Tag: net neutrality

Is municipal broadband more important than net neutrality?

  By

I had high hopes for this article because the author successfully saw the link between the two concepts.  Maybe he read my tweets.  There is a definite correlation between municipal broadband and net neutrality, but I have only read one or two articles that actually get it right.  

Municipal broadband evolved from the concept that the cost of building these networks is prohibitive so it is a function that the government could provide.  That concept is fine when no service provider is serving an area but most of the municipal broadband deployments have one or two franchised providers.  This situation results in the government competing with private enterprise.  Granted that a duopoly does not create a competitive market, but the government has several advantages over private enterprise that makes it an unfair competitor.  Also, any subsidization of broadband networks by taxpayers creates an unfair advantage.

The reason that there are not more competitors for broadband network is that they are extremely expensive to build.  Investors do not like waiting almost 10 years to see if their investment is going to yield a profit which is what would happen with 3 or more competitors.  People seem to overlook that fact when accusing the incumbents of snuffing out the competition.  Economics have snuffed out the competition.

Continue reading

Google Fiber Fights Buffering Issues for Users

  By

Google has done a good job of avoiding the discussion of the effects of the equipment in their and other networks have on quality of experience.  They discuss what happens outside their network and imply that buffering problems are caused by the content providers, other service providers, and inadequate peering arrangements.  I agree that all of those components are potential culprits for the dreaded “buffering” message, but Google neglects to mention that network equipment, in and out of the Google network, contain buffers.  

Those buffers fill and empty as packets transit through them.  When they are flooded with video traffic they fill to capacity and other traffic has to wait until the queue is not full anymore before it can start accepting packets again.  It is this effect that “slows” down packets on the network the most.  Network operators can either make the queues very large or they can choose to set up multiple queues to manage packets based on parameters such as traffic type.  This is where the issue of packet prioritization comes in.

Google is implying that since most of the problems with buffering happen outside their network, content caching in their network will solve the problem for Google Fiber.  It will certainly help but there are still multiple network elements between the caching servers and the customer that have queues that can become bogged down.  Proper traffic management will reduce the latency and jitter of those time-sensitive services to ensure a quality experience for all traffic types.  I truly wish that the people at Google Fiber would have discussed this aspect as well, but it would fly in the face of the other part of Google that is against paid peering and prioritization. 

IMG_6882

Google Fiber Logo

By Todd R. Weiss  |  Posted 2014-05-27

Google says it is working more closely with content providers to make service as efficient as possible, including allowing content providers to install their networking gear in Google facilities.

Google Fiber wants users to know that it is continuously working hard to ensure that its customers are getting the best service possible, making constant adjustments and configuring to keep bothersome video buffering to a minimum.

Continue reading

Amid political pressure, FCC to propose Net neutrality fix

  By
  Marguerite Reardon
by  | February 11, 2014 3:33 PM PST

FCC Commissioners in 2014

As politicians put on the pressure, Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler says he’s about to reveal his plan for keeping the Internet open for everyone.

On Monday during a speech at the University of Colorado Law School, Wheeler said that the FCC, which suffered a legal defeat last month when a federal appeals court threw out its Open Internet rules, is working on a plan that will re-instate Net neutrality protections. Wheeler indicated that the agency was encouraged by the court’s decision, which rejected the regulation on a legal technicality, but upheld the agency’s authority to regulate broadband networks to encourage adoption and investment. He said details would be made public soon.

“In its Verizon v. FCC decision, the Court of Appeals invited the Commission to act to preserve a free and open Internet,” he said. “I accept that invitation, and in the coming days, I will be outlining how I propose to proceed.”

Continue reading

Economists Rebuff Lawmakers’ Letter by Advocating for Network Neutrality

  By

Finally some common sense with regards to net neutrality. These economists are saying that, like most things, if the government regulates the Internet, then it will actually hurt the people it is trying to protect.  “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Net neutrality is truly a bipartisan issue with Democrats and Republicans both for and against it. There are several forces at work here that are pushing net neutrality. There are the content providers that are neophytes at lobbying who are trying to manipulate the market to protect themselves. They do not realize that the law of unintended consequences can come back to bite them in the backside. Then there is the FCC that is going with the meme of the current administration to expand governmental powers.  This is a strange power struggle where the “bad guys” are really the “good guys” and vice versa, but for all the wrong reasons.  You have to read this article carefully realize that these economists support the no regulation net neutrality that the Internet originally enjoyed.

