With 95% of U.S. households already having access to broadband service with download speeds of at least 4 Mbps – including 50% of homes with access to cable’s DOCSIS 3.0 speeds of 50 Mbps and faster – broadband in the U.S. is a success story that keeps getting better.  Over the past decade, deployment of broadband throughout most of our country has created millions of jobs, added billions of dollars to our economy and unleashed innovators who are developing creative services and applications that have remarkably improved our quality of life.

While acknowledging these successes, the FCC’s Sixth Broadband Deployment Report – or 706 Report – nevertheless concludes that broadband is not being deployed to all Americans on a “reasonable and timely” basis because five percent of American households don’t have access to broadband with speeds of at least 4 Mbps.

It’s worth noting that the 4 Mbps threshold is new and represents a significant increase from the 768 Kbps used in the 2008 report, and the 200 Kbps used in the first four reports.  We have no problem using a 4 Mbps threshold for defining broadband:  I have argued for several years that 200 or 768 Kbps was an inadequate threshold for a policy definition of broadband (pages 5-6).  But if the 706 Report is to retain any value as a measurement tool, the Commission must heed its own advice and use the definition as “a relatively static point at which to gauge progress and growth… from one Report to the next.” If the Commission continually increases the speed threshold to reflect “current demand patterns” and “estimated future demand” as it did this year, it becomes a circular nullity and it will be a certainty that deployment never will be considered reasonable and timely.

(more…)

Yesterday, the FCC voted 3-2 to approve a Notice of Inquiry to change the legal framework of Internet access by reclassifying it under Title II of the Communications Act.

John Eggerton of Multichannel News and Broadcasting & Cable wrote an overview of the FCC meeting and the  day’s happenings.

We issued a statement from NCTA President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow:

“Over the past decade, broadband deployment in America has been an unparalleled success story. That success has been greatly aided by the farsighted judgment of prior Democratic and Republican Commissions to promote innovation and investment in new networks through the exercise of regulatory restraint. As we revisit this question with the start of today’s inquiry, we see little benefit to changing course and great danger in attempting to shoehorn modern broadband services into a Depression-era regulatory regime without serious collateral effects to investment, employment, and innovation.

“We appreciate that Chairman Genachowski is seeking comment on alternatives to a Title II approach. We also very much appreciate and agree with the Chairman’s statement of support for legislative efforts to provide much needed certainty. We believe that is the right next step, and we can preserve our ability to protect consumers, maintain an open Internet, and encourage continued investment and innovation through carefully targeted legislation.”

Comcast also issued a statement from EVP David Cohen.

Here are just a few stories following the FCC’s vote:

• New round in FCC broadband fight
• FCC Advances Internet Plan Backed by Google, Amazon
• FCC Formally Launches ‘Third Way’ Process, Asks for Comments
• FCC seeks comment on broadband reclassification

On Tuesday, the FCC announced the results of a survey, showing that “four out of five home broadband users say they do not know the speed of their home internet connection.”

This received a lot of coverage (see this Ars Technica post), but lost in all the hubbub were the findings on consumer satisfaction: 91% of home broadband users report being at least somewhat satisfied with the speed of their service.

• 50% of home broadband users are very satisfied with their home connection speed.
• 41% of home broadband users are somewhat satisfied with their home connection speed.

How Do We Measure Satisfaction?

So, people generally don’t know their speed, but they are largely satisfied. Are these findings at odds? I don’t think so.

I’m a pretty savvy Internet user, but I couldn’t tell you off the top of my head what the speed of my Comcast home connection is. We also have Comcast here at NCTA’s offices, so I can check Speedtest.net and tell you I’m getting 35.74Mbs down / 4Mbs up. A colleague checked it earlier today and got 45 down / 6 up.

But I had to check to get those figures, because I don’t really need to know the speed I’m getting. What I’m interested in is whether I’m having a satisfactory experience. Are web pages loading? Is my streaming video buffering too much?

As NCTA has explained (See this previous post: The Measure of “Measurement”), and the FCC has acknowledged, online speed tests can provide a measure of the speed that a user experiences, but they do not necessarily provide an accurate measure of the performance of a user’s broadband provider because the results also are affected by the performance of home networks and the public Internet.

Occasionally, I’ll download really large files, but I don’t use any low latency applications. Therefore, for email, web browsing and streaming media, a steady connection covers my needs. My Internet experience is also affected by the computer I’m using and the sites I visit, which can only load the content so quickly in any case.

And since my cable provider keeps periodically increasing the speed of my cable modem service at home, I don’t keep up with what it is at any given point (although I know I passed 10 Mps some time ago). As long as it works and I can do all the things I need to do, I don’t otherwise pay attention.

The FCC’s survey suggests that the vast majority of users may have a similar view. In that sense, it is worth noting that the survey seems to present a very different – and more accurate – picture than you would get if you only read the comments that are posted on blogs that cover this issue.

