Category Archives: Uncategorized

eBay Buying Skype?

I’m up very early this morning as my cold from the past week continues to cause me frustration. I decided to take an opportunity to check e-mail and whatnot before I try to get an hour or two more sleep before going into the office, when what should pop into my e-mail in-box but an alert from the Wall Street Journal that eBay are in talks to acquire Instant Message/VoIP software company Skype. I thought this was worthy of a quick blog entry.

The article points out that the talks are in a very sensitive phase and could potentially fall apart, so nothing is set in stone. Either way, the fact that eBay is involved in these talks at all is a very interesting development. This seems like a strategy right out of right field and only tangentially related to eBays core competency– and only then if you use a lot of imagination and perhaps drink a lot of hard liquor. The Journal points out that eBays core revenue is reaching a likely plateau, so maybe this is a good strategy for diversification.

One thing I do hope eBay doesnt do, for their own stake, is overpay for Skype. Theres been a lot of hype about the market capitalization of Skype and likely suitors, one such rumour indicating that News Corp. was considering offering $2 billion for Skype. Granted Skype has a large base of downloads and has made impressive inroads into an already very crowded market for instant message software, but some studies have indicated that usage for the service on a per user basis has gone down significantly as the user population has grown. Perhaps Skype has yet to reach a tipping point in terms of penetration, but Im of the opinion that its potential as a platform for ad-based revenue (which is where I would see eBay going should it acquire Skype) is somewhat limited unless eBay could find a way to make Skype sticky for those people who download it.

VoIP Blocking and the End of Net Neutrality

There’s a terrific discussion going on over at TechDirt about various means by which ISPs might block Voice over IP traffic for competing services. The post goes on to indicate that the current incarnation of the FCC is unlikely to take any action to respond to the complains of independent VoIP providers. I have to say that based on the current decision to position DSL-based Internet services as an information service I would be inclined to agree that the FCC is less likely to take action to ensure network neutrality.

One of the comments in the Techdirt discuss makes a case which I made some time ago, that if ISPs begin to treat packets differently based on the information that is contained within them, they compromise their arguments of being a “common carrier.” By taking this action, one could argue, ISPs open themselves up to claims of liability for thinks like the illegal sharing of copyrighted content, child pornography, on-line gambling and all of those other incarnations of evil that take place on the Internet.

This is a slippery slope both in terms of legal liability and in terms of customer patience. Should the big local-access-facilities-based ISPs (basically telcos and cablecos) choose to go down a path of net partiality, they run the very real risk of pissing off both law enforcement AND customers. This would go a long way to expanding the gap between the United States and countries with a better-connected populace. The advantages the Internet offers to consumers and small businesses would dry up along with a good chunk of whatever competitive advantage the U.S. might hope to retain. I really hope that the FCC can wake up to the bigger picture.

Dr. iPod

I came accross a piece on Engadget this morning talking about a survey of iPod users conducted by a sociologist in the UK. Dr. Michael Bull has come to be known as “Dr. iPod” or “Professor iPod,” depending upon whom you are reading. The thought of being a sociologist looking at applications of technology sounds pretty damn sexy to me. Maybe I need to reconsider my nascent plans to study econ. Who knows? This is such a dangerous phase for me since I get so easily distracted by shiny things like iPods.

Anyway, Dr. Bull conducted a survey of some 1,000 iPod customers. Among the things Dr. Bull seems to have taken away is that iPod listeners are bypassing advertisements (aren’t we all trying to do this?), don’t really like their mobile phones and don’t want to watch video on their portable music devices.

The second point, that about iPod listeners not liking their mobile phones is something I’m not sure I buy. While I haven’t looked at the study in-depth, I have to wonder if there isn’t some undue extrapolation going on there. They might not like their mobiles as a device, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that I expect they appreciate the flexibility and potential for interconnectedness that they get from a mobile. If they’re like me they probably dislike being interrupted during certain “cocoon” times when you’re involved in reading, listening to music, eating or other activities.

I suspect that personal music players (iPods and otherwise) appeal more strongly to those who have strong desires to cocoon. Maybe what this survey points to is the need for deeper “presence” knowledge embedded into communication networks. I would love to have the ability to convey to those wishing to connect with me some sort of message that makes it clear I am vegging and would really only like to be interrupted if it’s an emergency. A few years back “presence” was a big part of conversations on Instant Messaging technologies such as Session Initiation Protocol.

