The announcement by Google that it would delve into the Broadband ISP arena in select markets is quite interesting in the fact that it looks to be marrying a public advocacy with a public initiative, and where it counts the most, in broadband infrastructure. To me it seems more of a logical move, putting your money into a venture which supports your core competency, Internet openness, proliferation, adoption, and access.

In addition, Google seems to be promoting its core legislative agenda of having a free and open internet along with proposed high speeds that would be 100 times faster than most other ISPs. Does it matter that the initiative will not access every home in the United States, not particularly? The point remains that Google is transparently moving to promote broadband proliferation at speeds only accustomed to users outside the United States, such as Europe and Japan.

It is an experiment, albeit small and concerted with a maximum 500,000 customer goal; the initiative could have lasting ramifications within the ISP community. Per Google’s press release their agenda has three goals:

• To test developer apps and what they can do a super high speeds
• To test new ways of deploying fiber networks while sharing that information for deployments elsewhere
• To promote open Internet access to give users access to multiple providers therefore aligning with their advocacy

The RFI associated with the company’s test specifically asks for municipal participation where inadequate funds or expertise hindered startup of those plans. While it is not time to jump on the competition  bandwagon with this small test sample, it does make for interesting news which could spur more future competition within the marketplace. It also has the research criteria desired to bring in collaboration and innovation that all markets need in moving to the next level. It will also serve to enhance the existing ISP’s step up their game.

There is nothing more refreshing in business than having a company willing to put up capital in promoting an agenda to help both itself and the majority of current and future Internet users, in bringing next generation communications to the forefront of development and deployment.

I like the move Google’s made, but it, along with many other ventures will have to stand the test of viability, acceptance, bottom line financials, expertise, and research and development to be successful. But most of all, I’m impressed with marrying its advocacy with initiative.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Google To Launch Ultrafast Broadband Service (techdailydose.nationaljournal.com)
• Seattle jumps on Google broadbandwagon (seattlepi.com)
• Google’s Ultra-Fast Broadband Plan Puts U.S. ISPs on Notice (dailyfinance.com)

UTOPIA, Perfection or Fantasy: Partnering public-private sectors with broadband

…

Comcast Vs FCC: Implications in throttling BitTorrent

…

Net Neutrality’s Increasingly Complex Debate

…

At issue, the language the FCC crafted in its proposed rule making, specifically FCC NPRM Paragraph 106 as implicated by Digital Society. (see FCC NPRM prohibits good network management)

The crux of the debate for those seeing paid-peering-agreements as essential to increased participation by innovative content, application, or service providers, whether they be start-ups or seasoned, seem to be an open ended interpretation which would ban prioritization. See (What is true neutrality in the network?)

With the wide range of content flowing through the pipelines, and increasing at a rapid pace, the network cannot become a (dumb pipeline). Network management seems to be an essential characteristic needed to handle the flexibility of constantly differing requirements from Internet users. This is not a linear format with constant speeds and demands.

The network must constantly adjust to those varying needs which may require one user to demand more capacity than others at unique times. This management will not degrade the network for other users. It is a matter of choosing one higher demand over a lower demand without degrading the demand for both. It manages the requirements of each user.

As private networks, ISP‘s should know their responsibilities regarding consumer and commercial traffic, and the management issues of prioritizing. Obviously, paid peering is needed for those whose products depend on increased speed and bandwidth for business survival. The consumer wants the same whether they are streaming movies, or downloading PDF’s or just sending e-mail attachments.

It comes down to understanding how the Internet works regarding network access management capabilities across a wide variety of circumstances and geographical locations. In essence, what will it take for both large and small ISP’s to handle the varying traffic over their networks and upgrading to a standard that reasonably doesn’t degrade the user experience?

Hence, the NCTA’s recent reference to First Amendment issues in discriminating against ISP providers in Paid-Peering Agreements. The FCC should revisit NPRM Paragraph 106 and make sure proposed Net Neutrality rules do not discriminate against one party in favor of another. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• FCC Agrees to Set Rules on Net Neutrality (gigaom.com)
• FCC: We’re Going to Make Net Neutrality the Law [Net Neutrality] (gizmodo.com)
• Feds Mull Rules, Fees to Spur Net Access (online.wsj.com)
• FCC approves net neutrality rules (seattlepi.com)

The Cable Pipeline: Top 10 Predictions for 2010

…

The Cable Pipeline Opinion: Net Neutrality’s Conundrum

…

NCTA’s McSlarrow Speech: Mirrors Self-Serving Control of Pipelines

…

There are two compelling sides to the Net Neutrality issue before the Federal Communications Commission that can be solved by cutting through the rhetoric and making a few common sense and objective decisions about what is at the crux of the problem.

First, Internet Service Providers are at the center of the debate, and rightfully so, since without the ISP’s providing the gateway for Internet usage, there is no issue. The power of discrimination lays solely in the hands of the Comcast’s, AT&T’s, Time Warner Cable’s, Verizon’s, and other providers of the ISP pipelines.

This is a huge social responsibility for private sector companies, who do not necessarily compete with each other in every market, in controlling the complexities of sharing access to all who ask. The Internet has evolved into more than just picking which provider will allow individuals or companies to link through to others; it has evolved into a massive highway of commerce and social connection. And this is where the problem with competing interests and two sides of the coin begins to emerge.

To solve the issue the FCC can take either of two paths in ensuring openness and fairness to all concerned, with both large and small stakes, in both getting where they need to go and receiving what needs to receive, via broadband. One path is to let the market sort itself out; in that encouraging competition within the marketplace between ISP providers will create less of a reason for providers to favor one entity over another or risk losing customers to the competition.

This would work well if it was easy and inexpensive to get into the ISP business while building an infrastructure to support a broadband pipe sufficient enough handle the range of users, content, and applications needed to ensure true competition. Only Verizon, to my knowledge, is able say that it welcomes all comers with its FTTH-FIOS infrastructure and with bandwidth to spare.

An alternative path would be to mandate all ISP providers open their networks to competitors and set standards for download and upload speeds, thereby ensuring everyone is treated equal. And yes, creating tiers of service for unusual traffic needs. While this could be considered a heavy-handed approach, it does take somewhat of a burden off the private sector in choosing whether to upgrade their networks for increased bandwidth, or which entity it will prefer when having to choose between conflicts of interest, protection polices, or Wall Street demands.

But a common sense approach is fraught with political mine fields. Lobbying is alive and well on Capitol Hill and the larger companies have the lawyers, insiders, and money to back up those efforts. However, in my opinion, there needs to be a compromise between public and private sectors that are willing to support an (Internet Super-Highway) which fosters innovation, competition, new businesses, and robust commerce that spreads success to all corners of our country. It is only common sense!

Related articles by Zemanta

• FCC Proposes New Net Neutrality Rules (businesspundit.com)
• What to Expect From the New Net Neutrality Rules (gigaom.com)
• Verizon CTO advocates for metered broadband pricing (news.cnet.com)

Comcast Vs FCC: Implications in throttling BitTorrent

…

Why offering the Quad Play would help Cable’s Stock Price

…

The Bottom Line: Court Decision on Comcast Vs FCC

…