What is in a name?

How does government define the term 'broadband'? For years the term was defined solely quantitatively. Now that the FCC has asked for comments on defining and creating metrics to measure broadband, there are some proposals to include more than mere quantitative criteria such as:

Network neutral operation (no blocking legal material, no throttling of connections...)
Ability to watch streaming video, HD video, without noticeable lag
Ability to play games with low latency

There are numerous suggestions, which can be seen here. Defining the term broadband is important, and there is consensus on this point. However the number of stakeholders with a vested interest in defining broadband may not be able to reach an agreeable definition.

The process that the FCC has started does at least allow for input into the decision making process from any interested parties. For years many broadband access advocates decried the early definition of broadband as out of date and unrepresentative of the real world.

For my own part, I do wish broadband access was available for everyone, but realize many factors influence download and upload speeds that users experience during Internet usage. Yet it is my opinion that we should keep it simple and reach consensus on the following core points to define broadband.

1) Download and upload speeds as realized between the user and the ISP local office/node should be measured by the FCC. ISPs advertise certain speeds, but often cannot in reality deliver those speeds outside of the local area. Admittedly I am unaware of exactly what speeds are needed for popular activities such as watching streaming video and VOIP. I would suggest that the speed requirements for both functions be a basis to define broadband.

2)Data that can be legally accessed, to include websites and P2P networks, will not be blocked by ISPs.

3) Network management is acceptable. An ISP will manage its network as it deems prudent to maintain overall performance to end users and maintain compliance with points 1 and 2.

My recommendations are quite simple and will surely strike a wrong chord with some, but it is an attempt to bring the different stakeholders together on, what I feel, are three core issues that have emerged in the discussion to define broadband.

Further legislation for a US Broadband map

After reading through and hearing some reports that the stimulus plan was including a broadband provision I was, of course, curious to see what that provision contained. Unfortunately the reports that I had heard were only saying that the broadband provision was to spread broadband service to unserved areas of America (not very helpful reports). Which I completely support. However how are 'they' to know who is unserved? Several states have taken upon themselves to conduct a broadband service map. Yet the federal government had not until late last year decided a map was important (see P.L. 110-385 Broadband Data Improvement Act).

In the latest version of the stimulus package available to me, February 10, 2009, there is a provision that again calls for the creation of a US Broadband Map (Title II-Section 201(l)(9 and 10)). This is in conjunction with the Broadband Data Improvement Act passed last year (P.L. 110-385). Granted P.L. 110-385 has not had enough time to full implements. I am rather happy that there is a definite timetable within the stimulus package for release of a broadband map of the United States. Except the time tables do not really match up for funding broadband expansion and release of the map. The stimulus plans says that all funds for the Broadband Technology Opportunities provision are to be dispensed by 2010. However the map has to be release no later than 2 years after the passage of the stimulus plan.

Maybe we are putting the cart before the horse on this one. Perhaps it would be better, or would have been better if the language is not changed, to complete the map first.

Finally a broadband inventory

For quite some time I have been suggesting that the only way to solve disparities in broadband penetration across the country is to make a better accounting of the current status of the infrastructure. Finally, it seems that the US Congress has had a eureka moment, in which they also see that merely talking about increasing broadband penetration is not working.

So now we have the Broadband Data Improvement Act, S. 1492. Maybe now, after all of these years, we can finally lay the ground work for a broadband policy. A policy driven by national need and not private corporations.

I know that I, and many others, will be eagerly awaiting the data and reports that come from this act.

Wouldn't it be nice?

As I read the reports from varying blogs about the recent FCC meeting at Harvard, I tend to become jealous. Of the recent past, most important policy matters and open hearings take place on either one of the coasts. Rarely does the government solicit input from the rest of the country. You know the "fly over" states.

This comes to my mind after reading the reports that Comcast paid for people to attend the FCC meeting. Yes, I agree completely that paying for a person to attend a government policy event is akin to voter fraud. However, at least someone got to attend the meeting while the rest of us are left out. Out in the middle of the nation.

The point that I am attempting to pice together is that policy meetings such as these should not have limits to those that may attend. If a room fills, move to another facility. The University of Oklahoma has learned this lesson really well, when a visitor such as Al Gore and his global warming speech come to campus. The other real question to ask is why did the FCC only have one meeting? Why were there only a limited number of people allowed?

I am not convinced Comcast destroyed the democratic process of this meeting, I was not there and have not seen the proverbial smoking gun. Maybe the FCC destroyed the democratic process by excluding those that showed up at Harvard or those of us who live in the rest of the nation. Maybe the FCC should go to the people in more than one instance.

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