Communications

Broadband Wireless — the future is 5 GHz

and eventually, spectrum from 4 GHz to 10 GHz.  

Unfortunately, the mobile industry doesn't understand the implications of MIMO or beamforming, so they are asking for the wrong thing.  They are asking for more spectrum near their current bands (below 2.1 GHz) or lower, e.g. in former TV bands below 700 MHz.  This is all wrong.

Until recently you could say: lower frequencies "work better" meaning they go farther.  But this was a technology limitation, not something in the physics. From a physical point of view, 5 GHz photons pass through the atmosphere just as well as 700 MHz photons. Today, MIMO and beamforming are correcting some of these historic technology limitations and changing everything.

• MIMO not only delivers significant performance improvement, it makes 5 GHz spectrum as useful as lower frequency spectrum for all sorts of applications.
• Beamforming delivers the next performance increment (20x and up), and it's actually easier to implement at higher frequencies.

Addressing mobile data demand

There is no doubt data consumption is growing more rapidly than mobile operators' data capacity (see slides 10 and 11 of my presentation at 4GWE). Unfortunately, US cellular operators are pressing for more low frequency radio spectrum and they are being heard in Washington. In his keynote at this year's Consumer Electronics Show, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said an impending shortage of wireless spectrum in the U.S. will dampen future economic growth unless action is taken to fix the problem. 

However, the short term issue is investment dollars not spectrum and the long term solution is new technology at much higher frequencies (above 4 GHz) rather than more spectrum for existing technology near existing bands.

Why 5 GHz spectrum is more useful than TV frequencies

Everyone know TV signals go long distances but remember than TV broadcasters use from 100 Kilowatts to 5 Megawatts ERP.  That's a million to a hundred million times more signal than your mobile handset puts out.  No wonder it covers a lot of distance.

There's also an equation most wireless engineers use in one form or another to calculate free space path loss which says higher frequencies have more loss. But this equation encapsulates two factors:  the true path loss and the size of the antenna.  It assumes a 1/2 wavelength antenna. Higher frequencies have shorter wavelengths, so it assumes the antenna gets smaller as the frequency goes up. Smaller antenna, less signal. With comparable antenna apertures, path loss in the atmosphere is the same from below 50 MHz to nearly 10 GHz. Thus in open air, 5 GHz photons go just as far as 500 MHz (US channel 19) photons or indeed photons for Channel 2 or Channel 50.

Multi-path and MIMO

The reason people have had trouble with higher frequencies for the past 100+ years is "multi-path" propagation.  As a signal radiates from a source, some of it goes directly to the receiving antenna but some of it goes in other directions where it may be reflected or refracted by objects it encounters. When reflected signals also reach the receiving antenna, they are slightly delayed because they traveled a slightly longer distance.  In the days of over-the-air analog TV, we saw these delayed signals as "ghosts" or shadows around images on our TV screens.  For digital data transmission, multi-path contributes to the "noise" in the signal-to-noise ratio. The historic problem with higher frequencies is their shorter wavelengths made it easier for them to be reflected and refracted by man-made objects like buildings, window frames and even closely spaced double pane glass surfaces.

 

But with MIMO, all this changes. With MIMO's multiple antennas and multiple radio front ends, it's possible to separately decode and make use of the multi-path signals.  Now "multi-path" is not only removed as a source of "noise," it adds additional signal and helps carry more data.

Beamforming

A beamformer uses signal processing to control the phase and relative amplitude of the signal at each of a group of independent antenna elements.  Radiation from multiple antenna elements causes a pattern of constructive and destructive interference in the resulting wavefront.  This can produce a tight beam just like one from a highly directional antenna.  But with beamforming, the antenna beam can be steered in software on a packet-by-packet basis.

With eight antenna elements spaced 1/2 wavelength apart (total 3.5 wavelengths), you can create a beam like this:

 

Highly directional beams significantly extend the usable range of a wireless system. And since the beam is computed with digital signal processing software, it can be steered to different directions in microseconds. What's more, the benefits of beamforming apply both while transmitting and while receiving. Either way, the beamformer accentuates the signal in the desired direction while surpressing signals to/from other directions.

