Article

DirecTV to offer broadband to the boonies, teams up with ViaSat and Hughes Satellite providers — Engadget

My Comments

Another effort is taking place in bringing real broadband to rural USA. This time, DirecTV, who are one of two major digital satellite TV players in that market are working with ViaSat and Hughes satellite-broadband providers to sell their services as a bundled retail package. This is in addition to teeing up with the main telcos in the US to provide multiple-pipe triple-play communications services to that market.

The Hughes satellite broadband partnership capitalises on pre-existing business partnerships that Hughes Satellite had with DirecTV, by extending this to broadband Internet service.

One of the main problems at the moment is acineving a price parity to what most wireline broadband service providers would charge for providing this service. This includes the bandwidth allowable through the satellite setup as well as equivalent quotas that match most Internet use.

Another problem that will also affect DirecTV’s satellite-broadband bundling efforts is whether there will be more than one satellite dish needed to provide both the pay-TV service as well as the broadband service. This can be of concern when it comes to the aesthetics and cost of these installations and whether people will buy a bundled satellite-TV / satellite-Internet package or not. Here, I would like to see these setups proven to work using one dish and multiple antennas.

Similarly, an “SMATV” setup which services multiple TV and Internet subscribers in a multi-tenancy location such as a ski resort should also be assessed so that proper Internet bandwidth and DirecTV multi-channel reception can occur in these locations.

Article

At last, broadband in the boonies, but at a price | Crave – CNET

My comments

I have run regular coverage about the provision of real broadband Internet service in to rural areas and is something that I stand for as the author and owner of this site. Just lately, I have come across this CNET article about how Crave writer, Eric Mack had succeeded in bringing real broadband to his mountain home in New Mexico, USA.

He was detailing how the WildBlue satellite broadband service was treated as a costly rare premium service compared to the wider availability of satellite pay-TV service in that neighbourhood. Then he talked about the inconsistent provision of ADSL broadband in that neighbourhood by the local telephone company which works in a similar manner to Telstra in Australia or British Telecom in the UK.

Later on, he pointed out the arrival of an “open fibre” network that was laid by a local co-operative who was addressing the need of “real broadband in the bush”. The concept of this “open fibre” network was to allow any and all ISPs and telcos to make use of the fibre-optic infrastructure rather than it being for the exclusive use of a particular company. It is in contrast to the typical cable-TV infrastructure that is for the use of the company that owns it.

Then, in the last article, Eric talked of the possibility of mobile-telephony providers rolling out 3G or 4G mobile-broadband service to these areas. He summed it up very well in the fact that it takes a lot of work to get communications infrastructure providers to establish infrastructure to provide a decent standard of broadband Internet in to these areas.

I see this as a “chicken-in-egg” scenario that if you don’t provide the infrastructure, you won’t get “serious money” in to the neighbourhood in the form of industry, commerce or similar high-value activity whereas you wait upon the arrival of a significant population set and economy before you deploy the infrastructure. This can be more so with neighbourhoods that are outside the commuting distance of a major metropolitan area or don’t have a very significant core economy about them.

Getting Congress to agree on anything is a challenge. When it comes to spectrum bills there is disagreement on both sides with how the situation should be handled. In some instances it seems that the tech community would benefit from freeing up spectrum for the wireless industry. Yet with some of the limitations proposed, it could all end up in utter disaster.

The spectrum bills are trying to define who will have access to wireless broadband. In essence television broadcasters are being asked to give up at least part of their spectrum for mobile broadband. It seems like most favor this idea, but as is usually the case, the devil is in the details.

Agreement

One thing everyone seems to agree on is providing both the spectrum and the funding for public safety entities. This national broadband network would make it possible for people to handle an emergency. In the case of 9-11 the network already set in place failed. There were issues with communication that ended up delaying some of the much needed help. With a national network, information would flow smoothly and at a much faster pace if a disaster did take place. Who wouldn’t feel a sense of safety knowing that the people that take care of major issues and crisis have an open source of communication ensuring that they are more efficient in their duties?

Disagreement

The spectrum bills asks television broadcasters to give up some of their spectrum. As an incentive, they would receive a portion of the auction price for that specific spectrum. Here’s where things get tricky. In some instances, Congress is attempting to take more control of unlicensed wireless. While Wi-Fi and Bluetooth operate in this portion of unlicensed spectrum there is a threat to other potential opportunities for advancement. Ever heard of the Super Wi-Fi (also called White Spaces broadband)? There is no guarantee that these plans or ideas would be allowed to proceed under certain spectrum bills. This may close the door to future Wi-Fi developments.

Licensed bidders like several of the big internet service providers have the ability to bid on this open spectrum. While this does generate funds and gives these companies a larger range of access, it is the everyday person looking to take advantage of the wireless system that could lose out. He or she would have to gather together a large number of individuals and attempt to make a single bid as a collective group. Even with the latest technology, the chances of outbidding larger corporations seem slim.

