The Federal Communications Commission recognized these trends and needs in its new National Broadband Plan. It set the bold goal of unleashing 500 MHz of mostly dormant wireless spectrum for more productive use in new broadband Internet and media applications.

On March 29, the FCC had a chance to begin putting its Plan into action when it approved the acquisition of SkyTerra by Harbinger Capital. The result of the merger is a new wireless company that will use both MSS satellite spectrum and so-called ATC terrestrial spectrum to deliver a new hybrid mobile service. Harbinger announced it would build a nationwide, wholesale, “open access” 4G broadband wireless network at the cost of $6 billion. Although not part of the FCC’s 500 MHz push, the new Harbinger strategy aligns nicely with the goal of more, better, and broader wireless access and options throughout the country (in this case, Canada, too).

But the FCC order, which was not voted by the full commission but issued by the bureau chiefs, contains two curious provisions. The provisions restrict Harbinger’s cooperation with two important mobile service providers and could hinder the very goal of extending more wireless coverage to more Americans.

In an attachment to its acquisition approval, the FCC said Harbinger may not lease capacity or otherwise partner with the two largest U.S. mobile phone companies — Verizon and AT&T — without the FCC’s prior permission. The FCC also barred Verizon and AT&T, should any cooperative agreement or lease be allowed, from consuming more than 25% of the bytes carried in any “Economic Area.” Quite baffling, and as far as I know, unprecedented.

The broad effect of these restrictions will be to reduce flexibility and growth in this fast-moving arena, to restrict much needed spectrum in key geographies from the companies that serve more than half of all Americans, and to place an unnecessary obstacle in the way of a wireless upstart seeking to bring more capacity and competition to the mobile world.

Many were already skeptical Harbinger could pull it off, the FCC order notwithstanding. Too expensive, too technically demanding, they say, too much competition, with the existing carriers and the likes of ClearWire. But instead of clearing the way for a small competitor to make a go of it, the FCC is adding burdens to Harbinger’s daunting task.

If you were starting a business, one with very large upfront capital costs, how would you like Washington telling you that your two largest potential customers are off limits? The FCC conditions make Harbinger’s proposed network neither “wholesale” nor “open access.” More like a boutique continental 4G wireless network. Sound good? Didn’t think so.

The FCC order could also effectively bar 176.3 million American mobile phone users (Verizon’s 91.2 million customers, AT&T’s 85.1 million) from taking advantage of this new spectrum. We are always looking for ways to expand robust coverage, whether in dense high-usage cities or in tough-to-serve rural, mountain, and coastal areas. Harbinger’s eclectic strategy is to combine both satellite resources and terrestrial repeaters both to add capacity to major markets and to serve out-of-the-way North America. But a large number of American mobile customers could now be blocked from this unique way to expand coverage.

What’s bizarre about this FCC order is that it so pointedly offends its own strategy, laid out just weeks ago in its major National Broadband Plan. The FCC dedicated lots of time and energy to wireless. “Goal No. 2” of the Plan is:

The United States should lead the world in mobile innovation, with the fastest and most extensive wireless networks of any nation.

Within the large section on Spectrum, the FCC highlighted its priorities under these major headings:

5.2 ENSURING GREATER TRANSPARENCY CONCERNING SPECTRUM ALLOCATION AND UTILIZATION

5.3 EXPAND INCENTIVES AND MECHANISMS TO REALLOCATE OR REPURPOSE SPECTRUM

5.6 EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNOVATIVE SPECTRUM ACCESS MODELS

Transparency? Seriously, now. This order, issued by the bureau chiefs and not the Commissioners, gave no opportunity for input by the mobile carriers, who were not even party to the transaction. They were not consulted or even notified. Harbinger, meanwhile, was at the mercy of the FCC staff. You want your acquisition approved? Then these are the conditions you’ll have to swallow. This was a case study in opaque spectrum policy.

Expand incentives to repurpose spectrum and for innovative access models? Talk about contracting incentives to repurpose spectrum and encourage new innovations, such as Harbinger’s unique and speculative satellite-4G hybrid system.

I’m no lawyer, but the FCC conditions seem awfully arbitrary. Policy-making by mere whim. Unaccountable, off the cuff, and blatantly contrary to its own shiny new Broadband strategy.

