The handwringing about broadband adoption in the US continues unabated with yet another group calling for either some sort of government intervention or some form of nationalization (though Vint Cerf now claims he was joking – mostly). In trying to clarify his comments, Cerf actually added more confusion.

“Maybe we should treat the Internet more like the road system, look for ways of creating incentives to make the Internet more accessible to everyone, and less likely to be abused by the private sector,” Cerf said. … “It’s not likely you’re going to want to have multiple roads owned by the private sector to get to your house. Generally speaking, that’s true of the power system — you don’t have multiple wires going to your house to carry power.”

It’s good that Cerf cleared this up. He doesn’t want nationalized Internet. He just wants one wire going to your house, no “multiple roads” run by the private sector and something that resembles the road system (which is run by government, right?)

As just one example of why making the Internet like roads is a bad idea, look at the Big Dig in Boston. It was completed five years late for almost five times its original $2.6 billion budget. Just after it opened, a huge chunk fell on a passing cars causing injury and a fatality. It is a perfect example of government inefficiency on large scale building projects. Not exactly a great model when compared to cable’s $130 billion investment in its network and the more than $200 billion the telephone companies are expected to invest in their upgrade.

While I’m still confused about how making the Internet like roads isn’t actually a call for nationalization (to me, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…), fortunately, in the midst of the confusion comes a voice of reason.

The Pew Internet & American Life Project released its latest report on broadband adoption on Wednesday. Pew isn’t a group you can write off as Astroturf. They’ve done a lot of extraordinary research into how Americans are using the Internet. What did they find?

• The average price of broadband dropped 4% since the last survey (12/2005) to $34.50;
• Prices dropped despite the fact that 29% of respondents reported opting for a premium tier of broadband service – taking cable’s high-value offerings of faster speeds at a higher price;
• Across the board, broadband adoption grew 17% nationwide for the 12 months ending May 2008 – the strongest growth areas were among senior citizens, lower-middle income households and rural areas;
• The number of dial-up users who report disinterest in upgrading to broadband service remains roughly constant at 62% - even though the average price of dial-up actually increased 9% since the 12/05 survey;
• Of respondents who do not use the Internet, only 7% said that price was a deciding factor.

What this clearly demonstrates is what cable has been saying all along – while the goal of connecting every American is certainly a priority, and one we are working towards – the notion that there is a national crisis which requires immediate government intervention is simply overblown.

Contrary to assertions that the price of broadband in the US is prohibitively high, very few respondents in the Pew study agreed. This correlates nicely with the a Parks Associates Study last year that found very few people refused to get connected due to cost considerations. Adoption increased among Americans in households earning between $20-40k per year by 24% - the highest growth rate among any economic group.  Only among household earning less than $20k a year did adoption rates actually fall.  Given the state of the economy and the weakened dollar, this is not surprising. 

It does, however, highlight the need to specifically target the barriers to adoption that low-income families face – ranging from lack of computer ownership in the home to lower education attainment. In stark contrast to the OCED figures touted by groups like Internet for Everyone – figures about which there is considerable debate regarding methods and measurements – Pew finds that when you actually ask America what they’re paying for broadband you get a very reasonable-sounding number.

Further, the 17% growth rate in broadband adoption is astounding given the level of economic uncertainty gripping other sectors of the economy. This speaks to the steady march toward near-universal nationwide adoption. With more than 55% now connected, broadband Internet has passed the 50% barrier faster than any technology in history – faster than cell phones, radio, television, and computers, Will all Americans be online next year?  No, but we’re definitely getting there – and as we do, cable services are improving to keep pace with faster speeds and lower prices.

Last, but not least, note that 24% of dial-up users in rural America report that they would adopt broadband if it became available to them.  The big takeaway here is that the US, working with ISPs on policies such as the changes to the broadband loan program that were included in the Farm Bill, is doing exactly what it should be doing – focusing on the small percentage of Americans who are either unserved or underserved. There is clearly demand in rural America for broadband, and we ought to use the power of the government wisely to provide the right incentives for companies to connect the unconnected.

