Will the Internet Break Under Peak Load?

An interesting survey came out of the telecom industry’s NXTComm show last week in Las Vegas. It’s been getting a lot of play in trade publications. Attendees to the show were asked a number of questions, including whether they thought the Internet could ever “break” due to increasing traffic levels. The study was conducted by network equipment provider Tellabs and the research firm IDC:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080618/aqw073a.html?.v=3

Respondents didn’t “break” one way or the other — half said yes, and half said no. But if you look at the answers to another question in the survey, 80% said carriers are already doing things to control the strain on their networks during traffic spikes. This is very interesting to me, and some of these activities — metering service, packet inspection, slowing down traffic during peak hours — have been very much in the news lately. Apparently there is a lack of confidence that current network capacity can support the supposedly “unlimited” packages many of the providers are selling to consumers.

As some readers will know broadband is a recurring theme of this blog. While tracking the issue I’ve gotten to know Drew Clark, who started the organization BroadbandCensus.com to get a clearer picture of broadband availability in this country. I asked him what he thought of this new survey:

“Whether or not new bandwidth demands on the Internet cause carriers to offer tiered pricing or to throttle particular applications or protocols, independent monitoring will be crucial,” Drew said. “The core purpose of BroadbandCensus.com is to provide bandwidth consumers, both individuals and businesses, with a place to find local information about broadband availability, competition, speeds, prices and quality of service.”

Drew also suggested I read a recent post of his regarding broadband metering, which can be found here: http://broadbandcensus.com/blog/?p=12

Marc Hausman, a colleague of mine at Strategic Communications Group shared a great saying with me a few years back. People show you what they think not by what they say, but by how they spend their time and their money. Providers seem to be spending a lot of time and money on the issue of rapidly rising Internet traffic. Time as represented by coming up with preventative measures like those described above, and money spent for upgrades to their networks.

I’ve blogged previously my belief that all parties will need to be involved to improve broadband in this country. The transparency Drew is seeking is an important piece of any solution and if you haven’t already, take the census that is located on his site.

The government can help by supporting more transparency around availability, and streamlining and increasing economic incentives for broadband providers. Providers need to be very open on ways they are trying to control traffic spikes, and stick to throughput promises made to consumers. Content providers need to remember they have built lucrative businesses that depend on reliable connectivity, and should work with carriers for mutual success.

Working together sound too simplistic? That’s what Google and Sprint are doing (along with Intel, Time Warner and others), collaborating to support WIMAX development and deployment under the Clearwire brand. If Clearwire is successful, that will put pressure on the mobile networks of other carriers to get faster, and so on, and so on…

Add to: | blinklist | del.cio.us | digg | yahoo! | furl | shadows | netvouz

Gimme the Speed, and I’ll Find the Services?

A new survey came out during a Broadband Policy conference here in DC. It was put on by Pike and Fischer, a subsidiary of BNA (http://www.bna.com/about/companies.htm) that looks at broadband from a policy perspective: http://www.broadbandpolicysummit.com/

The survey found that 40% of attendees ranked high speed as the most appealing advanced service, substantially more than services like HDTV or digital phone service. It’s a small sample of 280 people and it would be nice to see more details about the survey without having to buy the full $600 report (hint hint P&F), but Jacqui Cheng of Ars Technica uses it to lead a good post on broadband that weaves in other recent studies from Akamai and the Communications Workers of America. The conclusion is we need to do a better job in this country:

Despite this difference, it’s clear that the US has a lot of catching up to do when it comes to broadband speeds. Pike & Fischer points out the fairly obvious (to us geeks, anyway): without high broadband speeds, millions of other features being offered to us by cable companies and telcos will have a harder time getting off the ground. “This suggests to us that, while multichannel video providers may be spending a lot of their ad dollars promoting their high-def channels and their ‘triple-play’ bundles, they still rely on their broadband speeds to seal the deal with customers,” Pike & Fischer Broadband Advisory Services Scott Sleek said in a statement. “Every one wants to claim that they offer the fastest Internet access, and believe that will be more important to customers than how many HD channels they offer.”

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080612-study-consumers-lust-after-high-speed-broadband-not-hdtv.html

Drew Clark of BroadbandCensus.com was in attendance, and here’s his take on the keynote address by FCC Commissioner Michael Copps: http://broadbandcensus.com/blog/?p=23

I know Drew, and will try to get in touch with him for some additional color on the event. Of course the rub is how to get more speed to millions of Americans. What’s the biggest gating item — lack of accurate information, infrastructure investment, government support, consumer adoption to justify the investment needed for fiber to the home?