The Future of Fast

Some people need a super-fast connection or do need to worry about latency, such as gamers. And as such applications as telemedicine or high-definition teleconferencing become more prevalent, more people will fall into this category. In the future, I may pay much closer attention to the speed I receive.

Cable operators appreciate that different consumers may need different levels of service and that some customers may be more concerned with the specific details of their service than others. That’s why NCTA has been working closely with the FCC on the testing initiative announced on Tuesday. The SamKnows test should be a good starting point in developing a common method by which all broadband providers can measure the speed they deliver to consumers.

But the reason 80% of users don’t know the speed of their connection may be because that’s not how they measure satisfaction.

Regular readers of this blog may recall our discussion last year of the Selectable Output Control. The rest of you are no doubt completely puzzled.

John Eggerton’s story explains what happened: “FCC Grants Partial Waiver for Early VOD Release of Theatricals.”

[The waiver gives] studios and multichannel video programming distributors, or MVPDs, the ability to disable certain set-top outputs so they can copy-protect the release of theatrical films to VOD closer to their release date.

We issued a statement attributed to NCTA President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow:

We’re pleased that the FCC has granted MPAA’s request to permit cable customers to receive first-run theatrical movies before their release on DVD. The Commission recognized that waiving its selectable output control rule would permit cable operators and other multichannel video programming distributors to provide their customers a new service which would not be available absent FCC action. This decision serves consumers well by allowing us to provide them more choices in how and when they can view new movies.

For a better understanding of the issue, it’s helpful to read some of our old posts. We had a post answering some of the SOC waiver’s critics (including responding to the charge that SOC “breaks 25 million television sets.”). The blog Ars Technica weighed in and we responded to their response, which lead to even more discussion here.

As we move into a world of great digital distribution of content – including, in this case, the possible earlier release of theatrical films to VOD – it’s understandable that “content owners [i.e., movie studios] rightly need adequate protection against indiscriminate and unauthorized distribution of their content…” (as we put it here). The group Public Knowledge (as quoted in John Eggerton’s story above) said that SOC  “will allow the big firms for the first time to take control of a consumer’s TV set or set-top box, blocking viewing of a TV program or motion picture.”

Consumers today routinely deal with content or software that has copy protection. To describe this as “breaking” or “taking control” of your device seems over-the-top. Instead, what this hopefully means, is greater viewing options for you.

Yesterday, FCC Chairman Genachowski announced his intent to launch a proceeding exploring a new regulatory framework for broadband services.  Since then, there’s been lots of commentary from industry (including our own statement here), Wall Street analysts, and pro-regulation advocates. Amidst all the storm and fury, I want to highlight an important passage in Chairman Genachowski’s statement:

“The issues presented by the Comcast decision are a test of whether Washington can work—whether we can avoid straw-man arguments and the descent into hyperbole that too often substitute for genuine engagement.”

At NCTA, we couldn’t agree more and pledge again that our industry will work constructively with the FCC, Congress and all policymakers to create an appropriate framework that preserves an open Internet and achieves the goals of the National Broadband Plan.

But as this important dialogue moves forward, it’s critical that we at least have a common understanding of some basic facts – perhaps the most basic being a common understanding of what the Internet is.

Which brings me to the odd “rebuttal” that Free Press issued today to comments by NCTA and others on the Chairman’s “third way” proposal. It includes these phrases:

“The ‘Internet’ is not the wires that deliver the content and applications, but the content itself.”

“We trust that the NCTA will be reassured by the FCC’s repeated assertions that they have absolutely no plans to regulate the Internet.  Being the expert agency for communications, the FCC recognizes that broadband communications services are not ‘the Internet’, contrary to NCTA’s deliberately misleading statements.”

Perhaps Free Press should take a closer look at the Communications Act – specifically section 230(f)(1), which was added by the 1996 Telecom Act:

“The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.”

Nowhere in Congress’ definition does it describe the “Internet” as being the “content” provided over the networks rather than the networks themselves.  The Commission itself cited Congress’ network-based definition of the Internet in adopting its 2005 Policy Statement on Broadband Internet Access.

Congress used a similar network-based definition in the Broadband Data Improvement Act in 2008:

INTERNET.—The term ‘‘Internet’’ means collectively the myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities, including equipment and operating software, which comprise the interconnected world-wide network of networks that employ the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any predecessor successor protocols to such protocol, to communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.

Likewise, the US Supreme Court has described the Internet as a “network of interconnected networks” (National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services) and as a “worldwide mesh or matrix of hundreds of thousands of networks, owned and operated by hundreds of thousands of people”(Reno v. ACLU).

Free Press may wish that the Internet was something else, but that does not make it true.  Let there be no doubt: When you regulate broadband networks, you are regulating the Internet.

[Editor's Note: Rick Chessen is Senior Vice President, Law & Regulatory Policy for NCTA. In addition, one sentence above was edited for clarity]