Home ›

network neutrality

Deadline for Network Neutrality Comments Draws Nigh

Keywords:
By christopher on January 11, 2010

The FCC asked for comments on its plans to make rules to protect the open Internet [pdf] from companies that may exert more control over the sites you want to visit in order to boost their profits.

Free Press made the video below to encourage people to comment before the deadline. Though we believe Network Neutrality provisions would be unnecessary with policies that encouraged public ownership and open access, the reality of networks today dictates rules that do not allow Comcast or AT&T to turn the Internet into the wasteland of FM radio today.

SavetheInternet.com makes it easy to comment if you don't have a lot of experience with FCC notices.

Video: 
Link: 
Public Knowledge on Network Neutrality

Network Neutrality and Public Goods

Keywords:
By christopher on October 16, 2009

Following up on my recent piece about Comcast and the public interest, I wanted to note some good arguments for network neutrality.

Teresa Martin penned a good article for capecodtoday.com that noted:

That notion of the public good is a quaint concept, one that has been bludgeoned out of favor over the past 30 years. But maybe it is time to re-think that a little and to take the concept and re-examine it in the face of the 21st century.

Is the Internet part of the larger public good? If so, net neutrality would seem to flow naturally.

Does this impede an operator’s ability to make money? Not at all. But it does prevent the asset from flowing to the highest bidder first. It means that information isn’t given priority based on the pocket book of its sender. It means that the recording industry and the movie industry, two strong opponents of net neutrality, can’t use their profits to buy preferred space in the network and block competition.

Photo used under Creative Commons license from AdamWillis.

Video: 
Link: 
SavetheInternet.com Brief rebutting the old myths against net neutrality
Link: 
An update on the Comcast BitTorrent blocking case

Comcast, Caps, and the Public Interest

Keywords:
By christopher on October 14, 2009

While I try to keep postings on this site to the subject of publicly owned networks, I think it important to discuss the ways in which some major carriers routinely flout the public interest. Thus, a little history on how Comcast has acted against the public interest.

Most of the readers of this blog are probably aware that Comcast has been dinged by the FCC following its practice of interfering with subscribers legal content (and undoubtedly illegal content as well) by blocking and disrupting the BitTorrent traffic. BitTorrent is frequently used to transfer large media files because it efficiently breaks large files into many little pieces, allowing the user to download from a variety of sources concurrently - the file is then reassembled.

When Comcast detected BitTorrent connections, it would effectively hang up on them, regardless of the congestion level on the network at the time. The FCC (the Bush Administration's FCC) said it couldn't do that and Comcast is currently in the courts trying to tell the FCC that it can't tell Comcast what it can't do on its network.

Prior to a journalistic investigation that proved Comcast was doing this, net geeks had repeated asked Comcast if it were blocking the BitTorrent protocol. Comcast never admitted to anything, often claiming it did not "block" anything... as time would go on, Comcast would refuse to admit it was blocking anything - as if permanently delaying traffic was anything other than a blockage. "I'm not blocking you, try back in 20 million years."

Around this time, Comcast quietly changed its policy regarding the maximum amount of bandwidth subscribers could consume in a month. At the time, I thought it was a result of the FCC cracking down on the arbitrary policies frequently used by cable companies, but it turns out we can thank the State of Florida for forcing Comcast to enact a transparent cap on monthly usage.

Prior to the official cap, there was an unofficial cap. Every month, some number of people would be notified they were kicked off Comcast's service for using too much bandwidth - but no one knew how much was too much and, perhaps more importantly, how to keep track of how much bandwidth they were using. Discussions on geek-hangout Slashdot suggested a monthly cap of between 100 Gigabytes and 300 Gigabytes depending on the neighborhood. There was no limit documented anywhere and Comcast representatives refused to acknowledge any hard cap.

In stepped Florida's Attorney General, who reached an agreement with Comcast to create a transparent cap and fined them for their actions.

It turns out that Comcast's "network management" strategy was to take the top 1000 subscribers who used the most bandwidth over a month and disconnect them. Harold Feld had the best reaction:

Comcast is almost certainly telling the truth when it says the highest 1000 users were atypically intense bandwidth consumers. duh. Of course the top 1000 out of 14.4 million will be at the high end of the curve.

