So the iPhone announcements today blew away the speculators. And we’ll have to listen to another year of pundits speculating about the iPhone 5. So here’s something else to speculate about;we should have some direction as to where this story is going by the end of the week.

According to the recent information the European Union’s next statement on the Microsoft acquisition of Skype should appear in three days (Oct. 7). However, in the interim there are a couple of points to note:

• An Italian VoIP provider has filed an objection requesting that the purchase be blocked unless Skype is “removed from Microsoft’s ubiquitous Windows Office platform”. To which I can only say, “Huh?” While there was in the past an email toolbar linking Skype information into Outlook, that quietly went away a couple of years ago. (I had been a beta tester for it.) I have yet to find or install any Office product with Skype embedded. Somehow it’s tough to remove what is not there!
• Skype Journal’s Phil Wolff has written a long tome on Should the US have OK’d Microsoft’s purchase of Skype? Should the EU? He outlines many considerations that become overwhelming in the resulting comprehensiveness. It provides a range of where there might be competitors who could be threatened, but many are either fairly strong in their own niche or have markets with some level of feature set where Skype integration would actually be of benefit.

One can get embedded into discussing feature set, interoperability, protocol and other technology logistics; it can get to be a very complex and time demanding process. The bottom line should be a simple ruling that takes into consideration the need for there to be the ability:

• for any third party to have access for embedding Skype features (via, say, an expanded SkypeKit) to strengthen their own offerings through real time communications enhancements as well as
• for the various Microsoft offerings (such as Outlook) to have access to an API set for third parties to integrate their offerings, including real time communications services, into a Microsoft offering – via industry standard protocols. But developers, such as former Skype employee Peter Kalmstrom, have already demonstrated how to leverage Microsoft offerings successfully through innovative add-ons and services.

Bottom line is that coming out of this review should be an environment that encourages innovation, whether by Skype or third party services, delivering offerings that have the potential to actually achieve market adoption and success. Microsoft has to recover its $8.5B investment; developers need to see a fair and profitable opportunity for identifying and addressing market niches that can build on Microsoft platforms.

In passing on a review the U.S.’s regulatory authorities did not see any issues. The EU seems to figure out some way to be more aggressive, especially when it comes to Microsoft; some other issues are discussed in a previous post here. It will be interesting to see what comes out from the EU Competition Commissioners on Friday.

Recently Skype CEO Tony Bates confirmed that the major step required to complete the Microsoft acquisition of Skype is approval by the appropriate European Union competition authorities. Keep in mind:

• Skype, LLC is a Luxembourg-based company (Is Luxembourg the Delaware of the EU?)
• Microsoft will be doing the acquisition using cash from outside the U.S., taking advantage of a tax situation.

Today we learned that, in Reuters’ September 5 report on EU mergers and takeovers:

NEW LISTINGS: — U.S. software company Microsoft (MSFT.O) to acquire video chat service Skype (notified Sept. 2/deadline Oct. 7)

Don’t know what stage this takes the approval process to but it sounds like the European Commission should be saying something about the approval by October 7; one of:

• passing on any further investigation allowing the acquisition to proceed
• approval, possibly with conditions
• announcing that there would be further investigation, or
• denying approval

Whereas the FCC basically ruled that this was a “transaction granted early termination”, effectively saying they had no objection nor desire to investigate further, the European Commission has been much tougher on Microsoft with respect to previous rulings regarding its Windows operating system, including a massive €833 million fine in 2008.

On the other hand it appears that EU anti-trust Commissioner Neelie Kroes, who was heavily involved in imposing that fine, is more sympathetic to Skype, especially when it comes to competing with wireless carriers and their excessive roaming charges. According to David Zielenziger on the Business & Law blog:

Last year, Kroes discussed her affinity for Skype, which she said lets anyone with a connection communicate. “Vote with your feet and leave your mobile provider,” she told a conference. “The message will be all the more powerful when it comes from the bottom up and not the top down.”

David goes on to attempt to position the role of the Google acquisition of Motorola Mobile in all this. Really it’s a bit of a crap shoot where the real villain appears to be the wireless carriers in Europe.

Jean-Jacques Sahel, Skype’s Government Relations Manager for Europe, Middle East and Africa, had more to report on the EU’s attitude towards Net Neutrality and a potential role for Skype last fall:

Last week in Brussels, European Commissioner Neelie Kroes highlighted her use (and enjoyment!) of Skype, and encouraged consumers to boycott those operators that don’t allow Skype. A lot of you might want to follow her call to action. If you can.

But he also points out the many barriers to switching in a real world and suggests what action the European Commission can take towards adopting the much mangled “net neutrality”.

Has the role of WiFi as the “stealth” carrier been considered? On my recent trips to Europe, I was able to find enough WiFi access points to leave my iPhone in Airplane mode and use my BlackBerry for voice calls sparingly.

One final question: what are the advantages of calling Skype “a video chat service”? While there has certainly been a strong emphasis on video calling in Skype’s recent promotions, it’s obviously a lot more than simply video. Is there a “hidden” agenda in this description of Skype?

Ah, the joys of being a government interloper with lots of economic theory to justify! If only consumer demand for what amounts to a “free” service that has brought pricing to zero could participate in the discussion. Will technology triumph over bureaucracy? Will Skype’s role in overcoming barriers to worldwide communications be considered?

Meanwhile we’ll await the next word from the European Commission in early October (or earlier?).

I’m no expert on these issues (although I have participated in a few acquisition due diligence exercises). I have probably not covered all the issues. If you have more to contribute to the conversation, please speak up in the Comments.

In a press release associated with its participation at Mobile World Congress Skype has announced an expansion of its Skype Access service to include eight additional hotspot operators. According to the press release:

With one click, Skype users can connect to the Internet through a WiFi operator partner in over 500,000 hotspots around the globe including 500 airports, 30,000 hotels and numerous cafes, trains, planes, offices buildings, and convention centers.

Rather than paying costly per day or per hour Internet access fees, Skype Access allows you to pay per minute using Skype Credit to control your costs at rates starting at £.04 /€.05/$.06per minute [including VAT]. All you need is a connection to a Skype Access compatible hotspot and the latest version of Skype for Mac or Windows.