The final oddity in some of Congress’ spectrum bills is the geographic location issue. It is being suggested that people should bid on available spectrum in certain locations. A company may have access in one state and no access in another. It prevents a national system for everyone to take advantage of. Instead there would be a set of disconnected lines that can only be accessed from one specific location.

Progress seems to walk a fine line. On the one hand everyone wants to see improvement. The problem is that everyone wants that improvement to look different. Some internet service providers may want to make a bid for the spectrum, giving them unlimited access. Individual users have concerns that their own Wi-Fi will be hindered as there are regulations and rules for different entities in different parts of the country.

The tech industry needs an environment that is open to new discoveries. It is here that new technology is developed and offered up as progress and improvement to everyone. At this point there is no one spectrum bill that truly benefits the tech community as a whole.

Author Bio : Sam Kirby is a freelance content writer who develops articles on various topics. Sam’s main interest lies however in developing articles realted to Internet services and internet service providers.

Article

Comcast shifts some customers to IPv6, promises it won’t hurt — Engadget

From the horse’s mouth

Comcast IPv6 Information Center

My comments

Comcast are rolling out a pilot deployment of IPv6-based Internet service. Here the customers will be those using a computer that is connected directly to a compatible DOCSIS 3.0 cable modem.

The computer will have to run Windows Vista or 7 for the Windows platform or MacOS X Lion for the Macintosh platform. This is because these operating systems are known to support a dual-stacked IPv4/IPv6 setup which the service will be based on. As well, these services will be provided with a unique full IPv6 address. Of course, Comcast will have 6to4 IP gateways in the network to bridge the IPv6 and IPv4 networks.

At the moment, there will be the rough edges through the deployment of this trial setup while the bugs are ironed out. A subsequent trial in the near future will then look at the use of home networks, but I would like to have this trial examine networks that are comprised of IPv4-only devices as well as dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 devices. This would also encompass access to legacy and IPv6 Internet services from both the legacy and the IPv6 devices.

Most likely this rollout will appeal and be targeted to some of the computer “geeks” who want to dabble in the latest setups. But I see it as a chance for Comcast, a mass-market cable-Internet provider, to put IPv6 through its paces before the full deployment commences. It also is an open chance for Comcast to put their findings about how their IPv6 deployment went to other cable-Internet providers who will be facing a requirement to roll up to this technology.

Article

What a fight for broadband tells us about democracy | GigaOM

My Comments

A situation that is repeating itself in many US towns and communities that don’t have proper broadband is the desire for these towns to benefit from the broadband service. They will typically use tactics like a wired or wireless broadband Internet service funded by the local government, perhaps in partnership with a telecommunications firm. It can even encompass the provision of full infrastructure by local interests for annexation by a local telecommunications carrier in order to hasten the provision of real Internet service.

But established telecommunications and cable-TV firms like Comcast who have wireline monopoly over these areas fear the arrival of these competitive elements. They have established requirements on towns who want to set up such services to run referenda about such services and run highly-funded campaigns against these services when they come to the vote.

This situation creates a breeding ground for redlining and an anticompetitive trade environment for Internet and other advanced telecommunications services. The redlining can occur based on perceived “lack of profitability” for communities even though the community will benefit economically through access to advanced telecommunications.

At the moment, the Federal Communications Commission are in the throes of reforming the Universal Service Fund which financially offsets universal-service obligations for basic telephony service through the USA. Here, they want to encompass broadband Internet and cable-TV services in this mix and local communities should also lobby the FCC on this issue.

The FCC could also work better by allowing European-style competition regimes like local-loop unbundling for ADSL or mandated access to pits, ducts and poles for cable and fibre-optic service. This ends up favouring the customers through what I have observed in France and the UK.

As well, the Federal Trade Commission could be allowed to be involved in issues concerning anticompetitive behaviour in telecommunications-service provisioning. This can allow for antitrust aspects to be investigated as well as other standards concerning telecommunications service.

But I would see this more likely occurring under a Democrat administration rather than a Republican administration which favours the big corporations and anticompetitive trading. As well, where there is lively competition, there is a greater chance for people to take up the technology and a greater chance for innovation.

News articles

HP Blogs – FCC does define rules on net neutrality – The HP Blog Hub

FCC Approves First Net Neutrality Rules | Datamation

From the horse’s mouth

FCC Website

Report and Order concerning Net Neutrality (PDF) – FCC

Press Release (PDF) – FCC

My comments

Through this action. the FCC have become the first national-government telecommunications department in a major English-speaking country to use their executive power to  “set in stone” a minimum standard for “Net Neutrality”.

Basically, their standard requires wireline services (cable Internet, ADSL, optical-fibre) to pass all lawful Internet content and allow users to connect non-harmful devices to their Internet services. This would therefor prohibit limiting of access to “over-the-top” Internet video, VoIP and similar services. Similarly it requires wireless services (3G, WiMAX, etc) not to blocking sites that compete with their business offerings like VoIP services.

