Innovation

The most basic smart network innovation and obviously reasonable network management is already being chilled by the FCC's expected absolute ban on any Internet traffic prioritization.

• Light Reading reports: "Cox shuts down Net Congestion Tests"
  • "Cox launched the trials in February, testing out a system developed internally that puts traffic into "time-sensitive" (e.g., Web pages, voice calls, streaming video), and "non-time-sensitive" (e.g., file uploads, peer-to-peer, and Usenet) buckets. As designed, the congestion management system temporarily delays upstream, non-time-sensitive traffic whenever network congestion is detected. Cox, which limited the test to residential high-speed Internet subs, insisted that any delays were on the order of seconds or subseconds -- not enough for customers to really notice."  
• Multichannel News reports: "Cox Wraps Internet Congestion Management Test -- Operator Plans to Submit findings to FCC as Part of Network Neutrality Rulemaking Process"
  • "...the operator is no longer managing traffic based on application type in Kansas/Arkansas and has no plans to deploy the congestion-management system right now."

Who thinks it is not "smart" or "reasonable" to prioritize time-sensitive traffic over non-time-sensitive traffic? 

Bret Swanson of Entropy Economics penned another great op-ed on net neutrality today entitled: "Google and the problem with net neutrality: Broadband has been a rare bright spot in the economy. Why discourage investment?" 

My favorite point Bret made was pointing out all of the investment, innovation and competitive benefits that have occured since net neutrality supporters have said there was a problem requiring regulation circa 2004. 

• Not only have net neutrality supporters not been able to find credible evidence of an industry pattern of anti-competitive problems over the last five years, they also are ignoring all the competitive gains and benefits that have occurred over the last five years as well. 

Facts matter and facts are not the friends of net neutrality proponents.    

What an "Open Internet" does not mean is as important as what it does mean.

• Surely an "Open Internet" is not intended to mean what it certainly can mean: un-protected, unguarded, or vulnerable to attack. 


• Thus, it is essential for the FCC to be explicit in defining what the terms -- "Open Internet," "net neutrality," and Internet non-discrimination -- don't mean, as well as what they do mean.

The word "open" has 88 different definitions per Dictionary.com and the word "open" has even more different connotations depending on the context. While the term "open" generally has a positive connotation to mean un-restricted, accessible and available, it can also have a negative or problematic connotation if it means unprotected, unguarded or vulnerable to attack.  

With due to credit to "Ripley's Believe it or Not!^®," so much odd and bizarre is happening in Washington in the "name" of "wireless innovation" and competition that the topic calls for its own collection of: "Believe it or Not!^®" oddities.

Skype co-founder Niklas Zennstom, the co-founder of illegal-music-downloading site Kazaa, who had to avoid entering the U.S. because of copyright-infringement liability... is now seeking a U.S. court injunction to shut down eBay's Skype for alleged copyright violations!

The FCC's recent wireless innovation NOI has put a new spotlight on how innovation evolves in a competitive market.

With that focus in mind, I highly recommend reading Link Hoewing's very thoughtful post on Verizon's PolicyBlog: "Innovation and the evolution of technology markets."  

It makes a lot of sense.

Analysis of the potential pitfalls of wireless innovation regulation is a necessary complement to the FCC's upcoming Notice of Inquiries into wireless competition/innovation and the DOJ's review of wireless competition, in order to ensure policymakers get a balanced view of the big picture.  

What are the Top 10 Pitfalls of Wireless Innovation Regulation? 

#1 Pitfall: Losing focus on universal broadband access.

"Wireless innovation" appears to be the latest rebranding iteration of "net neutrality" and "open Internet" as the net neutrality movement searches for more mainstream support of their views. 

I love to learn and I learned a lot of new information and insights from George Ou's great new post on understanding how usage caps really affect broadband throughput.

• It is a must read for anyone that considers themselves knowledgeable about broadband.
• Some of it is counter-intuitive, but all of it is illuminating if you are interested in how broadband speeds and their relative usage limits affect international broadband comparisons. 

I certainly hope fellow broadband experts at the FCC, NTIA, RUS, OSTP and on the Hill are reading George, and this post in particular, because George's insightful and illuminating analysis can help take the National Broadband Plan analysis to another more substantive level of understanding.  

I was surprised that the Wall Street Journal editorial page printed Andy Kessler's datatopian rant today, which essentially calls for the Federal Government to economically regulate the competitive broadband Internet as a monopoly and move away from a market-driven property rights model for mobile Internet infrastructure.

After one reads Mr. Kessler's compilation of datatopian platitutudes and selective analysis, please consider the litany of datatopian assumptions (below), which undergird Mr. Kessler's regulatory recommendations. 

• Mr. Kessler's: "Why AT&T Killed Google Voice: Telecom operators are yesterday's business. It's time for a national data policy that encourages innovation."

Mr. Kessler's Datatopian Assumptions:

First, assume a broadband pipe(s).

Second, assume broadband/Internet works, always.

Third, assume all the billions of daily Internet transmissions just happen -- perfectly.

Fourth, assume everyone can always use as much bandwidth as they want.

Fifth, assume its all free.

Sixth, assume broadband doesn't need return on investment.

Seventh, assume that the broadband competition everyone sees everyday in TV/online/print advertising doesn't exist.

Kudos to Link Hoewing's insightful post on "The Internet's Evolution and Network Management" on Verizon's Policy Blog.  

• Its an important analysis and perspective for anyone wanting to understand how FCC regulation of the Internet and network management could negatively and seriously harm innovation and the Internet's natural evolution.

Vint Cerf, Google's Internet Evangelist, urged the FCC at a broadband workshop last week to regulate broadband networks as a utility like the electrical grid.

• I wonder if others spotted the irony in Google's "utility" regulation prescription for broadband.

Google's Mr. Cerf looks at the most competitive broadband market in the world, declares it inherently anti-competitive, and summarily prescribes... monopoly utility regulation for the entire broadband industry.

Meanwhile back at the Google Book Settlement ranch... Google has negotiated a de facto book search monopoly for itself in the Book Registry "utility" of the Google Book Settlement, without any regulation or Government oversight.