New Ideas : Broadband.gov

Eliminate Routers Entirely. Fund us at vator.tv/company/ether2.

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:38:10 PST

In 2003, Buddenberg of the US Navy writes a paper entitled “Radio WAN Media Access Protocol” in which he outlined five requirements for a future radio-WAN MAC. These requirements would pertain to any solution, not just a satellite communications one.
1. The primary requirement is to discipline network nodes so they transmit one at a time. The solution
space becomes restricted to scheduling and polling algorithms by recognition of this requirement.
2. Provide a means for new nodes to enter the network segment. Most prospective solutions envision a second queue for management of this problem.
3. Support multicast. This definition of multicast is slightly different than the layer 3 definition (delivery to multiple platforms for price of a single transit through each router).
4. Support urgent access for priority traffic. This is one facet of the Quality of Service control problem.
5. Provide synchronous access for those customers with requirements for determinism.

Comments (0)Wireless Broadband, hi def synchronous broadband distributed queue

Restore pro competitive, innovative common sense Net regulations

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:36:24 PST

Vote On Idea

Before Bush & Cheney were in the White House we had 30 + years of common sense, pro consumer, pro competitive Internet regulations banning mega mergers between big ISPs, forcing them to share their infrastructure with smaller ISPs, offer cheap Internet access to smaller ISPs at wholesale prices so they can then resell broadband Internet access cheaply to their own customers -- The Ma Bell system was broken up to create more competition in the emerging broadband Internet access market that was still in its infancy. Our nation's leaders realized Internet would become the future of all media one day and wanted it to be open, competitive and vibrant for users. Large Internet companies had to provide equal, fair, and unfettered access to smaller companies -- so NetZero could buy Internet access from AT&T and resell it to their customers cheaply. The U.S. Congress even passed a law the 1996 Telecommunications Act mandating the broadband Internet access market be kept open and competitive, so there can be universal, affordable access to all Americans. They saw Internet as a public utility -- and a public right -- as soon as the bill was passed AT&T complained that it was unfair that they had to provide affordable Internet access to smaller competitors. They lobbied to reverse the regulations -- what they couldn't convince the courts to undo President Bush did for them in office. There even was a National Broadband Plan before Bush entered office but what did the Bush Administration do -- massive deregulation of the Internet and scrapped the National Broadband Plan.

Due to the Bush Administration's bad policies the U.S. fell from 4th in the world in terms of broadband Internet access penetration when George W. Bush entered office in 2001 to 17th by 2005-2006 -- last I checked it is 28th.

What happened was other countries maintained their pro competitive regulatory commitments banning mergers etc and kept broadband Internet access affordable. The Bush Administration though neglected to keep up these common sense regulations and as a nation we fell behind other countries that kept up their regulations.

Last year in Europe as the Obama FCC sought to restore Net Neutrality -- a European Commissioner bragged Net Neutrality is better in Europe -- and the Internet market is more competitive there -- this Commissioner said that in Europe they would not hesitate to enforce Net Neutrality ever -- there is no dire need in Europe today for new Net Neutrality rules like in the U.S. because so much of the Internet market there is already competitive.

If we maintained our regulatory commitments during the Bush years there would not be a huge digital divide in the country today. We could have millions of more jobs (closing the digital divide can result in more job creation) and Internet for everyone rich or poor, or urban or rural. Internet companies would not be able to throttle web traffic. Big ISPs like Time Warner Cable and Comcast would be unable to prioritize and discriminate against web traffic or content. A major problem right now with cable companies is they have a conflict of interest as they also have digital cable TV services -- they might without Net Neutrality try to restrict competition from online video on demand services to their TV services.

What we need to try to do is breakup AT&T again -- spinoff SBC Communications & BellSouth from AT&T, and breakup some big cable companies -- forbid providers of TV or Internet service from owning content -- there should be Net Neutrality making every ISP a dumb pipe taking you to the same Internet and providing equal access to all. We need to restore the regulations the Bush Administration abandoned and enforce the regulations we have.

Comments (1)International Lessons

What we need is competition!

