Google's Fiber Makes MPAA Skittish. Why Does Hollywood See All Technology In Terms Of Piracy?

from the negativity dept

One of the points we're always trying to make about piracy is that it has less to do with people just wanting everything for free and more to do with people rushing to embrace the possibilities of new technology. The industry has been slow to offer products that take advantage of these possibilities, and when they do they usually cripple them and charge too much for them, because they refuse to acknowledge the impact of better distribution systems on the market. Instead of recognizing that technological capabilities dictate how they should distribute their content, they think they get to dictate how far people should utilize technology. So piracy moves in to fill the gap, offering people the sort of comprehensive, on-demand service which they know is possible but which can't be bought at any price.

An anonymous reader points us to a perfect example of the technophobic attitude that has become so ingrained in Hollywood. It starts with a story in Bloomberg Businessweek about Google's pilot project in Kansas City, where they are laying fiber to bring super-high-speed internet to the community. With 922 Mbps download speeds already available in nearly a thousand homes, the topic of piracy was inevitably raised:

[Google spokeswoman Jenna] Wandres stresses that Google Fiber isn’t meant to empower pirates: “We hope higher speeds will actually make it easier to deliver and download more authorized content,” she says. Nonetheless, Howard Gantman, spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, notes that piracy is always a concern of the entertainment industry. Google Fiber “could be a great opportunity for consumers whose access to creative content is often hampered by slow speeds,” he says. But in South Korea, “the home entertainment marketplace was decimated by digital piracy” enabled by the widespread availability of high-speed Internet.

For one thing, the statement about South Korea is incredibly flimsy. The Korean music industry thrives on high-speed internet—it grew into an economic powerhouse while the country had some of the highest and earliest broadband penetration rates (and digital piracy rates) in the world. Smart Korean entrepreneurs have figured out how to succeed in the new market. Moreover, claiming that "home entertainment" as a whole was damaged by broadband is just hubris from an industry that thinks only its own products count as "entertainment".

It seems like every Hollywood statement about new technology follows the same format. "This new thing is great, but... piracy!" The problem is that they refuse to act on the first part until someone gives them a bulletproof solution to the second part—and since such a solution does not and never will exist, they ruin every attempt at a new service with ineffective restrictions and DRM schemes. Ars Technica picked up the story and spoke further to the MPAA spokesman, getting yet another "great, but..." response:

"We want to reinforce that higher speeds could be a great opportunity for consumers, and that's the bottom line," Howard Gantman, spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, told Ars on Friday. "There are problems that can, in terms of [an] increase of digital piracy, come with that, but we are hopeful that efforts can be made... to address digital piracy."

Someone should tell Gantman that it's not "the bottom line" if you go on to add caveats and addendums. It's also interesting that he thinks blazing fast internet only "could be" good for consumers—maybe because he knows Hollywood "could" (but won't) offer them a service that fully leverages the technology. Really what's amazing about this is that the MPAA thinks anyone cares about its opinion of fiber broadband, as if the public is going to stop and think, "Gee, I guess I'll just have to wait for faster internet access while Hollywood develops better piracy controls".

The fact that the MPAA can't get through a single statement about something as clearly positive as faster internet without bringing up reservations about piracy doesn't bode well for Hollywood's future. The studios should be getting ahead of the new technology, and making sure that everyone who gets hooked up to a new fiber network is immediately greeted with a well-made, well-priced movie service that gives them a chance to test out their speedy new connection. Instead they're probably going to watch the technology develop with caution, wait for pirates to beat them to the punch, then arrive in the market with an inferior product and complaints about how they "can't compete".

Filed Under: fiber, kansas, piracy, south korea
Companies: google, mpaa

UK Community Gives Up Waiting For High Speed Broadband: Digs Its Own Fiber Trenches

from the nicely-done dept

Providers of high speed broadband love to talk about how they're providing private networks that shouldn't be regulated at all, but they tend to ignore the fact that they usually rely on government subsidies in the form of rights of way -- the legal ability to dig the trenches (or string cables on poles) to run the key infrastructure. Now, of course, we've heard of various muni-broadband projects, but one community in the UK apparently got so fed up with waiting for a big broadband provider to bring service to their village that they not only started setting up their own system, but they literally got dozens of residents to help them start digging the 51 mile-long trench where the fiber optic cable that connects them to the wider internet will lie. Talk about taking matters into your own hands...

