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.

The National Broadband Plan has put the spotlight squarely on getting broadband service to the roughly 35% of U.S. households that don’t subscribe.  I don’t think anyone can disagree with this overarching goal, and it’s clear that it will take a multi-pronged approach to bridge this gap.

The good news is that we have significant research which shows why these households haven’t yet subscribed.  In some cases, challenges in reaching these homes have been facilities-based – finding new and innovative ways of getting broadband service to rural and remote areas.

But in many other cases, as Pew Research and other firms have pointed out, the challenges involve “barriers to adoption,” namely, the availability of affordable computers, digital and technical literacy, an understanding of the relevance of broadband service, or the ability to afford the service itself (For further details, see the FCC paper entitled "Broadband Adoption and Use in America.").

We’ve been concerned about these issues for a long time.  Cable ISPs have invested heavily in building out their networks, making broadband service available to 92% of American households.  We’ve also focused on elements of digital literacy to help families better understand how to manage the content coming into their homes.  And, we are sensitive to the affordability of broadband service.  Many cable ISPs have established tiers of broadband service which allow subscribers to buy whatever level of service makes the most sense for them.

Broadband access for the two-thirds of American households that have it wouldn’t have been possible without the leadership of the private sector.  So we strongly agree with the Plan that one of the best ways to help connect more homes is through partnerships in which both the government and private industry bring something to the table.

Last December, after consultation with federal policy makers and other stakeholders, we proposed the Adoption Plus (“A+”) initiative.  A+ is a proposed two-year, public-private partnership.  It’s designed to promote sustainable broadband adoption for a vitally important population, middle school-aged children in low income households that don’t currently subscribe to broadband service.  Under the proposal, cable ISPs are prepared to offer deeply discounted broadband service and equipment, in partnership with schools, companies, and digital literacy groups that could help provide – to households where students qualify for free or reduced school meals – a package of affordable hardware and software, and training in digital literacy (See more in this previous post.).

Our strong interest in this kind of collaborative approach is why we’re happy to participate in a new pilot program that includes broadband ISPs, computer technology companies, nonprofits and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to help bring broadband service to low-income homes around the country.

Under the leadership of One Economy, a global nonprofit committed to stimulating broadband adoption efforts in the neediest households, several parties have jointly filed an application to the National Telecommunications & Information Administration for funding through the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program.  The coalition will work with HUD to increase broadband adoption efforts in public housing and multi-family assisted communities. If the stimulus application is approved, federal funding – combined with actual and in-kind contributions from the various members of the coalition – would help bring broadband service to families in up to 250,000 government-supported housing units nationwide.  This target group encompasses many of the same families we propose to reach with the Adoption Plus proposal.

The coalition built around this HUD initiative comprises a unique collection of seemingly strange bedfellows.  There are the non-profits – One Economy and Connected Nation.  There are the hardware and software manufacturers – Intel, Dell, and Microsoft.  Telco ISP AT&T is involved in supporting the application, as are 14 of our member companies – BendBroadband; Bresnan Communications; Bright House Networks; Cablevision Systems Corp.; Charter Communications; Comcast; Cox Communications; Eagle Communications, Inc.; Mediacom Communications Corp.; Midcontinent Communications; Sjoberg’s Cable TV; Suddenlink Communications; Time Warner Cable; and US Cable Group, covering some 85%  of households across the country. Two trade associations – NCTA and USTelecom – also are in the mix.

The concept is simple.  Each entity involved in the initiative plays to its strengths in helping low-income families overcome barriers to adoption.  HUD will identify eligible households for the service.  The computer companies provide affordable hardware – which would be partly subsidized by the stimulus funding – and software, to help make families broadband-ready.  The nonprofits then provide training in digital skills and literacy, to families that are new to broadband.  And once these pieces are in place, the ISPs would offer deep discounts on broadband service, reduced-price or free modems, and free standard installation.

If you have read the Broadband Plan or its executive summary, the rationale behind this coalition may sound familiar.  The Plan highlighted the importance of creating, “public-private partnerships of hardware manufacturers, software companies, broadband service providers, and digital literacy training partners to improve broadband adoption and utilization by working with federal agencies already serving non-adopting communities.”

We think that with the formation of this coalition, and our ongoing efforts around Adoption Plus, we have hit the mark.

Today we are announcing the next step in our industry’s longstanding commitment to use our technologies to improve education in America. We’re proposing a two-year public-private pilot program called Adoption Plus (A+) which could bring broadband to millions of children in low-income households.