Skype has arranged for free use of Skype Access across Spain (including at this week’s Mobile World Congress) for the week of Feb. 14 to 18, 2010 (using CET time zone). It would be interesting to know how many iPhone users are making Skype video calls to/from their colleagues attending the conference and the resulting load on the WiFi network.

At rates as low as £.04 /€.05/$.06 per minute Skype Access over these operators appear to be offering significantly lower than the $0.19 cents per minute charged for using Skype Access over Boingo with its over 200,000 WiFi hotspots worldwide (Boingo’s continued participation as a Skype Access partner has been confirmed).

The new Skype Access provider partners include:

• BT Openzone – The UK’s largest WiFi hotspot provider with a network of two million hotspots
• Fon – The world’s largest WiFi network with over 3.35 million Fon Spots across the globe
• M3 Connect – WiFi provider in Germany with hotspots in many hotels, fairgrounds, airports and places like the German Stock Exchange
• Row 44 – Provides the world’s leading in-flight broadband platform to commercial airlines around the world
• Skyrove – WiFi hotspot solutions for Guesthouses, Hotels and Coffee Shops throughout South Africa.
• Spectrum Interactive – Specializes in offering WiFi for the travel and media sector including airports and hotels across the UK
• Tomizone – WiFi provider in Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific
• Vex – Offers WiFi services in thousands of locations around the world including South America

Bottom Line: Whereas the rates for using Skype Access over Boingo tended to make it a “last resort” WiFi access service (while avoiding costly carrier roaming charges), Skype Access has become a more accessible and reasonable cost alternative to travelers worldwide. On the other hand, when at a specific location, you usually have only one choice for WiFi carrier. At hotels and airports it represents an alternative to “daily” charges for short term access sessions during a stopover or brief hotel stay. Most importantly the WiFi “Unregulated Stealth Carrier” experience is now available to Skype users at over 700,000 locations worldwide.

Related articles

• Skype Can Now Get You Access to 500,000+ Wi-Fi Hotspots (mashable.com)
• Skype buys a week of Wi-Fi for Spain (skypejournal.com)
• Skype launches global WiFi hotspot program (gizmag.com)

This week I am attending the fourth Emerging Communications Conference, or eComm America 2010, with the byline “What’s Next in Telecom, Mobile and Internet Communications”. The first morning was probably one of the best overall sessions for providing an update of where several major players are taking their offerings and how they are contributing to bring more value add into real time communications experiences.

For example:

Erik Winkler, CEO of Bit Torrent, whose  peer-to-peer file transfer service gets caught up in the Net Neutrality debate since their service has the potential to take over all the traffic to an end user during a download, talked about management of congestion and differentiated it as an issue that is independent of management of content issues. Offering a solution that represented a win for consumers, the communications industry and publishers, he talked about taking a “congestion control approach” to address the problem with recommendations that leave management of content out of the issue:

• manage for congestion
• manage in a protocol agnostic manner
• meter fairly
• re-think download caps since they have no obvious link to congestion
• incent network friendly behavior

Next up was Craig Walker, Group Product Manager, Google Voice who talked about moving communications into the cloud. (As a hint to Google’s overall tactics, I had attended a Mobile Monday event in Toronto two weeks ago; the feature presentation talked about “moving communications into the cloud” from a mobile device perspective.) Craig started out with the economic arguments for this shift, eliminating server hardware and oversight resources from a business’s communications costs. As a result a startup can generate interesting communications applications without having to deal with the capital cost overhead of a traditional telco. And he concluded with an overview of Google Voice and how it can provide a person with a “Find Me, Follow Me” single number to reach the person at any of multiple end point devices, while at the same time managing the voice mail that can arise from having multiple “numbers” to reach those end points.

Next we learned some insight into the U.S. National Broadband plan from Carlos Kirjner, Senior Advisor to the Chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. His three major discussion points: “Why the Plan?”, “The ‘Aha’ Moments” and “How to Make It Better”:

Why: Congress mandated it but there’s really a fundamental revolution, at a level similar to the introduction of the printing press and electricity, taking place that will impact the U.S. economy

The Aha’s: The need to consider the entire ecosystem that brings together a national broadband infrastructure: not simply connectivity but also devices, applications, network, consumer issues, regulatory issues and legal constraints. He went on to define what FCC sees as the role of government including competition policy that will drive and foster innovation, assets to be managed such as spectrum allocation, universal service mechanisms and, not to be overlooked, laws, rules and standards for key sectors.

With respect to competition he emphasized the importance of tracking and benchmarking actual behavior, lowering barriers to entry, device competition, application innovation and empowering consumers. In closing his third major point was to ask for feedback while noting that real data beats analyses which, in turn, beats out opinions when it comes to setting policies.

After the morning break, we heard from Jonathan Rosenberg, Skype’s Chief Technology Strategist, whose presentation on Social Sharing 2.0 and the role of Real Time Communications will be the subject of a separate post.

Jonathan was followed by one of his former Cisco colleagues, Cullen Jennings, a Distinguised Engineer in the CTO office at Cisco, on the subject of Identity for Global Communications and that least common denominator of voice calling identity, the phone number. Cisco’s proposed ViPR technology combines a Distributed Hash Table, the PSTN and SIP to provide “Blue Sky Computing” that can validate that a number being called is actually reaching the party whom one really wants to communicate with for privacy or security reasons. It’s a peer-to-peer solution that has implications for communications business models.

The morning session concluded with two product announcements; both designed to provide intelligent business communications solutions that facilitate PBX-type functionality for managing calls to the appropriate end point within a business’s ecosystem: Ringio (a startup launched yesterday) and CounterPath’s new Nomadic PBX. Both could be represented as solutions for a mobile Call Center with different approaches to the issue and target markets.

Bottom Line: Overall I came out this session with a lot to absorb but impressed with not simply the thinking behind these offerings but also the execution that is taking place to make these solutions a reality.

Note re photos: Photo by James Duncan Davidson, the show photographer.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Skype to FCC: Keep Internet Open & Neutral (gigaom.com)
• New Voyces in the communication industry. (saunderslog.com)
• Comcast Didn’t Kill Net Neutrality Last Week (gigaom.com)

Launch of the iPad last week and the Apple’s recent change in their developer terms of service involving the removal of restrictions for using VoIP technology over a carrier’s 3G network have had the Skype mobile team busy reviewing the opportunities.

