One of the most controversial of the recommendations that came out of this work is that which said one should go gentle on regulating quality. The main reason we said that was because we believed that the poor needed access in the form of different price-quality bundles; that if high quality standards were imposed by fiat, the only victims would be the price-sensitive consumers who would get priced out. While we did not take an explicit position on net neutrality those days, we now have to, based on what we have learned. We do not believe net neutrality is appropriate for emerging economies, especially for the BOP.

Major decision has come down from the US courts on the Obama appointees’ attempt to mandate net neutrality by law:

A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that regulators had limited power over Web traffic under current law. The decision will allow Internet service companies to block or slow specific sites and charge video sites like YouTube to deliver their content faster to users.

The court decision was a setback to efforts by the Federal Communications Commission to require companies to give Web users equal access to all content, even if some of that content is clogging the network.

Chief among its goals, the F.C.C. wants future broadband investment to be focused on the areas where gaps in service remain. It will direct this investment in part through the Universal Service Fund, a program for telephone and Internet access, costing $8 billion annually, paid through a phone bill surcharge. Over time, the subsidies for Internet will increase and those for phone will dissipate, with the knowledge that people can make online calls.

“Some of the details are lacking, particularly on Universal Service Fund reform,” said Dan Mitchell, a vice president for the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, a group that represents rural providers and worries that the proposals to change phone carrier costs will curtail the providers’ abilities to expand infrastructure.

The FCC is asking broadband and smartphone users in USA to use their broadband testing tools to help the feds and consumers know what speeds are actually available, not just promised by the nations’ telecoms, reports wired.com. Starting yesterday (March 11), netizens can go to the FCC’s Broadband.gov site, enter their address and test their broadband speed using one of two testing tools.

Broadband connection testing isn’t new, and is freely available online, but this might mark the first time that individual tests help to lead to informed policy making, says the writer Ryan Singel.

That is not correct Mr. Singel, as nothing is new here. LIRNEasia has been doing it for at least one and half years.

Broadband users in Chennai, Colombo, Dhaka and New Delhi could have used our own broadband test application AT-Tester, from www.broadbandasia.info the same way now the US broadband users will do. They could even enter that information to our central database, which can be then analysed.

That’s not all. Just read the following para from the same report. Don’t you find anything familiar?

Crowdsourcing this data is a brilliant move, given that telecoms have long fought against telling federal regulators what areas they cover and at what speed, arguing that information will be used by competitors to poach their customers. The data can also be used as a way to prevent telecoms from over-promising and under-delivering on upload and download speeds. If you listen closely you might actually hear the telecom companies hitting the backspace key to revise the speed numbers on their promotional fliers.

Isn’t this exactly what we have been doing?

FCC,  welcome to the club!

Read the full story in wired.com here.

Here are few more news reports on FCC’s move.

FCC releases Internet speed test tool – Reuters

FCC Unveils Speed Test - Bloomberg Business Week

FCC Launches Broadband Test Site for Consumers – PC World

We were pleased that I and Alison Gillwald (who will be leading the CPRafrica initiative) were invited as guests to the 2009 TPRC conference, facilitated by Prabir Neogi, among others. Alison and I chaired sessions, at the kind invitation of Judith Mariscal who is in the leadership of DIRSI and also on the program committee of TPRC). Jonathan Aronson invited me to serve as a discussant on a plenary panel of senior government officials dealing with international telecom issues.

Peter Cowhey of the US Trade Representative’s office (who during a previous stint in government, along with Jonathan, drove down international termination prices for all), Andrew McLaughlin who is responsible for communication policy issues at the White House and John Giusti from the FCC were the panelists. Unlike the others, who had to speak carefully given their roles in government, I was able to speak my mind, saying things like “your universal service system is abominable.”

When I mentioned that LIRNEasia research had been cited in testimony before Congress on reforming the universal service fund, I actually had a senior official from the FCC come up afterward and ask me for the reference. That, said many, exemplified the new relationship between TPRC and official Washington. In stark contrast to the faith-based policy making of the Bush years, there is active engagement now.

Now the FCC has entered the fray, asking for comments on interpreting broadband.