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:01:58 PST

Vote On Idea

What we need is competition, in order to foster better service and higher speeds; we need line sharing, especially since the Internet backbone was built with taxpayer dollars. By allowing line sharing new companies can move into town and offer different services at a lower rate. We the tax payers built the backbone of the Internet, and it has been given to corporations – we need to take it back! Right now if I want faster Internet; I would have to purchase not only a higher priced Internet, but also TV and telephone…. I should be able to mix and match these different services. Those who want faster Internet are using it for Internet-based services, such as Netflix or Hulu; but the large broadband companies would lose money if all they offered was broadband service, so they bundle their own content services. The Telco’s use misleading ads, and they renege on their offers once you are signed up, this is because they are in most areas; the only broadband provider. Line sharing would change that, and unbundling of these services would be a step towards the consumer being able to declare independence from the large telecom companies.

Comments (0)Fixed Broadband

Lets regain our ground on Internet speed (we did invented it)

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:46:16 PST

Vote On Idea

The United States invented the Internet, so lets become number one again for what we created! Americans like to think we are #1 for a lot of things, but Internet is not one of them. We rank (as of Jan 21, 2010) 29th in the world for download speeds and 30th for upload speeds according to real-world results provided by Speedtest.net (Results can be found at http://speedtest.net/global.php with an American IP address).

We continue to slip on the ranks, so let's catch up with the rest of the world! Right now, the Internet speed leader, South Korea, has average speeds that are more than three times faster than our own!! And the Korean government has plans to expand their speeds to 100 Mbps by 2012. In America, the ISPs all say that we do not have enough bandwidth, so rather than make enough bandwidth, they limit what we can use and charge us a lot of money!

It's good to upgrade people from dial-up to broadband, but let's not let our broadband speeds slip as the world passes us by. Americans like to watch a lot of movies, so let's be able to do it without having to wait a long time for it to download on a so-called 30Mbps connection that rarely ever gets above 10Mbps.

Maybe we can't do it as quickly as the Koreans, but perhaps by 2015 we could have our Internet speeds at least doubled. Right now basically there is only one ISP that serves a 50Mbps connection, but it costs an arm and a leg and a first-born child to use it, and it is available only in a very limited area. 50Mpbs should be available to everyone and at a reasonable price. By 2015 it should be very commonplace to see people with 50Mbps connections in their home, and it should no be unheard of for people to have 100Mbps connections, if not faster.

Comments (0)Benchmarks, internet speeds, speed, mbps

Change deceptive "Mbps" to the industry standard "MBps".

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:27:25 PST

Vote On Idea

Most people do not know the difference. The former is Megabits per second, the latter is Megabytes per second. 1Mbps is 8 times slower than 1MBps. For quite some time now, the byte has been the standard for measurement in computing. It's quite deceptive to consumers to advertise with a non-standard form of measurement that most people don't even know there is a difference. It gets confusing to me sometimes. If I need to download a 17MB file on a 15Mbps line, how long will that take? It's much easier to figure out if you know you're on a 2MBps line (rounded up).

Computer companies don't sell hard drives or CDs or RAM in the Megabit scale to make it seem like there is more than there is, so why do the ISPs do that? It's deceptive, it'd confusing, let's get rid of the madness.

Comments (3)Broadband Consumer Context, mbps, megabyte, megabit, speed naming

Measure satisfaction with the FCC website

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:44:31 PST

-1

Vote On Idea

Rather than relying on anecdotal feedback, the FCC should take a more scientific approach to measuring the effectiveness of their website in meeting citizen expectations and needs. The site is very complex and provides lots of information, features, and functions, which makes it all the more necessary to conduct some research to find out who is visiting the site, why they come, whether they are able to accomplish their mission etc.

Citizens should have the ability to provide the FCC with comments about how effective the agency is with respect to meeting its goals for transparency, collaboration, and participation.

Comments (0)E-Gov & Citizen Engagement, measure, transparency, satisfaction, website

Broadband speed just as important as broadband access

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:00:22 PST

Vote On Idea

The original digital divide separating the haves from the have-nots has quickly been replaced by a new gap defined in terms of Internet speed. While the FCC is working hard to ensure that broadband Internet is available, accessible, and affordable for all Americans, they are not ensuring that the broadband connection provided will be of adequate speed to meet the growing demands of enhanced interactive website platforms and other online activities that require high speed connections. The United States has long been stuck in a broadband-speed gap, and it is falling further and further behind its OECD brethren. In the upcoming FCC Broadband Plan, they should set a higher standard for their definition of basic broadband speed, and avoid the widening of the Internet speed gap. Simply making sure that all American households can connect at a measly 0.8 megabits per second is not enough when the Japanese are downloading at rates more than 50 times faster on average.

Comments (0)Fixed Broadband, speed

Adopt a Standard for an Open Home (Video) Gateway Device

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 11:21:33 PST

Vote On Idea

The concept of an open home gateway is one of the least noticed and most important of the components of a national broadband plan, and I believe the US is at a critical crossroads.

On one path is an incredible opportunity:
*to help close the digital divide,
*to create an entire ecosystem of connected TV that allow a freedom of communication that can quickly reach virtually all citizens,
*to create entire new industries for the US to pioneer

On the other:
*a widening of the digital divide that can undermine many, if not all, of the other national broadband efforts
*a real risk that the US falls behind other nations in the development of these new industries

TV sets have already reached the vast majority of homes that the national broadband plan hopes to reach. What is not yet clear is how the open home gateway provides the mechanisms to leverage those TVs into interactive devices that bring the richness of the Internet to those homes.

To understand this crossroads, it is instructive to look at the current situation of the connected TV. To the casual observer, it may appear that things are already moving along nicely and, indeed, my company, along with other numerous startups, major Internet companies and virtually every major electronics and computer brand has products and services for connecting the Internet to the TV. Likewise every major cable operator has initiatives to bring some form of the Internet, albeit typically limited, to the television.

But a closer look shows numerous signs of trouble. The most obvious is that despite years of numerous rosy projections, clear consumer interest, and media declarations that “this is the year of the connected TV” overall penetration of Internet connected TVs remain astoundingly low. Also important is that the penetration of these devices remains almost exclusively in affluent, sophisticated homes where PCs and broadband connections have already reached. For many years these boxes have been trapped in the early adopter segment of the population . The conventional wisdom is that no device manufacturer has achieved the ease of use required to gain mainstream adoption, or that there is not yet a critical mass of content available. While this explanation may seem plausible when viewing individual efforts, it fails to explain, why, on a macro basis all of these efforts have failed to produce a true “breakthrough device”, particularly when one considers that the failures in this category are from the same players that have had broad success in penetrating markets with mp3 players, smartphones, netbooks and a host of other devices and services.

The reason for this failure is clear: these devices have been locked out of the predominant content delivery ecosystem, putting them at a tremendous disadvantage. Boxee, a moderate success story in the category, is illustrative of this point. Boxee has developed Set-top box software that presents Internet TV content ranging from studio-produced to user-generated in ways that work well for an interactive experience on the TV. Their open system has allowed hundreds of applications to experiment with interactivity and even integration with social networking services. This software has been downloaded by hundreds of thousands of users and received accolades and won awards for its innovation and ease of use. Yet it remains hard to sell a Boxee device to a mainstream audience for a few reasons:

1) Hulu.com, a primary source of studio content for Boxee has repeatedly blocked Boxee's access to Hulu's content. Obviously, this creates a real nuisance for Boxee's users and has a particularly chilling effect on purchase interest on a device that commits them to Boxee.
2) The cost of the device remains high, $200-$300
3) The device is not integrated with another content source (ie cable or satellite) so its cost (or complexity) cannot be shared with another service, leading to yet another device and remote for users to deal with.

While the details may be different for each company, being locked out of the dominant content delivery system has created a chicken and egg situation that has marginalized everybody trying to penetrate this space. Because Hulu.com, or more accurately, the studios backing Hulu, are not willing to make a bet on Boxee or the like, they remain beholden to the conventional distribution mechanisms, which one can only assume have induced Hulu to block Boxee. Because the devices have been relegated to mostly niche status, they cannot leverage the necessary economies of scale to reduce selling price. Again, while the above described manifestations involving Hulu may be specific to Boxee, one can investigate virtually any other attempt to bring the Internet to the TV and they’ll find manifestations of being locked out of the dominant television distribution mechanism.

To test this, simply imagine your favorite Internet TV device if it was integrated into your cable system and could fully act as your set-top box. -- not a limited subset of what your cable set-top box does, and not some scaled back, proprietary version of itself integrated with your set-top box, but a fully functional version of Internet TV with access to all the content and capabilities of your set-top box. If you are like most, you no longer see a niche product, but one with plenty of mainstream potential.