In a Share Skype post, An update on Skype for iPhone and calling over 3G, Peter Parkes interviews Skype for Mobile team member David Ponsford making a few points:

• Skype’s high quality audio SILK technology will be embedded in the next version of Skype for iPhone (for both the latest model iPhone 3G S and iPod Touch)
• “Real soon now” (quoting David in the video) we’ll be able to make Skype for iPhone voice calls over a carrier’s 3G network using Skype for iPhone.
• The next version will also incorporate the call quality indicator, a very useful tool found currently in the Skype for Windows 4.2 beta release.
• Skype for iPad is under consideration; given Apple’s claim that all current third party iPhone apps should run on the iPad, this should not involve too much change other than adapting to the larger screen size.

Here’s the video:

Skype for iPhone has bailed me out for voice calling on my recent trips to the U.S. for CES 2010 and IT Expo. During both events several calls from outside parties to my BlackBerry resulted in very poor call quality when roaming over the AT&T network. As a result I had to ask the calling party to hang up and called them back using Skype for iPhone (fortunately I was in a WiFi access point’s range). And the call quality was more than acceptable in each case. Just reinforces my point last spring about WiFi becoming a stealth carrier.

What will be real interesting is how much data traffic is generated by calls over 3G:

• Will it be the application to cause me to take full advantage of the 6GB data plan (for Canadian access) on my iPhone where my usage currently runs under 100MB per month?
• What will be the impact on roaming data plans and the resultant charges?
• While there is no doubt that Rogers, Bell and Telus will be able to handle the additional data traffic load in Canada, will Skype for iPhone over 3G be the application that brings down AT&T’s network in the U.S? (Especially if they can’t deliver good quality voice calls on their voice channel – see above.)

One final question: Does “real soon now” mean prior to or during the upcoming Vancouver/Whistler 2010 Winter Olympics that start in nine days (Feb. 12)?

Thanks to Skype’s Chief Blogging Officer Peter Parkes and David Ponsford for the update.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Skype for iPhone 1.3 Released (voiceontheweb.biz)
• Fring Brings Video and Voice Calls to the iPhone (appscout.com)
• Apple drops VoIP over 3G restrictions on the iPhone (mobile.venturebeat.com)
• Skype for iPhone: Now Legally Available for Canadians (voiceontheweb.biz)
• Is WiFi Becoming the Unregulated Stealth Carrier of the Future? (voiceontheweb.biz)
• Apple’s iPad: Why iAttaché Would Have More Cachet! (voiceontheweb.biz)
• Traveling in a Bipolar Mobile Mode (voiceontheweb.biz)
• Skype: the “Unofficial” Personal Communications Software for the 2010 Winter Olympics? (voiceontheweb.biz)

It all started when I attended the June 2 Android launch on Rogers Wireless. During a scrum I had asked “Fringe” actor Joshua Jackson if he had made a call from Paris, France to his wife in Vancouver using Skype for Android (Skype Lite). Rogers Wireless CMO John Boynton interjected that Rogers allows all applications to run on their networks; the inability to run Skype was an issue that required Skype’s initiative to resolve (there’s a regulatory issue). Later during a demonstration of the Android when I had noticed the Skype Lite beta icon on one of the HTC Android phones, a Rogers marketing person volunteered that Rogers does not block any applications.

Fast forward to the Canadian Telecom Summit two weeks later when recently appointed Rogers CEO Nadir Mohamed made similar points about Rogers policy on network management during his leadoff keynote presentation. But it was during a Net Neutrality forum presentation the following day by Rogers Chief Strategy Office Mike Lee that we got to the meat of the topic; three of his slides articulate the story:

followed by:

followed by:

In his commentary, Mike pointed out that the focus of Rogers’ network management policy is on optimizing the behavior of the network such as to give customers the response they expect. Other points Mike made:

• In today’s world a service provider needs to deliver the best possible experience for the broadest range of customers.
• Rogers primary business is providing Internet access in a market that has a focus on speed and accessibility.
• Rogers is not in the business of managing applications or specific customer uses.
• Rogers’ traffic management is designed specifically so that Skype works well.
• The only throttling of traffic relates to p2p file sharing traffic (i.e. BitTorrent) to which a dedicated channel is assigned so that p2p traffic does not swamp the network and interfere with other customers’ access to the network.
• In response to query from the audience, Rogers only provides network management for their retail customers. Any MVNO using the Rogers backbone via a wholesale arrangement gets the “raw” Internet and must establish their own network management practices.

Mike’s presentation was followed by Skype’s Christopher Libertelli, Director of North American Government Relations, making Skype’s usual pitch supporting network neutrality. The final forum participant was Dave Caputo, CEO of Sandvine, a provider of network infrastructure software focused on improving the quality of customer experience. Dave’s main point was that an unmanaged network does not equate to network neutrality; however, Internet service providers have the most to gain from permitting the diversity that attracts the most customers.

In the end all three agreed that a focus on the customer experience, while managing the network only to the level of protecting the network’s integrity while achieving customer satisfaction, will make a sustainable win-win for both the network operator and the end user.

But the Rogers’ approach to network management really hit home when, the day after the forum, I found a post by Skype’s Director of EU Government Relations, Jean-Jacques Sahel, “’You touch my Skype, you touch my freedom of expression and communication’ – access to the Internet recognised as a fundamental human right (at last)” where it appears the European Parliament is at odds with individual European governments over net neutrality issues.

EU law should ensure that citizens can exercise their freedom of expression and communication and can benefit from Internet access that is open, taking into account the requirements expressed by users to make use of, and distribute, content, applications and services on the Internet. Access to Internet content, services and applications, as confirmed by the French Conseil Constitutionnel, is an explicit part of the fundamental rights of citizens to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference and regardless of frontiers. Additionally, unrestricted Internet access to content, services and applications is also a necessity for the preservation of the effectiveness of European and national policies designed to combat social exclusion, promote education, training, employment, etc.

Seems like some European carriers have not quite yet got the message being put forward by Rogers – these operators can’t quite deal with the gradual shift in power from the carrier to the consumer.

