October 2009

Connecting America through Broadband at the Library

Connected Nation conducted surveys to better understand the role of libraries as a community technology hub. In brief, the findings indicate that libraries are vital in filling an access void in local communities where the library is most often the only source of free Internet availability. According to Connected Nation findings, these library Internet users tend to be more assertively building skills through online learning opportunities, classes and training resources, improving employability through job searches and resume building, searching for healthcare information and communicating with care givers, and engaging with government online. Further, these library Internet users tend to represent more vulnerable segments of the population (e.g. low-income single parents) who will surely find themselves even more starkly separated from the digital "haves" if their library connectivity disappears or declines.

Why smart-grid, broadband stimulus applicants need each other

This week the Department of Energy awarded $3.4 billion in stimulus funding to one-fourth of the 400 smart grid stimulus applicants spanning 49 states. The funding was the biggest single grant the DOE has given out in one day, but it's not the end of its awards. There is still $7.2 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding set aside for broadband grant hopefuls. According to Craig Settles, a consultant and founder of Successful.com, it's time to strike while the iron's hot. The two industries including those that won grants and those that want to proceed anyways are ripe for partnership. The community broadband projects that survive round one of broadband stimulus funding will be asked to go into a due diligence phase to refine their proposals to the National Telecommunications Industry Association (NTIA) and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). Settles' advice is for those applicants to quickly get with smart-grid grant winners in their area and determine a way to work that project into their broadband proposal. And with the NTIA and RUS announcing today they will delay naming the recipients of broadband stimulus grants for at least one month, companies have time to get a head start. Securing a utility, an established customer, could be the difference between a broadband proposal with reasonable expectations of sustainability and one that is reliable and financially viable, he said.

Is broadband metering really so bad?

[Commentary] This chief executive of a company that makes telecom gear to meter bandwidth was against bandwidth metering before he was for it. But he asks why broadband, unlike most other services we purchase, costs the same regardless of how much we consume? See, we got trouble here in River City -- there's been a fourfold increase in demand over a period in which average supply increased by one or two orders of magnitude. To make matters worse, broadband prices have generally declined over the same period possibly not fast enough to satisfy some. But when coupled with the increase in average speed, the price-per-bit paid by consumers has dropped like a rock. From where does the capital come that is needed to expand broadband capacity further? Even the academics that populate "public interest" organizations lobbying for greater net regulation recognize, at least abstractly, that broadband operators need to earn a profit if they are to continue to invest in infrastructure. Given these circumstances, don't usage-based billing frameworks make sense? Unless consumers are satisfied with underinvestment in capacity or willing (as taxpayers) to foot the bill for additional investment in capacity, some form of usage-based billing structure may be inevitable.

After network neutrality, will we need "Google neutrality?"

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has mounted a recent push to turn network neutrality "principles" into official regulations—and in doing so has stirred up the net neutrality hornet's nest once again. The issues involved are thorny when you wade deep into the weeds, but consumer-level support for network neutrality seems largely driven by simple principle: AT&T should not be "speeding up" websites with deep pockets, leaving everyone else to languish in the slow lane. This was famously what AT&T Chairman Ed Whitacre wanted to do back in 2005 when he declared that Internet companies would not be able to "use my pipes free." The scheme that he envisioned was a basic bit of price discrimination; charge extra fees to those who could afford to pay in order to maximize profits. But here's the thing—price discrimination happens all the time (US college fees vary widely based on one's ability to pay, for instance). And while ISPs are one obvious chokepoint on the Internet, they aren't the only one. Massive search engines like Google can easily become another, and it might not be long before the government needs to think about other forms of "neutrality."

Google Voice: we're not serving "high-cost destinations"

Google has told the Federal Communications Commission that its Google Voice feature maintains a small list of do-not-transfer numbers that lead to certain "high-cost destinations." The explanation comes in response to an inquiry letter that the FCC sent to Google on October 9, and that was widely perceived as a response to complaints about the service from AT&T. The FCC asked Google if it uses third-party providers to maintain that list. Yes, it does, Google says, but details about the providers are redacted from the letter. Google responds that it is not a common or telecommunications carrier, because the service is mostly free (Google Voice only charges for international calls), and because it is only offered on an "invitation only" basis. Consumers who want to try Google Voice can apply via the service's request an invite page. The company says it uses this system "to minimize disruptions" that would result from an overflow of customers signing up at once, but hopes to eventually run the service without the invitation system.

