<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Communications Insights: Trends and Cool Stuff &#187; Broadband</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/category/broadband/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff</link>
	<description>The Musings of an Expatriate in European Communications</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:07:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Defining the Open Internet</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/11/defining-the-open-internet/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/11/defining-the-open-internet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2010 19:50:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Network Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal level of regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=232</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier this week I was contacted by Seth Johnson who was organizing a response to the FCC’s Further Inquiry into Two Underdeveloped Issues in the Open Internet Proceeding.  Seth asked if I would consider signing on in support of joint comments which urge the FCC to consider appropriate distinction between the open Internet and “specialized services” in light of changes in the market. As I said in previous Cool Stuff, both basic packet Internet and specialized services are important components of a robust and diverse market place.  I jointed the statement along with 31 other distinguished experts in this field.

Both the open Internet and specialized services exist in the market, and have for some time.  However, this is an important juncture to define: 1) where one begins and the other ends and 2) what are the appropriate measures necessary to preserve competition and fair play.  I joined on the comments because it does not advocate a particular policy outcome.  Rather, we urge the FCC that by “addressing this distinction in itself enables the analysis and pursuit of policy goals to proceed with a profound new level of clarity.”  This is of particular national importance.  The Internet is an American invention.  It is and will continue to be an important ingredient to economic development and global competitiveness.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/11/defining-the-open-internet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>That’s not the Internet</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/that%e2%80%99s-not-the-internet/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/that%e2%80%99s-not-the-internet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:56:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Network Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Access]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=205</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have continued to think about a tiered Internet as considered in the Google Verizon proposal on Network Neutrality.  I conclude that managed services already exist in the market place, but it is not the Internet. The Internet is an interconnected, end-to-end, packet switched network. There is nothing inherently anti-competitive about broadband service providers marketing managed services.  There is also nothing new about it.  However, it would be false advertising to claim it is the Internet.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/that%e2%80%99s-not-the-internet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Taking the Roof off of the Internet</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/taking-the-roof-off-of-the-internet/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/taking-the-roof-off-of-the-internet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:00:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Network Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Verizon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=200</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The recent legislative proposal on Network Neutrality proposed by Google and Verizon would "allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today." Some critics have argued that that the deal would create a two-tiered Internet, one upper tier for differentiated services and one lower tier for commodity packets.  Google Verizon proposal is not so much a threat to network neutrality (lower case) as it is to network economics.  Part of this is the public face of a private bargaining game. Players in the value chain are using the political and regulatory process as they struggle to gain a larger share of that chain.  It is not evil, merely self-interested.  That is fine.  At some level, Google and Verizon should be lauded for working towards a compromise and to move things forward.  In the end, either competition or regulation must constrain this self-interest.  And, private actors they should not get to make public policy.  That is the exclusive domain of Congress and the FCC.  The FCC should take those views into account then offer its own independent decision to impose regulation or not.

