As a frequent consumer of pop culture criticism, I am well aware that it is almost 2010 thanks to all the “Best of 2009” (or now “Best of Decade”) lists. While sometimes predictable and cliché, I look forward to reading about the albums, books, movies and band names  that unite or divide critics. It’s a good way to discover music or movies that I had previously overlooked (this year’s winner: the Dirty Projectors) and it’s nice to take a look back at the year that was.

So, in that spirit, here are some of the most relevant stories in the telecom/VoIP/tech industry in 2009:

Net Neutrality Picks up Steam

With the new administration in Washington, the regulatory climate was noticeably different than the previous 8 years. The FCC began to look into possible monopolistic behavior in the mobile telecom market and the exclusive agreements between handset manufacturers and carriers. In addition, Congress offered proposals which would set actual rules around the regulation of the Internet. Major companies like Google, Apple and AT&T were all in the mix, and should be for the foreseeable future.

Android Offers iPhone Alternative

For all of us who were searching for a smartphone with iPhone-like functionality, but with a physical keyboard, a better network and an open platform, the Droid was the answer to our prayers. Perhaps that’s why Time Magazine named the Droid the “Device of the Year”. Subsequent news of a Google branded phone only fanned the competitive flames between Google and Apple.

Mobile VoIP Makes Waves

For years, pundits have been speculating about the arrival of mobile VoIP (I am sure at least blog or article in the next 14 days will proclaim that 2010 is the year). While I wouldn’t argue that mobile VoIP is here, or that it will soon be, it was a major component of the previous 2 storylines. One of the motivating factors behind the FCC looking into mobile operator behavior is carriers’ ability to block certain types of traffic (e.g. VoIP). In addition, Google Voice, while not technically a VoIP service, drew the ire of the FCC under allegations that it was blocking calls to rural areas. Also, the recent rumors surrounding the Google Phone indicate it may be an unlocked phone that will be sold without carrier subsidy, and configured to offer free VoIP calls. While mobile VoIP may not be mainstream, it sure is having an impact on the industry.

HD Voice Goes Mainstream

GIPS has been trumpeting the cause of wideband speech since the company’s inception. While the technology saw a great deal of adoption with the launch of PC-based calling services, it wasn’t until the marketing-friendly name “HD Voice” came along that it really took off. The number of companies announcing HD voice solutions, combined with industry organizations pushing for adoption of the technology, point to a potential for mass acceptance of a new standard of voice quality.

Updating Mike’s post last week, the FCC voted on Thursday to investigate regulating the Internet. This is certainly an issue which will continue to get news coverage as the FCC begins to formulate its agenda. However, what I will be particularly interested in is how the media covers the topic, and how major industry players influence the decision making process.

Already, quite a few Members of Congress are getting into the mix, introducing legislation which would either codify rules for Internet regulation, or keep the Internet totally unregulated. While in the past I have questioned  the motives of each side of the debate, I think it is useful to note who is most active in lobbying for, or (mainly) against net neutrality. The Daily Show on Monday did a great job of pointing out the connection between large campaign contributions, and John McCain’s stance on the issue.

As the debate moves forward, I hope the “real” news media will do as thorough a job reporting such facts as the “fake” news media, so that citizens are engaged and informed enough to promote fair policy which benefits the American people.

Just how free and open is the Internet?  Not nearly as open as it was a few years ago, according to a report by Arbor Networks. Instead of a landscape in which thousands of firms are scattered about, about 150 companies are responsible for half of Internet traffic. 

When I read this statistic I thought, “so what?” It certainly doesn’t sound like anything close to monopolistic or oligopolistic behavior. I definitely can’t think of any other industry in which 150 companies compete for half the market. However, the trend toward concentration, and the quickness with which it is happening, is actually quite startling. Just 2 years ago 5,000 companies were responsible for 50% of worldwide net traffic- 33 times more firms than today.

Google alone accounts for 7% of all web traffic, more than any other company. Not only do they hold a larger share of traffic than anyone else, but the nature of their traffic can be quite important. This is not just some funny Twitter page or blog that draws a large number of visitors. Google is in the business of organizing information, some of it very personal and valuable. In addition, offshoots like Google Voice provide services that some would consider pretty essential (phone calls) for modern life. 

