[LINK] Why AT&T Killed Google Voice

[Richard Chirgwin]

Kim Holburn wrote:
> Interesting article.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970204683204574358552882901262.html
>
> Some nice quotes:
>
>   
>> Data is toxic to old communications and media pipes.
>>     
>
>   
>> We need a national data policy, and here are four suggestions:
>>
>> • End phone exclusivity. Any device should work on any network.  
>> Data flows freely.
>>     
I guess he's thinking of mobile phones, otherwise the statement is silly ...
>> • Transition away from "owning" airwaves. As we've seen with  
>> license-free bandwidth via Wi-Fi networking, we can share the  
>> airwaves without interfering with each other. Let new carriers  
>> emerge based on quality of service rather than spectrum owned.  
>>     
This is just bollocks. WiFi users interfere with each other. That's why 
a busy hotspot is slower than the one at home.
>> Cellphone coverage from huge cell towers will naturally migrate  
>> seamlessly into offices and even homes via Wi-Fi networking. No more  
>> dropped calls in the bathroom.
>>     
<splutter> "Naturally migrate seamlessly". Is Kessler using an 
auto-jargonator?
>> • End municipal exclusivity deals for cable companies. TV  
>> channels are like voice pipes, part of an era that is about to pass.  
>> A little competition for cable will help the transition to paying  
>> for shows instead of overpaying for little-watched networks.  
>> Competition brings de facto network neutrality and open access (if  
>> you don't like one service blocking apps, use another), thus one  
>> less set of artificial rules to be gamed.
>>     
One I can agree with ... competition is good for consumers.
>> • Encourage faster and faster data connections to our homes and  
>> phones. It should more than double every two years. To homes, five  
>> megabits today should be 10 megabits in 2011, 25 megabits in 2013  
>> and 100 megabits in 2017. These data-connection speeds are  
>> technically doable today, with obsolete voice and video policy  
>> holding it back.
>>     
Faster connection to phones?

I can't think how voice and video policy relate to the capacity of an 
Internet service; for example, if you have a 100 Mbps-capable service, 
even a "standard" clear channel voice only needs 64 Kbps of that.

As for his conception of "scaling up" the consumer tail; copper's 
capacity to scale is limited (though not as limited as most people 
think); fibre is a discontinuity, not a gentle scaling-up.

I realise that my attitudes could be thought of as elitist, but is it 
too much to ask for technical clue in broadband debates?

RC
>> Technology doesn't wait around, so it's all going to happen anyway,  
>> but it will take longer under today's rules. A weak economy is not  
>> the time to stifle change.
>>     
>
>
>