The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) released a new report last week, “A Policymaker’s Guide to Network Management”, authored by Senior Analyst George Ou.  The report is another in a series of reports the ITIF has done on broadband and Internet technology issues in an attempt to sort through the arguments and put on the table well supported facts to help make the debates on various issues more informed.  I have to commend Rob Atkinson who heads the ITIF for his efforts in this regard because I do feel this organization’s efforts have helped lead to less rhetoric and more dispassionate examination of the issues.

In this report, George, who is an engineer and understands the technical complexities, explains how the Internet works from an operational standpoint.  He explains why network management is necessary, even in some cases where networks have lots of capacity.  He also illustrates how various applications and protocols work and how they affect network congestion.  George concludes that ISPs must be able to manage their networks and in some cases prioritization is an important tool.  That said, he also made it clear they should do this in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.

ITIF released this new report at a seminar and discussion that included George, David Sohn of the Center for Democracy and Technology and John Nakahata, who was a key staffer at the FCC a few years ago.   While both had criticisms of the report, I think the most notable comment was from John when he acknowledged that George had made a good case about the importance of network management.

One of the points George and Rob made is that transparency is critical in how networks are managed.  Companies must be open about what their network management practices are, how they implement them, what their purpose is and how they might affect consumers and other industry players.   A questioner from the audience asked whether ITIF believes legislation is needed in this regard and Rob said no, that transparency principles and agency enforcement should be enough.  But he also said that industry needs to step up to this challenge soon.   It was clear he did not believe that there should be too much delay before companies came together around appropriate principles.

Tom Tauke first talked about transparency principles earlier this year at the FCC en banc in February. I offered a blog post that outlined what we thought the principles should look like a few weeks later.   In a nutshell, here is the basic framework as I see it:

• Clear descriptions of the typical performance or range of performance that a broadband service is likely to provide upstream and downstream at peak and off-peak hours of usage;  
• Information about network management practices used to protect the integrity, functionality and usability of the consumer’s broadband service and the provider’s network;
• Clear descriptions of rates, terms, and conditions of all broadband service offerings including specific information on available service plans and any restrictions that may apply;
• Information from applications and content sites about how their offerings can affect the way a broadband connection operates and impact the neighbors sharing a connection; and
• Access to and information about simple diagnostic tools consumers can use to independently assess the performance of their broadband connection. 

Verizon has taken no formal position in terms of what the framework should look like. But I think this is a start.  Rob is right – industry needs to come together on this issue soon.   Even though our FiOS fiber to the home network has lots of capacity, George makes a compelling case that network management remains important no matter how much capacity you have.   I don’t think government rules make any sense in this space given how fast the demand for broadband and the types of applications that ride on broadband networks change.   That makes it all the more important that industry step up to the challenge.

The  U.S. Addendum to the “SMART 2020: Enabling the low carbon economy in the information age” shows that with the right policies in place ICT is uniquely positioned to help other sectors of the economy cut CO2 emissions by as much 22 percent in 12 years -- 2020. Given recent prices, that would translate into gross fuel and energy savings of up to $240 billion, or a reduction of up to 36 percent in imported oil. In short, the report finds that the U.S. could become “a high-tech, high-growth and low-carbon beacon.”

Representatives from the business and policy arenas, including myself, gathered in Washington, D.C., recently at the SMART 2020: How IT Can Save the Economy – and the Planet event hosted by the two organizations responsible for the report -- the Climate Group and the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI). Verizon was among 11 organizations that helped fund the study.

The SMART 2020 report identifies additional ways in which investments in broadband and other information technologies can boost our economy, create ‘green’ jobs and help transition our country to a sustainable energy system. The report describes the benefits of smart grids, smart roads and buildings, and travel substitution – bringing the work to the employee.

I’ve long believed Broadband to be a form of ‘super capital’ that increases productivity and increases efficiency.  Consider the fact that the ICT sector accounted for 20% of GDP and for more than half of all net new jobs between April ’07 and April ’08.   Communications companies invested $70 billion in America’s network infrastructure in 2007 – an amazing amount. The level of investment reflects the competitive “arms race” between cable, telco and wireless companies, all of which are racing to add more capacity and speed in order to retain and win customers.  

Again, discussions like those taking place in Poznan are essential, but we should not delay in taking steps like those called for in the US Addendum, such as its call for government to provide leadership by supporting public-private collaborations and to lead by example in promoting behavioral change.