No, the more interesting question is what the hell kind of a system is it where Comcast simply goes after the top 1000 users no matter how much they actually use, and why Comcast would adopt such a policy if it wants to reasonably manage network congestion? It seems rather . . . inefficient and arbitrary. Unless, of course, one is trying to save money running a crappy network and generally discourage high-bandwidth use.

Now Comcast has a transparent cap - 250 GB/month - that we still have no way of really knowing how close we come to it (nearly all of us don't come close). Was that so hard? Apparently. Meanwhile, they keep claiming that network neutrality requirements would leave them unable to exercise reasonable network management. How would they even know what reasonable network management is?

Though defining the public interest may be difficult, it is easy to show what is against the public interest: Comcast calls you and tells you that you have to use less bandwidth each month. You ask how much you can use and they say they cannot tell you but you need to use less.

Fortunately, we now know how much is too much. If only we could tell how much we were using...

Photo used under Creative Commons license, courtesy of Titanas on flickr.

Link: 
Coverage from Harold Feld's blog
Link: 
Coverage from Muniwireless.com
Link: 
Comcast Installer Defines Violating the Public Interest
Link: 
Cox Caps Too

FCC Chair: We Need Network Neutrality

Keywords:
By christopher on September 23, 2009

The Chair of the Federal Communications Commission has taken a stand for network neutrality - the founding principle of openness of the Internet. In short, network neutrality means the entity providing you access to the Internet cannot interfere with the sites you choose to visit - it cannot speed them up or slow them down in order to increase their profits. See video at the bottom of this post for a longer explanation.

FCC Chair Julius Genachowski recently spoke at the Brookings Institution [pdf] on the importance of an open Internet. He started by noting many of the ways we depend on services delivered over the Internet:

Even now, the Internet is beginning to transform health care, education, and energy usage for the better. Health-related applications, distributed over a widely connected Internet, can help bring down health care costs and improve medical service. Four out of five Americans who are online have accessed medical information over the Internet, and most say this information affected their decision-making. Nearly four million college students took at least one online course in 2007, and the Internet can potentially connect kids anywhere to the best information and teachers everywhere. And the Internet is helping enable smart grid technologies, which promise to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by hundreds of millions of metric tons.

However, because most Americans get access to the Internet from large, absentee-owned profit-maximizing companies who are often de facto monopolies, we have to beware the gulf between community interests and the narrow interests of these companies.

A second reason [for network neutrality rules] involves the economic incentives of broadband providers. The great majority of companies that operate our nation’s broadband pipes rely upon revenue from selling phone service, cable TV subscriptions, or both. These services increasingly compete with voice and video products provided over the Internet. The net result is that broadband providers’ rational bottom-line interests may diverge from the broad interests of consumers in competition and choice.

For this reason and others, the Chair suggested adding two new "freedoms" to the four Internet freedoms [pdf] already recognized by the FCC (freedom to access content, use applications, attach personal devices to the network, and obtain service plan information).

The fifth freedom expands on the first two - to access content and applications. Under these rules, providers will be explicitly prohibited from interfering with legal content - something that is currently less clear (which is why Comcast is suing the FCC over its power to enforce this rule).

The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers’ homes. Nor can they disfavor an Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and applications succeed.

And the sixth freedom expands on our previous freedom to obtain service plan information - it expands the required transparency of Internet Service Providers.

The sixth principle is a transparency principle -- stating that providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices. Why does the FCC need to adopt this principle? The Internet evolved through open standards. It was conceived as a tool whose user manual would be free and available to all. But new network management practices and technologies challenge this original understanding. Today, broadband providers have the technical ability to change how the Internet works for millions of users -- with profound consequences for those users and content, application, and service providers around the world.

Note that these are not yet rules, they are potential rules that have to go through the FCC process - something that should be a given as 3 of the 5 FCC Commissioners support Genachowski on the matter and even President Obama has praised the idea.

The LA Times also endorsed the idea, further explaining why it is necessary:

Lobbyists for phone and cable TV companies argue that there's little evidence of ISPs playing unfairly or violating Powell's four freedoms. Yet when the FCC moved to stop Comcast from surreptitiously interfering with a legal file-sharing application last year, Comcast sued, claiming the commission had no power to enforce the principles. It's paradoxical that the government should have to regulate the Internet to preserve its unregulated essence. But with so little competition in broadband service, the major phone and cable companies have the power and the incentive to stop worthy but disruptive innovations in the name of "managing congestion." The FCC should set clear rules that enable ISPs to keep data flowing from all legal services and applications, not just favored ones.

