Recently in Broadband Category

Another filing deadline, another blast of press releases about the Comcast "network management" debacle.

To quote the great philosopher Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?"

No, really. This topic gets people in an uproar, whether it's the good and well-meaning people at Free Press and Public Knowledge, who brought the complaint, or the folks at Comcast and their NCTA brethren, who have made a valiant effort at reaching out to the Internet community and explaining themselves. They have a great blog. Seriously.

At first, I think there was some justified anger out there. I know there was some major ranting on this blog about what was, in hindsight was a poor P.R. response on the part of Comcast.

See, Network Neutrality was originally this fear that the owners of the big pipes were going to charge Google and others premiums to have their content carried, despite the fact that GOOG and their ilk already pay. This came out of some rather inartful comments by the CEO of what was then AT&T, who ranted about Internet companies making money using "his" infrastructure.

This whole "network management" issue is totally different, but the Network Neutrality debate shifted from the long-haul to the last mile. And Comcast, bless them, didn't react well. First they said there was nothing going on, then admitted it. Then back in March they announced an agreement to try and work out the technical issues that make Cable so difficult a platform to deliver consistant bandwidth on when P2P applications come into play.

Skip ahead to today. Free Press blasted out a release saying it's time for Comcast to "come clean" on their practices, when we know what they are doing, and have known for months.

"Last month, the FCC found Comcast guilty of violating users' online rights," Free Press said. But let's be honest here. Guilty? Last time I looked, not only was the FCC not a criminal court, but there is even dispute over whether or not the FCC can regulate broadband.

But a Free Press spokesperson said that guilty, which has a specific meaning in criminal law, was appropriate as a term of art, "given the amount of deception involved."

Ben Scott, FP's Policy Director even suggested that Comcast might go "AWOL," and not file. But a spokesperson for Comcast was quite adamant in assuring me that the "highly technical" filings would be in the commission's hands "by close of business." Comcast will also make them available at http://www.comcast.net/networkmanagement after filing them with the commission.

Let's cool off until we see what everyone's cards are, shall we?

Ok, so yesterday I posted the witness list for today's Net Neutrality/Broadband hearing. I could have woken up at 5am to beat the line standers and get a seat with the lobbyists who pay people to stand in line for them in the halls of the Rayburn building, but I didn't. I could be listening on the Audio Webcast. I tuned in for about 10 minutes, and haven't been impressed yet. I've got other projects, other things to work on, so I'm listening but my attention has not been caught. Why? Have you ever turned on your favorite TV show expecting a new episode and instead getting a rerun, or worse yet, a 3 hour extended version of American Idol? You know what you'll be seeing and hearing. No surprises, nothing to discuss with your friends. Just the same, this hearing, despite a few new faces, was a rerun in a series over the past year or so, including a few at the FCC. 

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) and his Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will be holding a hearing tomorrow on H.R. 5353, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008. The bill would direct the FCC to figure out exactly how many households get real Broadband service, as well as establish very basic Net Neutrality protections.

Steve Peterman, Executive Producer, Hannah Montana (against)
Mitch Bainwol, CEO, RIAA (against)
Kyle McSlarrow, CEO, NCTA (against)
Ben Scott, Director, Free Press (for)
Walter McCormick, CEO, USTA (against)
Christopher Yoo, CDT (against, academically)
Michelle Coombs, Christian Coalition (for)
Scott Savitz, Shoebuy.com (for)

Google, MS, Dell and the rest of the White Spaces Coalition (WSC) want to keep white spaces unlicensed.  They want the unused spectrum to be available for use to anyone, the way the internet is.

Sprint and T-Mobile want white spaces to opened up as well.  But under licenses.  Specifically, they want to license the spectrum and use it for backhauling. CTIA  has joined Sprint  and T-Mo (the number 3 and 4 wireless carriers in the country) in supporting the use of white spaces under licenses.  CTIA pointed out that they're worried about interference with devices on the licensed portion of the spectrum, but FCC-mandated tests are being run on potential white space devices to make sure that doesn't happen.

I'm a little torn or the issue.  On the one hand, it would be great to be able to buy a white space device and access the internet for surfing or Skype-ing.  On the other hand Verizon and AT&T (who surprising aren't voicing opposition to the White Space Coalition) spent billions of dollars for 700MHz licenses.  Is it really fair for the WSC to roll out devices that will access that same spectrum without paying for a license?  Although the 700MHz spectrum could be used for voice calls Verizon has already stated that they're going to use theirs to roll out LTE, their next generation wireless broadband.  I don't see them as being happy with white spaces being used for the same thing.

I (as I've said close to 258,798,663,325,458 times) am not a lawyer or anything, but here's my common sense take on white spaces.

If you think (or know) that I'm way off base, please leave comments.


More on CTIA vs Unlicensed White Spaces at FireceWireless.

Yesterday, I had the honor of speaking with Ambassador Richard Russell, who headed the U.S. delegation to Geneve in October and November of 2007 for the World Radio Telecommuncations Conference. Every four years, the U.N. mandates that the members get together and decide where they're going to put "new stuff" and how handle other issues, such as talking to satellites (and robots, although in the interests of security we didn't talk about that. because remember, persons denying the existence of robots may be robots themselves.) and standardizing usage to minimize international interference and maximize compatibility. This results in a binding treaty that, surprisingly, we really do care about honoring.

Ambassador Russell gave me a look inside what went on, and while I don't have any sound bytes or podcasts for you, I hope this will shed some light on why things are the way they are, and what we have in store for the future.

