Tag Archive for Netflix

No More POTS!

No More POTS!A.G. Bell‘s question to Watson over a century ago may be relevant again. Tom Nolle at No Jitter explains how that can happen if the FCC expedites the transition to VoIP. Mr. Nolle, the founder of CIMI Corporation does not think that the basic quality of voice service is at risk. He does believe but there are some truly profound consequences to a decision to abandon TDM voice. He believes it will happen, it’s smart to think about the end of POTS — as relates to both opportunities and risks.

70% of business voice is still TDMTelecommunications has long been more than analog voice and copper loops. The author points out that regulations have stayed in the “TDM” Dark Ages. Operators like AT&T (T) have demanded the FCC modernize things. To deal with these issues, the FCC bundled its transitions (TDM-to-VoIP, fixed to mobile, copper to fiber) into a single Technology Transition Policy Task Force. The recommendations from that activity will hopefully launch experiments in promoting change while controlling the risk of unfavorable impacts. The recommendations of the TTPTF (quite the acronym!) are posted online (PDF) and he says it’s a clarion call for change. So instead of talking about the process, let’s look at the impact.

Who still uses TDM

Mr. Nolle the CIMI principal consultant estimates, that 40% of US households still have TDM voice. Businesses have a higher TDM commitment. The article says that nearly 70% of business voice is still TDM. Suppose we saw TDM voice go away completely; what would happen?

Transition access lines and trunks to EthernetFirst, little besides voice that requires TDM services and trunks. Which he says means we would see all access lines and trunks transition to packet–almost certainly to Ethernet. The author says this could increase the number of Ethernet business connections by about 28%. it would also likely increase the access bandwidth commitments by branch offices and SMBs (using DSL, fiber, cable, etc.) by over 50%. Metro and access vendors would benefit from this almost immediately because it’s likely that operators would start to promote Ethernet access and IP voice more strongly as soon as the “experiments” showed signs of success.

Operators already like the notion of an “access-first” strategy where they supply a fat pipe to a customer and then build ad hoc services over it. Ethernet or packet access encourages that, so giving that to everyone would drive operators quickly to look for rapid service deployment tools so that they don’t lose all the new access-generated opportunities to the over-the-top players (OTTs). The author believes that operator interest in software defined networks (SDN) and network functions virtualization (NFV) are linked to this very thing. After all it’s silly to talk about “improved service velocity” if you have to restring an access connection to upgrade service.

Impact on Internet policy

Net neutrailityThe second impact Mr. Nolle sees is on Internet policy. This voice transition raises the question of the difference between “packet” or “IP” and “the Internet”. You can do VoIP over any IP, including private networking. That’s done with a lot of IP voice today in fact. Operators could in theory augment their services to customers by building IP services that bypass the Internet, but that would pose issues in linking the services to current devices in the home or in businesses. OTTs would surely want to get involved in any new service opportunity, and all that raises the triple-threat question of QoS, settlement, and Net Neutrality.

There’s no barrier to QoS in “private” IP networks, but on the Internet, the Net Neutrality order last year said that you could offer QoS only if the subscriber pays for it. Most practical Internet QoS opportunities arise because an OTT like Netflix (NFLX) could gain by offering QoS to customers. They’d pay the ISPs and either embed the cost or perhaps eat it to improve their differentiation. But the FCC said “No!” Now the new FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler, says “Perhaps”–at least he did in a speech to a university audience. If that were to become policy, it would likely drive QoS for Internet services, and that would drive settlement among ISPs and content players.

QoS stops where the ISP hands off the trafficSettlement has been a big issue for the Internet since the 1990s. Customers pay their own ISP, so if there’s no money flow from that ISP to others, QoS stops where the ISP hands off the traffic. That’s inhibited the value of the Internet for applications that need QoS, but it perhaps encouraged smaller players and startups who couldn’t pay like Google (GOOG) or Netflix could. Whether this small-player benefit is more for VCs who then have to raise less funding to get an OTT off the ground is an interesting question–but in any event, adding settlement and QoS to the Internet would almost certainly increase operator interest in providing service quality for a fee, which in turn would increase network investment, helping equipment vendors and carriers alike… In short, it would change the industry.