]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/08/taking-the-roof-off-of-the-internet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Every Ash Cloud Has a Silver Lining (for some)</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/04/every-ash-cloud-has-a-silver-lining/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/04/every-ash-cloud-has-a-silver-lining/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:14:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cool Stuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eyjafjallajokull]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NGA. high-speed rail]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=155</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Every Ash Cloud Has a Silver Lining (for some)
The eruption of Iceland’s Eyjafjallajokull volcano could be potentially damning for the airlines lines, but a boon to telecommunications infrastructure providers, video conferencing firms, and high speed rail which could see demand for their products and services take off.  The continued eruption of Eyjafjallajokull could provide the impetus for further investment in communications infrastructure and high-speed rail in Europe.  The downside of this fact for the US is that it will significantly harder to stay competitive in these crucial infrastructure areas.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/04/every-ash-cloud-has-a-silver-lining/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Keeping up with the Jitsuzumis</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/04/keeping-up-with-the-jitsuzumis/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/04/keeping-up-with-the-jitsuzumis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:15:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiber to the House]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Broadband Plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NGA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policy Development]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=150</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The first goal of the FCC’s recent National Broadband Plan is to ensure at least 100 million US homes have access to Internet connections with download speeds of at least 100 Mbps by the end of the decade (the year 2020).  This goal strikes me as not being a terribly ambitious.  I can’t help feeling that the FCC is trying to catch the US up in ten years to where Japan is now.  From what I have been reading on the listservs, given current pace of deployment of FiOS and DOCSIS 3.0, the market will accomplish this goal on its own.  This fact begs the question what is need for governmental intervention.  Instead, the FCC should propose a more ambitious goal (one that might have a higher risk of failure) and devise a road map necessary for achieving that goal.  Perhaps this will come out in follow on work to National Broadband Plan.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/04/keeping-up-with-the-jitsuzumis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Broadband is an Adjective</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/03/broadband-is-an-adjective/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/03/broadband-is-an-adjective/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:46:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proper English]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Broadband Plan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=148</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Broadband is an adjective, not a noun.  It refers to the available frequencies in a given communications channel to transmit information.  Further, networks are not “fast”.  Signals in an electronic communications network travel at the speed of light for the given medium, no faster or slower.  The only thing that changes is the width of the band of frequencies used which has a direct impact on data transfer rate – the time it takes to transfer a file of a certain size between two points on the network.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/03/broadband-is-an-adjective/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wi-Fi? Wi-Not?</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/02/wi-fi-wi-not/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/02/wi-fi-wi-not/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:59:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cool Stuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wireless Communications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Part 15]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spectrum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TV White Spaces]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unlicensed wireless devices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wi-Fi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the past several weeks, there have been several news articles and blog posts about congested mobile wireless networks and using Wi-Fi to alleviate that congestion.  This is a good idea; however, it is not a new one.  At a conference nearly eight years ago, I suggested that wireless carriers consider incorporating Wi-Fi into their networks.  Complementing existing 3G networks with Wi-Fi would increase carrier profitability. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/02/wi-fi-wi-not/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Network Neutrality and the Samurai</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/01/network-neutrality-and-the-samurai/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/01/network-neutrality-and-the-samurai/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jan 2010 12:24:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cool Stuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Network Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal level of regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=128</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The sankin kōtai laws of the Tokugawa Shogunate imposed a rule of prioritization on the Tokaido and Nakaseido roads between Edō and Kyoto, as well as on other "kaido" emanating from the capital.  Access to Japanese roads was prioritized by social status, with only the Samurai class having access to the center of the road as their procession called a daimyo gyoretsu passed.   We think it is unfair to give preferential treatment to certain customers.  At the same time, we also think it is economically inefficient to mandate a single Internet access options for everyone, including those who are willing to pay more for premium services.  When the network (or Tokkaido Road) is congested, prioritization can make users better off.  Prioritization can be accomplished based on economic characteristics, arrival order, processing load, urgency, or even social status.

Since all messages on an IP-based network travel at the same speed (the speed of light), in discussions of Network Neutrality, it is never who gets to go faster, rather which packet, or which samurai, gets to go first.  Such prioritization must be done in a way which is socially permissible and economically desirable. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2010/01/network-neutrality-and-the-samurai/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Next Generation Spectrum Regulation</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/12/next-generation-spectrum-regulation/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/12/next-generation-spectrum-regulation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:03:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cool Stuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wireless Communications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[next generation spectrum policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal level of regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Really Cool Stuff!]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spectrum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spectrum policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unlicensed wireless devices]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=122</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have just completed a major study on next generation spectrum regulation which can serve as the basis for removing certain barriers to spectrum access, allowing more effective sharing and efficient allocations.  I can think of no reason why a properly designed auction could not determine not only who gets the spectrum rights, but what those rights are.

You cannot see, touch, taste, smell, or hear radio spectrum.  Spectrum is not a thing; it is an idea – a legal and engineering construct that explains a physical phenomenon and helps us arrange our behavior accordingly.  That fundamental physical phenomenon is the fact that when electromagnetic waves are: (1) harmonic in frequency; (2) incident in time; and (3) alight on the same reception device, the ability of those waves to be used as information carriers is degraded.  This deleterious effect is known to us as interference.  Without some form of intervention, it is impossible to exclude or limit the use of a common resource such as spectrum. Without exclusion, users consume the spectrum without regard to fact that their usage causes the deleterious effect of interference for other would-be users.  Policies which help to mitigate inference with the least amount of effort will be the most socially beneficial.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/12/next-generation-spectrum-regulation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Japan Communications&#8217; New Business Model</title>
		<link>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/10/japan-communications-new-business-model/</link>
		<comments>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/10/japan-communications-new-business-model/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:16:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Carter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broadband]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cool Stuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Network Neutrality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wireless Communications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan Communications Inc.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JCI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimal level of regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RCS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spectrum policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wholesale Access]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wireles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/?p=117</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Japan Communications Inc. just launched a new product for Hewlett-Packard. HP will now sell netbooks in Japan which come with 100 minutes of mobile wireless connectivity. Consumers can buy connectivity on a pay-as-you-go basis from Japan Communications, but branded as an HP service. While Japan Communications negotiated with DoCoMo to get on its network, it was only able to do so because the Japanese Ministry for Communications and Information created which rules opened the networks of three largest wireless operators to wholesale.

This created for Japan Communications a really cool new business model with implications for carriers, devices manufacturers, and application service providers around the world. It remains to be seen whether the Europe and the US should follow suit.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://kennethrcarter.com/CoolStuff/2009/10/japan-communications-new-business-model/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

