Tech Policy

How would you like an Internet where you try to go to Google, but you end up at Yahoo instead? Or an Internet that provides you multiple legal sources for video-on-demand, but you have to use the expensive one offered by your local cable company because all of the others have choppy playback? It sounds absurd, but we may be on our way there.

Traditionally, Internet providers have opted for "common carrier" status, where they just provide the plumbing and aren't responsible for what goes through the pipes. This is good, this has allowed the Internet to remain an open platform, where new technologies and services can develop.

The two biggest broadband Internet providers in Austin have had major, stupidity-induced service outages this week.

First, SBC changed their DNS servers (for user client queries) without telling anybody. They probably figured they didn't need to, because their clients would pick up the change automatically when the next DHCP update occurs.

If you believed the detective stories, you'd think your phone records are super-secret, and only the cleverest gumshoe could con (or charm) their way into getting that information.

The reality is that your phone records may be readily for sale. That information is called Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI), and the FCC allows your phone company to sell it.

The phone companies probably will say it's alright, because customers have the right to opt-out of CPNI disclosure. Fat chance. Until recently I never knew what CPNI was, let alone that I could opt-out.

The good news is that not all phone providers will disclose your CPNI. Sprint PCS, for instance, will not disclose CPNI outside the company and requires that contractors assure the security of CPNI. I commend them for not exploiting this information.

Want to know more? First thing is to review the privacy policy of your phone provider. For more information, visit the CPNI Page at EPIC. To take action, see this listing of opt-out resources.

News reports yesterday indicate that Birch Telecom is performing massive layoffs. Birch will terminate a third of their workforce. The company will close their Texas sales offices in Austin and San Antonio.

Here is an odd juxtaposition of events: on the very same day, the Texas Senate passed the telecommunications deregulation bill.

The troubles at Birch are indicative of the failing state of competition in the telecommunications sector. So, the question is, how does this legislation, ballyhooed as a solution to drive telecom competition, help competitive providers such as Birch?

Answer: it doesn't do a blasted thing for them.

See, when the legislature talks about "competition", they do it in that Humpty Dumpty way where a word doesn't mean what we think it does. When you and I talk about competition, we mean things like bringing more competitors into the market.

The "competition" provided for in this legislation means giving the incumbent providers access to new markets. It doesn't mean structuring those markets so that new competitors can join. In other words, the goal of this bill is to allow Bell to leverage its monopoly in traditional telecom to gain entry in the video market.

The unfortunate events at Birch show that telecom markets are becoming less competitive, and the legislation being pushed through in Texas is only going to accelerate that process.

I am disturbed that the Department of Homeland Security has taken on a new role as our country's corporate police force. More info at here.

I recently wrote about how Rep. King tried to attach his bad telecom bills as amendments to SB 408, the otherwise innocuous PUC sunset bill, thus creating a dangerous telecom frankenbill. The problem is that when you start monkeying with a bill in this way you risk that it can be killed with a parliamentary maneuver called a "point of order." That's exactly what happened today.

Soon after the changes were passed out of committee, Rep. King started backpedaling. Presumably not because he was swayed by good policy arguments, but because of this risk. The muni network ban was removed. The local cable franchise killer remained, albeit changed to try to make it more germane to the bill topic, and thus reduce the risk of a point of order.

Turns out that was not sufficient. A point of order was raised, claiming that the bill did not match the analysis. The chair sustained the point of order so now the bill is dead.

Points of order often are driven more by politics than technicalities. There was widespread displeasure at what Rep. King did. Sen. Shapiro, the original bill sponsor, was reportedly livid over the changes. These circumstances created ripe conditions for the chair to sustain the point of order, thus killing the bill.

(Note: The muni network ban lives on in HB 789.)

May 19 update: This article points out that the bill is not technically dead, but rather goes back to committee to be fixed. This late in the session, that's nearly as good as dead.

May 19 second update: Aw crap. The bill is alive. I'm hearing that King stripped two of three provisions he added, leaving in the provision that kills local video franchises, and rushed it back to the House to be scheduled for a vote.

We are in the final month of the Texas legislative session. Midnight this morning was a key date in the legislative calendar. Any House bills that have not had their second reading (this means reported out of committee and brought up for a vote on the House floor) are now dead.

I believe that HB 3179, the bad telecom bill I discussed yesterday (and the subject of all the dueling cable/telco ads we're seeing on Austin TV) may be one of them. If so, that's good news. I'm trying to get confirmation before getting too excited about it.

The bad news is that the bill (along with HB 789 and its muni network ban) lives on as a backdoor amendment to SB 408, which is still alive, albeit bottled up in the Calendars committee.

I hope they won't be in a big rush to get that one to the floor for vote. It deserves the same fate.

Today, the Texas House approved a telecom bill that puts troublesome limits on community Internet. It could, however, have much worse.

Several representatives stood up and championed a bold vision for broadband in Texas. One of those champions was Austin Representative Todd Baxter. Baxter stood up for what's right for Austin-area businesses and citizens. He should be commended for his efforts.

Mar 23 update: Todd Baxter came through!

This week, the Texas legislature will hold committee hearings for the anti-wireless bill. The committee members will determine whether the provisions to outlaw municipal networks will be stricken or preserved.

Representative Todd Baxter from Austin sits on that comittee. It's been reported that Rep. Baxter has not been supportive of the efforts to remove this restriction. We need to get him the information to understand why the anti-wireless provisions are bad for Austin and bad for business.

Here in Austin, the push for public access is spearheaded by private organizations such as Austin Wireless City and Austin Free-Net. The City has not been building significant infrastructure or spending many tax dollars on wireless, just errecting the odd access point here and there. Nonetheless, the city has been deeply involved in the effort to provide public access, and HB 789 will cause significant harm.

The City has been a strong partner with these organizations all along the way. A large part of the credibility and success of Austin Wireless City comes from its partnership with the City. This partnership doesn't harm the incumbent communication providers—the force behind HB 789. This partnership brings them more business.

The anti-wireless provisions of HB 789 jeopardize that partnership, and may even jeopardize the free public wi-fi that has become an integral part of the Austin landscape.

If Todd Baxter is your state representative, it is critical that you let him know that you support public wireless, and ask him to strike the anti-wireless provisions from HB 789.

Please see the Save Muni Wireless action alert for more information.

I previously discussed how the incumbent communication providers are trying to kill municipal networks in Texas. In the past few days, a coalition of concerned groups and individuals has been charting a course to fight back. You can read about it over at the Save Muni Wireless web site. For the immediate future, that's probably where I'll be doing most of my blogging.