I doubt these conditions on the Harbinger order can stand. Regardless, let’s hope this episode is not a portent of Broadband policy to come.

“Architects of the legislation that binds the nation’s communications infrastructure in the year 2010 were born in the 1870s and 1880s. There is talk today in Washington about categorizing technologies and platforms developed in the 21st century under different Titles of legislation written by people born in the 19th century. We don’t need to jettison all the wisdom of the ancients, but perhaps there’s a better way?”

— Nick Shulz, writing at the Enterprise Blog, March 25, 2010

International comparisons in such a fast-moving arena as tech and communications are tough. I don’t pretend it is easy to boil down a hugely complex topic to one right answer, but I did have some critical things to say about a major recent report that got way too many things wrong. A new article by that report’s author singled out France as especially more advanced than the U.S. To cut through all the clutter of conflicting data and competing interpretations on broadband deployment, access, adoption, prices, and speeds, however, perhaps a simple chart will help.

Here we compare network usage. Not advertised speeds, which are suspect. Not prices which can be distorted by the use of purchasing power parity (PPP). Not “penetration,” which is largely a function of income, urbanization, and geography. No, just simply, how much data traffic do various regions create and consume.

If U.S. networks were so backward — too sparse, too slow, too expensive — would Americans be generating 65% more network traffic per capita than their Western European counterparts?

See our article today at RealClearMarkets . . .

Entrepreneurial Innovation and the Internet

by Bret Swanson

As Washington and the states pile up mountainous liabilities – $3 trillion for unfunded state pensions, $10 trillion in new federal deficits through 2019, and $38 trillion (or is it $50 trillion?) in unfunded Medicare promises – the U.S. needs once again to call on its chief strategic asset: radical innovation.

One laboratory of growth will continue to be the Internet. The U.S. began the 2000’s with fewer than five million residential broadband lines and zero mobile broadband. We begin the new decade with 71 million residential lines and 300 million portable and mobile broadband devices. In all, consumer bandwidth grew almost 15,000%.

Even a thriving Internet, however, cannot escape Washington’s eager eye. As the Federal Communications Commission contemplates new “network neutrality” regulation and even a return to “Title II” telephone regulation, we have to wonder where growth will come from in the 2010’s.

In a series of important new studies covering 25 years of data, economist Ed Glaeser of Harvard reconfirmed that “economic growth is highly correlated with an abundance of small, entrepreneurial firms.” But Washington is pursuing a public utility model for most of the economy – health care, banks, insurance, autos, energy, and maybe the Internet. Instead of decentralized, messy experimentation, we’ll get companies expert in wooing Washington. They will be big, regulated, centralized, and stagnant.

This approach could not clash more starkly with the hyper-innovation of today’s Internet. Digital technologies create constant churn. Forget iTunes or satellite radio. We now get personal Internet radio like Pandora on our phones and in our cars. Big bandwidth enabled the iPhone, which launched the App Store, which allowed hundreds of software developers to create many thousands of jobs building serious and silly apps. Apple sees how “owning” music becomes obsolete and buys a tiny music-streaming company called Lala to replace the hugely successful music download business it created just a few short years ago.

A new “How Much Information?” report from UC-San Diego estimates that Americans consumed 3,600 exabytes of information in their homes in 2008, or 34 gigabytes per person per day. Microsoft researchers argue in a new book, “The Fourth Paradigm,” that an “exaflood” of real-world and experimental data is changing the nature of science itself. We need completely new strategies to “capture, curate, and analyze” these unimaginably large info-waves.

Google and Facebook grow so fast, they build their own global networks. The iPhone is so popular (three billion “app” downloads so far) and consumes so much data (10 times the average cell phone) that demand outstrips network capacity in big cities. But innovation is not automatic. Wireless carriers will need a 12-fold upgrade of “backhaul” capacity connecting cell-sites to the Internet in just the next two years, not to mention the government liberation of much more radio spectrum.

The next generation of cloud computing will capitalize on more bandwidth and another key industry advance – graphics processors. We are familiar with Web-based email, search engines, remote data storage, and applications like Salesforce.com. Microsoft, Google, and Equinix data centers deliver these services from vast arrays of computers and disks in “the cloud.”

