Why is this page text-only?

ABOUT

Geoff Daily

App-Rising.com covers the development and adoption of broadband applications, the deployment of and need for broadband networks, and the demands placed on policy to adapt to the revolutionary opportunities made possible by the Internet.

App-Rising.com is written by Geoff Daily, a DC-based technology journalist, broadband activist, marketing consultant, and Internet entrepreneur.

App-Rising.com is supported in part by AT&T, however all views and opinions expressed herein are solely my own.

« July 2008 | Main | September 2008 »

August 2008 Archives

August 4, 2008 9:34 AM

Don't Watch The Olympics If Your Bandwidth Is Metered

Wow, the impact of metered bandwidth is starting to be felt.

If you want to watch Olympic video online, then you'd better not be using a broadband connection that's metered, or so warns the site where you can download the app that'll let you watch it. Here's what it says:

"The NBC Olympics On The Go software is designed to keep you up-to-date with the latest Olympic events. The software will initiate downloads without notification. Since the NBC Olympics On The Go software delivers large video files, it may use a lot of bandwidth. This software is not recommended for people with dial-up or metered broadband Internet access."

On the one hand, I'm glad NBC and TVTonic included this warning. To use this service you need to download and install an app that will then download videos as they're posted rather than as you request them. As such, it's easy to imagine users who want to watch a lot of Olympics video but don't track their bandwidth usage getting hit with massive penalties when their August broadband bill comes around. So it'd be irresponsible for NBC and TVTonic not to include some form of a warning.

But this is also an incredibly depressing reality. The whole reason to pay for broadband is to enable you to enjoy services like this. You get broadband to watch video, and there are few events that'll attract more viewers wanting to watch video than the Olympics. Yet those viewers may now get penalized for that interest. And the more they want to watch, the more they're going to get penalized.

While I absolutely understand that there's a need for network operators to make sure they're making and not losing money by offering broadband services, but this is truly an untenable situation.

What good is broadband if you can't use it for things like watching video from the Olympics?

Del.icio.us Digg Yahoo! My Web Seed Newsvine reddit Technorati

August 5, 2008 8:47 AM

Chairman Martin: Let's Be Realistic About The Potential Of Free Wireless Broadband

I've been reading a lot lately about FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's desire to create competition and bridge the digital divide in the broadband marketplace through wireless broadband. More specifically, he has his sights set on auctioning off wireless spectrum and mandating the winner deploy free wireless broadband delivering speeds of at least 768Kbps to 95% of the country in the next 10 years.

While I'm all for finding new ways to spur deployment, increase availability, and generally move our country's broadband infrastructure forward, I think we need to be realistic about the merits of a plan like this.

First off, Martin seems to think there's a proven business model in offering free, ad-supported service, but last I checked isn't that the same model that's credited with bringing about the failure of municipal wireless initiatives across the country? My general understanding is that at least to date, free and ad-supported broadband has not yet proven to be a self-sustaining model in cities, so how can we expect that it will be the silver bullet for fixing our broadband woes across the entire country?

Secondly, while free service could be great, just because it's free doesn't mean people will be able to use it as you still need a computer, the appropriate modem or network card for accessing the wireless network, and a sufficient enough understanding of how the computer and the Internet works to actually do something with it once all the technological pieces are in place. As I've said before and will say again and again: deployment is only half the battle, we also need to address adoption and use.

Third, I can't help but chuckle at the thought of our goal being to enable universal "broadband" at 768Kbps in a decade. Think about 10 years ago. It was 1998 and dialup was still the norm. Now it's hard to imagine how people survived with so little speed, and already today 768Kbps seems pretty pathetic, so what good are those kinds of speeds going to be in 10 years? Will having free 768Kbps available everywhere be worth anything when the leading broadband countries are well on their way to universal 1Gbps?

Fourth, I'm a bit flabbergasted that even with these slow speeds and with the express intent of enabling universal access that we can't set the goal of 100% deployment. The whole challenge we face is not in getting broadband everywhere, it's finding a way to cover that last 5-10% of America that private carriers don't find economical to deploy in. I know the economics are ugly, but simply ignoring 5% of the country is roughly equivalent to saying an area the size of Montana just doesn't matter when it comes to bringing America into the 21st century.

Fifth, there's been talk that this free wireless broadband network would also be weighted down with the burden of enabling smut-free service that actively blocks pornographic and other inappropriate materials. This idealism is troubling on many fronts:

- Who defines what's appropriate and inappropriate? Would a family photo of a shirtless child be considered child pornography?

- Any time you start talking about filtering anything, you're adding expense and complexity, and often service will suffer. You can't talk about filtering as an abstract good without acknowledging what it will take to implement that ideal.

- Let's be frank: one of the most successful killer apps for getting people to use broadband is porn. I'm not necessarily saying we should be promoting porn, but if the goal is to get people to use the Internet more, then it will be counterproductive to limit their access to one of the most proven ways of getting people interested in going online.

So in the end, while I support Chairman Martin's ideals of finding a way to enable universal access, we have to be realistic about the impact of a plan to try and spur the deployment of free, slow, and not quite universally available access to wireless broadband.

This will not be a silver bullet for broadband, and before we commit to following through on it let's make sure that we're spending our time, money, and energy in the most appropriate way. We can't let idealism get in the way of reality when it comes to plotting out our country's broadband future.