I may be a perennial optimist but I just don’t see it that way. I pointed out in the debate that America’s broadband providers – cable, telco, wireless – are collectively investing almost $70 billion a year to build out and maintain data and communications networks.  This compares to the approximately $50 billion spent annually on our interstate highways and bridges.  As I’ve argued previously, we are seeing the deployment of fiber to the home in the U. S. on a much faster scale than is the case in Europe and we are also seeing cable providers ramping up their coaxial systems to higher speeds to meet our fiber technology.   We have challenges in rural areas in particular with the lack of broadband availability but we have models to get deployment going in less populated areas that are proven. Congress approved legislation earlier this year – S. 1492 – that can help ensure that we completely map the entire country to determine where broadband is lacking.  Then we can more effectively develop strategies to deal with the six percent or so of American homes that do not have broadband access.

My deeper concern with many of these debates is that they focus only on broadband deployment.  They oversimplify the issues involved both in deployment and in the uptake of broadband.

With regard to uptake, there is good news in many respects.  One example is usage patterns with regard to broadband.  Some segments of society – such as African Americans – appear to be less connected to the Internet and high speed services than other groups if measured purely based on household broadband connections.  Yet, work done by the Pew Center shows that while African Americans have nearly the same high levels of ownership of cell phones and PDAs as whites, they are far more actively using data services on a regular basis.  So is one reason African Americans are not using home broadband connections as much as other groups in society due to their higher use of mobile data services?  It could be.

Another example relates to the devices connected to broadband networks, primarily computers.   Research done by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation has found that some countries – such as Sweden – have far higher levels of PC ownership than is true in the U. S.   The Swedes to offer some incentives and subsidies to encourage PC ownership but it is obvious that if there are more PCs in the homes, there is likely to be higher levels of broadband connectivity.

The debate at New America did not just involve broadband but rather the deployment and use of fiber to the home connections.  Networks like the one Verizon is building can deliver tens of megabits to the home and we are even testing a 100 megabit connection now.  New generations of fiber technologies and protocols called GPON are going to take that number even higher, to 400 megabits and more.

A broadband connection like these that can handle multiple HD video downloads or two-way high capacity “Telepresence” video conference calls requires computers and digital screens that are up to date, with lots of short term memory or RAM to quickly process digital information streaming into the home.  They should have the latest (or close to it) codecs or software to interpret digital video data, operating software designed to handle high quality video, and computer “brains” or CPUs that have good clock speeds and related firmware and instructional code.

Yet, some evidence suggests that we have very uneven distribution of the latest, most up to date computers in the U. S.  This data from PCPitstop is based on continuing surveys done by the company over time.   Note, many states rank in the lower echelons regarding RAM speeds.  Many states seem to have a large number of older CPUs in the PCs of their citizens as well.  And several percent of PCs are still running versions of Windows older than XP.

Clearly in some states, PCs are generally much slower and more memory deficient than in others.  This may well make people less likely to want higher capacity broadband connections.   Do we have a “PC deficit” too?  I’m not arguing that because I do think over time market demand will change these dynamics.  But I am pointing out that we tend to simplify these issues by making it seem that most of the challenges we face relate to broadband capacity and deployment.  In fact, there are other issues too including some of those I am pointing to in this post. 

What got me thinking about all of this is that the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation just released a major survey of the states looking at how state economies are positioned for the New Information Economy.   As the study notes, being well-positioned means that state economies need to be firmly grounded in the New Economy. The study suggests that these New Economy factors have become a fundamental capacity that states need to have to find success and navigate the shoals of economic change. The report uses twenty-nine indicators to assess that capacity and, in particular, to measure the differences in the extent to which state economies are structured and operate according to the tenets of the New Economy. In other words, it examines the degree to which state economies are knowledge-based, globalized, entrepreneurial, IT-driven, and innovation-based. With these indicators as a frame of reference, the report then outlines a state-level public policy framework aimed at helping states master forthcoming challenges and take advantage of opportunities. 

