FCC & Network Management Meeting

On February 25, the FCC held a hearing on broadband network management practices. (You can download audio and video of the meeting.) IP Democracy did a nice write up of the meeting. (A big thanks to them for saving me the effort!) The short description – the got together to talk about allegations of Comcast over-managing their network to the disservice of certain applications.

My super short notes – everyone recognized that providers need to be able to manage their networks to keep them running. But we need to know that network management is reasonable – that consumers will be able to do what they want and need to do. (So long as it is legal.) As Rep Markley said - Internet freedoms are consumer-centric.

Another big point was transparency. Consumers need to know the rules as the providers maintain them. As Michael Copps alluded, decisions on how the Internet works (and info flows) are currently being made by providers and other vendors. (He gave some great examples.)

Copps suggested that the FCC create a process for future allegations against broadband providers.

Several speakers mentioned a bill of rights for online citizens.

Gilles BianRosa gives a nice demo of Vuze (a Peer to Peer application) in explaining how traffic throttling by a network provider affects the service. He also estimated that the upload capacity of a US connection is 10-20 percent of the download speed – whereas in the rest of the world upload is generally equal to download.

Comcast votes for letting the market set the rules and encouraging the FCC to tread lightly on regulation.

(You can get a list of upcoming meetings on the FCC site.)

Senate & House Telecommunications Bills Update

I love when people help me out with information! Towards that end I was delighted to speak today with Anne Higgins from the Minnesota League of Cities on the statewide cable franchising bill.

One thing I had missed in an earlier blog post was where the bill is going next. I had said that it will be going to the Committee on Commerce and Labor but it sounds as if it will get pulled back into the Telecommunications Regulation and Infrastructure Division after the first of the year. Also it seems as if Qwest has plans to try local cable franchises between now and the first of the year to see how accommodating local entities are.

Representative Johnson also mentioned getting together a working group or two to discuss the bill further and there was a mention of getting someone to talk about the FCC ruling on video conferencing. Elizabeth Emerson, committee administrator, at (651) 296-7175 or elizabeth.emerson@house.mn is the one to contact about the working groups.

One interesting aspect of the potential move is that there is no overlap in members of the Telecommunications Regulation and Infrastructure Division and the Committee on Commerce. It seems as if the learning curve could be potentially pretty steep.

I have not been following the bill as closely in the Senate I did finally listen to the archive of the meeting from April 24.

Statewide Cable Franchising (HF2351) Passed with no Recommendations

I have tried (not really hard) to find the testimony from the Statewide Cable Franchising hearing on April 13. It wasn’t televised. There was no video archive. So tonight I listened to the audio archive. (I have blogged about previous hearings.)

I was urged to follow up for 2 reasons. First I emailed the Committee Administrator (Elizabeth Emerson) who kindly sent me the following update:

HF2351 was heard in the Telecom Committee over the course of 3 weeks, the last being April 13. On April 13, the Telecom Division moved to pass HF2351 with no recommendation to the Committee on Commerce and Labor. Over the interim, I will be working with the author and Telecom Chair (Sheldon Johnson) to put together a working group that will dissect the bill and hammer out details.

Second, I ran into Mike Wassenaar from St Paul Neighborhood Network at the Minnesota Council on Nonprofit conference yesterday. (More on that conference in a later blog post.) It was great to see him and he was able to fill me in a bit. He told me that AT&T suddenly came out against the proposed bill – which was a turn around from the first hearing I saw! It was enough to drive me to listen to the audio archive.

OK my usual stipulation – I’ve done my best to take notes. Readers are asked to please correct me where they can.

Why did the Sweens choose broadband?

I got DSL in 1998. I was working for a project called Web, White & Blue and they pretty much said we can’t pay our going rate until you have broadband. The work would simply be too slow on dialup. Friends at the time wondered how I could have remained a modem person for so long.

I am always interested in why someone moves to broadband today. The post below comes from a friend, Roger Sween who recently upgraded to dialup. Roger and his wife are retired. They were nominated for a Minnesota Coalition of Government Information award this year. So they are librarian friends of mine. I was surprised their conversion to broadband was so recent.

Here’s their story:

Community Broadband Seminar April 26

SeiHere’s another great upcoming seminar:

Community Broadband Seminar
Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM
Sponsored by: MACTA, the League of Minnesota Cities, and the City of St. Louis Park
Location: Recreation Center Banquet Room, 3700 Monterey Drive, St. Louis Park, MN

Remote DVR is a Copyright Risk

I just got an email from the Center for Democracy and Technology about a case in NY where a U.S. District Court issued a ruling blocking the cable television provider Cablevision from rolling out a “remote storage” digital video recorder (DVR) system.

DVR is the “on demand” service that allows you to watch previously recorded shows. I don’t have it because TV-wise I’m stuck in the Twentieth century (and not the last decade) but I know it’s a popular service because like TiVo it allows you to store up a bunch of programs until you have time to watch. The difference with the DVR that has been blocked is that normally the saved programs are stored on the customer’s location; remote DVR would save programs on the servers at the provider’s location.

The television and cable producers (such as Twentieth Century Fox, The Cartoon Network, and others) were the ones who didn’t like the idea of remote storage. Again the distinction is who is recording the programs and where it is stored and whether DVR is considered a device (as is the case when it locally stores programs) or a service. (You can learn more on the Center for Democracy and Technology web site.)

This reminds me a lot of the common carrier issues that faced Internet service providers in the 1990s. The issue back then was any issues of censorship and culpability of the service providers. The decision back then was to think of ISPs as being akin to phone providers. They just provided the forum not the format or content for information.

What I think is difficult in these situations is that the nuances are lost on the consumer but are big issues to the providers. In the short term it makes sense to the consumer to want to remotely store programs or to blame the ISP for censoring or not censoring materials – but in the long term these are big issues about civil liberties and intellectual property.

March 23 Statewide Cable Franchising Committee Meeting

I just finished watching the continuation of the Statewide Cable Franchising discussion in committee meeting. I want to try go get my summary typed out before it leaves me. (I also watched and took notes on last week’s session.)

The plan is to continue this conversation on Friday April 13. It sounds as if the discussion will be moved to Commerce and Labor and officially offered as a bill to be considered next year. Citizens are welcome to contact Elizabeth Emerson, Committee Administrator, at (651) 296-7175 or elizabeth.emerson@house.mn if you are interested in testifying. (They invited everyone to testify several times!)

Bundling Described by WCCO

Last night WCCO news did a piece (Bundling Options: Saving To Talk, Watch, Surf) that compared bundled cable, phone and Internet service packages from Comcast and Qwest. The reporter compared services, selections, and prices. Overall neither company seemed to leap ahead of the other.

I thought it was interesting to look at since it is the view that most Minnesota consumers will now have of their options. The reporter did allude to the proposed legislation on statewide cable franchising:

Qwest is trying to get permission to bring in cable lines to directly compete with Comcast. If approved by state legislators, those lines could also increase the Internet speeds.

Statewide Cable Franchising Committee Meeting

I was wrestling socks on my two year old. I turned on the TV to distract her – and what came on? The live committee meeting for the statewide cable franchise proposal! It didn’t distract her but I got out paper and a pen to take the best notes I could. (Remember, I still had the two year old.) I have wrriten them up as best I could. It’s long but hopefully helpful.