My own experience: When I am able to run SlingPlayer for BlackBerry over Rogers 3G service, whereas AT&T feels that this application would overload their network, I am getting the response I expect. When Skype video calling runs such that, on full screen mode, I feel the other party appears to be “across the desk” I am getting the response i expect. When Rogers is offering WiFi-based services that complement their 3G network service I get the response I expect (hello Verizon!).

Bottom line: Under new CEO Nadir Mohammed Rogers’ focus is on the customer experience as their ultimate sustainable advantage. Their network management practices address network integrity issues: spam, viruses, denial of service attacks and ensuring that p2p file sharing does not deprive others of their expected service level. They simply do not have the time nor resources to worry about “limiting” or manipulating access to Internet traffic based on applications or offerings.

Certainly there are still issues outstanding at Rogers with respect to, say, roaming charges and length of contracts. But, in response to my question to Nadir about roaming charges, he stated there is currently a disconnect when there is such a disparity between local and roaming “per MB” data charges. However, he continued by saying that this is an area that Rogers is reviewing. In fact, Alec Saunders found a “customer service fairy” when he called Rogers this past week in anticipation of a forthcoming trip to the U.S. On the other hand, Alec would like to see increased upload speeds for the coming flood of video applications. (DOCSIS 3.0, anyone?)

In summary, Rogers appears to be establishing a world-leading benchmark for adhering to application-agnostic net neutrality policies in practice; they are not simply mouthing the network neutrality message but also executing on it.

Footnotes:

• My thanks to Rogers CSO Mike Lee for providing me with a copy of slides used at his Net Neutrality forum presentation at the Canadian Telecom Summit.
• Rogers WiFi-based services include participation in the Canadian HotSpot Network and Rogers TalkSpotTM service that allows one to make voice calls via any WiFi access point in Canada for a fixed monthly fee.

(As for the issues Skype is facing with respect to offering SkypeIn, Skype To Go, Skype for iPhone and Skype for BlackBerry in Canada – that will be the subject of another post. But they are NOT Rogers issues.)

Full disclosure: the author is a full paying Rogers customer for all their services: wireless, cableTV, high speed Internet and Home Phone.

Ok, so the term “Net Neutrality” has different interpretations for different people. Convergence of voice, Internet and broadcast media has created an entirely new set of stakeholders with divergent issues:

• Users: they would like to exploit the Internet for all its various features: email, web browsing, viewing videos, exchanging text messages (think IM, not SMS), voice and video conversations, remote viewing of their cable TV subscription (one-to-one), researching and booking travel, researching purchases, buying goods and services … the list goes on…
• Service Providers: basically they want to simply deliver the electrons in the form of data packets; they are not media mavens, do not care about content other than security issues. They are the extension of the copper wire, coaxial cable or fiber optic strands used to deliver the content but they are not and do not want to be content producers (other than portals that help users set up and use their services).
• Content producers: fundamentally these are the talents that produce content who hope they can draw an audience. They want to be rewarded and compensated for their efforts and deserve to be at the artist, author or director level. Their traditional business models are breaking down but, in many instances, they do not have the leadership or enthusiasm to figure out the new business models for generating revenues.
• Commercial enterprises want to promote and sell their goods and services. e-Commerce is growing, especially when it comes to travel, memberships, books, legacy catalogue operations and long tail goods and services.

A recipe for conflict. Even though the legacy voice carriers never concerned themselves with the spoken words (content) of a conversation, convergence of infrastructure and content, resulting from the potential of IP-based communications technology, has been muddying up the waters when it comes to considerations of what content is delivered over the Internet. And, of course, they need additional revenue streams as they see their previous business models and associated revenues evaporate.

“Net Neutrality” has become the modern equivalent of separation of church and state; the debate centers around separation of ‘”pipes” (copper or fiber) and content. As with our gas utilities in Ontario, give us the “last mile” pipes into our homes and negotiate/deal separately for whose “gas” will be delivered through those pipes.

The Stockholm “structural bypass” model, as described by Brough Turner at eComm 2009, demonstrates “a simple proven path to ‘Real Broadband’” : 1.2 million kilometers of “dark” fiber around the city as a public utility with a low cost ($11 per month) for 100 Mbps connectivity complemented by over 300 service providers delivering content (or “lighting up” the fiber). Separation of pipes and content – one concept of “net neutrality”.

Politics and incumbent interests have presented challenges in the U.S. and Canadian markets. However, we’re starting to see some seeds being sown that hopefully will build a base of support for some level of “structural bypass”:

• US: appointment of Blair Levin, a veteran of telecomm regulation, to help coordinate the FCC’s national broadband plan. Phil Wolff at Skype Journal comments in his post, King of Broadband:
  

  Astoundingly great, ubiquitous, pervasive, cheap, uncensored, clean, accessible, fair and market-driven broadband might be possible with a national plan. A former commissioner, Levin understands the deeper tech, social, economic and political forces at play, and the players. Skype’s Chris Libertelli told FierceVoIP last year that “Levin would make an excellent FCC chairman.” (He didn’t get the job.) Blair’s a nice guy who knows the lyrics to Winnie the Pooh songs.

• Canada: at the Rogers Android launch last week I picked up vibrations that Rogers is doing and will do nothing to impede the evolution of services such as Skype onto their network. At this point, in response to my “scrum” question about Skype on Android phones sold by Rogers, Rogers Wireless CMO John Boynton stated that “it’s a Skype issue”. Further investigation has found that it is a matter of Skype establishing a business relationship with a carrier, not only to obtain Canadian numbers but also to establish the relevant physical interfaces into various Canadian PSTN carriers. It was made clear to me later by another Rogers marketing person that Rogers will do nothing to inhibit any services (as long as they do not impair their ability to deliver a quality service). And certainly they have made no issue of their customers using SlingPlayer Mobile for BlackBerry over their network. (Walked the BlackBerry two evenings ago watching a Stanley Cup Finals game while on the dog’s evening stroll.)
• Canada: The Canadian Radio and Television Commission (CRTC – the Canadian version of FCC) recently decided to continue its policy of not regulating “broadcast content” delivered via the Internet or mobile phones. This is a classic case of the conflict created by the differing interests of service providers and content producers. From the Ars Technica post linked above:
  

  Internet broadcasting has had a special regulatory exemption since 1999, but some cultural groups and content creators argued that it was time to apply the same standards that govern TV to Internet broadcasting. ISPs were totally opposed to the plan, which would in some ways regulate them like traditional broadcasters.

