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).

Popularity: 4% [?]

Bob Sullivan, senior writer for MSNBC.com’s Technology section, posted an article today entitled “The ‘Other’ Digital TV Conversion Might Cost You,” which purportedly attempts to clear up some confusion about the coming Digital Television transition. In fact, it simply sows more confusion. Sullivan has tried to establish (falsely) a direct relationship between the upcoming “DTV Transition” and efforts by cable operators to expand their video offerings and enhance other services.

As a public service, I’ll attempt to unpack what he wrote.

First, let me point out that NCTA has been saying for some time that there are two “digital transitions” – the digital TV transition for full-power, over-the-air television stations, and the cable industry’s efforts to transition analog channels onto digital cable tiers, in order to reclaim bandwidth and serve consumers with more and better services. This second transition is more of a “digital migration,” and it has been under way for many years now. See this earlier blog post for more details on the differences between these two transitions.

The article starts off correctly distinguishing between the two efforts, but then he makes the claim that cable’s transition “could leave up to 100 million TVs in the dark, unable to display any cable TV channels at all without adding extra equipment.” He further claims that this gathering threat will come to pass eight months from now: “Come February, though, millions of TVs will no longer be capable of displaying cable TV channels without new equipment…”

Having sounded the alarm, Sullivan then pulls back on the timing. First, he writes, “But the death of cable analog television is arriving a bit more stealthily, and more piecemeal.” And pretty soon he makes it clear that the change will be gradual:

…it’s unclear how the industry can turn off analog service without leaving millions of customers in the dark.

The cable transition will not be as brutal as the end of the analog broadcast, which will hit with one fell swoop in February.

Instead, cable operators will decide on their own when to make the switch. So far, some services – such as Time Warner – have indicated that its analog signal won’t be shut down any time soon. Robyn Watson, spokeswoman for the company, said its 3 million analog “basic cable” consumers won’t see any changes in service.

The rest of the article continues to mix concerns about the broadcast transition and the cable one, suggesting that something nefarious is afoot. The fact that cable’s transition has been going on for some years (since the late Nineties), and is anticipated to continue for several years beyond next February, appears to be almost entirely overlooked.

The transition to all-digital cable systems will provide a range of benefits for cable customers, such as access to many more channels, including high-definition offerings. Freeing up bandwidth will help with the deployment of DOCSIS 3.0, the ultra fast “wideband” Internet access that will deliver speeds of over 100 Mbps. In addition, new digital set-top boxes will deliver DVR capability, better interactivity, and improved technical quality. For consumers who don’t want a set-top, the coming deployment of tru2way technology, supported by recent progress in completing deals with television set manufacturers, will move us towards a world where consumers can elect to not have a box.

As pointed out already in the article, the cable industry is working hard to comply with the requirements from the FCC for continued carriage of broadcast TV signals in analog.

It’s important to note that DBS was an all-digital platform from its inception, which means that consumers have always needed a box on every TV for reception. AT&T’s U-verse multichannel video service has also been all digital since inception, and Verizon’s FiOS TV service is undergoing the exact same digital conversion, on a market-by-market basis, that the writer finds so sinister. Therefore, it’s amusing to read reader comments under the story expressing anger about having to take a box from a cable operator, complete with threats to go to the telcos or DBS – who will then require you to take a box.

UPDATE: Michael Willner also touched on this issue in a post today, in regards to the migration of premium channels from analog to digital on Insight’s Louisville system.

Popularity: 7% [?]

There have been quite a few announcements in recent months about cable’s progress towards deploying tru2way, but unfortunately, there continues to be some confusion in the blogosphere about the future of CableCARDs and exactly how tru2way devices will work.

For example, I see tru2way described as “CableCARD 2.0,” which is cute but not technically correct. I see questions about when there will be a “two-way CableCARD,” when in fact all CableCARDs are capable of accessing two-way cable services such as video-on-demand. I see people expressing expectations that the introduction of tru2way means that CableCARDs will go away, when in fact tru2way devices require use of CableCARDs.

It’s great to know that so many people are passionate about these issues, but the misinformation is a little frustrating.

