Michael's Insight

FCC's DTV race car crashes... again

FCC's DTV Race Car Crashes... again [Reuters] 

Last month, the FCC announced that it was paying $350,000 to become a lead sponsor for NASCAR's #38 driver, David Gilliland. The FCC sponsorship was ostensibly to bring public awareness to next year's digital television transition. In it's first race, the DTV car crashed into the wall at Martinsville Speedway. Then, adding insult to injury, the group Citizens Against Government Waste gave the car the dubious honor of "porker of the month" for the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for the sponsorship.

But the tale of the DTV car doesn't end there. In the most recent NASCAR race, held on Sunday, the FCC's DTV car endured a second fiery crash. Thankfully, Gilliland again was uninjured. 

Broadcasters and cable operators have provided hundreds of millions of dollars of free airtime to educate Americans about the impending digital transition. Surveys show that nearly all Americans are aware of the transition, but many still need to know what they need to do to continue to receive television signals on February 17, 2009. Rather than crashing race cars into walls, the federal government should be focused on educating these Americans about the options available to them in order to make a successful transition to digital television.

And if I were David Gilliland, I'd be wondering if that paint job has a hex on it.

More on A-La-Carte; DSL Falls; Young Men and Tech Glitches; The Prez and His BlackBerry

Professor Cory O'Connor, from Chapman University and formerly the Senior Vice President of Communications of The Disney Channel disagreed with my a-la-carte position in a comment he posted on this blog last week. 

I was SVP of Communications for The Disney Channel when it moved from a la carte to basic. I'm not without some loyalties to your industry, but you guys are overplaying your hand to protect your status quo, forcing us to pay for Sumner Redstone's excrement. ....  I am firmly in the camp of a la carte, Michael, and I intend to stay on your case about this. I hope David Lazarus from the Los Angeles Times does also.

To fully review his position I am linking to his entire post as I want to give everyone an opportunity to consider his position.  

Professor O'Conor did not, however, address the economic issue I raised in last week's post.  Instead, he responded to an earlier post of mine in which I argued that a-la-carte would dramatically "dumb down" television by reducing the number of choices people have.

A new era for peer-to-peer applications?

ISPs To Speed Up P2P Transfers [Silicon Alley Insider]   

Peer-to-peer transfers might be getting much faster and more efficient. According to Silicon Alley Insider, some of the country's largest ISPs are set to release the first version of P4P software. P4P is the product of a coalition of ISPs, content producers, and P2P software developers. It's designed to speed up P2P file transfers without consuming more than a user's fair share of bandwidth. It also promises to bring content producers to the table, bringing P2P out of the dark alleys of the Internet and into the mainstream.

Here's how P4P promises to make P2P better: 

It makes peer-to-peer transfers -- a huge chunk of all the bandwidth used on the Internet -- more efficient by sending more traffic, when possible, across the ISP's internal network -- as opposed to across the broader Internet. It can also prioritize P2P traffic from networks with which ISPs have so-called symbiotic "peering" relationships, which could save them money.

.....

Hey Mr. Newspaperman! You Think A-La-Carte Makes Sense?

More Misunderstanding About A-La-Carte [Los Angeles Times]

Here we go again.  Now LA Times columnist and newspaperman David Lazarus thinks consumers would be better off if the Federal government required cable operators to offer all of their channels on an a-la-carte basis. You can read my previous posts and my guest blogger, Gerry Laybourne's, that argue that the cost of television would rise dramatically under government-imposed a-la-carte and the diversity of choices would all but evaporate when scores of niche networks simply cease to exist.

Let's use Mr. Lazarus' example to understand the economics.

The average U.S. home now receives a record 118.6 TV channels, according to a recent report from Nielsen Co. But the dirty little secret of the cable industry is that the average subscriber watches only about 17 channels regularly...

...When I watch TV, it's usually CNN, CNBC or a movie channel. On an a la carte basis, I could probably get the handful of channels I like for pocket change.

Ok.  We believe the studies that suggest that, on average, fewer than 25% of the population would subscribe to any particular channel, like CNN or CNBC.  Let's just say that news and movie channels that are on basic cable, on average, cost cable operators about 50 cents per month, each.  Today, those channels receive that 50 cents per month from all expanded basic customers.  If only 25% of the customers actually were willing to pay for the channel, they would each have to charge about $2.00 per month, just to stay revenue neutral.

