Series of Tubes

Net Neutrality, ICANN, and other issued related to internet infrastructure

But Why Time Warner Cable’s Bandwidth Cap May Be A Good Thing. See How Complicated This Is?

, ,

So no sooner do I cast a very suspicious eye over AT&T Wireless’ new scheme to allow ap developers to pay the overage charges for users who exceed their 2 GB monthly cap when I see that Time Warner Cable (TWC) is now offering an “Internet Essentials” plan in some test markets in Texas. Customers who opt into the new 5GB/month metered plan will receive a discount. TWC also includes a meter so customers can monitor their use. Finally, customers in the metered plan can easily pay more to get more access.

While this is just a first reaction based on the TWC description, I have to say this is the kind of “metered usage” program I really like. In fact, this looks like an excellent product offering (albeit not for an ‘power user’ like myself.). I salute TWC for listening to its customers and offering something different and innovative.

So what’s so good about this metered program but I remain suspicious of other “usage based billing plans? I answer below . . .

Continue reading

AT&T Poised To Fulfill Ed Whitacre’s Vision? Charging Aps For Customers and The Future of Wireless.

, ,

It has been just over 6 years since Ed Whitacre, then CEO of AT&T, kicked off the Network Neutrality movement by famously declaring that rival services would not “use my pipes for free,” neatly side stepping the fact that customers were actually paying to “use [his] pipes” already. Because why just collect money from one side of a platform when you can collect the same money again from the other side? Well, it appears that AT&T may finally be on the verge of realizing Whitacre’s vision — at least for the wireless world. While details remain sparse, the Wall St. Journal broke a story yesterday that AT&T may “allow” application providers to pay the overage charges for customers who exceed AT&T’s arbitrary “bandwidth cap.” As my colleague John Bergmeyer pointed out over at Public Knowledge there is not much functional difference between simply charging both sides of the platform directly and  giving you the first 2 GB/month and then charging you for access.

I first wrote about the problem of “Whitacre Tiering” (having a “slow lane” for the “public internet” and a “fast lane/Quality of Service (QoS)” for favored content) in the wireline context almost 6 years ago today, back when AT&T (and other supporters of such schemes) used “the exaflood” as the reason why we absolutely positively must charge service providers to reach broadband subscribers. Remember the “exaflood,” the prediction that our broadband systems would crash under the ever-rising flood of data as users, unconstrained by metered pricing, outstripped the capacity of broadband systems? Except, of course, it didn’t happen. Cable operators developed DOCSIS 3.0, DSL providers figured out how to do better, and those stuck with ruinous backhaul charges figured out other ways to manage their networks (generally in cooperation with users).

Moving to the wireless universe, we find ourselves with similar arguments that we faced six years ago — including the wireless version of the “exaflood.” Below, I consider whether the arguments for wireless make any better sense than they did when Whitacre proposed it for wireline back in October 2005.

More below . . . .

Continue reading

Why Genachowski’s Cybersecurity Initiative Is So Radical (In A Good Way)

,

When people think of “cybersecurity,” they usually think about the big stuff like Iranian hackers bringing down the power grid or master criminals hacking Bank of America. We associate it with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and institutions generally clustered around the military. When its gets down to the individual consumer level, we usually think of it as something entirely different, like “identity theft.” To the extent we think of any federal agency involved with protecting consumers from such “cyberfraud,” we usually think of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) going after businesses for failing to disclose that the free game you just downloaded to your smart phone will also track your location so that the folks at Target can text you when you get within 500 yards.

This has two unfortunate results. The first is that the “cybersecurity establishment” generally does not trouble itself about things like privacy or ease of use or general consumer habits. If anything, they think of users as part of the problem. Cybersecurity in this regard works like airport security. Just accept the loss of privacy and overall inconvenience as the price of security – even if it makes you much less likely to fly. After all, the mandate of the cybersecurity experts is security and protection, not promoting broadband.

The second unfortunate result is to treat consumers either as helpless victims or part of the problem. But in either case, no one thinks they have anything useful to contribute on the subject.