I thought I would back up and walk through a very brief history of CableCARDs and tru2way, so as to hopefully clear up this confusion.

The Beginning of CableCARDs
In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress sought to foster competition in the set-top box market by enacting a new provision of the Communications Act, section 629, whose purpose was to make set-top boxes available for retail purchase. Specifically, that provision called on the FCC to adopt rules to ensure the commercial availability of “navigation devices” (e.g., a set-top box). But you couldn’t jeopardize the signal security of the provider (e.g., your local cable operator).

The FCC determined that this could be accomplished by separating security (i.e., conditional access) from the function of the device. The security functions would instead reside in a separate security module that you would get from your local provider. These security modules were first known as Point-of-Deployment (POD) Modules and later were named CableCARDs.

An FCC order in 1998 required the cable industry to develop PODs which it did by 2000, but, for a variety of reasons, there were no retail devices built with which the PODs were intended to work. By December of 2002, a “Plug & Play” agreement was reached between major cable operators and major consumer electronics companies setting the stage for the release of the first wave of devices – such as digital “cable ready” television sets – which would work with CableCARDs. These DTVs could be sold (and moved) anywhere in the country and allowed cable subscribers to receive one-way digital cable services without the use of a set-top box by obtaining a CableCARD from his or her cable operator. CableCARDs allowed cable customers to view encrypted digital programming after being authorized to do so by the cable operator.

That “Plug and Play” agreement took effect in the Summer of 2004. As of August 2004, there were approximately 700 CableCARDs deployed by the top 10 MSOs. NCTA just reported new numbers to the FCC and we found that there are 372,000 CableCARDs that the top 10 operators have supplied to date to customers who requested them for Digital Cable Ready TV sets or other CableCARD-compliant products, such as some TiVo digital-video recorders.

In addition, as a result of the FCC’s “integration ban” requiring that cable operators use CableCARDs in their own leased set-top boxes, we just reported that major cable operators have deployed more than 6.2 million digital set-tops with CableCARD conditional-access systems since July 2007.

One-way versus two-way
It’s good to stop here and point out that the 2002 agreement was an agreement for building devices to access one-way cable services such as linear (e.g., TNT, ESPN) and premium (e.g., HBO, Showtime) digital channels, including high-definition channels, but not two-way (“interactive”) services such as video-on-demand.

The reasons for this are long and involved and include technical, business and legal issues, but the short answer is that the cable and CE industries decided to adopt a one-way agreement as a first step to a “two-way” agreement. But agreement on a two-way agreement proved to be much more difficult and complex than a one-way agreement.

In particular, two-way services involve high-value content and we have three affected industries: cable, content providers (such as studios) and consumer electronics manufacturers. Not all of the companies within each industry have all the same views and not all of these industries have the same views. It’s a hard thing to accomplish.

The Story of tru2way
Now, I need to back up one more time and point out that something else was going on at almost exactly the same time. In the fall of 1997, came the beginning of the cable industry’s OpenCable project. Its mission was to provide a set of hardware and software specifications for the next generation of cable’s set-top boxes and other two-way devices. The software involved was called the OpenCable Applications Platform or OCAP, now known as tru2way. The tru2way hardware and software forms the basis for interactivity in two-way retail devices, as well as cable operator devices, and is used in conjunction with – not as a substitute for – CableCARDs which are still needed to provide access to secure cable services.

These are two separate stories
Now, let’s put it all in context. CableCARDs came from a government mandate to separate security from “channel surfing” functionality in set-top boxes, making them available at retail. The CableCARD itself can handle one-way or two-way communication, but the first Digital Cable Ready sets were one-way, because that’s all that was negotiated.

Meanwhile, tru2way comes from a decade of development and was focused on developing specifications that would allow interactive services to be deployed – and interactive services are two-way by definition. Two-way Plug & Play negotiations have been going on for some time, since the one-way agreement was finally settled.

In the meantime, the tru2way specification emerged as an option for building two-way Digital Cable Ready devices. Major CE companies such as Panasonic, Samsung, LG, and Sony have agreed to use tru2way technology to build two-way Digital Cable Ready devices (IT companies such as Intel have also endorsed tru2way). And, as noted, tru2way devices still require a CableCARD for security.