One of the key measures is bandwidth availability and capacity and on that score, all of the top five states are in Verizon’s markets.  We are deploying our FiOS fiber to the home network in all of these states.  The report indicates that a part of the high ratings of these states is due to the broadband capability available in those markets.  Given the findings of the research in the PCPitstop surveys, I am wondering whether in states like these where FiOS and competition with cable is resulting in higher speeds and higher levels of uptake more capable PCs are an important part of the equation too. In other words, the devices hooked to the ends of a broadband connection and their capabilities have an impact too on the growth and use of ICT technologies. I wonder, for example, in a state with very slow (based on RAM speeds) average PCs whether two-way applications would take off without PC upgrades. 

I don’t have all the answers here.   My bigger point is that there is lots more work to do to find answers to some of the challenges we face in promoting not only more deployment but more uptake of broadband as well.  We are making progress in my view and we will get there.  But the answers are not all about deployment.  Demand side issues, including PC ownership and the widespread implementation of useful technologies to help address key social challenges such as health IT applications and home medical monitoring, are an important part of the equation.

PERSONAL CELL PHONE ACCOUNT OF PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA ACCESSED BY UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYEES

BASKING RIDGE, N.J. – Verizon Wireless President and CEO Lowell McAdam made the following statement today:

 “This week we learned that a number of Verizon Wireless employees have, without authorization, accessed and viewed President-Elect Barack Obama’s personal cell phone account.  The account has been inactive for several months.  The device on the account was a simple voice flip-phone, not a BlackBerry or other smartphone designed for e-mail or other data services.

 “All employees who have accessed the account – whether authorized or not – have been put on immediate leave, with pay.  As the circumstances of each individual employee’s access to the account are determined, the company will take appropriate actions.  Employees with legitimate business needs for access will be returned to their positions, while employees who have accessed the account improperly and without legitimate business justification will face appropriate disciplinary action.

 We apologize to President-Elect Obama and will work to keep the trust our customers place in us every day.”

###

About Verizon Wireless

Verizon Wireless operates the nation’s most reliable wireless voice and data network, serving 70.8 million customers. Headquartered in Basking Ridge, N.J., with 71,000 employees nationwide, Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon Communications (NYSE: VZ) and Vodafone (NYSE and LSE: VOD).  For more information, visit www.verizonwireless.com . To preview and request broadcast-quality video footage and high-resolution stills of Verizon Wireless operations, log on to the Verizon Wireless Multimedia Library at www.verizonwireless.com/multimedia .

A lot of things have changed since then, but one that hasn’t is our commitment to making information about Verizon as convenient to get as possible.  Whether it’s more FiOS TV channels, the latest, coolest wireless gear or expanded enterprise services, we’re making news throughout the week.

To help make it easier for journalists and bloggers to find our news, we’ve recently revamped our online News Center to incorporate more graphics, multimedia and other useful tools.  It’s something that our customers and other members of the public can use too.

The site features breaking news and searchable archives of news releases going back to our predecessor companies.  Anyone can register to receive out latest news releases by e-mail or subscribe to our RSS feed.  Wireless and large-business news are available with a click.

With a couple of clicks of the mouse, visitors can also browse our new video, audio and image library.  No registration is required to look around and sample what’s up there, including a fun video about the latest Interactive Media Guide features, but you’ll need to register to download it.

I will continue to talk about Verizon products and services here at Policy Blog, but if you’re following Verizon, you should check out the News Center.  And, if you see something that gives you an idea for improvements, let me know how we can make it better.

Broadband technology began to be deployed in the U. S. in latter part of the 1990’s.  Wireless technology began to grow rapidly in that same time frame.  Both of these technologies transformed the communications industry.  Competition had emerged in the communications industry in the voice and business markets beginning in the 1970’s.   Broadband technology represented the transformation of local networks via the implementation of high speed, Internet protocol technologies.  Wireless networks and technologies became more widespread and reliable and incorporated data services as well.

All of these trends increased competition and choice, made consumers into “prosumers” as Toffler has put it, creators as well as consumers of content, and resulted in an explosion of innovation and investment in Internet based services.  Change entered into our industry in a way never seen in the days when the telephone industry was a monopoly, network protocols and facilities were owned by the telephone companies, and voice was the only communications service available. 

