Communications Insights: Trends and Cool Stuff

In my last Cool Stuff post, I wrote about FFTH (or fiber from the house).  In the past week, I have had the chance to refine my idea, and I even had a chance to read the very good paper by Slater and Wu, Homes with Tails.  The more I think about the subject, the more I come to the conclusion that main issue is syndication of the risk of stranded investment.  The strategies which deal directly with spreading this risk have the greatest chance of succeeding.

Just to review FFTH, is where the homeowner buys his own Internet connection.  Under the simple scenario, Joe the Fiber Layer comes to Joe the Homeowner and offers to build him his own fiber optic Internet connection.  The cost of this construction is highly sensitive to the number of homes which take the offer in a given area.  Using Slater and Wu’s numbers regarding the Verzion FiOS roll out, the capital cost for a fiber to the home connection is about $7,000 if 20% of homes passed take the service and on the order of $3,000 to $4,000 at a 40% take-up rate.

Insight:  There is a marketing strategy which plays perfectly to this problem.  Suppose Joe the Fiber Layer comes to Joe the homeowner and makes the following offer, “I will build you your own fiber Internet connection for $5,500.  However, if 5 other homes on your line buy FFTH, I will send you a check for $500; if 10 more take it, I will send you a check for $800; 20, $1,500; etc.” I can imagine that in everywhere in America there would be neighbors leaning across the hedges saying, “Dude, we just got our FFTH connection.  It is AAAAAWSOME! You totally have to get one of these!”  Word-of-mouth is the best marketing, but peer pressure is better.

A while back, I was asked by a client how to stimulate the deployment of a fiber to the home infrastructure given the enormous risk of stranded investment and given a potentially capital-constrained incumbent. I suggested FFTH - fiber from the home. I was not being facetious, at least not totally.

When I gave my answer, I was thinking about the Netherlands. One of the major investors in fiber to the home projects in the Netherlands is a real estate developer. The reasoning is simple. Houses with access to broadband Internet services sell for a premium over comparable house without. (Lehr, Osorio, Gillett and Sirbu did an excellent TPRC paper measuring the magnitude of that premium, which I cannot find). In addition to making money as a fiber access provider, the real estate developer could capture the benefit of increased property values created by the availability of broadband Internet access.

I mentioned my FFTH idea to David Isenberg at the recent CITI 25th Anniversary Gala, and to his credit, David mentioned me in his blog posting (thanks, David). In addition, Sascha Meinrath and Michael Calabrese at the New America Foundation have organized an event for this Friday to examine the idea of FFTH. Calling it “Home with Tails”, Tim Wu and Derek Slater examine in a forthcoming paper whether this is a “customer centric” means for driving broadband adoption. Further, FFTH might possess other benefits. Eli Noam has suggested that private ownership of the access potion of the broadband network would help to solve the network neutrality problem.

Insight: When I suggested FFTH, I was not thinking about Network Neutrality and other consumer issues. I was merely thinking about distributing the risk of potentially stranded investment. However, since the idea of FFTH seems to have some merit I wanted to put a finer point on it, examine some of the potential downsides, and the policies which might be necessary to make FFTH possible.

Think about this. Instead of getting a cable modem or FiOS from Comcast or Verizon, Joe the Fiber Layer knocks on your door and offers to build you a fiber loop to the nearest Internet access node. And for less than it would cost to have Joe the Plumber remodel a bathroom (somewhere between $2,000 and $7,000), you would have your own fiber connection which greatly increase the value of the whole house at resale time.

The first thing necessary for the policies which to enable a FFTH business model is full and open interconnection to the nearest feasible Internet access point. This might be a remote terminal, street cabinet, or cable node. Creating effective access at this level is not necessarily an easy task. This may be small engineering spaces with powering and other serious engineering concerns. Thus, it might be able to accommodate every Joe or Jane the Fiber Layer who wants to put their customers’ equipment in those access points. Further, it would be simply impossible for each homeowner to have someone dig up the streets or hang fiber everywhere.

Here in Germany, we have some experience with policies for privately owned access networks. Back about 20 years ago, or so, a political decision was made to separate cable delivery from in-building plant. An artificial classification of access Level 3 and Level 4 was created. Level 4 network providers owned the cable wires inside individual buildings and there are some 700 of these companies still in existence. Level 3 providers were restricted for offering in-building wiring. This arrangement has lead to certain economic inefficiencies and may have some effect in hampering cable deployment in Germany. Thus, any policy designed to enable FFTH should not create artificial classifications and unreasonably prohibit network from providing services further up or down in the network. And who knows, you might someday find a major incumbent seeking unbundled access to your private fiber loop.

