Broadband 2.0 Manifesto

Thanks to Jim Baller (in his email newsletter) for pointing out the Broadband 2.0 Manifesto. In it from Heavy Reading, a research institute, outlines their manifesto for the next generation of broadband:

1. Abundant bandwidth (100 Mbit/s early on 1 Gbit/s later)
2. A two-way highway
3. Always available (aka always on)
4. Wireless and wireline
5. Open access
6. The channel for video
7. A new communications medium (greater convergence in service)
8. Safe and secure
9. Plug and play
10. Policy-enabled

I wanted to do a quick comparison to this list and the Blandin Foundation principles outlined in the Live at the Speed of Light reports published last year.

1. Ubiquity
2. Symmetry
3. Affordable
4. Competition
5. World Class
6. Collaboration
7. Neutrality
8. Interoperability

It’s not necessarily an apples to apples list. I think World Class could mean Abundant Bandwidth. Open Access could translate into competition. I like Heavy Reading’s addition of Safe and Secure. I like that Blandin has included is affordability.

Service that isn’t affordable really isn’t accessible. Heavy Reading is having a couple of conferences on the Future of the Internet – one was held in NY this week but I don’t see any mention of cost on the agenda.

Drawing a map for broadband

Our fun news of the day is Blandin Foundation President, Jim Hoolihan’s Op-Ed piece in the Pioneer Press.

Jim praises the leadership in the state for their recent decision to create a Broadband Task Force. He offers some advice for the yet-to-be-name task force members:

We commend these principles as a starting point for the state’s broadband task force:

Affordability: Find innovative ways to make broadband affordable in order for all to experience Internet advantages;

Collaboration: Establish public-private collaborations;

Competitiveness: Increased customer choice and innovation are positive outcomes; encourage competition among service providers;

Interoperability: Regardless of the technology used for ultra-high-speed delivery, all systems must seamlessly interoperate with all other technologies;

Neutrality: Ultra-high-speed broadband policy should be promoted regardless of the technology platform that delivers it;

Research: Reward ongoing broadband innovation and continued research;

Symmetry: Provide symmetric speeds (same speeds upstream and downstream) to improve people’s ability to share information;

Ubiquity: Support the concept that eventually ultra-high-speed broadband should be available to every person, business and institution in our state

World class: Settle for nothing less than a world-class ultra-high-speed broadband system.

Net Neutrality Update in US House

Earlier this week a US House subcommittee met to talk further on Net Neutrality. I have to admit, I just couldn’t watch the whole thing this time around but secondary research tells me that it’s pretty much the same as previous meetings. I did listen to the introductory remarks - which we interesting in that they specifically addressed the bill. Well, it specifically poked holes in or uplifted the bill. But the content was similar to previous meetings.

The ISPs don’t want regulation. They feel regulation will squelch the entrepreneurial spirit that has allowed the Internet to take off as it has. The content providers want regulation or they feel that the ISPs will become the information gatekeepers.

Support for the bill runs down party lines. The 2006 version of the bill was not passed due to Republican Majority. But the landscape has changed in two years and this bill is softened from the original. So, it seems more likely to pass this time.

The big issue is the P2P activity online – but no one really knows how big that activity is or how much of that activity is legal. My guess is that no matter how big it is today, it’s going to be bigger in the future. It just seems that anything that helps consumers become producers is a winner.

Minnesota Broadband Task Force: Looking for a Few Good People

I also mentioned this in the eNews edition yesterday – but it seemed important enough to mention here too…

About two weeks ago, the Broadband Study Bill was signed, calling for the creation of a Broadband Task Force. So I am very heartened to see how quickly the Broadband Task Force is getting off the ground.

The Secretary of State’s office just posted a notice of vacancies on their web site. The application deadline is Tuesday, May 27, and the Governor may appoint the members of the Task Force as early as June 6. Not too shabby.

I would encourage folks on the frontline - especially in rural areas to apply for the post. Having real voices from practitioners on the board will greatly increase the value of the final report.

Towards that end, I know that the Blandin Foundation will be working with our Strategy Broad members to help them apply.

New Report: Explaining International Broadband Leadership

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation recently published a new study on why the US is falling behind international counterparts, as indicated by the OECD ranking report, where the US ranks 15th for broadband penetration.

Here’s their list of recommendations – as noted in their executive summary:
To encourage the development of broadband infrastructure (supply) in the United States, we recommend that U.S. policymakers take the following steps:

1.  
   1. Enact more favorable tax policies to encourage investment in broadband networks, such as accelerated depreciation and exempting broadband services from federal, state, and local taxation.
   2. Continue to make more spectrum, including “white spaces,” available for next-generation wireless data networks.
   3. Expand the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service Broadband Program and target the program to places that currently do not have non-satellite broadband available.
   4. Reform the federal Universal Service Fund program to extend support for rural broadband to all carriers, and consider providing the funding through a reverse auction mechanism.
   5. Fund a national program to co-fund state-level broadband support programs, such as Connect Kentucky or North Carolina e-NC Authority.
   6. Promote the widespread use of a national, user-generated, Internet-based broadband mapping system that would track location, speed, and price of broadband.
   7. State and local governments should take action to make it easier for providers to deploy broadband services, including making it easier to access rights-of-way.

To encourage the growth of consumer demand for broadband, we recommend that U.S. policymakers take these steps:

1.  
   1. Support initiatives around the nation to encourage broadband usage and digital literacy.
   2. Fund a revitalized Technology Opportunities Program, with a particular focus on the development of nationally scalable Web-based projects that address particular social needs, including law enforcement, health care, education, and access for persons with disabilities.
   3. Exempt broadband Internet access from federal, state, and local taxes.
   4. Support new applications, including putting more public content online, improving e-government, and supporting telework, telemedicine, and online learning programs.
      By adopting these recommendations, U.S. policymakers would give broadband providers the economic incentives to invest in broadband infrastructure both in rural and urban areas of the country and give consumers the incentives to subscribe to broadband, particularly higher speed broadband.

I have to say that I *love* the second part of the list. I just think the best way to increase broadband penetration is to increase demand. Yes we still would certainly need the incentives to build out to more remote areas – but with customers on the other end that incentive might only be necessary for the build-out, not the operation and maintenance.

That’s not to say that I don’t think policy is valuable too. The report indicates that nations that make broadband a priority and put resources into broadband fare better than those who don’t. It seems obvious but a report never hurts to punctuate the point.

The reports also goes on to suggest that it makes sense to see what other countries of done, consider options that have worked in statewide programs (naming Kentucky and North Carolina) but to realize that one size does not fit all.

Senate Network Neutrality Hearing Recap from Benton

The Benton Foundation has done a great job of tracking Tuesday’s US Senate Meeting on the Future of the Internet.

The main topic was Net Neutrality. FCC Chairman Martin stands firm on the FCC’s responsibility to ensure that the public and full and unfettered access to the Internet to pursue legal activity. Senator Daniel Inouye (who introduced the Broadband Data Improvement Act) is optimistic about recent activity around Net Neutrality. People seem to be working together. And then lots of content providers came out in favor of Net Neutrality and the network providers came out against that barrier on their business plans.

The full story (from Benton) includes a link to Justine Batemen’s testimony (that would be Mallory Keaton to many of us).

Broadband Policy Status in MN & US

I’ve been waiting on official word that Governor Pawlenty signed the Broadband Study Bill. He signed on April 17, but official notice has been slow to surface – but I just found a scanned copy of the bill and the signature on the GIG Group’s web site.

So I’m going to call that official and share the news here.

Also I wanted to share a great map of broadband policy activity in the US. The map was created and kindly shared by the GIG group. It gives a nice easy (very high level) view of what’s happening around the country.

West Virginia Has a Broadband Plan

Earlier this month, West Virginia signed West Virginia’s Internet access bill into law.

In short the law says that they want the stat covered by broadband by 2010. Most of the state is already covered but some remote areas remain un-served.

They recognize that the mountains will make the job tougher and that the high percentage of elderly and low income populations makes the demand low. So they are adding a component to stimulate demand in these areas.

Here is how they define broadband:

Broadband” or “broadband service” means any service providing advanced telecommunications capability with either a downstream data rate or upstream data rate of at least 200 kilobits per second, that does not require the end-user to dial up a connection, and for which the transmission speeds are based on regular available bandwidth rates, not sporadic or burstable rates, with a minimum downstream-to-upstream data ration of 10:1 for services with a downstream data rate of up to five megabits per second, and with a minimum upstream data rate of 500 kilobits per second for services with a downstream data rate of five megabits per second or greater.

They have created a Broadband Council to oversee the effort. The Council members are not paid but will have control over a budget.

The plan is to create a map to determine need, create a plan to stimulate demand, and set up a plan for funding when necessary.

Rehash of the Spectrum Auction

Earlier today, I watched the Energy and Commerce hearing on the Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission – the 700 MHz Auction. It was long. I tried to link to prepared speeches when I could and otherwise keep my observations at a very high level. But this is still a long post but I hope this will help you either find the video or save you from having to watch it. If you do watch - fast forward to the last 20 minutes for the exciting part where Dingell grills the Cyren Call folks.

Who should build the network in US or UK?

Thanks to Ann Higgins for sending me two articles on policy and provide business – one article from the US and one from the UK.

First in the US (Free Press Offers ‘Olive Branch’ to Cable) is an update on the Free Press versus Comcast situation. Free Press complained to the FCC that Comcast was throttling traffic of BitTorrent users. After one (I think one) public session with the FCC, Comcast shifted gears and set up a partnership of sorts with BitTorrent.

Now the Free Press is kind of siding with Comcast saying that they understand that the cable companies need to manage traffic (which might lead to the appearance of the traffic throttling). But they did mention that the real problem is that the cable companies have no adequately upgraded their network.

From the UK, there was another article on the need for broadband. I can’t find the article online (A Looming Crisis—BBC & Co Overload U.K. Broadband Network from Global Insight). So I’ll have to paste a bit:

A row last week about the effect of the BBC iPlayer and similar online TV/video content websites has re-ignited a debate about the need for a new high-speed broadband network in the United Kingdom, and, crucially, who would pay to build the new one, and run both the new and the old networks.

Ofcom, which is kind of like the UK version of the FCC, has been looking into it and the expected cost for the upgrade is about £830 million (US$1.64 billion). Most people seem to feel that the ISPs should pick up the tab. Apparently, they have agreed to pay somewhat:

In November 2007, the U.K. government waded in to the debate, summoning top telecoms chiefs to debate how to fund the network. Over the weekend, the new chief executive of BT, Ian Livingston, suggested BT may be willing to invest the circa £15 billion required for a new fibre network, but challenged Ofcom to tweak the Universal Services rules to make it easier for BT to recoup its investment.

So two worlds apart but the same issue – how can the bandwidth keep pace with application and content providers?