Posts Tagged ‘Broadband’

« Older Entries

That’s not the Internet

Friday, August 27th, 2010

In my last Cool Stuff, I mused about the Google Verizon proposal on Network Neutrality and its implications pricing incentives and a two-tiered Internet.  The post received quite a bit of attention in blogsfera italiano (here, here, and here).  Since posting, I have continued to think about a tiered Internet.  I conclude that managed services already exist in the market place, but it is not the Internet.

Hovey Slide

Rich Hovey's Genius Slide

I keep coming back to a slide I stole have been using with permission from Rich Hovey for about four years .  While a triple play network may appear to be a single network, it is really three sharing the same wire or fiber.  Indeed, there might be three completely separate sets of network equipment attached at either end of the line – Internet modem, cable box, and phone terminal.  The video programming component is not neutral and certain shelf-space on the network have been reserved, and prioritized for certain applications.  But, that’s not the Internet.

I also am old enough to remember dial-up to online services such Prodigy, CompuServe, and AOL. Each service provider would offer its own content, plus some backdoor way, such as gopher or email, way into the public Internet. However, those online service providers were not the “Internet”.

The Internet is an interconnected, end-to-end, packet switched network.

Insight: There is nothing inherently anticompetitive 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.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Broadband, Network Neutrality | View Comments

Keeping up with the Jitsuzumis

Saturday, April 10th, 2010

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 only have a single data point to support that conclusion, which is typically referred as an anecdote.

Prof. Jitsuzumi's Class

One of these is not like the others.

During a business trip to Japan last year, I traveled to Fukuoka to visit my good friend Prof. Toshiya Jitsuzumi.  (According to Wikipedia Fukuoka is Japan’s eighth most populous city and its second youngest).  Prof. Jitsuzumi invited me to give two talks: one to Kyushu University’s Faculty of Economics and one to his undergraduate students in communications economics.  To the undergraduates, I gave a lecture about the policy and economics of Next Generation Access Networks in the European Union.  I found Prof. Jitsuzumi’s students to be bright and engaging.  In the middle of the lecture, the students had some trouble understanding one of my stats on the number of homes passed by fibre optic access networks in the EU.  At first, I thought the confusion was due to my weak Japanese language skills.  After a bit of back and forth, I discovered the source of the confusion.  Prof Jitsuzumi’s students all have fibre optic connections to their homes.  I was the only one in the room who did not have a fibre optic Internet connection to his home (NB: I live in a suburb of Bonn, Germany).  The source of the confusion was that they were questioning why one would want to count homes passed.  This is not obvious if you and all your classmates  already has a fibre optic connection.

Insight: Granted Prof. Jitsuzumi’s class is not a representative sample set, but 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.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Broadband, Optimal Regulation | View Comments

Broadband is an Adjective

Saturday, March 27th, 2010

Over the past two weeks, I have heard people talk and read people’s blogs about the FCC’s National Broadband Plan.  One of the things which troubles me is the use of the term “broadband.”  An illustrative comments might be, “we have to ensure rapid deployment of broadband.”

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.

So, to be precise, we want to ensure rapid and widespread deployment of broadband networks.

Insight:  I do not drone on about this just to be a smartass.  Communications networks and policy are extremely complicated matters.  In this arena, it is really hard to get things “right”.  It is therefore very important that we use language with precision.  There is, of course, this creative use of the broadband as a noun from former-FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.*

Tags: , ,
Posted in Broadband, Proper English | View Comments

Wi-Fi? Wi-Not?

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

In the past several weeks, there have been several news articles and blog posts about the possibility of Wi-Fi being a solution to congested mobile networks.  There was a piece in Total Telecom, one by Maggie Reardon, and one by Stephen Rayment for the FT.

The argument is that the widespread adoption of smart phones and mobile Internet has congested mobile wireless networks to the breaking point.  In order to alleviate congestion on their 3G or 4G network, carriers could offload traffic onto Wi-Fi networks (including those of other operators).  This would free up the carriers’ limited spectrum resources which they obtained at auction through the licensing process.  And, it could be done more cheaply than upgrading existing cell sites. (Dana Blankenhorn at ZDNet correctly points out the inconsistency of giving more spectrum to wireless carriers if unlicensed operation is the solution. It was not so long ago that wireless carriers were crying foul that all Wi-Fi networks such as the now defunct Cometa presented unfair competition because they had not spent billions to acquire their licenses at auction.)

