Posts for 'FCC'

Colin Dixon, senior partner at The Diffusion Group, and I will continue our complimentary webinar series, "The Terror of Technology II: Demystifying Broadband TV" today at 2pm ET/11am PT.

In today's session, Colin and I will discuss net neutrality and how it impacts online video. We're coming at this quite differently, so the webinar promises a spirited exchange of ideas. There will be ample time for audience Q&A. Please join us!

Click here to register

Following are 4 items worth noting from the Oct 19th week:

1. FCC kicks off net neutrality rulemaking process among flurry of input - As expected, the FCC kicked off its net neutrality rulemaking process yesterday, with all commissioners voting to explore how to set rules regulating the Internet for the first time, though Republican appointees dissented on whether new rules were in fact needed.

Leading up to the vote there was a flurry of input by stakeholders and Congress. Everyone agrees on the "motherhood and apple pie" goal that the Internet must remain open and free. The disagreement is over whether new rules are required to accomplish this, and if there are to be new rules what specifically should they be. As I argued here, the FCC is treading into very tricky waters, and law of unintended consequences looms. Already telco executives are talking about curtailing investments in network infrastructure, the opposite of what the FCC is trying to foster. The FCC will be seeking input from stakeholders as part of the process. Even though chairman Genachowski's bias to regulate is very clear, let's hope that as the data and facts are presented, the FCC is able to come to right decision, which is to leave the well-functioning Internet alone.

2. New Cisco research substantiates video, social networking usage - Speaking of the well-functioning Internet, Cisco released its Visual Networking Index study this week based on research gathered from 20 leading service providers. Cisco found that the average broadband connection consumes 4.3 gigabytes of "visual networking applications" (video, social networking and collaboration) per month, or the equivalent of 20 short videos. (Note that comScore's Aug data said of the 161 million viewers in the U.S. alone, the average number of videos viewed per month was 157.) I'm not sure what the difference is other than Cisco is measuring global traffic and comScore data is at U.S. only. Regardless, the Cisco research continues to demonstrate that users are shifting to more bandwidth-intensive applications, and the Internet is scaling up to meet their demands.

3. Netflix reports strong Q3 '09 earnings, streaming usage surges - Netflix continues to stand out as unaffected by the economy's woes, reporting its Q3 results late yesterday that included adding 510,000 net new subscribers, almost double the 261,000 from Q3 '08. The company finished the quarter with 11.1 million subs and projects to end the year with 12 to 12.3 million subs. If Netflix were a cable operator it would be the 3rd largest, just behind Time Warner Cable, which has approximately 13 million video subscribers.

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings also disclosed that 42% of Netflix's subscribers watched a TV episode or movie using the "Watch Instantly" streaming feature during the quarter, up from 22% in Q3 '08. Hastings also said in 2010 the company will begin streaming internationally, even though it has no plans to ship DVDs outside the U.S. He added that in Q4 Netflix will announce yet another CE device on which Watch Instantly will be available (just this week it also announced a partnership with Best Buy to integrate Watch Instantly with Insignia Blu-ray players). Net, net, Watch Instantly looks like it's getting great traction for Netflix and will continue to be a bigger part of the company's mix. Yet as I've mentioned in the past, a key challenge for Netflix is making more content available for streaming.

4. Yahoo's pact with GroupM for original branded entertainment raises more questions - Shifting gears, Yahoo and GroupM, the media buying powerhouse announced a deal this week to begin co-producing original branded entertainment for advertisers. The idea is to then distribute the video throughout Yahoo's News, Sports, Finance and Entertainment sections. GroupM has had some success in the past, as its "In the Motherhood" series, created for Sprint and Unilever, was picked up by ABC, though it was quickly canceled. As I pointed out in my recent post about Break Media, branded entertainment initiatives continue to grow.

Less clear to me is Yahoo's approach to video. CEO Carol Bartz said last month that "video is so crucial to our users and our advertisers..." that "there's a big emphasis inside Yahoo on our video platforms" and that "a big cornerstone of our strategy is video." OK, but these comments came just months after Yahoo closed down its Maven Networks platform, which it had only acquired in Feb '08. Having spent time at Maven, I can attest that its technology would have been well-suited to supporting the engagement and interactivity requirements of these new Yahoo-GroupM branded entertainment projects. Yahoo's video strategy, such as it is, remains very confusing to me.

Note there will be no VideoNuze email on Monday as I'll be in Denver moderating the Broadband Video Leadership Breakfast at the CTAM Summit...enjoy your weekend!

Following are 4 items worth noting from the week of Oct 12th week:

1. Bell Canada is first to offer "TV Everywhere" type service - While U.S. operators have been busy with their TV Everywhere trials, Bell Canada, which has 1.8 million linear video subscribers, has jumped into the lead, announcing this week the launch of "TMN Online." The service, available through the Bell TV Online portal, allows subscribers to The Movie Network premium channel to gain online access to about 130 hours of content.