The changes in the industry have been rapid and transformative.  At Verizon, we adopted a phrase that infused our thinking and became common in our presentations – “The World Has Changed.”   Everywhere we look today in the communications and information technology sectors, we see evidence of that change and it has been overwhelmingly good for Americans.  For example, in 2000, only 4 million American homes had broadband connections. Today, over 60 million do and many of those connections are very high speed, including the latest technologies like Verizon’s fiber to the home FiOS services.   Investments in networks by cable companies, mobile services providers and telephone companies began to explode in the early part of this century as new networks were built and networks were expanded.  In fact today, the communications sector – including cable, mobile, telco and other private carriers – invests more annually in networks – upwards of $60 billion – than the entire Federal government spends on the interstate highway system.   To put it another way, the U. S. government spent annually the equivalent in today’s dollars of $20 billion over the last couple of decades to build the interstate highway system.  Our industry has been spending triple that over the last several years to build and maintain the communications networks that underpin our ideas-based economy.

These networks encouraged more use of data services of all kinds and as a “mass market” of broadband consumers went online through the early part of this century, an explosion of new Internet based applications and services arose, encouraging more change and choice for consumers.   We take it for granted today but many of the technologies that became a mainstay of this presidential campaign – such as video over the Internet via YouTube and other services, social networking services like Facebook and My Space, and text messaging services – were either not yet invented or not widely known and deployed in the last election.  Change in the technologies and capacity of communications networks helped transform how we communicate in our politics as groups like the New Democrats Network have so well noted.

As the technologies, consumer demand and services changed and expanded in our industry, we began to transform our company to meet these new challenges and requirements.   We reinvented our company so it could make major investments in the networks of the future, including wireless high-speed data networks and the latest landline technologies including fiber to the home networks.  Billions of dollars were required to make these investments and we increased our scale and capacity by adding to our local network holdings and incorporating MCI into our company.   The global backbone facilities MCI had deployed helped us expand the scale of our company to meet not only emerging local and national needs but the global communications needs of U. S. companies as well. 

We continue today to build these networks, investing approximately $17 billion a year building our FiOS fiber to the home network, expanding our wireless voice and high-speed data network and preparing for the next generation of broadband wireless to be deployed in just a couple of years, and investing in new global data cables, such as the TransPacific fiber line.

We compete aggressively now with the best and most capable local networks ever built anywhere in the world.  Our industry continues to be a mainstay of the economy, investing and growing, even as the economy slows.  These are difficult times but our CEO was asked about our investments recently and our prospects and had this to say:

“We have to retool the work force. We’re not going to do it by hunkering down.  We’re going to do it by reinvesting…. we can’t allow this period in which we feel bad about dislocations to take away from what America should be doing, which is creating competitive edge. If we ever lose our nerve to continue to take risk, then we’re in a lot of trouble.”

In other words, we remain confident that we can continue to grow, add value for our customers and modernize the critical communications infrastructures the U. S. needs to compete, grow and help address key social problems.  That sounds a lot like “Yes we can”.

And it is important that we do - as much as we can.  As Rob Atkinson of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation has noted, “In the new global economy information and communications technology (IT) is the major driver, not just of improved quality of life, but also of economic growth. Moreover, there are strong indications that IT has the potential to continue driving growth for the foreseeable future.”  ITIF, and the Center for American Progress among others, also point to broadband and IT technologies as keys to helping improve energy efficiency, improve health care delivery and reduce costs, and strengthen our educational system.

Rob suggests that “policymakers need to see IT issues not just as narrow IT policy, but as the centerpiece of economic policy. This means putting issues of digital transformation at the front and center of economic policy.”  We believe our investments and those of our competitors and other industry players are building platforms that can help address key economic and social problems.  There is a lot more these networks can do.  We’ve only begun to tap their true potential and by focusing on the delivery of new services in the health, energy and education arenas, the increased demand will encourage more deployment and more advances in network technologies.

With Verizon’s NFL Network Game Extra, fans will be able to watch the game from four camera angles simultaneously or choose their favorite. They’ll also have online access to up-to-the-minute game statistics, drive chart simulations, on-demand video highlights, live chats with other NFL Network Game Extra viewers and live audio feeds.  Customers also can enjoy NFL Network programming online, including segments from the popular shows “NFL Total Access” and “Playbook,” which offer football fans game analysis and a look at upcoming matchups. 

NFL Network Game Extra will be available for eight highly anticipated Thursday night NFL Network games at no extra cost beginning with the Broncos-Browns game tonight (Nov. 6, 2008) and continuing with next week’s Jets-Patriot game (Nov. 13, 2008).