Twenty years ago, our industry founded Cable in the Classroom (CIC), which over the past decade has brought free broadband service to thousands of schools and community libraries.

In recent years, our industry has also focused on the digital divide and how to promote broadband adoption.  Cox Communications, for example, has participated in a widely praised program in Santa Barbara, California, in which it provides discounted broadband service to children who participate in the National School Lunch program, together with partners who provide discounted or free computers.

Even though broadband is available to more than 90% of the households in the United States, almost one-third of those households don’t take the service.  Why?  Well, recent studies by the Pew Research Center demonstrate there is no single reason, and some of the multiple reasons – such as understanding the relevance of broadband, digital literacy, computer ownership, and affordability – likely overlap.

Several months ago, with the strong encouragement of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, we started working with the FCC’s broadband team to explore how we might help.  They were critical to helping with the data necessary to determine how to really focus in on a concept that could provide the maximum benefit.  Chairman Genachowski and Blair Levin, Executive Director of the FCC’s Omnibus Broadband Initiative, were very supportive of developing a proposal that would help low-income households that do not currently receive broadband.

The A+ pilot program builds on the experience of Cox Communications’ Santa Barbara initiative, by proposing a two-year, public-private partnership designed to promote sustainable broadband adoption for a vitally important-but-vulnerable population – middle school-aged children in low income households that do not currently receive broadband service.  The program is called Adoption Plus because it is a comprehensive approach that treats broadband adoption as a multi-faceted problem that requires multi-faceted solutions.  Barriers to adoption – e.g., relevance, digital literacy, computer ownership, affordability – are interwoven and cannot be resolved in isolation.

The goal of the A+ program is to help give millions of students the opportunity to become digital citizens of the 21st Century by driving sustainable broadband adoption and positively and materially affecting educational outcomes.

Here is how it would work (a more detailed summary can be found at NCTA’s website):

• A+ would promote the adoption of broadband service to households that do not currently receive it, by offering comprehensive digital media literacy education, discounted computers, and discounted home broadband service to households representing up to 3.5 million American children in grades 6 through 9 who are eligible to receive a free or reduced-cost meal through the National School Lunch Program.
• We propose that school districts administer the program, apply for federal funding, and partner with non-profit corporations promoting digital media literacy, computer manufacturers and/or retailers, and cable and other broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
• Perhaps the most important role of the school districts is to implement digital media literacy programs, including online safety training, and training on how to use computers and broadband.  Including administration costs, we recommend that $100 million of federal funding be used for school districts which apply to set up an A+ program.
• We also anticipate that computer manufacturers would supply discounted computers as partners in A+, but ask the government to consider whether and to what extent federal funding is appropriate to help further discount the cost of computers.
• For each eligible household, participating ISPs would provide free installation of broadband service; a 50 percent discount off the monthly subscription cost of their entry level broadband service; and a 50 percent discount off the cost of modem equipment, whether purchased or rented.
• It is important to note that, while we recommend federal funding for digital media literacy training and administration of this program by school districts, we are not seeking any government funding of the ISPs’ contribution to A+.

While the A+ program is open to other broadband ISPs who wish to participate, so far, all of the cable ISPs represented on NCTA’s Board of Directors have agreed to participate in the A+ program as outlined above.  Those companies also have committed to air public service announcements explaining and promoting local A+ programs.  We estimate the value of the cable ISP contribution to the A+ program, with full student participation, at well over $500 million.

Our industry will continue to creatively harness the power of technology, including broadband, for educational purposes in other ways as well.

For example, A&E Television Networks, through HISTORY, has partnered with more than a dozen major cable operators around the country in creating Take a Veteran to School Day, where veterans are welcomed into local schools for special assemblies and oral history projects – a program that was recognized by President Obama at the White House just a few weeks ago.  And Viacom has partnered with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in the Get Schooled initiative to identify effective approaches to increase high school and college graduation rates, improve post secondary readiness and promote the fundamental importance of education.

