Municipal Networks

Monticello, Minnesota may soon begin building a fiber network to every home and business within its municipality soon. The Minnesota Supreme Court sided with Monticello after incumbent Bridgewater Telephone Co., a subsidiary of TDS Telecommunications of Madison WI, appealed two lower court rulings. (I would suggest the comments be read after the story as well).

Monticello passed, with a majority vote ~70%, to finance $26 million and build the fiber network within in the municipality. The Monticello network creates positive and negative consequences.

Positive:
Fiber network in a town that has previously been bypassed
Connections to every home, not just business or "better neighborhoods"
Possible lower prices (speculation at this point)
A network that is more attentive to the people of the municipality

Negative:
Financial obligation of the municipality towards the network
Overbuilding network, not every house or business may want services
As the article mentions, alienation of private investment in the municipality (speculation as well)
"Government" control over the network

Like any large investment there are negative and positive consequences. Burlington Telecom (Vermont) conducted a similar project several years ago. That entity seems to be doing well. However a quick glance at their Internet speeds/price structure is troublesome. Though it is hard to compare my cable ISP in Wisconsin to a fiber ISP in Vermont.

No matter the outcome of the Monticello fiber network, the project can provide further information for othre municipalities bypassed by incumbent service providers. The municipal model could even lead to such things as Internet service being moved into the utility sector, which I have advocated for quite some time.

Pew Internet Survey

The Pew Internet and American Life Project has released their 2009 Home Broadband Adoption Report. This is always an interesting report, especially that Pew has been conducting this research for multiple years. Overall broadband penetration to households has increased to 63%. Which falls in line with the results of a Strategy Analytics' report mentioned at ArsTechnica.

Important figures from the Pew report show those with lower incomes are continuing to adopt broadband Internet access. For household incomes of $20,000 or less the figures jumped from 25% in 2008 to 35% in 2009. For households with an income between $20,000 and $30,000 the number went from 42% in 2008 to 53% in 2009.

On another note, it appears that the cost of broadband Internet access has increased. Areas with little to no competition have higher prices than locations with multiple access providers. Additionally, the Pew report finds that subscribers are paying more for premium services, those services that offer higher speeds for extra money over the basic fee.

One last point, which is hard to do since there are many interesting pieces of information in these reports. It looks as though African-Americans are for a second year in a row behind in broadband Internet access adoption. It might be time to investigate the reasons for this slow adoption rate.

I would suggest anyone interested in broadband Internet access in the US to read these reports from the Pew Internet and American Life Project. The reports are full of information and tidbits.

Cox Communtions and computer scanning

The term scanning may be incorrect, but I cannot think of a better adjective at the moment. Please note this is a story about a friend, not myself. I am a reformed 'pirate' or 'patriot for free information'.

Last week my friend received a telephone call concerning his Internet connection. It seems that he had finally been busted for downloading the newly released movies and music from other users of Limewire. Cox informed him that they would turn off the Internet connection until they could verify that he had deleted the infringing copyrighted works.

They went so far as to tell him what the file names were and a general time line pertaining to when they were downloaded. Shocked, my friend complied and deleted the files.

When he called Cox back, they activated his Internet service. After about 5 minutes of my friend waiting on hold, Cox confirmed that he had deleted the files.

Here is the conundrum floating around in my head. How did Cox know that he deleted the files? I am pretty sure I know how they discovered they were shared, but how did they know he deleted them? Unless all they did was activate the Internet service and analyze the traffic of Limewire.

My other puzzle is how can they legally monitor the traffic of a user. Obviously they knew the files were there, they had the exact file names. I have read about the services of companies that monitor and download copyrighted work to identify copyright infringement. How is Cox involved though.

So not only do we have the US Government potentially sniffing our communications, but also our ISPs looking into the packets of our communications. (Though some have said this has been going on for a long time).

It should make anyone uneasy. The situation does highlight the need for privacy reform in the United States.

Tiered Internet service

If you have been around the blogs or the technology news websites, you would have seen that Time-Warner Cable has finally begun their tiered Internet testing in Texas.

First, I would like to applaud TWC for taking this step in my own way. *Golf claps*. Seriously though at least TWC is attempting to find a solution to a potentially bad problem.

Time for the criticism. Most of us don't know how much data we transmit in any given month. The service in Texas does provide a metering device to track the usage, but where did the 40GB number come into play as the limit? I cannot say for certain, because I really have no idea what my data download statistics are, but 40GB seems fairly small. Especially when TWC is also including uploading traffic in the data count. What about advertising, sure it may be small amounts, but why should ISP subscribers pay for advertisements? Especially the annoying advertisements that pop up and slide across your screen, not allowing you to accurately hit the 'close' option? These are some smaller, perhaps even trivial aspects that have not been fully explored. Hopefully that the TWC experiment will allow that exploration and for adjustments.

Generally for any ISP exploring pay-per-byte(PPB)...

My understanding is that there is an issue with network management and that certain people are, perhaps, abusing or taking full advantage of a system. For me I am wanting some sort of trade-off from the ISPs. If consumers can move to pay-per-byte with hard limits, from pay-per-month with few limits, what is left to bargain with other than the guarantee of service levels. Part of the reason this is being tested is to examine network effects and hopefully cut down on the high bandwidth users. If consumers make that trade, then there should be some return for their business rather than restrictions on downloads .

$/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.

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.

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.