But what about wavelength?  To obtain this narrow beam, the outer antenna elements are 3.5 wavelengths apart.  At 5.8 GHz, that's less than 7.5" so the whole antenna array easily fits in a ceiling mounted access point just 8" x 3" by 2".  At 700 MHz, that degree of beamforming still requires 3.5 wavelengths, but wavelengths are longer so now we need 5 feet of separation — something that may fit on a cell tower, but is difficult for a microcell and impossible for a femtocell.  For beamforming, higher frequencies are an advantage.

More spectrum at higher frequencies

Finally, there's a lot more spectrum potentially available at higher frequencies and, today, in the 5GHz band, there is over 555 MHz of license-exempt spectrum already available for applications like Wi-Fi. That's more spectrum than Verizon Wireless, AT&T Wireless, Sprint PCS and T-Mobile USA have, combined!

Wi-Fi blazes the trail

The Wi-Fi market place is vastly more diverse than the 3G/4G mobile operator market place, which means many new technologies show up in Wi-Fi years before they are deployed in mobile networks.  That is certainly true of so-called 4G modulation (OFDM) which was deployed for Wi-Fi with 802.11a (1999) and 802.11g (2003), years ahead of WiMAX (2005) or LTE (2010).

The 802.11n specification includes MIMO and optional beamforming and silicon technology is appearing to support 4x4 MIMO with beamforming.  MIMO products (2x2) have been shipping since 2007 and 4x4 MIMO in consumer products expected in the next six months. Meanwhile, many players are scrambling to deliver 11n options, including beamforming. Early systems are already deployed.

Mobile operators, please pay attention

The technology benefits of MIMO and beamforming apply to the mobile phone industry, it will just take a few years for the deliberate pace of the industry to catch up.  Meanwhile, mobile phone operators should be tracking real world measurements of Wi-Fi performance to understand what spectrum they will really need five to eight years hence.

Network Neutrality, Common Carriage and Layers - an international perspective

I'm attending an FCC workshop on 'The Open Internet" which means Network Neutrality. I am very much in favor of open access to the Internet. However, by settling for network neutrality rules, we won't solve the real problem, which is a lack of competing ISPs.  If we don't address this, we'll insure the US falls further and further behind other countries. Consider:

 

In the US, we claim to be supporting facilities-based competition. This means the rights-of-way are open to multiple competitors and you expect to see competing networks built from the ground up.  I call this open access at layer zero.  Unfortunately, this approach hasn't worked in the US. Most locations have only one or two access networks (the phone company-cable company duopoly).  

The reason is fairly easy to understand:

 

Building a new set of facilities represented a large fixed cost.  This investment must be paid back and typically only larger players have enough revenue to be able to make the interest payments. If you only capture 10% market share, you can't payback the investment.  As a result, facilities-based competition usually results in 2-3 competitors, at most.

Note that in Korea, facilities-based competition is part of a fairly complex history of government and private network evolution.  Hong Kong also has facilities-based competition, most notably by Hong Kong Broadband Networks Ltd.  But that's one fiber over-builder in a market that has open access to copper (i.e. layer 1 access) and many, many DSL providers. Facilities-based competition is a great idea, but by itself it doesn't work.

The ideal solution, at least for metropolitan population densities should be clear from this diagram:

The horizontal axis shows years of useful life. Notice that dark fiber is expensive to install but has a useful life of decades. But the equipment you use to light up the fiber will be functionally obsolete in 30 months just due to Moore's Law.

So what happened in Stockholm?  In 1994, Stockholm chartered a company, Stokab AB, to lay dark fiber and offer it to all comers.  Throughout the 90s, Stokab only offered dark fiber.  The result is many, many ISPs and corporate customers who lease fiber for diverse purposes.  A bigger result, is one of the lowest costs for some of the best Internet access of any city in the world.

What the US really needs

We need open access to bare copper and dark fiber from a utility that is regulated and is structurally separate from companies who provide telephony, TV or ISP services.

Rather than talk about network neutrality, we should be talking about structural separation, or at a minimum, functional separation with common carriage requirements. That would be a big change and is probably politically impossible, but that's the only way to get ISP competition and ISP competition is the only approach that will get us world class broadband.

FCC workshop on Open Internet at MIT this Wed January 13th

I haven't seen much publicity for this, but an FCC staff "workshop" on "Innovation, Investment and the Open Internet" will be held in the Bartos Theater at MIT"s Media Labs on Wedensday January 13, 2010.  "Open Internet" is usually political speak for Network Neutrality, although presumably some of speakers will differentiate between the advantages of open access versus the specifics of network neutrality, common carriage, structural separation and other approaches to achieving open access.

