free press

Internet is Infrastructure, Not Nicety

Over the holiday break, I was visiting family in central Minnesota where they rely on dial-up for getting on the Internet. Translation: They are not on the Internet. Though I have previously said this, my experiences reminded me that nothing I do on the Internet on a daily basis is possible to do over dialup.

I use gmail for my email - the delays in reading messages are intolerable and render email painful. Checking news sites is right out - they load up with all kinds of images and rich media advertisements. There is no "surfing" because it takes minutes to load a page - more like running through water than surfing over it.

When I visit other family south of the metro area, I can use slow DSL - the best connection available there (at a price greater than what I pay in Saint Paul for a far faster connection) and the difference is notable - particularly when I try to send a large file to someone.

When I returned home, I was ever-so-thankful for my faster cable connection... which is still far slower than options in many European or Asian countries though I pay far more than they do.

Last month, Ben Scott of Free Press spoke on the NPR show "On the Media" regarding the importance of Internet access:

And if you look back through the 20th century over the last 100 years of history, what you see is every time a new technology came along that later became a fundamental infrastructure that no one would disagree is necessary for universal access, there was this debate. Do people really need to have flush toilets in their house? I can make do with an outhouse. Do we really need to have electricity? Farmers in Iowa, they like their candles. Why would anyone want to have a telephone in their house? Then people can bother you in the evenings.

The longer we waste our time hoping private companies will sufficiently invest in the next generation infrastructure we need for modern communications, the farther behind we will fall and the more frustrating our connections will be.

In February, when the FCC is required to present a national broadband plan, the Obama Administration will almost certainly unveil a timid plan rather than risk threatening the massive profits of companies like Comcast and AT&T. As in previous years, it is still up to forward-thinking communities to build the networks of tomorrow. Welcome to 2010.

For us, 2010 will start just as 2009 ended, with fewer posts on this site. We are in the midst of a project that is taking our focus for the next few days at a minimum. We have not lost interest in improving this site -- but it will temporarily be de-prioritized because we have a small staff and we have to make choices. We will post, but not every day. Thank you for your patience.

Network Neutrality and Public Goods

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: 

Re-Defining Broadband

The FCC recently asked for comments about how broadband should be defined. There was a marked difference between those who put community needs first and those who put profits first. Companies like AT&T and Comcast were quick to argue that the FCC should not change the definition of broadband for reasons ranging from too much paperwork to the suggestion that rural people have no need for VoIP. The honest approach would have been for these companies to say they do not want a higher definition because it will change their business plans, likely requiring them to invest in better networks for communities, and that will hurt their short term profits.

On the other side were groups that argued for a more robust definition of broadband - something considerably less ambitious than our international peers but an improvement over the current FCC definition.
NATOA's comments [pdf] focused on issues like the need for measurements based on actual speeds rather than advertised and symmetrical connections (or at least "robust upstream speeds to facilitate interactivity" - which we think captures the importance of symmetric connections without getting lost in debates about absolutely symmetric connections).

The key metric for broadband should be the applications and needs that drive consumer requirements and choices. In this way, broadband should be understood as a connection that is sufficient in speed and capacity such that it does not limit a user’s required application.

Their magic broadband number is a reasonable and doable 10Mbps symmetric connection for residential and small businesses as well as a 1Gbps level for enterprise users. Importantly, they note that a single broadband connection supports far more than a single computer or use - these connections are shared, often among many wired and wireless devices.

Compare these comments to those of the NCTA [pdf] (lobbying organization for cable companies) that argue broadband is nothing more than an "always on" connection regardless of the speeds or user experience. This is how they justify maintaining the international laughingstock definition of 768kbps/200kbps.

It is this basic “always on” functionality that is most relevant for definitional purposes, more so than the presence or absence of the various detailed characteristics (e.g., latency, jitter, symmetry, mobility) mentioned in the Commission in the Notice.