Content providers, service providers and government all have their particular perspectives, but can’t the parties work together and craft a strategy that serves the national interest while at the same time making economic sense?

Add to: | blinklist | del.cio.us | digg | yahoo! | shadows

U.S. Now Ranked Head of the Class for Internet?

European researchers this week issued a report that portrayed the U.S. Internet infrastructure in a positive light. The study was commissioned by the World Economic Forum, and conducted by Insead, a business school near Paris. It ranked the United States fourth, behind just Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland.

This struck me as strange. Turns out the study uses an index of 68 variables, pulling in things like political system and regulatory environment to reach the ranking. Here’s an article from John Markoff of the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/technology/09internet.html?th&emc=th

I found this sentence revealing — “The Insead assessment offers a stark contrast to other appraisals based on single measures that have portrayed the United States, the nation that invented the global data network, as both lagging and declining in the broadband boom.” Some single measures seem very valid to me — like whether someone can get broadband or not, and if they can what do they have to pay?

You don’t have to go far outside of Washington DC to get a picture of the challenges. The Post did a story last December that looked at broadband access in Loudoun county, only about 30 miles from the capitol. Your access to broadband is very limited if you happen to live in the more rural western part of the county:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/01/AR2007120100109.html

I reached out to Drew Clark, founder of www.broadbandCensus.com, for his take. Caught him on the phone and he shared the following:

“First off all I know is what I read — I haven’t reviewed the report. But it sounds like they are incorporating a lot of soft variables in their rankings. Not to say these aren’t useful, and a country certainly needs a solid legal and regulatory frameworkto foster productivity. But you really need hard numbers to make relevant comparisons. That’s the reason I started BroadbandCensus.com, to provide like-to-like numbers straight from users, rather than filtering data through government organizations. Right now we’re focused on the U.S., but some day I’d love to extend it internationally.”

I’d love to believe the U.S. is number four in the world. But looking at the variables that really matter — percentage of population reached, average speed and average cost — there’s no way. Our Internet is #4 the same way our healthcare is #1 — only if you focus on the haves, and ignore the have nots.

Links to socialize:

: : : : : : : : : : :

Telecom Industry Asks — Can We Get Real About Broadband?

Today Strategic client Tellabs released some interesting survey data. Tellabs used the subscription lists of leading trade publications to ask telecom professionals about broadband — what the definition of broadband should be, and the state of availability in the United States. Over 450 respondents shared some very strong opinions on this important issue.

There are 14 countries that get broadband to a higher percentage of their citizens than the U.S. I get the fact we’re a larger country, and its tougher for us than say a Korea or a Denmark. But can’t we do better? Some of the tools seem to be there already — for example, every American already pays a fee on their monthly bill (Universal Access Fund) to subsidize phones lines to rural areas. It’s 2008 — can’t we take that money and switch it from voice to broadband?

Nine out of ten telecom professionals think the FCC definition of broadband isn’t true. Industry pros are very concerned about the gap in broadband availability in this country, and they want something done about it. Some percentages from the survey:

94% think the current FCC definition of 200/kbs isn’t a true broadband experience

79% think where you live should not dictate availability

81% think the government should use some of the Universal Service Fund to expand broadband availability in rural areas

89% think lack of broadband hurts an person’s education, productivity and employment opportunities

Here’s a link to the release with full results: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080320/aqth501.html?.v=3

All this is especially topical in light of the FCC putting out its semi-annual broadband access numbers yesterday. According to the FCC, over 99% of zip codes have at least one broadband provider! And some zip codes have 8 or 9 different providers to choose from! I don’t know about you, but I’ve never lived in any of those zip codes.

So apparently, all is well when it comes to broadband in this country. This doesn’t seem to pass the smell test to me. Here’s a link to the FCC release yesterday: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280904A1.doc

Does anyone happen to live in one of these zip codes, and have another take? Check out Drew Clark’s site, www.broadbandcensus.com. Drew has started this organization precisely to get a more accurate picture of what broadband availability really is out there from actual end users.

Care to take the survey yourself? Here’s a link to the same survey taken by the industry folks. Please click HERE and add your voice to the debate. If there are enough respondents, I’ll be happy to post the results in a couple of weeks.

Save this post to your choice below!

: : : : : : : : : : :