Details were provided in a press release which was picked up by a few people, but not many that I follow so, if you are in the Boston area, here's the scoop:

JANUARY 13 WORKSHOP ON INNOVATION, INVESTMENT, AND THE OPEN INTERNET

The Federal Communications Commission will hold a staff workshop on innovation and investment as part of the Commission’s Open Internet proceeding. This workshop will examine how the Internet’s openness affects the ability of network operators, Internet content and application providers, and other Internet technology developers to innovate and to drive investment, job creation, and economic growth throughout the Internet ecosystem. These issues will be explored from the diverse perspectives of innovators and entrepreneurs, investors, network operators and equipment vendors, and experts in Internet innovation and investment. 

WHAT: Innovation, Investment, and the Open Internet
WHEN: Wednesday, January 13, 4:30 p.m.
WHERE: MIT Media Lab, Bartos Theater Cambridge, Massachusetts
ONLINE: www.openinternet.gov/workshops/ 

PANELISTS:
Ajay Agarwal, Bain Capital Ventures
Tim Berners-Lee, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
David Clark, MIT Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Jeffrey Glueck, Skyfire
Shane Greenstein, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
Nabeel Hyatt, Conduit Labs
Susie Kim Riley, Camiant, Inc.
Paul Sagan, Akamai
Lynn St. Amour, Internet Society
Amy Tykeson, BendBroadband
Barbara van Schewick, Stanford Law School
Marcus Weldon, Alcatel-Lucent
Christopher S. Yoo, University of Pennsylvania Law School 
Sharon Gillett, Wireline Competition Bureau (Moderator)
Paul de Sa, Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis (Moderator) 

The workshop will be open to the public; however, admittance will be limited to the seating available. Audio/video coverage of the workshop will be streamed live with open captioning over the Web at www.openinternet.gov/workshops/.

Wi-Fi in the TV White Spaces - 802.11af task group underway

The commercial success of unlicensed devices in TV whites spaces remains an open question, but Wi-Fi support could tip the balance, so it's good the IEEE standards association has officially chartered an 802.11 task group to:

... create an amendment whose implementation in solutions is likely to receive FCC approval for operation in the TV White Spaces under the 47 CFR Part 15 subpart H rules.

The group is 802.11 "TGaf." Their first meeting will be in Los Angeles the week of January 18th and their initial schedule calls for final votes on a new spec by the summer of 2011. My guess is they'll hit that 2011 date since many of the more difficult white space issues were figured out for 802.11y. In particular, 802.11y specifies "dependent station enablement (DSE)" where low cost devices (clients or access points) can operate under the supervision of a more intelligent (e.g. more expensive) device that actually consults FCC-mandated databases and provides sophisticated sensing.

TV White Spaces may yet be a commercial failure

At least as defined so far, TV white space rules are so restrictive that a market may never emerge. Indeed TV white spaces could follow the same path as Ultra Wide Band (UWB) - much hoopla, some significant investments, but no significant commercial success.  As specified so far, the only places where meaningful amounts of white space spectrum are available are rural areas where the population is small. This means sales volumes will be small and prices will be high - not exactly a formula for commercial success.

The good news is Wi-Fi operation will inherit much of the high volume silicon advantages created for other bands; only the actual RF amplifiers and antennas are specific to TV frequencies. If anything can succeed, Wi-Fi should be it.

Applications that could benefit from white spaces operation

Wi-Fi at TV frequencies could be useful for:

1. Rural broadband access for subscribers in densely forested areas.  If there is a line of sight, Wi-Fi at 5 GHz is more useful (and has more capacity and low cost) but when subscribers are hidden by trees, TV frequencies are scattered less.
   .
2. Wireless LANs inside heavy masonry buildings or those with plaster on metal wire lath.

In most other applications, 5 GHz is preferable to TV frequencies.  That may sound nuts to wireless engineers used to free space path loss calculations, but those calculations assume the antenna gets smaller as the frequency goes up.  With comparable antenna apertures, path loss in the atmosphere is roughly flat from 50 MHz to nearly 10 GHz.  Thus in open air, 5 GHz photons go just as far as 500 MHz (US channel 19) photons or indeed photons for Channel 2 or Channel 50. 