Which brings me to the news that the recently invigorated FCC may investigate allegations that Google Voice is blocking calls to rural areas. This issue really brings the discussion to a head for me. I don’t have any idea what an appropriate level of competition is for web-based business. The trend toward concentration could just be like any other market in which stronger, more competitive players end up gaining significant market share, while others fall behind and eventually die out. People may only rely on the Internet to do a few things, and will seek out a handful of providers to allow them to do so. Who knows, the search market may even be a natural monopoly, and will be controlled by 1 or 2 providers. I don’t even have a real grasp on all the angles of net neutrality and its possible implications. However, it does seem to me that the “underdogs” that people seem to root for in the advocating of net neutrality, and issues like the “Pulver Order”, aren’t the benevolent actors they are made out to be. They are businesses and will seek to make a profit just like the big telcos. Just because they have a different business model doesn’t mean they are exempt from the same potential abuses in the quest for profit that other companies are guilty of.  In fact, it is this very type of behavior- discriminating against certain types of traffic- that I thought was supposed to be prohibited under net neutrality. But it sounds like Google, and potentially any other company that claims that VoIP is not subject to the same rules as PSTN communications, is trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want the Internet to be free and open, but only in a narrowly defined way. Once that openness means regulating activity to protect consumers and discourage anti-competitive behavior, the rules no longer apply to them.

It is still too early to tell if Google is in fact violating net neutrality principles, let alone doing anything illegal. However, it seems pretty clear to me that we need some common sense regulations to make sure that all consumers receive the same level of service, while encouraging competition in the marketplace.

Last week in the US, the FCC took notice of Apple’s (and maybe AT&T’s) refusal to approve Google Voice for distribution on the iPhone App Store. In individual letters to the three aforementioned technology giants, the FCC launched an investigation into the relationship between Apple and AT&T and how the fate of applications submitted to the App Store are determined. To date, there are several open FCC proceedings regarding wireless access and handset availability, but to me this signals that the government is seriously interested in promoting openness of the wireless internet. The App Store reject pile is littered with VoIP applications deemed not suitable for the Apple/AT&T offering, however, the FCC has now decided to question Apple’s practices. Using Google as a test case is not surprising as the US government has a predilection to target higher profile cases.

Significant action by the FCC to promote openness within the wireless internet is a huge plus for the voice and video over IP community particularly as LTE and WiMax technology are rolled out to the public. Assuming new regulations are crafted to ensure a high level of openness the challenge will become how service providers and their networks manage the demand created by new IP communication applications. Even today the AT&T network is stressed. The GIPS San Francisco office is located in the shadow of the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge and during afternoon rush hour, traffic chokes streets around our office.  When leaving the office for the evening, I frequently will make try to make a call as I walk to the MUNI Metro Station. Quite often my call is met with a “Network Busy” or is dropped in progress. I can only surmise that the network is oversubscribed due to the volume of calls placed from cars idling at the approaches to the bridge. I am also an avid user of mobile web and mobile email. Again, while navigating the streets of San Francisco, I am less than overwhelmed by the capability of the AT&T 3G/Edge data network.

Is there a reasonable solution that will provide excellent coverage and appropriate data throughput at reasonable price? I am not sure; however, I applaud the effort by the FCC to attempt to break down some of the barriers which are limiting innovation.

Hot off the tales of the HD summit last week in New York, I was bemused to see a BBC reporter sitting in the very seat I occupied in Central Park last week using the free Wi-Fi connection. While I could still use googletalk there (and overcome the VoIP challenges of a poor Wi-Fi connection) her report from Central Park was interesting because she might have as well been in rural Northern England and got a better connection.

BBC’s Michelle Fleury report was part of a larger article on broadband speeds available in member countries of the OECD. Fleury reported on how the US’s free market leaves it with slower web access than other countries. As well documented Japan, South Korea and the Northern European countries lead the world in broadband access, while the US saunters behind countries such as New Zealand, Czech Republic and Austria.

While the US broadband has been driven by free-market development, it is generally more expensive and slower than most other OECD countries.  Now that $7 billion in US tax-payers funds has been earmarked for broadband development  – the FCC will be responsible for rolling out faster and hopefully cheaper broadband.

Broadband networks are fundamental for economic and social development in every country. These networks serve as communication and transaction platforms, which are as crucial as other infrastructures such as roads, rails and airways.

At the HD summit, the mobile operator and Internet service provider, Orange (France Telecom) pointed out that they provide superior broadband speeds for 30 Euro per month – tax included. An equivalent broadband speed here in the US (50Mbps) costs between $90- $150 per month.

