Why Do We Need the F.C.C. Involved in the Internet?

Apparently my last article hit a nerve with a few people which is strange because it was only meant to enlighten people as to the real issues concerning traffic management and peering to stimulate competition for over-the-top (OTT) providers.  I have to say that at stake here is the exact issue that I have personally encountered.  My lowly blog isn’t backed by any major media outlets or elite-funded NGO, but it reached the world and struck a nerve.  I have over 25 years experience as an engineer in the telecommunications industry developing and selling network elements.  I am not a lawyer, politician, or lobbyist who want to call the shots in the industry, but through the power of the Internet my voice has been heard.  The Internet gives those of us with real knowledge a way to be heard (and those without knowledge too). 

There are people our society who don’t want those voices to be heard or at least controlled.  They purport to champion freedom and equality yet their agenda is just the opposite.  I have no agenda other than supporting the free market and everyone’s ability to be successful on their own terms.  So what does this all have to do with Net Neutrality?  The ability for all of us with a voice to be heard are under attack by people purporting supporting net neutrality.  Let me elaborate.

In my last article, I applauded the common sense rules proposed by the F.C.C. because they allow OTT providers to compete against incumbents effectively.  I do not have anything against the incumbent carriers; I use to be part of a couple of them.  I believe that competition benefits not only the consumers, but the entrepreneurs and incumbents as well.  It is a win-win for everyone except for those that end up losing control and power due to free-markets.  I believe that the F.C.C. are proposing rules that support the free-market and entrepreneurship.  To me this is a technical argument with business implications; not a political discussion.  That is where I got it wrong.

Being an engineer by trade, I always believe that a sound technical solution and logic will prevail.  Also, I believe that people understand that competition and freedom benefit all.  It appears that with even though I have age, I am still a bit naive.  My article received some negative comments by people and even NGO that supposedly support an open Internet.  They didn’t like the fact that I was supporting these proposed rules.  There is a huge public misinformation campaign going on across the Internet under the guise that the F.C.C.’s proposed rules will kill the Internet and free-speech.  At first I believed that this effort was based on a lack of knowledge of the issues at hand, but now I realize that the people behind this campaign know exactly what is going on.  They are using the general lack of knowledge by the general public on the topic to scare them into believing that these rules will benefit the incumbents and kill the Internet, and the tech media in all in on it with them.  Their real motivation is to gain greater governmental control of the Internet so they can determine who says and does what.  These groups are disingenuous in their motivations.

This is why the F.C.C. or any governmental organization does not need to be involved in the Internet.  Government involvement always leads to manipulation by special interests and loss of freedom.  The groups purporting to protect the Internet actually will do the opposite.  There are FCC staff members that are founders of groups that are campaigning against these rules under the guise of supporting net neutrality.  Unfortunately their disinformation campaign is very effective.  We do not need the F.C.C. to further regulate and interfere in the Internet although these rules do make sense.  The Internet should remain open for all to speak freely and compete effectively whether an incumbent or OTT service provider.  Please do not be fooled into supporting a cause because it sounds like the right thing to support.  Read and fully understand both sides of the argument, and draw your own conclusion.  Things aren’t always what they seem.

Technorati Tags: ISP,Internet,FCC,No Agenda,Silicon Flatirons,censor,net neutrality,telecommunications

Common Sense at the F.C.C.

Federal Communications Chairman Thomas Wheeler (Brian Fung/The Washington Post)

After a few months of comments by the Chairman of the F.C.C., Thomas Wheeler, that the Commission would consider allowing companies to pay for special arrangements for access to their customers.  They will propose a new set of rules in their May meeting that will allow content providers to pay broadband carriers for better access to customers.  In this statement they included another proposed rule that would prevent any carrier from inhibiting, limiting, or denying access that would limit the openness of the Internet.  The Commission was not specific on how the details of this so-called fast lane could be implemented, but most likely it will be increased bandwidth at peering points, improved content caching, and traffic prioritization (i.e. Quality of Service).  The F.C.C. was specific in stating that broadband providers “may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.”

