During an Opening Meeting this morning, the FCC issued an adjudication in the matter of “Formal Complaint of Free Press and Public Knowledge Against Comcast Corporation for Secretly Degrading Peer-to-Peer Applications.” The FCC said that Comcast’s “degrading” of certain Internet content was in violation of “federal policies” and were against the policy of reasonable network management.

In response, the NCTA  has released the following statement from Kyle McSlarrow, our President & CEO:

“One need look no further than today’s FCC decision for proof that engineering challenges on the Internet should be solved by engineers, not government officials. In second-guessing reasonable network management techniques (with no notice or guidelines in place) that benefit the overwhelming number of broadband subscribers in America, the FCC has inexplicably elevated the interests of a few bandwidth hogs over everyone else.”

As we further digest the decision, we will be following the reaction from others in the telecom policy sphere and will comment further and share what others are  saying.

This Friday, the FCC will hold an Open Meeting and the first agenda item is the complaint by Free Press and Public Knowledge against Comcast. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal today, the agency “will rule that the cable giant violated federal policy by deliberately preventing some customers from sharing videos online via file-sharing services like BitTorrent…”

As I wrote just last week, it’s critical that we can all agree with the principle that “some kind of network management is necessary to ensure a quality experience for our customers.” Once we get past that concept, we can discuss and debate what’s the best way to achieve the goal of a quality Internet experience, but we can hopefully also agree that the government is not the best body to make these decisions.

In this morning’s Washington Post, FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell poses the question: Who Should Solve This Internet Crisis? He outlines past network challenges and describes how “engineers, academics, software developers, Web infrastructure builders and others” came together to find solutions. He then answers his own question.

The Internet has flourished because it has operated under the principle that engineers, not politicians or bureaucrats, should solve engineering problems.

P2P apps present particular challenges for network managers, as McDowell acknowledges, and just building bigger pipes doesn’t fix the problem. That’s not to say that this challenge (and others) can’t be addressed. McDowell points out that we need to avoid creating a bigger problem.

Our Internet economy is the strongest in the world. It got that way not by government fiat but because interested parties worked together toward a common goal. As a worldwide network of networks, the Internet is the ultimate “wiki” environment — one that we all share, build, pay for and shape. Millions endeavor each day to keep it open and free. Since its early days as a government creation, it has migrated away from government regulation.

If we choose regulation over collaboration, we will be setting a precedent by thrusting politicians and bureaucrats into engineering decisions.

You may recall last week’s discussion of network management, provoked by our FCC filing. Michael Willner also posted about this issue, which then garnered some interesting comments from the likes of George Ou and Robb Topolski.

It’s a good idea to take a look at the whole thing, because it illustrates an important point.  I hope we made the argument sufficiently in our post that some kind of network management is necessary to ensure a quality experience for our customers.  This online discussion illustrates that achieving this is a complex issue. Almost any decision requires you to balance pros and cons. It’s complicated and it’s not clear what the correct path is, which then probably requires a period of some experimentation.

Given all of that, why would you want to put a government agency in charge of deciding what particular method of management should be used?  Or worse, have it decide that no methods of management can be used at all?

There’s a very amusing picture painted of NCTA on Ars Technica, literally Shakespearean in nature.

“Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more,” cried William Shakespeare’s Henry V in the play so titled. “Or close the wall up with our English dead!” Perhaps in said spirit did the National Cable and Television [sic] Association (NCTA) veep Michael Schooler and Insight CEO Michael Willner march up to the eighth floor of the Federal Communications Commission on the ninth of July to plead the cause of ISP “network management”…

Taken in conjunction with yesterday’s post on DSL Reports, it sounds like we painted a portrait of Biblical apocalypse. NCTA’s own Michael Schooler and Insight’s Michael Willner supposedly warned of “the impending destruction of the Internet by P2P users.” Or else we said “that the Internet would all but collapse.”

Wow! That sure sounds scary. But since neither Karl Bode nor Matthew Lasar was actually at that meeting, they instead apparently based their accounts on a letter we filed. If you read it for yourself, you find that four points were made.

• Network management is necessary to prevent serious congestion.
• Service for customers would be degraded without such management.
• Network upgrades alone won’t solve problem.
• The government should not pre-determine the tools and technology to be used for network management.

So I ask: Which of these four points are in contention? The DSL Reports post even says “Most techs don’t oppose reasonable network management (booting extreme gluttons, some QOS and prioritization)…” So, we can start by agreeing that reasonable network management is a good thing. Without some kind of management, problems will arise.

Let’s look at service degradation. Was complete congestion claimed? The phrase used is “can cause substantial (and sometimes complete) congestion of the system’s upload capacity.” Let’s emphasize three key words: can, sometimes and upload. This is critical, because peer-to-peer applications are the focus of attention.

This goes to the point about simply upgrading a network. A peer-to-peer application looks for users with the best upload connection. Building a bigger pipe does not eliminate the necessity of network management.

Finally, is the federal government really the best body to judge what network management tools are appropriate? I’m not convinced it is. Nor am I convinced that the answer is a big dumb pipe that treats all bits equally, whether it’s a phone call, streaming video, a P2P download, an e-mail, or a Web page request. And anybody who actually understands how networks work wouldn’t either.

Both of these posts claim that we are crying “Armageddon!” for nefarious reasons. But should nothing be done at all? We want to give our customers the best Internet experience possible, now and in the future, and we need network management to accomplish that goal.

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).