ManyMedia

I am very proud to read at broadband.gov that my friend

Dr. David S. Isenberg has joined the broadband team as an Expert Advisor, and will be working on how physical infrastructure choices facilitate or impede policy options.  David is best known to the telecom policy world as the author of the 1997 essay, The Rise of the Stupid Network.  When Dale Hatfield was Chief of the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology, he called The Rise of the Stupid Network “one of three works that changed my perception of the telecommunications industry.”

I have been warned to “lower my expectations,” as the wheels of government do not move at top speed or toward full enlightenment. That said, I remain optimistic!

Life, Policy, Scenarios FCC, infrastructure, isen.com, Policy, stupid network

Defining the term “broadband” is hard enough, given the various competing interests working to have the FCC see things their way. But defining the term by identifying exclusionary uses is, well, AT&T. Ars Technica was on top of this filing, and wrote up their concerns in AT&T to FCC: gaming is not “broadband,” but an added service. Specifically, AT&T is instructing the FCC to disallow certain uses of your Internet access, specifically online gaming, as part of the defining what “broadband” is.

They WHAT? That’s right, their testimony advises the FCC that AT&T knows best what we should do with our Internet access.

In testimony submitted to the FCC, AT&T advises that they (by way of the government) need to define what we can (and shouldn’t) do with our Internet access:

Specifically, the Commission must first define the discrete set of applications and online capabilities that must be made available to all Americans to achieve the Recovery Act’s goals.  As discussed below, for residential customers those services should include basic web-browsing capability, email, and online services ….  Thus, the task at hand really is not about “defining broadband” in the abstract.

The testimony continues (with my emphasis):

There are a host of aspirational broadband services that are beginning to emerge in this country, as well as myriad sophisticated applications involving streaming video, real-time voice, and the like.  All are no doubt “broadband” services.  But for Americans who today have no terrestrial broadband service at all, the pressing concern is not the ability to engage in real-time, two-way gaming, but obtaining meaningful access to the Internet’s resources and to reliable email communications and other basic tools that most of the country has come to expect as a given.

So AT&T wants to be free to deliver itty-bitty “broadband” to the rural folks.  AT&T is redefining “access” to meet a more traditional incumbent monetizing strategy: set sites low by defining a bare minimum, then find “aspirational” uses that they can bill extra for. The Ars article is worth a read. However, lessons can be learned from gamers that benefit corporate boardrooms as well. John Hagel and John Seely Brown wrote an article in last January’s BusinessWeek: How World of Warcraft Promotes Innovation. The article describes how various elements of online gaming can benefit the business mindset.

Companies seeking to thrive in a world of increasing uncertainty and accelerating change will need to foster this disposition among their own executive team and employees. They would be well advised to take a closer look at World of Warcraft, both in terms of the approach taken to foster this disposition and as a potential recruiting ground for employees who can bring this attitude and approach into the company.

AT&T isn’t looking broadly at providing access to the Internet. This is an example of Not Neutrality. AT&T has a plan, and your dreams may not be part of it.

Content, Life, Network, Policy access, ATT, broadband, definitions, FCC, Internet, Net Neutrality, online gaming, Policy

This video is Gigi Sohn with Public Knowledge talking about why the FCC is looking into what’s going on between Apple and AT&T. The Consumerist published the FCC letters to Apple and AT&T. Entrepreneur and telecom pundit Bob Frankston added an interesting comment to a (barely formatted) mailing list about why the historic Hush-a-Phone decision is applicable.

On a related note, Jason Calcanis wrote a widely circulated piece, The Case Against Apple-In Five Parts. It seems that Apple is the new Microsoft, and AT&T is, well, the same old AT&T as it was before. The more things change, the more they stay the same. I hope this matter is interesting to watch.

Devices, Network, Policy Apple, applications, ATT, FCC, hush-a-phone, Policy, tying

This is the fourth and final day of my coverage of this conference. The information for this morning (today) is here.

The first session this morning is on Policy. Walda Roseman is moderator for speakers Rob Frieden, Heather Hudson, Francis Pereira, and Laura Sherman.

Walda Roseman: Broadband Mobility: Matching Promise with Performance in Asia

Wireless and mobile platforms in delivery of broadband.

