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…)

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.

During The Cable Show last week, Light Reading’s Jeff Baumgartner interviewed NCTA President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski had spoken earlier that day (coverage here) and so Jeff asked Kyle about proposed Title II regulation of broadband. They also discussed the AllVid NOI and the CableCARD fix (see this previous post for background). Finally, they talked about the SOC waiver recently granted by the FCC.

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]

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said today that the FCC would start using a “third way” framework in order to regulate broadband.

You can find a PDF of The Third Way: A Narrowly Tailored Broadband Framework online. It’s also helpful to read this statement from General Counsel Austin Schlick.

We’ve just released a statement from NCTA President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow.

“We firmly believe that the case for new regulation of the Internet has not been made. Today’s competitive and dynamic broadband marketplace already operates according to openness principles that have broad industry consensus and serve consumers well. We support the goals and many recommendations of the National Broadband Plan. And, as we have repeatedly made clear, we are prepared to 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 Broadband Plan.

“Given that context, the proposal to ‘reclassify’ broadband services is disappointing. We fully acknowledge and appreciate that Chairman Genachowski has outlined an approach designed to avoid the full regulatory impact of a Title II regime and that he has asked for comment and constructive alternatives, including inviting a continuing dialogue about solutions under Title I. We also understand the challenging jurisdictional questions before the Commission. However, any Title II approach is still fraught with legal uncertainty and practical consequences which pose real risks to our ability to provide the high-quality and innovative broadband services that our customers expect, thus undermining the very investment and innovation goals we share with Chairman Genachowski and upon which the National Broadband Plan depends.

“Nothing has occurred either in the marketplace or in broadband technology to change the fact that our broadband services are ‘information services,’ and not ‘telecommunications services’ that are regulated under a model designed for a previous era and for very different services. Thus, as part of the process outlined today by the Chairman, we will continue to make the case that the better course is to develop a solution that reflects the longstanding and bipartisan view that all components of the Internet should be subject at most to limited regulation under Title I.”

Here is some news coverage of the announcement.

• FCC Officials Lay Out ‘Third Way’ of Regulation
• FCC to Adopt “Title II Lite” Approach to Web Regulation
• FCC Seeks to Reclaim Powers After Losing Court Case to Comcast