Del.icio.us Digg Yahoo! My Web Seed Newsvine reddit Technorati

August 6, 2008 9:45 AM

Announcing The Inaugural Lafayette CampFiber

One great frustration for advocates of fiber has long been the underutilization of the capacity full fiber networks deliver. Most applications don't require that much bandwidth, and most developers don't yet seem to be thinking in terms of what's possible in a world where bandwidth scarcity transforms into bandwidth abundance.

Well it's time we shift that paradigm by announcing the world's first CampFiber.

Born from the idealistic model of a BarCamp, which is an ad hoc unconference for open source developers where the attendees are also the presenters, a CampFiber is a free and open event for developers, programmers, and entrepreneurs to come together, learn about the capabilities of a full fiber network, and discuss/brainstorm the next generation of big bandwidth applications.

The first CampFiber is set to be held in Lafayette, LA on October 4th. Lafayette, as you'll remember, is in the process of building one of the fastest residential networks in the country, where in addition to 10Mbps up and down being the lowest speed broadband available, every subscriber will also gain access to a free 100Mbps intranet through which they can communicate with other people on the network.

This kind of a bandwidth-rich environment is perfect for developing new applications, especially when you combine it with the dynamic computing power available from the Abacus Data Exchange through their LiquidIQ broadband fabric computing solution.

The Lafayette CampFiber will be an opportunity for local developers to come together and hear from LUS about the capabilities of the network and Abacus about the capabilities of LiquidIQ.

The event will also feature a local leaders roundtable where representatives from education, government, healthcare, and business will sit down, share their pain points, and provide a wishlist for functions they wish they had applications to fill in the hopes of sparking the imagination of developers to create substantial apps that improve society rather than just another YouTube.

And included in the festivities will be a session on VC 101, which will educate budding entrepreneurs on the opportunities to raise capital to fund the businesses that will make these ideas a reality.

I'd like to thank LUS and Abacus for their sponsorship of this event. The goals we're setting out to achieve are manifold:

- Inspire local developers to dream up the next generation of the Internet
- Raise awareness across the state and country of the opportunities to be found in Lafayette for developers
- To help Lafayette prepare itself to take full advantage of the capacity they're putting in the ground
- And, ultimately, to establish a model that can be taken to other fiber communities across the US

To learn more keep an eye on this site.

If you're going to be in Lafayette Oct. 4th and have interest in developing the next generation of Internet apps, you can register for the event for free here.

Or just continue following along here on App-Rising.com as I track our progress and document our hopeful successes.

Del.icio.us Digg Yahoo! My Web Seed Newsvine reddit Technorati

August 7, 2008 8:34 AM

Connectivity Bad For Business?

In talking about broadband specifically and connectivity more generally, there's often the assumption that more is better. That businesses in particular can not survive without it in the 21st century. That if only we had more and used more, businesses would be more efficient, more effective, and more profitable. But in talking yesteday with David Olson, cable director for Portland, I learned that this isn't always the case.

He recounted to me how last week he was on a fishing trip with family up to a remote area of Vancouver Island, far enough removed that it took a full day and multiple modes of transport to get to the final destination.

He then shared the anecdote he heard while up there of a local community having the opportunity to vote for spreading wireless connectivity across the area but ultimately voting against becoming more connected.

The reason why? The business community convinced people it would be a bad idea for tourists to be able to connect back to the real world.

The reason for this? Because once people are connected the odds that their trips will be cut short by happenings back home increase dramatically.

Whether based on anecdotes, hard facts, or a gut feeling, the local economy of outfitters, boat operators, campgrounds, and more were, and likely still are, convinced that by improving their connectivity it would be bad for business as the less time tourists spend in the area the less they're spending on local goods and services.

What's fascinating about this story isn't so much that an area voted against better connectivity; in the case of municipal broadband efforts that happens with some regularity. What's interesting is that these people seem to have a legitimate reason for believing better connectivity is bad for business.

What this highlights, as David pointed out, is that despite the many wonders of our highly interconnected world, that there is still a place for providing the opportunity to unplug the fiber running directly to our brains and disconnect from the rest of the real world.

What sparked this whole conversation was my sarcastically asking what the connectivity was like up there in the woods, fully expecting him to lament its inadequacy.

Instead he seemed like he hadn't even considered that lack of connectivity as any sort of a negative, but instead he welcomed the opportunity to get away from it all, if even for just the week or two of a trip.

And you know what? While sometimes it feels like not being able to get online is the end of the world, I'm starting to purposefully set aside the Internet in my own life. It can be really nice to go into a weekend not thinking about checking your email and looking up the latest news but instead focusing all of your attention on just being, on enjoying life, on appreciating the company of loved ones.

So though I may be one of the biggest advocates for ubiquitous connectivity, it's important we all remember that just because broadband's a good thing, that doesn't mean it will ever be universally accepted. Because sometimes people just want to get away from it all, and for the industries built up around those experiences, sometimes being more connected is not necessarily a good thing.

Del.icio.us Digg Yahoo! My Web Seed Newsvine reddit Technorati

August 7, 2008 12:20 PM

Tune In Online To The Olympics

By this point you've probably heard about NBC's ambitious efforts to bring hundreds if not thousands of hours of Olympics coverage to the Internet.

But the saturation of online Olympics coverage doesn't end there. Check out this site from Wired Magazine listing the many ways in which you can use your broadband connection to access live and on-demand video from this year's Summer Games, which start tomorrow.

