Lets just get to the meat of it ok. Then more after the jump —

Google is planning to launch an experiment that we hope will make Internet access better and faster for everyone. We plan to test ultra-high speed broadband networks in one or more trial locations across the country. Our networks will deliver Internet speeds more than 100 times faster than what most Americans have access to today over 1 gigabit per second, fiber-to-the-home connections. We’ll offer service at a competitive price to at least 50,000 and potentially up to 500,000 people.

From now until March 26th, we’re asking interested municipalities to provide us with information about their communities through a Request for information (RFI), which we’ll use to determine where to build our network.

That’s from the website.

Now notice this is not some high speed to the head end sort of offer. They specifically say FTH. So they intend to go right to the curb. Their testing will test some 50-500k patrons. What is not clear, is that a single site or a mix of smaller sites.

Google goes on to say they will provide —

* Next generation apps: We want to see what developers and users can do with ultra high-speeds, whether it’s creating new bandwidth-intensive “killer apps” and services, or other uses we can’t yet imagine.

* New deployment techniques: We’ll test new ways to build fiber networks; to help inform, and support deployments elsewhere, we’ll share key lessons learned with the world.

* Openness and choice: We’ll operate an “open access” network, giving users the choice of multiple service providers. And consistent with our past advocacy, we’ll manage our network in an open, non-discriminatory, and transparent way.

What I find of particular interest is the commitment to an open transport layer. A place where anyone can play? ISP and Google? If true that would be a game changer in the data transport marketplace. Fact if true it would complete a vision that was the reason that this blog was created for — create an open backbone and permit service providers to battle it out in the marketplace of products and services.

We keep our fingers crossed.

Linky.

All of the chatter about  4G wireless in the big tech media is really beginning to annoy me.  The wireless broadband world as of right now is 100% Wimax, and it works. In fact this post comes to you tonight via a Wimax connection that outperforms AT&T’s best DSL offering in my neighborhood, and lags behind Time Warner’s pricey 15MBPS service a bit. So, 4G wireless is here, working and destined to improve.  Today it is 100% Wimax. You’d never know that from reading posts in the big tech media. They keep telling us that something called LTE is what I’ve been waiting for. Well, excuse me, I’m not waiting, I’m using. So why is it we keep reading FUD like this in GigaOM? I think it’s pretty simple. Lots of bloggers are following the lame stream media and recycling press releases and talking points as news. Sorry to single you out Om, I really do like your blog and you’re far from  the worst offender.

Let me spell my bias out for you, and I think it’s pretty much the same as the average broadband consumer. IF an LTE based carrier  shows up with a better deal I’m a customer. But, that’s based on if and when. Today, I’m writing about what I can buy now.

I do wish we’d get past discussion of technology. It’s a no brainer that LTE has a commitment from the major cell phone operators. It’s also a fact no one really has a clear idea of what LTE will be beyond the results of preliminary lab stats. The idea behind LTE is to make an easy transition form current cell phone technology for the nickel and dime you to death cellular carriers. Wimax was never designed to do that. So far, Wimax has been deployed as a big open pipe. Try getting that from the cell phone guys. By the time LTE is expected to be available in major markets, next gen Wimax will be available and an upgrade. I see a coming 4G war not only between two technologies, but also between two business models.

Bottom line: I can promise you we’re getting no largess from either the LTE or Wimax camp. We’re based in Texas, so I’ll use a little local analogy. Today Wimax is the only horse in town, and it’s pricier than we would like and slower than we would like. At the same time, as of today, the LTE camp is all hat and no cattle. Contrary to all of the tech media propaganda, both are likely to be with us for some time to come. In fact, I doubt one will be an clear winner over the other. There’s plenty of evidence for how that could work in today’s two competing cell phone standards.

It’s extremely irresponsible to call one a clear winner over the other before both players even take the field, and we’re not going to do that.

As Apple prepares to enter the already crowded ebook business, competitive pressures are driving prices up - at least for Macmillan’s catalog. It’s no secret that publishers want more for electronic copies, and it appears that Apple plans to appease them. It also appears that Amazon isn’t giving in to that idea without a fight.