Mr. Nolle concludes that VoIP could be a back door to making the Internet a real network and not a service on top of carrier IP infrastructure. That could remake our experiences online, and the vendors’ fortunes in the marketplace. So watch the progress of this initiative; it could have huge impacts.

rb-

ATT has already made its move to get rid of POTS lines in Michigan. ATT has bribed gotten politicians in Lansing to introduce Senate Bill 636. Michigan SB 636 would amend the Michigan Telecommunications Act (PDF) to let ATT and their fellow travelers eliminate POTS lines in Michigan.

Melissa Seifert, associate state director for government affairs for AARP Michigan says eliminating POTS lines in the Great Lakes State would impact many people. It would affect small-business owners who use fax machines and credit card verification systems, she said, as well as emergency services in parts of the state where cell phone access is unreliable. According to the Michigan Public Service Commission, roughly 3 million Michiganders subscribe to landline service. About 90 percent of households of folks ages 65 and older still use landlines for “lifelines.”

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Paul Allen Internet Tax Collector

patents trollMicrosoft co-founder Paul Allen has reloaded in his attempt to sue the world for patent infringement. Allen’s Interval Licensing filed an amended patent infringement suit against most of the leading online tech companies. The first try (which I wrote about here) was tossed out by the judge because it failed to point out exactly how each firm stole Allen’s ideas.

Microsoft co-founder Paul AllenInterval’s amended, 35-page filing (PDF) claims that Apple (AAPL), Google (GOOG), Facebook, and eight other online companies use Allen’s patents whenever they use a browser for navigating through information, managing a user’s peripheral attention while using a device, and alerting users to items of current interest. The filing claims that features as Apple’s Dashboard software, the notifications interface in Google’s Android operating system, and Netflix’s (NFLX) viewing suggestions are infringing on Interval patents. It asks for unspecified damages from those companies as well as an injunction on them shipping any products with allegedly infringing features.

It looks like Google’s Android operating system is directly targeted by the lawsuit including its notification system for texts, Google Voice messages, e-mails, and other alerts display information “to a user of a mobile device in an unobtrusive manner that occupies the peripheral attention of the user.” As before, the suit doesn’t target Microsoft (MSFT) or Amazon (AMZN) (which pays rent to Allen’s Vulcan Real Estate), even though both company’s products would seem to infringe on the same patents.

Rob Pegoraro at the Washington Post writes:

the Interval claims continue to be insultingly generic. For instance, an allegation that AOL and Gmail’s spam-filtering software infringes on an Interval patent because it is “based at least in part on a comparison between the new email and other emails that have been received.” (Sure: Like nobody ever thought to make such a statistical comparison until Interval came along.) Later, it contends that when Netflix “generates a display of related content items” after “a user views a particular content item,” that infringes on an Interval patent too. (Right, because the concept of a store or a catalog suggesting a related item to a shopper didn’t exist until Interval scientists had a brainstorming session.)

Mr. Pegoraro continues:

Interval’s patents are junk. They describe general concepts that should have been obvious to anybody of ordinary skill in this field in the mid 1990s–and for which it shouldn’t be difficult to find “prior art” showing that other people had thought of the same thing years before. Had the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office provided the “high quality” examination of patent applications it promises, it’s hard to see how these patents would have been granted in the first place.

Mr. Pegoraro also cites PaidContent.org’s Joe Mullin in a commentary (emphasis in the original):

If patent claims on such basic ideas are found to be valid, there are surely hundreds of other potential defendants that could be sued by Interval Licensing. Paul Allen would be essentially a tax collector for the internet.

The firms named in the suit are:

Do you believe the U.S. Patent Office is still useful?

Does Paul Allen deserve to collect a tax from every Internet user?

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Microsoft Founder Sues GOOG, FB and AAPL

Microsoft Founder Sues GOOG, FB and AAPL– Updated 12-13-10 – Physorg is reporting that a U.S. district judge tossed out the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Interval Licensing owned by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen. The judge ruled that the suit failed to specify devices or products violating patents at issue in the case. A spokesman for Allen dismissed the ruling as a procedural matter and said that an amended complaint will be filed addressing the judge’s concern.

– Updated – Google responded to the suit by stating in court documents  “Interval’s complaint is so devoid of any facts to support its infringement contentions that it is impossible for Google to reasonably prepare a defense.” According to VON | xchange Apple agreed and called on judges to “insist upon some specificity” before proceeding.

