's website, there are alrady two wireless "only" *XX(X) Vertical Service Codes, and both of them are of the *2XX format.

As I mentioned in previous posts, I think that there is going to be some kind of "public/community/government" function that the FCC is going to mandate 611 for universal assignment.

And even though Canada hasn't copied the US intent of 511 for Travel/Traffic info, or 811 for "Call before you dig", I would expect that the CRTC and other Canadian agencies to adopt these assignment for use north of the border within the next few years. And if the FCC assigns 611 for some "public interest" (non-telco) function, I also expect that Canada will copy this as well.

Note that the use of N11 codes has migrated away from (monopoly) telco provided services, over to "universal" (or nearly so) community/government/public interest uses, which work fine in a carrier neutral sense in a highly comeptitive (local) telco environment.

So, if 611 is the next traditional "telco" N11 code to "bite the dust" and become a universally intended "public interest" non-telco code, this would leave ONLY 411 as a traditional telco N11 code.

However, the FCC in the US has been looking for some kind of competitive Directory Assistance for some years now. There really isn't too much progress on it, other than some NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) or Notice of Inquiry documents... some of the methods of providing public access to competitive directory services would have the customer dial specially assigned 101-XXXX codes, not as a "prefix" but as a stand-alone dialing code (or so it seems). The FCC has already directed Neuster-NANPA to "set-aside" any (unassigned) fg.D "CIC" codes of the
101-411X and 101-X411 format for such proposed competitive directory assistance purposes.

However, I don't know if the following has been proposed, but I think this could be much more "do-able" considering public education and loading into switch translations, and it could allow a theoretical 10,000 possible assignments to competitive DA entities:

Since 411 has been one of the most STABLE of the N11 codes, far more universally implemented (after 11X codes in SXS areas began to be changed to N11 codes) -- in the 1970s, the Bell System was pondering the elimination of 611 and 811 for Telco Repair and Telco B.O. (respetively) where those codes had been used as such, since different types of customers (coin vs noncoin, business vs. resi, small business vs large business, etc), needed to reach SPECIFIC B.O. or Repair reps, and instead of 611 and 811, there would be a range of dedicated 7/10 digit telephone numbers for such diversified B.O. and Repair -- in the 1970s and 1980s editions of Notes on Distance Dialing or Notes on the Network, or Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks, etc. (published by AT&T, later by Bellcore), it was always suggested that both 411 and 911 would remain as such, but that 611 and 811 could possibly disappear. 211 for LD
Operator was already mostly obsolete by then....

Maybe the FCC could eliminate 411 as a 3-digit code and instead have 411 as a special c.o.code of a universal 7-digit number "set", as 411-xxxx, sort of like how 950-xxxx numbers are assigned.

The -xxxx line-number part of the 411-xxxx number would also be "mirrored" to the -xxxx of 950-xxxx numbers, being the "Carrier Code", or maybe the "OCN". Not all potentially ten-thousand 411-xxxx numbers would be in use in all places throughout the US and Canada, since if Latelco in southeast Louisiana is providing D.A. on a 411-xxxx number, outside of their small territory nobody else would need to dial THEIR 411-xxxx. But the assignemt would be exclusive.

This is something similar to what has happened in the UK. The UK has traditionally used three-digit codes beginning with '1' (1XX) for "special functions" provided by telco and by public interest entities.

Today, Oftel/Ofcom is assigning such codes for new uses as four digit 1XXX codes if possible, though. I don't remember exactly what the 1XX code for local Directory Enquiries in the UK was when BT was the monopoly (GPO, Post Office Telecom, etc), but today, there is access to competitive D.E. using six-digit codes of the form 118-XXX throughout the UK. Ofcom (formerly Oftel) is the assignment body for these 118-XXX customer-dial codes.

SO, that could be extended to the US/Canada, where NANPA would assign specific 411-xxxx codes for competitive Directory.

However, ALL OTHER N11 codes would be changed or assigned to non-telco, but non-competitive, public-interest type codes all as described above (of course such a non-telco community/gov't/public assignment on 611 hasn't been determined as of yet, but I expect one in the next few years). And these uses would all be "universal" throughout both the US and Canada, including 511, 811, and any future such (TBD) use on 611.