As of last night, Amazon stopped listing all books from Macmillan Publishers, referring searches to other sellers instead. According to the New York Times, this is because Macmillan is one of the companies that now has an agreement to sell ebooks through Apple’s new iBooks store, and asked Amazon to raise the price of their ebooks from $9.99 to $15. An industry source told the Times that the de-listing is Amazon’s way of “expressing its strong disagreement” with the idea of a price hike. Gizmodo suggests this is the first volley in an Apple-Amazon ebook war. Quoting: “It feels like a repeat of the same s*** Universal Music, and later, NBC Universal pulled with iTunes, trying to counter the leverage Apple had because of iTunes’ insane marketshare. Same situation here, really: Content provider wants more money/control over their content, fights with the overwhelmingly dominant, embedded service that’s selling the content. (Slashdot)

In a truly competitive world, more sellers should drive prices down. With the average author’s royalties amounting to  a tiny fraction of retail, one would expect electronic copies that have a distribution cost near zero would be $3 to $5 rather than $10. Not good enough! The big publishers want $15. It appears that Apple is leveraging a higher price to attract publishers and the publishers will use this as leverage to force price increases from other sellers.  In the end this will harm both authors and consumers. It also illustrates how current copyright laws only benefit the distributors of content who had little or nothing to do with creating it.

For those of the geeky variety, and not so, starting today McDonalds open up its WiFi to all comers. Free. With some catches.

Access is free. So general surfing will be available. According to McD’s web page (here) certain services and particular access needs may still require paying for the privilege. But I am fine with that. It is a step in the right direction.

McD’s being altruistic? Not totally. Their heart is in the right place, but their core reason is profit of course. You see McD’s has been in a battle Royale with StarBucks in the morning fast food segment going on 5 years now. Both players have toyed with the idea of going free on WiFi. Fact in some segments I believe StarBucks has already done so. Why do it? Draw customers in. Once they have you inside you might just buy a cup of coffee at a minimum or pop for a whole meal in the best of cases. Least thats the thinking.

This won’t go unnoticed of course. Figure StarBucks to counter across the board very quickly.

The real question becomes does WiFi stay viable for very long? In a strong parallel, WiFi hotspots are the 21st Century equivalent of the pay phone. Useful sure. But you are ‘parked’ till you finish your communications. Yet the growth of smartphones are anathema to that model as the CPE are tied to metrowide cellular/3g/4g services unrelated to specific locale. So WiFi services that McD’s is providing will fade just like the wall payphone at the local tavern did.

Verizon has quietly scaled back its aggressive fiber deployment in favor of DSL over tired old twisty pair. The take rate for the company’s premium priced FiOS service has slowed. While I have not been able to find a break down by service, I’m certain the slowest products are pay TV and voice.

We have been repeatedly told that bigger pipes and direct fiber connections are impossible in America because of far flung population. Never mind the fact that the cost if installing a fiber or twisted pair loop to a residence are nearly identical. John Timmer of ARS Technica provides a current update contrasting fiber service in Hong Kong vs New York City. Both are extremely dense population centers. Both are outrageously expensive. Both have archaic laws regulating new construction and public utilities with plenty of red tape to slow the process.  I’ll even bet the New York city fathers will insist that Hong Kong’s infrastructure is more primitive and its government more corrupt. So why is it that the average Hong Kong resident has a 100MBPS direct fiber connection available at a price lower than Verizon’s cheapest DSL offering? And how can it be that a great many New Yorkers can’t even get FiOS at any price?

Hong Kong Broadband Network announced the initial results of its “Awesome Speed. For Everyone.” sales, which offer a symmetric 100Mbps fiber connection for the hefty price of US$13 a month. In the two months it has been offering it, customer growth has tripled compared to the earlier months of 2009. Clearly, the company has found it relatively easy to roll out or purchase fiber in Hong Kong’s dense urban environment, and is attempting to recoup its investment in infrastructure by attracting lots of people to its service using low prices.