Network Neutrality is a necessary but insufficient rule to protect subscribers. Service providers must not be allowed to interfere with user freedom to boost corporate profits but this is just a small part of the problem outlined by Genachowski above: the divergent interests of profit-maximizing companies and the communities that depend on broadband infrastructure. Community networks are far less likely to interfere with subscriber freedoms, something that will not change even as corporate lobbyists chip away at regulations protecting subscribers from companies like AT&T and Comcast.

Photo used under Creative Commons license from AdamWillis.

Video: 
Link: 
Other places Network Neutrality has come up on MuniNetworks.org
Link: 
Free Press on FCC Statement about Network Neutrality
Link: 
David Isenberg's explanation of how Powell and Martin, previous Chairs of the FCC understood the four freedoms
Link: 
An open letter to the enemies of Net neutrality
Link: 
What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
Link: 
Keeping the Internet Open (Even for Those Who Would Prefer it Closed)

New Network Neutrality Bill

Keywords:
By christopher on August 4, 2009

Representatives Markey and Eshoo have introduced a House bill to preserve network neutrality on the Internet - a means to ensure users are able to choose what sites they visit rather than allowing gatekeepers like AT&T or Comcast to influence the decisions by speeding up or slowing down some sites.

Imagine if AT&T subscribers could access Google twice as fast as Yahoo (or another start up search engine) because Google cut deals with AT&T for preferential treatment. The Internet as we know it would change substantially and innovation would slow because those who could afford to cut deals with major service providers would attract most viewers.

It is important to note that public ownership largely solves the problems that make this bill necessary. Companies that maximize profits above all else are willing to degrade the Internet in order to pad profits whereas networks that put the good of the community above profits tend not to interfere with user freedom. However, we find that for an issue this important, having it reinforced both federally and locally is a good idea.

The bill currently has no additional listed cosponsors. To my knowledge, bills like this tend to do well in the House but die in the Senate. Video from Save The Internet:

I have included the text of the bill below for convenience, but did not include the formatting. You can see it nicely formatted via THOMAS or check out the Free Press' Seven Reasons Why We Need Net Neutrality Now.

A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to establish a national broadband policy, safeguard consumer rights, spur investment and innovation, and for related purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Our Nation's economy and society are increasingly dependent on Internet services.

(2) The Internet is an essential infrastructure that is comparable to roads and electricity in its support for a diverse array of economic, social, and political activity.

(3) Internet technologies and services hold the promise of advancing economic growth, fostering investment, creating jobs, and spurring technological innovation.

(4) As the Nation becomes more reliant upon such Internet technologies and services, unfettered access to the Internet to offer, access, and utilize content, services, and applications is vital.

(5) The global leadership in high technology that the United States provides today stems directly from historic policies that embraced competition and openness and that have ensured that telecommunications networks are open to all lawful uses by all users.

(6) The Internet was enabled by those historic policies and provides an open architecture medium for worldwide communications, providing a low barrier to entry for Internet-based content, applications, and services.

(7) Due to legal and marketplace changes, these features of the Internet are no longer certain, and erosion of these historic policies permits telecommunications network operators to control who can and who cannot offer content, services, and applications over the Internet utilizing such networks.

(8) The national economy would be severely harmed if the ability of Internet content, service, and application providers to reach consumers was frustrated by interference from broadband telecommunications network operators.

(9) The overwhelming majority of residential consumers subscribe to Internet access service from 1 of only 2 wireline providers: the cable operator or the telephone company.

(10) Internet access service providers have an economic interest to discriminate in favor of their own services, content, and applications and against other providers.

(11) A network neutrality policy based upon the principle of nondiscrimination and consistent with the history of the Internet's development is essential to ensure that Internet services remain open to all consumers, entrepreneurs, innovators, and providers of lawful content, services, and applications.

(12) A network neutrality policy is also essential to give certainty to small businesses, leading global companies, investors, and others who rely upon the Internet for commercial reasons.

