All Things Digital

Those on-again, off-again talks between Sprint (S) and Clearwire (CLWR)? They’re on again. In fact, they’re so on that they’re already over. This morning the two companies announced a $14.5 billion multi-player joint venture backed by cable operators Comcast and Time Warner as well as Intel and Google.

The alliance will see the four cable and tech companies investing $3.2 billion in the nationwide wireless network that Sprint and Clearwire have been struggling–with profound unsuccess–to roll out. Comcast (CMCSA) will contribute $1.05 billion, Time Warner Cable (TWX) $500 million. Intel (INTC) will invest $1 billion, Google (GOOG) about $500 million. The new venture will be majority owned by Sprint, but it will take the Clearwire name and be run largely by Clearwire execs, among them cellular industry pioneer Craig McCaw.

For the cablecos, which have yet to settle on a clear wireless strategy, the deal is a quick and dirty way to establish the high-speed wireless network they need to compete with telcos like AT&T (T) and Verizon (VZ). For Sprint and Clearwire, it’s a chance to make their non-starter of a WiMax network viable and something happy to talk about when conversation turns to Sprint’s stock price, which has fallen nearly 60% over the past 12 months.

That said, the deal is not without its problems–top among them WiMax itself. As Craig Moffett, an analyst with Bernstein Research, explained in a note to clients earlier this year, the 2.5 GHz spectrum upon which Sprint and Clearwire are building their network isn’t nearly as good as the spectrum Verizon and AT&T just purchased in the FCC’s 700 MHz auction. “Serious questions remain about penetration through walls and windows,” Moffett explained. “Elsewhere in the world, operators have also raised questions about WiMax’s real-world bandwidth, latency and non-line-of-site coverage. How competitive the offering would be versus Verizon’s or AT&T’s planned LTE broadband service therefore remains to be seen.”

That it does–though there have been some indications that it may not be quite up to par. Speaking at an international WiMax conference in Bangkok in March, Garth Freeman, CEO of Buzz Broadband, Australia’s first WiMax operator, described the technology variously as a “disaster,” “miserable failure,” and a standard “mired in opportunistic hype.”

So will that prove true for Clearwire as well? We won’t know for some time. Building out a massive network like this will take some doing. “We’ll likely to see early trials in 2010, but a full-fledged build-out will take longer,” Clearwire CEO Benjamin Wolff said during a conference call this morning. “Building faster is a matter of logistics. The build plan we’ve laid out will be one of the largest and fastest build-outs ever done. We have the capability to do it, but it’s a massive undertaking.”

Comcast is apparently too busy drafting its “P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities” to bother attending the daylong hearing into its dubious “network management” practices. An odd decision for a company so intent on “clarifying” the practices ISPs should use to manage P2P applications running on their networks. But according to a company spokesperson, Comcast (CMCSA) “felt the issues specific to us were well covered at the first hearing, and the focus of this event should be broader than any individual company’s issues.”

Broader issues? Like reasonable network-management practices? The responsibility to deliver traffic fairly? Service disclosures? The sort of issues that might figure prominently in a “P2P Bill of Rights?”

Guess not.

Anyway, Comcast has already scrapped its policy of deliberately slowing some traffic flowing over BitTorrent and other P2P networks, so there’s really no need for Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin to bust its chops anymore. As Mitch Bowling, Comcast’s senior vice president and general manger of its Internet service, told the New York Times, Comcast’s new policy is to slow traffic based on usage pattern, not application. “[Our new technique] will be based purely on individual consumption by consumers,” Bowling said. “Anything in addition to that is outside the scope of what our network management goal is.”

So the company plans to throttle traffic to the customers that use the most bandwidth. Hmmm. I wonder who those might be? The folks who use the Internet for email and Web browsing or those who use it for downloading digital media?

Well, Comcast founder Ralph Roberts has at least one thing in common with Apple CEO Steve Jobs: an annual salary of $1. Bowing to shareholder criticism, the bandwidth-throttling cable company is slashing Roberts’s pay from $1.85 million to a buck and has amended his compensation package so that he will no longer be eligible for bonuses or stock options. Comcast also scrapped a clause in its proxy statement that had allowed for Roberts’s beneficiaries to receive his salary for five years after his death.