The cable industry continues to work with Connected Nation to identify areas that are not reached by cable so every effort can be made to focus government resources on those areas that need it most.

Let’s also not overlook voluntary efforts by the private sector. For more than a decade, cable systems through Cable in the Classroom have been offering complimentary broadband service to any school within the cable system’s broadband footprint. That’s an offer that’s been accepted by thousands of schools already, and it continues to stand today.

What we should not be doing, and the Pew study makes this clear, is pursuing heavy-handed regulation (or even worse, the radical nationalization ideas proposed by Vint Cerf and others).

Popularity: 4% [?]

Insight Communications CEO Michael Willner recently launched a new blog discussing his company’s take on telecom policy. In the time the blog has been up, he has tackled issues from cable investment in wireless technology to customer service, and from a la carte to network management.

Yesterday’s post, titled Confessions of a Network Manager (Part I) takes a look at the consumer friendly reasons for network management practices. It’s a good read, and like much of his writing is a candid look at why operators manage their networks, why that’s good for you, and even a frank discussion of why companies would not want to talk openly about specific practices.

Network management is not your enemy — it is your friend, even if you’re a P2P enthusiast. Without network management, everyone’s online experience would melt down to a completely useless exercise. It would reduce the Internet to a chaotic free-for-all as if you built a 10-lane superhighway and didn’t have any traffic laws in place to keep the traffic moving.

The fact is, network management is absolutely necessary throughout the Internet, from the ISP’s all the way through to backbone providers. It happens everywhere on the Internet. And it’s a good thing that it does.

Bandwidth, throughout the Internet, is a shared asset. Accordingly, we all have to learn to live with one other as good neighbors. You don’t go to Joe’s Barbecue, an all-you-can-eat buffet restaurant, and proceed to eat all the food. The goodies are affordable because they are offered under law of averages and a shared economic model. If my brother-in-law, Norman, and a few of his buddies showed up every night, Joe would either have to raise the price for everyone or start charging by the pound.

I guess, to some extent, we created this debate ourselves. Many of us, myself included, didn’t really want to talk about how we managed our networks to keep the traffic flowing smoothly. We simply did it. Frankly, I believed that if we were totally transparent about it, certain people would figure out ways to defeat the rules of the road, making our management practices harder and more intrusive than we were wanting them to be.

Much of his writing is similarly inviting and personal. If you’re not reading it, you should take a look.

Popularity: 20% [?]

Today, NCTA President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow testified before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing on “H.R. 5353, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008.” Two weeks ago, he testified before the Senate Committee.

He spoke of his time at an Internet start-up in the late Nineties, in a dial-up world. From his position, he said he was cheering on the cable industry to roll out broadband. He mentioned “open access,” the previous version of the network neutrality debate, which bears striking similarities to the current discussion. Over the last 14 years, as cable modems have taken off and increased the available bandwidth and over that time, McSlarrow noted, cable’s broadband service has never been regulated.

 

 Kyle McSlarrow Testimony on "H.R. 5353, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008": Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Popularity: 17% [?]

The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing tomorrow, May 6, at 9:30 a.m to cover “H.R. 5353, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008.” Witnesses will discuss the proposed legislation, which would direct the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assess competition, consumer protection, and consumer choice issues relating to broadband Internet access services, including network neutrality. The bill was introduced by Reps. Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, and Chip Pickering (R-MS).

NCTA’s Kyle McSlarrow will testify as will Mitch Bainwol of RIAA, Walter McCormick of US Telecom, and several others. Look for Kyle to make many of the same points he made in testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee on April 22, and in his post on network management here.

The efforts of broadband network providers to build larger and faster networks have helped ensure the success of countless numbers of new Internet businesses and applications. Despite concerns about alleged limited access to broadband, use of Internet video on demand has grown at the most dramatic rate. In February 2008, nearly 135 million U.S. Internet users spent an average of 204 minutes viewing 10.1 billion online videos. YouTube represented 34% of those online videos, or nearly 3.5 billion.