Mark J. Cuccia
mcuccia (at) tulane (dot) edu
New Orleans LA CSA
(From the Local Calling Guide)

HB 789 Revised, Still Ugly

ACTION ALERT

The Texas Legislature could make it illegal for towns to set up broadband networks. Texas House Bill 789 currently is being heard by the House Committee on Regulated Industries. One small provision buried in this 330-page bill outlaws municipal networks.

The big phone companies have been fighting to control who provides broadband. We must let the committee know that the ban on muni networks must be dropped. Broadband is too important to leave in the hands of a few special interests.

For more information on the effort to support municipal broadband, visit http://savemuniwireless.org/

Take action now to support increased choice for broadband. Please send your state representatives the following message:

Remove all restrictions on municipal broadband from HB 789. Texans want more broadband choices, not fewer. Every Texas community deserves the right to decide how best to build its critical infrastructure.

Here is what you can do.

Action in 30 Seconds: Notify your Representatives

Take action now. Consumers Union has provided a one-click web form that will send your message to your state representatives.

Visit http://cu.convio.net/savetexascommunityinternet

The form provides a boilerplate message. You may edit the form and write your own message. Please ask your representative:

Remove all restrictions on municipal broadband from HB 789. Texans want more broadband choices, not fewer. Every Texas community deserves the right to decide how best to build its critical infrastructure.

If you have time for nothing else, send that form.

If you have the time to contact your representative directly, by phone or by fax, that is most effective. You can find the contact information for your representative here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/fyi/fyi.htm

Contact Regulated Industries Chair and Committee Members

The House Committee on Regulated Industries is preparing a watered-down replacement of the anti-muni language. All indications show that the replacement will still offer the big phone companies a veto over municipal projects. Action is required now to let the committee know it should strike the muni restrictions completely.

If your state representative sits on the committee, please contact them and let them know you are a constituent who opposes limitations on municipal broadband.

Contact committee chair and bill author Rep. Phil King, and let him know that you oppose limitations on municipal broadband.

The representatives on this committee are:

State Representative	Phone	Fax	District	Counties Represented
Rep. Phil King (chair)	512-463-0738	512-463-1957	61	Parker, Wise
Rep. Robert "Bob" Hunter (vice chair)	512-463-0718	512-463-6244	71	Nolan, Taylor
Rep. Sylvester Turner	512-463-0554	512-463-8380	139	Harris (central)
Rep. Todd Baxter	512-463-0631	512-236-1065	48	Travis (northwest)
Rep. Robby Cook	512-463-0682	512-463-9955	17	Bastrop, Brazos (part), Burleson, Colorado, Fayette, Lee
Rep. Joe Crabb	512-463-0520	512-463-5896	127	Harris (east)
Rep. Will Hartnett	512-463-0576	512-463-7827	114	Dallas (part)

Let Us Know

If you send a letter or fax to your representatives, please send us a copy of your letter so we can track who has been contacted. You can send copies either by email to info@savemuniwireless.org or by fax to 815-301-8302. If you receive a response, please let us know.

March 08, 2005

HB 789 Revised, Still Ugly

Yesterday, a revised version of HB 789 was released. The section that outlaws community Internet (72KB PDF) has been changed, largely in response to objections like ours. The changes camouflage around the prohibitions, without addressing the real problem.

One change actually broadens the ban to cover even more services. The original ban primarily protected the large phone companies. The revision extends further protections to the large cable providers.

The bill adds some small exceptions. New provisions will allow free public hotspots under limited circumstances. The change would allow the city to light up a library, but not a downtown block.

Exceptions are added for a number of obvious services, such as permitting e-government services and allowing libraries to charge out-of-area visitors to use their facilities. The presence of these ridiculous exceptions validates our claim that the ban is harmful and overly broad. It also illustrates the folly of this approach. The bill fails to exempt on-line library catalogs, for instance, so presumably the Austin Public Library would need to shut down that service.

The changes open up just one provision for community Internet. Municipalities will be allowed to setup networks to support "economic development activities" providing that specific legislation authorizes the project.

We expect the committee will hold a hearing on this new language in the next few days. It is important that we all contact them before then and let them know we want the community Internet ban removed completely.

Directory Harvest Attacks Jump In February

By TechWeb News

Directory harvest attacks, brute-force assaults on enterprise e-mails systems by spammers hoping to score valid addresses, were at an all-time high in February, a message security vendor reported this week.

According to Redwood City, Calif.-based messaging filtering firm Postini, DHAs were launched by spammers at a crippling rate.