The moves come at a time of growing institutional shareholder dissatisfaction with Comcast (CMCSA). The cable operator’s shares are down nearly 40% in the past year and off by 25% since it gave disappointing 2007 financial guidance in the fall. Suffice it to say, the company’s shareholders are not happy. In a Jan. 14 letter to Comcast, investment firm Chieftain Capital Management accused management of strategic missteps and called CEO Brian (son of Ralph) Roberts’s stewardship of the company over the past decade a Comcastrophe. “The management of this company and supervision by its board have been a ‘Comcastrophe’ for shareholders over the past decade,” Chieftain wrote. “We want and deserve the best CEO Comcast’s board of directors can find–and, based on his record, Brian Roberts is not it.”

Will the concessions Comcast has made to its shareholders silence calls for Roberts’s head? Perhaps. It’s tough to shout epithets at management when the company’s just posted a better-than-expected 54% jump in fourth-quarter net income and announced plans for its first dividend in nearly a decade.

People keep asking what Web 3.0 is. I think maybe when you’ve got an overlay of scalable vector graphics–everything rippling and folding and looking misty–on Web 2.0 and access to a semantic Web integrated across a huge space of data, you’ll have access to an unbelievable data resource.”

–Tim Berners-Lee, May 2006

Web 2.0 is well documented and talked about. The power of the Net reached a critical mass, with capabilities that can be done on a network level. We are also seeing richer devices over the last four years and richer ways of interacting with the network, not only in hardware like game consoles and mobile devices, but also in the software layer. You don’t have to be a computer scientist to create a program. We are seeing that manifest in Web 2.0 and 3.0 will be a great extension of that, a true communal medium … the distinction between professional, semiprofessional and consumers will get blurred, creating a network effect of business and applications.”

–Jerry Yang, co-founder and CEO of Yahoo, November 2006

“Web 1.0 was dial-up, 50K average bandwidth, Web 2.0 is an average one megabit of bandwidth and Web 3.0 will be 10 megabits of bandwidth all the time, which will be the full video Web, and that will feel like Web 3.0.”

–Reed Hastings, founder and CEO of Netflix, November 2006

Had to happen sooner or later, right? The lexicographers who gave us the term Web 2.0 have finally gotten around to issuing an “official” definition of Web 3.0 and, having undoubtedly scurried to trademark the term, are probably already plotting the pricey industry conference that will accompany it.

So what is Web 3.0, “officially”?

Web 3.0 is defined as the creation of high-quality content and services produced by gifted individuals using Web 2.0 technology as an enabling platform.”
–Jason Calacanis

In other words it’s Web 2.0 2.0, Web 2.0 with another 1.0’s worth of marketing BS. Or, as Josh Kopelman, managing director of First Round Capital, aptly puts it, “any Internet-based company that has launched after 2004.“

The BBC’s new iPlayer isn’t even out of beta and already it’s being decried as a bandwidth hog. U.K. Internet service providers are threatening to restrict customers’ access to the media player unless the Beeb contributes to the increased bandwidth costs they feel it will create.

“The Internet was not set up with a view to distributing video. We have been improving our capacity, but the bandwidth we have is not infinite,” said Mary Turner, chief executive of Tiscali UK. “If the iPlayer really takes off, consumers accessing the Internet will get very slow service and will call their ISPs to complain.” And why shouldn’t they? After all, Tiscali claims to offer “unlimited” broadband–a service that’s “ideal for high-bandwidth tasks such as music, video streaming and downloading large files.”

Apparently “unlimited” flat-rate broadband access is only worthwhile when there isn’t a lot to do with it. The ISPs’ “arguments sound hollow,” writes Om Malik. “On one hand they urge subscribers to sign up for faster download plans, and pay premium prices. And yet, they complain when subscribers finally find an application that puts their Web speed to work.”

What was it former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once said? You go to war with the bandwidth you have, not the bandwidth you want?

A Department of Defense policy that went into effect today bans military access worldwide to MySpace, YouTube, Photobucket and eight other popular Web sites because of the strain they place on its network. “We’re not passing any judgment on these sites, we’re just saying you shouldn’t be accessing them at work,” Julie Ziegenhorn, spokeswoman for U.S. Strategic Command, told Stars and Stripes. “This is a bandwidth- and network-management issue. We’ve got to have the networks open to do our mission. They have to be reliable, timely and secure.”

Of course. But this isn’t the first time the Defense Department has faced a bandwidth crunch. It was complaining about them back in 2003. You’d think that it might have spent the ensuing years assessing its bandwidth requirements and building out the capacity to meet it. Apparently not. It’s added just enough connectivity to support its own government-vetted YouTube channel, but not those services used by troops to keep in touch with family and friends.