Michael's Insight

Thursday article links

CNET and Broadband Reports have detailed the highly competitive environment between cable and telephone companies in video product (CNET) and broadband Internet (BBR). The good news for cable? This past quarter was the slowest ever for DSL connects and the BBR posits that when DOCSIS 3.0 is fully rolled out, cable will be even more competitive in the delivery of high-speed Internet.

Broadband war gets bloodier [CNET News]

DSL Takes A Beating [Broadband Reports]

Wednesday article links: more on network management and DNS fixes

AT&T Bans 3G P2P Users, But Hasn't Booted Any Yet [Broadband Reports]

As a follow-up to yesterday's news that AT&T has announced that subscribers to their wireless network will be dropped as customers if they use peer-to-peer applications on that network, I noticed that Broadband Reports wrote about the announcement. What raised my eyebrows was the treatment BBR gave the announcement.

While BBR has been on the forefront, publishing several critical comments about cable operators' network management practices, AT&T gets nearly a free pass from BBR after they announce that P2P protocol use is completely prohibited and users will be banned for any infraction.

With Comcast being hammered for failing to be transparent about their P2P throttling, AT&T has been doing their best to come clean with the FCC about their own practices. That involves the recent announcement that they'd be changing their DSL tiers this fall to eliminate the "up to" marketing tag, and stating they don't throttle P2P users on their DSL network. In a follow up letter this week, AT&T also confirms to the FCC that they prohibit P2P use on their wireless broadband network, and threaten termination for violating this rule. Interestingly, they say they haven't actually banned anyone yet since "the vast majority of our customers abide by their contractual commitments."

I noticed that several commenters on the BBR post are wondering how the FCC would react to AT&T's new policy given the current case against Comcast's network management practices in front of the commission. I wonder too.

Lot's of questions about High Definition

There have been a lot of questions about Insight's High Definition plans here on the blog and in direct emails to me.

John asked on this blog,

I've enjoyed the HD service here in Lexington greatly. Is there a proposed list of channels that are under consideration to be added or anything along those lines?

And Todd emailed me,

Can you give me a specific time frame when,  and how many channels will be  added to our HD lineup?  We need more asap please !!!!

Tuesday article links on network management

Did you see this one coming? Yesterday, AT&T announced that their wireless subscribers with smartphones using peer-to-peer applications are subject to disconnection. While I haven't heard of the development of an iPhone P2P application, AT&T aims to head off the P2P issue at the pass - with a complete ban on P2P traffic on its wireless network.

What's AT&T's justification for the ban?

"AT&T's terms of service for mobile wireless broadband customers prohibit all uses that may cause extreme network capacity issues, and explicitly identify P2P file sharing applications as such a use," said Robert Quinn, AT&T's senior vice president of federal regulatory affairs.

"A small number of users of P2P file sharing applications served by a particular cell site could severely degrade the service quality enjoyed by all customers ... " Quinn said.

So, while the FCC contemplates bringing down the boom on Comcast for network management that didn't block anything, AT&T tells their customers if they use P2P, they'll need to find another wireless provider. It's remarkable that the rationale for Comcast's network management and AT&T's ban is nearly identical - the use of P2P by a small number of users degrades the Internet experience of all customers.

AT&T Bans Wireless P2P [Multichannel News]

AT&T Will Disconnect Wireless P2P Users [IP Democracy]

Line up class action lawyers. There's a new slab of red meat out there

Our reader and commenter Robb Topolski filed a class action lawsuit against Comcast for their network management practices.  That suit would suggest that Comcast employed unfair and (I assume) damaging policies in managing their network.  As I've said before, all network operators that I know are working very hard to adjust our practices in a dramatically changing world.  All a class action suit is going to do is keep a bunch of class action lawyers employed for the next three to five years.

A few days ago, Robb posted the following comment criticizing our upstream management practices.

The village well is running dry.  To solve the problem, do you: a.  dig additional deeper wells b.  give the villagers bigger buckets? You apparently picked "b" and got an undesirable result. Picking "a" would involve node splitting, and may be expensive.

You mentioned that you are enjoying our exchange and I too find our interaction intellectually interesting. 

But I have to suggest that you keep in mind that this is a very real business with very real customers having very real experiences.  So, let's get to the substance of your point. Node splits are one form of bandwidth management but that process is much more about downstream bandwidth management than upstream.  Although a node can get clogged on the upstream, they generally don't.  The choke point with upstream bandwidth is at the drain point.  That's where ISP's connect to the Internet itself.  And I think this is the cause of the confusion.

Monday article links

Live BitTorrent Streaming Gains in Popularity [Broadband Reports]

While the bandwidth demand for widespread use of streaming P2P applications currently outstrips the amount available to most home users, the technology is a hot area for P2P innovators. According to this article, several European countries are working on a BitTorrent streaming project that they hope will revolutionize TV delivery. And, a company named EZTV has launched a beta test of a player application that will play BitTorrent streams?

This isn't going to replace cable TV anytime soon, but it's interesting to see what's happening on the cutting edge of TV innovation.

Friday article links

Comcast P2P Critic Launches Class-Action Bid [Multichannel News]

He's been the source of a complaint filed with the FCC regarding cable operator Comcast's network management practices, now he's decided to file a class action lawsuit against Comcast. Robb Topolski, who has become an outspoken critic of network management practices and the effect they have on his use of peer-to-peer file transfers, has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Oregon alleging that Comcast misrepresented their broadband Internet service as "the fastest Internet connection."

Comcast contends, in statements made previous to this lawsuit, that their broadband service allows all applications to access the Internet and they use network management to ensure a quality broadband experience for all subscribers.

I've made similar statements here previously. Reasonable network management does ensure that all network users have the bandwidth to enjoy their Internet experience - including P2P users.

You can read my responses to comments made by Topolski about network management here and here. I'll be following this litigation as it develops, and I'll update you here.

Thursday article links

3-D Video: Coming to Home Theaters? [Multichannel News]

We're still years away from seeing standards-based 3-D video on television screens, but the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers has created a task force that will develop standards for 3-D video on TV. Content producers want to replicate the success of recent 3-D movie releases on the small screen and consumers have shown interest in 3-D in their home theaters. This article details how this new task force wants to ensure the quality of the 3-D stream, so that viewers aren't getting headaches after watching.

During the FCC hearing earlier this week, Mark Cuban testified about the use of 3-D technology to broadcast sporting events. If you're interested in this new video technology, you should check out his blog post on it as well.

NYT: Phone companies struggle & other Wednesday article links

Phone Giants Fight to Keep Subscribers [New York Times]

Ma Bell is scrambling as landline customers are disconnecting from the phone companies at an ever increasing rate. Where are they headed? Well, many are opting to go with lower rates offered in bundled packages by cable operators. Some are getting connected through other broadband VOIP companies, and some are foregoing landline connections entirely - opting to only have a wireless phone.

This article, from the New York Times, details the travails of the telcos as they continue to churn landline subscribers and at the same time aren't seeing any substantial increases in wireless subscribers.

Tuesday article links

CableLabs Clears Motorola's DOCSIS 3.0 Security [Multichannel News]

Here's another milestone on the road to DOCSIS 3.0 - yesterday CableLabs (the non-profit research and development consortium for cable technologies) certified Motorola's DOCSIS 3.0 products' security credentials. The CableLabs statement:

"The DOCSIS 3.0 specification itself establishes ways for cable companies to safely buy equipment from multiple vendors to deploy high-speed data services," CableLabs president and CEO Dick Green said in a statement. "The audit the Certificate Authority undertakes is another benchmark standard that we hold DOCSIS certificate suppliers to as additional fail-safe for the cable community. Motorola has further demonstrated its commitment to DOCSIS by participating and successfully fulfilling the requirements of the audit."

Monday article links

VZ Denied Stay in Phone Case [The Bauminator]

A federal court of appeals has rejected Verizon's request for a stay of the FCC's recent ruling that Verizon was using illegal customer retention methods. You may remember last month that the CEO of the NCTA and Verizon's chief of governmental affairs went head-to-head on their respective blogs about the impact of the FCC's decision.

Though this isn't the end of the road for Verizon - legal briefs in the case are due by September 22 - it's another loss for Verizon in this case.

Just as I thought...give 'em as much as they use!

I mentioned yesterday that I was suspicious of Robb Topolski's definition of acceptable network management practices.  Well, just as I suspected, Robb justified my concern right here in a comment to my post yesterday.

Yes, I approve of Network Management – the old fashioned kind – the kind that says you stay ahead of demand by upgrading your networks on time and you don’t oversell your bandwidth beyond all reasonableness. 

Friday article links

Yesterday was a busy day in the broadband Internet space. I spotted a couple of blogs that responded to Broadband Reports' over-the-top recounting of my trip to Washington D.C. to talk about network management practices with FCC officials. Over at CableTechTalk, the NCTA's blog, Paul Rodriguez says in response to BBR's post and another on Ars Technica:

Both of these posts claim that we are crying “Armageddon!” for nefarious reasons. But should nothing be done at all? We want to give our customers the best Internet experience possible, now and in the future, and we need network management to accomplish that goal.

And over at Broadband Politics, Richard Bennett quotes Larry Roberts, designer of ARPANET - the forerunner to the Internet, in response to BBR's "expert" Robb Topolski.