(13) A network neutrality policy can also permit Internet service providers to take action to protect network reliability, prevent unwanted electronic mail, and thwart illegal uses in the same way that telecommunications network operators have historically done consistent with the overarching principle of non-discrimination.

(14) Because of the essential role of Internet services to the economic growth of the United States, to meet other national priorities, and to our right to free speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the United States should adopt a clear policy preserving the open nature of Internet communications and networks.

SEC. 3. INTERNET FREEDOM.

Title I of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`SEC. 12. INTERNET FREEDOM.

`(a) Internet Freedom Policy- It is the policy of the United States--

`(1) to protect the right of consumers to access lawful content, run lawful applications, and use lawful services of their choice on the Internet;

`(2) to preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of broadband networks and to enable consumers to connect to such networks their choice of lawful devices, as long as such devices do not harm the network;

`(3) to promote consumer choice and competition among providers of lawful content, applications, and services;

`(4) to ensure that consumers receive meaningful information regarding their communications services;

`(5) to ensure the ability to use or offer lawful broadband content, applications, and services for lawful purposes, as has been the policy and history of the Internet and the basis of user expectations since its inception;

`(6) to guard against discriminatory favoritism for, or degradation of, lawful content, applications, or services by network operators based upon their source, ownership, or destination on the Internet;

`(7) to preserve the freedom of independent Internet content, application, and service providers to compete and innovate;

`(8) to foster an evolving level of capacity available throughout communications networks to support competition and innovation for lawful Internet content, applications, and services, including applications and services that require substantial downstream and upstream bandwidth; and

`(9) to ensure that the Internet remains an indispensable platform for innovation in the United States economy, thereby enabling the Nation to provide global leadership in online commerce and technological progress.

`(b) Duties of Internet Access Service Providers- With respect to any Internet access service offered to the public, each Internet access service provider shall have the duty to--

`(1) not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use an Internet access service to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service through the Internet;

`(2) not impose a charge on any Internet content, service, or application provider to enable any lawful Internet content, application, or service to be offered, provided, or used through the provider's service, beyond the end user charges associated with providing the service to such provider;

`(3) not prevent or obstruct a user from attaching any lawful device to or utilizing any such device in conjunction with such service, provided such device does not harm the provider's network;

`(4) offer Internet access service to any person upon reasonable request therefor;

`(5) not provide or sell to any content, application, or service provider, including any affiliate provider or joint venture, any offering that prioritizes traffic over that of other such providers on an Internet access service; and

`(6) not install or utilize network features, functions, or capabilities that impede or hinder compliance with this section.

`(c) Commission Action- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, the Commission shall promulgate rules to ensure that providers of Internet access service--

`(1) fulfill the duties described in subsection (b);

`(2) disclose meaningful information to consumers about a provider's Internet access service in a clear, uniform, and conspicuous manner and in conformity with the duties described in subsection (e);

`(3) generally, to the extent feasible, make available sufficient network capacity to users to enable the provision, availability, and use of an Internet access service to support lawful content, applications, and services that require high bandwidth communications to and from an end user; and

`(4) not operate Internet access services in an anticompetitive, unreasonable, unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive manner.

`(d) Reasonable Network Management- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an Internet access provider from engaging in reasonable network management consistent with the policies and duties of nondiscrimination and openness set forth in this Act. For purposes of subsections (b)(1) and (b)(5), a network management practice is a reasonable practice only if it furthers a critically important interest, is narrowly tailored to further that interest, and is the means of furthering that interest that is the least restrictive, least discriminatory, and least constricting of consumer choice available. In determining whether a network management practice is reasonable, the Commission shall consider, among other factors, the particular network architecture or technology limitations of the provider.

`(e) Transparency for Consumers- With respect to any Internet access service or private transmission capacity offered to the public, each Internet access service provider shall provide to consumers and make publicly available detailed information about such services, including information about the speed, nature, and limitations of such services. Each Internet access service provider must publicly disclose, at a minimum, network management practices that affect communications between a user and a content, application, or service provider in the ordinary, routine use of such broadband service.