With the nation’s new emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, major cable companies have stepped up with new commitments, such as the $100 million Connect a Million Minds initiative launched in November by Time Warner Cable, to introduce young people to opportunities and resources that inspire them to develop the STEM skills that will help solve our economic, environmental, and community challenges of the future. Discovery Communications is supporting STEM education by offering a commercial-free programming block for middle schoolers on the Science Channel, and through Discovery Education, which will provide STEM Connect, a new broadband delivered curriculum-based career development resource helping students link their science, math, engineering and technology education to their future careers. President Obama recently recognized both Time Warner Cable and Discovery in a White House announcement on STEM initiatives.    Earlier this year, Comcast teamed with One Economy to launch the Comcast Digital Connectors program in more than 20 markets nationwide, an initiative designed to teach broadband technologies to young people ages 14-21 from diverse, low-income backgrounds, who then put that knowledge to work in their local communities.

And Cablevision offers teachers important tools for using broadband and interactive technology as part of its Power to Learn program.

There are many other examples of creative initiatives that recognize how broadband can positively affect education of America’s children.  What they have in common is an understanding that partnerships and collaboration among interested stakeholders is required for success.  A+ is an ambitious step forward in this tradition, and we look forward to working with interested government agencies and other stakeholders to make it a reality.

Even long-time veterans in the U.S. cable industry are often not familiar with the very vibrant international cable business.  It’s typical for some people to look to other countries for models of what might work in America, but it’s important to understand that the competitive landscape and regulatory infrastructure in those countries are dramatically different from our own.  Before you suggest we ought to do things like they’re done in Finland, it’s helpful to understand what’s going on in those markets.

For example, South Korea and Japan are viewed by some Westerners as great broadband success stories. In reality, those markets’ policies have prohibited certain kinds of competition, which has restricted broadband growth outside key areas. And as for their vaunted speeds, there is evidence to suggest that narrative is flawed as well.

Therefore, I’m pleased to present a guest post from John Medeiros, the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Cable & Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia (CASBAA).  His organization is an industry-based advocacy group dedicated to the promotion of multichannel television via cable, satellite, broadband and wireless video networks across the Asia-Pacific.

Sitting in Asia, where the pay-TV industry is growing by leaps and bounds, and reading about the debate in the U.S. on the cable industry’s success (or lack thereof) in stimulating broadband development, leads one to muse about the definition of success.

Some American observers have argued that Asia is so far ahead in broadband that the U.S. should look here for tips on how to catch up.  But with 56% of US broadband connections supplied by the cable industry [according to SNL Kagan], and with many parts of the country witnessing aggressive, creative competition between cable companies, satellite providers, and traditional telcos, the U.S., as viewed from Asia, looks mighty good.

Of course, there’s no reason this had to be the case – what made the difference in North America was the shift of US regulatory policy beginning in the mid-1990s.   The pricing and bundling freedom that U.S. cable operators have enjoyed since then has made it possible to build out high-capacity networks and develop new, high-quality content offerings on a continental scale. It’s also spurred growth and competition from other platforms. The free hand the cable industry has enjoyed in making technological choices has ensured the networks meet the real demands of paying customers.

Contrast this relatively enlightened regulation with some of the protectionist psychology that still prevails in some Asian markets.  A good example is Taiwan, one of Asia’s richest markets, which has a regulatory system where the government applies a regulatory strait-jacket to all operators (cable and IPTV).   Cable operators are all required to run the same 90-plus analog channels, and – never mind the rising global prices for content – they have not been allowed to raise rates in over seven years (and last year, during elections, the companies were forced to swallow rate reductions that had no rational basis, other than “the constituents like it.”). The result has been very limited investment in new infrastructure or in quality content.  Taiwan is well behind Asia’s other advanced economies on the digital curve, with the first digital STBs rolling out only this year.

Another example of over-rigid regulation is India, at the other end of the per capita GDP chart.   Apart from rate controls that have no clear economic justification (why should every channel cost consumers precisely 5 rupees per month, no matter what kind of content it airs?), India’s regulators have hobbled the market by requiring that every pay TV system (whether cable, IPTV or one of the 6 DTH operators) has access to the same content on “non-discriminatory” conditions.  So TV becomes a commodity without differentiation.   The inevitable result is that in that country, too, cable network upgrades and digitization are proceeding slowly, and regulators fret that national digital development goals are not being met.

India’s initial cable-TV development was, by contrast, one of the great success stories of private entrepreneurship in human history.  In an infrastructure-weak developing country, totally private capital and skill were mobilized to wire more than 80 million homes in about 17 years – a huge accomplishment (in sharp contrast to the 50 million homes wired by the state-owned telecommunications establishment, in about 100 years of trying.)   But now, with the cable industry firmly established as a part of India’s modern infrastructure, the government insists on hobbling it in the name of “consumer interest.”   The result will be that cable networks – starved of enough revenue to justify rapid upgrading – will remain low-capacity and analog far longer than they should.