NFL Game Extra is available to customers who subscribe to either Verizon’s FiOS Internet or High Speed Internet service, with either FiOS TV or DIRECTV through Verizon.  When subscribers are away from home, they can also watch the game on any broadband connection.

Customers can log on Verizon broadband accounts at www.verizon.net/nfl for the complete game experience.

At Verizon, our TV system was all-digital from the start although we did simulcast a few channels in analog format so that customers could see these channels without using a set top box.  Earlier this year, at the FCC’s urging, however, Verizon agreed to discontinue those analog simulcast channels before Feb. 17, 2009.  We have now done that.  

However, we did not move analog channels to different tiers of service as part of this process, and FiOS TV customers still receive the same channels, in the same tiers as they always have.  In fact, we provided a digital adapter to any customer who had analog TVs connected to FiOS without a set top box.  These adapters were provided for free as long as that customer remains a Verizon FiOS TV customer at their current location.  This digital adapter not only allows the customer with an older, analog TV to receive the small subset of channels that had been simulcast in analog format in an improved digital format, but also enables those customers to have access to the hundreds of other digital channels available on FiOS TV without adding a full-featured set top box.

So for Verizon customers there was no need to subscribe to a different, more expensive service tier to continue to receive the same channels, and, in fact, using the digital adapter, customers were able to receive more channels, not fewer, on TV sets not equipped with a FiOS set top box.

As we have told news reporters, we are confident the FCC will agree that this was an appropriate way to handle the change and we believe our customers agree as well.

Mark Weigleitner, Verizon senior VP of technology, explains it this way:  “At the simplest level, contact lists, voice messaging, photo files, e-mails and other content or features that currently reside in one place will be universally available, regardless of the equipment you are using or network to which you’re connected.”

At another level, IMS would make it possible for someone to use a handheld device to pinpoint his location from a global positioning system and transmit the information to a friend along with a photo of himself taken by the device.

Before that can become commonplace, engineers need to run equipment and networks through real-world test scenarios.

That’s why 125 engineers, including Mark and his team, worked with 22 equipment manufacturers to test 225 devices and six major test scenarios during the 12 days of the event dubbed GMI (Global Multiservice Interoperability) 2008. It was sponsored by the MultiService Forum, an industry group that promotes system and service compatibility.  Also participating was the Alliance for Telecommunications Solutions (ATIS), a standards organization that has been working on IPTV standards.  Not surprisingly, IPTV services were of particular interest at GMI 2008, where one of the tests looked at validating the automatic configuration of set-top boxes.  

Following GMI 2008, the test results will be published, and the industry will be many steps closer to making IMS a reality.

Available by subscription, NHL Center Ice includes up to 40 out-of-market National Hockey League games per week and select games from the first two rounds of the Stanley Cup Playoffs.  If NHL Center Ice broadcasts a game in high definition, FiOS TV will carry it in HD.

NHL Network offers hockey coverage 24 hours a day, including 75 live regular-season games in 2008-2009 – all in HD.

Granted, we’re already a few games into the NHL season, but we’re pleased to bring you the action ahead.  As I’ve said before, TV content negotiations are complex and often take many months to complete. We’re talking to programmers about additional sports content, and we’ll let you know when there’s more we can announce.

Meanwhile, FiOS TV will make hockey fans feel like they’re rink side.  Let me know how you like it.

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation has just issued a major study that adds even more evidence that broadband is a “transformational” technology as our CEO Ivan Seidenberg said in a speech earlier this year.  But ITIF’s study goes even further calling IT (information and communications technology) “the major driver of today’s global economy.”   The ITIF study is impressive and deserves attention from all policy makers in particular.  It demonstrates that a strong information technology and communications industry is critical to U. S. competitiveness, innovation, economic growth, job creation and helping address key social challenges like better and more efficient health care.

I was most impressed by three aspects of the ITIF report.  First, it demonstrates that IT technologies have been the key factor responsible for reversing the “20-year productivity slowdown from the mid-1970’s to the mid-1990’s and in driving today’s robust productivity growth” in the U. S.   As ITIF notes, productivity is the most important measure and determinant of U. S. economic performance going forward.  IT is a “general purpose” technology that drives economic growth and transformation and ITIF believes that IT will continue to be a major driver for our economy for at least the next decade or two. 