There's also a lot more spectrum available at 5 GHz.  What's more it's easier to form highly directional radio beams at 5 GHz than it is at TV frequencies.  Finally, at 5 GHz you need less open area around a line-of-sight transmission path, i.e. the Fresnel zone is smaller.

The primary place where 500 MHz does better than 5 GHz is going through heavy masonry.  The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has done detailed measurements of how radio waves are attenuated as they pass through various building materials.  Their report is here.  Masonry significantly obstructs radio signals but it's much worse at 5 GHz than it is at 500 MHz.

Dense forests also obstruct radio waves.  The situation is a lot more complex as the randomly distributed leaves, twigs, branches and tree trunks cause attenuation, scattering, diffraction and absorption. There's been quite a bit of study of radio in forests, both for radio communication and for satellite observation of natural resources.  A good summary is here.  In short, wet forests are more of a problem than dry forests and lower frequencies do better than higher frequencies.

Wi-Fi:  the best bet for commercial success with TV white space

Wi-Fi has several years lead over WiMAX or LTE in deployment of so-called 4G technology.  In addition, the Wi-Fi market is large so prices are low (versus WiMAX or LTE where handsets may eventually be low cost, but infrastructure is expensive).  If there there is commercial success in the TV white spaces, it's most likely to be with Wi-Fi, in the 2012-2014 time frame.

Broadband capacity - sizing buffers to handle traffic bursts

This is part 4 in a sequence of posts examining how broadband services actually work.  Part 1 looked at ISP concentration ratios.  Part 2 examined the effect of  averaging traffic from many subscribers.  Part 3 considered the impact of congestion on user experience. Here we'll take a finer grained look at traffic in the access network.

How do we achieve "zero" packet loss? Most websites are "hosted" and connect to the backbone by Fast Ethernet or Gigabit Ethernet links. Individual websites may be mismanaged, but there is no excuse for packet loss here.

Internet backbone links and backbone-to-backbone hand-offs are extremely high capacity multiplexing the traffic of thousands to millions of users.  Traffic statistics are predictable and operators compete on the basis of service levels, so packet loss is typically zero.

If there are performance problems, they're usually in the access network. Of course, one bottleneck is the service I've signed up for, for example a DSL link at 6 Mbps /1 Mbps. By definition my traffic is shaped to the service level I've signed up for.  This shaping typically happens at the first aggregation point (CMTS, DSLAM or WISP P2MP radio) or, on an IP or MAC address basis, at a bandwidth management device further upstream.  If they arise, problems are in the aggregation points and/or links between me and the backbone.

Since packet loss significantly degrades user experience, we'd like to understand how much over-provisioning a broadband service provider needs in order to absolutely minimize packet loss in the access network.  To understand this we need to look at smaller levels of aggregation (dozens and hundreds of users) and shorter intervals (sub-second rather than 5 minute averages, as few routers buffer more than a few tens or hundreds of milliseconds of traffic).

But first lets look at some five minute averages from a WISP with ~300 customers, each with either 1 Mbps or 3 Mbps service.

If one took these graphs at face value, it seems 20 Mbps of backhaul would be more than adequate, as the traffic peaks at 17 Mbps.  But 5 minute averages don't speak to what's really happening.

I don't have sub-second averages for the specific WISP above, but Fergal Toomey, Chief Scientist at Corvil Ltd., has some very detailed measurements on a similar Internet access network providing services to users at 512 Kbps, 1 Mbps and 2 Mbps. These are available in a whitepaper you can request from Corvil's website. Fergal's measurements were made at the Internet POP looking at traffic headed towards individual users.  Also, his measurements were made in 2004 when most hosted servers had 100 Mbps connections to the backbone and the majority of computers had TCP stacks configured for a maximum TCP receive window of 32KB.  In this graph, green shows 5 minutes averages, while light blue shows 500 ms averages. Dark blue shows 5 ms averages and they are striking!

What's Happening?

Web browsers typically use persistent TCP connections to minimize connection overhead and to avoid repeating TCP's slow start.  As a result, servers will frequently respond to a new request with a full window's worth of data.  In 2004 that was 32 KBs of data or ~23 packets of up to 1500 bytes each. Today it could be much more. Absorbing one such burst should be no problem, but to what extent are such bursts coincident?

Beyond web browsing, detailed traffic analysis uncovers a variety of odd behavior and some less savory behavior. For example, one burst was a blast of many 41-byte packets sent by a web application that apparently does a series of 1-byte writes to a TCP socket with the NO_DELAY flag set.  Several thousand packets arrive in quick succession causing packet loss.  Worse yet, follow-on losses occur as retransmissions cause a decaying series of echo bursts.

On a more malicious note, the data includes bursts caused by port scans.  These consist of many, many minimum size probe packets that attempt to scan all of a subscriber's ports in one enormous burst.  Luckily these lost packets are not retransmitted.

Beyond these, Fergal Toomey's analysis uncovered a variety of application anomalies that I found unexpected, but which crop up in the real world.

What headroom is really required?

Clearly we could just increase the size of the buffers in the router and smooth out any of these bursts, but that would also increase the delay while the burst lasts and thus introduce significant jitter.  A better question is how much headroom is required to guarantee zero packet loss and no more than 20 ms of incremental delay?

Conveniently, Fergal Toomey has run that calculation on the data set above and the result looks like this:

In this graph, the average traffic (the "mean" shown in light green) peaks just shy of 5 Mbps.  To guarantee zero packet loss and no more than 20 ms incremental delay 100 % of the time requires 19 Mbps of capacity or nearly 4x.  However, to guarantee zero packet loss and no more than 20 ms of delay 99% of the time, requires only 8 Mbps, i.e. a little less than 2x.

Interestingly, while ISP practices tend to be trade secrets, the rule of thumb that 2x headroom provides good service crops up repeatedly.

Conclusion

As a practical matter, real Internet traffic is fairly complex and includes a wide variety of anomalous behaviors. Rules of thumb based on averaging the traffic of a few hundred or even a few thousand subscribers are likely to be very expensive (in terms of excess capacity).  A better approach is to continuously monitor packet loss and delay variation (jitter), adding capacity as needed to keep those measures below desired levels.  

Zero packet loss and less than 20 ms incremental jitter, more than 99 percent of the time sounds plausible objective to me.  

Now if only my broadband service provider was willing to share any information about their service level objectives or performance.  Ooops, I must be dreaming.

Broadband capacity - the impact of congestion

This is part 3 in a sequence of posts examining how broadband services actually work.  Part 1 looked at ISP concentration ratios and part 2 examined the impact of averaging many subscribers. Future posts will consider how to size backhaul links and how to configure buffers.

Two major reasons people purchase broadband (or sign up for more capacity) are to improve interactivity and to get access to new applications, for example streaming movies.  New apps is clear, but it's worth looking congestion and how congestion affects interactivity.

Congestion has two impacts. First you get increased delays, as packets are buffered in queues waiting for free capacity on the next link. Usually this adds tens or hundreds of milliseconds to round trip times. Then, if the average traffic exceeds link capacity, you get packet loss. If you do have congestion, it's these packet losses that cause TCP traffic flows to back off, thus avoiding congestion collapse (and even less throughput).

Here is a graph of packet loss on a service that most of us would consider unacceptable.  These measurements were taken by Tom Dunigan on an early cable modem service (February 2001) that was substantially upgraded about a year later.

 

The next graph (also from Tom Donigan) shows how this congestion impacts interactivity.  The graph shows the echo delay for typing into a remote program using telnet in character-at-a-time mode.  One test (red line) was run in the early morning and one test (green line) was run during the evening when packet loss was peaking.  Each test measured the echo response time for 100 successive individual characters. Notice the typical echo delay goes up from ~130 ms in the morning to roughly 200-300 ms in the evening, but with occasional delays of more than one second.

Relatively few programs operate character-by-character, so the extra 100 ms or so might not matter.  On the other hand, a once second delay is noticeable!

A more common activity is viewing content on websites.  Here, the dominant time in any interaction is the time spent waiting for web content to download to your browser.  Since web content is downloaded using TCP (and more generally, TCP is the dominant protocol in use today), it's worth looking at the impact of packet loss on TCP throughput.  

The TCP protocol includes a congestion avoidance algorithm which is triggered by packet loss. When a packet is lost, the TCP sender slows down. As a result, the data rate for a single TCP flow looks like this (thanks to Guido Appenzeller):

Of course this assumes the TCP flow lasts long enough to saturate the bottleneck link and that this is the only flow in the network!  