The UK’s Guardian is reporting that eleven major Internet companies including AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTube are being sued by Interval Licensing. The firm, lead by ex-Microsoft founder Paul Allen is suing for alleged infringement of patents that relate to e-commerce and search. A copy of the complaint is available here (PDF). Notably absent from the list are Microsoft and Amazon.com. Amazon, the Seattle e-commerce giant just moved into a new headquarters campus developed by Allen’s Vulcan Inc. Interval is seeking damages and the end of the infringement. Among the patents being contested are:

  • 6,263,507: “Browser for use in navigating a body of information, with particular  application to browsing information represented by audio data.”
  • 6,034,652 & 6,788,314 (really the same patent, involving continuations): “Attention manager for occupying the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device.”
  • 6,757,682: “Alerting users to items of current interest”
  • TechFlash has a deeper analysis of these patents.

Microsoft founder Paul AllenGoogle and Facebook told the Guardian they will fight the accusations by Interval. “This lawsuit against some of America’s most innovative companies reflects an unfortunate trend of people trying to compete in the courtroom instead of the marketplace,” a Google spokesperson said in an emailed statement to the Guardian. “Innovation – not litigation – is the way to bring to market the kinds of products and services that benefit  millions of people around the world.” Facebook spokesperson Andrew Noyes  said: “We believe this suit is completely without merit and we will fight it vigorously.”

The Guardian reports that these claims have led to accusations by some observers that Allen, who is worth a reported $13.5bn is acting as a “patent troll” – suing active companies via patents obtained by now-defunct or inactive companies which are not actively developing technology.  However, David Postman, an Interval official, defended the lawsuit as necessary to protect its investment in innovation.”We are not asserting patents that other companies have filed, nor are we buying patents originally assigned to someone else,” he told the Guardian. “These are patents developed by and for Interval.” Allen is not a named inventor on any of the patents according to Bloomberg.

Allen co-founded Interval Research in 1992 to develop communications and computer technology. The firm was reportedly designed to be a pure research institute “done right” which would replicate Xerox PARC, but that it would actually commercialize the amazing ideas. At its largest, it employed more than 110 scientists and engineers, and filed patents covering internet search and display innovations, according to the lawsuit. Interval Research officially closed in April 2000 when its 300+ patents were taken over by Interval Licensing.

Apparently, Allen has support from another tech founder. TechDirt reports that Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak comes out in favor of “patent trolls” and patent holders suing companies who actually innovate. Woz told Bloomberg TV that patents somehow help out the small guy (Paul Allen, the 37th-richest person in the world?):

I think this lawsuit represents the idea that hey, patents, individual inventors, they don’t have the funds to go up against big companies. So he’s sorta representing some original investors. And I’m not at all against the idea of patent trolls.

The Bloomberg interviewer points out that Paul Allen is not the inventor and there’s no sign that the inventors on these patents would actually get any of the money should Allen succeed. Woz says that Allen “represents inventors.” According to TechDirt Woz seems uninformed about the patent world today. For example, the interviewer notes that dealing with patents has become a “cost of doing business” and Woz seems to think that’s a good thing:

Every tech company is very aware that patents are really the heart of our innovation and invention system and (a) that you have to have your own patent position and you gotta be aware that there might be others. And, yes, you might be infringing. It’s very awkward, because some patents are so general. It’s hard to say how they’ll be interpreted. There’s a lot of ambiguity in the system.

Apple co-founder Steve WozniakTechDirt notes the irony that in Woz’s autobiography iWoz, he talked about how much of a success Apple was without relying on patents at the beginning.

Patents on software and business processes have become a lightning rod issue for web companies. They claim that patents act as a financial drag on innovation and that the US Patent Office (USPTO) is especially poor at examining patent claims for “prior art” which would disqualify them, or that it awards patents on needlessly wide claims which mean that it is almost impossible for companies to use accepted web technologies without accidentally infringing on them.

One of the most notable was Amazon’s 1997 patent for its “1-Click” shopping system, which was, accepted and then rejected and finally passed by the USPTO in March 2010. Amazon has licensed the technology to Apple, among others. Other infamous software patent abuses include:

  • British Telecom attempted to claim a patent on the hyperlink; its claim collapsed in 2002 on the basis that the patent referred to a “central computer” – which the internet does not have.
  • SCO sued IBM, Red Hat, Novell. AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler for claimed patents rights that would cover significant parts of the free Linux operating system.

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.