But that's only half the story. 

We also know that most networks rely on both subscriber revenue and advertising revenue and about half of their revenue comes from advertising.  We also know that a great deal of a network's viewing comes from channel surfing, so their ratings for advertisers are enhanced by that viewership.  Many people estimate that each channel would lose about 40% of its viewers in an a-la-carte world.  A proportional reduction in advertising revenue, reflective of that lost viewership, would require the network to charge customers another $.80 per customer just to stay revenue neutral.  ...

Broadband 100.0? Not Yet

As reported in the Lexington Herald Leader and on Broadband Reports, Insight is testing a 100 meg broadband service at one location in Louisville.  We are pushing the limits of speed on our network as an early part of a process that will lead to more extensive hypersonic speed testing in the future.  In this test, a doctor's office is using the service to electronically transfer medical imaging to and from his office.

Our business services group, Insight Business Services (IBS), is conducting this test for us.  We are able to provision for just about any bandwidth requirement for IBS customers and what better result is there -- to help doctors treat their patients more efficiently and effectively.  In order to increase speeds to 50 or even 100 meg for residential customers, we plan to utilize the new cable modem open standard of DOCSIS 3.0.  We're doing a lot of preliminary work to get ready for DOCSIS 3.0 but don't yet have a timetable. 

Meanwhile, we are watching DOCSIS 3.0 tests that are underway in other markets and we're extremely encouraged with the performance of the new technology.  A couple of questions being asked by interested customers have do do with upstream speeds (some are testing 5 to 10 meg) and whether you will need a new modem (yes). 

We have been a leader in pushing the limits of speed having been one of the first cable ISP's to break the 10 meg barrier followed by our early launch of our premium 20 meg service.  Going much beyond that requires a whole new standard for cable modems which eventually will increase speed capabilities into the triple digits.  We are going to be absolutely sure DOCSIS 3.0 works well in a large-scale deployment before we launch.  However, knowing us, after we take it out for a test drive, I wouldn't be surprised if we find we can't help ourselves and look to press the pedal to the medal soon after we break in the new speedster. 

Two congressmen asking questions about DTV issues

Congressmen look to resolve expected DTV problems [CNET News] 

Two more members of Congress are expressing concerns that the FCC, broadcasters and the federal agency responsible for the digital converter box coupon program need to do more to prepare the public for the digital transition. House Telecommunications Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell have written letters to broadcasters and the federal agencies asking them to detail plans to remedy concerns that arose during the September digital transition test in Wilmington, NC. 

The letters noted that the FCC's trial conversion in Wilmington, N.C., this September "revealed many problems related to the transition, including consumers who did not know they needed to rescan their boxes to search for new channels after the switch, needed to obtain or adjust antennas to receive digital signals, or were no longer able to receive a station's signal because the station's digital signal contour differs from its analog coverage area."

While a majority of Americans are well aware of the digital transition, primarily because of a public service campaign by cable operators and broadcasters, there are still lingering issues for many over-the-air television viewers. It's critical that the FCC continue to focus on solving these issues prior to Februrary 17 of next year.

Remember, if all the televisions in your house are connected to cable, you're already prepared for the digital transition. If you choose to use an over-the-air digital converter, you will need to determine if your antenna is receiving the digital signals and that the converter is properly programmed to the frequencies in your local area.  Come next February, your televisions will continue to work normally during the switch from analog to digital broadcasts as long as they are connected to cable. 

An Internet President-Elect, Broadband Caps Come to DSL and White Spaces Approved

America elected Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States yesterday. Obama changed the way campaigns will be run in this country forever. While candidates had used the Internet as part of their campaign strategy in some part before Obama, he was the first to fully leverage its potential to raise enormous sums of money in political contributions and communicate his message to millions of mostly-younger, connected Americans.

In the days to come, the pundits will analyze the results of the election and try to figure out how and why Barack Obama won. I feel, with great certainty, they will find that the turnout among young voters was higher than ever and the Obama campaign's near-perfect execution of an Internet strategy made that happen.

If you're interested in a deep-dive recap, the New York Times site has a good state-by-state map of the results. The map will allow you to drill all the way down to county-by-county results.