The F.C.C.’s action is based on a January decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columba Circuit that struck down the FCC’s 2010 net neutrality rules.  This still left the commission with the authority under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to regulate broadband services.  The F.C.C. would still have to look at each agreement on a case-by-case basis as required by the D.C. court.  Also they will act on any broadband company that engages in harmful conduct that threaten the openness of the Internet.

The F.C.C. has properly covered its’ bases here by preserving the value of the Internet that allows any device to freely connect to any other device, but they also wisely recognize that all bits are NOT created equal.  Since the arrival of Thomas Wheeler at the commission, the analysis and reports from the staff engineers have triumphed over the politics of the bureaucrats and outsiders.  They realize that best-effort Internet access is not sufficient to promote true content competition.

Since divestiture we have strived for a competitive telecommunications market in this country, but we have been unable to achieve it because the business case is untenable for each service provider to build high bandwidth fiber networks to homes and small businesses.  It is affordable to run fiber to business customers that spend thousands of dollars a month on services which is why we have approximately 40% of all businesses now served by fiber.  For the residential subscriber that spends less that $50 per month the cost is prohibitive. This fact is why we now have triple-play services offered by a duopoly with an ARPU over $100 per month offered by the incumbent broadband carriers.  Service providers need at least a 40% market share to provide a reasonable ROI to build a network which is why you don’t see small start-ups building alternative networks.  Investors are smart enough to realize that it takes too much capital to build these networks and it is a losing proposition to take on the incumbents.

Fledgeling startups like Vonage or Netflix could never afford to build their own network, but they can leverage the Internet to provide competing services to the incumbent carriers.  The incumbent carriers control the quality of their services by utilizing bandwidth outside of their Internet service to deliver their voice and video services.  Over-the-top (OTT) service providers do not have any ability to control the quality of their services since currently the Internet is a best-effort where all bits are created equal.  Before delay and jitter critical services like voice and video traversed the Internet, best-effort was good enough because no one really tell if their web page or e-mail was arriving a few milliseconds later than it did last time. Slow performance was usually related to the last-mile access bandwidth.  Throw a few more Mbit/s at a customer and the problem was gone. 

Now that video dominates the Internet, the backbone frequently becomes saturated at peering points and access;  thereby, affecting all traffic.  Customers of OTT companies are complaining that the quality of the service is poor, and they eventually go back to the incumbent service provider.  The OTT loses while the incumbent wins.  The customer loses too because there is less competition in the market.

The conclusion is that best-effort packet delivery is not good enough for services like voice and video.  Businesses have known that for over a decade which is why they purchased managed Ethernet services where they can prioritize their voice traffic over video over web surfing and e-mail.  There are two standards by which traffic can be prioritized end-to-end and several implementation agreements that the industry uses for interoperability.  These same mechanisms can be applied to the Internet to level the playing field for OTT service providers.

The F.C.C. is smart to recognize that true service provider competition will take a few more decades to come to the residential market.  Of course open-access municipal broadband could deliver true competition as I have written about many times, but allowing content providers to negotiate special peering arrangements and traffic prioritization will offer consumers a real choice in services other than that forced upon them by the duopolies.  OTT service providers like Netflix, Hulu+, Amazon, Google, Vonage, etc. will soon be able to deliver the same quality of service as the incumbent carriers at competitive prices.

Unfortunately this common sense technical solution to enable capitalism has been extremely politicized.  Many of the articles written over the past few months are vehemently against this proposed change in policy, but their fears are fueled by their ignorance and vested interests.  Surprisingly The New York Times and PC World each wrote very good and non-biased articles on today’s announcement that accurately presented the F.C.C.’s proposed new rules.  The usual tripe was spewed by outlets such as The Verge, NPR, The L.A. Times, and CBS’ own CNET decrying the end of the Internet and quoting any number of Soros funded front groups.