Insight:  Integrating mobile networks with Wi-Fi is a good idea.  It is, however, not a new one.  At a conference nearly eight years ago at Columbia University and in the ensuing paper, I suggested that wireless carriers consider incorporating Wi-Fi into their networks.  My reasoning was not so much about load balancing as it was about market segmentation.  Complementing existing 3G networks with Wi-Fi would enable carriers to offer tiered services – a best efforts service and a better than best efforts service – charging different prices for both and increasing profitability.  I also suggested it would be possible to use spectrum not licensed to the carrier such as the spectrum which has been allocated to CB Radio,  GMRS, or FRS.  A 2003 FCC rule change would allow handsets cable of operating both on mobile networks and in these bands. In this way, carriers could offer services like push-to-talk or walkie-talkies without encumbering their already burdened spectrum and networks. Users would be able to speak directly to others in their area, even users on other carriers’ networks.  Alas, there was not much economic incentive for carriers to sell such handsets because it would reduce the mobile termination revenues which carriers charge one another (and eventually their subscribers) for completing calls over their networks.  However, with the balance of market power tipping away from networks and in favor of handset providers recently, it might be possible that we would see such enabled handsets in the next few years.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Broadband, Cool Stuff, Wireless Communications | View Comments

Network Neutrality and the Samurai

Sunday, January 10th, 2010

The ITU Association of Japan just published my September keynote on Network Neutrality in the Highlights section of its January 2010 ITU AJ Journal.  The article is password protected, but if you are a member of the Association, you can get it from the website. (The article is in Japanese).

One of the points I made in the keynote (which is not in the brief article), was an analogy of Network Neutrality issues to Edō Period Japan.  The sankin kōtai laws of the Tokugawa Shogunate imposed a rule of prioritization on the Tokaido and Nakaseido roads between Edō (now, Tokyo) 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.  Lower classes were required to clear the road kneel down and bow as the Samurai passed.  Punishment for failing to clear the road was possible decapitation.

The concept of prioritization is not new, but it is universal.  It expresses fundamental and competing notions of fairness versus economic efficiency.  We think it is unfair to give preferential treatment to certain customers (those who are willing to pay more or have higher social status).  At the same time, we also think it is economically inefficient to mandate a single (or limited set of) 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.

Insight: 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.  Given that the penalty for breaching a classes of service restrains in Edo Japan was capital, I think I would rather get a reset packet.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Broadband, Cool Stuff, Network Neutrality | View Comments

Japan Communications’ New Business Model

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

On my October business trip to Tokyo, I took time to meet with Japan Communications‘ CEO Frank Sanda.  I know Frank from my work on the Eamon Ryan’s Advisory Forum on Broadband.  I wanted to see Frank and his team because they 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.

Japan Communications built a really cool billing system to handle payment and authentication.  But, Japan Communications does not have a wireless network.  That it gets from the leading carrier NTT DoCoMo. Japan Communications leases capacity on DoCoMo’s network nationwide, and has the ability to purchase more capacity as this business grows. HP gets to determine which devices are sold and can sell the connectivity as its own.  Furthermore, Japan Communications could set up such a system to sell anyone else’s networked devices.  Say, how about a Carterfone?

While Japan Communications negotiated with DoCoMo to get on its network, it was able to do so because the Japanese Ministry for Communications and Information created which rules opened the networks of three largest wireless operators DoCoMo, KDDI, and SoftBank to wholesale. There was apparently a three-year battle at the Ministry in which Japan Communications was at the center. Japan’s policy to require wholesale access to wireless networks goes further than the US FCC’s rules for its 700 MHz auction which mandated these open these networks to foreign devices and handsets.