Promise in this region: all Asian citizens will have access by 2015, mobile and wireless platforms and advanced user devices will provide access to a full range of services in next few years, and medium and low income countries (wireless is access to info and services) will be able to share in benefits. No commonly accepted definition of what broadband is; working definition is whether or not wireless access on fully loaded system can support services comparable to ADSL.

Asia-Pacific Broadband Opportunity and challenge: Asia has “a yawning broadband divide” with half of economies having highest penetration, many least served areas are also Asian. ITU chart: highest income economies have access, 31 lower income countries with low or no access.

Observations: most systems cannot maintain broadband speeds when network is fully loaded. Usage of mobile systems varies. Much of data needs are being served on mobile platforms.

Is Asia ready? short answer: no, maybe not for a long time. Nationwide, service is out of reach, quality of service is low.

Government policy as driver of mobile broadband: first step is strong political and regulator will, legal framework, and responsiveness by government to market needs and expectations. Foremost is partnership between government and industry. Need to promote quality of service, availability of spectrum, equipment, and global interoperability.

Problems: Asia falls way short of meeting needs, gov support is required.

Heather Hudson: Overcoming the Challenges of Isolation (Small Islands)

Quote from last August indicating complete drop of access. Region is highly diverse, has severe challenges because of isolation and small populations. (Also includes landlocked countries who depend on transport thru another country.) Most areas have low and lower middle income countries.

Importance: disaster communications, imports, experts, tourism, distance learning, development of back offices for information work. Example: Bits for Borneo: broadband in the jungle, diversifying gross national happiness, University of SOuth Pacific for distance education.

Regulatory policies: most have competition in mobile, few in fixed line. Trends to better devices. Mobile growing: more than 60% of phone subscribers in some areas, competition in some areas, prices higher than average.

Bad news: Internet access is limited in speed, less than 3 subscribers per 100 people, some countries <1 in 200. Availability of broadband: price high (150% of gross national income, in wealthier countries: 2%. of GNI). Monthly use prices also very high (in relative GNI and absolute $ terms).

International connectivity: generally getting cheaper, most islands served by satellite, high transit rates and tarriff proxies (e.g., Skype-out: over $1 per min, compared to $.02 to Singapore and Hong Kong).

Strategies to bridge the connectivity gaps: increase competition, recognize demand, limit periods of exclusivity, extend access through resale, and reduce local barriers. Think about community access as first priority. Universal service funds must be open to all providers. Perhaps a universal (targetted?) broadband fund for Pacific Islands?

Rob Frieden: The Spin in Broadband Statistics: How the FCC makes False Assessments of Next Gen Network Deployment in the US

Check the book.

Absent market failure, should govs stimulate broadband investment, subsidize service, or become a carrier? FCC (for a number of reasons) hasn’t really been telling the truth in terms of broadband penetration. In policy process, may be incentive to skew. “Incentivize” is common term. National goal for broadband, “mission accomplished.” $7B subsidiary to incumbents, delivery poor or non-existent to certain areas. FCC statistics say we’re doing great, based on 200k bits/sec definition. Penetration goes to 77% of all zip codes, with 4 or more broadband choices. FCC tells us (by zip) by numerical figure in internal charts (considered “trade secrets” which are confidential). However, wireless carriers don’t claim the trade secret exemption and willingly disclose coverage maps.

US ranks 15th among OECD nations in household penetration. Lags most nations on basis of per capita.

Whose statistics are most credible? State department was outraged at cooked books. Most options don’t exceed 200 kbps, but FCC shows increase in coverage.

Case study: Port Matilda PA. Current strategies and statistics not working. Erates have achieved modest goals, wi-fi mixed, incumbent has right of first refusal (not optimal).

Need to use better statistics, adopt best practices (other nations).

Francis Pereira: The Effectiveness of Government Policies in Broadband Deployment: An Assessment of Select Asian Countries

Broadband penetration and adoption rates vary across countries (globally). Various plans for ubiquitous, ultra high speed, or advanced ICT apps and services deployments (diff countries use diff strategies).

Sinapore’s gov initiatives: TradeNet, One Broadband Network incentives to conduct e-commerce, GeBiz (gov site), and iN2015. Singapore and Hong Kong (TradeLink) chart, different priorities and reasons for services. Singapore’s TradeNet iniative processed 99% of all trade declarations w 2400 companies, reduced processing time, etc.

Korea’s eVision: knowledge government priority. General challenges: no definition of impacts, statistical approaches, to attribution, nature of ICT.