Their arguments are based on the egalitarian philosophy that all bits should be treated equal.  They trot out anti-capitalist rhetoric and class-warfare arguments.  What they do not realize that while they think they are sticking up for the little-guy (the consumer and OTT providers) they are actually supporting the big guy (the incumbent).  Maybe I am not giving them enough credit and their support is intentional. 

A prime example of the the misinformation that is propagated was on today’s The 404 Show hosted by CNET.  Bridget Carey (@BridgetCarey) incorrectly states that the little guy cannot afford to pay the toll to Comcast that the large companies could easily pay.  Well Netflix was and still is a little guy compared to companies like Comcast, but they charge an order of magnitude less than the big guy so adding a couple of bucks a month for superior quality of service insignificantly impacts their value.  She leaps to the conclusion with the support of her cohort Jeff Bakalar (@JeffBakalar) that there will be an Internet ghetto for those companies and people that cannot afford to pay. What they are missing is that only companies with time-sensitive content will want to pay for prioritization, and that companies just serving up web pages like Amazon, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. can still survive on a best-effort service.  Jeff believes that the Internet should be free and that all service and content providers are inherently evil.  Their arguments were thinly veiled slams at Comcast which is no surprise since they are paid by Viacom/CBS.  This is the problem when you have journalism majors applying their political philosophies to the technical domain.  They certainly should not be issued a journalism license.

The problem is that arguments like these will be presented as opposition to the common sense rules proposed by the F.C.C.  They will be guided by emotions and fear and not facts which seems to dominate today’s political domain.  Thomas Wheeler is the first Commissioner in more than a decade that actually understands the industry that he is attempting to regulate.  Let’s hope that the rest of the Commission understands reason so we can have a truly competitive content market.

Technorati Tags: FCC,FTTH,Internet,broadband,net neutrality,differentiated services,Silicon Flatirons,No Agenda,Comcast (CMCSA)

New US "mega kill bill" would give President and DHS even more power to control the Internet

Laws like this is the reason that I am against the FCC or Congress getting involved in any regulation of the Internet especially net neutrality.  This bill, if passed, would give the President and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sweeping powers to shut down parts and the whole Internet or even terminate specific users they deem are threats by executive fiat.  There is no Congressional oversight.  There is little definition of what IS a cyber-threat.  Once again is proves that the current Administration and Congress does not understand the Internet. 

There are several things wrong with this proposed legislation not to mention that it is probably unconstitutional without “war power” authority to go along with it.  This power would allow the Executive branch to interfere with commerce and suppress free speech.  Wasn’t this administration suppose to be “open” and “transparent?”  They are actually more totalitarian than they claimed of the previous administration. 

Next, the legislation allows continued unwarranted surveillance of “suspects” that are deemed “threats” to national security which is an extension of the Patriot Act.  Finally the legislation barely takes into account the fact that the Internet is a global network and not just a U.S. network. 

The philosophy of the bill can be summed up by Senator Joe Lieberman’s comment on CNN that the U.S. needs the same ability to shut down the Internet as China.  So it looks like the current administration and Congress is benchmarking ourselves with the Peoples’ Republic of China.  God help us all. 

The Internet is a global network for commerce, information dissemination, and communications.  There may be a need during war to manage ingress and egress to the United States, but it should not be wholly shut down.  The NSA is better equipped to understand and manage this job than DHS.  The government should recall that open communications did more to bring down Communism than anything else we did during the Cold War.

Senator Lieberman’s legislation is ill conceived and needs to be killed immediately.  This is not a partisan issue, but one of freedom and openness.  Also, there must be checks placed on the application of such a power.  It must not be given unilaterally.  Contact your Senators and urge them not to support S.3480.  When will our industry and tech community realize that as a whole the government does not really understand the Internet and any attempt to control it will have disastrous effects?