Disappointing News -- No Meaningful Reduction of Spam

I guess it was wishful thinking but I was hoping to see a meaningful drop in spam traffic after the authorities busted the "HerbalKing" Network, a major source of spam.  Most published reports confirm that there was little or no impact.  I also promised to check with our email experts for a first-hand look and here's what they found -- No noticeable change.  On two Wednesdays before the bust, we blocked 10.2 million spams.  On the two Wednesdays after it, the number was 9.8 million.

Considering this network was supposedly responsible for one-third of all spam, this shows how versatile Internet bandits can be.  Too bad.  It's an unfortunate example of how complicated it is to manage bad things on the Internet.  Almost instantly, alternative routes were established and spammers were enjoying business as usual. 

TV prices falling fast for the holidays?

TV Prices Falling Faster [NYT Bits Blog]

Are you looking to buy a new HDTV during the holidays? If you're looking to get a new television for the digital transition or getting hooked up to high definition content, the NYT's Bits blog indicates that television prices may be falling fast in the next six weeks due to the challenging economic situation we find ourselves in. Retailers are very concerned that consumers are keeping a tighter grip on their wallet, and are expected to respond by slashing TV prices.

An expert on TV prices is quoted in the NYT article, telling consumers to look for these prices.

Paul Gagnon, DisplaySearch’s director of North American TV market research, predicts the following prices in the coming weeks: 

• 19-inch high definition LCD: $199
• 32-inch HD LCD: $399-$499
• 40-inch 1080p LCD: $799-$999
• 42-inch HD plasma: $599-$699
• 50-inch HD plasma: $899-$999

I hate to tell you what I paid for that 50-inch plasma TV in my living room only 3 years ago.  Ouch.  But the NY Giants sure looked great yesterday, coming from behind to beat the Steelers in high-def!

Survey says that majority of upstream Internet traffic is P2P

61% Of All Upstream Traffic Is P2P [Broadband Reports]

Sandvine, the company that manufactures network management equipment and software, has released a survey detailing Internet usage in the U.S. The key finding in the survey is that 61% of all upstream traffic on the Internet is peer-to-peer file trading. P2P applications compose 22% of all downstream traffic on the Internet.

“Bulk bandwidth applications like P2P are on all day, everyday and are unaffected by changes to network utilization,” said Mr. Caputo [of Sandvine].  “This reinforces the importance of protecting real-time applications that are sensitive to jitter and latency during times of peak usage.  Effective network traffic optimization techniques use sophisticated policies that balance network capacity, application requirements and subscriber quality of experience in real-time.”

Studies say net neutrality regulations will raise broadband prices

‘Net neutrality’ could raise broadband prices [Financial Times]

As the European Parliament considers changes in telecom law, two studies are set to be released that indicate that imposing net neutrality regulations stands to drive up the cost of broadband to consumers. One study has been commissioned by the telecom industry and another was written by the Centre for European Policy Studies.

An industry-commissioned report from consultants at Copenhagen Economics, due to be published next week, is set to warn that imposing net neutrality in Europe will “pass on the cost of scarcity to all consumers” and significantly increase broadband prices. That, in turn, could depress broadband demand.

It appears that Europeans have discovered that creating additional regulations that restrict responsible network management has a deleterious effect on broadband consumers. I'm looking forward to seeing both of these upcoming reports on this issue.

Drowning in Spam and other Friday Links

Authorities Shut Down Spam Ring [New York Times]

The Federal Trade Commission has announced that a spam ring that sent up to one-third of all spam email has been shut down. This news comes after a federal court has frozen the assets of the group. Have you noticed a difference in the amount of spam you receive?

Well, I did some checking and was shocked to find out what I did.  Insight, a company with less than a half million Broadband customers (not all of whom use our email servers) currently processes over 2 billion emails a year for our customers.  That got my attention so then I confirmed what the Times article said -- that over 90% of all email arriving into our email servers is spam!  That doesn't even count the ones that slip through and get into your inbox.

Imagine how much more efficiently our equipment could be deployed and utilized if we could cut spam in half or more.  Our email servers have to be configured to handle all incoming email, including the stuff that goes right into the garbage.