Despite these problems, the Asian pay-TV industry is growing very rapidly.   This continent is still in the rapid-build-out phase of connection.  One recent report estimated that the top 40 pay-TV operators will add 11 million new subs this year, for about a 20% annual growth rate.  Growth is strongest in the low-ARPU emerging markets such as China and India, but it is warped by uneven regulatory policies (because India’s cable regulations are so draconian, the biggest growth is coming on DTH platforms; China has lots of digital cable growth, but it is centrally-ordered not market-generated).

Of course, talking about “Asia” in a single breath is a bit nonsensical, as this continent is easily the world’s most diverse region when it comes to pay-TV development.  There are examples of over-rigidity in some places, but some other Asian markets have regulators who are among the world’s best – enlightened, transparent, market-friendly and globally aware.   And in places like Indonesia and Vietnam, the regulators and the industry are striving to liberalize their markets and bring them up to global benchmarks, in order to overcome the handicap of years of excessive state control.

It makes for a fascinating mix of issues.  People who are interested in learning more about the Asian pay-TV market – with all its opportunities and obstacles – should consider attending the Asian pay-TV industry’s annual convention. This year’s event will be held in Hong Kong from Nov. 3-5.  More info can be found here: www.casbaaconvention.com.

At a time when our country is developing a National Broadband Plan, it absolutely makes sense to have a single definition of the term “broadband” for regulatory and policy purposes. The FCC announced last month that it was releasing a Public Notice, requesting input on this issue (The FCC’s Carlos Kirjner discussed this in further detail in a blog post) and on Monday, we filed comments in response to this Public Notice.

It’s worth noting that this isn’t the first time the FCC has visited this issue, since the Commission adopted a new definition just last year in connection with changes to the Form 477 broadband reporting process. The 477 process semi-annually collects information from service providers about broadband connections to households and businesses; info has been collected each year, starting with data as of December 31, 1999.  Last year, the Commission found that services with download speeds of more than 768 kbps and upload speeds of more than 200 kbps will be defined as “broadband” services. Such a definition was important for the NTIA and RUS to have for use in their broadband funding programs.

But, as we say in our filing, we don’t think it would be a good idea for the Commission to use the process of defining “broadband” as a vehicle for imposing obligations or setting goals with respect to factors such as speed, price, symmetry or “openness.”  The definition has been, and should continue to be, simply a way to describe what is being made available to customers.  Any discussion of national broadband goals or potential service provider obligations should be done separately.  As cable’s history of providing faster and faster speeds demonstrates, the FCC’s definition has never served as a constraint on what is offered to consumers. What’s needed is a generic definition that focuses on the core functionality of the broadband service that customers are receiving today.

We identify three key advantages to such an approach:

• Using the definitions already in Form 477 (also used by NTIA in its recent mapping Notice of Funds Availability), will enable the Commission to compare a consistent set of data over time.
• Using those existing definitions will avoid the need to make additional changes to the Form 477 reporting process.
• It’s helpful for government agencies to use a consistent set of definitions.

Consistency is important and if we try to measure aspects at too granular a level, it becomes difficult to achieve such consistency.  For example, some parties have raised concerns about using advertised speeds as the basis for measuring broadband deployment.  In the Notice, the Commission notes that advertised speeds “generally differ from actual rates, are not uniformly measured, and have different constraints over different technologies.”  But simply requiring providers to report “actual” speed won’t lead to more meaningful information because there is no uniformity in how it is measured and there are numerous factors beyond the control of the provider that affect upload and download speeds.  Consequently, in our comments, we encouraged the Commission to work with the Internet engineering community to develop a consistent, uniform, reliable method of measuring “actual” speed before making a change.

There are proponents who argue that symmetry should be required, but most broadband networks are engineered to provide higher speeds for downloading than for uploading. Such an approach is based on consumer preferences and behavior; if symmetrical services are required, that would prevent providers from offering asymmetric services that might better suit the needs of some consumers.

A comparison might be made to creating a definition of a “computer.” Such devices can range from a netbook costing a couple hundred dollars to several thousand for a Mac Pro. The core functionality of various computers is what remains the same. Such a straightforward approach is also best when attempting to define broadband, as it exists at this time.