Del.icio.us Digg Yahoo! My Web Seed Newsvine reddit Technorati

August 8, 2008 10:44 AM

If I Ran AT&T... I'd Buy Skype

Welcome to the start of a new feature on App-Rising.com where I step into the hypothetical by imagining what I'd do if given the reins to run AT&T.

From my new perch atop a multi-billion dollar corporation, my first order of business is to address the inescapable reality that the traditional landline telephone business is headed towards extinction.

In the last quarter alone, we lost 1.5 million phone lines. And because of the combination of consumers dropping landlines for cellphones and both cable companies and VoIP providers offering new competition, this trend doesn't appear as though it will abate any time soon.

Making matters worse is that once these customers are gone they're likely not coming back. So rather than allow this slow bleed to continue, I need to make a bold move: getting out of the landline telephone business.

This plan starts with buying Skype. There are multiple reasons for doing so:

- Skype has a strong brand.
- It has a built-in global user base.
- It's more feature-rich than AT&T's current VoIP offering.
- It's rumored eBay wants to sell so it should be available.

Next up, I'll convert all my landline telephone customers to DSL customers.

I'd equip them with modems and provide them both data and Skype-powered phone services for the same price they're paying right now.

Obviously this won't be simple or cheap to do.

First there's the cost of buying Skype, though it could probably be had for a couple billion and for a company with revenues of more than $100 billion, I think we can manage it.

The DSL speeds offered will probably have to be the slowest available, but then there'll be opportunities to upsell them to faster speeds.

There'll have to be some integration work done so that customers' phones still work with the new service, but once we crack that nut it should expand the base of customers further into the mainstream that I can market my Skype-powered VoIP services to.

To make this a success, there are massive education efforts that'll be needed to help customers understand what's happening and why it's such a great thing for them, but during this process there'll be opportunity to sell additional value-added products that can drive new revenue.

In the short-term there's no doubt this would be a huge cost, but in the long-term if it can help stave off the losses that currently seem inevitable, these costs will likely pay for themselves by the number of customers it can help retain.

And its a proactive policy that proves my commitment to delivering value to my customers, rather than squatting on the status quo and watching while the tub slowly drains of water.

Plus, by moving customers en masse to IP, it'll open up many new opportunities to sell new services to them. Today, there's not much you can sell a telephone-only customer other than cheaper long distance packages. But tomorrow once all customers are IP-enabled, there'll be many opportunities to drive new revenues through new services and applications.

This may sound like an extreme first step to take in my new role as head of AT&T, but I believe quite strongly that if we ignore these megatrends we risk being left behind. So instead it's better to bite the bullet and get out ahead of the curve.

It's time for AT&T to get out of the landline business, buy Skype, and embrace the future that broadband is bringing about.

Del.icio.us Digg Yahoo! My Web Seed Newsvine reddit Technorati

August 11, 2008 2:26 PM

VidChat: Michael Johnston Says To FCC, "Just Tell Us The Rules" On Net Neutrality

On Friday August 1st, the FCC came down with its ruling against Comcast for its previous treatment of P2P traffic, where during times of peak usage they would prevent/stall users from connecting to P2P networks.

This decision did not come without disagreement among the Commissioners, and reactions have been mixed, with some calling it a victory for neutrality, others disappointed at the leniency of the penalties, Comcast still claiming innocence, and AT&T/Verizon crediting it as proof that the current regulatory structure protecting net neutrality is sufficient.

But these only represent some of the opinions and truths about what the FCC's ruling really means to the future of the Internet. Last week in an email chain with Michael Johnston, VP of IT at Jackson Energy Authority, a municipal fiber deployer in Jackson, TN, I learned that because of how vague the FCC's ruling was, the uncertainty that creates is hampering their ability to move forward with certainty when it comes to innovating on their network.

This is an important message for everyone to recognize about the potential downside of pursuing imprecise regulation/legislation of network management on the pace of innovation in bringing about the next generation of the Internet.

Here's a link to that previous VidChat I did with Michael where we discussed the challenges of delivering P2P traffic as a network operator and what this all means in relation to his belief that the solution to concerns about net neutrality can and should be found in market-driven solutions.

You can find, download, and read the various opinions of the FCC Commissioners on the FCC's homepage. Just scroll down a bit and they're listed in the entry on 8/1.

If you'd like to join the conversation, have something interesting to say, and want to do a VidChat with me on this or related subjects, submit a comment with your email address and I'll contact you to schedule a time and share with you what you need to get set up.

Despite the impression that net neutrality is an issue with two polarized sides heavily entrenched against the other, I'm a firm believer that in the end everyone agrees more than they disagree on this subject. If we can just sit down and listen to all affected parties we'll be able to find real solutions to these real problems.

Del.icio.us Digg Yahoo! My Web Seed Newsvine reddit Technorati

August 12, 2008 10:11 AM

The Downside of Hosted Apps: Gmail Goes Down

Yesterday myself and millions of other Gmail users were faced with a rather unpleasant experience: we couldn't log in to our email boxes.

As my Gmail account is my primary address, I keep most of my contacts saved online, and I don't use a desktop email client, losing access to my hosted email service could've been devastating.

Luckily the outage occurred at night and resolved itself within a couple of hours so I wasn't overly affected by it, but experiences like this do give me pause: can I trust hosted applications?

First off this isn't the first time this has happened. While this was one of the longer outages in quite some time, it's happened before and likely will happen again.

Secondly, what happens if they can't fix whatever problem happens next time? It's terrifying to think that all my emails, contacts, and so on are at risk of disappearing into the nether.