I've asked our broadband folks to keep an eye on whether or not we experience a meaningful drop in spam over the next couple of weeks.  2 billion emails a year translates into about 40 million a week.  In case you're curious like I am, check back here.  I'll let you know whether or not we notice a meaningful drop.

Tracking broadband access and other Wednesday article links

Senate passes broadband data bill [CED Magazine]

America should soon have an accurate picture of consumer's access to broadband service, thanks to a piece of legislation passed by the Senate - the Broadband Data Improvement Act. Currently the FCC tracks broadband access, and defines it as any Internet connection above 200 kbps. That's a lot lower than the speed most consumers consider "broadband." Also, the FCC's broadband tracking was only at the granularity of ZIP code boundaries - leaving out a great deal of detail of broadband availability.

This legislation promises to reform the metrics and process of tracking consumers' access to broadband. I applaud this legislation which should focus the discussion on the reality of the state of Broadband rather than on how we measure its success or failure.

From the article:

NCTA President and CEO Kyle McSlarrow said: “We applaud the Congress for approving this important legislation, which will enable policymakers to have a much clearer picture about the state of broadband in America. Improved data about the availability and speed of all broadband offerings will help accomplish the important goal of universal broadband for all Americans. As the largest broadband provider in America, our industry will continue to support efforts designed to spur broadband adoption and access in those areas where it currently doesn’t exist.”

Slingbox for high definition and other Friday links

Sling Places Hi-Def Bet [The Bauminator]

If you're a Slingbox user like I am (I watch our service in each of our districts, no matter where I am), the announcement that you can now place-shift your HD programming is great news. For those of you unfamiliar with the Slingbox, it's an Internet appliance that connects to your cable set-top box, sending your cable signal out to the Internet, allowing you to watch your TV channels wherever there is a high-speed Internet connection.

Now, with the new Slingbox PRO-HD, you can sling not only SD channels but your HD channels. One caveat if you're interested in this new product - you'll need a beefy upstream broadband connection at the Slingbox end (1.5 Mbps). Insight Broadband 20.0 provides this level of upstream speed.

White space testing and other Thursday links

Larry Page: Whitespace Tests Were Rigged [IP Democracy]

Advocates for unlicensed use of broadcast spectrum were on Capitol Hill yesterday to make their case. Google co-founder Larry Page - one of the chief advocates of such a plan - leveled the charge that the FCC's recent interference testing of so-called "white space" devices was "rigged."

While Page is entitled to his opinion, the fact is that the manufacturers of these devices have yet to show that they can reliably avoid interfering with broadcast television signals, cable television operations or wireless microphone systems (all of which operate in this spectrum). The main reason they can't avoid interference? Cable doesn't have any "white spaces" or unused frequency where the devices can operate without interfering with cable television viewers.

It's true that cable signals are enclosed in a coaxial cable, which should shield them from outside interference.  The problem is that many customers have wired their homes themselves and added splitters and other devices.  The wiring and the equipment that customers have installed themselves may or may not effectively shield their connections.  Millions of homes could be affected.

CableTechTalk has posted a good explanation of the issues involved with "white space" device interference here and here.

Let the market drive

When I posted my first blog upon my return from Africa on Monday, I told you I wanted to discuss how important a light touch in government regulation was in telecommunications policy.  Just so you know, I wasn't born with an anti-regulation gene that caused me to be so firmly in the camp of being pro competition and anti regulation.  Indeed, it was an acquired taste for me, drawing from several very real experiences in my life-long career in cable. 

Here's one of them. 

In 1994, the cable industry was in dire straights.  Two years prior, Congress had passed the Cable Act of 1992 which imposed massive regulation on the industry ending a decade of dramatic expansion into new areas and an unprecedented increase in program options.

The FCC's decision and it's unintended consequences

The very day I left for an extended vacation, the FCC voted to sanction Comcast for their network management practices. While this action was widely anticipated based on comments made by the commissioners prior to the vote, the final decision gave bloggers and other analysts an opportunity to dissect the rationale behind the 3-2 vote.

Basically, the FCC majority found that Comcast managed a particular peer to peer application's network traffic and that action had significant impact on Comcast's subscribers' ability to access the content of their choice - thus violating the FCC's net neutrality principles.

