ZeuBlog

What is Broadband Used For?

 By Kevin Walsh

A recent status report by the FCC’s Broadband Task Force illuminates the thinking likely to underpin evolving regulatory treatment of telco and cable broadband assets. The 168-slide presentation (and here I thought the Obama administration’s rules against torture banned the use of such lengthy PowerPoint presentations) is replete with tautologies, my favorite being “The Internet creates value only if applications are adopted by consumers.” This is like saying roads are of value only if people drive on them. But one element of the report is worth highlighting: what do people use broadband for?

The task force presentation is pretty clear in this regard. People currently use broadband for the wrong things but in the future will use it for the right things. While today broadband is used for such non-enlightened activities as “web browsing, communicating, and watching entertainment,” in the future it will be used for activities exhibiting “utilitarian social benefit.” While today people watch streaming video, in the future they’ll be more inclined to watch “streaming lectures.” The conclusion one arrives at after sifting through this gargantuan slide deck is that we’ve all just been playing around with the internet and henceforth we’ll use the internet for things like distance learning, telemedicine, community service, government activism, civic participation, worker retraining, consumer welfare, and “other national purposes.” A bit ominous, that last one.

But this perspective doesn’t align with analysis regarding internet usage conducted by a number of research firms. An excellent example is IDC’s April, 2009 internet traffic survey. IDC projects that by the year 2013 roughly half of all downstream web traffic (which will by then total almost 300 million gigabits every single day in the US alone) will be composed of streaming video. And while certainly some of that will be college students watching lectures they missed, it’s a pretty safe bet that the vast majority of streaming video—my guess is over 90 percent—will be comprised of YouTubish video clips, television episodes, and feature-length HD movies, i.e., entertainment. The IDC report also estimates that the fastest growing traffic type is on-line gaming, hardly an activity contributing to greater social munificence.

Does it matter that the architects of regulations governing the operation of broadband  assets have a world view that differs from the people that actually use the Internet? Possibly. If regulators envision a utopian future that has us all engaged in on-line “utilitarian social benefit” as opposed to gaming, tweeting, and watching movies, then it’s possible that regulations will get in the way of what people really want to do. And unless I’m mistaken, the primary objective of regulators is to protect the interests of the people.

FCC Finds A Path Toward Compromise

By Kevin Walsh

Following through on FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s September 21 speech at the Brookings Institute, the FCC recently published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). The NPR outlines a process for the FCC to accept input; but more importantly, it establishes a framework for regulating broadband facilities. With this move, the FCC is attempting to achieve a seemingly impossible outcome: to find a compromise that satisfies all sides of the debate surrounding internet regulation.

One side of this debate is comprised of interest groups maintaining that the internet has fueled such a profusion of innovation that it must be protected. The other side, consisting almost exclusively of network operators, fears that overly restrictive regulatory edicts will result in debt and equity capital investments being directed elsewhere.

As with many highly-charged debates of this nature, convincing one side that it’s wrong is rarely possible.  Consequently, the regulatory goal is to craft a compromise that balances seemingly conflicting demands. With internet regulation, finding this compromise might not seem possible–particularly given the technical complexity and changing nature of the subject.  But Chairman Genachowski may have found a solution that allows each side to claim victory.

Video Viewers Bolt from Buffering

By Trevor Dyck

We all know inherently that when it comes to video, quality is paramount.  For OTT video, this often means ensuring that video content is delivered without any of those annoying pauses due to re-buffering.  But just how important this factor is was discussed in an article today on Light Reading titled, “Will Buffering Blunt TV Biz Models”?  Essentially, it describes new research data showing that a whopping 81.2% of video viewers abandon the video when they encounter slow load times, or re-buffering occurs.

OTT video has largely overcome the packet loss issue that plagues IPTV by using TCP, a reliable transport mechanism, rather than UDP, which is unreliable but some would argue more suited to live content.  The quality issue with OTT is really re-buffering, which can only be resolved by smarter networks and increased bandwidth.

OTT Video: The New Black?

By Kevin Walsh

On the heels of the TelcoTV trade show in Orlando the shift in interest from IPTV to OTT video appears to be gaining momentum. TelcoTV was started in 2002 in pre-Katrina New Orleans and focused initially on emerging technologies enabling the delivery of linear TV over telco broadband assets, what quickly became known as IPTV. For the past several years, however, the show has seen a dramatic increase in internet video or, more colloquially, over-the-top (OTT) video. At this most recent event the shift in interest has taken on even more portentous meaning. While initial interest in OTT video was limited either to providers that had not yet invested in IPTV or providers viewing OTT video as an adjunct to IPTV, for the first time I heard providers talk about replacing IPTV systems with OTT video.

These are still very early and anecdotal indicators, but they are important nonetheless. While IPTV represents a highly advanced and mature set of technologies it is still linear video. And I have long maintained that linear video is to internet video what AOL (the portal, not the dial up services) was to the World Wide Web in the mid to late 1990s: cute, interesting but ultimately unfulfilling.  For providers to even think about replacing IPTV systems, in some cases not even fully depreciated, is an indication that the comparison to AOL is even more accurate. I can’t wait for TelcoTV 2010.