I spoke briefly with Peter Wilcox, Bell TV's director of product strategy, who explained that ExtendMedia's OpenCASE is being used for content management, in conjunction with Microsoft's Silverlight and PlayReady DRM. Users login with their Bell user name and password and are authenticated against the billing database as valid TMN subs. Only 1 simultaneous log-in is allowed, and Bell is also geo-blocking, so for example, there's no accessing TMN Online from outside Canada. The launch is part of what Bell calls "TV Anywhere" - a broader context for eventual distribution to its mobile subscribers, and further content being added. The deployment is the first milestone in what promises to be a busy 2010 on the TV Everywhere news front.

2. BlackArrow launches ad insertion for Comcast video-on-demand - BlackArrow, the multiplatform ad technology provider, announced its first customer deployment this week, with Comcast's Jacksonville, FL operation. I talked to company CEO Dean Denhart and President Nick Troiano, who gave me an update on how the company dynamically inserts ads in long-form premium content across TV, broadband and mobile. As I wrote 2 years ago, BlackArrow has bitten off the hardest challenge first: working with cable operators to get its system into their headends/data centers. Dean and Nick believe that if the company can succeed in this goal then it will have created formidable differentiation that can be leveraged for the other two platforms.

The key risk is that cable operators are famous for grinding down promising technology startups with their endless testing and brutal negotiating tactics (I say this from personal experience with a promising technology startup earlier this decade, Narad Networks). Robust VOD ad insertion is plenty strategic for the industry, but years since cable operators launched free VOD, the fact that it still isn't widely deployed is a telling sign, particularly while ad insertion technology in broadband is now fully mature. Comcast's role as an investor in BlackArrow should help its odds of success. I'm rooting for BlackArrow; their holistic approach to multiplatform advertising is right on. Whether they have the juice to fully succeed remains the big question.

3. Political battle over net neutrality is heating up - This week brought fresh complaints from Republican Senators who are coalescing to fend off new FCC chairman Julius Genachowski's plan to introduce net neutrality regulations for both broadband ISPs and wireless carriers. B&C reported that 18 Republican senators wrote to Mr. Genachowski concerned that the FCC's process is "outcome driven" and unsupported by data.

I rarely find my views aligning with Republicans, but net neutrality is an exception. As I wrote last month in "Why the FCC's Net Neutrality Plans Should Go Nowhere," Mr. Genachowski's plan is deeply flawed and completely illogical. The core premise of the new regulations - that they're needed to ensure continued broadband investment and innovation - misses the reality that the market is already functioning well. As one example, investment in broadband-related technology is continuing apace. By my calculations, over $180 million was raised in Q3 '09 by video-related companies whose very viability depends on open broadband and wireless networks. The sector's potential is amplified by the fact that venture capital fundraising itself is at its lowest level since 2003, with new capital raised by the industry in 2009 down 58% from 2008. Despite the VC industry's troubles, it continues to bet big on video. Why do we need new Internet regulations to sustain innovation?

4. Have you seen the 9 year-old hockey player's trick goal? On a lighter note, you have to love the serendipity of online video sharing. For example, though I don't consider myself a hockey fan, when a friend sent me this video clip of a 9 year-old hockey player pulling off this incredible trick shot, I was reminded just how much fun online video is and promptly passed the clip on to my circle (it's also now all over YouTube). See for yourself, it's just amazing. And nothing fake about it either.

Enjoy the weekend!

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 33rd edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for September 25, 2009.

This week Daisy and I first discuss Daisy's New Media Minute topic of how technology firms should balance free/revenue-sharing business models with paid/licensed approaches. Daisy reports on two companies that have successfully migrated to licensing. The so-called "Freemium" business model has been in the news a lot recently, especially with Chris Anderson's new book, "Free," so the discussion is timely.

Then I touch on my post earlier this week, "Why the FCC's Net Neutrality Plan Should Go Nowhere," which has generated plenty of reader reaction, and has been circulated widely. I'm very dismayed by new FCC chairman Genachowski's decision to intervene in the well-functioning Internet market, and only hope that as the FCC goes through its planned data collection process, it will rethink things and conclude that no new regulatory action is needed at this time.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 6 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!

My hopes that the FCC, under its new chairman Julius Genachowski, would undergo a much-needed course correction with respect to net neutrality, were dashed yesterday. VideoNuze readers will remember that my 3rd prediction for 2009 was that net neutrality, under President Obama's pragmatic leadership, would likely remain dormant.

Mr. Genachowski's policy address, "Preserving a Free and Open Internet: A Platform for Innovation, Opportunity, and Prosperity" made clear that regrettably, he will be a forceful advocate for unprecedented Internet regulation. Mr. Genachowski has proposed codifying the FCC's four existing principles into Commission rules, and adding two new, additional principles. But read beyond the high-minded rhetoric about "preserving the openness and freedom of the Internet" and need for "fair rules of the road," and what you'll instead find is a jumble of illogical premises, inflammatory and threatening admonitions and pre-emptive, non fact-based conclusions.

I know my opposition to net neutrality regulations will bother many of you. So before I'm accused of being a cranky regulatory libertarian with nothing but distaste for government intervention, let me assure you I am anything but. In fact, I'm a strong believer that when market failures occur, the government should aggressively intervene. If you've had the experience of hearing my rants on the gross incompetence of our nation's financial regulators in contributing to our recent near catastrophic market meltdown, you will have no doubt about the sincerity of my beliefs.

That said, I'm also a fierce proponent of allowing market forces and competition to work in determining winners and losers, and that when this occurs, government influence, which is often distortive, should remain in check. If ever there was an example of a well-functioning market, it is the Internet, which since bursting into the public's consciousness 15 years ago has operated virtually regulation-free. This open and free Internet has spawned myriad innovative services that consumers enjoy today. And while the Internet has created billions of dollars of wealth for astute investors and entrepreneurs, it has also ruthlessly gobbled up many other billions of dollars ventured on ideas of illusory potential. In this respect, it could be argued that among the Internet's many marvels, it is likely the most efficient capital allocation mechanism we human beings have ever created.

By far the most sizable capital investment in the Internet landscape has been in the so-called "last mile" of broadband access. The 70 million American homes, thousands of educational institutions and countless businesses of every size that receive fast, affordable broadband Internet access is largely attributable to the hundreds of billions of dollars of investments that cable operators and telephone companies have made in upgrading their networks over the past 15 years - upgrades that continue to this day and are planned well into the future. Investments, it should be noted, that were made without a penny of government subsidies, tax breaks or bailout funds. These companies were driven by robust supply and demand forces, quantifiable business cases, vigorous competition, technological innovation and supportive lenders and shareholders. It is not an exaggeration to say that the broadband networks these companies built are the very foundation of our 21st century economy.

You might think that in a major policy speech premised on the importance of the Internet to our daily lives and commerce, the new FCC chairman might dwell for a few minutes on these contributions, if for no other reason than to demonstrate his understanding of what's truly at the core of today's Internet experience. But you would be wrong; instead the new FCC chairman used just over 50 words in a passing reference. You might also think that these companies' track records of being market driven might also influence the new chairman with regard to whether decisive regulatory action, particularly in the thorny area of network management, is now necessary. Here again you'd be wrong.

In fact, with yesterday's remarks, Mr. Genachowski has picked up where his predecessor, Kevin Martin left off: pre-emptively tagging the nation's cable and telco broadband ISPs as untrustworthy conspirators plotting to wall-off the Internet to all but their own favored services. Though professing to "ensure that the (FCC's) rulemaking process will be fair, transparent, fact-based and data-driven," by first proposing the rules be adopted, before evidence of their very need has been established, the chairman has only ensured that the rule-making process will be anything but what he says he wants it to be. Deciding that net neutrality regulations are essential, after being officially on the job for less than 90 days and absent supporting data to point to, does not inspire confidence about the likely fairness of the Genachowski-led Commission.

Mr. Genachowski further upped the ante by suggesting that if such regulatory action is not taken, perilous consequences to the Internet's openness await. His choice of words - that we could see "the Internet's doors shut to entrepreneurs," "the spirit of innovation stifled," "a full and free flow of information compromised" and that "if we wait too long to preserve a free and open Internet, it will be too late" - represent the kind of inflammatory, unjustified hyperbole that only serves to distract from the facts and data yet to be reported. Such comments virtually guarantee that the debate will be transformed quickly into an escalating war of opinionated arm-waving (as have prior FCC open sessions). Did we not just witness our crucially important health care debate devolve into just this sort of spectacle? And did candidate Obama not remind us, rightfully, that "words matter?"

But worst of all is that despite the new chairman's lengthy service in the private sector, his remarks suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of how product innovation and the broadband market actually work. His view is that the government must pre-emptively step up to the plate to ensure that the Internet remains free and open, or innovation and investment will be curtailed, is just plain wrong.

The reality is that aside from random acts, no pattern of broadband ISP misconduct has ever been proven. Major industry players know this and their actions suggest they are utterly untroubled by the current state of laissez-faire Internet regulation. Consider recent deals predicated on the belief that the Internet will remain open and bandwidth plentiful: NBC, Fox and Providence Equity Partners (and later Disney) invested $100M in Hulu at a $1B pre-launch valuation; Cisco acquired Pure Digital, maker of the Flip video camera for $600M in a bid to further fuel user-generated video; and Marc Andreessen's investment firm is participating in a buyout of Skype valuing the firm at $2.75B. Then there's Apple, which has invested untold tens of millions of dollars upgrading the iPhone and iPod Nano to have video capabilities. And let's not forget Netflix, Intel, Sony, Microsoft and many others who are moving aggressively forward with bandwidth-heavy broadband video products and services. Looking ahead, as I suggested last week looms "TV Everywhere 2.0," portending massive over-the-top video competition.

But it's not just the giants that are investing. By my analysis, early and mid-stage broadband video-related companies raised almost $220M over the last 3 quarters, in the midst of the worst venture capital slump in memory. And as I'll report next week, Q3 '09 has been the highest fund-raising quarter of the last four. Deals are being done because history has repeatedly shown investors that in order to remain competitive and meet surging consumer demand, network operators are certain to continue to invest in upgrading their networks. When I helped start Continental Cablevision's high-speed Internet business 15 years ago, 1.5 mbps service was breakthrough; now 100 mbps or more is the state-of-art for wireline broadband.

Contrary to Mr. Genachowski's fear that the market will be immobilized absent FCC intervention, industry participants are moving briskly forward, confident that market and competitive forces will compel network operators to continue creating abundant, open bandwidth to support their new services.