This is what one online commentator says:

Nicely put, but defining and, even more, “interpreting” broadband may be a tough call. The FCC’s Notice certainly doesn’t make it easy. When last we checked, the FCC upgraded its speed based definition of “basic” broadband to over 200Kbps but less than 768Kbps (uploads and downloads). “I am pleased that the Commission finally moved away from its antiquated definition of broadband as 200 kilobits per second, which had become something of a running joke,” declared one Commissioner after the June 2008 Order. The Department of Commerce’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), which is taking applications for broadband stimulus money, defines broadband as “two-way data transmission with advertised speeds of at least 768 kbps downstream and at least 200 kbps upstream to end users.”

But now the Commission notes that just because some ISP advertises service at thus and such a speed doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s what the consumer will get. In July, for example, the United Kingdom Ofcom released the conclusions of a six-month investigation about broadband rates. Customers who bought DSL from one of eight different companies may have thought they were getting 8Mbps, Ofcom reported, but on average they were only getting 4.8.

There aren’t a lot of details yet on how that $6 billion would be given out, but it doesn’t seem to encompass the tax breaks phone and cable companies were lobbying for. Even so, the wireless industry was cheering Thursday morning because a summary of the spending released by House Democrats calls for the money to be used on “broadband and wireless grants.”

Wireless companies were concerned that the money would be earmarked for cable and phone companies providing fiber to the home.

On Wednesday, an Obama adviser who’s been in charge of the broadband stimulus package indicated that industry and tech expectations about the broadband part of the package had gotten a bit out of control.

“The broadband piece of the Obama agenda is not going to be done solely in the economic recovery package,” said Blair Levin, a telecom analyst and former FCC chief of staff who’s been advising the campaign on how to structure its broadband plan. He was speaking at a tech conference on Capitol Hill.

Read the full article in Wall Street Journal here.

The proposal has been added to a pending auction of the airwaves. The FCC is scheduled to vote on rules for the sale on Dec. 18. Mr. Martin wants the company that buys the airwaves to devote at least 25% of the spectrum to free Internet access for 95% of the country. The no-cost Internet service also would be smut-free for users under 18. Adult users could opt out of the filter blocking pornographic content.

Mr. Martin said Wednesday that he has circulated two versions of the auction item — one with the unlicensed provision and one without — for the other commissioners on the five-member body to review before the meeting. The FCC will vote on only one version, depending on which version the other commissioners prefer, Mr. Martin said.

Mr. Martin wants to sell a nationwide license to the airwaves rather than give the channels to entrepreneurs because he wants to promote free Internet access. By adding a clause that would give away airwaves where there isn’t an Internet network after five years, Mr. Martin hopes that the owner of the channels would have an added incentive to build a network.

Mr. Martin said Wednesday that both versions of the auction item include a “use it or lose it” provision in which the owner of the channels would lose spectrum where there is no Internet access. The owner of the channels would “continue to serve whatever area they’ve built out,” he said.

Read the full story in the Wall Street Journal here.

Martin is expected to put his proposal for the free Internet network on the agency’s Dec. 18 meeting agenda despite criticism by wireless operators like T-Mobile, who say using the spectrum could interfere with their new high-speed data network. T-Mobile, a unit of Germany’s Deutsche Telecom, spent $4 billion for nearby spectrum and has disputed a report by the FCC that rejected the firm’s concerns of interference.

For Martin, however, the plan could dispel criticism he’s taken over the country’s fall in international broadband Internet rankings during his tenure and leave him with a legacy of potentially bringing more competition into the wireless industry. The wireless phone market is dominated by AT&T and Verizon Wireless and much smaller providers, Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile.

Read the full story in Washington Post here.

The policy working group on Technology, Innovation and Government Reform will “develop proposals and plans from the Obama Campaign for action during the Obama-Biden Administration,” according to the president-elect’s transition web site www.change.gov.

The authors of what could be sweeping changes in broadband rules, privacy and government transparency include:

–Blair Levin, a telecom investment analyst at Stifel Nicolaus and former chief of staff to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Reed Hundt. Levin is also seen among a short list of candidates to head the FCC in the new administration.