Some evidence for hourly compensation for production costs in manufacturing, inward FDI stock as % of GDP (chart), and employment, total assets and other measurements. Singapore: 95% of biz obtained info did so electronically at least once in last year. 94% transacted at least once, and 80% were satisfied w transaction. Korea: evidence of standard of living, effectiveness of policies, new methods of assessing contribution of ICT to society, and new business models for broadband deployment (funding last mile).

Laura Sherman: Advancing Broadband in Singapore: From Monopoly to Competition

Represents Iridium Satellite LLC (disclosure). Will use Singapore as model. Statistics: 1997 monopoly wireless, now different. Sector reform process: restructuring and limited competition: First phase (’92-’94): separated regulator and operations. Second phase (95-98): duopoly in mobile, ended Singtel’s monopoly, added a third mobile license.

Facilities-based and WTO commitments, less limitations. Dramatic changes between 1999 and 2003, changed regulation process, now unlimited competition allowed (over 50 present in fixed and mobile). Connectivity is the impetus in driving growth.

Current Code of Practice for competition: looks at true competition, will deregulate as market changes. Facilitated thru tech-neutral licensing, nominal fees, no foreign ownership limits.

New regulatory phase, five year plan. Lessons learned: connectivity is key, limited political interference, transparent reg process, competition at all levels of value chain, tech-neutral licensing and fees.

Question: definition of broadband based on speed delivered (esp in light of deep packet and other internal routing processes)? Rob: Yes, extent for carriers to throttle and other network neutralities is second level of process, first is transparency of process and fact finding, statistics compilation. Gov should require parity between promised and delivered bit rates. Heather: pricing models haven’t moved, is another important metric. Also Canada as example: some countries have done better at serving remote areas (Canada is good!) Walda: also some countries are better at measuring throughput, dropped calls, sound quality, data… especially compared to what’s advertised.

Q (speaker from Nepal): concentration on all countries not equal.

Q (from island representative): comment about undue bias in competition: does not work in rural areas. In New Zealand and Australia, 5-10% unserved, but Islands 80% unserved. Way to go forward: define universal service development and how we pay for it. Another person disagrees: way to facilitate is thru new operators.

Quote from FCC outgoing chair warns of excessive intervention (see article from FT.com). Heather: voice service is important, competition is coming to mobile if (?) is willing to pay. Community level access in some levels might be appropriate. Laura: Malaysia throws a lot of money at connectivity but has huge licensing fees. Rob: agrees to a point with outgoing FCC Chair, but his FCC overstated and prevented competition, boxed in facilities to incumbent services.

Q: how to pay for terminal, tech support, etc? Rob: eRate top heavy (wiring), (no?) support for digital literacy. Heather: competitive subsidy system for schools in US. Need to operationalize it to serve operational, health and other services. Francis: re: who’s going to pay – what are advantages? Islands have special zones for access to certain people, is growth area. Strategic areas served first: build to rural areas vs building new hospital. Society pays because of net return on investment. Walda: India’s software zones.

Q: re lack of transparency and gaming aspects that to be considered in Austral-Asia, Is there a role for US or other that can model universal service? Walda: yes, it is being looked at for policy and operational levels, share best practices, Africa is where it is most effectively being done. Heather: liberalization is not same as deregulation. Need to set rules of the game. Enforcement in many countries is difficult for various reasons. Additionally: quality of service is critical, not enough attention to monitoring. What about a sub-regional approach? Look at EcTel (?). Laura isn’t sure it’s working. Objective isn’t being met. Walda: Quality of service: she wouldn’t blame anybody right now, first push is expansion, only after that has succeeded should one question quality.

Events, Network, Policy Asia, broadband, FCC, Pacific Islands, PTC09, satellite

People do not use the term “network neutrality” in a consistent fashion, so no ideal definition exists. Basically, some broadband ISPs want to set network-administration policies any way they like-including prioritizing and deprioritizing of different packets, and charging extra to assign higher priorities. Some ISPs have used the term “express lanes” to describe premium-priced virtual channels that prioritize packets according to the wishes of higher-paying customers. Different advocates for express lanes describe such customers differently-as Web site operators and/or as end-users. Many customers of ISPs want traffic routed in a more democratic manner, largely based on first-come, first-served policies.