Which is what makes the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) new cybersecurity initiative so important, and Chairman Julius Genachowski’s speech last Wednesday such a radical and welcome addition to the cybersecurity discussion.  The approach outlined by Genachowski, if followed, promises to address three key security weaknesses in the Internet in a way that actually works with the underlying principles that have made the Internet such a widespread success for everyone from the most unsophisticated end user to the most sophisticated tech giant: voluntary consensus, openness, and ease of use. By leveraging the strengths of the network to help overcome the vulnerabilities of the network, the FCC can do a lot to improve cybersecurity while simultaneously fulfilling its statutory mandates to protect consumers and promote broadband adoption and use.

More below . . .

Continue reading

A Personal Reflection on the FCC’s USF/ICC Reform Order

, , ,

A Personal Reflection On The FCC’s USF/ICC Reform

Yesterday, the FCC approved an Order addressing about 10 years of accumulated undone work in the telecom world and at least starting work on the more serious issues – such as interconnection for IP-based services – that will govern the next ten years. I have, no surprise, plenty of personal opinion about the substance and I expect that when the Order is published I will have my share of things to say and that some of them will be quite scathing, skeptical and snarky. Nevertheless, it is important to pause first and reflect on why yesterday’s vote represents a real accomplishment for Genachowski and the Commission. Similarly, it is important to appreciate the context of the Order and the limitations on the agency imposed by law.

None of this negates the very real and substantive criticisms that I and others will have – particularly with regard to the self-inflicted wound over the FCC’s legal authority. I have no delusion that hard work and good will somehow transform poor policies into better ones. My appreciation for what the agency did right and its limitations under law do not blind me to the part that political influence plays, nor does it somehow make it more palatable to those who feel that the outcome will make jeopardize their livelihoods or that we missed significant opportunities to do better.

But it is just as poisonous to public policy when we focus only on its flaws and failures as when we excuse them. It is not simply a matter of basic fairness, or that decisionmakers are human beings who do better when praised for what deserves praise. I believe failure to recognize the achievements and limitations of the policy process makes one a less effective advocate and prevents one from seizing opportunities when they arise. This is neither bogus pragmatism that counsels surrender and diminished expectations, nor delusional Pollyannaism that insists we live in the best of all possible worlds. The world is messy and complicated, and policy reflects that.

So, all that said, the accomplishments and context of the Order below . . .

Continue reading

Comcast Unhappy With Free Market Title I Nirvana. Demands “Access Charges Bailout” But No Reg Oversight.

, , ,

It says something about the messed up world of telecom today that the “Connect America Fund” the FCC will vote on tomorrow has become the “what the heck are we going to do about IP-based interconnection” proceeding. In particular, the rather high-profile spat between AT&T and Comcast (andother cable companies) over access charges illustrates exactly the kind of cosmic cluster#@$! we predicted would happen if the FCC failed to classify broadband as a Title II telecom service. AT&T is100% right on the key argument: Comcast has the access charge regime it fought for and deserves. Letting Comcast collect access charges as if it were a traditional telecom provider subject to Title II, while shielding it from any actual oversight or obligations as a Title I information service, is nothing more than an undeserved windfall to the company that tore up the social contract in the first place.  If they don’t like the outcome, then perhaps they should have thought about it before they declared Jihad on Title II.

More below . . . .

Continue reading

A Pocket Guide To What Happens Now That Network Neutrality Rules Are Officially Published.

, ,

Hey everyone, remember back at the end of last year when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted the better-than-nothing-but-still-painfully-disappointing Network Neutrality rules? Well, after a long and winding road, which included bouncing back and forth between the FCC and the Office of Management and Budget a few times and a premature challenge by Verizon, the rules were finally published in the Federal Register today. So without getting into the merits, here is what to expect procedurally.

Continue reading

The Community Broadband Fight In North Carolina

, ,

The problem with fighting extremely bad corporate-sponsored legislation is that it has a distressing tendency to re-emerge time and again long after a human being would have gotten a clue and gone away. So it is with the fight by corporate carriers against local governments providing any sort of broadband. Most of us thought this fight over about 5 years ago, when the majority of carriers realized that municipal networks not only were not a threat, but were potential customers. Since then, excluding the occasional flair up around projects like Lafayette’s fiber build, things have generally been quiet on this front. As a result, we have a number of useful munibroadband networks (see this map) and, surprise surprise, big carriers continue to make money hand over fist.