McDowell Speaks Out Against Wireless Broadband Network Neutrality Proposal

Speaking at a Progress and Freedom Foundation event, Federal Communications Commission member Robert McDowell cautioned the FCC not to allow the understandable uncertainty about new technology to "lure us into unwarranted regulation, which may be difficult or impossible to reverse." Riffing off an article by economist Ronald Coase that argued for a free market, rather than a government-controlled market, for spectrum, Commissioner McDowell said "lawyers and economists should not be so overwhelmed by the emergence of new technologies as to change the existing legal and economic system without first making quite certain that this is required." Citing the open access conditions put on the 700 MHz spectrum auctions, McDowell warned that, depending on how the FCC's network neutrality proposal shakes out, "we might one day point to the open access mandates in the 700 MHz auctions as the first step towards network management regulation of the wireless sector."

The case against the FCC's Network Neutrality plan

[Commentary] The basic thrust of the Federal Communications Commission's proposed Network Neutrality rules is to keep broadband Internet access providers from managing last-mile network traffic in ways that discriminate, pro or con, based on content, applications, or devices. Access providers would be banned from restricting or throttling services that the provider doesn't like, for example, perhaps because they compete with more expensive alternatives the provider or one of its business partner offers. The proposed rules would apply to all broadband access, including wireless. The document itself asks more than 100 questions, including whether the new rules are necessary, whether the commission should enforce them without detailed regulations but instead on a "case by case" basis, and even whether the commission has the legal authority to enact new rules in the first place.

Downes has three major concerns: 1) the FCC's reliance on "ancillary jurisdiction" to justify its legal authority to adopt and enforce network neutrality rules, 2) Even if the FCC has the power to issue new rules, there are enough exceptions to render them toothless, and 3) The risk of non-neutral behavior is significant, but the cost of regulation and the potential for unintended consequences may be higher.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin wants more computers in schools

High school dropout Sergey Brin has a few ideas on how the educational system should be improved. Not surprisingly from a guy who co-founded Google, where he still serves as president of technology and one of the company's three key decision-makers, a lot of those ideas center on computers. "It's important for students to be put in touch with real-world problems," Brin said. "The curriculum should include computer science. Mathematics should include statistics. The curriculums should really adjust." He advocated putting all textbooks on computers, to make for easier access, and for putting high school students to work -- writing Wikipedia articles, and teaching technology to senior citizens and middle school students. In teaching, they will learn. Brin spoke at a conference on Google's campus, Breakthrough Learning in the Digital Age, which the tech company is co-hosting with Common Sense Media and the Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. By and large, speakers passionately spoke of the advantages of equipping schools with the latest in digital technology, and of engaging students on their home turf -- computers.

8 Things You Should Know About TV Everywhere

Here's what TV Everywhere is, isn't and needs to be in the next eight months before the initiative misses its chance to make computers the ultimate DVR for consumers. 1) In short, it's an attempt to make broadcast and cable programming available online, on-demand and free with a cable subscription. 2) It isn't Hulu for cable. 3) Turner, Rainbow Media, Comcast Entertainment and Scripps Networks are the first cable network groups to sign on for the early trials along with CBS. 4) The ad model is a TV-length commercial ad load.

Paid Internet TV Would Cut Nearly 8 Million Viewers

"TV Everywhere" efforts won't be TV for everyone -- as 7.7 million viewers could be out of the loop. That is, those who won't pay a fee to watch TV programs online -- shows they are currently seeing for free. The 7.7 million is the number that Los Angeles-based media researcher Interpret says could be left in the lurch if the cable industry gets its way. It means some 11% of all U.S. active streamers of video, which number around 71 million. With "TV Everywhere" initiatives, it is cable operators' intention to ensure that those who watch free TV on the Internet are also cable customers. The companies don't want Internet-only viewing coming at cable's expense. For those who are not cable subscribers, the goal would be to get nearly 8 million streaming video users to pay some sort of fee to access premium TV shows online. The largest group affected will be lower average-income viewers -- especially younger adults 18-34. Many of these viewers stream video on the Internet rather than pay the much higher expense of a monthly cable or satellite service.

Benton

Search