Title II Debate Redux

If you were following debates over Federal Communications Commission policy relating to the Internet back in 2006, you might remember that we were debating whether the Internet, and broadband access, should continue to be regulated as other data services are, under Title I, or as common carrier services, under Title II.

The economic, financial and policy stakes are no less important this time around, as we might be setting up for yet another lengthy battle over how best to regulate broadband access. Lots has changed since 2006. Broadband access by fixed line networks has become a legacy service. Mobile broadband is about to explode. Application innovation arguably is more robust than it was in 2006, and almost all of the innovation has something to do with mobility, not the fixed line Internet.

Congress could "remedy" the situation by passing new laws directly the FCC to take regulatory control of broadband access services. A majority of Americans might regard almost any such congressional moves with derision, given the general contempt that institution now inspires in the overwhelming majority of Americans who are polled about their impressions of Congress.

Will FCC Take "Nuclear Option"?

With the caveat that there is no direct relationship between the Federal Communication Commission's "National Broadband Plan" and the separate issue of "network neutrality," the two arguably might be related. The reason is that
a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could rule that, in fact, the Federal Communications Commission lacks sufficient authority to regulate broadband services, for reasons of network neutrality or mostly anything else related to broadband access and applications.

The Court of Appeals challenge by Comcast argues that the FCC has no authority to censure Comcast for throttling Bittorrent access by its broadband access customers.

New and express authority could, of course, be granted by Congress, but that would take some time. And if the FCC has not current statutory authority to create rules for broadband services, does it have authority to push through a reallocation of 500 megaHertz of wireless spectrum, arguably the centerpiece of its national plan?

If it loses, the FCC can appeal to the Supreme Court. But the court might not take the case, and even if it does, it could take years to get a decision.

So the FCC might try to move based on its current authority to regulate "telecommunications" services such as voice. That would overturn all existing federal rules relating to data services, and would incite a nuclear war with telecommunications providers, just as a threat to regulate cable TV industry as a common carrier also would trigger an all-out legal war with the cable industry.

Whether the FCC wants to trigger first an industry uprising and then years of legislation that will introduce massive uncertainty into the market, is unclear. Certainly the FCC cannot be unmindful of the industry response.

That is why any moves to reclassify broadband access, now a "Title I" data service, as a "Title II" common carrier service, will be a nuclear option. It guarantees that the full weight of the telecommunications industry, and possibly the cable TV industry as well, could be marshalled against any such changes.

And since all FCC thinking now is that only private investment will lead to advances in broadband access, a nuclear war with those interests seems self defeating. Not only will the regulatory fights be huge and determined, but no matter what the outcome, lawsuits will fly for years, further obstructing any serious progress. In the five years after the bloody battle, we will be about where we are now, but five years will have passed.

At a time of tumultuous change in the larger business, a six-year to seven-year period of extreme regulatory uncertainty would be damaging in the extreme, partly because investors would balk at investing and service providers would stop investing in wired facilities.

That's thing about what we used to call "mutually assured destruction." The problem with nuclear weapons under the old "deterrence" doctrine is that actual use of the weapons means failure. The only logic to nuclear weapons is not to use them. Oddly enough, we might stand on the precipice of just such a failure.

Who Bought the First iPads?

Most of the people who lined up in New York and Minneapolis to purchase the iPad on Saturday were already committed Apple users, according to the results of a survey of 448 iPad buyers by Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster.

Fully 74 percent of respondents were Mac users (26 percent presently ownanother kind of PC). About 66 percent own iPhones.

As far as intended application use, 74 percent planned to use their iPads to surf the Web; 38 percent to read books; 32 percent to e-mail; 26 percent to watch video; 18 percent to play games and other apps; eight percent to listen to music.

Munster apparently believes Apple has successfully created a new niche between the smartphone and laptop. Some of us are not yet convinced of that. The overwhelming percentage of respondents think they will use their iPads as they would use their laptops or PCs: to surf the Web. The 38 percent who plan to read books are using the iPad as an e-book reader. The other notable application interests also are routinely conducted on existing devices such as MP3 players, PCs or laptops.

About all one properly might conclude is that initial early adopters are Apple enthusiasts. Many of use would guess that people aren't yet sure what they really will do, and how the device might ultimately be positioned in the broader mobile consumer electronics arena.

At least so far, half of the intended positioning seems to be clear, though. Nobody thinks the iPad replaces their smartphone. The key question remains whether iPad represents a new category, or reshaping of an existing category (namely PCs and laptops or netbooks).

link

How Long to Post-Recession Job Levels? Expect Huge Merger Wave in Any Case

So what does this chart showing job recoveries after recessions since World War II suggest to you (Click on image for larger view)?

Obviously, the immediate past recession was more costly in terms of jobs than any comparable recession since WWII.

The discouraging question is whether the job recovery curve looks more like the shallow "U" shape of the 2001 recession or all the others, which are "V" shaped.

You can make your own decision about which curve will manifest itself this time. But logic suggests the recovery will take a while, simply because the curve already looks more like 2001 than any of the other curves. Also, none of the other recoveries had to face the financial headwinds imposed by our shocking, and growing, deficits, which will crowd out private capital that is the fuel for business growth.

