Musings on a weekend…

There are a bunch of people who have made a career out of calling the Internet a stupid network¹ – to distinguish it from the Intelligent Networks of traditional telecom service providers. We are told that ‘Stupid’ is the new good – Intelligent is evil.

I’m not sure the model fits. Thinking about the evolution of the network, with tiers for business, PVNs, managed services, deep packet inspection, prioritization, gatekeeper fees, etc. Is that really a stupid network?

Increasingly, it seems that IP networks are becoming application-aware. And conversely, some applications are now needing to consider more of the network characteristics, their variations and their limitations.

Why? In part, it may be because the communist ideal hasn’t worked. Certain applications appear to have human like behaviour: they hog as much bandwidth as they can without consideration for other applications or other users.

Hence the need to apply a little control, a little discipline. I have written about ‘Irrelevant Networks‘ where I wrote:

If another user or application wants to break through the traffic jam of mediocrity, and indeed, the user is willing to pay a premium to do so, network providers will be happy to accommodate them. Perhaps this puts another spin on the Shaw – Vonage file.

The intelligence of the network may have migrated to the edge, but there still seems to be smarts in the network. The new architecture lays the foundation for access network providers to custom design access to match user needs. It might explain why network providers are looking at charging differential fees to tune the service to match the user expectations for service quality.

That sounds like a reasonable business practice and maybe not so ‘Stupid’ afterall.

---

¹ Look at David Isenberg’s The Rise of The Stupid Network for the root of the terminology.

At long last, Inukshuk‘s national wireless service took flight today with offerings by both of its owners, Bell and Rogers. Mark Evans writes about the two offerings and laments the lack of a real national broadband alternative. He rightfully acknowledges the interesting exception in Western Canada where Inukshuk’s infrastructure allows Bell and Rogers to become two new alternatives to Shaw and TELUS.

It all just doesn’t seem to hold up to the dream that was announced by Inukshuk’s founding shareholders Allstream, Microcell and NR Communications back in November 2003. At that time, John McLennan said:

The excitement for that strategy didn’t seem last very long. Only a few months later, Allstream merged with MTS and shed Inukshuk. When the CRTC and the TPR panel have been continuing to drive a facilities-based competition policy, Allstream’s sale of its interest in Inukshuk appears to be one a major miss.

Is there a market for pure roaming internet? We’ll see how Sympatico Unplugged and Rogers Portable Internet play out. I’d still like to see any of the fixed line broadband players come out with Inukshuk-based churn-innoculation against the community broadband initiatives with an ‘away from home’ roaming service: Get the wireless service as an adjunct to your residential fixed service for when you are on-the-road.

Just as RIM has emerged from its patent troubles south of the border, another Canadian manufacturer has been slapped with accusations that they have copied an American manufacturer’s designs.

In what looks more like an early April Fool’s story, Victoria’s Secret has accused Montreal-based La Senza of infringing on its wireless bra.

La Senza appears to be saying the suit is without foundation. CEO Irving Teitelbaum expects this issue is getting media coverage because “it is a lot more exciting than softwood lumber.”

And more fun than deferral accounts, too. It is somewhat uplifting for us to see that wireless technology is being used in other industries – it adds a new dimension to the level of wireless support Quebec has been providing.

Your comments are welcome.

I just received a copy of the 5 inch stack of paper that makes up Bell’s Federal Court Application to appeal the CRTC’s Deferral Account Decision. We wrote about this earlier in the week and I haven’t seen it picked up by the rest of the telecom news business.

There is $650 million at stake here, folks. The appeal seems to be arguing two points: that the spending on rural broadband is actually just an option for ILECs (a $480M option); and, that the CRTC over-stepped its jurisdiction in ordering the ILECs to rebate any of the money that they don’t spend on the broadband program.

Is this a case that the CRTC used poorly chosen language that allows ILECs to make the rural upgrade plan optional? The March 10 follow-up letter to ILECs has some strange language in it as well:

The CRTC didn’t say ‘equivalent’. They said ‘comparable’. Does that mean that, as long as the ILEC provides a table indicating how the proposed services compares, it is permissible to have a slower, higher-priced offering?

In the meantime, the clock is ticking – proposals are supposed to be submitted by June 30. With a half billion dollars in Bell territory alone at stake, this appeal strikes me as something that merits wider coverage and analysis.

The CRTC has now confirmed that its long awaited Local Forbearance decision will be issued on April 6 at 4pm. There will be a lock-up from 2-4 for those people who just can’t wait to get the word out onto the news wires.

What does it all mean? There are a number of questions being addressed in this proceeding. Most importantly, it is the first CRTC Decision to be released since the release of the report from the Telecom Policy Review panel. It will be interesting to see if any aspects of the reports recommendations find their way into next week’s Decision. Watch for rulings on ‘Winbacks’ and use of Competition Law terminology.

Watch this space next Thursday, April 6, for late breaking news and analysis. Film at 11.

Update:
You know, I find it interesting that Aliant filed its original application on April 7, 2004. You could call it more of a plea for mercy, asking for relief from the pain being inflicted by Eastlink. Is there something in the CRTC’s choice of a date, 2 years less a day, for the release of the Decision?