Technorati Tags: Internet,eavesdropping,net neutrality,politics,president,telecom,wiretapping,terrorism

The FCC Has Recognized the Need for Differentiated Services

Last week the FCC published its’ report on U.S. broadband Internet usage entitled Broadband Performance: OBI Technical Report No. 4.  The press chose to report on the sensational claim in the Executive Summary that actual measured bandwidth was half of the advertised bandwidth.  If they would have taken the time to read past the Executive Summary or not copy the other articles written about the report, they would have noticed that the report supports Quality of Service (QOS);  thereby, implicitly endorsing differentiated services.  They even dedicated Appendix 3 to a cursory discussion of QOS.

In Section I, the concept of QOS is first mentioned when profiling the different types of traffic users download.  In the quote below, The FCC states that high definition video needs bandwidth and QOS.

At the high end of the range, an application such as enhanced high definition (HD) video teleconferencing could require 5–10 Mbps, or more along with significant quality of service (QOS) performance (see Exhibit 9, where “Symm.”—short for symmetrical—indicates that the download speed is also required for upstream traffic).

In the next paragraph they reveal the other parameters that are required for HD video conferencing.

Download speeds are only one measure of broadband performance.
For example, HD quality videoconferencing requires very fast upload speeds to allow a person to transmit her image and voice while simultaneously receiving the image and voice of another person. In addition to upload and download speeds, measures of QOS such as availability, latency and jitter (variation in latency among different packets) may be important. Some applications, like e-mail or text-based Web surfing, are generally insensitive to these other measures of network performance, but for other applications, such as videoconferencing, these measures may be important (see Exhibit 10).

These statements introduce the reader to the concept that bandwidth alone may not be sufficient for certain types of services.  Later in Exhibits 9 and 10, services are classified by their need to be experienced immediately along with the need for QOS to determine user experience.  The FCC is unequivocally stating that all bits are not created equal.  They identify real-time and near-real-time traffic as needing lower packet loss, latency, and jitter from typical web browsing or e-mail reading.  The FCC’s quiet endorsement of differentiated services came in the beginning of Section III by stating:

The NBP therefore relies on a National Broadband Availability Target defined in terms of quantified download and upload speeds, with qualitative reference to a QOS consistent with the delivery of voice and video applications.

Perhaps the reason why the FCC was dragging their feet on net neutrality regulation was that internally they actually support differentiated services.They realize that it can improve overall user Internet experience and provide real competition to the incumbents.  By letting Google and Verizon publish their principles of net neutrality, they let those two take the flack for supporting differentiated services instead of staff having to deal with the political fallout.  Whatever the reason, I am glad that the bureaucrats recognize how the application of QOS will benefit the Internet.  Too bad the press missed it. 

Technorati Tags: broadband,differentiated services,FCC,Google,Internet,ISP,telecommunications,Verizon (VZ),QOS

Is The Court of Appeals Decision in Comcast v. FCC Good for Net Neutrality?

Much was written this week about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia’s decision against the FCC fining Comcast for blocking BitTorrent traffic in 2008.  Most of those articles missed the point of the decision and declared that the FCC cannot regulate the Internet.  This decision said one thing, and one thing only:  the FCC overstepped its enforcement authority in telling Comcast how they can manage their network.  It did not vindicate Comcast in blocking BitTorrent traffic nor say that the FCC cannot create regulations and enforce them on Internet services.  It just set a limit on where the FCC’s enforcement ends based on their past actions.  Specifically the court stated that the FCC did not have ancillary authority to regulate Comcast's network management practices.¹  It is expected that the FCC will appeal the case to the Supreme Court.²

On the surface it may appear that Comcast and other Internet Service Providers (ISP) are winners and the public is a loser.  That interpretation is not entirely accurate when you take a longer-term perspective.  The backlash from the decision may be worse than the decision itself.  The court itself made it a point to support the necessity of a free-and-open Internet as noted from this statement by the FCC:

"The court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet, nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end," said FCC spokeswoman Jen Howard.³

The court’s decision prompted an immediate backlash from the press, consumer groups, and lawmakers for Congress to take action to remedy the situation.  That remedy could range from having Internet service reclassified as a telecommunications service which gives the FCC the necessary authority or a law defining “net neutrality” and other aspects to regulate the Internet.  All of them come with consequences that could restrict innovation and unfettered use of the Internet.