Second, it offers substantial evidence that IT technologies help provide a platform to address major social challenges such as energy efficiency, health care and education.  In the area of energy efficiency, for example, ITIF points to studies in other countries of the world that suggest that more effective use of telemedicine, telework and teleconferencing could reduce transportation demand (including commuting) by up to a third.   Studies by groups like the Global e-Sustainability Initiative suggest manmade emissions of greenhouse gases could be reduced by up to 15 percent by 2020 through effective use of IT technologies.

Finally, it suggests that effective IT use can help not only improve the economy but improve lives and our society by helping the disabled participate more effectively in the job market.  Unemployment in many segments of the disabled community is very high (over 50 percent among some disabled citizens) because their disabilities make it hard for them to get to work places or use existing technologies that are in the vast majority of job locations.   IT technologies and high-speed Internet connections make it possible for many disabled people to work from home or access existing technologies using software enhancements or modifications in cell phones and other devices.  As ITIF points out, while some of the disabled were born with their disabilities or were injured later in life, the reality is that as people age they often become disabled in some fashion, developing sight or hearing problems.  IT technologies can not only help our economy and society by taking advantage of the ideas and training of many disabled people who are not now in the workforce, they can also ensure that they are not prematurely forced to leave jobs because of problems using work place technologies.

One of the key points ITIF makes in its study is that policy makers need to view IT issues not just as narrow IT policy but as the centerpiece of economic policy.  As the study notes, “This means putting issues of digital transformation at the front and center of economic policy.”  I agree with that but would add a caveat.  IT issues should also be at the front and center of discussions around other key policy challenges such as health care reform, energy and environmental policy and education reform.   IT technologies can make major contributions to helping solve these problems too.

We’ve talked here often about all the new HD channels we’re adding to Verizon FiOS TV.  But TV is only part of the package.  When a FiOS technician leaves a customer’s home, he or she leaves behind a communications and entertainment system.  Now we’re adding new interactive features that, combined with all the new content, give FiOS a huge edge over old-fashioned cable service. 

Of course, FiOS customers can use their remote control and set top box to connect with TV services, but that same system can also find media stored on personal computers or on the Internet.  The driver is the power of Verizon’s fiber-optic network and the home connections that we set up for customers when we install our FiOS services.

Verizon FiOS TV customers are getting more interactivity in their homes as we roll out the latest version of our Interactive Media Guide (IMG 1.6, for anyone who’s keeping score).  All FiOS TV customers will get IMG 1.6 soon, so if you don’t have it yet, it’s on the way.

Verizon CIO Shaygan Kheradpir is so excited about our newest services that he’s invited journalists and bloggers to his Manhattan apartment to see FiOS in action and he’s taking the show on the road to other cities.

Here are some of the features Shaygan is talking about:

• Streaming of recorded HD video – Verizon’s Home Media DVR now allows customers to stream recorded HD programs to six other TV sets throughout the home equipped with HD set-top boxes.  The streaming feature has been available for standard-definition programming, but now, as customers buy second and third HDTV sets, we’re adding streaming HD.

• New free widgets -- FiOS TV widgets already offer customers one-touch, on-demand access to local weather and traffic reports shown on their TV screens.  Now customers will have more widgets, including daily national news and sports headlines; community news; and daily horoscopes.

• Another new widget, “What’s Hot on FiOS TV,” displays information on the most popular programs being watched at the moment in a customer’s region and the most popular video-on-demand titles currently available.  A predictive “What’s Hot” feature shows programs expected to be among the most popular of those coming up.

• Instant upgrades – Customers can watch VOD programs from HBO, Cinemax and more by using their remote control to subscribe to them from the VOD menu.  No need to call the service center.

You can read about the other new IMG 1.6 features in our press release.  But we’re not stopping here.

Before year-end By early next year, we’ll add two powerful new features to our Media Manager service, which already allows customers to stream music and photos from their PCs to their TVs.  With “My Videos,” customers will now be able to stream their personal videos too.  Customers who subscribe to Media Manager will also be able to remotely program their FiOS TV DVRs and set their parental controls through select Verizon Wireless handsets.

Programming FiOS TV DVRs will be an available feature through Verizon’s FiOS TV Central Web site by year end, 2008.

Longer term, we’re working on a Facebook widget and an application that will let customers stream user-generated video from sites like YouTube to the TV screen.