But within the FCC's decision, there remain a number of unanswered questions and contradictions that lead to more questions about the FCC's attempt to create a set of rules for net neutrality in their enforcement action against Comcast.

Reflections upon my return from Africa

I'm back from vacation.  I think this was the first time I actually took a full two weeks off from work.  Even more unique for me, it was the first time I was pretty much incommunicado for more than a few hours. 

We flew into Arusha in Tanzania.  I knew instantaneously that we "weren't in Kansas anymore, Toto."

Cable broadband now the choice of 4 out of 5 new customers

Today, guest blogger John Dobken writes about the decided majority of new broadband Internet customers choosing cable over DSL.

Michael has IP Democracy on his list of must-read blogs, so I thought I'd write about a story that blog posted last week about the fact that cable broadband Internet is now the overwhelming choice for new broadband customers.

Surveying the second-quarter broadband subscriber additions for the top nine cable operators and the top four telephone companies, IP Democracy finds that 81% of new broadband subscribers chose cable over DSL. That's an increase from only 44% a year ago.

As IP Democracy puts it, customers are choosing cable broadband's speed over DSL. DSL is the new dial-up, and the customers are making that choice clear in these latest results.

By quarter's end, the cable operators served a collective 34.2 million high-speed customers, while the phone companies served 27.1 million broadband subscribers.

Both cable and phone companies have acknowledged the sudden disparity between cable and telco broadband growth rates. Cable operators say that speed, not price, is the ultimate killer app and DSL just can't compete. It's the new dial-up.

Phone companies say that a weak economy and a marketing pullback hit them harder than expected. It's hard to tell at this stage just what really happened during the quarter, although I tend to think that the telco broadband price war, which started in 2003, has, in fact, played itself out.'

...

Whatever the case may be, if this disparity keeps up, phone companies could soon actually lose broadband customers.

Insight Business: The advantages of Insight's high speed fiber Internet for your business

Today's guest post is from John Dobken, Insight's Senior manager of business development, and Chris Hibbs, Engineering Manager for Insight Business.

Most of our customers are surprised when they find out that we not only offer our high speed broadband Internet over cable, but that we also offer fiber-based Ethernet products to businesses under our InsightBusiness brand name. There are some distinguishing features of our fiber-based Ethernet products.

Simple Customer Handoffs - Rather than using traditional carrier interfaces such as T1, DS3, OC3, etc. for our private line and dedicated Internet products, our handoff to the customer is an industry standard copper Ethernet interface which can be plugged into any switch or router that has an Ethernet port. This is a major benefit to customers since Ethernet ports are typically less expensive and more readily available than T1 or DS3 interfaces. Customers can also use off-the-shelf laptops or PC’s to verify the speeds we are providing them, rather than needing to use specialized and expensive telecom test equipment.

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.

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.

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. 

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...

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.

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.

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.

P2P applications use 44% of network bandwidth in North America

Multichannel News reported recently that 44% of all network traffic on North American Internet service providers is peer-to-peer file sharing traffic, up from 41% last year.

That statistic was the result of a survey of major ISPs by Sandvine, a company that sells network management systems. I note, in light of the dicussion for more openness in network management practices, that the survey results were posted on Sandvine's website for everyone to read.

Blazing Speeds with DOCSIS 3.0

Most of us take our broadband connection for granted.  Thanks to cable modems, turn on your computer and, in a matter of seconds, you're surfing.

A lot of thought went into designing cable modems.  The core software that all cable companies use in them is called DOCSIS.  In order to keep up with the Internet's breakneck pace of change, CableLabs has developed the next generation of DOCSIS (DOCSIS 3.0) that will enable cable operators to increase speeds dramatically.

Usage Caps and Notification

Terry asked the following question:

I would like to know how people are going to be notified if they are close to their cap? It would be nice if I received an email saying I was close and needed to stop (downloading) for a while, rather than getting a large extra charge on my bill.

I think that's a very fair point.  As I've said in previous posts, we don't have any specific plans at this moment to implement caps.  But I also said that we are watching developments on that subject where Bend Broadband and Time Warner have announced their specific policies.

Because usage patterns are growing so rapidly, most ISP's are forced to consider an alternative policy to the one-size-fits-all charges. 