After all, without such security, you can’t have content. Cable operators typically have contracts in place that they have to guarantee conditional access and other limits on unauthorized distribution.

So, there you go. It’s understandable that there’s confusion over CableCARDs. After all, customers with Digital Cable Ready devices represent probably less than 1% of cable customers. But I hope this post will serve to bring some clarity to the issue. If anyone wants a more detailed history, the best one I have seen can be found here.

Popularity: 14% [?]

Just met with Robert Scoble of fast company.tv . . . fun to meet with one of the leading bloggers in the tech sphere, and we both agreed that more conversations between those of us who do Washington policy work and those who do (and write about) technology should take place.  We covered the usual suspects . . . net neutrality, media and first amendment issues etc.  And we talked about how technology has changed, not just since we were teenagers but in the last five years, and what’s coming down the road.  My basic pitch:  the trend of the last 10 years is that consumers have more competition and more choice than ever before, and it is not likely that trend would continue with more government regulation.

Popularity: 13% [?]

Recently, I mentioned the PointSmart.ClickSafe. Summit, which took place in Washington, D.C.  Here is some more information about what took place.

Joe Laramie, from the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, spoke at the Summit, appearing on a panel entitled “Children’s Online Safety in Context: The Health/Prevention Science View.” In this interview, he speaks about the best ways to address cyberbullying. During his panel, he noted that law enforcement has to be careful about addressing online safety concerns. Both intent and content must be weighed, he cautioned, and teachers and parents should be the first line of defense.

Alan Simpson, Director of Policy for Common Sense Media, moderated a panel during the Summit on the topic “The Parent View: Defining Best Practices in Online Safety and Literacy.” Common Sense was one of our partners in putting together the Summit, along with the Internet Keep Safe Coalition (iKeepSafe) and Cable in the Classroom. In this video, he offers some advice for parents.

There was general agreement by speakers that education is the best weapon in addressing online safety. Dr. Michael Rich, Director of the Center on Media and Child Health, said that we can’t rely on legislative fixes, hardware fixes or software fixes; instead we have to fix user firmware - the mindset of parents and children.

Popularity: 13% [?]

On Friday morning, Tom Tauke took to Verizon’s blog to post thoughts on the rumored FCC decision reversing the bureau’s suggested dismissal of cable’s complaint about the telco’s “retention marketing”.  NCTA President Kyle McSlarrow drafted a response here and on Verizon’s blog.  The back and forth went on late into the night with Kyle posting his final word after 8pm.

Due to the relatively unprecedented nature of this direct, and public, debate between major industry players, a lot of people took notice.

Sidecut Reports called it a tussle that only telecom policy wonks could love.

Maybe it’s a tussle that only telecom policy wonks could love, but if you are at all involved in the regulatory sphere you’ve just got to love that the battle of the corporate titans has now moved, Web 2.0 style, into the blogosphere, with Verizon and the Cable companies now using blogs to take pokes at each other…  If you are really interested in the argument, follow the links and join the conversation. We are going to spend the rest of the day worrying whether or not direct competitor blogging means that pundits are out of a job — again!

From the Technology Liberation Front:

Verizon’s Tom Tauke and NCTA’s Kyle McSlarrow take to fisticuffs in their comments (well worth reading and remarkably… candid) on the Verizon Policy Blog after Tom asked “Will Cable and FCC Thwart Consumer Choice?”

Dave Zatz at Zatz Not Funny writes:

In the talking typing heads policy battle currently raging across the blogosphere, I hereby declare the NCTA as winner. I actually have very little interest or knowledge of the topic at hand, however there can be only one… and Verizon’s lobbyist is still ending sentences with two spaces, while Cable’s lobbyist linked his rival’s blog. (Bonus 1/2 point to Cable for using WordPress, though they haven’t upgraded to 2.5.* yet.)

Perhaps the most salient point, and possibly the briefest, was made by Insight Communications CEO (and NCTA Executive Committee Member) Michael Willner (a blogger himself) after Tom and Kyle suggested taking the debate offline.