• On the same issue, The Globe and Mail quotes CRTC Chair Konrad van Finckenstein:
  

  “We do not believe that regulatory intervention is necessary at this time,” CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein said in a statement. “We found that the Internet and mobile services are acting in a complementary fashion to the traditional broadcasting system. Any intervention on our part would only get in the way of innovation.”

• Canada: Southern and eastern Ontario is seeing growth of several fiber optic initiatives where the focus is simply on building “last mile” fiber connectivity without regard to content:
  • Fifteen independent rural carries in southwestern Ontario are installing fiber-to-the home that will eventually reach even farms within two years.
  • Atria Networks has become a major supplier of fiber optic and wireless services to regions and counties surrounding the Greater Toronto Area as well as in the Ottawa region. School boards, government agencies and enterprises (including RIM) are users of what, in some cases, are multi-Gpbs services. At a press event last month Atria made a point about getting fiber to the end points for use as the customer sees appropriate for their operating needs with no limitations other than ensuring network security and operating integrity (as defined by an Acceptable Use Policy).
  • Cogeco, a major cable TV and Internet service provider across Ontario and Quebec, recently acquired Toronto Telecomm’s fiber assets within the Greater Toronto Area and established a separate business unit, Cogeco Data Services with plans for continued expansion of their high speed fiber services in the GTA.

Small signals in a world fraught not only with business issues but political agendas as well. These moves are a start but until, as we did with other utilities in past history, we can figure out a “Structural Bypass” model, there will always be challenges to obtaining “Net Neutrality” in terms of separating the “pipes” from the content.

It will be an interesting forum next week at the Canadian Telecom Summit when Skype’s Christopher Libertelli, Director of Government and Regulatory Affairs – Americas participates on a “Net Neutrality” panel along with Rogers’ Chief Strategy Officer, Mike Lee, and Dave Caputo, CEO of an infrastructure engineering company that attempts to ensure and improve quality of service, Sandvine.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Cisco Sees the Future of the Web, and It is Video (gigaom.com)
• Cisco Says Internet Video to Explode (blogs.wsj.com)

Note: this post has been modified and updated to reflect clarifications of issues from Skype PR.

I woke up this morning to find this message on Phil’s Skype Journal post announcing the download availability of Skype for iPhone but with one caveat:

“THIS APPLICATION IS NOT AVAILABLE IN CANADA AND THE USER WARRANTS THAT THEY CANNOT DOWNLOAD THE APPLICATION FROM CANADA.”

I can accept that some iPhone applications are not available in Canada for copyright reasons (in fact, the iTunes launch in Canada was held up for a year or so while addressing copyright issues); however, my initial skepticism centered on two issues that could be holding this up in Canada.

• Rogers, who is the only Canadian carrier with both iPhone and GSM BlackBerry, offers a Talkspot service @ $20 per month where users of supported UMA equipped BlackBerry 8×20 devices and the 8900 Curve can make calls from a Canadian location via a WiFi connection. Update: However, this is NOT the case as supported by a statement in Matt Hartley’s Globe and  Mail story this morning: “Rogers, which is the exclusive Canadian carrier for the iPhone, said it would not seek to block its customers from using the service.”
• The 911 issue: Canadian Skype Online (formerly SkypeIn) numbers are still not available in Canada due to the need to have a 911 service associated with any number. However, this is only a requirement for DID-types of services over regulated carriers. Skype for iPhone only operates over WiFi connections which are unregulated in Canada.

This morning I have had call requests from not only the U.S. but also Malaysia and observed that some Voice On The Web Public Chat participants in the U.K. are now testing it. So it appears to be available elsewhere worldwide.

However, thanks to an enquiry from the CBC to Skype PR we have an answer:

Chaim Haas, a public relations representative acting on behalf of Skype, said the application is available in every country in which the iPhone is on sale and in which Apple has an iTunes Store — with the exception of Canada.

Haas said this is because of patent-license restrictions but would not elaborate except to specify that it is a patent issue related to Skype, not Apple.

Update: in response to my enquiry to Chaim early this morning I received word that the patent-licensing issues are “codec-related”. Tom Keating reports this also on TMC’s VoIP and Gadgets blog.

Update #2: When I asked at Skype’s CTIA press conference Tuesday afternoon for a clarification of the Canadian situation, Skype COO Scott Durchslag responded that Skype is trying to clarify an “ambiguity” re the G729 codec license in Canada. He did say they hope to have this resolved “soon”.

Skype also announced Skype Lite for BlackBerry beta will be available in May. Further on in the CBC post there is mention of a limitation for Canadians that relates to Canadian 911 requirements:

The Skype application for BlackBerry will be available wherever the devices are supported, said Haas, but only customers in select countries — including the U.S. and the United Kingdom but not Canada — will be able to use the Skype Out or Skype-to-Skype services to make outgoing calls.

Canadian Blackberry users will only be able to use the version of the application for instant messaging and to receive calls from Skype users.

Canadian Skype customers, including those using the application from desktop computers, are already unable to use Skype’s “Skype In” service, which allows users to receive calls from landlines and mobile devices, because CRTC regulations require phone service operators to offer enhanced 911, which allows the operator to find the location of a caller.

In the meantime, for Canadians, here are some ways to access Skype via WiFi or carrier:

• iSkoot on BlackBerry – carrier for voice, WiFi or carrier for data – my first choice at the moment
• IM+ for Skype (iPhone, iPod Touch and BlackBerry versions) – same comment as for iSkoot – definitely my second choice
• Truphone: but may have call quality issues
• Nimbuzz: have not successfully completed a call; also issues with how they handle chat
• Fring: again call quality issues.

So the current question is: when will the “Canadian” version of Skype for iPhone become available? With chat being 90% of my Skype activity and being able to place Skype calls, when required, in other ways, it’s the “group and public chat” issue described by Dan York that I would most appreciate.

And what Canadian has a Canadian patent application or patent that is holding up full Skype access to the rest of his/her countrymen?