All that being said, it would be only natural for the reader to wonder why the FCC would force one industry to open to another simply so one product category can flourish (presumably at the expense of another). The case for FCC involvement is that important benefits to US citizens as a whole hang in the balance.

To understand this, imagine two scenarios: In the first, things stay the way they are. The products and services surrounding the connected TV continue to advance at their current pace and remain isolated from operator distribution systems. Penetration of such devices will continue to inch along, perpetually appearing “near a breakthrough” but never actually achieving that breakthrough. Small teams of entrepreneurs will make incremental improvements to products and a small number of affluent, sophisticated households will get to enjoy the rich benefits of bringing Internet Television to their televisions.

In addition to what is lost by consumers, there is very real danger that the U.S. competitiveness in this vital and burgeoning space will be forfeited to other countries who do embrace a more open TV ecosystem. The early initiative has been seized by the UK, where the bulk of citizens receive Television via open, over-the-air signals and where the BBC is driving towards an open standard to unite Internet television and Internet television.

Even more compelling is to consider what US citizens will gain if we do have the foresight to move from the status quo to an open system. In this scenario, we can imagine a rush of activity among participants from every corner of the supply chain. We can imagine activity among manufacturers likely mirroring what happened with the set-top box converters as the government announced the digital cut over and corresponding subsidies for set-top boxes. The result was that previously expensive digital set-top boxes that were previously expensive became so cheap that many consumers were able to receive them basically for free with the subsidy. The impact to applications and services are likely to be even more profound. It’s easy to imagine a path as dramatic as the era ushered in by the Carterphone rulings which produced fax machines, modems and ultimately consumer adoption of the bulletin boards and ultimately the Internet.

Perhaps most important of all, though, is the potential for penetration into areas where US broadband has failed to reach thus far: homes on the wrong side of the digital divide. These are the lower-income, less sophisticated households that we risk further leaving behind if they cannot participate in the connectivity of a broadband Internet. An audience member at an FCC workshop I recently attended asked how he, a local small business owner, could reach his potential customer base when penetration of broadband Internet and even PCs were relatively low in his area. It struck me that there is no better tool for breaking out of the vicious cycle of digital poverty than by bringing the Internet to the television, a device they already have and use.

What may start out simply as improved, more efficient entertainment options, will inevitably lead to increasing participation in our connected world. With an open standard, innovators from community groups, businesses and governments will no doubt pull disconnected and isolated citizens into the participatory democracy in ways we can only imagine.

We urge the leadership of the FCC to make this happen by implementing a standard for the open home gateway that allow participation by all the stakeholders poised to make great use of a connected television.

Comments (0)Adoption/Utilization, open home gateway

Create an Emergency Radio Service...

Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:59:49 PST

Vote On Idea

REASONS AND BASES FOR NEW EMERGENCY RADIO SERVICE

1. In Public Notice DA 09-2259, the Commission made the following statement: "While the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communications service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications, is one of the underlying principles of the amateur service, the amateur service is not an emergency radio service [emphasis added]."
2. No Emergency Radio Service exists in the Commission's Rules and Regulations.
3. In its final report, entitled, “The 9/11 Commission Report,” the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States (2004, 283) found that:

“As of September 11, FDNY companies and chiefs responding to a fire used analog, point-to-point radios that had six normal operating channels. Typically, the companies would operate on the same tactical channel, which chiefs on the scene would monitor and use to communicate with the firefighters. Chiefs at a fire operation also would use a separate command channel. Because these point-to-point radios had weak signal strength, communications on them could be heard only by other FDNY personnel in the immediate vicinity. In addition, the FDNY had a dispatch frequency for each of the five boroughs; these were not point-to-point channels and could be monitored from around the city.

The FDNY’s radios performed poorly during the 1993 WTC bombing for two reasons. First, the radios signals often did not succeed in penetrating the numerous steel and concrete floors that separated companies attempting to communicate; and second,so many different companies were attempting to use the same point-to-point channel that communications became unintelligible.”

