Yesterday, during a speech at the Brookings Institute, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed new rules that would affect Internet access providers.

Saying the FCC must be a "smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski Monday proposed adding two new Internet access principles to the existing four, and will begin the process of codifying all of them with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at the FCC’s October meeting.

In a written statement, NCTA’s President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow applauded Genachowski’s "vision of preserving an open Internet in order to promote entrepreneurship without permission." He reiterated the cable industry’s commitment "to an open Internet that allows consumers to use and enjoy lawful content and services of their choosing."

He also said:

We recognize that we may, however, have a different view about the state of competition and the choices and benefits that flow to consumers from that competition.  While we look forward to working with Chairman Genachowski and his colleagues, we will continue to present facts and data to the Commission that suggest that any regulation in this arena should be approached with great caution and only in the most targeted way, and to advocate policies that avoid government entanglement in operational decisions that could undermine the very dynamism of the Internet we all seek to preserve.

David L. Cohen, on the Comcast Voices blog, also indicated their support for the process.

We welcome the dialogue suggested by the Chairman in his comments, and we completely agree that any consideration of new “rules of the road” begin with notice and an open, public rulemaking proceeding – this is both fair and appropriate.

A tweet from Julian Sanchez yesterday raised an interesting point. There are those who may object to any government regulation at all. There are also those who may reflexively support any regulation that seems to be opposed by "big companies."

Previously, we noted on this blog how the "net neutrality" debate has evolved over time. NCTA has consistently supported our customers’ ability to travel the Internet freely; our Internet access service wouldn’t be of much use without that. But the devil is always in the details and while we have always supported fair rules, it will be critical to move forward carefully.

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.

The FCC recently launched a new Twitter account – @FCCDotGov. For those who may be unfamiliar with Twitter (despite Conan O’Brien’s routine ridicule of the service), the micro-blogging platform allows users to send out short updates on just about any topic. Many people envision this as an endless stream of “I had a sandwich for breakfast” notes. However many users share valuable news and information via the service. Companies are also getting into the swing of things and using the service for everything from customer service to sales promotions.

We at NCTA have been using Twitter for about a year and a half to provide updates on our blog content, to promote the Cable Show, and for conversation with and commentary by our CEO Kyle McSlarrow. We’re pleased to see the FCC adopting Twitter and welcome them to this vibrant online discussion.

The FCC account already has over 1,000 followers, and we’re a few of them.  The Internet provides a healthy forum for telecom policy discussion and debate. The number of followers they’ve already amassed indicates the interest level for that dialog.  To welcome them to Twitter, and to share some of our favorites with you, we thought we’d put together a list of our favorite follows.  These are in no particular order, they’re just good content from some very engaging viewpoints.

