Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Verizon will be going to court with the FCC over Net Neutrality regulations.  Well, at least they hope so.  They've filed in the US Appeals Court in the Washington D.C. circuit where they know that a ISP-friendly ruling was made just a few months back.  Whether a hearing will be granted remains to be seen, but this is the first major court action that an ISP has taken against the FCC's new step in internet regulation.

Verizon asserted in its appeal that the rules are in excess of the F.C.C.’s statutory authority. In a statement, the company said, “We are deeply concerned by the F.C.C.’s assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself. We believe this assertion of authority goes well beyond any authority provided by Congress, and creates uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.”

In short: does the FCC have the authority to dictate what an ISP can filter on it's services?  Or, stated positively, does the FCC have the authority to mandate ISP's to carry all content (within reason) on it's services? 

Well, the question comes to this: what might an ISP want to filter?  Verizon, for instance, if left unregulated could conceivably block AT&T's website.  Nasty competition, right?  But is that what Verizon is going to court over? 

I don't believe so (and I doubt Verizon would argue it publicly if it were the case).  But what about alternatives--not direct competitors--such as Hulu.com or Skype.  These services offer an alternative to Verizon's voice and television services.  However, they rely on Verizon's broadband service for delivery. 

I was quick to argue once, as I'm sure you may be now, "Yes, but the customer is paying for that broadband, so what's the problem?"  The problem, in Verizon's view, is that Hulu.com and Skype consume such a large portion of bandwidth proportionally to other ordinary internet usage that they can affect Verizon's ability to deliver quality service to all subscribers sharing a trunk.  Raising the cost for all customers in order to fund the enhancements required doesn't hardly seem fair to all consumers, and especially dangerous for Verizon who could risk losing customers over rate hikes.

Oh wait, there's an easy solution: what if Verizon only charged extra for the users who access Hulu.com or Skype, or the like?  And therein lies the problem.  As stated, the FCC's current regulations on Net Neutrality would prevent Verizon from legally filtering the content to determine which internet-enabled services one of their subscribers was using. 

Is there an easy answer?  No.  Do I want net neutrality?  In theory, I believe so.  Do I feel sympathetic to the ISP's market-driven and profit-concerning problems?  I do. 

What would you have companies like Verizon do?

Labels: Broadband, ISP, Net Neutrality, Verizon

posted by Unknown at 6:20 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, January 18, 2011
We hear the petition: we need more broadband penetration.  It's been a battle cry for years.  There are entire organizations committed to it (www.internetforeveryone.org) and political battles raging over it.  For the most part, it seems, the conversation centers on rural broadband.  While some urban communities still lack broadband options, the more compelling (not to mention heart-warming) case is made for rural broadband investment--which of course, is usually followed by a discussion of grants and federal dough.

But here's what I don't understand.  Among the arguments for bringing "internet for everyone," as the activist group as titled itself, is economic development.  Businesses cannot be established in areas without broadband.  Ergo, jobs cannot be created in areas without broadband.  Ergo income levels are lower in areas without broadband.  Ergo, lack of broadband penetration = economic depression.

So, help me understand why the only statistics tossed about are residential statistics.  Depending on which report you read, somewhere in the neighborhood of 75% of American homes have access to broadband speeds.  Would you believe that I have scoured the web and cannot find a statistic on business penetration?  Perhaps it's because the figure would be far too high to fuel the debate. 

Of course, there is an element of self-fulfillment here.  As I noted above, the lack of broadband means lack of businesses... not businesses without broadband.  So, by a mere percentage, the businesses with broadband might not look as bad as it is.  The figure we should be more worried about is how many businesses do not exist (not adding to the divisor on that percentage) as a result of broadband penetration lack.

Nonetheless, has there been any research as to the number of businesses sustainable in these rural areas?  Here are some stats that I'd love a researcher to produce:

• Percentage of commercially zoned properties (developed or not) without broadband penetration.
• Purchasing power (not number of households) of retail consumers in communities without broadband penetration.
• Unemployed workforce (remember, many "rural" households are self-employed farmers) in communities without broadband penetration.

Let me be clear: I'm a proponent of extending broadband penetration. I am all for rural broadband investment.  I just think we could make a more compelling argument with the aforementioned data.

Labels: broadband penetration, Economy, Rural Broadband

posted by Unknown at 6:09 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Friday, January 14, 2011
Wireless is popular these days.  Let's face it, it's nice to have the freedom not to have to plug into a wall or a jack everytime you need connectivity.  I remember how cordless phones totally changed my adolescent dating life -- away from the parents for those very important saturday-night calls. 

You can go wireless on pretty much any personal device these days.  I can charge my cell phone wirelessly.  I can talk, text, and browse the web without cords.  I can even run my laptop wirelessly for a time, but cords are still needed to get juice back to the battery.  How long will it take before that's covered wirelessly?  My sound system is even wireless.  I have speakers throughout my living room without any cords attached. My desktop computer has all it's peripherals connected without wires at all. 

But how scalable is wireless connectivity?  As you begin to think higher -- beyond the connection of one office appliance to another to the connection of one office to another -- can wireless still work? 

A decade ago, the answer was no.  Today, however, businesses of all shapes and size are taking steps toward total wireless freedom.  The last mile -- the most expensive leg of the broadband network -- can now be completed wirelessly.  Offices and retail stores no longer need a copper cable from their business to the nearest trunk. 

What's next?  Will the wireless revolution continue to go higher up the chain?  I don't know.  To be honest, I too have a hard time believing that the billions of miles of copper and fiber lines in our terrestrial network will ever be totally supplanted by microwaves running hither and to.  But, 10 years ago, I'd have said the same thing about the last mile... and even my surround sound speakers for that matter. 

What will it take for the world to really be wireless?  I mean really... not just at the micro-level of independent terminals, but a macro broadband network that's wireless from end to end.  Is it possible?  Is it imaginable?

Labels: Fixed Wireless Broadband

posted by Unknown at 6:13 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, January 11, 2011
I was at a dinner party recently with some friends from our church.  Typically, the riveting details of FCC regulation over telecom and Internet usage is not a topic of conversation.  But, conspiracy theories are always fun to throw out.  To get a reaction, I mentioned, "Did you hear that cable companies can scan your packets and know what you're downloading?"  And, boy did I get a reaction.

I had only met Andy a few times.  I didn't know his occupation, only that he liked to work with the kids in our youth group.  So, when he innocently asked, "Why would they do that?" I answered as if he was unaware of the issue.  "Let's say a company provides cable TV and Internet," I told him, "They can see if you're streaming video and deprioritize those packets because it competes with their TV product."  A simple enough proposition (not to mention conspiracy theory), I thought.

I had no idea that Andy was a QA engineer for a local cable company.  

"We don't do that."  He answered.  Uh oh.  Time to shut up, I thought to myself.

He went on to explain: we charge for Internet.  We charge for TV.  If you want to stream TV over the Internet, fine.  You'll need more bandwidth.  You won't be able to get the performance you want without upgrading your Internet.  And then he explained it perfectly: "One way or the other, that data has to make it to your house.  You can pay for the bandwidth to haul it in, or you can subscribe to our TV signal.  Either way is fine with us."

Just one person's opinion, for sure, but I found it interesting to hear that the world of ISP's is not united in their cry on Capitol Hill.  As we continued talking about competitors like Skype, Vonage, Hulu.com and the like, he was unilaterally unconcerned. 

So, is Net Neutrality really that great of a controversy, or simply a loud minority causing a stir?

Labels: Internet, ISP, Net Neutrality

posted by Unknown at 5:39 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments