The FCC released its semi-annual report on High Speed Services yesterday, and noted that for the first time, the increase in DSL subscribers was greater than the increase in the number of cable subscribers.
The total number of US subscribers to “high speed services” – defined as services capable of delivering at least 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in one direction – stood at a nifty 50.2 million, while the number of subscribers receiving “advanced services,” or services capable of delivering 200 kbps in both directions, was 42.8 million.
Here’s an interesting statement, from the FCC News Release:
· Of the 42.8 million advanced services lines reported as of December 31, 2005, 62.3% were at least 2.5 mbps in the faster direction and 37.7% were slower than 2.5 mbps in the faster direction.
I’m glad I didn’t have to write it: there’s a lot going on there.
The FCC report covers the period until December 31, 2005. Under FCC rules, facilities-based broadband providers are required to report about their service offerings as part of the FCC’s local telephone competition and broadband data gathering program on Form 477.
For more details, check out the report on the FCC’s website http://www.fcc.gov/
FCC Technological Advisory Council
Last Thursday, the FCC hosted a public meeting of the Technological Advisory Council, or TAC, in the Commission meeting room. The TAC is an adjunct advisory body organized under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, complete with rules, a Designated Federal Officer, some homework, lots of discussion on future technology trends, and quarterly meeting schedule (or thereabouts).
Ciena’s Steve Alexander, Chief Technical Officer (CTO), is on the TAC, so I watched from the audience, somewhat absorbed in predicament: in a room full of CTOs, plus officials from the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology, I couldn’t manage to get the FCC’s Wi-Fi to work, trying (/failing) even twice, despite all evidence to the contrary: that a hotspot does in fact “live” there…
So, you ask, aside from my technological ineptitude, what exactly is the TAC?
Perhaps I should let the charter speak for itself, although I'll cut and paste the basic idea right here:
Rapid advances in technology have resulted in innovations in how telecommunications services are provided to, and are accessed by, users of those services. Many of these advances are increasing the rate of convergence among categories of services that have traditionally been viewed as distinct, such as cable television services, telephony, data services, and internet services. Regulations must be examined in light of these technology advances, and the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") must remain abreast of new developments in technology so that it can effectively fulfill its responsibilities under the Communications Act.
The purpose of the TAC is to provide technical advice to the Federal Communications Commission and to make recommendations on the issues and questions presented to it by the FCC. The TAC will address questions referred to it by the FCC Chairman, by the FCC Chief Office of Engineering and Technology or by the TAC Designated Federal Officer. The questions referred to the TAC will be directed to technological and technical issues in the field of communications.
***
Just so you know that they've got their eyes on the ball. I can't find the most recent presentations posted yet – using the "not readily apparent" standard, which means that the presentations may be posted on the FCC's website, but I can't seem to find them (remember my strong Wi-Fi performance) – so for now you'll have to take my word that the day's discussion featured, among other topics, broadband security issues, deployment plans, municipal broadband networks, and the problems of building, from a regulatory and technical point of view, the networks of tomorrow.
For example, and this is just one example, in the case of a device that taps both into fixed and mobile networks, and possibly multiple mobile networks, who or what is responsible for security? Should it emanate from the device or be network driven? If multiple networks are used, how will different carriers establish a rolling verification process? Does it make a difference that customers want security, don't want it complicated, and certainly don't have any intention of paying for it? (Yes.)
More to the point, what sort of business models will carriers use to create seamless mobility? How will they employ search tools, and will carriers hand customers off to other networks? The mobile search topic was discussed to some extent yesterday in a major financial publication, but the fact remains: forging business models, dealing with regulatory issues, and building and protecting networks in collaborative fashion (when everybody involved is “combat ready”) is not exactly easy.
One comment, by a major carrier CTO, went something to the effect that, when introducing new technologies into the network, he gets to spend more time with the regulatory people he does with the technology people. (Note: this is probably not by choice...)
Which is one reason we have the TAC, and it looks like that particular CTO picked the right forum for making that revelation, because one key element in all this network building and new fangled service providing is how quickly we can come up with answers to some very difficult questions.
In an entertaining exchange last week between Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), the two senators “debated” the cost of accessing content on the Internet. Senator Stevens argued that "it" was free, to which Senator Dorgan retorted that, unless Sen. Stevens could see his checkbook, broadband access cost so and so much a month. At which point Sen. Stevens reiterated that it was free and assumed discussion of the matter to be at end. Senator Dorgan then noted for the record that he refused to lose a debate they never had. A few moments later Chairman Stevens insisted again that content on the Internet was free.