Broadband Breakfast LogoMytheos Holt, Reporter-Researcher, BroadbandBreakfast.com

WASHINGTON, July 9, 2010 – Four economists argued in a letter to the FCC sent Wednesday that the question before the agency was “not whether to impose network neutrality, but whether to eliminate it.”

They responded to a letter also sent to the FCC that was drafted by 74 Democratic lawmakers who said the FCC’s plan to impose new regulations on the internet would violate a standing bipartisan consensus about leaving the internet unregulated. The economists argue that, in the aftermath of deregulatory court decisions like the Comcast case, the question is whether to restore what was previously the status quo, not whether to impose new regulation. The court ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to regulate Comcast’s control over the speed that data flows through its networks.

Continue reading

Will Reclassification Derail FCC’s Broadband Plan?

  By

This was another great event sponsored by Silicon Flatirons but there was really nothing new said that has not been already written.  The cable companies politely object to a potential change in regulation while supporting the National Broadband Plan.  Many panelists tossed around the statement that there is 95% broadband penetration in the U.S. which is a number that is highly suspect.  I am more inclined to trust the OECD numbers more.

LONE TREE, Colo. — Some at the top level of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may believe a new legal framework for its authority over broadband services will help keep its ambitious National Broadband Plan afloat, but some cable industry policy pundits wonder if the move might produce the opposite effect.

The FCC’s reclassification effort could “totally sidetrack [the Commission] from getting some pieces of the broadband plan done,” warned Steve Morris, VP and associate general counsel of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) , a speaker Thursday afternoon here at a “Future of Cable” conference hosted by the Colorado Cable Telecommunications Association and Silicon Flatirons, a law and tech center based at the University of Colorado. (See NCTA Reacts to FCC NOI.)

Continue reading

FCC seeks comment on broadband reclassification

  By

Not much to say here other than the administration is bent on regulating the Internet despite the wishes of Congress and the people.  I am going to look into the option to leave broadband access a Title I service and providing some additional monitoring powers to the FCC.  It may be the best option to insuring that broadband providers do not start limiting access to sites they do not approve while maintaining the freedom and innovation that is still fueling Internet growth.

The Federal Communications Commission has taken the first step toward figuring out how it’s going to regulate broadband after losing an important legal battle earlier this year.

At an open meeting Thursday, the FCC voted to open a proceeding that seeks comment on three options for redefining the FCC’s role in regulating broadband. The FCC is asking for comments on these new proposals, which it hopes will put it on firmer legal footing, after a federal appeals court ruled in April that the agency did not have authority to sanction Comcast for violating Net neutrality principles. Comcast had been caught throttling BitTorrent transfers on its network.

Continue reading

AT&T: drop net neutrality or U-verse gets it

  By

Let the games begin.  Mr. Stephenson makes this idle threat without articulating the reasons why AT&T’s U-verse service would be harmed by Title II regulation.  I will state the reasons why it is bad for the industry for him.  First of all AT&T is worried that changing the regulatory structure will not allow them the pricing flexibility to compete with other providers such as the cablecos.  Secondly, the FCC may mandate that AT&T unbundles its infrastructure to competitors.  If I were AT&T’s CEO, I would be worried about these things.  True, Chairman Genachowski stated that the FCC would not do these things, but politicians and bureaucrats are always making promises they do not keep.  The picture is not any better for competitors entering these markets, the regulatory hurdles may provide barriers to entry for them.  If the FCC is to promote broadband competition (not sure this is their goal), then converting broadband services to a quasi-Title II managed service is going to have the opposite effect.

Back when Google announced it was looking for cities to test its fiber-to-the-home trial network, we profiled a host of municipalities that tried every possible publicity stunt in the book to get the search engine giant’s attention. These included a North Carolina city council member who promised to name his offspring after Google’s co-founders, along with the mayor of Topeka… who tried to rename his town “Google, Kansas.”

Continue reading