• @Normative – Julian Sanchez is the Washington Editor for Ars Technica. He covers politics, technology, and even comic books.
• @RobPegoraro – Rob has been critical of cable in the past, but he always brings a fresh perspective to technology. While he styles himself as a local reporter covering the DC area, he has attracted an audience much larger in scope.
• @BlankBaby – Scott McNulty recently took the helm of Comcast Voices – the company’s corporate blog. The blog provides the perspective of the nation’s largest cable provider. Prior to joining Comcast, McNulty was a prolific contributor to The Unofficial Apple Weblog
• @KyleMcSlarrow – Even if he wasn’t our boss, we’d have to recommend Kyle. He does, after all, represent the industry that brings voice, video and broadband to more than 63 million American homes.
• @CZ – While Verizon is a competitor, John Czwartacki does a great job handling their social media outreach.
• @msilbey – Mari Silbey writes for ZatzNotFunny and also handles corporate blogging for Motorola at Media Experiences 2 Go.
• @DaveZatz – Dave is the editor and creator of ZatzNotFunny. He also writes for Engadget and PC Magazine.
• @Om – To many readers of tech publications, Om Malik needs no introduction. His blog GigaOm is a must read for the tech and gadget fan.
• @mmasnick – Mike Masnick is the author of TechDirt, a group blog that covers policy and technology as they shape business innovation.
• @SchatzWSJ – Amy Schatz covers telecom policy for the Wall Street Journal. She covers the FCC and Tech policy, so she’s a definite must.
• @ReginaHopper – Regina is the face of NextGenWeb and a prolific Tweeter. Much of her stream is news and information about broadband – a good source for stories you might have missed.
• @SaulHansell – Saul is the editor of the NY Times Bits Blog and covers everything from advertising to pricing and policy.
• @AdamThierer – Adam is the Progress and Freedom Foundation’s technology policy guru.
• @FreePress – We often disagree on the issues, but we always respect their position.  That’s why we follow them.
• @CJSettles – Craig Settles is a telecom industry analyst.
• @mcuban – You may know him as the Dallas Mavericks Owner or former Dancing With the Stars Contestant, but before that, he made his fortune on Internet content and has a lot to say about telecommunications.
• @linkhoe – Assistant Vice President for Internet and Technology at Verizon. An important player in telecom and frequent contributor to Verizon’s policy blog.
• @joseiswriting – Jose Antonio Vargas formerly covered technology and politics for the Washington Post and is now Technology Editor for the Huffington Post.
• @waltmossberg – Walt is the author and creator of the Personal Technology column in the Wall Street Journal and a Contributor to AllThingsD
• @artbrodsky – Art’s another person with whom we often disagree, but he always brings an interesting perspective as an advocate and blogger for Public Knowledge.

These are some of the really interesting voices in telecommunications on Twitter. Our friends at the FCC will learn a lot from them, and we hope you will, too.

Update: We probably should have added this at the start, but if you think we’ve missed someone, please drop a comment and let us know.  We’re always looking for more people to follow.

Since this has been a busy week, it seemed like a good time to provide an update on the broadband stimulus implementation process. I’ll refer you back to this earlier video from NCTA President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow and our White Paper; we think a strong broadband infrastructure is a good thing and we think the use of grants to promote broadband is a good thing, but we also think the funds ought to be used efficiently and we think the process ought to be fair & transparent.

On Monday, James Assey, Executive Vice President of NCTA, participated in a Roundtable on Nondiscrimination and Interconnection Obligations.

As part of the stimulus package, funding was included to “establish a Broadband Technology Opportunities Program for awards to eligible entities to develop and expand broadband services to rural and underserved areas and improve access to broadband by public safety agencies.” NTIA and RUS, the agencies that are implementing BTOP, are holding a series of public meetings, and Monday’s event was part of this. In broad terms, “Nondiscrimination and Interconnection Obligations” refers to how networks interact with each other and exchange traffic.

That’s a whole lot of background to set-up the statement that Assey delivered, which can be accessed on our website, along with a summary.

On Tuesday, NCTA Associate General Counsel Steve Morris spoke on a panel at another public meeting. Andrew Feinberg at BroadbandCensus.com provided coverage:

The statutory guidelines provide a good start in determining standards, said Morris. Morris invoked President Obama’s call for a transparent process, and said it be governed by a merit-based system of seven objective measurements to be shared between NTIA and RUS.

Job creation and preservation should be first and foremost among the selection criteria, Morris said. Preference should also be given to those applicants that can complete build-out within the statutory time periods, and that are able to maintain projects afterwards.

Infrastructure should be built out first the “last mile,” Morris said. And programs that target schools, libraries, and other “public interest” institutions should be ranked ahead of those that don’t, he added. Further considerations could be cost per capita and relative expense compared to other forms of communication, he said.

On Wednesday, NCTA responded to a Request for Comments on the FCC Report On Rural Broadband Strategy; those comments can also be found on our website. Essentially, we called for complete interagency communication and coordination; transparency; a set of coherent and clearly defined goals; an update of the FCC’s universal service and pole attachment policies; and an initial focus on extending broadband facilities to unserved areas and underserved populations.