For years, net neutrality proponents have argued that without government intervention, broadband providers would stifle competing services and content providers; Internet development and usage would stagnate; and consumers would be unable to use their broadband connections to download video or access other emerging applications. In fact, cable’s investment in broadband has driven innovation and investment in new content and applications at the edge — the exact opposite of what was predicted by advocates of net regulation. …

Far from being “neutral,” a network that is not managed simply allows those who want to demand all the bandwidth for themselves to do so unchecked. …

Under the guise of preventing discrimination, “net neutrality” proponents would have the government determine which network management techniques are permissible. Putting every network management strategy up for debate before regulators would severely hamper the ability of network providers to ensure high-quality and reliable Internet access for their subscribers. Depriving network operators of certain bandwidth management tools only makes the network less efficient for everyone. Adept network optimization techniques are fundamental to creating and preserving the stable “ecosystem” for online service providers that ensures an optimal customer experience.

Misplaced concerns over legitimate and reasonable network management practices do not justify the enactment of open-ended regulation of the Internet, particularly where the costs of such regulation are foreseeable and substantial. Given the growth of broadband competition and the breathtaking pace of technological change, government intervention is unwarranted. As the Federal Trade Commission has warned, regulation of Internet access at this stage of market development could have “potentially adverse and unintended effects,” including reduced product and service innovation.

Congress should resist calls to interfere with broadband providers’ freedom to manage their respective networks in order to satisfy the evolving needs of American consumers. The disaster scenarios voiced by network neutrality proponents for many years have never happened. In fact, the opposite has happened — the Internet is booming without regulation. There is quite simply no problem requiring a government solution.

Popularity: 18% [?]

NCTA President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow testified today at the Senate Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing “The Future of the Internet.” You can hear an MP3 of his delivered remarks and, earlier today, we featured a post that summarized his remarks.

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

I particularly note his remarks at 2:22, when he said:

Every single person here has a blog or a website or has content that has distribution and has enabled consumers, millions of them around this country, to [access] that content and no one is blocking it… We want as much content, we want as many applications to succeed as possible. That’s what makes our broadband service attractive to consumers. And if we ever engaged in conduct that consumers were outraged about, they do have a choice. They can go somewhere else.

He said that while we can have a discussion on what is the most appropriate method of network management, “…there is zero evidence that any operator is engaging in anticompetitive conduct.”

However, despite the paucity of evidence of such behavior, Professor Lawrence Lessig, a big proponent of net neutrality, said that some might argue that we should wait until we see discrimination before we do something about it - which strikes me as a sensible approach to legislation - but that hi-tech investments are made today based on what investors think the network will look like in the future. He says there is such extraordinary uncertainty about what the future holds that it threatens innovation. Threats about what might happen without net neutrality have been around for five years, back to Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu’s 2003 paper Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination. I wouldn’t say that investors are shying away from promising broadband applications.

There was also a great deal of talk about what one person referred to as the United States’ “precipitous freefall” in terms of our global broadband ranking. I refer you back to our series on the problems with the OECD rankings, especially this post: The Truth About Japanese Broadband.

Popularity: 17% [?]

The cable industry has consistently demonstrated its commitment to policies that ensure all Americans have access to affordable broadband. This includes:

• Proposals to create a fund tailored to expanding broadband into unserved areas.
• The Broadband Data Improvement Act which would improve federal data collection regarding where broadband services have been deployed in the United States to achieve the goal of ubiquitous broadband availability for all Americans.
• Tax credits or other tax incentives to providers that build out in rural areas that are unserved by an existing broadband provider.
• Reform of the RUS broadband loan program so that funding is targeted specifically to unserved areas.
• Expansion of the FCC’s Lifeline and Link-Up Programs to help ensure that broadband access is extended to low-income households.
• Public-private partnerships to provide broadband in unserved areas.

We recognize that the government can play an important role in making certain that the economic and social benefits of broadband connectivity are extended to all areas of this country. While broadband deployment to every community in America merits the full attention of policymakers, legislation calling for “network neutrality” or government intervention into the operation of networks would undermine the goals of broadband deployment and adoption.