The final element of the survey, the one that indicates distaste for video content on personal music devices, speaks volumes. I know this meshes with my own desires, or lack thereof. What has the potential for impact outside of the music environment is that I strongly suspect this disinterest in mobile video extends beyond music players to phones and other portable devices. I know that, more often than not, I would have no desire to see video content when I’m on the go– if only because it takes my attention away from what I’m doing. Video content has the downside that you really can’t multi-task all that well while trying to absorb video content. What I think service providers are going to find is that users are not going to be willing to pay premiums for video content because even free video content has an opportunity cost associated with it (in that it’s hard to do something else while you’re consuming it).

On a somewhat unrelated note, there was an hilarious non-sequitor in last nights episode of Family Guy. Stewies iPod commercial was sheer brilliance. I love that show, and Stewie is by far the best character.

Capital Area Muni Wi-Fi Round-Up

Today’s Washington Post includes an article on Alexandria, Virginia’s recent launch of municiple WiFi in the Old Town district. Included in the article is a decent round-up of plans for muni Wi-Fi in selected locations throughout the Washington suburbs.

The usual arguments against free muni Wi-Fi are trotted out. It’s not that these arguments don’t have a degree of validity to them. However, with an area repleat with opportunities for al fresco computing, it surprises me somewhat that for-fee Wi-Fi services aren’t more prevelant than they are. It also surprises me somewhat that neighborhood associations don’t offer Wi-Fi to bring the latte set in to surf while they sit. I know I make an effort to frequent the establishments that offer me free Wi-Fi that works.

My votes for great spots to surf for free, which also happen to be great spots for cafinated drinks, are Greenberry’s in the Home Depot shopping center in Reston and Cyber Stop on 17th street (between P and Church Streets) in Washington.

NOW Qwest Objects?

So now that their proposed merger with MCI has been rebuffed, it appears Qwest have filed objections to the mergers of SBC and AT&T as well as Verizon and MCI. The actual complaint was filed with the California Public Utilities Commission. I can’t really say that I’m surprised by this.

The most interesting quote from the complaint is:

It is difficult to see how these two transactions could ever be found to be in the public interest.

Qwest’s merger with MCI would have differed structurally from the Verizon-MCI merger in no concrete way. This is just sour grapes on the part of Qwest. This complaint comes on the heels of complaints from other telecommunications companies and consumer groups regarding the mega-mergers. This is all to be expected since the SBC and AT&T merger effectively undoes a divide that has been maintained in the American telecommunications industry for 20 years.

Rural Telco Blocking VoIP

A few weeks back we heard complaints from voice over IP provider Vonage that voice over IP traffic was being blocked by a rural local exchange carrier. None of the news sites named the carrier, but a settlement with the FCC has outed the carrier as being Madison River Communications. The whole story on the $15,000 fine can be found here.

Based in North Carolina, Madison River own several rural telco companies, including the telco that services the small town where I grew up and my parents still live. I have to say Im very disappointed by their choice to block traffic from competitors. Madison River are planning an IPO, and the cantankerous coot in me is considering buying some shares in part to gripe about this sort of practice.

Based on my reading of the order from the FCC, what I think was the basis of the initial problem is that a Madison River DSL customer who signed up for voice over IP service from Vonage found that the IP traffic underpinning the service was being blocked by Madison River. According to the FCC order Madison River had employed an IP port blocking technique which prevented Vonage voice traffic moving over the Internet backbone from reaching the customers VoIP converter box plugged into their Madison River-provided DSL connection.

As part of the settlement with the FCC Madison River have agreed to pay $15,000 and not block VoIP traffic for 30 month. What the heck is going on here? I cannot for the life of me understand why the prohibition is for only 30 months. If the practice is wrong, its wrong, eh?

Truth be told, Madison River didn’t really break any specific laws (so far as I can tell) as opposed to violating a sense of fair play. To my mind, neutrality with respect to the IP traffic moving across your network infrastructure constitutes fair play. With telcos like Madison River blocking VoIP traffic and SBC introducing “voluntary” VoIP tariffs it’s only going to be a matter of time before some sort of regulatory action is going to need to be taken to ensure termination of voice over IP traffic on telco and cable networks. This is the very least to demand of owners of infrastructure that have benefited from access to public rights of way and decades of captive markets.