A rough guess, given the depth of losses, which are twice that of the 2001 recession, suggests it might take twice as long for the economy to return to the level of jobs it had when the recession started. That would be 40 months, or roughly 3.3 years from today.

But that assumes no additional fiscal drag from the deficits, and nobody seems to think that is reasonable. So some believe it might take six to eight years. As one might assume, this will make for sluggish sales growth.

In a business such as telecommunications, which irrespective of the recession was in the throes of a massive transformation of its core business model, which will in any case require replacement of perhaps 50 percent of its existing current revenue by new sources over a 10-year period, and perhaps another 50 percent of revenue over perhaps a 20-year period.

Those would challenges enough for virtually any industry, without the pressure of sluggish job and housing growth and high structural deficits. Normally, sluggish growth in the telecommunications business has lead to mergers and acquisitions, since one way to obtain growth in a sluggish market is to buy that growth in the form of acquired customer bases, revenues and assets.

One has to expect quite a lot of that in this environment.

Resurrexit Sicut Dixit

"Has arisen as he said." Happy Easter.

Mobile for the Next Billion Users

Is it possible that simple tools, such as low-cost mobile phones, can have more positive economic and social impact than our typical large-scale government-to-government and typical development aid efforts? The aid establishment might not like the question, or the answers, but MIT NextLab project staff seem to believe the answer is "yes."

“Traditional aid does little for the very poor,” says Jhonatan Rotberg, founder and director of the NextLab program. “Only a fraction of the donated money trickles down to those who need it most."

"But with a mobile phone, poor people can get ahead," he says.

By any measure, recent progress, especially over the past few years, has been quite dramatic: mobile cellular penetration in developing countries has more than doubled since 2005, when it stood at only 23 per cent.

Last year, mobile cellular penetration in developing countries passed the 50 per cent mark, reaching an estimated 57 per 100 inhabitants at the end of 2009. Even though this remains well below the average in developed countries, where penetration exceeds 100 per cent, the rate of progress is remarkable.

Android might be the next big evolution, not that voice and text messaging are propagating. Using Android, devices could be customized for any number of applications that might otherwise be run on a PC, an important development in markets where device cost and access to electricity are issues.

Already, over four billion mobile phones are in use in the world today. The next billion new users, Rotberg says, will be spread out in the developing countries, mainly in Africa and Asia. Android could be important in that regard.

http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2010/03/31/mits-nextlab-designing-technology-for-the-next-billion-mobile-phone-owners/?single_page=true

Is Apple the New and Most-Important Gatekeeper?

Is Apple now more a transformative force in technology-using businesses than Google? Some observers have pointed out that it is possible, perhaps even likely, that Apple's equity value will exceed that of Microsoft in the near future. But Apple now is worth more than Google, with a market capitalization around $214 billion, compared to Google's $159 billion.

To be sure, content companies tend to pay more attention to Apple's moves, while communication companies tend to pay more attention to Google. One might argue that in the communications business, Apple mostly has changed the handset business, and user expectations about what can be done with handsets.

It likely will wind up being more transformative than that. Apple has proven that mobile application stores can be a source of huge end user value in the mobile ecosystem, and potentially a huge driver of revenue and margin in a business that is shifting inexorably towards applications as the driver of communications value overall.

Keep in mind that Apple previously redefined the online music business, if not the whole music business, by some estimates. Apple has had less success in the video arena, but the iPad could signal a potential shift of distribution in the print content business, or at least Apple has been arguing that is its objective.

In the mobile business, virtually everyone agrees that Apple changed end user expectations about what a handset should do, how it should work, and also cracked or broke the historic stranglehood mobile service providers have had over handset features.

In the developing mobile Internet experience, for example, there already are glimmers of a shift of experience from "Web" pages to applications. For a firm such as Google, dependent on search revenues for nearly all of its revenue, that potentially shifts revenue away from search and towards the mobile application as the way people find things.

To the extent that the mobile application, supplied by the application store, becomes the gateway for use of Web-based applications, power and financial success shift towards the app store and the device, and away from the access provider

So the issue that naturally arises is what to make of Apple's influence on the broader technology industry, which generally has moved to an "open" model, where Apple continues to operate on a "partially open" model, closed in terms of operating systems and hardware, but open--with editorial control--for applications.

As attention in the U.S. and some other markets now is turning to "gatekeeper" functions, the implications are that gatekeepers of many sorts now are arising in the Internet ecosystem. Though government regulators typically look at access providers, application providers are emerging as equally-important gatekeepers, as operating systems and browsers have caused concern in the past.

"The iPad is seen by many in the print business as a way of delivering high-value digital content to customers paying real money," notes U.K. technology observer John Naughton. There is a price: Apple will control the distribution channel and take a slice of every transaction.

The iPhone and iPad are really just gateways to the Internet, but are controlled (a better word than "closed") experiences, not the "open" or unfiltered way PCs have been used to access the Internet and its resources.

To the extent that gatekeepers are an issue, we likely will see new concerns about application and experience gatekeepers; nothing so crude as "access" gatekeeping.

Some think Google is the greatest emerging gatekeeper. Perhaps it is Apple.

related article