To get half that download speed (and one-fifth the upload) with Verizon costs $140 a month, assuming you bundle it with local phone service. It also requires a one-year commitment, and Verizon has recently raised the early termination fees so that anyone quitting ahead of that year will now owe the company $360. These would suggest that the company plans on recouping its costs through fewer customers that pay far more. (ARS Technica)

My belief is that the Verizon suits do not see access as a serious business. The entire FiOS business model is based on selling subscribers a “triple play”. More consumers want access without overpriced VoIP service and pay TV. If you only want access, Verizon’s suits think DSL is all you deserve.  If we had real competition over the last mile (equal access to the copper infrastructure), Verizon would have to deploy fiber to have a shot at continuing to charge a premium price.

Fans are still spending on music, just no so much with the big labels who still treat fans like criminals and artists like slaves. Of course, the majority of  artists whose music actually sells have never gotten a fair deal from big music. Open distribution and the Internet have juts given artists another channel that the suits don’t control. And as for the suits? At least the two top suits at Warner are doing just fine:

It’s beginning to appear that some of the major labels’ strategy for dealing with the changing structure of the music business — in which overall money is up, but has shifted away from the record labels’ bank accounts — is to simply bleed the old market dry. How else to explain that as Warner Music continued to shrink and fail to respond to market changes in any reasonable manner, its two top executives took home $14 million last year.  (Techdirt)

I wonder how much money went to the artists?

Before the Internet, the serious news came to you on a large wad of paper via a kid on a bike. At the risk of dating my self, I was one of those kids, so I know of what I write.  Subscribers contributed enough to cover cost of delivering and maybe part of the printing.  That pocket change paid to the paper boy each month contributed nothing to the editorial and news gathering operations. Advertising was what kept the paper running.  Since most news consumers already pay for the internet delivery channel, and there are plentiful sources of news, is anyone really surprised no one wants to pay to read?

The news business is far from dead, but it’s changed. The cost of delivery has gone to zero as the industry moves to online publications. With site traffic, comes ad dollars, just not as many as when the kid bought ink on dead trees to you. The ad dollars have not gone away, but advertisers have more options than ever and news has to compete effectively to win them. Until newspapers provide more balanced coverage and engage their readers, I doubt they will have much luck selling more ads. Competition can be brutal when readers have alternatives. Back when the kid on a bike brought you the news, the very few.

With traditional print newspapers struggling to turn a profit, many have turned to the Web as a means to stay afloat. While some offer their online content free of charge, other papers have played around with subscriptions by charging readers a monthly fee. But that strategy may backfire, says a Harris poll released Wednesday.

Among more than 2,000 online adults surveyed, 77 percent said they wouldn’t pay anything to read a newspaper’s stories on the Web. And among those willing to pay, 19 percent would cough up between $1 and $10 a month; only 5 percent would shell out more than $10 each month. (Cnet)

That is what a 3 judge panel of the first District Court of Appeals just did in the case of Comast vs FCC. The Panel offered the ruling as memorandum, not binding, but telegraphing the Courts observations and if affirmed by the full bench sets the FCC on its ear. –

Federal appeals court gave notice Friday it likely would reject the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to sanction Comcast for throttling peer-to-peer applications.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit suggested as much during oral arguments with the FCC and Comcast. The Philadelphia-based cable concern is appealing the agency’s 2008 decision ordering it to stop hampering the peer-to-peer service BitTorrent as a traffic-management practice.

The order was in response to complaints Comcast was sending fake signals to users of BitTorrent, a bandwidth-heavy protocol often used to pirate copyright content.

“You have yet to identify a specific statute,” Judge Raymond Randolph told an FCC lawyer regarding the legal authority to ding Comcast.

To be sure, Friday’s reaction to the appellate court hearing made it increasingly clear the Obama administration’s FCC has been preparing for a defeat concerning net neutrality (.pdf), one of the largest issues surrounding internet freedom.

The upshot of this memo? —

* Net Neutrality as it has been proposed since Chairman Martin’s tenure may not survive in its current form if it survives at all.

* That the FCC may not even have the authority to regulate in this area as no controlling regulatory clause has been found by the court.

* That the 30% rule fostered by the FCC on the cable industry is willful and capricious. The panel summarily vacated that baseline without standing in current rule making by the FCC itself.