"February was the worst month ever for DHAs," said Andrew Lochart, the director of product marketing for Postini, in a statement. "In fact, the five worst days ever recorded by Postini were in February."

The average Postini customer, added Lochart, was attacked 224 times per day during the month, with each attack comprising an average of 166 invalid message delivery attempts.

"That total of 37,184 invalid delivery attempts per day could have crippled customer e-mail servers if left unchecked," Lochart said.

In a DHA, a spammer guesses e-mail addresses until he gets some right, then harvests those valid addresses to use in later spam campaigns.

During 2004, Postini's clients were attacked by an average of 150 DHAs per day. February's rate, while not the 300 percent increase of 2004's average over 2003's, was an impressive rise of 50 percent over 2004's monthly average.

"[DHAs] will become more severe, as spammers turn to harvesting because they're finding it harder to locate valid addresses in other ways," said Chris Smith, the marketing director at Postini in an earlier interview.

In other security news, Postini said that spam accounted for 88 percent of February's e-mail, a number unchanged from the previous month, and noted that the Netsky worm took infamous honors as the month's most prominent e-mailed malware, easily beating Bagle by a factor of 2 to 1.

Anti-virus vendors, however, disagreed with Postini's take. Sophos, for example, claimed that Zafi.d was the most commonly-seen virus during February, accounting for 31 percent of the malicious code spotted. Netsky.p, which has remained in the top 5 of most such lists since its debut a year ago, took second on Sophos' list at 22 percent.

Moscow-based Kaspersky Labs followed Sophos' lead by naming Zafi as the most prominent worm of the month (22 percent) with Netsky second (18 percent).

Why is DSL cheap and T1 expensive?

Apparently my braincells had too little to do tonight and I got off onto the track of thinking: "If I pay $75 for my 1.5 mbps x 768 kbps DSL connection, why then is a T1 $400-600/mo?"

Well, once those neurons fired off, of course some other neurons fired back with the answer. And it's that answer I'm gonna share.

Why is DSL (and cable modem) so cheap? Simple - contention.

Contention - (n.) Conflict that arises when two or more requests are made concurrently for a resource that cannot be shared.

So what does that mean? Well, in the simplest terms, think of contention as the last spoonful of ice cream from a container. It can only be enjoyed by one person. Your DSL connection is the same way. Your (and my) little DSL pipe is connected into a big internet pipe at the phone company (usually a DS3 that's connected in turn to another larger pipe to the internet somewhere else).

Another way to visualize it is connecting multiple water hoses to the same spigot on your house. You can only run so many at a time before the water pressure drops substantially.

In the case of our DSL, that water pressure drop is the same effect as our internet connections slowing down. For the most part, cable modem users notice it first... that's an engineering challenge due to how cable is run to different neighborhoods.

What does all this mean? Well, the phone company (or your cable company) buys a nice big internet connection. As long as no one is using it, it's really fast. The problem comes in that we're not guaranteed any set speed (go read your contract, you're in for a rude awakening). So the phone or cable company can share that one really big pipe with was many people they want to. So if you have 10,000 people in an area all sharing the same connection and trying to hit websites, download music and check email at the same time things can slow down - sometimes dramatically. That's contention - we're all contending for a share of a limited resource. This is also called oversubscription. It's the same concept that leads to "all circuits are busy now, please try your call again later" when making phone calls. The company has a set number of phone lines and internet speed to share. If more people try to use it than they can accommodate, some people get shut out or slowed down.

Now, since the phone companies own most of the really fast internet connections - or at least the wires or fiber by which they are connected around the US - people with DSL don't see this as often as people on cable modems (since the cable companies have to buy internet connections from some telephone company somewhere).

How is that different from a T1? With a T1, instead of sharing that really big pipe with thousands of other people, you have your own private connection into the backbone of the internet. The T1 carrier (if they're a tier 1 carrier) is usually going to guarantee that you will always have 99.9% or higher of your speed available to you. This means you're not fighting with all the other people in the neighborhood to get to the internet. (Now once your traffic hits the internet all bets are off b/c you can't control how your traffic gets to or from the website or other computer you want to talk to.)

And because you're not sharing the connection with so many other people, your T1 skips some of the equipment that would normally sit inbetween you and the phone company if you were on DSL. That makes a T1 feel "snappier".