Insight: This seems like a really cool business model with implications for carriers, devices manufacturers, and application service providers around the world. I have said in a previous Cool Stuff, it is not a question of whether wireless networks should be open or closed. Rather, there is some optimal level of openness which will maximize the carrier’s return.  A privately determined level of openness will no doubt diverge from a level of openness which represents a public optimal. However, this begs the question whether opening networks to wholesale in this way is good policy and whether the Europe and the US should follow suit.  The answer is far more complex than can be addressed in a humble blog entry.  Nonetheless, I am curious see how this market will develop.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Broadband, Cool Stuff, Network Neutrality, Optimal Regulation, Wireless Communications | View Comments

Network Neutrality in Europe and the Ski Lift Line

Tuesday, January 27th, 2009
Source: WIK-Consult, photo courtesy of alexindigo, Flickr.com

Source: WIK-Consult, photo courtesy of alexindigo, Flickr.com

My study for the BNetzA (German telecoms regulator) on Network Neutrality in Europe has finally published.  (Don’t worry, it’s available in English).  In this study, we look at Network Neutrality – the catch-all phrase that emerged in the United States over the past decade to reflect a number of potential behaviors that some consider to be anticompetitive – and what the implications for European regulators might be.

The report reviews the economics that underlies the Network Neutrality debate, including price discrimination, network externalities, transaction costs, switching costs, two-sided markets, and the economics of vertical foreclosure. It also briefly reviews the technical aspects of quality differentiation for IP traffic (including packet delay, jitter and loss). It provides background on a number of alleged deviations in the U.S. (including Madison River and Comcast), and assesses the Network Neutrality concerns that have been raised in Europe (for example, by the BBC’s iPlayer). In the end, we conclude that Network Neutrality manifests itself very differently, and much less problematically, in Europe than it does in the United States.  The report also considers the ways in which the changes proposed to the European regulatory framework as part of the ongoing “2006 review” might strengthen the hand of European regulators, and at what cost.

Insight: Putting aside the regulatory analysis, I think that the two most important and far-reaching aspects of our analysis are the taxonomy of network relationships we created and the way we describe end-to-end latency in IP networks.  In order to describe the nature of relationships in an interconnected-multilateral-all-IP network world, we characterize relationships among network participants and service providers as being one three dimensions: vertical, horizontal, or diagonal. (See Section 2.3 in the report).  I am also very pleased with how we use ski lifts to explain of queuing and link delays in end-to-end latency. (See Figure 1 in the report).  It is my hope that these two approaches will make the debate more objective and approachable, and help to reduce the ever-present hyperbole.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Broadband, Network Neutrality | View Comments

European Parliament urges coordinated approach “digital dividend” spectrum, including public safety

Friday, June 27th, 2008

In a previous Cool Stuff, I wrote about the study which I completed demonstrating the social value from reallocating some of the Digital Dividend spectrum for broadband mission critical public safety communications. The European Parliament seems to agree.

Yesterday, the European Parliament’s Industry Committee adopted a report urging that the EU should ensure a set of harmonized, EU-wide rules on how to allocate radio frequencies that will be freed up when analog terrestrial television broadcasting ends in 2012. The report was an own-initiative report authored by Italian liberal MEP, Patrizia Toia and was adopted in Committee with 41 votes in favor, 1 against, and 1 abstention. A plenary vote is scheduled for September. Further, the amendments to the report argue that approximately 100 MHz of the Digital Dividend could be reallocated to mobile broadband and other services such as public safety services, radio frequency identification (RFID), and road safety applications, without preventing broadcasting services from flourishing.

Insight:  While the transition from analog to digital terrestrial television should be complete in Europe by the end of 2012 (nearly 4 years after the U.S. is scheduled to complete its transition), decisions on how to reallocate the approximately 75% of the highest quality spectrum which will be released cannot come fast enough. Mission critical broadband communications networks require long lead-times to plan and deploy, and the services they enable are nothing short of lifesaving.  Public safety and security users urgently need an additional allocation of a approximately 30 MHz for these purposes.  The Industry Committee correctly urges Member States to release their Digital Dividend spectrum as quickly as possible, follow a common methodology, and develop national Digital Dividend strategies by the end of 2009.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Broadband, Wireless Communications | View Comments

Observations from Supernova2008

Wednesday, June 18th, 2008

I have been listening to a bunch of excellent presentations for the first two days of Supernova2008. Rather than rehashing what each speaker has said, I have been trying to formulate a theme. Not an easy task. I have noticed a few reoccurring themes: social activity, intellectual property, management of information, and marketing; all good network-related themes. I spent most of the second day at the Open Flow Track. Much of what was discussed was is integrating systems: Connecting the connections. That is to say that the internet has provided connectivity and access to persons and applications. The essence of Web 3.0 is making sure that your Flickr works with your Dopplr, with your, dare I say, Napstr.