Filed Under: broadband, community, diy, fiber

Time Warner Cable Whining About How It's Not Allowed To Pretend It Offers Fiber To The Home Any More

from the truth-in-advertising dept

A few years back, we noted that Verizon -- who has a history of misleading ads itself -- had sued Time Warner Cable for a series of ads that implied that Verizon's FiOS fiber-to-the-home offering was just "catching up" to TWC's own "fiber" offering. Of course, that was blatantly misleading. Time Warner uses fiber within its network but not to the home, which is the whole selling point of FiOS. There have been numerous disputes over this and TWC always comes out on the losing end. The latest, from the National Advertising Review Board (NARB), once again found that TWC's claims were clearly misleading. TWC's response is to petulantly claim that it can no longer accurately describe its own network and this will make it harder to "distinguish their service in areas where their competitors have indisputably inferior products."

Hogwash. TWC can still accurately describe its network and, if it actually is facing off against "indisputably inferior products," it can continue to highlight the specific differences in bandwidth or whatever other metrics that accurately portray the difference. What it cannot do -- and what it clearly had done for a while -- is pretend that its use of fiber deep within the network is, in any way, comparable to Verizon installing fiber all the way to someone's home.

Filed Under: broadband, fiber, truth in advertising
Companies: time warner cable, verizon

As US Still Argues Over Semantics, Australia Expands Its Ambitious Broadband Plan

from the you-get-fiber-to-the-home!-you-get-fiber-to-the-home!-everybody-gets-fiber-to-th dept

About a year ago, long before the FCC came out with its incredibly weak broadband plan that is full of non-specific nothingness, we had suggested that if the new FCC really wanted to be bold, it should look at what Australia was doing, building on an idea that we first started talking about back in 2003: building out a single super high end fiber infrastructure, and letting service providers compete on top of it. The idea, then was to offer 100 Mbps fiber to 90% of all homes, and provide the remaining 10% with 12 Mbps wireless). The thinking, of course, is that broadband is a natural monopoly, and you don't want multiple infrastructure providers having to dig up the entire country to lay fiber, but you do want competition. So you build a single top-of-the-line, state-of-the-art infrastructure, and let the competition happen at the service level. Now, there are reasonable concerns about the government being involved, but there are ways to structure such things so that it minimizes the problems. If you think of it like the national highway system, and the massive economic benefit that created, it begins to make sense.

So, as the US continues to muddle along at much slower speeds with little likelihood of much change, Broadband Reports points us to a new report out of Australia, noting that they can actually go even bigger, increasing the fiber coverage to 93% of the Australian homes.

This comes out of a feasibility report on the original plan, done by McKinsey and KPMG, which noted that it wasn't just feasible, but that the original plan wasn't as ambitious as it easily could be, and came up with some recommendations to make it even better. Australia's plans do have some problems, but the plan seems a lot more ambitious than anything coming out of the US lately.

Filed Under: australia, broadband, fiber

Google: Hate Competition? Come Compete On Our Fiber Network

from the keep-your-enemies-closer dept

Back in February Google announced that the company would be deploying 1 Gbps fiber to the home connections for a lucky community or two. Google's plan is to create a playground to test next-generation ad delivery and to explore fiber deployment options. The announcement has been nothing short of a PR miracle for Google -- the resulting clamor created by the thousands of cities eager to be the target market has kept the Google brand consistently present in the media every single day since and all without a single byte being delivered. The network itself will operate under an open access model, with Google inviting ISPs to come in and compete, and this week Google's Minnie Ingersoll extended an invitation to Comcast and AT&T to participate:

"We (sic) definitely inviting the Comcasts, the AT&T service providers to work with us on our network, and to provide their service offering on top of our pipe -- we're definitely planning on doing that. Our general attitude has been that there's plenty of room for innovation right now in the broadband space, and it's great what the cable companies are doing, upgrading to DOCSIS 3.0, but no one company has a monopoly on innovation. We're looking for other service providers to be able to come in and offer their service on top of our network so that residents have a choice when they open up their accounts. They get the connection from us, and then they have a choice as to who they subscribe to."