Thirdly, and I've been thinking about this for a while, hosted apps only work when you have connectivity. Now I've made the investment in a wireless EVDO modem from Verizon so I'm basically never without connectivity, but there can be huge advantages to downloading your email to a desktop client so you can access them offline.

So I guess what this is all bringing me to is that we have to be careful about getting too caught up in the hype surrounding hosted applications, computing in the cloud, and all those promises of a day where everything happens out there rather than locally on your machine.

There are definite advantages to locally run applications. While you won't find a bigger advocate for broadband and the potential of hosted apps, for the time being perhaps it'd be prudent not to rely on them as heavily as some like myself have begun to as while they offer great functionality and ease they're also totally out of our control.

Del.icio.us Digg Yahoo! My Web Seed Newsvine reddit Technorati

August 13, 2008 11:33 AM

Internet Video Not Just About Short Clips

Anyone who follows the rise of online video has long been given the impression that video on the Internet is all about short clips. If a video's more than a few minutes long, no one will watch it, and therefore all content must be cut up into bite-sized pieces for easier consumption.

But in the last couple of days I've learned just how far this reality has shifted.

First I was speaking with JumpTV and learned that their viewers average almost an hour and a half watching sports video from around the world.

Then today I just got off the phone with ESPN360 and was blown away when I heard that they're seeing average viewing times of three hours.

On one level these numbers aren't surprising as the content these sites deliver are full-length sporting events that almost always last multiple hours, or in the case of a sport like cricket even multiple days.

But on another level, it's remarkable to think that there are many people who are now sitting in front of their computer to watch video for hours at a time.

Of course, I am one of those people. Since giving up my cable subscription, I've been known to dive into Hulu to watch a whole string of TV episodes or even a full-length movie.

So long as there's sufficient connectivity, watching online video can provide a compelling experience even over longer periods of time. In fact, I'm finding myself gravitating towards sites where I sit back and watch longer form video rather than having to hunt and peck through sites with an endless library of short form clips.

And as there become more and more ways of getting Internet video to the TV, this trend should only continue to accelerate.

What's important about all this is that when people talk about how the growing demand for video is increasing demand for bandwidth, there are two primary variables in that equation: the quality and the length of the video.

The quality of video that can be delivered will be limited for quite some time by bandwidth, storage, and processing power constraints, but the length of video is a variable that will continue to increase so long as there's sufficient connectivity to deliver a positive viewing experience and there's longer form content available to watch.

Sites like JumpTV and ESPN360 are proving this to be the case, so when we talk about the growing demand for bandwidth that's being driven by online video, we should remember that it's not just about funny clips on YouTube and HD video on ABC.com, it's also about users finding opportunities to sit down for extended sessions that can span not just minutes but hours watching video online.

Del.icio.us Digg Yahoo! My Web Seed Newsvine reddit Technorati

August 14, 2008 10:07 AM

Are PEG Access Fees A Tax In Disguise?

I've been needing to get back into exploring the topic of PEG and will be doing so next week as I lay out some thoughts for what its future could look like, but for now learning about how the city of Saline, MI is taking Comcast to court for refusing to pay a new fee of 2% of its gross revenue has got me thinking: Aren't PEG access fees a tax?

To frame this, PEG channels and access centers are traditionally funded by franchise fees, which consist of cable TV operators paying a percentage of their cable TV revenue in exchange for obtaining rights of way in a community. The idea is that in order to access a public asset they should have to fund something that serves the public good, namely PEG.

In the case in Saline, Comcast is refusing to pay a new 2% fee on the grounds that doing so would increase their subscribers' bills. This is an important point to remember: cable operators don't trim profits to pay these fees, they simply pass them through to their customers by increasing the price of their service.

The reason behind Saline introducing this fee is to help pay off the debt incurred by the local school district from when they installed a new studio in a high school that trains students in video production.

So increased PEG access fees are paid by the public, and they're being used to fund projects for the community.

Now I know there are other ways for schools to raise funds, but I also know that schools sometimes have trouble getting the community to pony up additional money, especially for projects that some may feel are unnecessary and even more so when funding a project will result in an increase in taxes.

But I can't shake the feeling that finding funding through these PEG access fees are essentially a roundabout way of implementing taxes in disguise.

I'm not necessarily saying this is a bad thing or a practice that shouldn't be continued, but I do wonder how communities would react if they better understood this fact.

My own sense is that if I didn't know cable operators were just passing through the costs that I'd be in total support of them as it makes sense that private companies should have to pay back to the community something of value in exchange for the ability to access public rights of way.

But how would public sentiment towards PEG fees and PEG in general change if everyone understood that they're essentially a tax? I really don't know.

For many I'm sure it wouldn't make any difference since they see the tremendous public good that PEG provides and realize that its something that's worthwhile for our tax dollars to fund.

For anyone who subscribes to cable TV that doesn't see the value in PEG, though, I worry that if they learn the truth about PEG fees that it may further sour their opinion of the value of PEG thereby hurting public support for PEG at a time when we need to be rallying people around the promise of local community media.

I may be blowing this all out of proportion, but at the same time it wouldn't surprise me at all that as cable operators continue pushing back against their PEG obligations that they may follow Comcast's lead by calling into question the legitimacy of PEG fees as a secret tax on consumers.

So PEG stations should be prepared for this new front in the battle over their future as regardless of the legitimacy of these claims that PEG fees are a secret tax, the accusation alone is something that won't help public perception one bit as no one likes taxes, especially those that are disguised as something else.