This phenomenon appears to be true in the mobile space as well. AT&T's recent decision to accelerate its 3G wireless buildout is due mainly to high iPhone data traffic. And it should be noted that Apple's rejection of the Google Voice app (which continues a pattern of unfettered App Store selectivity by the company) raises the important question of who's the real gatekeeper when it comes to open wireless services - the network operator or the handset maker? How does Apple's newfound power figure into the FCC's regulatory paradigm?

Let's be clear: it is absolutely essential that the Internet remain open. But imposing new net neutrality and Internet regulation is not the way to ensure this. Instead, net neutrality remains a solution in search of a problem. With brushfires burning in every corner of the American economy, Washington's policy-makers would be wise to focus on real problems, not imaginary ones. The Internet has worked magnificently to date and there's every reason to believe it will continue to do so. The last thing we need are the unintended consequences that government intervention often brings. For now, FCC vigilance is required, but new regulations are not.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Though TV Everywhere ("TVE") is still in a nascent stage, with trials either underway or not even yet started, there has been no shortage of hype around it. I've been among those who have argued that if these trials work as intended and the rollouts ensue, TVE would be a big win for video service providers (cable, satellite, telco), content providers and consumers. But recently I've started to think there's another TVE angle that has not really been explored - the possibility that "TVE 2.0" could enable certain cable operators and telcos themselves to become the biggest players in "over-the-top" (OTT) video.

(For those not familiar with the term OTT, it refers to the idea of video being delivered to homes over a broadband network that isn't owned by the video provider itself. So for example, when you watch Hulu in your home over a Comcast broadband connection, Hulu is going "over-the-top" of Comcast. Hulu doesn't own the underlying network, it just rides on top of the one that's there, in effect competing with Comcast's own video service.)

To date TVE has been positioned by incumbent video service providers as an online adjunct solely available to their traditional, paying multichannel subscribers. While Comcast has been most emphatic on this point, no other operator that has announced TVE trials has deviated from this approach either.

But what if, at some point down the road, TVE was "unbundled," meaning that you could subscribe just to TVE, and not the traditional video service? Cable operators and telcos have little incentive to do this within their current service or "franchise" areas, but the lure to offer TVE 2.0 to households outside their franchises could prove irresistible. If pursued, this could actually turn cable and telcos into the biggest over-the-top players themselves, potentially dwarfing those typically thought of as key OTT competitors (e.g. CE companies like Sony or computing companies like Apple, or aggregators like Netflix or Hulu). In a TVE 2.0 world, the hunted could become the hunters.

The franchise concept is key to understanding how the cable and telco video distribution business work. In short, a cable or telco needs to win an agreement with the "franchising authority" - typically a municipal government - to offer video service in the municipality. Agreements are required because the video distributor needs legal access to rights-of-way to operate (to hang its wires on poles, dig up streets when necessary, etc.). Franchising may seem anachronistic in the digital age, but it remains the essential determinant of where cable companies or telcos operate (note that because satellite companies don't require rights-of-way, they operate nationally, outside the franchising domain).

Now put yourselves in the shoes of Comcast, for example. You've worked hard to wring every possible dollar out of subscribers who live in your franchise areas, by successfully introducing triple-play video/voice/Internet bundles, digital tiers, sports tiers, movie channels, HD, additional outlets, DVRs, etc. With all of these services, the average revenue per home serviced today is a multiple of what it was just 15 or 20 years ago.

But growth is slowing, and new competition from OTT providers looms. So where does the biggest new growth opportunity exist? Answer: outside traditional franchise areas. To get a sense of how big this opportunity is, even Comcast, the largest U.S. cable operator, serves only about 25% of the country, meaning almost three-quarters of American homes are currently out of its reach. To grow their addressable universes, Comcast and others traditionally bought other cable operators. In fact, fearful of the power any one cable company could gain, the FCC imposed a 30% ownership cap. Coincidentally that cap was just overturned by a U.S. Court of Appeals a few weeks ago.

In the traditional video distribution business, buying other operators was the only way to build an operator's footprint. But with TVE 2.0, a company like Comcast could use broadband so that, for the first time, it could operate everywhere. They key is being willing to unbundle TVE from core cable service so that a consumer can subscribe solely to TVE service.

Doing so would in effect pit Comcast, for example, against other cable operators, a major breach of cultural etiquette in the clubby cable industry. But faced with the choice of acquiring other operators for around $5,000 per sub, or just introducing a capital-efficient and high-quality linear/on-demand OTT service over broadband, powered by Move Networks (as one option) it wouldn't even be a close call. In fact, Comcast could cherry pick the incumbent's video customers, in turn driving that company's valuation down and thus opening up the option for it to eventually swoop in and acquire the incumbent operator for far less. Or it could decide not acquire, and instead just focus on rolling up OTT subs.

Will cable and telco go over the top? Who knows. They will surely have what it takes - TVE expertise, requisite technology, content relationships, private video delivery networks, customer care facilities and deep pockets. All that's really needed is the motivation to proceed. For now, operators are rightfully focused on getting TVE working right for their own subs. But I suspect the business cases for TVE 2.0 are already being run.

(Note - we'll explore this subject and others at both VideoSchmooze in NYC on Oct. 13th and at VideoNuze's CTAM Summit breakfast on Oct. 26th.)

What do you think? Post a comment now.

As promised, I'm continuing to push further out onto the limb with my five '09 broadband predictions as the week progresses. Today's prediction is that net neutrality legislation will remain dormant for at least another year. Given Barack Obama's campaign statements pledging support for net neutrality, many who hoped it was finally at hand will no doubt be quite disappointed.

I suspect many of you may not even be familiar with net neutrality or why it's relevant so let me offer a short primer. As I wrote back in November of '07, in "Net Neutrality in '08? Let's Hope Not," the Internet has functioned as a level playing field of sorts. Broadband Internet Service Providers have not biased in favor of delivering one web site's content over another's (i.e. their networks have remained neutral). Since the government has maintained a laissez-faire Internet regulatory stance, broadband ISPs' own self interests have aligned nicely with staying neutral. In other words, it made good business sense for them to behave this way.

To simplify somewhat, net neutrality advocates believe that in the broadband video era, "good business sense" cannot be counted upon to ensure ISPs' continued neutrality; hence the need for regulatory intervention. Their concern is that because large ISPs' (namely cable operators and telcos) also operate incumbent multichannel video services and have financial stakes in certain content providers - both of whose financial health would be threatened by open broadband delivery - these ISPs will start to bias toward better delivery of sites in which they have some financial interest or with whom they have a particular deal. This would in turn disadvantage sites outside the ISPs' financial orbit, hurting not just these sites, but also larger democratic goal of consumer choice.

All of these concerns are hypothetically valid. But the problem is that these concerns have not translated into any provable pattern of ISP misbehavior as yet. Having sat through an FCC hearing earlier this year meant to surface such evidence, I can say first-hand that while there are isolated instances of bias which have been compounded by bungled ISP explanations and sophomoric PR miscues, net neutrality advocates have little more than their concerns and assumptions about ISPs' future behavior on which to base their argument for preemptive legislation. And this is precisely the reason why net neutrality will remain dormant for another year, at least.

Net neutrality remains largely a solution in search of a problem. I believe this will put it outside the guiding philosophy of Mr. Obama's regulatory forces. Having read both of Mr. Obama's books and listened to his words intently, I've long since concluded that he's what I call a "principled pragmatist." Mr. Obama has a core set of beliefs about how the world should work, but he chooses his battles wisely and with a focus on solving real, not imaginary problems. Mr. Obama and his team have plenty on their plates addressing the economic mess they're inheriting. Time will not be made available to create rules in any area of business where there's no evident harm to anyone.

This pragmatic approach means that when the rubber meets the road on net neutrality, Mr. Obama and his policy advisors are unlikely to be swayed by the free-speechers and academics who form the core of the net neutrality advocacy camp, unless they're able to bring far more supporting data (note, as the WSJ pointed out earlier this week, net neutrality support even among some content companies like Google, Microsoft and Yahoo is either waning or becoming ambiguous).

All of this said, it may be politically expedient to throw a small bone to net neutrality's advocates. So we may see some new guidelines introduced, but nothing approaching the level of what some are seeking. The only exception is if broadband ISPs themselves acquiesce, possibly in exchange for infrastructure subsidies that may be part of the planned trillion dollar stimulus program.

Though politics is a notoriously hard business to protect, if in 2009 if broadband ISPs do a good job of behaving themselves, they will likely see net neutrality backburnered. The FCC should be vigilant in monitoring the industry for signs of bias. And if they are able to prove the case, net neutrality will rightly get moved up in prioritization.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

2009 Prediction #1 - The Syndicated Video Economy Accelerates

2009 Prediction #2 - Mobile Video Takes Off, Finally

Tomorrow, 2009 Prediction #4

While much of the world was on vacation last week, yet another Comcast-related fracas broke out in the blogosphere, this time over the company's latest update to its broadband internet access policies. While this latest flap cements Comcast's status as the favorite target of those who put a totally unfettered Internet on a par with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, my immediate reaction was more "what's the big deal?"

The latest fracas centers on a seemingly innocuous, yet possibly longer-term significant change in Comcast's "Acceptable Use Policy" which governs how much use you can get out of your Comcast High-Speed Internet service each month. In the past there was no theoretical limit, though Comcast says it always had on eye on its heaviest users (under 1% of its total base of 14 million) who would be contacted when an undisclosed threshold was reached. Last Thursday, Comcast posted a change in its AUP stating that starting October 1st, the usage cap would be 250GB/mo.

The blogosphere's reaction was immediate and sometimes raucously over-the-top (one well-known blogger pronounced the change "the end of the Internet as we know it"). While Comcast tried to translate the 250GB cap into say, how many emails a user could send each month (50 million) or songs that could be downloaded (62,500), others began furiously crunching the numbers to see more extreme scenarios, like how many HD movies/mo you'd be able to download.

For my part, I believe that Comcast's new cap - like much of the swirl surrounding its recent BitTorrent throttling - is much ado about nothing, at least for now. Where others see a raging fire threatening to burn down the Internet, I barely see signs of smoke just yet.

Yesterday I peppered Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas with questions about the cap. While I had to ask several times whether it is intended to stifle broadband video consumption in any way (a favorite conspiracist belief), Charlie finally did provide an emphatic "no." He cited Comcast's own Fancast broadband portal as a key company priority, which itself would be harmed by any sort of broadband crackdown.

For sure some of you are thinking, "yeah but Will, he's their PR guy, what do you expect him to say?! Why do you believe him?!"

Fair questions. But contrary to the end-of-the-world crowd, I don't think Comcast has any sinister hidden motives with the cap, or with its network management policies. I do however think that Comcast does not take enough care in determining its policies or communicating them to its broadband users and other constituencies. Combined, these feed the distrust and dislike of Comcast that seems to be pervasive.

Even in my conversation with Charlie yesterday I found myself having several "huh?" moments that seem to strain credulity. For example:

Q: Why set a cap and especially one that's so high that it has little practical effect? A: Well, our customer feedback told us we needed to have a cap.

Q: How was the cap size determined? A: We thought it was a generous amount. Q: But the specific size? A: We thought it was a generous amount.

Q: Why release news of the cap in the last week of the summer (when many are on vacation and not paying attention) and in the midst of the ongoing FCC network management issue, instead of rolling out a comprehensive new plan that could be messaged accordingly? A: The cap and the FCC network management have nothing to do with each other, they are separate issues. Q: But in the media's coverage and public's perception, they are all considered part of the same picture. A: The cap and the FCC network management have nothing to do with each other, they are separate issues.

Q: Now that there's a formal cap, how about providing a simple tool so users can monitor their monthly usage, like cell phone companies do? A: Heavy users know how to find these tools; someone just told me last week that a Google search for "bandwidth meter" yields 290,000 hits. Q: Yes, but how about just offering a tool as a "good neighbor" gesture that your customers would appreciate? A: The cap is irrelevant to 99% of our users.

No doubt you'll find these answers as confounding as I do. All I can conclude is that 10+ years into the broadband game, Comcast still hasn't recognized how vital its broadband service is to its users nor how it has become part of a far-larger tableau including freedom of speech, the economy and American competitiveness. Comcast's seeming tone-deafness to all of this was fully evident in its continuously revised responses to the FCC's BitTorrent inquiry earlier this year.

This explanation will strike many as too generous and trusting. However, until I see real evidence of perniciousness on Comcast's part, to think anything else just feels like paranoia to me.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

In case you missed it, last Friday the FCC took the unprecedented step of sanctioning Comcast for what it considered unreasonable network management policies. Before you deem this "inside-the-beltway" bureaucratic wrangling and click away to your next piece of business, I suggest you take a moment to consider the broad-reaching implications of the FCC's action, and how they will undoubtedly affect you and your video business long-term.

(If you'd really like to dig in, the FCC commissioners' opinions are here)

There has been a lot written about what precipitated the FCC's action, so I won't restate all the gory details here. Very briefly, last Fall formal complaints were filed with the FCC alleging that Comcast treated certain of its broadband subscribers' use of BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer (P2P) application, in a discriminatory manner vis-a-vis other network traffic.

After collecting comments and taking testimony from experts, the FCC concluded (with its Republican chairman leading the charge) to sanction, but not fine, Comcast for its actions. Importantly, it also stipulated that Comcast has to submit its network management plans to the FCC going forward, effectively anointing the FCC as the nation's new broadband network management czar.

I submit that for those in the broadband video industry, nothing good will come from the FCC's action. The FCC and other governmental bodies are understaffed and ill-equipped to be making highly technical network management decisions. The FCC's decree may well usher in an era of confusion and sclerotic decision-making, forcing broadband ISPs to curtail network investments at exactly the time when they need to be increasing their spending to enable more video traffic to flow.

It is worth noting that the Internet's periodic growing pains have been overcome not by the government stepping in, but by the government stepping away. This surely seems counter-intuitive to regulatory traditionalists. But it works because the ethos of the Internet's technical community is by and large collaborative and forward-looking. Supplanting that spirit with litigious, bureaucratic sprawl benefits nobody. In saying all this, I'm guided by pragmatism, not political bias.

Though we all want to be able to use the Internet free from any interference, the problem is that the Internet is still a wild west of sorts, where lawless and lawful behavior can be heavily intertwined. P2P is a perfect example. While legal (when used appropriately), its use can wreak havoc for other users and for network operators. Previously, there were no clear rules about how operators should respond when a handful of P2P users swamp the network. The Comcast sanction doesn't change that, it just puts the FCC in the position of judging, case-by-case the reasonableness of the network operator's containment actions.

The explosion in broadband video consumption is creating a significant and growing hairball for broadband Internet Service Providers, content providers, regulators and others. The core problem is that ISPs' networks are getting overwhelmed by the sheer volume of video being consumed each day.

ISPs have several ways to address the situation, but unfortunately none are perfect. For example, Comcast's approach until recently has been to use network management tools to block or slow certain kinds of traffic, such as peer-to-peer. P2P is a particular issue for cable ISPs because it uses scarce "upstream" bandwidth. Network management is highly technical, making it hard for policy-makers to understand it, let alone legislate it. So Comcast is now facing a sanction from the FCC over its network management practices (which it says it's moving away from anyway), because the FCC didn't consider them "reasonable" by its own vague definition.

Time Warner Cable is experimenting with another approach: tiers of service carrying bandwidth caps for users. This is a little bit like today's cell phone model - you buy a package of minutes, and if you go over, you pay extra. Though that may sound reasonable, it invites all kinds of confusion for consumers (e.g. "do I watch that show on CBS.com? Maybe I'd better not, I think my kids have watched a lot of YouTube clips this week and I don't want to go over my cap."). Content providers are justifiably concerned about this potential scenario. Separately, for its part, AT&T recently tried to clarify what its users can and cannot expect from their broadband subscriptions.

Yet another route is for broadband ISPs to adopt a much more expansive technical approach to how content is hosted in their networks and delivered to their users. Equipment vendors like Alcatel-Lucent and Cisco believe that ISPs could convert the current bandwidth problem into a full-fledged business opportunity. This would involve ISPs deploying hardware and software that would enable "managed services," each to be delivered at a specified quality level and for a specified price. So rather than a consumer buying a tier, they would buy a specific service offering (e.g. unlimited Hulu, with HD delivery guaranteed).

This wouldn't be a totally unfamiliar concept. Content providers have been buying managed hosting/delivery services for years from CDNs like Akamai, Limelight, Level 3 and others which guarantee certain delivery metrics. But these CDNs' guarantees can't reach into the "last mile" the ISPs' networks serve. So as ever-more bandwidth intensive content is launched such as HD and long-form, content providers should have an increasing motivation to see last mile ISPs offer comparable managed services offerings from ISPs as well.

However, ISP managed services would require fundamental changes in how these companies currently work together, and also invites concerns from "net neutrality" advocates that ISPs could bias in favor of one content provider or another when making their deals. Though compelling in concept, there are many details to sort out in the managed services approach, making it a longer-term option.

All of this just scratches the surface of the growing bandwidth hairball. Layer on the free-speech advocates like Free Press and Public Knowledge and the politicians looking to make hay with constituents and it's evident that the debate over bandwidth is only going to intensify.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

I have written two posts on this recently, "Net Neutrality Rears Its Head Again" and "Net Neutrality in 2008? Let's Hope Not," and so my views on the subject are well-known.  For today, I just want to offer some quick observations about the FCC's meeting and what this implies about how the fight over net neutrality is likely to play out.

The agenda for the day-long session is here. I stayed until the lunch break, so I got a pretty good flavor for the proceedings. On the policy panel I witnessed, all of the non-Comcast/Verizon panelists were in favor of greater government intervention. Despite their articulate views on the subject, one thing that was entirely absent from all of their remarks was any factual data about whether there is currently a market failure necessitating government intervention. Even Vuze CEO Gilles BianRosa, who prior to the panel provide a demo of his company's service, and said his company is playing a "cat and mouse" game trying to stay ahead of Comcast's management practices, did not offer any specific evidence or data of how his company is currently being harmed.

On the other hand, Comcast's EVP, David Cohen emphatically denied that Comcast blocks any kind of Internet traffic. He allowed that the company manages its networks, just like all other network providers and has six guidelines. Cohen said Comcast only manages traffic during limited periods, in limited geographies, only for upstream traffic, and then only when there's no simultaneous downstream traffic. It only delays traffic, and only when there's real network congestion that needs to be alleviated. All of this would only impact a small number of customers, and only then imperceptibly, Comcast believes. Comcast's goal is "vigilant restraint," with an eye to helping the vast majority of its customers have a superior Internet experience.

All of this leads me to believe that while Comcast may have the facts on its side, this war will be waged on the PR battlefield. Proponents wrap themselves in the flag, emphasizing the Internet's free-flow of data is paramount to our country's free speech and commerce, while disregarding the fact that to date this has been accomplished with a laissez-faire regulatory policy. Meanwhile network operators like Comcast argue they're already abiding by current regulatory principles and are sufficiently motivated by profit motives to do the right thing. Picking sides, especially in an election year, will be a challenge for all.

What do you think? Post a comment and let us all know!

Last November, Jeff Richards, VP of VeriSign's Digital Content Services, suggested to me that "net neutrality" would be the hottest broadband video topic in 2008. I was skeptical, believing that this was a classic "solution in search of a problem" and that yet again this topic would fail to gain traction among regulators and policy-makers. Based on events of the past week, it looks like Jeff may be right and I may be wrong.

Before getting to what happened this week, let's quickly understand what net neutrality means, and why it's important to all of us. To date the Internet has functioned as a level playing field of sorts. Anyone putting up a web site could be confident in the knowledge that broadband ISPs would neither favor nor disadvantage one player's access to users over another's.

Big online content and technology companies now want to codify this tradition in legislation commonly referred to as net neutrality. Big broadband ISPs (i.e. cable operators and telcos) regard this as needless regulatory meddling that would insert the government in network and technical matters it can barely understand, let alone figure out how to regulate.

This week brought news that Congressmen Ed Markey and Chip Pickering have introduced the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008" which would make net neutrality the guiding U.S. broadband policy, give the FCC additional oversight powers to ensure broadband ISPs weren't discriminating against certain traffic, require the FCC to hold 8 public "broadband summits" to bring together parties to "assess competition, consumer protection and consumer choice issues related to broadband Internet access services" and finally to report all this to Congress along with any recommendations for how to "promote competition, safeguard free speech, and ensure robust consumer protections and consumer choice relating to broadband Internet access services."

Broadband ISPs have precipitated some of this renewed interest in net neutrality with the recent news that they're de-prioritizing or blocking illegal video file-sharing traffic from services like BitTorrent (all of which was already widely understood in the Internet community). Net neutrality proponents have publicly seized on these incidents as evidence that broadband ISPs have discriminatory tendencies in their DNA, and that we're on a slippery slope to a world where broadband ISPs willy-nilly block certain traffic (i.e. their competitors) while favoring other traffic (i.e. their own services).

Last November in "Net Neutrality in 2008? Let's Hope Not." I wrote that there is no substantive current evidence to support this concern and that preemptive net neutrality legislation is unwise and unwarranted. In fact, I believe it's a net positive that broadband ISPs are proactively trying to manage their networks to ensure that legal traffic, generated by paying subscribers, is not adversely affected by the few heavy video file-sharers who diminish the network's performance for everyone. Broadband ISPs' actions help them run more efficient networks and better manage their investments, to the benefit of paying users.

Unfortunately, like many things in Washington, net neutrality is boiling down to a PR battle about how to shape policy-makers' perceptions, regardless of the underlying facts. For its part, Google is unabashedly framing this debate in populist terms, saying "net neutrality is...about what's ultimately best for the people, in terms of economic growth as well as the social benefit of empowering individuals to speak, create, and engage one another online." Huh? How does all that patriotic-sounding babble address the reality that network operators are grappling with 15 year-old kids downloading pirated HD movies, causing real and serious network congestion for everyone?

To defeat net neutrality, broadband ISPs better sharpen up their PR efforts. Congress is notoriously IQ-challenged and politically-motivated. My cynical belief is that its knee-jerk reaction will always be to do what looks best, rather than what actually is best. Then there's the current FCC chairman Kevin Martin, who has a serious anti-cable bias and will likely welcome an opportunity to smack operators. Regrettably, when taken together, Jeff Richards may indeed be right. This might be the hottest broadband video topic of 2008 and the year when net neutrality legislation finally does succeed.

Somebody needs to seriously clue in Kevin Martin, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, who has somehow gotten it into his head that America's cable TV industry needs to be burdened by all kinds of new regulations, despite the fact that competition is coming at the industry from every direction imaginable.

On the probability that you don't think too much about the FCC's actions, nor what they might mean to you, I have a reminder for you: when America's top communications regulator seeks to drive the industry that is America's #1 provider of broadband Internet service into a regulatory ditch, that's a problem for anyone who works in the media, entertainment, telecommunications and technology industries. Mr. Martin's cockeyed plans threaten to do this.

First, a quick recap. In the last several weeks Mr. Martin has sought to use hand-selected (and highly questionable) data to resurrect an arcane FCC prerogative known as the "70/70" rule. It is not worth reviewing what this rule is or whether or not it applies. What is important to know is that Mr. Martin has sought to use this rule to introduce regulations forcing cable companies to submit to federal arbitration to resolve carriage disputes with cable networks and to reduce the prices of certain leased access channels by upwards of 75%. Lingering in the background are further regulations, such as forcing "a la carte" unbundling of cable channels for unfettered consumer choice.

Last week wiser heads prevailed with the other FCC commissioners, many members of Congress and the White House intervening to check-mate Mr. Martin's plans. In fact, so perturbed by Mr. Martin's recent actions is the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman John Dingell that has opened an investigation into Mr. Martin's handling of the FCC's affairs.

Now, in retreat, Mr. Martin has come up with a new regulation capping any one cable operator's U.S. coverage at 30%. This is particularly targeted at Comcast, which, with 27% coverage, is just a whisker away from hitting the proposed cap.

In criticizing Mr. Martin, let me make clear that I'm no cable apologist nor am I a regulatory libertarian, against all forms of government intervention. I worked in the cable industry from 1990-1998 and know the good, the bad and the ugly of the industry quite well. The government has intervened in the past to correct legitimate market failures caused by clear industry bad actors. But those days are past. Now the cable industry is fighting for its life against the triple threat of satellite, telco and broadband "over the top" competition.

So how is it possible that Mr. Martin has so completely "missed the memo" that America's consumer communications services - video, broadband Internet access and voice - are more competitive today than ever, and that re-regulation is completely wrong-headed? And that technology is enabling a wealth of new services that are causing traditionally distinct industries to compete against one another, with the ultimate winner being consumers? And that real, skilled, high-paying, American jobs which are tied to the innovative media, entertainment, technology and communications markets he oversees will certainly be adversely affected by these onerous new regulations he is proposing?

Of course, I cannot get inside Mr. Martin's head to explain his actions. All I can guess is that somehow he arrogantly believes that Washington's bureaucracy is better suited to sort out the hyper-competition and innovation sweeping these industries than are the free markets and myriad technologies being introduced. How profoundly incorrect that belief is. Last time I checked Mr. Martin's bio, he personally has exactly ZERO day-to-day business operating experience, so maybe someone can remind me what his particular expertise is in these matters? As if all this isn't enough, don't forget about how reckless it is for a regulator to mess around with one of the few remaining vibrant pockets of the American economy.