What happens in real networks is complex, but RFC 3155 has an approximate formula for how a single flow is affected by packet loss in real network.  Even better, Bill Gibson at Niwot Networks has produced a nice graphic based on that formula for his paper on TCP limitations on file transfer performance.  It looks like this:

 

This is dramatic!  The different lines reflect different end-to-end round trip times (RTT) - times that will vary depending on the site you are connecting with.  Also, they represent the maximum throughput you could achieve with long duration TCP flows and no other bottlenecks.  What's notable is the logarithmic throughput scale on the left and the fact that, at 1% packet loss (0.01 on the bottom scale), potential throughput drops by a factor of 100!

Again, there are many caveats.  A real network has a mix of short- and long-lived flows. The local operating system may not be optimized to take full advantage of broadband speeds (although MS Windows actually got better at this with Vista). None-the-less, even 1% or 2% packet loss is correlated with poor user experience.

In short, to actually obtain the instantaneous throughput you thought you were purchasing, you don't want packet loss in upstream portions of the network.

I'll discuss what this actually implies for routers and backhaul links in a subsequent post.

Broadband capacity - the impact of averaging many subscribers

The fundamental idea of packet networks like the Internet is to transport variable rate data flows over a shared infrastructure.  Individual end points may generate little or no traffic for minutes or hours on end and then suddenly want to send or receive a large data set as quickly as possible.  Packet networks efficiently share common transport facilities among multiple users but how does this sharing actually work?  Yesterday I posted some actual, relatively current data from three small ISPs.  Today, let me show you how averaging traffic from many individual end points produces a completely stable core network flow.

Each of the graphs below shows successive five minutes measurements during a 24 hour period, but the first graph reflects a few hundred subscribers while the final graph represents the average of many, many millions of subscribers.

In the first graph, the blue line reflects outbound traffic from a few hundred subscribers.  While the average is just over 1 Mbps, the peak (at ~1615 hrs) is 6.9 Mbps for a peak-to-average of nearly 7-to-1.  The green bars represent inbound traffic with an average of 5.6 Mbps and a peak of nearly 16.8 Mbps for a peak-to-average of 3-to-1.  Some of this is time-of-day dependency but a lot of it, particularly the 6.91 Mbps spike at 1615 hrs, is the result of averaging only a few hundred subscribers.

 

Here's a traffic measurement at AMS-IX, the largest Internet Exchange in the world.  With an average of nearly 1 Gbps, the peak-to-average is a modest 1.43-to-1 and it's almost entirely due to time of day.  The largest change from one 5 minute measurement to the next appears to be about 140 Mbps so the short term peak-to-average is perhaps 1.1-to-1.

 

Finally, here a measurement of all the traffic flowing through AMS-IX – over 822 Gbps peak.  Here the time-of-day variation remains but there are virtually no statistical fluctuations.  The short term peak-to-average is almost 1-to-1.

 

To put this in economic terms, for an Internet backbone link that runs at many Gbps your daily traffic profile is completely stable and you can guarantee zero packet loss merely by providing 10%-20% extra capacity above your daily peak.  

But if you are running a small ISP, both the capacity you need per subscriber and the extra "headroom" for unanticipated peaks must be substantially larger.  To get a handle on what is required we also need to look at shorter intervals (shorter than five minutes).  But more on that in a subsequent post.

ISP Contention Ratios and average traffic per user – some data points

Recently there’s been a flurry of discussions about bandwidth shortages, not to mention bandwidth hogs, bandwidth caps, network neutrality and what constitutes fair practices by ISPs. But there is very little public data and no transparency! 

So let me offer a (very) few actual data points, one from a few years ago and three fairly current. These come from friends who are operators and from emails shared on trade association mail lists. Since some of it was not intended for publication, I have withheld specific names. 

Notice contention ratios vary widely and yet each of these operators has enough extra capacity that they claim to avoid link saturation and its impacts, like packet loss and excessive ping times. It’s true these are all small operators (280-1200 customers) so this data lacks the statistical smoothness one would expect when aggregating traffic from thousands or millions of subscribers. 

I also have some data on traffic averages by time and by number of subscribers that I’ll share in a subsequent blog post. 