Del.icio.us Digg Yahoo! My Web Seed Newsvine reddit Technorati

August 15, 2008 9:13 AM

Clarifying My Remarks On PEG Access Fees As Tax In Disguise

Yesterday I wrote a post entitled "Are PEG Access Fees A Tax In Disguise?" in which I explored whether regardless of their intent, that the potential perception and effective reality of these fees are akin to a secret tax on consumers to pay for local community media.

While I tried applying critical thinking to this issue so as not to condemn PEG fees, I admittedly did a poor job of researching the historical background of this issue in relation to the ongoing battle between the PEG community and cablecos. Luckily, I was called out for my intellectual laziness by longtime PEG luminary Chuck Sherwood.

In an email exchange last night I learned about how this debate has been an issue for more than 15 years, with Comcast in particular being notorious for push polling communities that try to raise their PEG fees, say from 3 to 5%, asking the public if they want to pay more for PEG since the cableco is just going to pass this increase through in the form of higher subscription fees. These numbers rarely come out in PEG's favor and then this is used as evidence to push back against any increase that could provide better funding to local community media.

Chuck also lambasted me for failing to recognize that my words could be taken by the free market crowd as an argument against the validity of PEG fees altogether. That there's no role for public money in these situations but that the free market should be allowed to deliver whatever services are needed without government interference.

I appreciate tremendously Chuck bringing these issues to my attention and for pushing back hard when I wrote something he disagreed with. I encourage all of you to do the same. One of the best and worst things about a blog is how easy it is to have an idea, write it down, and put up a post without having to apply the same rigor as publishing in more traditional media.

But my goal in this blog is not to be a provocateur but instead to try and find the truth in these complex and often polarized issues. So if ever you feel I'm straying from the truth, add a comment to a post and I'll contact you so we can discuss in greater detail. I hope to soon do a VidChat with Chuck where he and I can work through this issue in much greater detail, and I look forward to doing the same with anyone who's as passionate and knowledgeable as he is about any of the issues I write about.

Now let's get back to the issue of PEG access fees.

First off, let me say that I am not one who believes there's no role for government involvement in insuring the delivery of services aimed at the public good. If we left every decision up to the public, I'd worry that too many people would instinctively always vote against paying taxes of any sort regardless of the utility of the services or projects they're intended to fund. And I do firmly believe that PEG delivers services for the public good and we have a responsibility to find appropriate funding for it by whatever means necessary.

Secondly, I don't believe that PEG access fees as they're currently structured are an illegitimate means of obtaining that funding. It absolutely makes sense that in exchange for access to a public asset (rights of way) that cablecos should have to provide something for the public good (PEG).

But I still don't think we can ignore some of the issues the cablecos have brought up in their push back against these fees.

First, PEG fees are effectively paid for by consumers. Whether or not you call it a secret tax, and regardless of whether you think cablecos passing the cost through is the right thing to do, they are doing so and therefore any increase in PEG fees are paid for by cable TV subscribers.

Second, while I'm sure this varies dramatically from community to community, in general I do think it's unfortunately the case that many if not most cable subscribers don't see the value of PEG. To them PEG means public access means those crazy shows you only see briefly as you're channel surfing. And PEG as it's currently constructed often delivers little value to anyone who's not interested in local government meetings, high school sports, or the like. I'm not saying this is all PEG's good for or all that it delivers, but again sometimes intent does not line up with public perception, and expanding public support for PEG is a primary challenge that if overcome would dramatically improve PEG's ability to have an even more significant impact in their communities.

Just because we don't agree with what the cablecos are doing or saying doesn't mean we can ignore the issues their positions raise.

Yet I don't see this as a time for despair but instead an opportunity to rethink the model of PEG and find ways to improve it.

Maybe instead of fees on gross revenue the fees should be on profits.

Maybe instead of fees limited to cable TV they should be fees across all services.

Maybe instead of mandatory payment, subscribers should be given the option to contribute to PEG, but not just the minimum 5% but also the opportunity to pay more if PEG is an important thing to them and then be able to count that extra payment as a tax-deductible donation.

These are just a few ideas off the top of my head. I'll dive deeper into new ideas for possible alternatives next week.

But for now I'll leave this issue with the simple statement that if we are to prove the value of PEG and preserve its rightful place at the heart of our communities, we need to find ways to increase public awareness of the value PEG delivers and therefore increase public support for PEG. That way, when a Comcast push polls a community to build evidence against an increase in PEG fees, they'll be met with a strong, unified voice shouting out, "We love our PEG channels! We understand and respect the value they deliver, and we're willing to pay to improve their ability to serve our community. So stop dicking around and start delivering us the service we know our community deserves!"

Del.icio.us Digg Yahoo! My Web Seed Newsvine reddit Technorati

August 18, 2008 9:26 AM

Innovation Happening On College Campuses, Just Not In Classroom

Late last week I had one of the most exhilarating conversations of recent memory as I had a chance to talk with Bill St. Arnaud for the first time. Bill is a visionary when it comes to customer-owned fiber networks, and I'm working on a post detailing the trial he's got underway in Ottawa for introducing a new paradigm in fiber deployment, and trust me, it's a good one.

But for now I wanted to share another interesting observation he made during our call.

To preface this, Bill works with CANARIE, which is basically Canada's equivalent of Internet2, an ultra-high-bandwidth network that connects universities and research institutions.

During our conversation we began discussing the unfortunate reality that most universities have not yet fully embraced the use of broadband and in particular are not utilizing the opportunities these big bandwidth networks provide to find and develop new, innovative applications.