Instead of warehouses full of microprocessors, however, what about a refrigerator-sized supercomputer built with a thousand graphics processors? The world’s most powerful supercomputer is IBM’s one-petaflops Roadrunner at Los Alamos National Labs. But in 1% of the space and for 3% of the cost, we can build a graphics supercomputer that delivers three times Roadrunner’s performance – three petaflops.

Connect this computer to the Internet, and you can stream any real-time interactive 3D video experience at any resolution to thousands of people using any browser on any device, from a home-theater to an iPhone. This “exacloud” will transform video games, movies, virtual worlds, business software, and most other media. Piracy goes away. So do DVDs, game boxes, and maybe even expensive personal computers. New content and software subscription models open up. Based in the cloud instead of on your device, interactivity thrives.

Graphics chips, however, are also in Washington’s cross-hairs. Intel, the world’s leading microprocessor company, has fallen far behind graphics leaders Nvidia and AMD. Yet the Federal Trade Commission is charging Intel with the “dangerous probability” of monopolizing the graphics arena. Facts and law aside, the FTC’s proposed remedy is outlandish, amounting to a government take-over of Intel.

Short of Bernie Sanders running the silicon industry, the graphics chip revolution will have a deep impact on the network. High-definition video requires big bandwidth, and real-time applications tolerate very little delay. UC-San Diego estimates that 55% of total American information consumption, or 1,991 exabytes per year, is (brace yourself) video games. If just 10% of these games moved online, they would generate twice the worldwide Internet traffic of 2008. Video is not always the most important content on the Web, but it defines the architecture and capacity of (and often pays for) the networks, data centers, and software that make all the Web’s wonders possible.

U.S. info-tech investment is now 47% of all non-structure capital investment. Network companies alone annually invest more than $60 billion in new wired and wireless bandwidth, and they will do so again and again in years to come. But not if intrusive new rules prohibit them from managing their data traffic and pursuing new business models.

Rigid net neutrality rules would have blocked pathbreaking innovations like content delivery networks (the platform for YouTube) and “exclusive” mobile partnerships (which spawned the iPhone and App Store). We’ve long warned that because of the natural convergence of the digital world, neutrality regulation would spread beyond its intended political targets to swallow the entire Internet. Right on queue, academics are now calling for “search neutrality,” with Twitter impartiality and Facebook fairness surely not far behind.

The algorithmic economy necessarily scales across the globe, gobbling up the largest markets and profit margins. The digital world requires high-end skills but is start-up friendly. If the U.S. has any hope of meeting our expanding financial obligations and giving our citizens a creative outlet to compete on the world stage, we might consider exempting the bottom-up Internet from Washington’s top-down ways.

Bret Swanson is president of the technology research and strategy firm Entropy Economics LLC and a visiting fellow at Digital Society.

“Striving to Map the Shape-Shifting Net” – by John Markoff – The New York Times – March 2, 2010

“Data, data, everywhere” – The Economist – Special Report on Managing Information – February 25, 2010

“Managing the Exaflood” – American Association for the Advancement of Science – February 19, 2010

“Professors Find Ways to Keep Heads Above ‘Exaflood’ of Data” – Wired Campus – The Chronicle of Higher Education – February 24, 2010

The Internet has two billion global users, and the developing world is just hitting its growth phase. Mobile data traffic is doubling every year, and soon all four billion mobile phones will access the Net. In 2008, according to a new UC-San Diego study, Americans consumed over 3,600 exabytes of information, or an average of 34 gigabytes per person per day. Microsoft researchers argue in a new book, “The Fourth Paradigm,” that an “exaflood” of real-world and experimental data is changing the very nature of science itself. We need completely new strategies, they write, to “capture, curate, and analyze” these unimaginably large waves of information.

As the Internet expands, deepens, and thrives—growing in complexity and importance—managing this dynamic arena becomes an ever bigger challenge. Iran severs access to Twitter and Gmail. China dramatically restricts individual access to new domain names. The U.S. considers new Net Neutrality regulation. Global bureaucrats seek new power to allocate the Internet address space. All the while, dangerous “botnets” roam the Web’s wild west. Before we grab, restrict, and possibly fragment a unified Web, however, we should stop and think. About the Internet’s pace of growth. About our mostly successful existing model. And about the security and stability of this supreme global resource.

Accommodating this epochal shift will be a challenge for the world’s best scientists, engineers, and business leaders. It will require individual initiative, entrepreneurial genius, and global collaboration. Rather than engaging in clever debates about how to divide up a zero-sum pie, we should be thinking about the investment inputs and innovation outputs of a rapidly growing pie.