Related posts:

• Alec Saunders, Saunderslog: No Skype on iPhone for Canadians
• Mark Evans, Mark Evans Tech: Tired of Being a Digital Peasant!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Skype for iPhone: It’s Real, and It’s Spectacular (readwriteweb.com)
• Skype for iPhone to Launch Tuesday (cultofmac.com)
• iPhone Users to get Skype (Finally) (netnewsdaily.com)
• Skype for iPhone coming Tuesday, says CNET (tuaw.com)
• Skype Coming to iPhone Tuesday, BlackBerry in May [Skype] (i.gizmodo.com)
• Skype is Coming to the iPhone. For Real. (mashable.com)

This is the fourth and final of four posts resulting from an interview with Nart Villeneuve, principle investigator of the Citizen Lab report “Breaching Trust”.

Having discussed some background to Nart’s research, the activities of the Citizen Lab and answers to Phil’s questions, Nart had a couple of recommendations for Skype going forward. As background, the Citizen Lab is a affiliated with the BerkmanCenter for Internet & Society’s “Principles on Free Expression and Privacy” initiative “to protect and advance individuals’ rights to free expression and privacy on the Internet through the creation of a set of principles and supporting mechanisms for ICT companies”.

The goal of this project is:

Through the articulation of a broad set of common principles, the development of resources for implementation and a compliance structure, this collaborative effort is working to formulate an industry-wide response to guide businesses when they encounter laws and practices that may contravene international human rights standards or be at odds with law or culture in their home jurisdiction.

Participants in this project include Microsoft, Google, Yahoo along with several human rights organizations. It is hoped that having a joint industry-activist initiative would help companies avoid situations similar to the one which Skype has encountered in its TOM-Skype relationship.

Update: as I was writing this post today, a New York Times story on this initiative, now called the Global Network Initiative, broke and has more details.

An initial draft document (update: final document to be released tomorrow) is under review amongst the participants but Nart brought out three recommendations for Skype that would be consistent with the guidelines in the draft document:

1. Include in Skype and/or the TOM-Skype client, as appropriate, an ability to provide notification to all participants in a conversation that a contact is participating in the conversation via the TOM-Skype client. In effect, this could be included in a more general identification of the version of Skype that other participants in a conversation are using. The reasoning for the providing version information was to let other participants know, via the version number, which feature set a participant can use in their Skype client installation.
2. When a user types a message that is diverted via the TOM-Skype filter, a message, indicating that the recipient is missing content due to government regulations, comes back to the initiating party. For example: “To comply with local laws, this message has not been displayed to your contact.” Often Nart found conversations where someone would type a message repeatedly when it was apparent the receiving party was not understanding the message being sent, yet the sender did not realize that the message was being filtered.
3. Become a participant in the Global Network Initiative and its dialogue.

The hope is that, through an industry-wide initiative, foreign companies entering the Chinese market would have more negotiating power and a protocol for addressing issues that are raised in the process of establishing a business relationship in countries where the climate for free expression and human rights is restrictive. In an Opinion piece today, Om has other thoughts on the morality of this approach.

Tags: TOM-Skype, Skype, Nart Villeneuve, Citizen Lab, Global Network Initiative

This is the third of four posts resulting from an interview with Nart Villeneuve, principle investigator of the Citizen Lab report “Breaching Trust”.

Two weeks ago Phil republished an April 2006 Skype Journal post with about sixteen questions related to the TOM-Skype security breach discovered by Nart. My interview provided answers to several of these questions but I ran them by Nart for more completeness, where an answer or response was feasible.

1. Is TOM only filtering chats where at least one of the callers’ accounts were signed up by TOM Online?

A: One party must have the TOM-Skpe client installed. For example, if you (a normal skype user) sign in via a friends Tom_Skype client you’ll be filtered. If you (tom user) sign in on a normal Skype client, you won’t be filtered.

2. Will TOM filter chats if both parties are Chinese nationals but outside the PRC, say traveling in the US?

A: It is all dependent on which client software is installed. If you are using TOM-Skype you’ll be filtered no matter where you are (although the degree to which you are filtered may be dependent on your IP address). TOM-Skype would definitely have the Call Detail Record associated with the call.

3. Is TOM only filtering conversations where at least one of the parties are using the custom [TOM-Skype] version of the Skype client written for the joint venture?

A: Yes

4. Will TOM filter conversations using the TOM client being used by non-PRC nationals who are outside of China?

A: Since you have a TOM-Skype client here, Yes.

5. Does TOM’s contract with Skype provide for disclosure to Skype and Skype users when their information is provided to a government official? Not at this time.

A: I don’t know. It would be nice to have a Chinese speaker read the EULA you agree to on the install.

6. Are records of what the filter does kept? If so, by whom? Does Skype have or keep copies of those records?

A: Yes: TOM-Skype’s servers: unknown.

7. Does the filtering mechanism use a list of keywords? If so, is the list public? May I have a copy? Who has the list? How often does it change?

A: There is an encrypted keyfile that the TOM-Skype client downloads that I believe contains the keywords. There are also a few entries from the keyfile hardcoded in skype.exe (TOM-Skype version)

8. Are the keywords only in Simplified Chinese or are they in other languages too?

A: All languages but 60% English and 40% Chinese for the majority of conversations. English appears to be swear words, Chinese appears to be political.

9. Is China the only country where Skype and Skype’s partner have set up filtering? Have you done any testing for any other countries?

A: I haven’t tested any others.

10. Do all Skype chats have the potential for a hidden participant, whether human or a robot? ??

A: I don’t know.

11. Are filenames for transfer subject to filtering?

A: There are logged messages that are essentially the “this file was shared with participants of this conversation” message.

12. Are people’s names among the keywords?

A: Possibly SkypeID’s (but not real names), but also names of Chinese political people e.g. Hu Jintao

13. Are the content of files transferred via Skype also subject to filtering?

A: Unknown.

14.. Does Skype encrypt end-to-end the IMs that are subject to filtering? ??

A: Yes. TOM added an addition layer to the client that uploads the messages.

15. In a multiparty, multinational chat, can I as an American citizen have my text to a British subject filtered if someone from Shanghai is in that chat too?

A: I am not sure about it being filtered (such as not to be displayed in the recipient’s chat window) but it can be logged.

16. Are audio conversations, where at least one party is in China, being listened to, filtered or recorded?

A: Only the Call Detail Record, there appears to be no interception of the voice stream.

17. Are all calls filtered, or only if users meet certain criteria, or are conversations selected for filtering randomly?