Also this week, Representatives Joe Barton [R, TX-6] and Cliff Stern [R, FL-6] sent a letter to NTIA, RUS and the FCC about the broadband stimulus funds. You should read the letter, but some of the key points are:

• Stimulus funds should go where broadband mapping has been completed
• Funding should go to the unserved over the underserved
• We should stimulate demand rather than supply
• These efforts should be technologically & competitively neutral
• We should fund economically efficient projects

Today, we started trucking equipment over to the Washington Convention Center here in D.C. A crew will start setting up our Broadband Nation exhibit over the weekend (see this previous post).

Broadband Nation is our 20,000-square-foot interactive exhibit at The Cable Show.  This exhibit will demonstrate the many ways in which broadband technology has changed the way Americans live, work and play.  It’s a hands-on opportunity to experience a wide variety of innovative new technology products and services available both now and possibly in the future for the home, school, and office, as well as specialized applications for medical centers, schools, and retail and entertainment outlets, among others. Broadband Nation seeks to capture in tangible ways how broadband has, and will, alter the everyday life of Americans; the exhibit will provide a good rationale for the broadband stimulus funding.

Next week, there will also be a couple sessions at The Cable Show that will focus on this issue.

• Wednesday, April 01, from 3:00 – 4:15 p.m., the session “21st Century Communications Policy: The Role of the States” will feature a conversation with State Public Utility Commissioners examining (like it says in the title) the states’ role in this process.
• Friday, April 03, from 11:00 a.m. – 12:15 p.m., the session “If We Build It, Will They Log On: Barriers to Broadband Adoption and Use” will look at how to drive adoption of broadband applications within the medical, education, safety and environmental/energy sectors.

Earlier this week, the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet held a hearing: “Status of the DTV Transition: 154 Days and Counting.” As a reminder that the Digital TV Transition is about over-the-air broadcast TV stations, one could note some of the issues raised in press coverage.

• Lawmakers See Challenges for TV Transition (WaPo)
• Early Digital-TV Switch Has Flaw: Viewers Could Lose Certain Channels on Permanent Basis (WSJ)

Some viewers had issues in Wilmington with over-the-air reception of the new DTV signal; some had problems setting up converter boxes with their analog TV sets.

NCTA President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow had a little different perspective, as he testified at that hearing. He focused on the issue of retransmission consent and how it would be effected by the transition. This FCC fact sheet covers the details, but suffice to say that retrans (and the related term “must carry”) refer to how cable operators can carry broadcast stations.

Here is some of the coverage of his testimony:

• Retranmission Deals May Get Derailed by DTV Transition, Cable Operators Warn (TV Week)
• McSlarrow: Retrans Uncertainty Creates Cable ‘Storm’ (MediaDailyNews)
• DTV “quiet period” debate gets noisy in Congress (Ars Technica)

Here is a link to the text of McSlarrow’s comments and I’ve embedded the audio below (which runs just under six minutes).

 

 McSlarrow Testimony 9/16/08: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

To help you understand this, you need to understand that retrans and must carry play a critical role in ensuring you can see your local broadcast stations as part of your cable lineup.  Some of the existing deals will lapse around the end of the year, right before the Feb. 17 transition date.

Last month, the NAB Board of Directors pledged to identify a Retransmission Consent Quiet Period. NCTA issued this statement:

“In recent months, we have discussed with NAB the need to recognize the potential for consumer confusion and disruption involved with retransmission consent disputes that might arise as we approach the broadcasters’ digital TV transition on February 17, 2009. We appreciate NAB’s acknowledgment that this is a very real concern, and continue to support efforts to minimize potential consumer confusion through the adoption of a quiet period. But the reality is that many outstanding retransmission consent agreements expire by the end of 2008. Any voluntary quiet period that does not begin before the agreements actually expire – or which is too brief to preclude potentially confusing messages about broadcast carriage during the time of the actual DTV transition – represents the illusion of a commitment and does not serve the consumer.”