I receive any number of email newsletters, touting the next futuristic thing. This one caught my attention: The Transition. Its designers tout the Transition as not being not a flying car. Rather it is a “roadable aircraft.” With a pair of 10-foot-wide foldable wings, it is a single-engine, pusher-prop airplane which can drive on the road when it lands. As such, The Transition must meet Federal Aviation Administration standards when it is an airplane and National Highway Transportation Safety Administration and Environmental Protection Agency regulations when on the road.

What makes the Transition so interesting to me is not the flying car concept. This idea has been around for decades. What is so interesting is its regulatory origins. According to Popular Science, the Transition’s inventor, Carl Dietrich, got the idea from a 2004 Federal Aviation Administration rule change. The FAA created a new class of planes, called light-sport aircraft. To fly one, pilots would need only 20 hours of training, half that required for the most common license (haven’t gotten mine, yet).

I have made the point in a previous Cool Stuff, that there is some optimal level of regulation, which while guarding against the “morals of the marketplace”, would still enable new firms to enter. These new firms bring with them, new forms of welfare-enhancing competition and new business models not contemplated by the regulator at the time when it promulgates its rule changes.

Insight: I simply must have one. I think I will clean out my garage so I have space for it to park next to my sQuba.

For more than nine decades, lawyers, engineers, and economists have argued that radio spectrum regulation is needed due to the fact that without some form of intervention, it is impossible to exclude or limit the use of a common resource such as spectrum.  Without exclusion, users consume the spectrum without regard to their usage’s impact on the benefits obtained by other would-be users.  They, therefore, tend to overuse the spectrum, causing interference to other users.  This reduction in social welfare due to overuse is referred to as the Tragedy of the Commons.However, we can now observe from the debate surrounding the TV White Spaces that the ability to exclude certain users is not sufficient to remedy the Tragedy of the Commons. A relatively small number of over-the-air TV households are able to use these spectrum bands without regard to the costs their use imposes on the rest of Americans.  Indeed, according to the most recent FCC statistics, in 2005 only about 14% (See Appendix B, Table B-1) of US TV households receive their TV over-the-air. The remaining 86% get no direct benefit from this spectrum.

The National Association of Broadcasters is now opposing tests the FCC is currently conducting which will measure the impact of unlicensed use of the White Spaces on digital TV reception. In order to protect digital TV receivers, potential White Space users must be excluded, and the NAB is throwing its weight around to ensure that outcome.  According to a quote from NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton, “We’re not going to be engaging in threats or anything, but about 70 members of Congress have already sent letters in expressing concern.” Well, as I wrote in a previous entry on Cool Stuff, at least one of those 70 letters is total bunk. Nonetheless, the cost to all of society of affording interference protection to this minority must also be considered.

Insight: If the NAB’s argument is accepted without scrutiny, the 14% of TV households will prevent the other 86% of US TV households (plus the TV-less households) from using those radio frequencies for broadband Internet, baby monitors, new forms of low-power broadcast, and other RCS (really cool stuff).  This lost benefit will not be compensated.  The exclusion of certain competing uses is necessary but not sufficient to ensure that society reaps the maximum benefit from the radio spectrum.  A means through which spectrum users can bear the costs they impose on others by excluding them is also necessary.

My article Unlicensed to Kill: a Brief History of the FCC Part 15 Rules has just gone to press and will be published in the journal Info.  I originally gave the paper at The Genesis of Unlicensed Wireless Policy conference organized by Tom Hazlett at George Mason University Law School.  (Yes, dear reader, Tom Hazlett hosted a conference on unlicensed.  The Seventh Seal is broken and the End of Days is truly upon us.)

The conference looked at the origin and evolution of the FCC’s Part 15 rules.  There were several interesting takeaways.  Most of these are lessons which we already know, but all too often take for granted.  Keynote speaker Michael Marcus reminded the audience that people frequently act in their short term interest, in a way in which they foreclose long-term opportunities for themselves.  Dr. Marcus described the regulatory battles of the 1980s during the FCC’s rulemakings where cordless manufacturers fought fiercely, opposing certain rule changes.  These rules now enable most of the cordless phones these manufacturers now sell.  The closing keynote, Dewayne Hendrix pointed out how spectrum policy the cognitive dissidence spectrum policy faces in affording interference rights.  We allow licensees to “whine” about interference when they use decades old technologies which do not have the ability to reject unwanted signals which more modern gear does.