`(f) Stand-Alone Internet Access Service- Within 180 days after the date of enactment of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, the Commission shall promulgate rules to ensure that an Internet access service provider does not require a consumer, as a condition on the purchase of any Internet access service offered by such provider, to purchase any other service or offering. The Commission shall adopt any other rules it determines necessary to make such requirement effective and meaningful for consumers.

`(g) Other Services- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, the Commission shall complete all actions necessary to--

`(1) promote an ever-increasing level of Internet access service to end users;

`(2) ensure that such evolving level of service provided to end users is capable of supporting lawful content, applications, and services and provides ample bandwidth for such traffic to and from an end user;

`(3) promote both facilities-based and nonfacilities-based competition to enable information service providers to have marketplace choices for transmission capacity to reach end users;

`(4) define the term `private transmission capacity services';

`(5) clarify whether private transmission capacity services may not be subject to the duties described in subsections (b)(5) and (b)(6);

`(6) ensure that private transmission capacity services do not undermine the purposes of this Act and do not diminish or degrade the level of Internet access service offered to the public by the same provider; and

`(7) ensure that private transmission capacity services are not offered in an anticompetitive, unreasonable, discriminatory, or deceptive manner.

`(h) Implementation- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, the Commission shall--

`(1) prescribe rules to permit any aggrieved person to file a complaint with the Commission concerning any violation of this section;

`(2) establish enforcement and expedited adjudicatory review procedures consistent with the objectives of this section, including the resolution of any complaint described in paragraph (1) not later than 90 days after such complaint was filed, except for good cause shown;

`(3) prescribe rules with respect to the reasonable network management practices described under subsection (d) for all Internet access services; and

`(4) prescribe rules with respect to the appropriate disclosure obligations under subsection (e) for private transmission capacity services.

`(i) Enforcement-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Commission shall enforce compliance with this section under title V, except that--

`(A) no forfeiture liability shall be determined under section 503(b) against any person unless such person receives the notice required by section 503(b)(3) or section 503(b)(4); and

`(B) the provisions of section 503(b)(5) shall not apply.

`(2) SPECIAL ORDERS- In addition to any other remedy provided under this Act, the Commission may issue any appropriate order, including an order--

`(A) directing an Internet access service provider to pay damages to a complaining party for a violation of this section or the regulations promulgated pursuant to this section; or

`(B) to enforce the provisions of this section.

`(j) Illegal Conduct- Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to affect any law or regulation addressing prohibited or unlawful activity, including any laws or regulations prohibiting theft of content.

`(k) Definitions- For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

`(1) INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE- The term `Internet access service' means a 2-way transmission offered by an Internet access service provider that transmits information between 2 or more points and that has as its primary, but not exclusive, purpose the enabling of data to be sent or received from the Internet.

`(2) INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE PROVIDER- The term `Internet access service provider' means a person or entity that operates or resells and controls any facility used to provide an Internet access service directly to the public, whether provided for a fee or for free, and whether provided via wire or radio, except when such service is offered as an incidental component of a noncommunications contractual relationship.

`(3) USER- The term `user' means any residential or business subscriber who, by way of an Internet access service, takes and utilizes Internet access services, whether provided for a fee, in exchange for an explicit benefit, or for free.

`(4) REASONABLE NETWORK MANAGEMENT- The term `reasonable network management' shall be defined by the Commission through regulations.'

Photo from Wikimedia Commons.

How NTIA Dismantled the Public Interest Provisions of the Broadband Stimulus Package

Keywords:
By christopher on July 27, 2009

After winning the election, the Obama Administration announced that broadband networks would be a priority. True to its word, the stimulus package included $7.2 billion to expand networks throughout the United States. A key question was how that money would be spent: Would the public interest prevail, or would we continue having a handful of private companies maximizing profits at the expense of communities?

Creating the Broadband Stimulus Language

The debate began in Congress as the House and Senate drafted broadband plans as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

The House language on eligibility for stimulus grants made little distinction between global, private entities and local public or non-profit entities.

the term `eligible entity' means--

(A) a provider of wireless voice service, advanced wireless broadband service, basic broadband service, or advanced broadband service, including a satellite carrier that provides any such service;
(B) a State or unit of local government, or agency or instrumentality thereof, that is or intends to be a provider of any such service; and
(C) any other entity, including construction companies, tower companies, backhaul companies, or other service providers, that the NTIA authorizes by rule to participate in the programs under this section, if such other entity is required to provide access to the supported infrastructure on a neutral, reasonable basis to maximize use;

The Senate language clearly preferred non-profit or public ownership.