…P2P expands to fill any capacity. In fact, as I have been testing and modeling P2P I find it taking up even higher fractions of the capacity as the total capacity expands. This is because each P2P app. can get more capacity and it is designed to take all it can. In the Universities we have measured, the P2P grows to between 95-98% of their Internet usage. It does this by reducing the rate per flow lower and lower, which by virtue of the current network design where all flows get equal capacity, drives the average rate per flow for average users down to their rate. They then win by virtue of having more flows, up to 1000 per user.

The point is, responsible network management allows all users, including P2P file sharers, to experience fast, reliable broadband Internet.

Hysterical Perspectives [Broadband Politics]

“Consideration like an angel came…” [CableTechTalk]

Willner's epic distortions? Hardly the case.

In a recent post, I mentioned to you that I was in Washington last week.  Little did I know that my efforts would cause a Defcon 5 call-to-action by the P2P Defense League.

I met with officials at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to discuss the issue of network management.  One aspect of that discussion included the impact today's peer-to-peer applications have on network resources. After reading the ex parte letter that was filed by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) on my behalf, Karl at Broadband Reports took issue with some of the comments I made during those meetings.

If you want to read the whole thing, you can download a copy of the ex parte letter.

You can read for yourself what Karl wrote in its entirety but first, here's a longish summary of what NCTA reported that I said...

Wednesday article links: when net neutrality activists attack

My trip to Washington D.C. last week to meet with FCC officials on the issue of network management and peer-to-peer applications bandwidth usage didn't go unnoticed. Over at Broadband Reports, Karl and network specialist Robb Topolski are calling my characterization of P2P applications' effects on network congestion "epic distortions." Since I'm traveling today, I won't have the opportunity to post the response that this statement deserves, but you can check back here later this week for a full discussion about why cable operators' broadband services would grind into gridlock without responsible network management.

In the meantime, visit Karl's post at BBR. You can read my general thoughts about the benefits to broadband users of network management in my two part post entitled Confessions of a Network Manager. There's also a post at Ars Technica about my meetings at the FCC.

Don't Fear The Bandwidth Apocalypse, Cable industry lobbies the FCC with some epic distortions... [Broadband Reports]

Martin be damned, cable ISPs want network management freedom [Ars Technica]

Tuesday article links

Most Broadband Subscribers Happy With Service [MediaPost Publications]

No surprises here. A telephone survey of broadband subscribers reveals that 70% are satisfied with their Internet service. Compare that to the 45% of dial-up users who report satisfaction. Here's one of the numbers in the survey that stood out to me. Remember my post a few days ago that compared broadband deployment to telephone and electrical service? When the same survey was conducted four years ago, only 20 percent of U.S. households subscribed to broadband Internet service? Today that number stands at 57%.

One other statistic stands out in the survey's crosstabs - cable broadband subscribers are more satisfied with their Internet service than those who receive broadband from Ma Bell. 72% of cable broadband subscribers rate their service with at least an 8 out of 10, on a 10 point scale. That compares to 62% of those receiving broadband service from a telephone company.

Monday links: Comcast and P2P

On Friday, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin announced his recommendation that Comcast, the nation's largest cable operator, not receive a fine for network management practices that were criticized by Martin. Martin is recommending that Comcast disclose to the Commission the network management practices it uses, and to change current practices. Those recommendations will be voted on by the Commission on August 1st.

All of this is a reaction to Comcast's efforts to manage network bandwidth in response to peer-to-peer applications that gobble up disproportionate amounts of bandwidth. Comcast announced last month that they are testing so called "protocol agnostic" network management techniques that target only those using a disporportionate amount of bandwidth - not specific applications or protocols.

Friday links: a great site on high definition television for Columbus

I ran into a neat site yesterday that I thought I'd pass along to those of you in the Columbus, Ohio area. It's called HDColumbus.net, and it's basically a blog and a forum for high definition television in Central Ohio.

If you're a HD technophile like I am, sometimes you just can't get enough information about HD televisions, devices, or signals. A local users group is a great way to trade information about this ever-evolving technology.

The truth about net neutrality and the big money behind it

Finally, a truthful article was published on Wednesday about the little known fact of who really invented the debate about net neutrality.  When you finish here, click on it -- it's a must read.  The story was published in a most unlikely place too - The San Francisco Enquirer - the big hometown newspaper serving the Silicon Valley.  And guess who they identify as the inventor of this hot political debate...

Initially, network neutrality was the demand that network carriers ignore the Internet's fundamental inequality. Google had good reason to advocate this, because it is advantaged by a status quo in which money buys privilege. Any move by carriers to selectively boost speeds for fees dulls the advantage Google has secured for itself by building huge complexes of hundreds of thousands of computers.

