FCC Proposes New Open Internet Rules

The concept, referred to as net neutrality, pits open Internet companies like Google Inc against broadband service providers such as AT&T Inc, Verizon Communications Inc and Comcast Corp, which oppose new rules governing network management.

"Today, we can't imagine what our lives would be like without the Internet -- any more than we can imagine life without running water or the light bulb," Genachowski said in his first major policy speech at the Brookings Institution, a public-policy think tank.

But service providers say the increasing volume of bandwidth-hogging services -- such as video sharing -- requires active management of their networks and some argue that net neutrality could stifle innovation.

This is baloney. Big telcos like AT&T continue to introduce technical advances in long haul infrastructure that can handle ever increasing bandwidth. What they really fear is this proposal will have the effect of requiring them to increase bandwidth over the middle and last miles -- and do so faster and at higher cost than their business models permit.

That in turn will lead to pressure for alternative models in which states, local governments and telecom cooperatives will do the job with open access networks, rendering the incumbents increasingly irrelevant over the middle and last miles.

Incumbents protest Missouri broadband stimulus project

There has been much speculation that incumbent telecom providers would challenge projects seeking broadband infrastructure construction subsidies of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

One such challenge is shaping up in the Show Me State. Missouri has endorsed a proposal by Marshfield-based Sho-Me Power to lay 2,500 miles of new fiber-optic cable and build 200 new wireless towers to improve broadband access. The project seeks $142.3 million in federal stimulus funds that would be matched by $25.2 million in state funds.

The incumbents contend they already have plenty of middle mile in place and worry the state wants to avoid paying for access to their infrastructure and build its own.

As with proposed health care coops, U.S. should seed telecom coops

One of the most debated aspects of the current health care reform effort pending in Congress is how and to what extent any overhaul should foster market competition among managed care plans and insurers. Due to the high costs of paying for medical care for large numbers of people and the substantial capital barriers to entry, the market is oligopolistic with a relatively small number of players operating in each state.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus's (D-Mont.) solution unveiled today in his markup of America’s Health Future Act: purchasing pools for small businesses and consumer cooperatives. The Baucus bill appropriates $6 billion in seed money to help the coops cover start-up costs and to meet solvency requirements.

What does this have to do with advanced telecommunications infrastructure? Like health insurance, the market over the so-called "last mile" also tends to be uncompetitive due to the high capital costs of entry. In fact, it's even less competitive than health insurance from consumers' perspective as telecom infrastructure is a natural monopoly or at best, a duopoly. Here too, coops can provide a degree of competition and choice that's lacking.

Not only that, they can help the Obama administration fulfill its stated policy goal of extending broadband access to all Americans by building out advanced telecommunications infrastructure. As Sen. Baucus proposes, Congress and the administration should similarly seed fund telecom cooperatives that also face high start up costs and capital requirements.

"Broadband in a box" is prime example of going backward on telecom infrastructure

Stories like this one in Telephony Online depict the U.S. headed backward in a race to the bottom rather than forward when it comes to deploying advanced telecommunications infrastructure. This so-called "Broadband in a Box" might make sense for some isolated part of the Third World. But what's sad is it's being deployed in the United States of America. West Virginia, to be exact.

"Broadband in a Box" combines two of the absolute worst forms of Internet Protocol-based connectivity: sucking a satellite on the downlink and dialugging for the uplink.

It's so pathetic that it rightfully doesn't even meet the U.S. government's definition of broadband -- already arguably obsolete at 768 Kbs down and 200 Kbs up -- for the purposes of broadband infrastructure subsidies in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

U.S. posts database of first round broadband economic stimulus projects

Summaries of projects proposed in the first round of U.S. broadband stimulus funding that closed in mid-August ($4 billion of the total $7.2 billion allocated for broadband infrastructure subsidies in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) are available via a searchable database at the broadbandusa.gov Web site.

Maps of the proposed projects -- which are also required to be posted at the site -- haven't yet been posted.

Why the incumbents prefer a sub 1 MBs broadband standard

Some are scratching their heads at recent comments submitted by large telcos and cable companies to the Federal Communications Commission recommending that broadband be defined at speeds of under 1 Mbs in the national broadband plan the FCC is due to present to Congress by February.

Why would they set the bar so low, observers rightfully wonder, particularly since such a low standard is already becoming obsolete given the explosive growth in bandwidth demand and video content.

It's clearly incongruous that Comcast, for example, would urge the FCC define broadband at circa 1998 levels of 256 Kbs at the same time it rolls out its DOCSIS 3.0 software upgrade providing downloads of 50 Mbs and potentially higher. Or for Verizon to suggest broadband be deemed 768 Kbs down and 200 Kbs up (the current FCC definition of "basic" broadband service) when its own fiber to the premises offering, FiOS, offers throughput on a par with that of Comcast.

Here's the explanation: These sub 1 Mbs standards are based not on what the providers are technologically capable of delivering today but instead on their business models. They have built out their proprietary infrastructures to the extent these models allow while providing a reasonable return and dividends for their shareholders.

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's reminiscent of the scene in the 1980s film Tin Men where a car salesman asks a tin man played by Danny DeVito what he's willing to pay for a Cadillac and DeVito answers "Five dollars."

That stance is likely to lead to more complaints from top FCC brass that the FCC's call for input on a national broadband plan is producing self serving and unconstructive comment that doesn't provide any illumination or guidance.

What do fuel efficiency standards and broadband have in common?

Like the decades-long policy debate over fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, a new one is springing up. This time it's over minimum broadband speeds with incumbent telecommunications providers arguing for lower standards and consumers demanding higher numbers.

Free Press advocates for a "future proof" telecommunications infrastructure. Based on current, proven technology, that means fiber optics to the premises. Free Press also correctly observes that unlike automotive technology that can be incrementally improved to deliver more fuel efficient vehicles, telecommunications is basic infrastructure and thus requires the right choices to be made up front to protect it from obsolescence and provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate both current and future needs.

Fortunately, there's a way around this debate, which the Federal Communications Commission will soon discover is unlikely lead to a useful outcome or do anything to improve America's fragmented and inadequate telecommunications infrastructure. It's empowering local governments and nonprofit telecommunications cooperatives to build and own their own fiber telecommunications infrastructure -- and ultimately define broadband on their own terms.

Canada's version of broadband stimulus

Two weeks after the U.S. government closed out the first round broadband stimulus funding applications seeking seven times more funds than available, the Canadian government is ramping up its own broadband infrastructure subsidy program.

Like the U.S. broadband stimulus targeting unserved and underserved areas, it too appears aimed at creating jobs and economic activity as rapidly as possible. Applicants have until Oct. 23 to apply for subsidies of up to 50 percent of project costs (compared to 80 percent subsidies under the U.S. Broadband Technology Opportunity Program.)

Unlike the clearly inadequate minimum 768 Kbs download standard for the U.S. program, the Broadband Canada: Connecting Rural Canadians initiative calls for a minimum standard of 1.5 Mbs. While twice that of the U.S. minimum, that standard is already on the verge of obsolescence, barely capable of supporting the growing amount of IP-based video content.