Mar 2006 – Rural ISP (Dialup, DSL & Wireless)
130 Motorola Canopy subscribers (with 512 Kbps service)
150 DSL subscribers (110 with 512 Kbps service; 40 at 1 Mbps)
100 dialup lines serving 800 customers (average 40 Kbps)
Daily traffic was saturating 4.5 Mbps (3 T1s) for an hour per day but not with 6 Mbps.
Contention ratio: 164Mbps / 6 Mbps -> 27:1
Traffic per BB user: 6 Mbps / 280 subscribers -> 21 Kbps 

Sep 2009 – Rural ISP (DSL & Wireless)
1200 customers, DSL subs at 1.5, 3 or 6 Mbps; wireless subs at 384 Kbps, 768 Kbps, 1 Mbps or 3 Mbps. I don’t have the mix, so I'm guessing the contention ratio.
Daily traffic peaks at around 35-40 Mbps; up to 150 Mbps Internet transit available.
Contention ratio: 2400 Mbps(?) / 150 Mbps -> 16:1
Traffic per BB user: 40 Mbps / 1200 subscribers -> 33 Kbps 

Sep 2009 – Community-run WISP
340 customers, mostly on 3-4 Mbps service
Daily traffic peaks around 17 Mbps; 45 Mbps of Internet transit available.
Contention ratio: 1190 Mbps / 45 Mbps -> 26:1
Traffic per BB user: 17 Mbps / 340 members -> 50 Kbps 

Sep 2009 – Rural ISP
370 customers: 300 Customers on wireless (1-3 Mbps) and 70 customers with FTTH (10/100 & up, but most have 10 Mbps peak). Monthly fees based on a 10 or 20 GB cap with extra charges for heavier use.
Daily traffic peaks at 13-14 Mbps; 20 Mbps of Internet transit available.
Contention ratio: 1200 Mbps (?) / 20 Mbps -> 60:1
Traffic per BB user: 14 Mbps / 370 subscribers -> 37 Kbps

White spaces could be the broadcasters best hope

For years, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) fought the White Spaces Coalition and others interested in making US "TV white spaces" available for broadband, Wi-Fi or indeed, any new purpose. When the FCC voted 5-0 to permit license exempt use of TV White Spaces, the industry brought suit in Federal court. And they did this, despite rules in the FCC's decision that are so restrictive that, for now, white spaces devices are doomed to commercial failure. The NAB are savvy in the ways of Washington

But fighting the White Space Coalition is short sighted. The NAB faces a much bigger and more powerful enemy — mobile operators.

The White Spaces Coalition merely seeks permission to use spectrum where NAB members are not using it, i.e. on a non-interference basis as "secondary users" with purely secondary rights.  

The mobile industry wants it all.  They'd prefer that broadcast spectrum be taken back and auctioned off for mobile use. Discussions on recapturing broadcast spectrum ramped up after an October comment by FCC broadband czar Blair Levin. For example see the transcript of this December 1st panel discussion. Or consider last week's appointment of Duke Law Professor Stuart Benjamin as the FCC's first Distinguished Scholar in Residence. Benjamin is a vocal proponent of reclaiming the TV broadcast spectrum!

Broadcasters beware!  

Unlike the White Spaces Coalition, the mobile operators are political experts. They are part of a 100+ year telecom lobbying heritage. The Bell System was lobbying government agencies before the broadcast industry existed. Now Congress is considering spectrum policy. The FCC is considering spectrum policy.  

Broadcasters may eventually extort large sums of money out of the public, but over the next decade they will lose more and more of their spectrum.  I am no fan of the broadcast industry. Even after converting to more modern "digital" broadcasting, they are sitting on spectrum they don't need in order to deliver a limited number of channels of broadcast TV to the 14% of households who don't subscribe to cable. I'm one of those 14% and I don't even watch TV, so I have no interest in broadcasters' survival. But I can't help noticing there is one thing broadcasters could do that would block mobile operators from taking over broadcast spectrum.

White spaces can save broadcasters' spectrum rights

If license exempt white space devices are commercially successful, it will become increasingly difficult and then politically impossible for Congress or the FCC to recapture TV spectrum for exclusive use by the mobile industry. If Wi-Fi, WiMAX and other consumer devices appear using TV frequencies, it will become harder and harder to displace these consumer uses and recapture the exclusive use the mobile industry requires.  