A: Other than the call detail record I don’t have evidence that suggests the content of voice calls were being filtered or monitored, but I wouldn’t rule it out as a possibility.

Bottom Line: If your chat conversation includes someone using TOM-Skype, you can assume there may be filtering of chat messages and/or logging of Call Detail Records. Conversations where all participants are using the normal Skype client cannot be filtered or logged.

Next post: Nart’s recommendations to Skype.

This is the second of four posts resulting from an interview with Nart Villeneuve, principle investigator of the Citizen Lab report “Breaching Trust”.

After discussing the report itself and some of the follow up activity, we went on to talk about The Citizen Lab, its mission and its activities. From their own website they are “focusing on advanced research and development at the intersection of digital media and world civic politics”. Nart described their activity as research on the politics of technology.

Under the leadership of Professor Ronald Diebert, their activities are carried out by graduate students with an undergraduate degree in either computer science or political science who join the lab to build up expertise in the other discipline while carrying out their research. They explore issues using their strong understanding of technology to “lift the hood” behind various politically and/or economically motivated intervention of web-based information exchange by governments and other agencies.

Assisted by a worldwide network of volunteers and a check list of relevant websites, they can develop a sense of the content that governments are censoring. According to Nart, all governments do some form of surveillance but definitely not to equal levels of resulting actions. At one extreme one finds outright blocking of content but the UAE has economic motivation to block Skype to protect a local communications monopoly. Apparently the Saudis are most interested in blocking porn. China obviously allows “uncensored” content to pass through but we are aware that Skype Journal is often blocked.

They will look at filtering techniques used by various countries, the type of content being blocked and try to determine the “local” government’s policy environment in which filtering is taking place. At this point in time most filtering addresses websites but gradually some countries are moving into screening applications (as we have seen with TOM-Skype). There is also “social filtering” censorship activity that involves blocking of porn, drugs and gambling.

At this point companies, such as Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, are modifying their products to address various “local” issues. For instance, Google has modified their process for enquiries from designated countries to “pre-filter” results delivered from their own servers in the U.S.. But then they put out a notification for “filtered” results with the wording for some search results: “to comply with local law, some results are not displayed”. On the other hand Google will not offer GMail accounts with a “.cn” domain name and does not make Blogger available in China.

The Citizen Lab also participates in a broader effort to develop guidelines for Internet companies operating in China. But, given that has much broader implications, it will be the subject of another post.

Next post: Answers to Phil’s Questions

Tags: Citizen Lab, censor, filter, Nart Villeneuve, Ronald Diebert

As a four time graduate of the University of Toronto, I am glad to see the atmosphere for investigative research is thriving at my alma mater. A researcher at their unique Citizen Lab, “focusing on advanced research and development at the intersection of digital media and world civic politics”, is responsible for uncovering the Tom-Skype security breach that has widespread coverage.

Globe and Mail reporter Matt Hartley has obviously gone to the lab for an interview with researcher Nart Villeneuve for his article in today’s editions: How a Canadian cracked the Great Firewall of China. …. the irony of where “lost passwords” can lead you:

When he couldn’t remember the password to his Chinese MySpace account he decided to take a look at Skype.

…Using a TOM-Skype account on one computer and a regular Skype account on a nearby laptop, Mr. Villeneuve would type a word into one computer and see if the other computer received the message, to see what information would be filtered out by the service’s censorship tools. When he typed in a common four-letter expletive and hit send, it didn’t show up on the other computer. But he noticed something else.

Read on. Further along Matt reports:

After he contacted Skype on Wednesday to inform them of the breach, the company moved quickly to plug the holes in the TOM-Skype servers, Mr. Villeneuve said.

And, as Phil has already reported, Skype President Josh Silverman responds here, including this comment:

It’s important to remind everybody that the issues highlighted in yesterday’s Information Warfare Monitor / ONI Asia report refer only to communications in which one or more parties are using TOM software to conduct instant messaging. It does not affect communications where all parties are using standard Skype software. Skype-to-Skype communications are, and always have been, completely secure and private.

New York Times, Oct. 2 (registration required)

Wall Street Journal (may encounter a walled garden), noting that TOM-Skype has 69 million users, places this story in the perspective of other “Doing business in China” stories involving Microsoft, Google and Yahoo.

Powered by Qumana

While the whole world knows that there is a U.S.federal election on November 4, little international notice has been given to Canada’s upcoming federal election, October 14. But both are providing significant opportunities to make use of the Internet. Emails, text messaging, candidate websites. Twitter feeds all are coming into play.

In a post on Forbes.com this morning, Elizabeth Woyke talks about “Skyping the Election”, where Skype is being used to connect campaign volunteers with voters and journalists with viewers.

Supporters of Sen. Barack Obama have turned to Skype, which processes both land line and cellphone calls over the Internet, in order to reach voters. In June, Elizabeth Edwards used Skype to chat with attendees of the Personal Democracy Forum, an annual conference on the intersection of politics and technology. In August, reporters from CNN, C-SPAN and NBC used Skype to report from the political conventions. And this weekend, volunteers in Santa Cruz, Calif., will use Skype-loaded laptops to target voters in Nevada, a key swing state.

The article goes on to quote Christopher Libertelli, Skype’s senior director of government and regulatory affairs. Most amusing was this comment:

Libertelli is, naturally, also interested in having Sens. McCain and Obama speak to each other via Skype. “There was that recent press cycle about whether McCain invented the BlackBerry,” he notes. “It would be interesting to see if the candidates know how to use Skype.”

As one who has known for ten years, and come to appreciate the genius of, RIM co-CEO Mike Lazardis (who wrote his original plan for wireless email in 1992 and is still executing on it), I can only chortle at the claims that surface in political battles. John McCain is no Mike Lazaradis.

Last Monday, in a public forum contributing to OneWebDay, Skype was used to help with a debate about presidential campaign tech policies. Chris Libertelli’s comments on net neutrality, the candidates’ positions and its role within the overall presidential campaign can be found here.

I’m still looking for examples of Skype use in the Canadian election campaign; I’m sure it’s quietly getting use in many ways by those candidates who have an enlightened appreciation for web technology.