One way we will handle this information abundance is to expand the Internet. Yes, we need ever more capacious networks and data storage facilities. But we also need to expand the logical—or virtual—space of the Internet itself. We need more Internet addresses.

Fortunately, scientists and engineers have been thinking about this for a long time. We are in the midst of a transition from an old version that has served us well . . . to the next, much larger version that should last for a very long time. As CircleID readers know, the older version, which still dominates the world’s Internet infrastructure and address space, is IP Version Four. The new model is IP Version Six. The engineers who developed IPv6 gave it 340 trillion trillion trillion (3.4 x 1038) unique addresses. In the famous analogy, if today’s total Internet space (IPv4) is a golf ball, the next generation Internet (IPv6) is the Sun.

IPv6 should serve us well. But it is no trivial task to manage this abundance. A new report from Arbor Networks found that a “‘perfect storm’ of IPv4 address exhaustion, IPv6 deployment, DNSSEC deployment, and 4-byte ASN support” presents substantial security challenges. In this fast-changing environment, carriers, data centers, and content providers will find it difficult “to operate, maintain, secure, and defend their networks.”

Just as we embark on this new era, however, a number of government and non-government critics are calling for more power to allocate and manage this new address space. They complain that developing nations might not be getting a fair share of the address space, nor input into the process. They want national governments or the UN’s International Telecom Union to “compete” with the existing private-sector-led administrator, ICANN.

But as far as I can tell, the complaints are mostly empty. IPv6 is so vast, there is plenty for everyone. No one that I can find has ever been denied a legitimate request for address space. ICANN has given the five Regional Internet Registries large initial IPv6 allocations, and the process is running smoothly. ISPs across the globe are getting what they need, and likewise end-users. Except—and this is the important exception that proves the point—when nations intervene, as in the recent case of China’s domain crackdown.

Setting up alternative, competitive, or parallel allocation and governance mechanisms would only sow confusion and possible corruption. Complicating Internet governance just as the network explodes in complexity would be foolhardy in the extreme. Given the openness of the Net, new government or UN controls over the most basic Internet resources could only serve to reduce access to the Net; possibly harm the stability and security of this global utility; and create obvious opportunities for political favoritism and even fraud.

Consider that:

• The Internet is spreading across nations and working its way into every business process and cultural nook.
• We are introducing huge numbers of new multilingual country-level and generic domain names.
• The number of network nodes and the diversity of its protocols and media streams are growing exponentially.
• So is the proliferation of attached devices and virtual spaces.
• Completely new Web architectures may be needed to handle the coming wave of interactive high-resolution video.
• Cyber-security threats are more numerous and sophisticated than ever.

With so many changes happening so fast, the need for a stable core is greater than ever. If we want experimentation and growth in network infrastructure and in Web outlets, products, services, and content, we need predictability in the fundamental map of the Internet.

The current bottom-up process where global stakeholders develop consensus best-practices and plan for future needs is working well. It is a process of reason, consultation, and technical cooperation. Allowing volatile politics to destabilize this quietly effective process could undo decades of progress.

Let’s not underestimate just what we’ve achieved. The existing private-sector-led cooperative arrangement has yielded something every bit as historic as the Industrial Revolution. Two hundred fifty years ago we unlocked the secrets of physical power and launched an unprecedented improvement in living standards across much of the globe. Today, the Information Revolution is unlocking the vaults of knowledge and removing the barriers of physical distance to extend material well-being and freedom around the globe. Why derail this fast-moving train when, on either side of the tracks, botnets and bureaucrats are ready to pounce?

Written by Bret Swanson, President of Entropy Economics. Visit the blog maintained by Bret Swanson here.

1. I operate a public Internet kiosk which, to protect its security and integrity, has no way for the user to insert or connect storage devices. The FCC’s policy statement says that a provider of Internet service must allow users to run applications of their choice, which presumably includes uploading and downloading. Will I be penalized if I do not allow file uploads and downloads on that machine?

4. I operate a wireless hotspot in my coffeehouse. I block P2P traffic to prevent one user fromruining the experience for my other customers. Do the FCC rules say that I must stop doing this?