Turns out they were both right. The creative tension between broadband access and broadband content sort of reminds me of Mad Magazine’s Spy vs. Spy – an ongoing saga that featured one spy skewering its arch enemy, a virtually identical spy, in every way possible, and vice versa; this continued issue after issue. The tension between broadband access and content arose again this week with AOL apparently deciding that being late to the broadband revolution may force it to choose between broadband subscriber revenues and online advertising revenues: AOL users who bring their own broadband access may in turn access AOL content for free, while dial-up subscribers would still pay a fee (for access + content).
This big development is not exactly news to anyone who already has terminated AOL in favor of AIM’s free service, and had their e-mail forwarded – without the FCC ever having to go through an “e-mail portability” proceeding, which was good move for consumers, hats off to AOL. While at one time there may have been security features that may have warranted keeping AOL in lieu of AIM, I never bothered to figure out what these features were, after braving the discontinue service process a couple of times, with each discussion turning into a customer retention sales event at prices rapidly approaching zero, but not quite zero. Now AOL apparently has decided that gleaning online advertising revenues from eyeballs drawn to unique or compelling content may outweigh BYO Broadband subscriber fees, and thus is considering the move, which may well turn out to be a winner in a world where people can tap into the network using the nearest connection available.
Since so much of the debate about net neutrality centers upon preserving the open nature of the Internet, it’s awfully hard to compete as a seller against somebody that’s giving something away, and therein lies the rub, using a ridiculously mixed adage, metaphor, or whatnot (believe it or not, I have written previously about these, of the antique variety): if at first you don’t succeed, try, try giving away your mousetrap for free, and the world will beat a path to your door, as long as no one’s blocking access to your packets, delivered in best efforts fashion, even if the broadband provider claims better packets of its own. Of course, none of the foregoing apples if you are a mouse, in which case blocking may be deemed ok, or “just and reasonable,” for your survival, at the very minimum.
Last week, or perhaps it was the week before last, business publications reported that free video sharing site Youtube.com struck a sort of marketing deal with a broadcaster, of all things, as opposed to a cable company or a telco. The arrangement has “Back to the Future” elements to it (not “’Brokeback’ to the Future” – which user generated spoof of two movies was another popular Youtube video several months ago); downloads of hit NBC shows may be shown on the site, in an effort to get viewers to watch the real McCoy, courtesy of NBC. This sort of “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” cross sector marketing shows that someone, somewhere is paying attention, and it sure beats sending a grumpy cease and desist letter that makes your content company look like its pretty much ready for the archives (something along the lines of how discussions that led to the marketing deal actually started); but if content is "king," something we've all heard for years, you want to make sure your king is not dethroned.
There probably is, or should be, a two-way street here – I wonder what the first “series” based on some Youtube clip will be, and where will it air? Online? On cable? The Net Neutrality debate in both House and Senate committees featured endless discussion about the impact of paying for prioritization on small innovators, the so-called "next Google." These “garage” inventors might be prevented from paying for priority carriage, because of their small size, lack of resources, etc., in their start up status, and so be relegated to the Internet slow lane. During this debate, I kept thinking that the “next Google” may already be here: in describing Youtube to someone yesterday, the shorthand “do I have this right?” query back to me summed up Youtube as “MySpace.com with video.” Turns out these are two very good candidates for the NG award, and they even had their own little blocking spat – MySpace reportedly blocking Youtube videos on its site, for a spell, and for good reason, but then introducing their own video upload service.
To wrap things up in wild fashion, I doubt that anyone but Andy Warhol could have made and “made popular” the film “Empire” – an eight hour stationary epic of the Empire State Building shot the night of June 25, 1964 (we just missed the anniversary) and which apparently has been the subject of some disagreement about requirements for showing the authorized version, concurrent with speculation about whether anyone had ever watched the whole thing. One website describes the film as prefiguring today’s webcam images, and their visceral impact – which I wrote about last year at this time, following the
Frames per second, prioritizing packets, best efforts, the Internet fast lane, seems there’s hardly any new controversy under the sun: I’ll be glad when Net Neutrality’s fifteen minutes are up.