With these new features, Verizon is giving customers the power of the Verizon network to seek media wherever it is and display it on the TV screen.  With the two-way capacity of our fiber network, we’ll continue to introduce new interactive features that separate 21^st century FiOS TV from 20^th century cable.

This is an interesting question that is raised frequently in the context of whether industry responsibility and oversight models (i.e., various forms of industry “self-regulation”, a term I do not like and do not think fits well with the purpose of these models) work to ensure accountability and adherence to agreed upon industry best practices.   In the context of privacy policy, for example, this issue is one of the key questions under discussion. 

Interestingly, a couple of years back during the debate on net neutrality, I made the argument that industry leadership through some form of oversight/self-regulatory model, coupled with competition and the extensive oversight provided by literally hundreds of thousands of sophisticated online users would help ensure effective enforcement of good practices and protect consumers.  Tim Wu at the time offered the following comment in an interview with the Economist (this is an excerpt from the article in the Economist):

"'The public reaction has already been as powerful and effective as any law,' says Timothy Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School who is credited with coining the term "net neutrality". The debate has put the telecoms companies on notice that they are being watched closely, he says, and has forced them to make public pledges not to block or degrade access. 'Shame can have more power than litigation,' says Mr Wu. 'The market and consumers can control bad practices, but consumers actually have to be aware of what is going on for that to happen'."

The Chatterji and Toffel paper does indeed find that publicly citing companies for their performance, or measuring and publicly publishing how they perform on various standards does have an impact on how companies act.   Letting the public and policy makers know, in other words, how a company complies with its commitments or industry principles is a useful tool to encourage compliance.  As the authors note:

We hypothesize that company ratings are particularly likely to spur responses by firms that receive poor ratings, especially those that face lower cost opportunities to improve and that operate in highly regulated industries. . . We find empirical support for our hypotheses, and present implications for managers of rated

companies and of private and public rating agencies. While negative ratings may “shame” firms that are performing poorly, the threat of regulatory action and the presence of “low hanging fruit” are important drivers of how firms respond to information-based incentives.

Admittedly, the paper does suggest that the threat government might step in is a spur to action but I don’t think this undermines the model.  In fact, it seems to me that industry responsibility and oversight models can only work well if all parties know that government remains watchful and might need to intervene if the process clearly appears off track.   Most of the research I am familiar with in this area – like this paper from Phil Weiser of the University of Colorado – makes the same point.  Overall, I believe this paper adds to the growing body of knowledge about how to make industry responsibility and oversight models work.  Clearly transparency and public notice are key tools in this regard.

The highly-anticipated Vice Presidential debate tonight at 9pm EDT (Oct. 2) can be seen on your Verizon Wireless phone.  In fact, Verizon Wireless customers have two ways to watch U.S. Senator Joe Biden and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin debate live from St. Louis.

1.  V CAST video: CBS News covers the proceeding, in real-time.

2.  V CAST Mobile TV stations including NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, FNC and CBS are expected to carry the debates live, with their usual news commentary teams.

In a critique like this, you have to offer a summary of what you think the writer or author is saying in order to provide a jumping off point for further discussion.  Despite the title, Jonathan is obviously very concerned about the Internet’s future and wants it to continue.  He seems to believe that that future could be in one of two directions: the “generative” Net versus what he refers to as a world of “tethered, sterile appliances.”  He clearly sees the “generative” Net as being about technologies, applications or networks that invite or allow customization or unique, new applications or programs.  In this regard, he seems to be suggesting that the Internet based on the “PC”, separate (not integrated) applications and programs, and the so-called “best efforts” Internet is the ideal.

The opposite of this he believes is an Internet that consists mostly of what he calls “appliances”, devices that do not generally allow for the development of customized applications or don’t allow users to experiment and come up with their own programs or services.  The AOL of old is that sort of model and devices like the Slingbox that are not multipurpose and don’t allow a lot of customization or programming are examples of devices of this kind.   Clearly, Jonathan sees the “generative” Internet as providing much more value and utility.

The point of Jonathan’s book seems to be that for a variety of reasons [viruses, Spam, identify theft, etc], we may soon see the end of the “generative” Internet, the “open” Net and the emergence of an Internet that mostly consists of tethered devices or “single purpose” appliances and closed networks.   That is the point behind the title of his book, which is really a play on words.   He clearly believes the future of the Internet is moving more and more towards that “appliancized” model and away from the “generative” one in part because people feel threatened by dangerous applications or malware.