Insight: The rich and lively discussion in the Open Flow Track seemed to focus more on engineering and business practice questions in terms of getting APIs to work together and making sure that privacy, security, and trust are respected according to applicable law and good business practices. I still found myself searching for more a fundamental concept. A more fundamental question which was present but perhaps not fully articulated was how to describe this continuum of “openness” vs. “closedness” (not a real word). So, here I get to like to wax poetic for a second. Eric Raymond, a pioneer of Linux and the open source movement, gives us a particularly literary book title and syllogism, “The Cathedral and the Bazaar”. Raymond sees the cathedral as representing a system of architecture which is, “carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation – no beta version.” It is a centralized, coordinated approach. Open source architecture he likens to “a babbling bazaar of different agendas and approaches.” It is decentralized with varying standards and rules, but is not anarchy. Both approaches seem to work in creating stable systems, though they may be suit to different types of applications.

It was widely agreed that there should be a general preference for openness. I agree, but to my mind that there is a choice between openness and closedness. This choice implies a tradeoff. And, if there is a tradeoff, there is by necessity some optimization. What the optimum is will depend largely on your point of view and social optimum does not necessarily equate one-to-one with a private optimum. At the very least we can have a rational discussion as to what the relative merits of the tradeoff are and where the different optima may lie. In sum, do we want a world that looks more like the Cathedra or the Bazaar, or is there an entirely new form of architecture that we should consider?

Tags: , ,
Posted in Broadband, Cool Stuff | View Comments

A Challenge to the Next FCC Chairman: Make the US Last in Broadband Adoption

Thursday, February 7th, 2008

No matter what the outcome in November’s presidential election, about a year from now, the FCC will be anticipating the arrival of a new Chairman.  I present the following challenge to the next Chairman, whoever he/she may be: make the US last in the world rankings of per capita broadband adoption.  What?!  Stay with me for a sec.

The FCC defines “broadband” as any access technology providing at least 200kbps in one direction.  This standard was appauling when it was introduced nearly a decade ago;FN1 it is simply laughable now.   Shouldn’t this standard evolve at least a little bit over time?  Consider for a second Moore’s Law on computing per unit cost, which stipulates that preformance roughly doubles every two years.FN2    So, between January 1999 and January 2009, the price preformance of the electronics which enable a broadband connection should have increased by a factor of 32.  Thus, a resonable standard for broadband today would be 6.4 Mbps (200kbps X 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 = 6,400kbps).  Let’s say I missed my guess by a bit and an appropriate standard is 5 megs.  (Neither a particularly high threshold and about what I get at my home in a small suburb outside of Bonn, Germany.) In that same decade, the US rank in the world in terms of broadband adpotion has fallen from 3rd to 15th to 20th, by some counts.

Insight:  According to the FCC’s most recent data, in December 2006 there were 82.5 million broadband lines in the US.FN3  Using the 5 meg standard this number would drop to roughtly 11.5 million lines.FN4  The effect of reporting this as the number of broadband lines in the US would be to be to drop the US to a per capita broadband adoption rate of Slovakia or Mexico.  Only then would it be undeniable that the US is falling behind in the adoption of next generation networks.  And, only then would the FCC have the imperative necessary to take the steps which other nations are taking and “encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans,” per the FCC’s mandate. 

FN4: This is a bit of a fudge factor, but good enough for the back of the envelope.  Since the FCC only reports lines with speeds between 2.5 megs and 10 megs, I assumed that only 1/4 of the 34.7 million lines in this category were greater than 5 megs – I eyeballed this from the skew of distribution.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Broadband | View Comments

« Older Entries