Telecom Pragmatics Calls Google Effort “Token”

Telecom Pragmatics recent press release and report stating that Google’s Fiber for Communities project will be just a token effort misses the objective of Google’s project.  Google has been very clear through its minimalist communications of its objectives for this project.  They want to stimulate new applications, test new deployment techniques, and drive competition beyond the current duopolies.  They do not want to become a carrier or service provider.  They do not want to get into the business of building networks.  Google simply wants to find a business model for building last-mile networks that will stimulate the deployment of ultra-high speeds at reasonable costs through competition.  Whether they will do that in one or a couple communities is still up in the air.  Google clearly states that they do not have the expertise to come up with a solution to the U.S.’s broadband deficiencies, but they are betting on the telecommunications industry and capitalism to find one.

Google is currently vetting over 1,100 RFI submissions to find the few finalists that assembled the appropriate players to test out a model for building an open-access municipal network.  Their approach is different that the bureaucratic direction of the FCC with the National Broadband Plan.  They know that they do not have all of the answers and are looking to the experts to develop some solutions.  I applaud Google in their efforts and whether they select Boulder, Colorado or not, I will support their efforts to the fullest.  Sam, Mark, and David at Telecom Pragmatics are smart guys and I know that they understand what Google is trying to accomplish.  I trust that their report fully divulges Google’s true intentions.  As a community that has been driving FTTH for two decades, we need to fully open our experiences to Google to make their little experiment a success. 

Technorati Tags: broadband penetration,Google,#boulderfiber,Boulder,Google Fiber for Communities,Telecom Pratmatics

What the 1,099 Communities Not Selected by Google by Google Should Do

The past month has been crazy ever since Google announced that they are going to build an open access fiber-based network in one or a couple communities from 50,000 to 500,000 in population.  Over 1,100 communities submitted responses to the Google Fiber for Communities Request for Information including my own Boulder and Longmont, Colorado.  Those communities took the time to thoroughly understand how broadband infrastructure could benefit their community.  So what should the 1,099 or so communities that are not selected do?  They should build the open-access broadband network anyway.

Why?  Communities that responded to the RFI realize that a broadband infrastructure will not only offer their citizens greater choice of service providers, but also provide economic growth to their community.  Studies in Europe, Asia, and North America have confirmed the benefits that will come to these communities (link and link).  Some cities conducted their own surveys asking businesses how a broadband infrastructure could benefit their business.  Boulder’s results can be found here and here.  So now that Google has stimulated this awareness of the benefits, why should a community take it on themselves to build the network?  Obviously one of the incumbent carriers will build it eventually, right?

Communities need to realize that incumbent carriers are not going to make any multi-billion dollar investments in infrastructure in the next couple of years no matter how hard they squeeze them during franchise negotiations.  Verizon has publicly announced that they have completed their FiOS buildout passing approximately 18 million homes and gathering 2.86 million TV and 3.43 million Internet subscribers.  AT&T’s U-verse service only reaches 2.1 million subscribers and it based on a FTTN architecture that only provides limited speeds.  Comcast has been the most aggressive with hitting more than 80% of its service territory with DOCSIS 3.0 by the end of the year and reclaiming spectrum for more data use via Project Calvary.  Comcast is offering speeds up to 50 Mbit/s for Internet.  The bottom line is that if you do not live in a major metropolitan areas that these providers already hit, you can only expect incremental or no improvements in service.  Most of these communities will not see Internet speeds greater than 50 Mbit/s or a choice of more than two video providers. 

The economics of building a single carrier infrastructure are not suitable for these companies to undertake.  Verizon spent $23 billion building out its FiOS network which equates to over $7,600 per subscriber.  Ivan Seidenberg, CEO, stated that they would like to achieve at least 7.2 million subscribers;  thereby, cutting the cost per subscriber in half.¹  Assuming that the company nets $50 each month per subscriber, which is generous, and that Verizon achieves its 7.2 million subscribers, it will take over 5 years to see a positive return on investment.  Investors in public companies do not want to see payback periods beyond 2 years even though the investment’s lifetime is greater than 20 years.

The economics for a open-access infrastructure are much different because there are multiple service providers utilizing the infrastructure that improve the fill rate and cash flow.  Successful open-access networks enjoy a fill rate of greater than 60%.  Some of the installation issues that plague large companies like Verizon are mitigated in municipal networks.  Smaller carriers have reduced installation costs down below $1,500 and even lower.  Just taking these two factors into account and allocating $30 per month to pay for the infrastructure moves the payback time to 5 years, and that figure does not include the revenue from any business customer that definitely improves the economics.  This article, published on the Gerson Lehrman Group site, takes a look at the economics with a smaller adoption rate but does not separate the service from the infrastructure.  They conclude that the payback time is much less.  Our company, Inphotonics Research, has more detailed case studies that indicate a payback period closer to the 5 year period factoring in all of the expenses and incomes which is far too long except for the patient investor.  On the other hand, the municipal bond investor may see a compelling investment opportunity and communities may even be able to enjoy a net positive revenue flow into their general fund.