I find that the quality of the debate is very poor, with both sides engaging in intellectually dishonest tactics. The ISPs are dishonest because so-called “express lanes” only come about by impairing the progress of non-express packets; no technology exists to put packets at “warp speed”. But advocates of network neutrality also fudge the truth when they insist on democratic network policies.

In fact, when accessing a higher-paying Web site such as Amazon, users typically do enjoy faster downloading than when accessing lower-paying sites such as those of small-press publishers. Moreover, ISPs impair P2P traffic to a reduced level, but one that many users find acceptable. Many network engineers believe that a relatively small number of P2P users account for a very large percentage of Internet traffic, and that if ISPs did not impair such traffic, a few users would interfere with serving the needs of the greater Internet population.

While the most vigorous debate occurs among Internet pundits and bloggers, the most influential debate occurs in Washington D.C., where service providers AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon team up to lobby in favor of the so-called express lanes, and large customers including Microsoft and Google team up to lobby in favor of laws that will mandate so-called network neutrality. I have little doubt that the fractious debate will be with us for some time; that compromises will be struck, allowing existing services to remain more or less status-quo, while introducing out-of-band services that provide “express lanes”; that ISPs will face challenges in getting customers to pay extra; and that over the course of many decades, many parties will struggle to control strategic pathways for data, just as armies seek control of rivers and nations seek control of markets.

---

Note for future: If there was more competition, not a duopoly, perhaps traffic would have to be neutral for competitive reasons. Thus, I would like to understand what the policy justification was for overturning open access. “Municipalities are not allowed to require open access because the court upheld the FCC regulation, and the FCC justifies its policy on the basis of YYY”.” How do they justify it? Technically, it flies in the face of the 7-layer model (penalizes use of advanced technology) and the “property rights” argument alone doesn’t hold water bec. municipalities have property rights, too. I would also like to understand what the obstacle is for new facilities-based ISPs. “Startups cannot enter the market because YYY”. (Is there still a legal/regulatory mandate for exclusivity, aka monopoly for video franchises and universal-service telcos? Where does the truth lie between “too costly” and “would simply violate regulations”? Is it “too costly to comply with regulations”? What exactly would it take to start “Newco Residential Fiber Services”?)

Network, Policy Bell Telephone Co, cable, closed networks, FCC, Internet, network neutrality, open networks

Skype asked the FCC for…something recently. Skype’s not a public company and their Website doesn’t have details. The FCC search engine’s had user-interface-dystrophy for more than 10 years and is no help.

Ars Technica has as good a summary as any. The FCC’s 1968 Carterfone decision. The Carterphone decision allowed us to attach devices of our choosing to the public switched telephone network, as long as such devices cause no damage. Skype wants the same principle applied to 3G wireless.

Much will be said, pro and con. Be prepared to hear how the Carterfone decision refers to “devices” and not to software. And that the PSTN of 1968, which was a regulated monopoly, is not like 3G, which relies on auctioned spectrum. I wager we will hear accusations that what Skype is proposing is an anti-capitalist insult to private property–that auctioned spectrum.

If the Skype side is smart, they’ll point out how the Carterfone decision was good, not bad for the economy, and they’ll try to quantify how much GDP we added by allowing competition to accelerate the adoption of cordless phones and answering machines. Maybe Skype will follow up by pointing out what would have happened if the meter was still running (think AOL, circa 1996) on Internet use. Think of the good it would do our economy if we hadn’t given cellular-spectrum licensees a choke-hold on the bandwidth.

But we did. I don’t know if it’s too late or not. Maybe we’d have to buy back the spectrum. I don’t actually think so. My opinion is we just have to make smarter decisions about the bandwidth that’s coming up for sale, and that will create competition that forces the cellular licensees to open up. But that’s a subject of another post.

My point, and I do have one, is that Skype is pulling a Steve Jobs here.

Remember a few weeks ago, when Steve told the RIAA it should stop insisting on DRM? Good PR move. Of course, anyone who was paying attention, policy-wise, immediately noted Jobs’ hypocrisy. Jobs was fresh from releasing an iPhone that has no SDK for independent developers, hiding this self-interested decision behind a lame excuse [link].

“These [iPhones] are devices that need to work, and you can’t do that if you load any software on them…it has to be more of a controlled environment”.

Is Skype even any different? Unless you’re an asterisk hacker Skype doesn’t make it easy for users to make calls to Free World Dialup or Gizmo software–what TMCnet called the “great wall of VoIP”. It’s not really rocket science. Anybody really use that SIP-to-Skype gateway, though? For the highly technically able only, I suspect.

