ISPs and download caps

The download cap debate by ISPs has been swirling around the blogosphere of late. Is there another motive why ISPs would like to see download caps imposed?

Over the past few years the amount of entertainment media on the Internet has exploded. From downloading music posted on discussion boards to watching CBS's Jericho and ABC's Lost online. The amount of entertainment available is staggering, I have only named two of my favourites.

The purpose of download caps is to help ISPs manage their respective networks. After all a report from Sandvine shows that the P2P traffic accounts for 44% of Internet traffic, and 14.8% of Internet traffic is a result of streaming media. (I am not sure where iTunes or Netflix online videos fit into this picture.) ISPs have also argued that network management would help other users, by freeing up some bandwidth from the P2P users. (Wise assumption that we need to test).

However there could be anther reason why ISPs are pushing for download caps. Most of the progams I have seen have a limit, one was for 5GB and another for 40GB total for a month. But each plan has a mechanism in place to allow for more data to be downloaded, for a price. So if you watch a lot of TV online (like me), play a lot of online games (me again), download lots of files (me again, you have to love researching and articles in PDF that are 12MB), or have a particular amount of fun with digital photography which you must share with friends and family(me yet again) you could be in some trouble.

The download caps amount to nothing more than a potential new revenue stream for ISPs, especially if the download caps are small. It should be interesting how the future unfolds.

$/MB: Pay per bit----Coming Soon?!

There was a very interesting article written by Leslie Cauley, for USA Today.

The question of whether paying per bit, ppb, will work is up to the consumers in as much as they may or may not go for the plan. Americans have been sold so well on the idea that Internet access is unlimited to download amounts or content (except the illegal content). What is the benefit for consumers of going to ppb? At the moment it is just chitchat, but what improvements would consumers obtain?

For my own part, I am not too worried about ppb. However, I do not know how much data I transmit on my connection. Three computers and a roommate, may create more traffic than I believe. However, I would want to see incredible strides in download speeds and network uptime in exchange for ppb. That is just for starters though. As talk increases about switching to this business model, further discussion would need to be had concerning the requirements that consumers would place on ISPs.

Need for broadband policy...

The following story is very well written. It also calls for a national broadband policy for the United States. The idea of a national policy has been in my mind for years, and in some others, perhaps by charging per quantity of data downloaded Americans will see a need for a broadband policy instead of a band-aid policy to keep customers satisfied year by year.

Here is the story

The blogs are going crazy...

Today it seems that the ICT policy blogs and Internet blogs are going crazy with news about Connect Kentucky. I believe the original article is here, as I said the blogs are going crazy.

The debates and opinions, to put it nicely, seem to claim that Connect Kentucky is a sham. Some go so far to claim that several pesidential candidates are in league with telecommunications companies. Read what you can and make your own conclusions.

The silly thing about all of this is that there is currently a bill, H.R. 3919 , that will inventory broadband penetration. Perhaps more effort should be put into H.R. 3919, than polarizing Internet policy by political party.

Advertised vs Realised Download Speeds

A recent report by the BBC raises a good question. Advertised vs Realised download speeds have been a discussion point for me, but the subject does not seem to get much traction in the media.

When an ISP advertises download speeds, it usually says something to the effect of 'download speeds up to'. To cover itself in case the download speeds do not reach the advertised speeds. I have found this to be an incredibly dubious practice by ISPs. My own ISP has advertised download speeds between 12-15Mbps, which is true part of the time. I can understand how cable modems work and their networks operate, but consumers should have a garuntee that their ISP will provide them with the advertised download speed. This would of course need to take into account system repairs and so forth and give allowances for unforeseen issues.

There is nothing more frustrating than paying for a service and not getting your monies worth from the service provider. Of course we should also look into why the pricing for broadband Internet access is higher in the US for smaller bandwidths, than in other countries. I thought cable competition was supposed to be high and save consumers money. (That is a commercial a local cable company is running in my area).

On a side note, my ISP actually does a very good job of providing the 12-15Mbps download speeds. I would say around 95% of the time.

Latest FCC meeting shows need for better data collection

The FCC decided that in order to make an informed decisions further data was needed on the penetration and access of cable television services in the US. Apparently the cable service providers have 60 days to provide the FCC with this information. This recent need for better data on communications penetration and access shows how important bills such as the H.R. 3919, Broadband Census of America Act of 2007.
Though H.R. 3919 is geared towards showing broadband Internet access penetration, the same methods can be used to obtain cable television data.

Entertainment drives Internet innovation, desire for speed

Bruce P. Mehlman wrote an intersting tidbit on the Internet Innovation Allicance blog this week. In his post Mehlman comments as to the leading driver of broadband Interenet adoption; entertainment.

This is a statement that I don't believe many can refute. I had not even really thought of the use of the Internet in such a manner. It is available to me and I use it, that is the extent to my thought in how the Internet is used. The Internet is also a hybrid system of entertainment and work. Sure, I play hours of my favourite online game, EVE. However, I also spend a lot of time searching, waiting on files to download, and connecting to different databases. All the while wishing the Internet was faster for my ever growing impatience.