While that's sweet of Google, it's unclear that the nation's wealthiest carriers will want to come over and play today. These are companies who spend millions of dollars each year lobbying to eliminate competition of any kind -- and probably aren't keen to participate in a trial designed (in part) to highlight how competition keeps prices low, keeps service quality high -- and organically limits network neutrality violations. The nation's wealthiest carriers already disliked Google for the company's positions on everything from network neutrality to white space broadband. They, of course, see (correctly) that products like Google Voice pose a serious disruptive threat to traditional cash cows, and these carriers spend a lot of time smearing Google by using outsourced policy wonks.

These same carriers will probably feel even less cooperative after being subjected to several months of national coverage with one central theme: they aren't providing the broadband speeds or prices people want. Keep in mind too that part of this network's purpose will be to collect a mountain of data -- the kind of data these carriers don't like to share (congestion, bandwidth delivery costs, etc.) all of which will be useful to Google in their political battles against these same operators. While Google has repeatedly stated they aren't interested in being an ISP or in expanding this project beyond 50,000 to 500,000 users -- this new network (whenever it actually gets built) might be a more suitable playground for smaller ISPs; smaller ISPs eager to show what open access and competition can really do for a community in an environment free of the influence of the usual assortment of monopoly/duopoly carriers.

Filed Under: broadband, fiber, google voice
Companies: at&t, comcast, google

Topeka (Sorta) Changes Its Name To Google, In Blatant Suck Up For Fiber

from the we're-still-in-kansas,-toto dept

With Google's announcement that it plans to roll out super fast fiber to the home services in a few small locations, there are plenty of cities and towns hoping to be among the lucky few. But who knew it was a contest? Apparently the folks in Topeka, Kansas think that sucking up to the big G is the path to fiber optic nirvana. They've proclaimed that, for the month of March, Topeka shall be referred to as Google, Kansas. It's not a legal name change -- which (not surprisingly) would be a lot more complex, and likely wouldn't pass -- but just a proclamation that the city should be called Google for the month.

Of course, cities renaming themselves after tech companies isn't all that new. Over a decade ago, some town in Oregon renamed itself Half.com in a PR stunt by the startup (which was later bought by eBay). And, a few years ago, a small town in Texas renamed itself Dish, Texas after EchoStar's Dish Network, in exchange for every house in the town getting a free DVR and free satellite TV for 10 years. But this is the first time I've heard of a city pre-emptively (sorta) renaming itself to curry favor with a company.

But, if it works... I'm more than willing to rename my house Chez Google, if it means 1 gigabit per second fiber. Hell, I'm pretty sure I could convince all of the neighbors on my street to rename our street Google Ave. Just let us know...

Filed Under: broadband, fiber, kansas, topeka
Companies: google

Or Will Broadband Competition Look Like.... Google?

from the and-then-there's-that dept

Just as we were getting ready to push out Derek's post about broadband competition, it looks like Google tossed a bit of a grenade into the mix, announcing plans to at least start trials of super high speed fiber-to-the-home networks in some areas. Of course, there have been rumors for years that Google might get into the internet access business. It had invested in a failed broadband-over-powerlines operation, and there had always been talk of a Google wireless solution -- but none of those seemed particularly serious (even Google's muni-WiFi experiment in its hometown of Mountain View has been somewhat half-hearted). So, it might be a bit early to look to Google to really dive in as a serious broadband competitor, but it certainly does raise some interesting questions.

From the very beginning we've been arguing that the real issue isn't about net neutrality, but about competition -- a point Derek reiterated -- and anything that drives more competition in the broadband space is a good thing. And, since Google monetizes internet access in many other areas, it doesn't need to be greedy about how it grants access to the pipes. But, even more interesting is that Google seems to realize that if you have a fiber to the home network at the infrastructure-level, the really interesting play is actually letting multiple service providers compete above that:

We will allow third-parties to offer their own Internet access services, or other services, using our network. We believe this approach will maximize user choice as well as spur greater innovation and competition. Most providers in Europe and many places elsewhere in the world operate open access networks. It will be open to any service provider, including incumbents and new entrants. "Open" means open.