6. I am a cellular carrier who offers Internet services to users of cell phones. Due to spectrumlimitations, multimedia streaming by more than a few users would consume all of the bandwidth we have available not only for data but also for voice calls. May we restrict these protocols to avoid running out of bandwidth and to avoid disruption to telephone calls (some of which may be E911 calls or other urgent traffic)?

7. I am a wireless ISP operating on unlicensed spectrum. Because the bands are crowded andspectrum is scarce, I must limit each user’s bandwidth and duty cycle. Rather than imposing hard limits or overage charges, I would like to set an implicit limit by prohibiting P2P, with fulldisclosure that I am doing so. Is this permitted under the FCC’s rules?

14. I am an ISP that accelerates users’ Web browsing by rerouting requests for Web pages to aWeb cache (a device which speeds up Web browsing, conceived by the same people whodeveloped the World Wide Web) and then to special Internet connections which are asymmetrical (that is, they have more downstream bandwidth than upstream bandwidth). The result is faster and more economical Web browsing for our users. Will the FCC say that our network “discriminates” by handling Web traffic in this special way to improve users’ experience?

15. We are an ISP that improves the quality of VoIP by prioritizing VoIP packets and sendingthem through a different Internet connection than other traffic. This technique prevents users from experiencing problems with their telephone conversations and ensures that emergency calls will get through. Is this a violation of the FCC’s rules?

18. We’re an ISP that serves several large law offices as well as other customers. We are thinking of renting a direct  “fast pipe” to a legal research database to shorten the attorneys’ response times when they search the database. Would accelerating just this traffic for the benefit of these customers be considered “discrimination?”

19. We’re a wireless ISP. Most of our customers are connected to us using “point-to-multipoint” radios; that is, the customers’ connection share a single antenna at our end. However, some high volume customers ask to buy dedicated point-to-point connections to get better performance. Do these connections, which are engineered by virtually all wireless ISPs for high bandwidth customers, run afoul of the FCC’s rules against “discrimination?”

But as Washington concentrates on employment, it also is considering a possibly job-killing set of new regulations on the communications sector. Known as “Net Neutrality,” these proposed new rules could, in their extreme form, prohibit many technologies and business plans used today on the Internet, not to mention stifling future experimentation and entrepreneurship. The rules as proposed would apply mainly to the nation’s large broadband infrastructure investors like telecom and cable TV companies but over time would likely seep into all technology and content that touches the Internet.

On February 3, Cisco CEO John Chambers offered an upbeat report on Internet investment and said his company would be adding up to 3,000 new jobs in coming months. A new Milken Institute study, meanwhile, makes the case that broadband networking could be the second most important infrastructure-related job-creator, behind only the large highway/transportation sector.

We wondered about this cognitive dissonance – between job creation and new restrictions on Internet innovation and investment. So we analyzed the official comments that Internet industry companies submitted to the Federal Communications Commission as of January 15, 2010. Excluding comments from trade associations, individuals, and academics, we looked at company filings and discerned support for or opposition to the FCC’s proposed Net Neutrality rules, labeled Supporters and Skeptics. Erring on the side of conservatism, we attempted to exclude non-U.S. employees of foreign-based Skeptics but included any foreign employees of Supporters. We found the Skeptics outpace the Supporters nearly 10 to 1.

• Net Neutrality Skeptics directly employ 1,440,021 workers.
• Net Neutrality Supporters directly employ 148,936 workers.

Some Net Neutrality backers might argue that the large telecom and cable TV companies that most aggressively oppose new regulation could tilt these numbers disproportionately. So next  (see chart at right) we removed from the analysis these large consumer service providers (AT&T, Bright House, Cablevision, Charter, Cincinnati Bell Wireless, Comcast, Covad, Cox, Cricket, Leap, MetroPCS, Qwest, Sprint-Nextel, T-Mobile, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon). The remaining Skeptical companies, including many networking and wireless technology companies, still employed almost four times as many workers as all the Supportive companies, 570,316 versus 148,936.

This analysis of company FCC filings is, of course, not dispositive. The efficacy of Net Neutrality regulation is not determined solely by who submits FCC comments nor only by its impact on near-term job creation.