Confessions of a Network Manager (Part 2)

I promised more on Network Management following my Part 1 post a few weeks ago.  Today, I'd like to discuss downstream management.

Why Do We Have to Manage Downstream Usage?

We, at Insight, go to great lengths to handle network management fairly.  We recognize that the Internet is a shared network, and that all network managers, ISP's and backbone providers alike, first should provision responsibly and then make sure their networks don't get clogged up. 

Customers comment on Broadband caps and metering

Dualsub2006 expressed a concern about usage caps:

Any thoughts of a 40GB cap in Insight land will NOT go over very well.

I hear you and as I have previously mentioned, we currently are not planning any changes in the way we charge customers for their Internet usage. Did I leave the door open to changing that in the future?  Yes I did.  We are keeping a watchful eye on increasing usage patterns and regulatory, legislative and business movements affecting these issues. 

Telcos figure out the answer is coax

Broadband Reports pointed me to a new and interesting product the other day. Turns out some telcos want to use existing coaxial cable in fiber-to-the-home deployments, avoiding more costly Cat-5 wiring. Yes, that's coaxial cable originally installed for cable television.

In a world of super high-speed connections, isn't it ironic that the time-tested technology that delivers your cable services is "discovered" by the telcos to be the best way to connect to your home devices?  Cable operators have known for years that a hybrid-fiber-coax network (HFC) is the best and most efficient way to deliver voice, video and data services to customers' devices. 

A New ISP Business Model

Argo recently asked,

(Why shouldn't) a cable company offer a platform to other media outfits and charge them for maintenance and overhead rather pass that cost to customers."

Great question! 

Let's look at one example of a new business model. 

Netflix recently announced a set-top box to deliver movies directly to a set-top box via the Inernet. It's a very exciting idea that adds great value to their service and they will save a ton of money in postage, a good thing for them. 

Their plan will use an enormous amount of Internet bandwidth which can cause additional congestion along the way.  To prevent this from happening, ISP's and Internet backbone suppliers provision for increases in usage. 

Convention Buzz: Strong Results and WiMax

The Cable Show opened on Sunday in New Orleans.  I've been to around 30 of these annual events and the mood of the industry is usually quite clear.  Coming off a string of very strong Q1 results by all reporting companies, the mood is good.  We reported last Thursday record increases in basic, broadband and phone customers.  We had a great quarter, adding over 15,000 basic customers and increasing our revenue by 17% and operating income (the financial guys call it OIBTDA) by 22%. 

So, here in New Orleans, there's a sense of optimism

Confessions of a Network Manager (Part 1)

Okay, I confess.  It's true.  I'm a network manager.  I manage networks.  Not directly, but I approve policies that authorize our technical people to do just that.  I can't help myself.  There, I said it.

What is network management?

Simply put, network management is a series of rules that network managers put in place to ensure the smooth operation of their networks, thus maximizing customers' experiences.  I'm not sure why, but network management has become a debate. 

Why do we do this?

Download movies the same day you can purchase the DVD at the store

For those of you who are iTunes users, I saw an interesting story last week on the blogs about a deal Apple has struck with most of the major movie studios to release their movies on iTunes the same day they are available as DVDs at retailers. Broadband Reports wrote:

Apple this morning dropped the news that customers will now be able to purchase films from iTunes the same day they hit DVD shelves, eliminating the typical 30-45 day delay between DVD launch and digital availability. It appears that a lot of major studios are on board as well, including 20th Century Fox, The Walt Disney Studios, Warner Brothers, Paramount Pictures, Universal, Sony, Lionsgate, Image Entertainment and First Look Studios.

Apple's iTunes online downloads have supplanted CD sales, with Apple recently overtaking Wal-Mart as he largest retailer of music in the U.S.

Cable providers invest in wireless broadband network

The New York Times reports this morning that a consortium of Sprint Nextel, Google, Intel, Comcast, Time Warner, Bright House and Clearwire are set to announce today a $12 billion deal to build the nation's first wireless 4G network. The proposed wireless network speeds would be comparable to current home broadband speeds.

House of Representatives hearing on net neutrality

The U.S. House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet is holding a hearing today on a bill that would regulate certain aspects of net neutrality.

I believe deeply in the principle of free access to all legal Internet destinations. What I want to make sure of is that we don't confuse net neutrality with