If it is the "always on" functionality that is so important, why shouldn't the commission totally ignore speeds and consider people with 56kbps modems on dedicated phone lines to have broadband?

Eldo Telecom speculated on why the incumbents prefer the current, or other tepid definitions and what that says about them:

By advising the FCC to define broadband on such obsolete and arguably bogus terms, the providers are essentially telling the feds they aren't serious about the issue. It's a frivolous, throwaway position that summed up says "forget about any national broadband plan and leave us the hell alone."

It appears that these private service providers hold their product in low esteem and see little potential for it in the way that consumer and community-oriented groups see it is a transformational technology.

Reading the Free Press comments came as a welcome relief following the NCTA. They base their comments on existing legal definitions of broadband - one of which comes from the '96 Telecom Act:

The term ‘advanced telecommunications capability’ is defined, without regard to any transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology

Much of the comments are, as they should be, inside baseball but make for interesting reading. These comments are the epitome of what the U.S. needs in order to remain competitive in the coming decades. They conclude that the minimum broadband speed should be 5Mbps symmetrical to each user during peak times (using the the somewhat standard approach of 95% availability of that speed during the measured period).

More Short Shots

There are so many interesting articles recently (some are actually a bit older than recent, I guess).

  • How did Sweden get so connected? BuddeBlog took a look at how Sweden has invested so greatly into advanced fiber networks. This short post looks at factors from geography to government policy that have helped.

  • Andrew Cohill, an advocate of both fiber and wireless networks, offers a simple explanation for why wireless can only be part of the solution to the problem of universal broadband. Wireless just cannot provide the same high reliability and speeds of wired connections.

  • Following up on yesterday's call on the FCC to stop ignoring muni broadband, Karl Bode observes:

    Interestingly, of the 51 "constituents" brought in for the 8 most recent workshops, just five don't work for a corporation -- and zero of them act as witnesses for consumer interests (so clearly, you've got your work cut out for you).

  • And finally, Timothy Karr at Free Press has been unmasking astroturf groups funded by major carriers. Learn more with this fun widget (available here).

  • Free Press Responds to 'Sloppy' Incumbent Broadband Arguments

    Publication Date: 
    July 21, 2009
    Author(s): 
    Ben Scott, Free Press
    Author(s): 
    Derek Turner, Free Press

    The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 directed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to develop a national broadband strategy. FCC invited comments and then invited replies to those comments in summer 2009.

    The Free Press Reply Comments deserve to be singled out for revealing some of the lies of large telecommunications companies like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Qwest, and others. It also describes many of the ways that these companies harm the communities that are dependent on them for essential services.

    I've highlighted some passages below that show the ways in which these companies put profit above all else.

    These companies claim that regulation discourages investment and deregulation (allowing a higher degree of concentration or larger monopolies) encourages increased investment in better networks - an incredibly self-serving claim that Free Press shows to be false on pages 13-29.

    Competition -- meaningful and real competition -- and not regulation is the primary driver behind investment decisions. Where meaningful competition exists, incumbents are compelled to innovate and invest in order to maintain marketshare and future growth. Where competition is lacking -- such as it is in our broadband duopoly -- incumbents will delay investment, knowing full well they can pad their profits on the backs of captured customers who have no viable alternatives. (Page 14)

    Regulations like open access and non-discrimination encourage competition and should be strengthened. Read more...

    Connecting the Public: The Truth About Municipal Broadband

    Publication Date: 
    April 11, 2005
    Author(s): 
    Harold Feld, Media Access Project
    Author(s): 
    Gregory Rose, Media Access Project
    Author(s): 
    Mark Cooper, Consumer Federation of America
    Author(s): 
    Ben Scott, Free Press

    Media Access Project, Consumer Federation of America, and Free Press co-authored a white paper entitled “Connecting the Public: The Truth About Municipal Broadband.” The paper argues in favor of supporting the right of municipalities (local governments) to deploy broadband networks.

    Syndicate content