NO! Resist going back to the old Washington ways!! Don’t settle this in a beltway gin mill. This is the 21st Century and we all want a front row seat!!

We wouldn’t consider it.  When Kyle launched this blog, he spelled out its purpose clearly.

But we didn’t start this blog just to tell you all that. We launched this blog to talk about telecom policy. Today’s vibrant public policy discussions are driven by conversation and debate taking place online, so we hope this blog will contribute to that dialogue. We’ll be talking about proposed legislation and regulation at the federal, state, and local level. We’ll voice our support for changes that would lead to a better, more competitive technology landscape. When we think legislation is unnecessary or detrimental, we’ll talk about that, too. And, while we will certainly express our views, our goal is to have a dialogue… So, we’ll… invite people with whom we may not agree to engage in debates across their blogs and ours. We’re looking to cross post ongoing exchanges in an effort to provide you with the kind of information that helps you decide for yourself.

This was obviously an example of that, but this is only one salvo in a much broader and ongoing discussion and debate over telecom issues.  Keep your eyes peeled, there’s more to come.

(On two sidenotes, you can find NCTA’s statement on the FCC Decision here.  A sidenote to Dave Zatz: We’re big fans of WordPress, but haven’t upgraded due to a dependency on one plug-in that hasn’t yet upgraded.  Hopefully we’ll find a 2.5 compatible plug-in soon.  I’m working on it.)

Popularity: 16% [?]

Several years ago, the cable industry launched the “Take Control. It’s Easy.” campaign in order to educate the public about TV parental controls. We operated in the belief that the best way to address concerns about what kids watch on TV was to educate and empower parents and caregivers to make decisions about what and when kids watch television.

One year ago, we expanded those efforts into the online environment by launching the PointSmart.ClickSafe. initiative, which focused on media literacy and online safety. At that time, the cable industry promised to collaborate with two nationally-recognized Internet safety expert groups - iKeepSafe and Common Sense - to convene a national inter-industry online safety “summit” meeting.

That promised summit is taking place on Tuesday here in Washington, D.C. What’s interesting about the event is that it brings together representatives from technology companies, child advocacy and parents groups, educators, health researchers and policymakers to share and develop best practices for keeping children safe and smart online. The conversation should be interesting and you can follow the action online, as the PointSmart.ClickSafe Summit will be webcast.

Go to the event website and follow the link, starting at 8:30 a.m. (ET) on June 10.

Popularity: 19% [?]

NCTA President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow will participate in a National Press Club “Newsmaker” Media Briefing today at noon (ET).

In his address, entitled “Cable’s Broadband Platform: Innovation for the Consumer,” he is expected to challenge the notion that there is a rivalry between innovation taking place at the edge of or in the network. In contrast, he will discuss the notion of an interactive “Internet ecosystem.” He will also discuss new developments in tru2way.

His speech will be webcast through this link [Archive available at this link for 6 months].

UPDATE: It’s also being streamed at C-SPAN’s site. The text of the speech has been posted at NCTA’s website.

Popularity: 20% [?]

As Time Warner cable this week begins their trial of tiered Internet pricing in Beaumont Texas, the blogs are aflutter over the various caps Time Warner has proposed.  Time Warner’s plans start with caps at 5 gigabytes and go up to 40 gigabytes. Going over the cap will cost $1 per gigabyte.  Time Warner is also bringing transparency to usage by giving customers a gauge that will allow them to monitor their bandwidth consumption the way cell providers allow you to track your minutes.

Despite all this complaints about Time Warner’s trial and claims its caps are way too low have been ringing around the Internet.

Exactly how much bandwidth do you consume?  It’s hard to say as the number various from user to user.  However, Plus.net put together a nice little graphic showing you what a single Gigabyte gives you - including 4 hours per day of web browsing, 10 song downloads per week, e-mail, Internet radio usage, etc.

What does all that equal?  Well, NCTA member BendBroadband operated with a tiered structure and found that 91% of their customers consumed less than 10GB per month.  BendBroadband found that 99.5% of their users consume less than 100GB per month and now uses that as their cap.