The FCC itself thwarted its own ability to regulate Internet services when it classified them as the less regulated Title I services.  I believe that this was the most appropriate action for them to take because it limited their authority to regulate.  If it would have kept them at a Title II service, then they would have been within their jurisdiction to regulate Comcast’s and other ISP’s traffic management techniques.  This action would have stifled innovation and the delivery of new services because the service providers would have opted for more restrictive services and information providers like Google would have had to fight it out at the FCC and courts.  If the FCC attempts to reclassify Internet access as a Title II service expect to see this type of behavior.

The alternative is to get Congress involved and have them legislate the definition of net neutrality and expand the FCC’s powers even more.  Although this may be what the EFF and other consumer advocates want, the most likely scenario is that the resulting legislation is something that nobody wants, and even could be contradictory to the principles of net neutrality.  Almost every Congressman does not understand the nuances of the issues that distinguish an application/site/service from data transmission.  I have written at length on my belief of net neutrality and the FCC has come out with a higher level statement that does not contradict my principles. 

I clearly believe that this issue should stay under the jurisdiction of the FCC and that the FCC needs to clearly define the rules of net neutrality with the hands-off approach that made the Internet what it is today.  The Congress does not have the expertise nor is it the proper forum for industry, regulators, and consumers to come together to define how to keep innovation and commerce flowing on the Internet.  The FCC needs to go through the proper rulemaking procedure so it can enforce these principles.  Service providers need the ability to manage traffic on their network to ensure a quality experience for all customers and consumers need the ability to access any lawful service over these networks equally whether they are provided by the network provider or a third-party.  The best way to achieve this balance is to have true competition in the access network.  Regulation is a last resort when there is no competition and apparently I am not alone in my opinion. 

My next article will discuss how Google is doing more to stimulate competition than  the National Broadband Plan.

Technorati Tags: bittorrent,broadband,Comcast (CMCSA),EFF,FCC,Internet,net neutrality,Sandvine,Google

80% of Americans Use the Web Daily

Happy Thanksgiving readers.

A Harris Interactive poll finds that 80% of all adult US citizens regularly use the Internet.  Almost 200 million Americans spend an average of 11 hours a week online.  The demographics of online Americans are beginning to mirror our population in general.  With broadband penetration nearing 50% of the population, a little over 30% are still using dial-up and mobile phones as a way to access the Internet.

This upward trend demonstrates the pervasiveness of the Internet in American life.  As more people have access to the Internet from multiple rooms in their homes, office, and even on-the-go, this number will increase further;  thereby, driving the need for greater bandwidth and innovative applications. 

I am writing this article from my over 65 year old mother-in-laws home connected to FiOS.  Nine percent of people in this age group are regular Internet users representing 16% of the total population.

Technorati tags: broadband, Internet

s

Comcast Acknowledges Upstream Powerboost

In the battle between cablecos and telcos, Comcast seems to be advancing the arms race nicely.  For months I have noticed that most downloads have been zippier at boosts up to 8 Mbit/s, but lately I have seen jumps over 10 Mbit/s.  This note on Broadband Reports prompted me to test my speed again.

As noted in the graphic above, I receive Ethernet speeds for short periods of time for downloads and almost a T1 in the upstream direction.  With DOCSIS 3.0 on the way, how long will it be before we see 100 Mbit/s?  No wonder why cable has captured over 70% of the VoIP business and is a serious threat to the telcos.  A common inbox for e-mail, voicemail, and IM may win me over from my VoIP provider that has not introduced anything new since E911.  Although it may be a duopoloy in most communities, the cable companies are serious about being your triple-play provider.

Technorati tags: Comcast, Internet