I guess I see that both models will thrive because they serve different purposes and because there are forces that drive the Internet today that simply encourage evolution and choice, while preserving the essential cooperative essence of the Internet that keep it running.

For one thing, the concept of “generativity” seems to revolve only around the notion of new applications, software or content techniques.    Innovation need not be limited simply to a new application or software program in my view however.  Why isn’t a new “applicance” focused on a specific need for a consumer just as much an example of “generativity” as a new program or application? 

This is especially so when you look at how consumers use the Internet today.   Consumers see value in both models depending on what they are trying to do.  If you are principally interested in streaming or downloading videos, why not use a device that is designed for that purpose?  It can be much easier to learn to use such a device, with fewer buttons and no complex software to have to master.  The device will still use IP protocols to communicate and the device itself is “generative” in the sense that it is an innovation, a new idea, a new device meeting a consumer need.   To meet, the ultimate innovation is something that meets a consumer need in a better way.  Why shouldn’t consumers have these sorts of choices and why does this threaten the Internet?  After all, the Internet only has merit if it meets consumer needs and demands. 

The fact is that a big part of “generativity” or creative new ideas and applications comes from connectedness, the “putting together of many heads” through communications technologies.  Ideas and new approaches develop faster the more people are connected via IP technologies.   If you look back just thirty years ago, in most homes, most of the devices were analog, and almost none of them communicated.  Today, some homes have 30 or 40 devices that are IP and data capable and virtually all of them communicate.  Content can be shifted back and forth between these devices and consumers often can customize information or data by taking content from one device and moving it to another.  This explosion in IP devices in the home is a major game changer it seems to me and puts more power in the hands of consumers to generate new content and new applications, regardless of other factors.

Further, it is clear to me that while consumers may well like single purpose or “appliancized” devices that are easy to use and may be more protected against malware, they also very much value the Internet’s open nature.  They want to be able to access all kinds of information on their terms.  This notion is not just deeply embedded among consumers - the same is true in businesses and in government as well.  I know that I would be pretty steamed in my job at Verizon if I felt that my ability to access, use and experiment with content and services on the Internet were constrained by other players in some way. 

The fact is that with the demands being put on the Internet today at all levels, the “best efforts”, “generative” model that Jonathan sees as being threatened is simply evolving.  It can’t stay in place because the Internet is getting bigger, with new applications, new demands and more complex requirements.   In the early days, simply getting networks to interconnect – the raison d’etre of TCP/IP protocols and early routers – was a very difficult business.   Today, with the growing and complex demands we face, players at all levels – whether they are content providers, applications developers or network providers – need to play a role to ensure the Internet continues to serve all needs.   Experts like Dave Farber have made this same point.  I think networks will have to do more too to make the Internet work better and that is not a bad thing in my view.

It seems to me that given the huge number of people using the Internet today, the many hundreds of millions of devices that are connected via the Net, and the expectations consumers have regarding how the Internet should work, there is little danger that the value Jonathan sees through generative devices is really threatened.  I’ve been through many phases in the Internet’s evolution – beginning in the late 1970’s up through today – and there has been constant change and concerns at various times about the Internet’s future.  It is good to ask questions, offer suggestions about the future evolution of the Internet and discuss important trends.   And some of the dangers Jonathan alludes to – including malware of various kinds – do require concerted action.  Empowering consumers with more tools to monitor their own Internet applications and connections is an important concept as he suggests.   More transparency by network, application and content providers is very important as well as we have noted.

I guess in the end, I don’t think that the root strengths of the Internet – its openness and ability to stimulate new ideas and applications – are likely to be overwhelmed by malware and “appliancized” devices.   In fact, I think that devices that are more protected from malware by being special purpose may serve an important role.  But it is always good to be reminded of the Internet’s place in society and its value as a platform for innovation and choice.

Last night during the first presidential debate, Senator Barack Obama included the deployment of broadband technology to all Americans as one of the economic priorities he would establish if he became President.   Senator John McCain supports the deployment of broadband technology and calls it a “top priority” to ensure deployment as widely as possible.   

All year, both house of Congress have been considering legislation that would, among other things, establish grant programs to support mapping initiatives in the states to identify gaps in broadband deployment and to help fund the efforts of groups in the states, like Connected Nation, focused on promoting the deployment of broadband.