Now that communities realize the the economics are feasible and that such a network provides numerous benefits to the community, how will they do it?  The purpose of Google’s grand experiment is to show communities how they could build their own infrastructure.  Their objective is not to build these networks in every community, but share the results so other communities could do it themselves.²  Understanding the formula will get a community started.  It does not give them the expertise to build and operate the infrastructure as well as attract service providers.  Companies exist that will assist communities to plan, build, and operate their infrastructure such as Inphotonics Research.  These companies have the relationships with appropriate industry players to make the project successful for a community.  So if you are one of the communities that does not end up selected by Google, go ahead and leverage Google’s work and build the network yourself.  You can do it with a little help.

Technorati Tags: broadband,broadband penetration,Comcast (CMCSA),AT&T,DOCSIS,FTTH,telecom,Verizon (VZ),#boulderfiber

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

The FCC’s Still Attempts Interoperability Standards for Public Safety

Wednesday Silicon Flatirons sponsored its latest presentation in the Center’s Policymaker Series.  Retired Rear Admiral James Arden Barnett, Chief of Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau FCC, outlined his bureau’s role in specifying public safety interoperability requirements in the National Broadband Policy that we anxiously await for release next February.  The Chief shared with the audience that the FCC will be drafting interoperability requirements for public safety broadband networks, and that they are considering several models of which to build and fund these networks.  Adm. Barnett expressed his desire for openness but he did not stay long for questions or provide the audience with any contact information to his team.  My impression is that this is the same openness we are seeing from other parts of this administration.

Politics aside, there are two themes that were prevalent during the reception after the talk: lack of local public safety and industry input and the belief that the best option to create this network was through Federal government funding.  In the Chief’s defense, he was going to visit Intrado in the afternoon.  During his talk, he rattled off a list of government agencies that he planned on consulting for drafting the interoperability requirements, but not once did he mention the TIA, IEEE, IETF, or other industry standards bodies.  Our industry has a long successful history in creating interoperability standards from the SONET Interoperability Forum to the WiFi Forum, Metro Ethernet Forum, etc.  These organizations are comprised of all stakeholders in the process especially the ones developing the technology.  Noticeably absent from the process was first responders.  They are the eventual customers of this process and need to state their needs.  Each organization and locality has different needs, and the standards need to remain flexible enough to account for them which leads me to my next point.

Public Safety networks are typically funded and built locally and regionally.  They are not something built from Washington.  I applaud the FCC acting as a catalyst for creating interoperability requirements, but they cannot dictate technology and products.  The one size fits all approach will not work in a country as diverse as ours.  Adm. Barnett hinted at specifying LTE as a technology for building broadband public safety networks.  The FCC should focus on application layer interoperability issues and not specific transport layer technologies.  The resiliency of the network will come from the diversity of transport technologies utilized.  Also, he had the belief that commercial networks may not be as reliable as dedicated government run networks.  May I remind the Chief that it was the Nextel iDEN network that held up the best during the 9/11 attack, and that our national defense plan relies on commercial networks during time of emergency. 

A great example for a interoperable broadband public safety network is in NYC.  DOITT has done an excellent job utilizing private and commercial facilities to build a IT infrastructure for the city.  I recommend that the bureau spend more time with this organization to learn how they built their network, and use it as a model where other cities may follow. 

Without industry input, I am afraid that this 10-20 page addition to the National Broadband Policy will be another vague government edict that will not get us any further than when this idea originated 8 years ago.  If this is an area of interest for you and your company, I suggest contacting the bureau directly and provide your comments.

Technorati Tags: FCC,public safety,Silicon Flatirons

Comcast Cranks Up DOCSIS 3.0

A month ago Comcast upgraded my head-end for DOCSIS 3.0.  I had some backwards compatibility problems so Comcast gave me a new DOCSIS 3.0 cable modem.  My problems went away and my bandwidth increased dramatically.

I must say that I am getting quite use to the extra bandwidth.  Windows 7 download in only a few minutes, and I enjoy the quicker upload speeds for posting pictures and blog posts.  The 3 Mbit/s upload is pretty consistent in my neighborhood.  The only time I wish I had more upstream bandwidth is when I am moving large PowerPoint files or synchronizing to the cloud. 

Having this much bandwidth exposes two deficiencies.  The first deficiency is that my home network can now be a bottleneck.  I have one 10 Mbit/s device, 2-100 Mbit/s device, a 1 GigE device with a 802.11g/n network.  My machine-to-machine transfer rate tops out at 20 Mbit/s.  The second deficiency is latency. It takes 27 ms to go round-trip to local Comcast servers.  The latency to some of the SBC approaches 100 ms which introduces echo into my VoIP calls. 

I can fix the first problem by buying a new Ethernet swtich and more GigE devices.  After all it is only money.  The second problem is not something that I can fix because after all this is a best-effort service. 

I am delighted that all of the computers and game consoles in the house has enough bandwidth to do what they want, but our phone calls still suffer from echo.  I would really like to see Comcast offer different classes of service for their High Speed Internet.

Technorati Tags: Comcast (CMCSA),cable modem,broadband,net neutrality