By no means is it guaranteed that Google will be able to succeed in this market. In fact, I'd probably bet against it if you were laying odds. It's just a really tough business to be in, especially as a brand new entrant, and I'm not convinced that Google will focus enough on this to make it a success. But I hope I'm wrong. More serious entrants into the market would be a good thing, and Google's view on line-sharing is exactly right: it does tend to encourage greater innovation. So hopefully this is something that works in trials and gets expanded more widely.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fiber
Companies: google

If You Must Dig Up A Highway... You Might As Well Install Infrastructure For Fiber Optic Cables

from the makes-sense dept

Wired broadband is often compared to the highway system, in that both are "natural monopolies" in that it often doesn't make sense to build competing setups, since you really only want one massive infrastructure product. With highways, you don't want to rip up too many parts of the country, and with broadband you don't want to let every company get rights of way to dig up everyone's yard. However, some politicians are pushing a rather simple, and totally reasonable plan that says if someone is already building or modifying a highway with federal funds, then they should also run conduit for fiber optic cables (they don't have to run the fiber themselves, just install the conduit). The idea -- and this makes a surprising amount of sense -- is that if the road is already being dug up, why not put conduit for future fiber there, rather than having to redig up areas to run fiber in the future. Sensible thinking from government officials? How much do you want to bet this goes nowhere?

Filed Under: broadband, fiber, highways, infrastructure, natural monopolies

Plenty Of Broadband Providers Pretending They're Offering Fiber To The Home

from the false-advertising dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about Verizon suing Time Warner Cable over a misleading advertisement, where Time Warner Cable claims that Verizon is "catching up" to Time Warner Cable in offering fiber optics. This is misleading, at best. Verizon is installing fiber to the home with its FiOS service, providing significantly faster connections. What Time Warner Cable is claiming is that it uses fiber in its network, not to the home. It's true that TWC and plenty of other broadband providers have used hybrid fiber solutions at the network level for many years, but that's totally different than connecting all the way to the home with a fiber optic connection.

Now it turns out that TWC is hardly the only broadband provider doing this. Apparently lots of broadband providers are now running ads against Verizon where they claim that they've offered fiber for longer than Verizon. That's totally misleading. Having fiber somewhere in the network is not at all an equal comparison to running fiber all the way to the home. As Broadband Reports asks, it's difficult to see how these claims from others isn't false advertising. They're clearly implying that their fiber is the same thing as FiOS when that's not true at all.

Filed Under: fiber, truth in advertising
Companies: time warner cable, verizon

What If You Owned Your Own Fiber Connection?

from the not-a-ridiculous-suggestion dept

Almost five years ago, we wrote about a project in Burlington, Vermont to bring fiber optics to residents there. The idea was that, rather than a traditional "municipally-owned" network, this would actually be owned by the residents themselves. The article focused on the work of economist Alan McAdams, who (it needs to be admitted) was the guy who not only sent me down the path of better understanding the economics of information over a dozen years ago, but also convinced me to start Techdirt in the first place. McAdams has been pushing for the idea that if the end users actually owned the network itself, you would end up with much greater broadband, in part because you might still end up with a single fiber network, but there would be significant competition of service providers on that network. And, indeed, it appears that's where the Burlington fiber project has gone. A more recent case study on the project suggests that, with a slow and deliberate pace, thousands of residents in Burlington now have access to the fiber network, and can choose their own ISP, if they want.

Tim Lee has now written about another example as well, where there's an effort underway in Ottawa (which is only about 170 miles from Burlington), to string up 400 homes with fiber, but where the individual home owners will pay for and own the "last mile" connection to their homes. This is definitely a test on a small scale, but it's a similar situation to what McAdams has been pushing for all along. Let the customer own the connection itself, and then get to choose the service provider. In the Ottawa case, once again, service providers would no longer have to worry about wiring up your home (the most expensive part), but just need to offer service at various peering points, and each individual could choose who to get service from.

In this manner, you still get real competition, which is sorely lacking in the telco arena, and you get the benefits of higher speed networks. It's not as crazy as it might sound, either. As Lee points out, the telephone company used to own not just the wiring in your house, but the actual telephone as well. Over the years, that's been pushed back. Now you own your own phone -- and the wiring inside your house. So is it so crazy to think that you should own the wires outside of your house out to the main network as well? There are still plenty of practical issues that need to be resolved -- and the initial economics may be a bit daunting for many (the idea of paying, say, $3,000, to own your own fiber drop may freak some people out). But, it's experiments like these that are a real step in the right direction towards adding real competition, rather than the faux duopoly we all deal with today.

Filed Under: alan mcadams, economics, fiber, internet access, ottawa, ownership, telcos