To be eligible for a grant under the program an applicant shall—

(A) be a State or political subdivision thereof, a nonprofit foundation, corporation, institution or association, Indian tribe, Native Hawaiian organization, or other non-governmental entity in partnership with a State or political subdivision thereof, Indian tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization if the Assistant Secretary determines the partnership consistent with the purposes this section

The final language, adopted by the Conference Committee and passed by both houses in February was a compromise. It favored a public or non-profit corporation but allowed a private company to be eligible only if the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Commerce found that to be in the public interest. In the final law an eligible entity could be:

(A) a State or political subdivision thereof, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, an Indian tribe (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450(b)) or native Hawaiian organization;
(B) a nonprofit—

(i) foundation,
(ii) corporation,
(iii) institution, or
(iv) association; or

(C) any other entity, including a broadband service or infrastructure provider, that the Assistant Secretary finds by rule to be in the public interest. In establishing such rule, the Assistant Secretary shall to the extent practicable promote the purposes of this section in a technologically neutral manner ;(Section 6001(e)(1))

Defining the Broadband Stimulus Rules

On July 2, 2009, the National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) released the rules for the broadband stimulus program (called the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program or BTOP).1 While a plain reading of the statute language suggests that NTIA should decide on an individual basis whether a private profit making entity is in the public interest, NTIA instead a priori declared all private companies in the public interest. It simply acted as though the House legislation had prevailed over the Senate. NTIA justified itself by declaring that the Congress intended to “invite a diverse group of applicants to participate.”2

NTIA thereby accomplishes a sleight-of-hand tactic– declaring that it is complying with the original intent of some in Congress rather than complying with the text actually passed by Congress. If Congress had intended all entities to be eligible on an equal footing, it would have adopted the House eligibility language. Congress explicitly did not do this. Rather, it chose a higher bar for private companies. They had to be judged in the public interest.

The NTIA ruling did not explain what it meant by “public interest” (see addendum below for a discussion on what the public interest is not). Nor did it indicate that it would declare ineligible those companies that have violated the public trust previously. Instead, it put global companies driven to maximize profits on a level footing with public and non-profit corporations chartered to maximize benefits to the community.

How The Rules Favor Existing Companies

Making private companies and public, non-profit entities equal in their ability to apply for stimulus funds actually privileges existing large telecommunications firms because they have the resources to push their way to the front of the line – especially with all the paperwork required of applicants.

The declaration that existing telecommunications companies are in the public interest is only one of the ways the NTIA has structured the BTOP to favor existing private providers.

Another is the speed definition NTIA has chosen in its broadband definition. NTIA chose minimum “broadband” speeds reminiscent of those from more than a decade ago rather than the modern speeds common across the networks of our international peers. The minimum download speed of 768kbps and upload of 200kbps is pitiful.3 Moreover, adding insult to injury, the anemic baseline speed is based on advertised rates rather than actual rates, perversely encouraging network owners to overstate their capabilities.

This baseline speed is used as part of a calculus to determine if a community is served, “unserved,” or “underserved.” If fewer than 10% of residents have access to networks that advertise speeds greater than the baseline speed, that area is declared “unserved.” Underserved is a little more complicated in that it must meet one or more of the following criteria:

  1. No more than 50% have access to broadband as defined above
  2. No provider advertises broadband of at least 3Mbps in the area [at any price – a rather significant loophole]
  3. No more than 40% subscribe to broadband

Only unserved and underserved areas need apply for broadband stimulus grants.

Interestingly, though a new network must offer prices at affordable rates as a condition for stimulus funding, a community may be denied money to build a network even if the existing provider is offering services at unreasonable rates.

To prove that a community is un(der)served, an applicant must collect census-block level data. Such data is expensive to collect and generally only maintained by incumbent providers. Further, most states that have invested in official broadband maps only have county level data because private providers have refused to divulge more granular data, even when working with the industry-backed Connected Nation organization.