This analysis does show that many U.S. companies employing large numbers of American workers oppose a major increase in regulation of perhaps the nation’s most important high-growth industry. An industry that today is healthy, growing, and dynamic. Moreover, the companies represented among the Skeptics are among the nation’s largest infrastructure investors. Because of their reliance on Wall Street for massive financing of long-term capital projects, they are highly sensitive to regulatory changes that could prohibit business models or even ban the microchip innards of routers, switches, modems, and mobile phones.

We just suffered a business investment recession. Consumer spending, at 70.9% of GDP, reached near an all time high in the fourth quarter of 2009. Fixed investment of 11.9% was an all time low. The U.S. economy desperately needs an expansion of new business investment to revive job growth.

We have often noted the communications sector’s important capital investment role in the U.S. economy. In 2008, U.S. info-tech capital investment totaled $455 billion, or 43% of all U.S. non-structure investment. The communications service providers alone invest $65 billion or more annually. Among companies filing FCC comments, the Net Neutrality Skeptics invested $189 billion over the last three years, compared to $18 billion for the Net Neutrality Supporters (see pie chart). Two of the nation’s largest infrastructure investors, AT&T and Verizon, each have more employees than all the Net Neutrality Supporting companies combined.

A new report from the American Consumer Institute found a corresponding relationship: “for every $1 billion in revenue, ‘core’ network companies provided 2,329 jobs, while non-network ‘edge’ companies provided 1,199 (about half as many).”

Proponents might argue that Net Neutrality will protect consumer access to Web applications. They might argue that Net Neutrality would foster long-term innovation. They might argue the policy is about the companies and jobs of the future. These are important goals. The policy path to achieve these consumer protection and long-term innovation objectives, however, is highly debatable. Indeed, I have argued that Net Neutrality would very likely harm consumer welfare and the growth, dynamism, and future jobs of the digital economy.

Innovations like the Apple iPhone and YouTube, for example, relied on business and technical innovations that could have been banned had Net Neutrality been in force. The iPhone was the product of a company previously outside the mobile phone world entering an exclusive arrangement with a wireless carrier. The result was an efflorescence in mobile sector, where hundreds of software developers created thousands of jobs building the 150,000 “apps” for the iPhone App Store. YouTube transformed the online video space by making crucial use of content delivery networks (CDNs) that store content closer to end users to supply a faster and more robust and satisfying multimedia experience. Exclusive partnerships and content delivery networks are just two of the many innovations that led to unexpected jobs today. It is likely that similar “non-neutral” innovations will lead to unexpected jobs tomorrow.

Regardless of one’s view of long-term effects, however, there is little chance Net Neutrality regulations could improve the near-term jobs picture.

There is, on the other hand, a substantial possibility for harm. Net Neutrality could substantially reduce the willingness of service providers to invest in new wired and wireless networks. And it could do so immediately. Any capital expenditure reductions would directly affect tens of thousands of workers who build and maintain these networks. Capex reductions would also ripple through the whole network equipment and software value chain, starting with large companies like Cisco, Juniper, Alcatel-Lucent, and Qualcomm; then damaging the prospects of hundreds of smaller suppliers in the high-end semiconductor and software sectors.

The longer-term adverse effects of less bandwidth, less robust and sophisticated networks, and less ubiquitous connectivity are difficult to quantify, but they are large. Every new digital device, Web business plan, and content model in the burgeoning Web media space would be put into question. The general productivity of the economy could suffer as the digital tools that speed up work around the world advance at a slower pace. It is our view that both the short-term and long-term interests of U.S. jobs and innovation are served by the maintenance of the existing “Four Open Internet Principles” without new Net Neutrality regulation.

Washington’s current preoccupation with short-term job creation is just one more reason to oppose Net Neutrality.

– Bret Swanson

(find the original PDF of the report here: “What Would Net Neutrality Mean for U.S. Jobs?” February 5, 2010.)

The tablet’s little brother, the iPhone, has already shown how an explosion in data usage can overload a network, in this case AT&T’s. And the iPhone is hardly the kind of data guzzler the tablet is widely expected to be. After all, it’s one thing to squint at movies on a 3.5-inch screen and quite another to watch them in relatively cinematic 10 inches.

“Clearly this is an issue that needs to be fixed,” says Broadpoint Amtech analyst Brian Marshall. “It can grind the networks to a halt.”

“What if Conan said, ‘Bye, NBC. Hello, Internet.”?

“Xbox Takes on Cable, Streaming TV Shows, and Movies.”