While this BBC report is dismaying, I’m an optimist and believe broadband speeds will increase in the US and with it the push for HD voice.

Cable and telephone companies are preparing for a meeting tomorrow as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) starts work on a US national broadband strategy. Two items on the ticket are: Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services and a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment to inform the Commission’s development of a national broadband plan for our country

Less than 1 percent of the stimulus package will go towards improving the US broadband infrastructure. However, that 1 percent does weigh more than $7 billion and it would seem that further federal monies may also flow into this pot.

The FCC’s mandate is to provide a plan by early 2010 that incorporates the guidelines that will guarantee delivery of the Internet and define how fast is next-gen broadband in the US.

Free Press a non-partisan organization promoting decentralization in broadcasting, wrote a letter to the FCC chairman, Michael Copp, last Friday raising concerns that “wireless service providers appear to be engaging in activities that go against the Commission’s Internet Policy Statement by violating consumers’ right to run applications, use services, or attach devices of their choice over their broadband connections.”

Ben Scott, Policy Director at Free Press continued in the letter: “Wireless networks demonstrate numerous anti-consumer practices that may be violations of the Commission’s Internet Policy Statement. In some cases, these appear to be outright restrictions on applications, services or devices imposed by the carrier.”

However, Service Providers are going to want to maintain control of their networks to ensure that bandwidth is not eaten up by larger users, while end users and application developers will want to have services, such as video, that requires more bandwidth.

The debate has been stimulated by a number of companies who offer VoIP services such as Skype (over Wi-Fi) and Zer01 – a truly mobile VoIP carrier here in the US.

As more consumers begin to access the Internet wirelessly, Free Press argues it will be critical for the FCC to clarify both that the Internet Policy Statement applies to wireless and that online consumer protections that prohibit blocking are the same regardless of how we access the Web.

More demand for VoIP or video conferencing will require technology that regardless of network, platform or device ensures high-quality voice or video calls even when bandwidth is restricted – thankfully there is GIPS technology!

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will meet in two weeks to discuss, among other subjects, a National Broadband Plan for the US. The topic discussion is a long time coming considering the US lags behind most developed countries in broadband development. Given the state of the US economy the topic will be discussed as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This bill is intended to create jobs, restore economic growth, and modernize the nation’s infrastructure. More than $2.8 billion has been allocated for broadband infrastructure improvements.

Part of the grant/subsidies will go towards increasing the speeds of “advanced broadband services,” which are expected to deliver data to consumers at a speed of at least 45 Mb/s downstream and at least 15 Mb/s per second upstream. It also includes ”advanced wireless broadband service” delivering consumers speeds of at least 3Mb/s downstream and at least 1Mb/s. As a result the ability to offer real-time HD-video on the desktop and mobile video calling holds the promise of additional revenue streams for the communications industry.

In regards to HD, Apple made an announcement yesterday about the availability of purchasing HD-movies though iTunes. The demand for HD is growing and will only get stronger as consumers expect and experience better quality voice and video.

Talking of experiencing HD-voice and video, GIPS will be exhibiting at VoiceCON March 30 – April 1. If you are attending the show and want to experience GIPS’ technological advantage please let me know.

PC Magazine has reported that Comcast is facing allegations that it is favoring its own VoIP traffic over competitors, such as Vonage or Skype. On Sunday, the FCC submitted a letter to Comcast, inquiring about the cable provider’s network management practices.

Last week I blogged about Verizon planning to convert its home telephone service to all VoIP by 2012. Though Verizon has since denied having such plans, the latest news about Comcast sheds some light on an increasingly competitive space.  Telcos, cable companies and upstart VoIP providers are all competing for the same residential telephony nickle, driving down prices. Until now, cable companies like Comcast have been able to capture market share by bundling their phone service with television and Internet. However, if these allegations are true, it would seem to indicate that even they are feeling pressure from VoIP providers.

Furthermore, if Comcast is indeed prioritizing its own voice traffic, it could have sweeping implications for the entire industry. As the PC Magazine article explains so well, Comcast claims that its Digital Voiceoffering is a separate IP phone service, which is not subject to its network management techniques. This implies that they are providing a telephone service, which is subject to a completely different set of federal regulations. I am no legal expert, but I would imagine that if other providers are found to be acting in a similar manner, it could mean they would incur the same tax burdens as telcos, as well as be forced to comply with any other service or safety standards. This will certainly be a story to watch, as Comcast may have opened a can of worms that other cable companies wish would stay closed.