This week’s one-year anniversary of the National Broadband Plan has sparked some discussion in telecom policy circles about where the FCC stands with regard to implementing each of the recommendations.  But in reviewing the list and checking it twice, we should first not lose sight of tremendous changes that continue to renew and revitalize our broadband ecosystem.

Significant investments by broadband providers are yielding steady gains, increasing the speed and reach of broadband connections and providing consumers with greater value through new, innovative services.  So lest we elevate form over substance, we should not divorce our review of the Plan from the substantial progress we, as a nation, are seeing in the daily lives of broadband customers – month-over-month, year-over-year – as the quality and variety of high-speed Internet services continues to grow.

Indeed, in analyzing the rapid change in the broadband marketplace since March 2010, the most appropriate headline could be “2011: Faster and Even More Furious,” which admittedly is borrowed from the popular franchise of movies that feature ridiculously fast cars and non-stop edge-of-your-seat action.  But anyone willing to take an honest look at the marketplace would be hard pressed to suggest that consumers aren’t “driving” network providers and suppliers to continue investing and innovating despite tough economic conditions.

Cable certainly isn’t stuck in neutral.  As an industry recently estimated to represent roughly 1.8 million in direct and indirect jobs and over $250 billion in economic output, we continue to press forward with new content, new apps, new services, and new network capabilities.  During 2010 alone, cable operators invested $12.4 billion in private capital to upgrade their networks, to add new equipment and to maintain and improve their next-generation networks.  That brings the total investment to over $170 billion since Congress wisely set a deregulatory course in the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

This massive private investment has resulted in near nationwide deployment of cable’s “standard” broadband service with average download speeds that more than meet the demands of Internet users.  But even faster, more ubiquitous broadband speeds are on the horizon as SNL Kagan reports that cable’s ultra-fast wideband service – with speed tiers that exceed 100 Mbps – are now available to 79 million homes, and should reach 94 million by the end of the year.  These fast broadband tiers are increasingly utilized by consumers and small businesses to optimize their Internet experience, whatever their needs.

And not surprisingly, consumers respond to and respect this progress.   Faster speeds and reliable networks have led to increased consumer satisfaction with their broadband service.  A June 2010 FCC survey showed that 91 percent of subscribers are satisfied with the speed of their broadband service, and the research firm Instat reported that broadband providers increased speeds an average of 34 percent versus an average price increase of four percent in 2010.

So, while we all take a minute to reflect on the tremendous work that went into the creation of the National Broadband Plan, let’s also respect our recent successes and remember to grip the wheel a bit tighter – because cable plans to keep its foot on the accelerator in our pursuit to providing consumers with access to faster networks and more innovative services.

Earlier this month, Ookla, the company responsible for Speedtest.net (one of the two online speed tests available on the FCC’s website Broadband.gov), started publishing a “Household Promise Index” that is designed to measure the gap between actual and advertised “up to” broadband speeds.  The results?  On average, Ookla reports that U.S. consumers are receiving roughly 93% of the advertised speeds on the tiers to which they subscribe.  And in many regions, that figure exceeds 100% – i.e., customers are getting faster speeds than the “up to” speeds they’ve signed up for.  The Ookla data may help explain why a recent FCC survey found that over 90% of consumers are happy with the broadband speeds they’re receiving.

That sounds like pretty good news – networks are performing by and large as they should and, as a result, consumers are happy.  It certainly is welcome (although not surprising) news to NCTA’s members – and should be to policymakers as well.  With the FCC and others devoting significant attention to promoting broadband adoption, data that demonstrates the fundamental value proposition of broadband should be tremendously helpful in overcoming the reluctance that some Americans continue to feel about signing up for broadband service.

The new Ookla data provides a sharp contrast to the National Broadband Plan’s estimate, based on data from a company named comScore, of a “50% gap” between actual and advertised broadband speeds.  Without going into too much detail (those interested can follow this link), the comScore data was flawed on both ends of the equation.  It overestimated the speed of the “service tiers” to which consumers actually subscribed and also underestimated the speeds that consumers actually receive – thereby creating an alleged “gap” between advertised and delivered performance that lacks any sound factual basis.  A recent MIT study confirmed that there are a number of “potentially significant sources of measurement error” that caution against using the comScore data to reach any conclusions about ISP service performance.

Admittedly, the Ookla data is not a perfect measure of network performance either.  The Ookla data, like the comScore data, are based on user-generated speed tests and suffer from some of the same weaknesses.  Both systems measure the long and winding road from a consumer’s computer to a test server somewhere on the Internet.  Although ISPs control only a portion of that road, speeds can be impeded anywhere along the route (e.g., within the home computer, the home network, or on the open Internet).  But while the Ookla and comScore data share some of the same weaknesses, the MIT study found that “the Ookla/Speedtest test methodology is more likely than the other tests we examine to correspond to the speed of an access link for common network usage patterns.”

To its credit, the FCC has contracted with a company called SamKnows to conduct a hardware-based test that should eliminate many of the problems associated with online speed tests.  NCTA and many of our member companies have been working closely with SamKnows and the FCC staff on that testing process, which is expected to begin in the near future.

But as we wait for the collaborative development of even better measures of broadband performance, it’s worth noting Ookla’s independent assessment and the continuing efforts of cable ISPs to meet their customers’ expectations.

NOTE: Steven Morris is Vice President and Associate General Counsel for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association. If you are interested in this topic, you may want to read these related posts:

• Glass 95% Full? The Broadband Report’s Mixed Bag
• Consumers Note Broadband Satisfaction
• Measuring the Speed of Value

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]