Two major issues came up at the outset, which were

1) where to put the next generation "Wireless Broadband" and what specific technologies would be used.

2) How to protect the new Wi-Max standard from Satellite interference.

First off, I did ask about White Spaces and unlicensed spectrum. He pointed out that at the last WRC in 2003, the U.S. successfully pushed for the 802.11 standard to be adopted for Wi-Fi internationally in an unlicensed band, and that internationally, there is an understanding that unlicensed is an important category.

Next, I asked about FCC Chairman Martin's CTIA remarks (re Skype) and how Ambassador Russell felt in his role as deputy director of OSTP how he felt we as a nation could continue to innovate and create an environment with a diverse marketplace.

He responded that we want to make sure that new technologies "get a shot," and steered us back to the WRC proceedings, where the U.S. took a position in defining what the "IMT" (International Mobile Telecommunications) standard would be in governing what would be considered acceptable for using that term.

With regard to Wi-Max, Germany and China wanted to specifically exclude it, but we were able to roll Wi-Max into the standard, which pushed the WRC to expand the spectrum reserved for IMT to include the 700Mhz band.

This is a big deal. While we're going to have that 700Mhz area available at this time next year, many countries aren't transitioning to DTV so early (Mexico is waiting until 2020). On the other hand, many developing countries are going straight to DTV. This means that 700Mhz won't be encumbered already and it'll be internationally sanctioned (including across the Americas, China, Japan, Singapore and India) for mobile broadband. Europe, on the other hand, is going to reevaluate this in 2015. Big picture? 700Mhz (and Wi-Max) is here to stay for  information services.

What did I take away? America is still the leader on many technlogical issues, and if we're on the right track, the world will follow our lead.

Verizon Wireless announced that it plans to use it's block of the 700 Megahertz spectrum to build out its LTE (Long Term Evolution) network.  This is their next-generation wireless broadband answer as opposed to their CDMA competition (Sprint's) banking on WiMax.  AT&T said that they will use their 700MHz spectrum for LTE as well.  VZW's spectrum block is nation-wide as opposed to AT&T who won several regional licenses.

 

While I'm excited to see what VZW and AT&T can do with LTE there is something that is a little troubling to me - LTE is a GSM technology.  Verizon (and Sprint) use CDMA for their current networks.  It makes me wonder what VZW's move is going to be.  Will they have LTE data-only devices, like aircards, and still use CDMA/EVDO for phones?  Will it be like when AT&T/Cingular transitioned?  Are they going to maintain CDMA, but just until they can transition their customers to newer devices that will use the LTE network?

 

Verizon has marketed itself as being of the highest quality.  Although they're the number 2 carrier in the country, they're generally the highest-rated when it comes to quality and reliability.  I'm pretty confident that they'll figure out a way handle a transition (if it is a true transition as opposed to a dual-network scenario) with a minimal impact on service or call quality.

 

AT&T upset a lot of TDMA customers who they forced into GSM after their switch and Sprint still doesn't seem like they know what the heck they're doing as far as phasing out Nextel's iDEN network in favor of CDMA.  I guess now it's Verizon's turn.

 

Details at Verizon.

Details from AT&T.

Nokia showed off its N810 WiMax Edition, a mobile computing device with slide-out keyboard and 4.13" screen.  The new WiMax Edition will come equipped with web browsing, powered by Mozilla, and will even support a number of VoIP services, such as Skype.

 

I don't quite know how to react.  Sure, the N810 WiMax Edition can make calls using a VoIP (Voice over Internet Provider) client, but it doesn't seem to have a dedicated phone function in the same way that a BlackBerry or an iPhone does.  Also, if the screen is 4.13" that seems like it would make the N810 a little, well, large to be comfortably used as a phone on a day-to-day basis.  As we, and the washington Post, have commented before, does anyone really have room for another device to carry around with them?

 

Personally, I see WiMax like any other type of wireless data.  I think that the implementation would make a lot more sense if it was treated like EVDO or EDGE - just a faster connection to embed in high-end phones (and eventually not-so-high-end ones) and aircards.  I'm sort of thinking that anyone who would really be enticed by the N810 is probably taking their laptop with them everywhere, and the N810 can't compete with that kind of power.  A WiMax aircard, however, would let the user take their laptop online on the go, without the need for a stand-alone unit fo rmobile browsing.

WiMax has a huge potential to revolutionize the way we look at a wireless internet connection and has the power to allow people to replace their wired internet with it.  I feel like having a device whose comrades have floundered in the States (yes, i'm bringing up the Mylo again) as the flagship ambassador of WiMax is a bad idea.  Why not talk to RIM about bowing a WiMax BB8800 series?  Or preview a BB9000 with WiMax?

 

Currently, Sprint has a soft-launch WiMax network running in Chicago, DC and Baltimore.  They'r eexpecting nationwide rollout this year and are, in cooperation with Clearwire, looking for outside funds from Comcast, Time Warner and Google, to name a few.

 

Full press release at Nokia.

Left to Right:

I arrived late to this talk because I was finishing out an interview, but as I walked in Mr. Lynch is noting (correctly) that Verizon's mission is to be "at the forefront of customer demand." This, he says, is the reason behind Verizon's Open Access initiative. 

...by which I mean I'm ditching the DSL. I have a Sprint EvDO Rev A USB modem and a Personal HotSpot router on the way...which mean, I can carry my broadband wherever I go. Wireless. Cordless. I can give you live photostreams or even (good god!) streaming video if I decide to go that way. Maybe some audio.