Alas, some big carriers never give up their big dreams of squashing all who oppose them and crushing the life out of anyone who might show them up. So it is with Time Warner Cable in North Carolina. TWC’s allies in the NC state legislature tried year after year to get legislation banning local governments from providing broadband in communities where private companies haven’t bothered or do a dreadful job. Every year, a coalition of the tech community and local governments would refight the same fight and manage to kill the bill again.

But to TWC’s great delight, Novemeber 2010 ushered in a new generation of Tea Party Republicans who intend to show their respect for localism and small town virtues by kicking the crap out local governments that try to bring broadband to the people. As a result, the North Carolina House has now passed this job-killing piece of corporate welfare designed to protect helpless providers like TWC from small towns and rural areas they don’t want to serve. An equally awful version now seems ready to pass in the North Carolina Senate.

A bit more detail, and how we can do our part to save municipal broadband below . . . .

Continue reading

Upcoming Speaking Events (Both on Net Neutrality)

, ,

Network neutrality remains the issue that will not die, despite the pending court challenge and the actually timely filed court challenge sure to come once the final order is published in federal register (you can read the story behind why this is taking so long here). So my next two speaking engagements focus on the FCC’s Open Internet Rule.

This Tuesday, March 1, I will be at an event called Decoding the FCC’s Net Neutrality Order sponsored by TechFreedom.Org, a relative newcomer to Policyland as an org but run by many familiar faces. After opening remarks by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), we’ll discuss Larry Downes testimony and expanded paper on why he thinks the FCC’s Open Internet Order was bad bad bad with a side order of not needed and a side of death-to-freedom fries. But while the anti-NN Order folks certainly have the home team advantage, I and Open Internet Coalition representative Markham Ericson will give them a run for the money.

On Monday March 7, I’ll be speaking on a panel at the American Bar Association Regulated Utility section meeting called “Market Power Analysis in the FCC’s Open Internet Order” where I will reiterate a lot of the ideas from here, here, here, here, and here.

Hope folks will attend. Should be fun, even if we are revisiting old ground.

Stay tuned . . . .

How NCTA Protects Us From An Army of Lazy, Easily Frustrated Terrorists Inspired By “Family Guy.”

, , , , , , , ,

All of these years, I wondered why you find folks in the cable industry who are such a pain in the neck about maintaining and getting stuff from their “public file.” Now I understand that this was really a last line of defense against an army of terrorists and saboteurs bent on destroying our way of life. Unfortunately, according to the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the FCC’s recent action approving the technology for the broadcast white spaces may undermine this defense of our vital public infrastructure. How? Read below. And pray, PRAY, that the FCC heeds this warning and helps NCTA protect us from the army of lazy, easily frustrated terrorists inspired by Family Guy to destroy cable head ends that apparently surrounds us.

Continue reading

First Step Reforming FCC’s Universal Service Fund? An Honest Evaluation of the Goals and Trade offs.

, , , , ,

The problem of reforming the Universal Service Fund (USF) without Congressional direction means working without clear guidance on what the FCC should, institutionally, hope to achieve. “Broadband!” Is the usual answer from reform proponents. “Basic broadband for everyone! And eliminate waste. And spur investment. And promote innovation. And create jobs. And education. And –“ Well, you get the idea.

Listening to the FCC Commissioners at the open meeting, and reading through the released materials, my sense is the FCC has decided that we ought to maximize the number of people who have access to a threshold level of broadband. That’s not necessarily a bad goal. At the same time, the general impact of the proposed reforms favor larger carriers providing minimal service over smaller, local providers that may provide significantly better service.  That may still end up being the best way to maximize “bang for the buck” and may ultimately benefit the largest number of Americans. But if we are going to make that choice, we ought to do it explicitly, and in a way that minimizes the harm to those who did a good job under the old rules. Even better, we ought to consider whether we will really get the broadband bang for the USF buck the FCC appears to expect by reverting to what is, in essence, a return to the universal service model we had under the AT&T monopoly and the Communications Act of 1934 rather than the more locally-oriented model adopted by Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Continue reading