If an applicant is able to collect that data, NTIA will “verify” that data by asking the existing providers if they want to challenge the application by demonstrating that they have advertised broadband within the defined network footprint. Yes, you’ve read that correctly. The incumbent provider gets a veto over applications. There is no discussion by NTIA of how it will handle abuse of this system or verify challenges. In the meantime, I would not be surprised to see an increase of dishonest advertisements for broadband in rural areas. We already see many fallacious advertisements for DSL that note “where available” to get around the fact that the connections are often slower than advertised based on the distance from the home to the central office.

Though many will argue that we should prioritize networks for those totally lacking access, this is a poor plan to achieve that goal. NTIA has charted a path to bring the slowest networks to people who live in areas that are the most uneconomical to reach. Rather than doing it right the first time (i.e. a strategy that starts with modern speeds and identifies an upgrade path moving forward), NTIA’s path will likely expand 1998-era networks, certainly requiring future appropriations to bring residents to networks with contemporary speeds.

A better way to build useful networks in these areas is to combine rural communities with areas of higher density. That would improve the economics by allowing some areas to subsidize others rather than encouraging the current system where private companies get the high density, richer geographies and the public sector is left trying to build low density, rural networks. NTIA’s rules take an unsustainable approach to building networks in the most rural areas.

The NTIA rules are good for cable companies because nearly every cable network already provides the marginally-faster-than-dialup speeds required to make that community ineligible for BTOP funds. And telcos should be happy because they can prevent competition by running advertisements that overstate their network capabilities. If they want to apply for funds, the approaching-nonexistent speed requirement encourages them to use their deteriorating copper networks rather than invest in the higher capacity fiber lines that are necessary to ensure the U.S. does not continue falling behind our international peers in broadband access.

It is hard to come away from reading NTIA’s rules without a sense that they were written to avoid encouraging any competition in broadband networks.

There is one small ray of sunshine. Congress explicitly required grantees to abide by a number of FCC policies, particularly the non-discrimination rule that prevents your Internet Service Provider from charging you more to access some sites than others (or privileging speeds to some sites at the expense of others) – something companies like AT&T have stated their desire to do. If this decision were left to NTIA, it would probably have declined to require it at the risk of lowering the pool of candidates who want public money to build networks.


1 “Broadband Technology Opportunities Program; Notice of funds availability and solicitation of applications; publication of OMB control number for information collection,” 74 Federal Register 135 (16 July 2009) p. 34558.

2 “By adopting this broad approach, the Assistant Secretary intends to invite a diverse group of applicants to participate in BTOP, which reflects his desire to expand broadband capabilities in the United States in a technology-neutral manner. This approach is consistent with Congressional intent in this regard.” – NOFA p. 120

3 Interestingly, the original House legislation that NTIA elsewhere found so instructive in terms of Congressional intent specified much faster minimum broadband speeds. Additionally, NTIA considers those expensive cellular-based plans that come with transmission caps (often a limit of 5GB per month) to be equivalent to an unlimited DSL or cable connection.

After I wrote this, I saw that a number of other groups have sent a letter to NTIA asking for reconsideration of many of the rules I discuss above [pdf].

Addendum on the Public Interest

For an excellent exploration of how some companies act against the public interest, see Free Press' Reply Comments to the FCC regarding the National Broadband Plan [pdf]. In particular, pages 26-29 where Free Press examines Verizon's practice of dumping rural customers onto smaller companies who then go bankrupt.

Additionally, on page 30, Free Press reveals that

In 2008, AT&T used 70 percent of their free cash flow on dividends to shareholders. AT&T is currently “the highest dividend yielding DOW company.” Verizon is not far behind. Furthermore, the four largest broadband providers all increased their dividends since the economic crisis began. In other words, despite soaring revenues and high demand, providers are spending large sums on shareholders, rather than investments that benefit both shareholders and customers in the long-term.

For a more humorous take on how these companies fail the public, I recommend "AT&T Is A Big, Steaming Heap Of Failure."

Offering public money to these companies is not in the public interest.