What does that all boil down to? For residential users, DSL or cable modem is probably more then adequate for most people. For business users, you have to determine how much your internet connection is worth to the productivity of your business. If you can live without it, DSL or cable modem will probably suffice. But if you rely on email or the internet for making profit, closing deals or supporting customers, then a T1 is in order for you. The extra monthly expense is just a cost of ensuring you'll always be able to do business efficiently and reliably.

When good and bad legislation meet, people lose!

David Deans on Texas House Bill 789

Will the Texas legislature knowingly pass a bill that may harm their constituents' ongoing participation in the Global Networked Economy, and negatively impact the future competitiveness of every business within the state?

That's the puzzling conclusion regarding the cause and effect of Texas house bill HB789 if passed. The following is an assessment of each of the main arguments and the associated counterpoints:

Why would any government entity want to invest in telecommunications infrastructure?

There is a clear precedent that government has always exercised the right to invest public money in infrastructure projects for "the public good". For centuries, governments have invested in building waterways, railways, highways and most recently airport facilities. Supporting national, regional and local investments in telecommunications infrastructure is merely an evolution of previously rationalized economic public policy. Telecom infrastructure is the enabling commercial transportation media of the Global Networked Economy.

Can telecommunications infrastructure become a part of existing Municipal Public Works?

Again, there is a precedent for municipal governments to deliver services that are in the public interest. This extends beyond transportation infrastructure to utilities such as water, electricity, trash removal and other essential civic services. Access to competitive telecommunications infrastructure is essential for all Texas communities to prosper, and it is therefore a logical extension of the provision of public works facilities. Access to broadband is becoming essential.

Should local governments provide similar services that compete with private business?

Once again, there is a similar precedent for publicly funded municipal bus and light rail services to be in direct competition with private taxi, limousine and shuttle services. Meaning, competitive coexistence is proven to create consumer choice -- given the availability of various options with associated value propositions, we know that discerning consumers will choose different services to meet their own individual needs. Texans are entitled to choose a public or private telecom provider. Besides, when compared to other forward-looking states, if HB789 is passed then Texans will become relegated to "second-class U.S. citizens" that essentially have fewer options than residents in other states. Granted, this is not the intent of HB789, but the unintended consequence.

Is it unfair when government provides no-fee Internet access, while carriers charge a fee?

Non-profit municipal telecom services that are provided without charge are not really "free" to its users – clearly, this is not a case of semantics. All users of telecommunications services are subject to paying approximately twenty percent of their existing service bill in the form of various federal, state and local government taxes (and associated subsidies). Municipal governments are now finally applying that revenue windfall to directly benefit those people who pay those taxes, by providing a tangible public service. Moreover, it’s already recognized that the American public collectively own the available radio spectrum, and so municipal wireless services simply ensure that this community asset is being used in the public interest. This isn’t a gift; it’s an inherent right.

Is it unfair that all taxpayers must subsidize municipal telecom services, when most people who don’t own a computer may never use the service?

Since the people who will use the municipal telecom service will likely be the same people who use the most commercial (fee-based) telecommunications services, they therefore already pay their "fair share" of the tax burden. Consider this situation to be similar to gasoline taxes – people that use the roads and highways the most ultimately are the ones who pay the most for the ongoing construction and maintenance of those very same resources. Again, the precedent is clear, apportioned taxes have often been applied in this very same manner.

If bill HB789 were passed, would it adversely affect the progress of the wireless sector in Texas?

Outlawing government’s involvement in the provision of broadband telecom services will set a negative precedent that has vast implications – it could undo past positive events. As an example, the State of Texas was nationally recognized as a forward-looking state when it approved the budget for DPS to install and maintain no-fee Wi-Fi services at state highway rest stops (other states are following Texas’ lead). Furthermore, the nationally acclaimed Austin Wireless City Project, an organization that provides free broadband Wi-Fi network installation and maintenance for local business venues across the Texas capital, is a model of American grass-roots entrepreneurial ingenuity at its very best (other cities are following Austin’s lead). By contrast, the passage of HB789 is regressive policy that not only undercuts past progress, but also potentially holds back further economic prosperity. The bill would prohibit the public-private partnership in Granbury, Texas – the nation’s first multiple-use citywide wireless broadband network. In Granbury, the city has contracted Frontier Broadband to deploy a network for public safety AND public access, a first in the United States. In Corpus Christi, a similar citywide network has been deployed for a variety of municipal applications including automated gas meter reading, public safety and in the near future, public access.

Isn’t it an exaggeration to say that HB789 will ultimately harm the Texas economy?