Dan York, Director of Emerging Communication Technology at Voxeo, but also on the Board of the Voice over IP Security Alliance (VOIPSA) has written two excellent pieces in another of his blogs, Voice of VoIPSA, discussing the blocking of VoIP calls by Aircell. The first explains how they can block Skype calls, even though they are encrypted while the second goes on to explain why Andy Abramson could make a VoIP call using Phweet.

1. How Aircell is (probably) blocking VoIP phone calls on planes (hint… VoIP Whack-A-Mole)

There it is… all in UDP… and coming in at about 100 packets per second. And if I look at the actual Wireshark traces, I can see that these 100 packets per second are all very tiny sizes. Many of them are between 37 and 50 bytes.

And this is an encrypted Skype call!

No need to decrypt it. Just see that it’s a steady stream of 100 very small packets per second (50 packets per second each way) all over UDP.

Kill the stream. Block it. Conversation dead. No more VoIP on the plane.

It’s basically the network security version of Whack-A-Mole. See a VoIP stream start up… block it. See another one… block it. See yet another… block it. Whenever anything pops up that meets the profile, stomp on it.

This explains, too, why people could talk for a few seconds and then had their conversations terminated. The pattern has to appear in the network monitoring software. The software has to be sure it’s a VoIP stream and not something else… and then the software can block it.

Now I don’t know for a fact that this is how Aircell is blocking VoIP, but it would be easy enough to do it this way.

2. The reason why (probably) you can use Phweet on a plane when Skype is blocked

And there you go… one very possible reason why Phweet may work and Skype, Sightspeed and others were blocked is simply this:

The Tringme Flash-based softphone is sending audio over TCP and Aircell is not recognizing and blocking VoIP calls over TCP.

Or at least Aircell wasn’t blocking TCP. (They probably are by now or will be soon.)

Now to be fair, if Aircell isn’t blocking TCP, this was probably a decent assumption to make. I mean, the typical mindset to date has been… who in their right mind would send audio streams over TCP?

In all the VoIP systems I’ve worked with, I can’t think offhand of any other systems that send audio over TCP. As part of its range of tricks to get through firewalls, I understand that Skype can use TCP if it is unable to send over UDP, but I’ve never captured it doing so. The IP-PBXs I’m familiar with, both commercial and open source, all send RTP over UDP.

Read the entire posts for the details of Dan’s assumptions and explanations. One of Dan’s writing strengths is his ability to make technology understandable to the lay person.

As for not wanting to have voice calls available in flight I would soften my stand if human nature would change. Over the weekend I was reading a book on the history of one of our rural independent telephone companies where they were providing anecdotes about early usage of the operator-serviced telephones:

Mrs. Alice Cooley’s brother, Billy Huang, Tiverton, used the phone for the first time to call his chum a few houses down the street. Alice and some others were out in the garden and they heard Billy shouting loudly on the phone. He thought he had to shout to be heard. Some people never did get over the idea that they had to shout on the phone.

From “Bruce Municipal Telephone System – A Long Line of History 1910 – 1994″ by Anne Duke Judd.

Enough said. Thanks, Dan for taking time to put up these explanations.

Tags: Dan York, Aircell, Skype, GoGo, Andy Abramson, TringMe, Phweet

Powered by Qumana

Those folks at Engadget have been reading through the FCC applications again and uncovered an application from Creative Labs for their (forthcoming?) inPerson wireless video conferencing phone. Interesting feature set claimed, including:

• VGA camera (640 x 480)
• 802.11b/g WiFi and Ethernet
• TI DaVinci graphics chip, designed for set-top boxes and handhelds
• 76-degree wide angle lens with “excellent low light performance”
• fully integrated with SightSpeed accounts
• TV out port
• Battery life: 2 hours, increasing to 5 hours using TV out
• no pricing available

Gallery of photos, probably taken from the FCC application. In order to attract an initial customer base, it seems like they’ve also partnered with SightSpeed as the device apparently incorporates SightSpeed support including “automatic SightSpeed account login, speed dials, call history and contact list management”.

From my experience with Skype’s High Quality Video and the subsequent reviews of the Logitech QuickCam 9000 Pro one would have to question if Creative has taken similar steps to Skype’s partnering arrangement with Logitech to allow 30 fps video at 640 x 480 resolution over a 384 kbps upload speed.. I can also see end user network configurations issues to make it a practical consumer device. At the moment SightSpeed requries a 1.5 Mbps upload speed (well beyond standard broadband upload speeds of < 1Mbps). to support 640 x 480 @ 30 fps. Or has Creative licensed webcam technology from Logitech?

To go out on a speculative limb, can this portend a future Skype Video phone from, say, Logitech using their Carl Zeiss optics and RightLight^TM2 low light sensing. Recall Skype and Logitech had to work together to adapt the Logitech Carl Zeiss cameras, through both device drivers and adaptation of Skype’s p2p technology, to work at these specifications.

And how many telecom platforms will we have on our desk, in our house or on our belt (mobile devices). The world is a long way from figuring out where and how it wants to wear video. I am slowly adapting just using the High Quality Video for my Skype calls from my PC as a standard component of my conversations.

Tags: Creative, FCC, Engadget, Skype, Logitech, SightSpeed, TI DaVinci, Logitech QuickCam 9000 Pro

Powered by Qumana

Jeff Pulver yesterday brought to our attention a petition by Skype to the FCC “making the eminently reasonable request that the FCC ensure that its (and, by extension, all) users of mobile devices and networks have the freedom to communicate over wireless networks.” Jeff goes on to comment:

I think this petition should have important ramifications for all those that wish to attach devices or provide Internet-based voice and video applications over wireless networks. As things stand now, users are beholden to the wireless gatekeepers who unilaterally determine what devices, what functions, what applications may attach or ride or be accessed from the wireless networks.

One specific request – to start a rulemaking proceeding to determine the legality of the carriers’ restrictions on subscribers’ full access to Internet-based applications – has significant implications for encouraging application innovation in a Voice 2.0 world. I’m sure developers such as OnState with their recently announced OnState ACD for Skype would want to ensure that their call distribution algorithms can reach out to all wireless devices.

Jeff ends with “I ask our friends who care about innovation in the wireless space, edge devices and Internet applications to take this petition seriously, shine a spotlight on the issue and help move the FCC in the right direction” He plans to post a link to the petition when it becomes available and has more specific information for those who want to follow this story to its conclusion.

Powered by Qumana