 

Link: 
NOFA Reactions: a Mini Round Up to Broadband Stimulus Rules
Link: 
App-Rising.com: Top Ten Ways The NTIA/RUS NOFA Fails America
Link: 
Broadband Technology Opportunities Program
Link: 
BTOP Rules - (Notice of Funding Availability) [pdf]
Link: 
Short Deadline for Stimulus Funds Hits Munis Hard
Link: 
MuniWireless.com: Critics lash out at NTIA and RUS broadband stimulus grant rules
Link: 
Harold Feld originally defended BTOP, now worried NTIA is strangling the broadband stimulus

Many Cities Realize Stimulus Rules Slanted Against Them

Keywords:
By christopher on July 23, 2009

In a recent article, the Star Tribune asks if Minnesota cities are shut out by broadband rules. Of course, this applies to all cities, not just those located in Minnesota.

I'll soon put up an overdue piece with our reaction to the broadband stimulus rules - in particular, the decision of NTIA to ignore the public-interest requirement for private companies. In the meantime, this article has gotten some attention - thanks to Eldo Telecom for touching on it.

Many Minnesota cities are giving up hope due to rules that privilege private companies who already have the necessary data and the means to jump through the red-tape hoops required by NTIA.

The problem, as city and county broadband planners see it, has less to do with technology than with the sheer legwork required to create an acceptable proposal.

Applicants must prove that all the areas they propose to serve would meet a narrow federal definition of being underserved -- that 50 percent or more households in the area lack broadband access, or that fewer than 40 percent of the households already subscribe to broadband. That puts the burden on cities and counties to undertake expensive and time-consuming door-to-door surveys, because telephone and cable companies don't reveal which areas they serve.

In the meantime, private companies like Qwest are not even sure they will participate as they do not like the requirements that grantees operate the network without discriminating against some kinds of content (meaning they want to charge more to visit some sites than others). Though Qwest has not been as bullish on this money-making idea as AT&T, one assumes it is not too far off.

Telephony's Ed Gubbins also comments on the many municipalities that have little hope of grants under NTIA's rules:

One group of broadband stimulus hopefuls that has been in large part swept out of the running by the specifics of the plan is individual municipalities of any size. Though the stimulus plan stoked broad interest from municipalities earlier this year, many of them have been frustrated by the program’s preference for “underserved areas,” which the government has defined as areas where where at least half of all households lack broadband, where fewer than 40% of households subscribe to broadband, or where no service provider advertises broadband transmission speeds of at least 3 Mb/s.

Those rules sent the city of Northfield, Minnesota, for example, which had hoped to secure stimulus funds, back to the drawing board in its efforts to finance its plans. Melissa Reeder, Northfield’s information technology director, told the local press, “Honestly, I don’t think there’s a single Minnesota city that would qualify.”

Keep the Internet Free

Keywords:
By christopher on July 21, 2009

Megan Tady reminds us both that today is the last day to submit comments to the FCC about a national broadband policy and why we need to fight for it.

It comes down to this: we have an unprecedented opportunity to finally create a national broadband plan in the U.S. that will bridge our glaring digital divide, bring us up to speed with the rest of the world, boost our economy and allow us to keep innovating.

The FCC must protect Internet users from corporate gatekeepers who seek to keep prices high and speeds slow, limit access to content and stifle innovation and market choice.

Free Press makes it easy to submit a comment. Google is aggregating and sorting ideas as well.

Industry Demands Regulation

Keywords:

The propaganda says Network Neutrality is about treating every packet exactly the same, but the Internet has never done that. The propaganda says that Network Neutrality is about regulating the Internet, but we know that the Internet exists thanks to the government's ArpaNet, and subsequent wise government regulation.

Look who's calling for regulation anyway! The only reason telcos and cablecos exist is that there's a whole body of franchises and tariffs and licenses and FCCs and PUCs keeping them in business.

Source: 
David Isenberg - "Broadband without Internet ain't worth squat"

Localizing the Internet: Five Ways Public Ownership Solves the U.S. Broadband Problem

Keywords:
Publication Date: 
January 15, 2007
Author(s): 
Becca Vargo Daggett

A new report by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance argues that a publicly owned information infrastructure is the key to healthy competition, universal access, and non-discriminatory networks.

“Localizing the Internet: Five Ways Public Ownership Solves the U.S. Broadband Problem” notes that high speed broadband is becoming ever more widespread. But, it argues, the way in which that broadband is introduced may be as important as whether it is introduced.

Report
Localizing the Internet Report
Read more »
Syndicate content