Insight: In the US, there is no such thing as unlicensed spectrum.  Rather, and this is an important distinction, the FCC allows low power operation on a sufferance basis, proved the devices cause no harmful interference and accept all received by them.  Operators have a right, but not a vested right to continued operation.  The FCC has historically viewed the radio energy emission from these devices as not rising to a level sufficient to call “spectrum”.  This has left me wondering if there is no such thing as spectrum at all.  Spectrum is a legal and engineering construct to control for an immutable fundamental physical property.  When multiple electromagnetic waves, used as carrier waves to transmit information are incident in time, harmonic in frequency, and alight on the same reception antenna, they degrade one another’s ability to transmit information.  Next generation radio policy will focus more on solving the coordination/congestion problem, and not on “spectrum” per se.  (I also gave a really cool PowerPoint.  (Click to start, click to advance each slide after the animation stops).

I have been listening to a bunch of excellent presentations for the first two days of Supernova2008. Rather than rehashing what each speaker has said, I have been trying to formulate a theme. Not an easy task. I have noticed a few reoccurring themes: social activity, intellectual property, management of information, and marketing; all good network-related themes. I spent most of the second day at the Open Flow Track. Much of what was discussed was is integrating systems: Connecting the connections. That is to say that the internet has provided connectivity and access to persons and applications. The essence of Web 3.0 is making sure that your Flickr works with your Dopplr, with your, dare I say, Napstr.

Insight: The rich and lively discussion in the Open Flow Track seemed to focus more on engineering and business practice questions in terms of getting APIs to work together and making sure that privacy, security, and trust are respected according to applicable law and good business practices. I still found myself searching for more a fundamental concept. A more fundamental question which was present but perhaps not fully articulated was how to describe this continuum of “openness” vs. “closedness” (not a real word). So, here I get to like to wax poetic for a second. Eric Raymond, a pioneer of Linux and the open source movement, gives us a particularly literary book title and syllogism, “The Cathedral and the Bazaar”. Raymond sees the cathedral as representing a system of architecture which is, “carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation - no beta version.” It is a centralized, coordinated approach. Open source architecture he likens to “a babbling bazaar of different agendas and approaches.” It is decentralized with varying standards and rules, but is not anarchy. Both approaches seem to work in creating stable systems, though they may be suit to different types of applications.

It was widely agreed that there should be a general preference for openness. I agree, but to my mind that there is a choice between openness and closedness. This choice implies a tradeoff. And, if there is a tradeoff, there is by necessity some optimization. What the optimum is will depend largely on your point of view and social optimum does not necessarily equate one-to-one with a private optimum. At the very least we can have a rational discussion as to what the relative merits of the tradeoff are and where the different optima may lie. In sum, do we want a world that looks more like the Cathedra or the Bazaar, or is there an entirely new form of architecture that we should consider?

Anyone who knows me for 2.5 seconds knows: 1) that I cannot leave well enough alone and 2) that I cannot stand Microsoft operating systems.  So, I am curious to see what happens when you run network neutrality full speed into 18th Century copyright law.

Network neutrality is a broad, sweeping concept intended to maintain the open and interconnected characteristics of the Internet.  One of the central principles of network neutrality is the freedom to attach any “legal” device which does not harm the network and run any application over it.  I am not quite sure what an illegal network device is, perhaps a digital Kalashnikov (though if the Supreme Court reinterprets the Second Amendment, even that might not apply).

Enter the Hackintosh.  A Hackintosh is a PC which, with a few a modifications, can run the Mac OS X (called OSx86 for the IBM/Intel 8086, 386, 486, 586, etc., architecture). This is apparently not hard to do since Apple started using Intel chipsets. Moreover, the modifications are made to the bios and harddrive of the underlying computer, and not to the Mac OS. However, it is Apple’s contention that it is violation of its copyrights to run OS X on anything but one of their machines.

So, if a computer is attached to the Internet, would Apple’s prohibition violate the principle of network neutrality?  Well, it turns on whether the Hackintosh is a legal device. I am not an expert in intellectual property law anymore, but to my mind it would be illegal tying and bundling to require that OS X could only be run on Apple machines. Can you imagine if Sony sold me a record (vinyl or shellac) and in the liner notes stated that I do not have permission to play it on a Victrola, only a Sony turntable?

Next, let’s consider the DMCA.  The Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it a crime to circumvent technical prevention measures (TPM) in order to illegally copy copyrighted electronic materials. Running OS X on a machine other than a Mac does not necessitate an illegal duplication.  Under the first sale doctrine, one can buy a valid copy of OS X Tiger on eBay for about $75.FN Apple cannot say that it is an illegal copy to put the OS on a computer - that’s purpose the software was sold for.  Further, they cannot restrict the device with which you read the OS, back to the Victorla… could GE prevent you from reading a book published by NBC Universal under a Sylvania light bulb?

So, let assume that Apple does not sell their operating system (but they do), rather they license a complete device, called a Macintosh. Presumably, then the operating system is part of a useful article, and not a writing. It would therefore not be copyrightable. So, Apple would not have any valid copyrights to be violated by duplication and modification of the OS.  Further, since duplicating it is not illegal, the DMCA does not apply. Loading OS X on a machine other than an Apple might be breach of contract, but not a copyright violation.

Insight: I am not sure that Hackintosh is a legal device, but it probably is not an illegal device. I am curious to hear the opinions of the network neutrality and copyright experts. So, in this high speed collision between the broad, sweeping principles of network neutrality or arcane copyright law which survives?

Google’s Larry Page spoke at a recent New American Foundation event, calling for “Wi-Fi on steroids” for the TV White Spaces.  Every time I hear this, I cannot help but think, “Oh great, a radio that is hyper-aggressive, muscle-bound, and impotent.  Why would I want such a technology?!” All joking aside, I approve the sentiment, but a little more careful analysis is need.There is here a unique window of opportunity to allow new uses of the TV spectrum which is currently inefficiently used.  For the past 9 decades, the FCC has regulated high power uses of the radio spectrum, such as broadcasting.  The FCC has also for the past 7 decades permitted low power uses, with increasing success.  The TV White Space presents the opportunity to permit medium power uses of the spectrum - something between Wi-Fi and TV.  However, neither the high-power of low-power paradigms seems to fit.  Licensed approaches typically allocate use to a single entity which makes decisions about use.  As a result, much remains unused at any given time.  The rules created are hard to change and do not afford much flexibility in terms of decisions regarding use by the licensee.  In contrast, unlicensed approaches strictly limit the radio energy which a device can radiate into the ether.  By controlling the emissions, the rules limit the possibility of harmful interference.  These rules create a much more flexible set of permission, but due to the stringent power limitations ranges of the radio devices can be extremely short.  What is needed is a new form of coordinating spectrum uses for medium power applications, which holds the benefits of both approaches while minimizing the potential downsides.

Insight:  Fortunately, some of the FCC’s best and brightest have been working this issue.  In a previous Cool Stuff, I wrote about my FCC Working Paper, which lays out ideas for the implementation of economic congestion etiquettes which would allocate spectrum use in real time to its highest monetary value uses.  This approach could significantly improve the value society receives from the use of the radio spectrum, without the need for dangerous pharmaceuticals.

Yes!  I have been waiting since 10th grade for the opportunity to use that joke.  Thank you, Raul.

Last week it was announced that Raul Castro is not only allowing Cubans to have cell phones, but computers and Internet connections as well.  This is so great for them!  Now they can suffer through that annoying guy’s ring tone or the MS Blue Screen of Death (Still comes bundled with XP).  What does this mean for us, now that we can have instant online access to communist chat buddies 90 miles to the south?

Insight:  This is an excellent learning opportunity.  How do we know when a policy has failed and it is time to change direction (ours, I mean)?  The US embargo against Cuba has raged (what, you don’t think it raged?!) since 7 February 1962.  In those just over 46 years what precisely has it accomplished?  Is another 46 years necessary?  Is Castro is going to fall any second?  Oh wait, what?!  He stepped down?!  If we want others to enjoy the fruits of liberty, the best way to share them is through the gains of trade.  Through fair and open commerce ideas are exchanged, and usually the best ones rise to the top.  Anyway, back to learn about how to evaluate when a policy is total washout.  What is it that makes us persist in the face of reality?  Why is it politically untenable to say we tried a policy and it did not work, so we are learning and improving?  Or better yet, the laws of the previous generation (or two generations ago) are no longer effective it is time to move on.

The other day while I was waiting for a haircut, I picked up a German auto magazine. Since I cannot read German, I figured I would get more out of it than any other magazine. At the very least I could make some sense of the classifieds. Well, I found this, the sQuba. It is a concept car from a Swiss company called Rinspeed. The car is a Lotus Elan converted with an electric motor and all the necessary gear to make it a submersible, à la James Bond in The Spy Who Loved Me.

Insight: Alright, this has nothing to do with communications; however, since I was in the third grade I always assumed that I would build one of these in my garage. This is possibly the coolest thing ever. I simply must have one.