Bottom line, what goes around comes around. And what goes around is narrow self-interest. And if that’s all that ever goes around, that’s all that’s ever going to come around. Skype–and Jobs–might be right on the ideal. Bring it down to earth, and the policies they propose are no less selfish and petty than those they criticize.

Content, Network, Policy closed content, closed networks, FCC, Policy

PhoneScoop has the news (and a link to FCC docs) on Motorola’s new mobile phone.

The FCC today approved the Motorola CN620, the first phone capable of operating on both mobile and Wi-Fi networks. Although the phone was developed by Motorola’s iDEN group, the phone supports only GSM and Wi-Fi networks. Voice calls started on Wi-Fi networks can be handed off to a GSM network. The reverse is possible only for certain types of calls. Features of the phone include a large color main display, an external display, speakerphone, eight-way navigation, and PTT (push-to-talk). Although the prototype approved by the FCC operates only on GSM networks, FCC documents reveal that the final model will support all three major types of Wi-Fi (802.11b, 802.11g, and 802.11a), as well as quad-band GSM.

Devices, Policy 802.11, FCC, GSM, IDEN, Motorola, push to talk, telephone, wi-fi, wireless

Following the FCC’s promise to release a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)–”to outline plans for and solicit comment on using available (i.e. unused) TV channels for unlicensed devices,” some broadcasters are starting to mumble.

What could TV-Fi look like? It’s a bit complex, since the FCC has blocked out a number of channels that can’t be used even if there isn’t a television station broadcasting on them, including 2-4 (potential interference with VCRs, DVD players, cable set-top boxes), 14-20 (Land mobile radio services), and 37 (Radio astronomy). Channels 52-69 are also off-limits; these channels and the frequencies associated with them have already been sold off at FCC auction for licensed use and/or been set aside for use by public safety concerns. And finally, you can’t use any channel that has a broadcasting TV station on it. Since each TV station has two broadcast licenses — one analog, one for Digital TV conversion — take the number of local TV stations you get, then multiply by two. Some year in the future, the analog licenses are supposed to be returned, but that and the 52-69 saga are an ugly story for a different day.

TV-WiFi is being described in two different flavors %u2013 indoor LANs and long-haul broadband networks. The indoor LAN version may look something like Wi-Fi, except with higher data rates and the ability to cleanly penetrate through walls and floors. It could be something as simple as an expanded ultrawideband (UWB) device, but nobody really knows.

Network, Policy broadband, broadcasters, channels, FCC, FCC auction, LAN, license, spectrum, TV, unlicensed spectrum, UWB, wi-fi

Will the courts get it right? Will the FCC? Who will be the first governmental body to show future wisdom in determining guidelines for our regulatory future?

A US court of appeal has rejected a request by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to take another look at its October decision which defined cable TV companies as bit carriers, thereby falling under the FCC guidelines for telecommunications services.

If this court decision remains unchanged, it will mean that all of the wholesale and network sharing rulings that apply to US telcos will now apply to cable companies.

This is the reason that all the telco DSL providers in the US work hand-in-glove with ISPs, but so few of the cable TV companies deliver their services through ISPs. The same applies to Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs).

Network, Policy cable TV, CLEC, court, FCC, guidelines, ILEC, incumbents, telcos, telecom, telecommunications

Hajimiri’s radar on a chip could replace a lot of existing dish antennae, like the kind you have on your roof to watch satellite TV. The frequency at which the chip runs – 24 Gigahertz – falls right into the spectrum allocated by the FCC for vehicular radar systems. These chips could be embedded into a car to give it 360-degree, all weather vision, protecting the occupants from reckless drivers and other highway hazards.

The Radar Phone

But the most interesting thing about Hajimiri’s radar-on-a-chip is how it can be used to do things that aren’t typically associated with radar. For instance, the chip could be used for mobile phones* and to send and receive high-speed wireless data. That’s because the chip has an array of eight tiny antennae that beams its signal in any specified direction, just like a parabolic radar dish does. But while a radar dish has to physically move in order to direct a signal, the radar-on-a-chip directs its radio beam by electrically adjusting the phases of the oscillating current going through its eight antennae (which don’t look like antennae – they are metallic leads etched onto a circuit board).

Network , FCC, mobileTech, phones, radar