Somewhere above the 91% consuming 10GB per month, and the .5% consuming more than 100GB lies the heaviest Internet users.  Estimates in various studies suggest that 5-10% of Internet users consume half or more of all bandwidth.  Much of that traffic - though specific estimates vary greatly - consists of P2P (peer to peer) connections exchanging files.   A study by SafeNet, Inc. suggests the overwhelming majority of P2P traffic may also be illegal content:

But 90 percent of P2P downloads are still of illegally copied content, according to David Hahn, vice president of product management at SafeNet Inc., which tracks the networks.

Hahn said 12 million to 15 million people are file-sharing across the world at any one time, mainly on the BitTorrent and eDonkey networks. The attraction of file-sharing is not just that it’s free - there’s also content available that can’t be had by legal means, like TV shows that haven’t aired in Europe.

Absent an exact figure of P2P usage, and whether or not you accept SafeNet’s 90% estimate, one thing is undeniable - a small percentage of Internet users are placing a burden on other users.  That is one reason a number of P2P applications providers are working to identify ways to make P2P a better and more efficient means of distributing content.  We believe that is a worthwhile pursuit, which is why NCTA and various cable companies are participating in a “P2P Best Practices” effort led by the Distributed Computing Industry Association.

In many of the articles written about the Time Warner experiment, detractors point to the number of movies than can be downloaded as a specific reason the cap is too low.  An average movie downloaded legally from iTunes is around 1-1.5 GB.  A 40GB cap would allow you to download more than 30 movies per month (or one a day) if that’s all you did.  Most people, however, don’t consume one movie per day, let alone 30 per month.

Mark Cuban, one of the founders of Broadcast.com and a web pioneer, points out the folly of this argument in a post on his blog yesterday.

Its been amusing to read all the blog posts with the math telling all of us just how many standard def or high def movies tiered subscribers will be limited to. You can have 2 or 3 of your favorite SD TV shows per day, or X number of HD movies per month. Say what? 

I have news for all of you that want to dedicate their internet connections to downloading movies. There is a new and exciting development. Its called an Application Specific Integrated Video Service (ASIVS). What is an ASIVS ? Its a computer dedicated specifically to downloading and playing both standard definition and high definition video. You connect it to a network that is dedicated to delivering GIGABITS PER SECOND of high quality video with ZERO buffering. It’s amazing, it always works and connects right to your standard def or High Definition TV, easily. Most of the systems I have seen have a pretty good programming guide and scheduling system and they will let you download AS MUCH VIDEO AS YOU WANT, limited only by the size of its hard drive!!

If you haven’t heard of the ASIVS, its because most people call it a DVR.

If downloading TV shows is so important to you, add a DVR to your cable or satellite service for 5 bucks a month and download all you want. If you want to watch those shows on your laptop, connect the composite video out in your DVR to the composite in on your laptop. Same with movies.

Can’t download movies illegally, tough.

The internet is a great resource for unlimited quantities of video. Downloading video is an internet given right. Using the internet to fill up your PC turned DVR at the expense of the performance of every user around you is not.

Mark’s right on the money with this.  Using the Internet to download video is your right and prerogative.   Using your Internet connection to consume all the available bandwidth and degrade your neighbor’s Internet experience simply isn’t.

As for Time Warner’s caps, are they too low?  Time Warner will soon find out.  They have described this as a test and will determine whether the model works and whether the caps are sufficient.  Unlike many of their critics online, Time Warner is unwilling to pronounce something a failure before even giving it a chance to prove itself.

Popularity: 27% [?]

During our recent conference, The Cable Show, I took a camera over to CableNET, a technology exhibit that’s been held for 16 years. Its goal has always been to show “…next-generation broadband technologies and services that cable operators are expected to deliver to consumers in the near term.”

I wanted to capture something about tru2way, since that set of technical specifications has been in the news lately. This video attempts to show that there are three key parts to tru2way: consumer electronics, such as TV sets or other devices; applications, which can be written once and then run anywhere; and cable operators, who would then support tru2way on their networks.

Popularity: 19% [?]