This is something I know I've been frustrated by, especially in places like Lafayette, LA, where last April I had a chance to chat with the head of the computer science department at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette. I had expected and hoped to find him inspired by the big network being put into place, excited over the possibilities for this network to be a teaching aid, to drive curriculum, and to help spark the imagination of students to develop new apps, but instead he seemed relatively disinterested. Not that he wasn't personally excited about the network, but he didn't seem too anxious to find ways to incorporate its use into his curriculum.

Bill confirmed that this tends to be the case among CANARIE's universities as well. While there is a fair amount of HD videoconferencing being done, for the most part other than that CANARIE's users only tend to utilize the network for pushing around large data sets more quickly then they'd be able to do otherwise. There just isn't a lot of innovation happening in the classroom either in the use of the network or the development of new apps that can take advantage of all this bandwidth.

But then he made a really interesting comment. For him, it's not that innovation isn't happening on college campuses, it just isn't happening in the labs or classrooms. Instead he shared that if you want to find innovation on a college campus, go to the dorms and see how the students are using their access to high bandwidth connectivity. That those are the users who are finding new ways to take advantage of the fat pipes that are commonplace among dormitories on college campuses.

While some might point out that much of this so-called innovation stems from illegal activities like unauthorized file-sharing, I still think Bill's really on to something here. These are the users who made Facebook a huge success, that watch a ton of online video, that are creating videos to upload for others to see, that are eager to try out new applications and that have the time to do so, and that have the creative energy to dream up new applications that enrich or make easier in some way their lives through the use of broadband.

So when it comes to innovation through broadband on college campuses, don't look in the classroom, look to the dorms, where an eager populace of early adopters are pushing the boundaries of what's possible in an era where bandwidth is no longer scarce but overabundant.

Del.icio.us Digg Yahoo! My Web Seed Newsvine reddit Technorati

August 19, 2008 10:49 AM

Internet Going In-Network To Deliver Olympics Video

While somewhat technical, this post is an important one for anyone to read that's interested in the future of the Internet.

It highlights how NBC is leveraging Limelight Networks CDN services to deliver live and on-demand video from the Olympics. In particular it points out that the reason the Internet didn't crash when everyone went online to watch this video was because of how Limelight delivers video.

Any time you go to a website or watch an on-demand video, those assets you're viewing reside on a server somewhere out on the Internet.

CDNs, or content delivery networks, enable you to deliver Internet content without having to manage your own servers, instead using the CDNs facilities to reach your audience.

Also important to note is that the further away you are physically from the server that has the content you're trying to access, the more likely it is that there'll be an issue or delay in delivering that content, especially streaming video.

What Limelight's done is establish partnerships with over 800 ISPs so that when you're trying to access content over the Internet, in actuality that webpage or video is residing much closer to you, potentially even within your last mile access network.

So there's a chance that when you go to a website you're not technically on the Internet because your traffic never leaves your last mile access network (aka your broadband provider).

In this way content delivery is able to get a higher level of quality of service than is otherwise possible through the larger interconnected cloud that is the Internet, which often requires multiple hops to traverse the distance between server and user.

Ultimately moving more and more content into the last mile access network will be the only way that fiber communities will be able to take advantage of all that bandwidth they have available to them as while the rest of the Internet isn't always prepared to deliver very high quality video, if that video resides within the last mile full-fiber access network, then the sky's the limit in terms of what's possible.

So it's my opinion that if you want to see where the future of the Internet is going to come from, your best bet will be to look in-network, especially in communities like Lafayette, LA where once live their network will offer users 100Mbps of capacity in-network, creating the ultimate laboratory for developing and testing next-gen big-bandwidth applications.

Del.icio.us Digg Yahoo! My Web Seed Newsvine reddit Technorati

August 22, 2008 12:50 PM

A New Model for Fiber Deployment: Customer-Owned Networks by Bill St. Arnaud

Last week I had the great fortune to learn about a potentially revolutionary new model for deploying fiber from Bill St. Arnaud, senior director for advanced networks at CANARIE and long-time industry visionary.

In a 400-home trial in Ottawa currently underway, Bill's trying to prove the concept of customer-owned residential fiber optic networks. So no longer would your pipe onto the Internet be owned by either a private service provider or public government entity, but instead you would own your own last mile network.

The genesis for these ideas grow out of CANARIE's history, which began when universities and school realized that purchasing and deploying their own fiber was far cheaper than buying managed services from telcos. The question then became, "Can we extend this concept to the last mile?"

The challenge with fiber deployment has long been the huge upfront capital costs required to build out the network.

For private providers, it's hard to find a business case that will pay for a big-bandwidth network when you're trying to drive revenue from triple play services at a time when over-the-top apps like VoIP and Internet video are eating into your base. And it doesn't get any easier when you're also having to compete against aggressive incumbent cable and DSL providers in a marketplace where consumers in general still don't understand the value of bigger bandwidth networks.

The circumstances aren't much better on the public side either, where cities have a hard time justifying investing millions if not billions into a network when they've got people starving in the streets. Plus managing an Internet network requires lots of skilled people and can be very difficult to maintain and upgrade in a cost-effective manner.

But what if there was a third option for deploying fiber? It's Bill's belief that not only is there a third option but that it's the best one yet.

It starts with the fact that there are a number of companies that are in the business of building fiber networks. They don't want to own these networks and offer services, they just want to make their money off designing and deploying fiber optics.

