Monday, February 25, 2008
FCC Hearing, overall impression
I listened to the entire hearing by streaming audio . . . all in all, it was an extremely good discussion, a high-minded exchange of views.
If there was one thing missing, it was a strong statement that -- in the decade-old words of Peter Lothberg -- we have the technology to never be bandwidth limited again.
There are at least two observations to support this. First, provisioning 10 megabits costs far, far less than ten times provisioning one megabit. Same for ten gigabits versus one. Second, the ability to jam bits down a fiber, a wire or through the air is improving faster than Moore's Law.
At the FCC hearing, the general impression was that bandwidth was like candy bars, that two of them cost twice as much as one . . . and that's just not true.
Another point that was MIA was that compared to other infrastructures like roads and sewers, provisioning a high speed Internet connection is far less expensive.
Nevertheless, in light of all the good stuff that was presented and discussed, if the Commissioners were acting solely on the basis of what they heard, they'd most certainly do the right thing. Will they?
If there was one thing missing, it was a strong statement that -- in the decade-old words of Peter Lothberg -- we have the technology to never be bandwidth limited again.
There are at least two observations to support this. First, provisioning 10 megabits costs far, far less than ten times provisioning one megabit. Same for ten gigabits versus one. Second, the ability to jam bits down a fiber, a wire or through the air is improving faster than Moore's Law.
At the FCC hearing, the general impression was that bandwidth was like candy bars, that two of them cost twice as much as one . . . and that's just not true.
Another point that was MIA was that compared to other infrastructures like roads and sewers, provisioning a high speed Internet connection is far less expensive.
Nevertheless, in light of all the good stuff that was presented and discussed, if the Commissioners were acting solely on the basis of what they heard, they'd most certainly do the right thing. Will they?
Technorati Tags: Broadband, FCC, NetworkNeutrality
Comments:
Kevin sure sounds like he is going to do something. Of course, is the enemy of my enemy my friend? Is Kevin for Neutrality or does Kevin hate Cable. You clearly got the impression listening that Kevin had it out for comcast (remember cables refusal to give Kevin his a la carte - something that Kevin mentioned several times). Also, while he said great things, there is only ~8 months left in his reign. He can make sound and fury, steal the thunder of Neutrality from the demorats - but never actually act on it in any way that would effect "Precious" er I mean AT&T.
# posted by 
: 2/26/2008 7:32 AM
: 2/26/2008 7:32 AM
Mr. Isenberg,
At the FCC hearing, the general impression was that bandwidth was like candy bars, that two of them cost twice as much as one . . . and that's just not true.
This has been a tactic of the telcos from the start... trying to create a false scarcity of bandwidth. I say its like discussing the cost of a cup of water in the presence of Niagra Falls. This false portrayal of bandwidth costs is a major pillar of the opponents to net-neutrality, etc. As usual, there is a lot of ignorance and a plethora of misconceptions amongst our policy makers.
Please keep up the good work!
-Joshua Zeidner
At the FCC hearing, the general impression was that bandwidth was like candy bars, that two of them cost twice as much as one . . . and that's just not true.
This has been a tactic of the telcos from the start... trying to create a false scarcity of bandwidth. I say its like discussing the cost of a cup of water in the presence of Niagra Falls. This false portrayal of bandwidth costs is a major pillar of the opponents to net-neutrality, etc. As usual, there is a lot of ignorance and a plethora of misconceptions amongst our policy makers.
Please keep up the good work!
-Joshua Zeidner
Good point, David, with respect to the step reductions per unit of increased bit rate production, which is something we tend to lose sight of all too easily at times. However, even cheaper incremental bandwidth doesn't mitigate matters much, if first mile networks (as well as their upstreams) aren't made to scale in some agreed-to fashion, perhaps indexed to local utilization statistics in a publicly verifiable manner.
Yes, this does impact the economics to some degree, but I think I'd rather see this matter discussed in the open than perpetuating the myth of broadband, which myth entails our collectively agreeing to have the wool pulled down over our eyes in order to avoid dealing with more ambiguity than is necessary.
While it is blatantly obvious that bandwidth provisions must scale, and perhaps how this is played out may be the foundation of all other arguments that follow, it is not something that was mentioned in any of the accounts of yesterday's meeting that I've read or heard discussed anywhere, or any other proposition that I've read about in recent times, either.
It is all well and good to have a four-point (or however many) set of "broadband" guidelines, but without ensuring that capacity levels are maintained in accordance with (or, preferably, one step ahead of) demand, all other discussions are reduced to reminders of how the Internet was designed to accommodate congestion and the reasons for dropping packets.
What I sensed, at least in the arguments that I've read concerning yesterday's meeting (and I'm sure I've missed some), was an inordinate willingness to surrender to the capacity constraints imposed by incumbents, which, in most cases will prove to be inadequate, if they aren't already.
As a brief aside, herein lies the beauty of foresight as demonstrated by Verizon in its election of an all-optical approach vs. the copperheadedness of many of its wireline peers, as evidenced by the relative relaxation of economic strain on VZ as it moves to crank up its throughput speeds, even if they are still charging too much. I had to get this point in because it speaks to so many dependent issues.
The question of how to assess the need for, and timing of, the scaling of first mile provisions in a publicly accountable fashion is still something that needs to be addressed, IMO, just as electric power companies must make public the rates of utilization they are experiencing, and more to the point, the measures they are putting in place to keep pace with growing demand.
frank@fttx.org
Post a Comment
Yes, this does impact the economics to some degree, but I think I'd rather see this matter discussed in the open than perpetuating the myth of broadband, which myth entails our collectively agreeing to have the wool pulled down over our eyes in order to avoid dealing with more ambiguity than is necessary.
While it is blatantly obvious that bandwidth provisions must scale, and perhaps how this is played out may be the foundation of all other arguments that follow, it is not something that was mentioned in any of the accounts of yesterday's meeting that I've read or heard discussed anywhere, or any other proposition that I've read about in recent times, either.
It is all well and good to have a four-point (or however many) set of "broadband" guidelines, but without ensuring that capacity levels are maintained in accordance with (or, preferably, one step ahead of) demand, all other discussions are reduced to reminders of how the Internet was designed to accommodate congestion and the reasons for dropping packets.
What I sensed, at least in the arguments that I've read concerning yesterday's meeting (and I'm sure I've missed some), was an inordinate willingness to surrender to the capacity constraints imposed by incumbents, which, in most cases will prove to be inadequate, if they aren't already.
As a brief aside, herein lies the beauty of foresight as demonstrated by Verizon in its election of an all-optical approach vs. the copperheadedness of many of its wireline peers, as evidenced by the relative relaxation of economic strain on VZ as it moves to crank up its throughput speeds, even if they are still charging too much. I had to get this point in because it speaks to so many dependent issues.
The question of how to assess the need for, and timing of, the scaling of first mile provisions in a publicly accountable fashion is still something that needs to be addressed, IMO, just as electric power companies must make public the rates of utilization they are experiencing, and more to the point, the measures they are putting in place to keep pace with growing demand.
frank@fttx.org
# posted by : 2/26/2008 2:26 PM
: 2/26/2008 2:26 PM