There is still a problem with the wireless services in that they could block access to competing app stores on platforms that permit such stores, set up “walled gardens” when it comes to mobile content or provide “preferential tariffs” for particular services. This can be of concern to those of us who, for example, use client-side applications and commonly-known URLs to gain access to the Social Web rather than the carrier’s preferred “entry point” bookmarks or URLs. Similarly, the carrier could gouge people who go to favourite media Websites rather than the ones that the carrier has a partnership with. This last point may be of concern when mass-media outlets and wireless-broadband carriers see the “mobile screen” as another point of influence over the populace and establish partnerships or mergers based on this premise.

Net Neutrality will also have to be considered an important issue as part of defining the basic Internet service standard for the country so that service providers or gavernments can’t provide it just to people who purchase upper-tier service for example.

A good issue would be for other national-government or trading-bloc communications authorities to tune this definition further so that if there is the goal of Net Neutrality, it becomes harder to avoid the standard.

Articles

National Broadband Plan: An Effort For The Ages | Microsoft On The Issues

FCC releases its national broadband plan for the US | ThinkBroadband (UK)

From the horse’s mouth

National Broadband Plan – broadband.gov

My comments

One of the main goals with the US National Broadband Plan was to make sure that an affordable broadband Internet service with a minimum headline speed of 100Mbps downstream / 50Mbps upstream passes at least 100 million households across that country.

The main limitation concerning this goal is that, at the moment, one third of the US population cannot benefit from broadband Internet. In my opinion, most of this would be in sparsely-populated rural areas.

Need for universal Internet service similar to what is required for the telephone

In the US, the universal landline telephone service (private phone with directories for all households, plus commonly-accessible public payphones) is provided by the local incumbent telephony service provider, with the costs paid for by a levy on all telephone services in that country.

Part of the plan would be to release money from Universal Service Fund which is funded by the aforementioned levy to fund a universal broadband service.

Need for highly-competitive service with barriers to entry taken down

Part of this same requirement also includes a highly-competitive service in all markets with any and all barriers to competition taken down. This is in a similar manner to what has happened with the local “dial-tone” phone service in the US and other countries where this same service can be provided by competing service providers.

Coverage improvements

The improvement to universal Internet service goals will also lead to coverage improvements. This may not be an issue with most of the USA because of the country being densely populated but will be of concern with places like Alaska. Of course, there are rural patches within the contiguous 48 stats where not many people are living and these will have to be serviced with proper broadband. This will be looked at with the improvements to the Universal Service Fund.

Similarly, this plan will also satisfy the desire to make sure that next-generation broadband service passes anchor institutions like schools, colleges, hospitals, libraries and the like. It also includes making sure that military bases have access to next-generation broadband.

Implementation

The issue of access to basic broadband Internet service by the poor is being dealt with. Here, the FCC are putting forward the idea of extending the scope of the Lifeline and Link-Up communications financial-assistance programs to include this level of Internet access.

It will also include opening up radio spectrum, most likely “digital dividend” TV spectrum, for use in providing wireless broadband service, especially to rural areas. This may also include competitive mobile wireless broadband in urban areas.

Another part of the program is to mandate cost-effective access to telecommunications infrastructure like telegraph poles, underground conduits, towers / building rooftops, land patches and the like. This includes a “dig-once” policy which allows multiple companies to use the same telegraph poles and underground conduits for their own wiring as well as commonly-known infrastructure details to facilitate efficient Internet-service rollout.

Net Neutrality

An issue that hasn’t been talked about in the Broadband Plan is the concept of Net Neutrality. This divisive issue concerns whether certain Internet services and applications have better throughput versus the idea of all Internet applications and services having equal access. It is also of importance whenever telephone and TV move to IP-based transmission and this concept would assure that competitive and complementary services can exist on the same pipe with proper quality of service. This subject also leads to:

Multi-Channel TV

The American populace has been disaffected by the way multi-channel TV, especially cable TV, has been handled by the service providers, which are mainly cable-TV monopolies like Comcast.

One main disaffection was that the set-top boxes are literally controlled by the multi-channel TV providers and customers cannot buy and install set-top boxes or similar devices from retail outlets. There have been attempts to achieve a customer-controlled level playing field for set-top-box supply such as the CableCARD system but the cable industry have frustrated these attempts with measures like requiring a cable-TV technician to visit the customer’s premises to supply the card.

Part of this plan is to require the supply of a broadcast-IP tuner gateway to be provided by the cable company and connected to the customer’s home network and these same customers connecting their own IP-based equipment to the same home network. Here, the main goal would be to provide a competitive program-navigation system for customers to benefit from.

Integration in US public life; and IT literacy

Another goal with the US National Broadband Program is to integrate the high-speed broadband service in to US public life such as providing access to “e-government” at all levels and integrating the service with public education for example.

The plan also includes IT awareness through the community, but as I have noticed, there will be people who will find technology hard to use and will need further assistance. This is exemplified by people who find operating consumer electronics very difficult and are likely to resist using devices like a set-top box beyond changing channels for example.

Summary

What this all leads to is that one of the cornerstones of the US National Broadband Plan is to liberate broadband Internet and multi-channel TV service in a similar way to what has happened to the US telephone service since the Carterfone Decision and the AT&T anti-trust investigation of the late 70s.