* Has political implications beyond the scope of this blog.

In many ways we are right back to 2004 in regards to carriers regard to traffic management, FCC’s role in this issue and the very nature of Net Neutrality.

Linky.
Full Finding here.

I’ll be blunt — this stinks!

“People are paying money in to go to college,” she said, “I don’t think any of that money should be used to subsidize the broadband effort that really is competing with the private sector.”

– Sen. Lisa Marrache, the assistant Senate majority leader

Oh, you are asking what’s the argument? The Univ of Mass is considering going into partnership with several communities and private enterprise in rural Maine locations to get broadband to these localities that are not being served now. The beef of course is that the University is competing with private enterprise. —

Marrache said constituents raised the issue with her after charges were leveled this summer that UMS is competing with private companies in the broadband business.

Severin Beliveau, an Augusta attorney representing FairPoint, blasted UMS at a meeting of the State Broadband Advisory Council, arguing their participation in a group seeking federal funds was improper competition with the private sector.

“I am concerned at what the university is proposing here, because it is receiving a form of subsidy, no they are in fact receiving a subsidy from taxpayers, in competing with the private sector,” he said.

Jeff Letourneau, associate director of information technology at UMS, said the university is part of a private-public partnership created to provide broadband capacity at a “wholesale” level and the university’s role is minor.

“The grant from the federal government went to GWI [Great Works Internet] and two private investors,” he said. “As for tuition subsidizing our broadband efforts, that does not happen and will not happen.”

I am a dirty stinking capitalist of the first order. There are not many $$ deals I won’t turn down. (Though there are moral ones I won’t touch.) But if private companies don’t want to service these areas; and that has been the case for Verizon, now FairPoint for years, then by God you have no right to complain. You were offered a franchise there Telcos, decided it was not worth your effort and now complain when your unopened candy bar is taken away from you. Pffft, tough. Capitalism works best when there is fair exchange going on. Capitalism does not work where monopolistic haunch sitting goes on and the citizenry suffer as a consequence.

Which brings me to the title of this missive. You have to ask yourself whose ox gets gored if UofMaine went thru with the deal? Why the resident Telco is who. That ladies and gentlemen has to be the back story. As a fellow conservative I know says — flare drops. This is only a cover to prevent competition.

Serve your constituents Marrache.

Link.
HT:WetMachine.

Yes Dear Reader a little TCO analysis can save you money. We have been saying for years that the shell game of free phone, payback is a b!@#$ thru the contract is a bear. It also hurts your wallet. –

He’s considering buying a data-only plan from T-Mobile and relying primarily on SkypeOut purchases, with a backup of free Gizmo5 calls through Google Voice, although new Gizmo5 sign-ups are currently suspended. That means little to no mobile calling (unless you used the free Guava app). Then again, Ben sees some significant savings by the end of what would be a two-year contract, and considers himself a “near-total” dependent on Google services. Could you imagine making the data-only jump?

Just go over to the lifehacker article and see for yourself. Keep in mind that the author is considering only going with a data only plan, 2yr contact. There are other considerations one can also employ. For instance, does your spouse have a phone with a carrier who does a Friend and Family deal? Why not punch the Google voice into the loop? Then the calls to her are free. And if perchance one has a small VoIP server then a VoIP app on the Nexus might avoid all the Gizmodo fiddling as well.

While we are on the subject. The Nexus Launch. A captured live blog feed is here with pics. Initial take — very iPhonish. But that seems to be where the jive is at the moment. The wise move being made? You can buy the phone separate and go with any vendor you wish. That’s a damn smart move, especially for the consumer.

I just hope the carriers are prepared for the bandwidth assault. This phone screams — Songbird App. But your data store staying on the home server and streamed to the Nexus as an audio terminal. Oh and anybody out there developing a multiparty audio remix app for the Nexus. It would sell.

We have projected for 2 years that it was time for unbundling the phone. We would have expected it to happen before the smartphones took hold. But I guess it takes the extra functionality of the smartphone to force the issue on the carriers. Hope I am right but wrong.

Nexus one analysis.