4. In an academic report, entitled: “Communications Challenges During Incidents of National Significance: A Lesson from Hurricane Katrina,” Lieutenant Colenol Heather K. Meeds (2006, 5) found with respect to telecommunications during that incident:
“Communications were limited at all levels due to infrastructure problems, insufficient interoperability and lack of equipment. This lack of communications kept the media confused about isolated incidents and put them in a position to report misinformation. Lacking access to critical communications assets government and assistance organizations could not dispute media reports or defend their efforts. They had no valid intelligence. In addition, proper response efforts could not be coordinated by local, state or federal agencies during the first two days due to extensive communications failures in the affected areas. This lack of communications led to a slow response, which then led to more misinformation and a protracted chaotic response. The lack of fully operable communications and intelligence increased death, destruction and human suffering.”

5. Even though the 9/11 Commission Report cited communications failures as an aggravating factor with respect to the terrorist attacks on 9/11/'01, LTC Meed (2006, 6) found that local responders, NG (National Guard), and federal agencies could not communicate with each other.
6. In an article for Wired Report, Bruce Schneier (2007) found that there were communications problems among first responders at the scene of the Minneapolis Bridge Collapse as recently as 2007.
7. In the National Advisory Council report to FEMA, Council Chairman Dr. G. Kemble Bennett (2008) found that public-private partnerships were essential in disaster mitigation, response, and relief.
8. Given the foregoing, the Commission's imperative to establish an interoperable communications system was not completely met with the establishment of the 700 MHz public safety service or related actions. This is because the 700 MHz spectrum is not conducive to long-distance propagation such as would be necessary for a hurricane or for penetrating concrete and steel buildings as was the case with the Terrorist Attacks on 9/11/'01. The other frequencies used for emergency communications are scattered piecemeal throughout a variety of radio communications services with their own separate eligibility requirements, technical rules, operating procedures, and regulatory constraints. Therefore, no real public-private interoperability exists and long-range communication is left to government agencies, with the results aforementioned.
9. For these reasons and bases the Commission should immediately adopt rules and regulations creating an Emergency Radio Service which unites various private, public, and commercial radio services during emergencies for the purpose of creating a single nationwide system of local, regional, and long-distance communication service by radio. In so doing, the Commission should consider standards to be met by participants wishing to enter or remain a part of this Emergency Radio Service, the operating procedures to be observed by those authorized in the Emergency Radio Service, and flexible frequencies and technical requirements which allow for maximization of the Emergency Radio Service's responsiveness to impending or actual disasters as well as relief in any aftermath thereof.

AUTHORITY TO ADOPT EMERGENCY RADIO SERVICE REGULATIONS

10. Pursuant to 47 USC Sections 154(i), 308-309, 318-321, and 606, the Commission has statutory authority to adopt or amend rules and regulations in order to create an Emergency Radio Service together with implementing rules and regulations.
11. The following international treaties, resolutions, agreements, and conventions authorize, even compel the Commission to create an Emergency Radio Service together with implementing rules and regulations...
a. International Radio Telegraph Convention of 1906, Article 9;
b. International Radiotelegraph Convention of 1927, Article 5;
c. Règlement de Service Télégraphique International of 1928, Article 35;
d. General Radiocommunication Regulations of 1932, Article 7;
e. World Administrative Radio Conference of 1979, Resolution 10; and,
f. World Telecommunication Development Conference of 1994, Resolution 7.

12. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, explicitly requires, that: “(o) Use of communications in safety of life and property... For the purpose of obtaining maximum effectiveness from the use of radio and wire communications in connection with safety of life and property, the Commission shall investigate and study all phases of the problem and the best methods of obtaining the cooperation and coordination of these systems.”

This new radio service foresees station licenses/permittees in the public safety, aviation fixed, maritime, amateur, amateur satellite, CMRS, and broadcast services being ipso facto licensees in the Emergency Radio Service. Radio station operators who had to take and pass an examination could also participate. Through the consolidated license database, licensees volunteer to participate in drills, actual events, and recovery operations.

Comments (0)Public Safety & Homeland Security, disaster communication

Court decision re: "Internet is only an information system"

Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:00:12 PST

Vote On Idea

Since the early 2000 years the courts have upheld the ruling that the Internet is an information system, not a video system. Comcast and others are pouring Cable video over the internet, and will ultimately utilize the internet for all cable programming....for a subscription fee. Any broadband plan must recognize how "Yesterday" the Court's "Not Video" decision, and Comcast's interpretation of it is, and include video services in the plan. Comcast uses the non-video interpretation to avoid collecting and forwarding PEG Funds as required by current cable licenses.

Comments (2)Broadband Consumer Context