Zeugma System Wins TelcoTV Vision Awards

Read full article at: Light Reading

Roku's content game-changer

By Trevor Dyck

This morning, Roku announced two new devices which extend their product line, allowing high-quality streamed video to the living room TV. The Roku SD is a lower-priced ($79.99!) version of their highly successful player, and has essentially the same feature set but without HD. This is great for a second unit for places in your home where you may not have an HD-capable TV, such as the kid’s bedrooms. At the higher end, the Roku HD-XR adds wireless N connectivity. Wireless N (using the 802.11n standard) provides higher bandwidth and range, allowing those HD video streams to travel farther and better through your home. It also adds a USB port.

Roku is also shortly introducing the Channel Store – a game-changer in my view. This allows content partners who are using their SDK to add content to the device.

Roku has already said content from places like Mediafly, blip.tv. Motionbox, Revision3, Pandora radio, and Flickr will be on the Channel Store shortly. Our broadband provider customers are excited at the prospect of adding their own content, for example for local channels or high school sports events.

CTO Chalk Talk: Delivering Video Over Broadband Networks

Video featuring Sig Luft

Zeugma Systems CTO Sig Luft takes viewers through the first of many chalk talks on the ‘Delivery of Video Over Broadband Networks’. Sig identifies multiple methods for delivering Internet video and enhancing the quality of experience for consumers. 

More video tips from Zeugma’s CTO Sig Luft to come…

Hence the word “advocates”

By Andrew Harries

An article that ran yesterday in the Wall Street Journal  titled “Carriers Eye Pay-As-You-Go Internet” was an engaging read that pointed out much of what we frequently blog about.

The article highlights the clear division of opinions on this topic:

1. “[Consumer] advocates say unlimited monthly Internet service has been critical to the Internet's growth and the formation of online start-ups. Paying by the amount of Internet traffic used could damp usage and the sort of tinkering that can lead to breakthroughs, they warn.”
2. “Carriers believe it is only fair that heavy users pay more, especially since online file-sharing software, such as BitTorrent, takes up so much bandwidth”

… What is not included is the simple fact that while the supply of broadband bandwidth has increased significantly over the past decade, demand has increased even faster. In the early 2000s, MP3s came along… and shortly after consumer advocates found they could download standard definition movies (hence the word “advocates” – they download as often and as much as they please – and the bill remains the same).

Given these circumstances, don’t usage-based billing frameworks make sense? Yes, consumers don’t like them, but they don’t like paying their electric bills either.

Is there an electricity advocates group working to ensure that every person has the same electric bill regardless of how many lights they leave on? I’ll give you two guesses, but you’ll only need one.

The FCC’s Full Plate

By Teresa Mastrangelo, Principal Analyst, broadbandtrends

There is no doubt that a lot, and I mean A LOT, is going on over at the Federal Communications Commission these days.  Not only are 3 out of 5 commissioners new, but they are tackling the formation of a National Broadband Plan, the development of their Mobile Broadband Agenda, the addition of new principles for network neutrality, and revising their methods of data collection.  Additionally, they have taken on a new course of action that includes participation by stakeholders in the decision making process, as such they are issuing public notices on a daily basis and holding workshops across the country. 

So what have they accomplished thus far?  

Let’s start with the National Broadband Plan –  they have held nearly 30 workshops, listened to 236 witnesses (of which none were simply end users), received over 20,000 responses to its Notice of Inquiry, issued 9 public notices and set up a blog.  From this they have drawn the following conclusions:

1. Different applications require different performance parameters, and thus different speeds and potentially technologies
2. Current reporting requirements do not provide an accurate picture of broadband availability, pricing and adoption
3. It costs significantly more to deploy and maintain broadband in rural markets than in urban markets

The FCC’s Evolving Position on Net Neutrality

By Andrew Harries

FCC Chairman Genachowski recently gave a speech outlining the going-forward framework for net neutrality regulation. A critical aspect of this framework is that it will be promoted from a vague set of “policies” to an actual set of “rules.” In regulator-speak, rules have more teeth than policies so this should, when the rule making procedure is completed, offer greater clarity. But the most important aspect of the chairman’s speech was the explicit recognition of two unavoidable realities:

1. Even neutral, best-effort traffic does, under certain circumstances, require management. What these circumstances are and what constitutes permissible traffic management will have to be defined but it is encouraging the FCC recognizes that networks with no traffic management tools at all are of little value to consumers.
2. Net neutrality principles apply only to the high-speed internet access connection between the consumer and the internet. Traffic travelling over the broadband network but going to or coming from networks other than the internet are not covered by these rules. This other traffic, “managed services” as the FCC refers to them, include things like IPTV, VOD, and QOS-guaranteed video coming from content delivery networks. Here also, it is encouraging that the FCC recognizes broadband networks are capital assets and must generate a return if they are to receive continued investment. That return is more likely to come from fee-based managed services than from flat-rate internet access.

We will monitor the FCC rule making procedure but at least we seem to be headed in the right direction.