Telecom infrastructure is an enabling foundation for the ongoing growth of both traditional and electronic commerce. Texas needs to deploy as much broadband service offerings as possible, in order to effectively compete with other states that are already trying to attract their unfair share of telecom-enabled commerce. This is a key point -- don’t underestimate the significance -- Texas communities are in a race to build out their telecom infrastructure to match (and hopefully exceed) that of other growing markets. In comparison, HB789 is equivalent to suggesting that the Texas legislature would gladly pass a bill that will hold back the advancement of Texas state highways, or Texas community airports. In summary, bad economic policy is proven to negatively impact investment, the creation of jobs and ultimately people’s overall quality of life – put simply, handicapping Texas municipal broadband infrastructure investment options will harm all Texans.

Compared to other forms of public infrastructure, is wireless really a good investment?

All publicly funded investments should be subject to due diligence, as part of an ROI assessment. However, if the Texas legislature continues to support public funding for the construction and maintenance of other essential forms of infrastructure, then it is surely a clear case of faulty logic to outlaw the funding of essential public telecom infrastructure, without legal cause. Furthermore, wireless infrastructure investment is very prudent, with a compelling return on investment, when compared to other forms of legacy infrastructure. See Table 1 for a cost comparison.

Broadband Infrastructure Costs per Kilometer vs. Other Infrastructure Costs

Table 1

Road: $550,000
Water: $195,000
Electricity: $145,000
Gas: $85,000
Fiber Optics; $22,000 - $35,000
Coaxial Cable: $12,000 - $20,000
Copper Wires: $7,000 - $15,000
Wireless: $3,500 - $15,000

[Source: Upper CanadaNet as cited in the Canadian Broadband Taskforce Report, 2001 page 46]

If you live in Texas you need to get involved!

ACT NOW: Write State Legislators

ACTION ALERT

Now is the time to tell our Texas state representatives that we want the anti-wireless provisions removed from HB 789. We especially need to send this message to the representatives on the House Committee for Regulated Industries. They are holding a public hearing on the the bill this Tuesday, which will determine whether the anti-wireless provisions remain.

Continue reading "ACT NOW: Write State Legislators" ...

Fraud artists con firm out of customers' data

WASHINGTON - One of the nation's biggest information services has begun warning more than 100,000 people across the country they may be targets of fraud, following disclosures the company inadvertently sold personal and financial records to fraud artists apparently involved in a massive identity theft scheme.

ChoicePoint Inc. electronically delivered thousands of reports containing names, addresses, Social Security numbers, financial information and other details to people in the Los Angeles area posing as officials in legitimate debt collection, insurance and check-cashing businesses. (after you've pulled a copy of your credit report, read more)

Budget motel chain offers free long distance, Wi-Fi

A small motel chain named Microtel is trying to change the fact you've never heard of them by offering both free long distance and Wi-Fi, reports the Associated Press. While it may take some time, free hotel/motel broadband is something many analysts believe is inevitable.

Free HBO and continental breakfasts aren't the amenities that have Microtel Inn & Suites guests chattering, sometimes for hours on end.

It's the free, unlimited long distance calls and wireless high-speed Internet service.

The economy-budget motel chain is now offering those services as well as free unlimited local calling in all its guest rooms at its 265 locations nationwide.

Would you let this guy near your kids? We'll now he has one of his own! Oh my. Proud Father, David Young.

Proud mother... Mrs. Heather Young. Please take pity on Mom and go buy her something nice from their Wal-Mart baby registry. 20 diapers every day and a half is quite expensive!

Welcome Miss Lillian Margaret Young to Planet Earth. 8:37, 5lb 10oz, 19.5 inches long. 23 days early. And apparently she takes after her daddy's side (balling/whiner). You can see more pictures online here.

When it's time to go....

From Pa: "Carried {senile aunt who has no children} to Person {Memorial Hospital} then Duke {University Medical Center} last night about 10:30. She has had a massive heart attack. 4 major arteries {blocked} - stints nor balloons can work. BP was 205 over 90 before meds started to settle her down. She is stable under meds, without them she is pulling out the IV's. Pray that we are doing what is right. We have not let them put her on a machine. She has said many times she wants to go to {her husband who passed away a few months ago}. That is another good reason not to go for quad by-pass. Her mind is not right for a lifelong fight. I pray God will comfort her and show us if it is time to let her go."