It then moves to an innovative funding mechanism. First it relies on subscribers to pay for and own their own fiber optic connections. But instead of charging for the connection upfront, Bill wants to roll the cost of fiber into your electric bill.

He cites the fact that there are companies that will now sell you a fixed rate energy deal where if you sign up for 5 years of service they'll guarantee you a certain price over the length of that contract, say 15 cents per kilowatt hour.

What Bill sees is the opportunity to offer homeowners the ability to pay 17 cents per kilowatt hour and in return get a fiber optic connection as well as some level of free Internet service.

He goes on to say that on average a typical homeowner will spend $1000-2000 a year on their electric bill. If you raise that kilowatt per hour rate two cents, you'd generate an additional $400 per year, which over a five year contract would pay for the fiber. Then for an extra quarter cent there'd be enough revenue to provide high speed Internet.

While most current models need at least 40% penetration to be economically viable, Bill claims his model could break even with only 10%.

But what do you get?

A home-run fiber pipe to a carrier-neutral facility.

Let's break down what that means.

First off, the default connection speed on the fiber from your home to the central office will be 1Gbps.

Secondly, "home-run fiber" basically means you get your own fiber strand, and because of that you and your service provider can choose whether or not to use GPON, ethernet, or any other technology over that fiber. (More on this on a later post.)

Third, the "carrier-neutral facility" is where multiple ISPs would compete for your business. If you don't like the service one is providing you, since you own the fiber you could switch to a competitor.

Fourth, this facility is also a place where other applications developers and service providers can connect directly to offer any number of additional services beyond the triple play and do so with a higher level of quality of service than is possible delivering them over the open Internet.

So in exchange for paying a little more for electricity, you as the homeowner get your own fiber pipe with huge capacity without losing competition between services while opening up new possibilities for Internet applications to gain a new level of quality of service by coming into the last mile access network.

But what about for ISPs?

This has been one of the biggest challenges to this model: getting service providers onto the network to create this competition.

The incumbents aren't interested as they see this project as a competitor to their business. They don't need any help as they already have their own infrastructure. And Bill acknowledges that the telcos have had reasonable reasons for why they didn't want to go over open access infrastructure in the past since there's always been a party in the middle that has the customer relationship. But with customer-owned fiber, there's no intermediary, there's a direct connection to the customer, and Bill hopes that it will make this an easier sell.

On another front, there was an assumption that even if the incumbents won't play along that there are other retail Internet companies that would jump at the opportunity to expand their footprints into new markets without having to invest deploying new lines. But they've run into a problem. Due to regulations in Canada, all of the small Internet retail providers have gotten clobbered by the incumbents, with many saying that unless you have a million customers you can't afford to stay in business. While there used to be over 200 of these companies, today Canada has about three, and none are in Ottawa. And while he has garnered some interest from the remaining companies, the challenge he now faces is that his Ottawa trial of 400 homes just isn't big enough to get any company to spend money on getting onto that network without any guarantees that by doing so they'll eventually gain access to a larger market.

Yet despite these initial challenges, ultimately Bill's model should be one that ISPs embrace as it offers them a lot of advantages over the status quo.

- By rolling the cost of Internet service into the electric bill ISPs can get a guaranteed return and they can rely on the electric company to collect payment, which is helpful as they have the bigger stick of being able to turn off the power if someone doesn't pay up.

- By having users pay for the network, ISPs can gain access to a cutting-edge infrastructure without having to commit a ton of their own capital.

- By having the network be open, ISPs can expand beyond their current, geographically limited footprints to reach new customers that they otherwise would've only been able to serve by buying existing or building new networks, both of which require a lot more money than being able to riding someone else's network.

While this model not only raises the specter but gives new form to the idea of structural separation, where the entity that owns/manages the network is different from that which offers services over it, in Bill's estimation this is nothing more than the natural evolution of telecommunications.

He cites the wireless space as an example of this. None of the carriers own their own towers in the wireless world. The reason for this is that the fierce competition in that space has led carriers to realize that managing towers is not their core competency, so instead a number of companies have sprung for whom that is their expertise, allowing carriers to focus on what they do best: delivering high quality, value-added services. He goes on to say, "When you have a competitive marketplace, structural separation naturally happens."

And elsewhere in the world some incumbents are coming to realize that. For example, Bill points to Sweden, where a number of municipalities have built full fiber networks that are now being either used or bought by the incumbent, Telstra. While at first Telstra resisted this movement towards muni-networks, they now embrace the concept as they're realizing that muni-networks allow them to get the business while someone else pays for the infrastructure.

But for now Bill's ideals are only in their earliest stages here in North America. The fiber's deployed in their initial 400 home pilot project in Ottawa, but to prove its viability he admits they need to get a bigger city to adopt it. Only by getting sufficient scale will we convince ISPs to jump onto the network and therefore realize the competition open networks promise. And only by proving this model's viability in a bigger city will we have any hope of opening other people's eyes to these possibilities.

This post has only begun to scratch the surface of what Bill's setting out to achieve. And while I found myself growing more and more excited the longer we discussed it, I still have to be realistic about the many hurdles it faces before we can achieve Bill's goal of establishing a third option for fiber deployment in Canada, the US, and across the world.

But at the same time, it's thrilling to hear about what he's doing as he's proving that there are still new ideas to be found that reach beyond the status quo to find new solutions to the task of overcoming the gigantic challenge we face in trying to achieve a full fiber nation.