Does the matter that the Internet is mostly used for entertainment mean that we should not develop or increase broadband penetration? Of course not. If anything the realization that the Internet can fulfill several roles of instruments of entertainment and work, should push the penetration for broadband Internet further.


So how does this statement by Mehlman change my view of the Internet? It does not alter my perception that we still lack and need an ICT policy in the US which promotes the penetration of broadband Internet access and the training needed by peoples to use all the technologies available to them.

A shared view of sorts...

Susan Crawford had an excellent post on her blog. Though I think my favourite portion of her post was only a secondary point to freedom of speech/net neutrality, it is a very powerful and important point that needs to become clearer, in my opinion at least.

Society has treated electricity and water as a public utility available to every person. In a similar way telephone communication has transitioned into the same 'utility' view. Our next step is to transition highspeed Internet access to a similar position of a public utility.

In the past the US has transitioned first potable water, then electricity, and then the telephone as utilities with great efforts to spread availability across the country. Many politicos have told us repeatedly that the Internet is the future and that it is vital for American jobs and so forth. Why is it that the US, with all of this political rhetoric, still had not transitioned into thinking that highspeed Internet Access is a utility?

There are many points that I do not understand fully. However, I am sure one of the cons in transitioning to this view is the need for regulation. The last time I tried to research communications regulations, read as FCC publications etc, the regulatory body seemed quite capable of the task. One of the FCC's duties is to promote the best interests of the public. If everyone agrees that the Internet acces is almost mandatory for a prosperous life in the US, why has the FCC not helped to foster an environment of highspeed Internet diffusion or for that matter the rest of the US government?

As with the other public utilites, time was needed to make the transition from viewing electricity and water from amenities to necessities. My hope is that the time required for the US to take step of transition will not be too much longer. The US is slipping further down the OECD rankings and if we do decide to act, it may be too late to catch up to other societies.

U.S. Broadband Map

H.R. 3919 , Broadband Census Act of America of 2007, sets out to map out the service areas of broadband Internet access across the U.S. In the current language of the bill, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the Department of Commerce would collect data down to the 9-digit zip code or census tract level. The bill would also survey consumers as to several aspects of broadband service in their area.

The fact that this bill is now being introduced is a positive step. Positive in that such a broadband inventory can encourage competition by ISPs. The identification of underserved potential customers or wholly ignored areas open to new development could provide a catalyst for increasing broadband Internet access. When broadband Internet access saturation occurs, a broadband map will prove useful to identify further markets open to competition based on prices and speeds available to consumers and businesses.

The bill can also provide information for new residents about services. I know that before I move, typical transitory college student, one of the first questions I ask a landlord is whether broadband Internet access is available. Many times they do not know, and I am left with the duty of going to all the various big name ISPs to see if they offer service in which area. With such a map, a person could cut down the time spent researching for an answer to this question and at the same time see pricing and speed options. (At least the current information for when the map and survey were last conducted, which is to be annually).

Another use for this map is to provide data concerning broadband accessibility, geography, and demography. The data could be used in many imaginative ways. One could be the correlation between broadband accessibility and population income or whether remoteness and low population density are underlying characteristics of communities that do not have access to broadband Internet connectivity.

I would urge that the bill define broadband in terms to the current accepted use of the word. Instead of using the Federal Communication Commission’s 200Kbps speed, I would suggest that a minimum speed in the Mbps, perhaps 5Mbps, be used as a defining characteristic with a separate notation for non-broadband access, say through dial-up access in which speeds are slower than 5Mbps. Of course the 5Mbps was picked at random, but with 10Mbps speeds available in my area, I think 5Mbps would be a nice speed as a minimum.

Public Library Funding & Technology Access Study 2006-2007

Over the weekend I finally found the time to read the very interesting "Library Funding & Technolgy Access Study 2006-2007". Yes the title sounds a bit drab, but within this study is a great deal of information. Especially information that is pertinent to persons interested in ICT Policy and Telecommunications Policy.

In the ICT arena, the study highlights the shortcomings that public libraries are encountering with budgets and physical infrastructure of buildings. In addition to the lack of information professionals for support and improvment of ICT that is already in place. This is occuring when the use of public libraries is increasing, ICT equipment is becoming outdated, bandwidth is beoming maxed out, and budgets are decreasing for public libraries.

The Telecommuniations Policy is brought into the fold with the introduction of bandwidth limits at public libraries. Granted some of the bandwidth limitations are in place voluntarily, but my focus here is that there are some that cannot obtain greater bandwidth due to insufficient infrastructure in the geographical region. This introduces the topic that the U.S. needs a Telecommunications policy that benefits everyone, not only those people that reside in areas where telecommunication companies can make a profit.

There is also so much more information contained in the study, that I would urge even the lonely librarian to devle into its massive 200+ pages. However, many of those pages are charts and graphs.