The government’s consistent light regulatory touch since the introduction of broadband has worked. Only that continued regulatory freedom is likely to spur the investment and innovation that consumers have come to expect.

The cable industry is on the verge of making the leap — from “broadband” to “wideband” — with a technology which can enable dramatically higher download and upload speeds. Several weeks ago, for example, Comcast launched a “wideband” service in Minneapolis-St. Paul that offers speeds of 50 Megabits per second. Comcast expects to have wideband available to 20% of its systems by year-end 2008 and to all homes passed by mid 2010.

The efforts of broadband network providers to build larger and faster networks have helped ensure the success of countless numbers of new Internet businesses and applications. Despite concerns about alleged limited access to broadband, use of Internet video on demand has grown at the most dramatic rate. In February 2008, nearly 135 million U.S. Internet users spent an average of 204 minutes viewing 10.1 billion online videos. YouTube represented 34% of those online videos, or nearly 3.5 billion.

For years, net neutrality proponents have argued that without government intervention, broadband providers would stifle competing services and content providers; Internet development and usage would stagnate; and consumers would be unable to use their broadband connections to download video or access other emerging applications. In fact, cable’s investment in broadband has driven innovation and investment in new content and applications at the edge — the exact opposite of what was predicted by advocates of net regulation.

(more…)

Popularity: 28% [?]

The big news today is the deal announced between Comcast and BitTorrent. According to the article in the Wall Street Journal:

The companies are in talks to collaborate on ways to run BitTorrent’s technology more smoothly on Comcast’s broadband network, and allow Comcast to transport video files more effectively over its own network in the future, said Tony Warner, Comcast’s chief technology officer.

In a nice piece of timing, NCTA pretty much argued for exactly this approach on Thursday of last week, during a media briefing to address the topic of broadband network management. CNET’s Anne Broache provided coverage:

Kyle McSlarrow, president of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, said he’s “amused” that in all the coverage of the Comcast-BitTorrent spat, no one’s talking about the cable industry’s role in getting high-speed Internet service to millions of American households and, by extension, enabling online applications and services to take off.

“One of the ironies is that most of these applications depended on cable’s rollout of residential broadband and our ongoing efforts to optimize the network to deliver the experience our customers expect,” McSlarrow said…

Kyle argued we should encourage experimentation in the issue of network management and then the marketplace and the Internet community can judge which solutions work best. You can hear the whole briefing by downloading this MP3.

Ken Ferree, President of the Progress & Freedom Foundation and former head of the Cable Services Bureau at the FCC, had this reaction to the call:

…Mr. McSlarrow added color and line to a vision of the future that is hazy shades of gray for most of us. As he pointed out, the broadband market is yet in its infancy. It is the offspring of diverse experimentation, and it shall grow only through more, and varied, experimentation. Like Walt Whitman putting the chuff of one hand on our hip and gesturing with the other to the vast unknown landscapes before us, Mr. McSlarrow rightly cautioned against taking our ease with what we know today – today’s technologies, today’s protocols, today’s data sharing applications, today’s networks or services.

For tomorrow will turn upon technologies, networks, applications, and protocols that, in 2008, are nothing more than mysterious phantoms of ideas. And the speed of innovation is, if anything, increasing. We may well, in very short order, and assuming the government doesn’t freeze technology into place with misguided regulations or unnecessary limits on innovative new business models, all interact with technologies in ways that would seem completely foreign now.

And therein lives the magic of ingenious engineering, creative marketing, and courageous entrepreneurship. The vast, unknowable landscape of tomorrow can only be discovered by leaving the market free to explore where it will. “Here are bisquits to eat and here is milk to drink, but as soon as you sleep and renew yourself in sweet clothes, I kiss you with a good-by kiss and open the gate for your egress hence.”

For more information, you can read Declan McCullagh’s Q&A with Comcast’s Joe Waz about the BitTorrent deal.

Popularity: 20% [?]