–Julius Genachowski, former chief counsel to Hundt at the FCC and a member of Obama’s transition team. Genachowski, a former law school classmate of Obama’s and an active and early member of the campaign, has been talked about as a candidate for the nation’s first chief technology officer or FCC chairman. He is venture capitalist, the co-founder of Rock Creek Vetnrues and LaunchBox Digital. Genachowski also served as a senior executive at IAC/InterActiveCorp, where he was head of business operations.

–Sonal Shah heads Google’s philanthronpic arm, Google.org’s global development efforts. Shah has a lengthy resume on international development issues: prior to joining Google she was a vice president at Goldman, Sachs and Co., developing the firm’s environmental policy. She is also the co-founder of Indicorps, a U.S.-based non-profit organization offering one-year fellowships to Indian-Americans to work on development projects in India. Sonal worked at the Department of Treasury from 1995-2002 on various economic issues. She is on the Obama-Biden Transition Project Advisory Board.

The announcement comes amid speculation about who will take the job of national CTO and the FCC. High-tech and telecommunications leaders around the nation are also eager to learn what the job of CTO entails.

Read the full story in Washington Post here.

White space is industry lingo for the unused airwaves that abut broadcast TV spectrum, providing a buffer zone from stray signals and other inferference. The buffer zone was set up more than 50 years ago when TV was first invented.

The FCC’s white-space plan was initially proposed four years ago. More than 25,000 comments — from supporters as well as critics — were submitted.

Under the FCC’s plan, white space spectrum will be unlicensed and free — like Wi-Fi — to anybody who wants to use it. In some markets, there’s enough white space to fill a half dozen TV channels

Read the full story in USA Today here.

The following letter by a reader to USA Today highlights similar concerns – may be in another context.

WHY SHOULD BROADBAND BE FREE?

James Lakely – Chicago

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin’s reference to the phone industry exposes the weakness of his argument to provide free broadband access in the USA.

Yes, copper phone lines were, for decades, “the main means of communication for millions of Americans.” But the government didn’t invent that technology, nor give it away for free. The market provided, and Americans paid for it via private transactions. Even if one views broadband as a public utility, why should it be free while Americans pay for basics such as water, garbage and, yes, phone service?

The FCC’s proper role is to regulate as lightly as possible so the market can develop innovative technologies while competition keeps prices affordable. Just as there is no free lunch, there is no “free” broadband.

(Open to comment)

The lawsuit involves a 3-2 decision the FCC handed down in early August that found Comcast’s practices violated so-called net-neutrality principles, and ordered the company to provide more details of its network-management policies within 30 days. The FCC also ordered Comcast to stop by the end of the year blocking traffic related to specific applications, such as file-sharing software that allows users to swap videos.

It was the first time the FCC had found a company in violation of the commission’s net-neutrality principles, which lay out consumers’ Internet rights.

Comcast was widely expected to appeal the FCC’s decision, even though the company wasn’t fined. Comcast says its practice of sometimes slowing Internet traffic on file-sharing networks like BitTorrent is reasonable and necessary to prevent a few heavy bandwidth users from slowing other customers’ service. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals here, doesn’t go into details about the complaint, but company officials have argued that the FCC has authority to bring enforcement actions under formal rules, not principles. While the FCC has stated a position on net neutrality, it hasn’t established formal rules.

Read the full story in ‘The Wall Street Journal’ here.

FCC too was happy with 200 kbps (on either direction) for some time, but apparently has apparently realized that outdated. From now on, it will use a more ambitious and more nuanced set of definitions as follows:

“First Generation data “: 200 Kbps up to 768 Kbps

“Basic Broadband”: 768 Kbps to 1.5 Mbps

And from there, the FCC will keep track of the number of homes that get service in each of six higher speed tiers:

1.5 Mbps to < 3.0 Mbps
3.0 Mbps to < 6.0 Mbps
6.0 Mbps to < 10.0 Mbps
10.0 Mbps to < 25.0 Mbps
25.0 Mbps to < 100.0 Mbps
100.0 Mbps +

Read the full story here.

“In the best interest of the general public, the FCC must focus on serving the public safety with a proven technology that can be implemented nationwide immediately,” said CellCast Chief Operating Officer Paul Klein. “We should not wait until 2010 when more lives could be lost to hurricanes, tornados and other disasters or crises.”

CellCast Urges FCC to Include Proven Cell Broadcast Technology in National Emergency Alert System for Cell Phones