There you have it.  Net neutrality, and all the puff about fairness, equality and openness is all about "money buy[ing] privilege."  And this time, I didn't say it, Google's own hometown paper did.

Thursday article links: Senate Commerce hearing on online advertising privacy

Yesterday the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on behavior-based online advertising. Testifying were representatives of Google, Microsoft, NebuAd (a company that sells behavior-based advertising systems) and the Federal Trade Commission. There weren't any ISP representatives participating in the hearing, and according to the article in Broadcasting and Cable (linked below) the committee chairman will be holding another hearing on the issue focusing on the role of ISPs.

Here's my roundup of articles on the hearing.

To each according to his needs...

Karl Marx came up with a really bad idea that plunged half the world into the failed Communist experiment for generations.  It was communal living that subscribed to the principle of, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Why do I mention that?  Well, Argo posted a comment a while back relating to the shared use of the Internet.  A few of you have become concerned that there is a crusade against P2P protocols and that perhaps I'm a part of it. 

The anti-P2P movement looks like desperation.
Like ISPs aren't ready for faster speeds on their networks and by playing the blame game "blaming customers for using the internet" really looks like a false finger pointing expedition.
Here's the real question... When did bandwidth become a form of communism?

Okay.  That's fair game.

Wednesday article links

It appears that quite a few of you enjoyed the variety of subjects in yesterday's links, so I'm going to continue to post these short subject links to other articles.  I will continue to write the longer form pieces that delve more deeply into a given subject and is reflective of my own point view.  The links are simply articles of interest, whether or not I agree with their point of view.

Today's links are focused primarily on public policy issues - there's a hearing on Capitol Hill today regarding behavior-based web advertising and FastCompany.tv has posted an video interview with Kyle McSlarrow, CEO of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.

Enjoy.

Tuesday article links: a new feature unveiled

As I've been blogging here for the past couple of months, I've often run across articles that I think would be interesting to pass along. Sometimes, I don't get to immediately discuss the subjects in depth because of my time constraints.  But rather than not mentioning them at all when I come across them, I thought I would post references to interesting subjects that I find for our readers.  Some of these subjects will warrant further comments from me at a later date, others may not. But this way, you can get some suggested reading material on subjects that interest you and feel free to post comments on them.

So, starting today, I'm going to start posting links to articles that I think are "must reads." I may or may not agree with the assertions made in these articles or blog posts, but I do believe that they either merit consideration or they're just plain good reading. 

So, in that spirit, we'll start today. . .

Bad news for consumers as a-la-carte lawsuit proceeds

A federal lawsuit challenging cable operators and programmers on the issue of a-la-carte programming has managed to rise from the dead, as a Los Angeles-based federal judge has is allowing the case to proceed after originally dismissing it. Multichannel News recently reported that District Judge Christina Snyder ruled late last month that the case would move forward.

Snyder had originally dismissed the plaintiffs case against several cable operators and programmers in March, but later reinstated it after they amended their claims.

Judge Christina Snyder, in a June 25 ruling, decided that the cable operators, direct-broadcast satellite companies and studios that were sued had not proved their arguments. Those companies alleged that the lawsuit, filed on antitrust grounds, did not adequately demonstrate that consumers were injured by the business practices of the defendants. In written and oral arguments on June 16, they also questioned the standing of the consumers to sue.

Here we go again -- more advocates for government regulation of the Internet

I came across the public policy group, Internet for Everyone which is advocating a government solution to the "problem" of America's broadband deployment.  Here's what they say is their primary mission.

InternetforEveryone.org initiative calls on Congress and the president to act in the public interest by enacting a plan for the wired and wireless Internet...

The buzz words here are, "enacting a plan."  That's code for more government regulation. 

If telcos can promote their hybrid-fiber-coax as fiber, why can't cable operators do the same?

Over at Broadband Reports, Karl is taking aim at a couple of cable operators that are promoting their broadband Internet service as a "fiber optics" connection. Karl claims that these cable operators aren't being honest when they promote their hybrid-fiber-coax (HFC) networks as a "fiber optics" connection.

The operators that Karl highlights are in direct competition with telephone companies selling fiber-to-the-home Internet service.

HBO/Showtime Digital Migration in Louisville

Our Louisville system is in the process of having our last remaining premium channels migrate from analog to digital.  In this case HBO,  HBO2 and Showtime will be removed from the analog lineup and be made available only on digital.

Several customers have posted comments on this blog about this move. 

Michael asked,

Why is it necessary to make users pay for additional digital boxes to see HBO and Showtime.  Is the government driving this change.  How come i don't need a digital box to see all of the other channels?