And even more heartening is the fact that he's not trying to hide and protect his ideas but instead wants to share them with the world, garner feedback and criticism, and therefore be able to improve, enhance, and expand these possibilities so that we might find the best possible way to reach our goals.

Know that you're going to be hearing a lot more about Bill and his efforts north of the border here on App-Rising.com. If you have your own thoughts on how to improve this model, your own ideas for alternate models for deploying fiber, or questions you'd like to ask Bill about the specifics of what he's doing, post a comment below and I'll make sure your concerns are addressed.

Until next time, just remember that while achieving a full fiber nation won't be easy, that doesn't mean it's impossible, especially when we've got individuals like Bill St. Arnaud with the drive, intelligence, and vision to make what might have once seem a dream into a reality.

Del.icio.us Digg Yahoo! My Web Seed Newsvine reddit Technorati

August 25, 2008 8:16 AM

Michael Curri Defends Benefits of Broadband to Businesses

I'm excited to today introduce a new feature to App-Rising.com: our first guest column.

The central goal of this site is to engage thought leaders in a robust discussion about the potential and ramifications of the broadband revolution. To that end I could not be more excited about posting the first entry from the leading expert in what broadband can mean for local economic development and App-Rising.com's first guest columnist Michael Curri.

You should remember him from a VidChat we did on how broadband drives economic development, which you can watch here. Michael runs Strategic Networks Group, a consultancy with offices in North America and Europe that helps communities, network operators, and businesses around the world track, quantify, and encourage broadband's positive impact on local economies.

In his first column, Michael responds passionately to a May 23 Economist article entitled "The broadband myth."

-----

A colleague of mine during lunch recently shared with me an article from the Economist "The broadband myth" May 23, 2008. Having read the article, I have two sets of comments:

1) The authors are correct that there is a lack of data on broadband. The current measures used for OECD rankings are limited to what national statistical agencies are collecting. From this, one of the data sets that is readily available is on the number of broadband subscribers per 100 population - this is an indicator, however the evaluation community would call this an "activity-based measure". This data does not tell you how broadband is being used, nor does it quantify its value to the end user. This has been an ongoing issue ever since people have tried to measure broadband - at SNG we have addressed this. Our tools and methodologies capture how broadband is being used and quantify its value in terms of new revenues, cost savings, new jobs, etc.

2) To say that "there simply is not good data that broadband matters" or that "there is little evidence to support the notion that faster is inherently better" are comments that you saw five years ago, I would not have expected to see them now. Personally I find it irresponsible to suggest that "there is time for the slowpokes to catch up". The dynamics of technology diffusion are much more compressed today than in the 1900s for electrification and, furthermore, over the last decade the Internet has become a standard business tool globally. You would think that something published in the Economist would have been more thoroughly researched. Having conducted two extensive literature reviews in the last three years on this topic, there is a growing evidence base that suggests the contrary of what the authors have claimed. Communities and regions that lead in broadband have something to show for it. In SNG's research since 2003, we have found significant increases in local economic activity attributable to broadband. In fact, the increase in local GDP is more than ten-fold the value of the investments in broadband infrastructure.

Broadband impacts need to be tracked over time - they do not occur immediately as there is a learning curve to transform business processes and implement applications and processes that leverage the Internet. Dial-up connections open the door to the Internet, but effective business operations require always-on reliable high-speed connections that can only be offered through broadband. In all our interviews over the last 8 years, we have not spoken to one business owner that would go back to dial-up after having used broadband for their business operations.

Our research has shown that without broadband, communities and regions are at a competitive disadvantage - and this gap is growing. We have documented and quantified new business opportunities (e.g. reaching new customers), cost avoidance and cost savings (e.g. supplier coordination), improved customer service, systems integration with Internet (e.g. customer orders, financial) from businesses and organizations across North America that would not have been realized without broadband. Affordable reliable broadband is necessary infrastructure and communities and regions without this will continue to see jobs, youth and industry move away.

We need to move away from traditional practices and use new tools and methods to understand why broadband matters and to quantify broadband usage and benefits. The value of this information is to improve broadband strategies and planning, identify usage gaps, assess new service opportunities - profile potential markets (data on price sensitivity, potential demand, penetration rates), increase service uptake, and inform stakeholders about broadband impacts. SNG is currently rolling-out online tools to empower communities and regions to collect and manage such information on their own. We believe that taking ownership of tracking this data, communities and regions position themselves better to influence the benefits of broadband through increased productivity and competitiveness, business retention and growth, attraction of new industries and businesses, and higher paying jobs.

With capital borrowable, resources buyable, and technology copyable, businesses in this day and age have many options as to where they locate, or shift, operations. Retaining and attracting businesses without broadband is increasingly difficult. Those communities and regions that stay behind risk being left behind as they are hollowed-out from departing skilled workers and businesses who are leaving for more competitive and profitable business environments.

-----

As a quick aside, if you'd like the opportunity to learn more from Michael, you're in luck as later today at 2pm EST he'll be leading an eNATOA online presentation and discussion about broadband and economic development.

NATOA does charge a fee to attend, but it's a reasonable $45 for members and $85 for non-members. And both because of the sneak peak I got of Michael's presentation and the many fruitful, though-provoking conversations I've had with him I can guarantee you that if you're interested in these topics, you'll definitely get your money's worth. In fact I can think of no better way to get up to speed quickly on these issues than spending an hour this afternoon listening to Michael speak and asking him questions.

Del.icio.us