So, if the broadcast industry really wants to hold onto their current spectrum rights, they should get as many non-interfering "secondary users" into their band as possible.  Otherwise, they will eventually lose their primary rights to the quest for more mobile broadband.

Structural Bypass - my talk from eComm last spring

At Spring eComm 2009 in California in March, I gave a presentation entitled:  Structural Bypass - A Simple, Proven Path to "Real Broadband" that dealt with policy approaches for first mile fiber deployments.  The video has just been posted here.  Unfortunately, this is my face and the audio with my words.  The slides are not shown in the video, instead you have to look at the slides here.

My arguments focused on urban areas only, as the economics are different between urban, suburban and rural deployments.  You can't just lump together all areas in a country and draw reasonable conclusions.  Also, the only data I have is for urban areas.  And, as a simplification for this talk (I only had 15 minutes including Q&A), my metric of success was the consumer price for 100 Mbps symmetric Internet connectivity.

My points were:

• Structural separation produces better results than other approaches.
• Separation between dark fiber and everything else is more effective than separations at higher layers.
• There is a political path, which I call Structural Bypass, which has been used at least once (in Stockholm), to effectively achieve structural separation without explicitly fighting that battle.

If you are interested, I suggest you open the video in one browser tab merely for the purpose of listening to the audio.  Then view the slides in another browser tab.  The audio is of some interest, but my facial expressions are of questionable value.

eComm agenda is on-line ―Check out the speakers!

There's a fascinating agenda building for eComm in Amsterdam in October.  Here's the latest list of talks, but what's best is the set of speakers who are giving these talks.  I personally know quite a few and know of many more (who I look forward to meeting).  The group includes a preponderance of innovators -- new views on what's happening, new ideas for how to drive change.  If you don't read through this list of talks, look at the speakers list here.  Then come to Amsterdam and meet these people.

21st Century Economics: Lessons for Telcos - Umair Haque (Havas Media Lab)

Advances In Spectrum Transparency, Software Defined Radio/Cognitive Radio - Darrin M Mylet (Spectru-Station)

Almost all Marketing & Product Management of Telco Services is Wrong - Rudolf van der Berg (Logica)

Current Trends in Community Wireless Networks and Beyond - Aaron Kaplan (FunkFeuer)

Death of the Handset: Evolving from Mobile Devices to the Mobile Digital Life - Mark Rolston (frog Design)

Edge As Value - Value As Edge - Graham Brierton (Voicesage)

Enslaving Humans using Communications Technology for Fun and Profit - Thomas McCarthy-Howe (Jaduka)

Entrepreneurial Advantages with New Open-Source Technologies - Jay Phillips (Voxeo)

European Telecoms 2015: Silent Death or Generative Bazaar? - Julien Salanave (IDATE Telecoms)

Finding Disruption - Michael Jackson (Mangrove Capital)

Goodbye Minutes, Hello Moments - Martin Geddes (BT)

Google Wave - David Wang (Google)

How the "Internet of Things" will Change the Way we Connect - Alexandra Deschamps-Sonsino (Tinker.it)

How to get More Value out of Customer Interactions by Blending Online with Voice - Stefan Hopmann (Swisscom)

Humans as a Service: Abstracting Communications to Reach New Applications - Todd Landry (NEC Sphere)

Is LTE being Held Hostage by Ordinary Voice Telephony? - Dean Bubley (Disruptive Analysis)

Lifestyle Segmentation from Carrier Location and Call Data - Greg Skibiski (Sense Networks)

Lifestyle Segmentation from Carrier Location and Call Data - Tony Jebara (Sense Networks)

LTE - Long Term Employment or Less Than Expected? - Moray Rumney (Agilent)

Open Access Makes Economic Sense - Benoît Felten (Yankee Group)

Open Screen Project: Next Generation Contextual Applications - Andrew Shorten (Adobe)

Opening of the Terahertz Region - Robert Horvitz (Open Spectrum Foundation)

Opportunities in Post-Telecom Connectivity - Bob Frankston (Frankston Innovating)

Post Financial Trauma - How is the Telecom Value Chain Now Positioned? - James Enck (mCapital)

Redefining Gifts in the Digital Space - Katie Lips (Little World Gifts)

Slowing Down Communication: Designs Inspired by Quality, Intimacy, and Humanity - Stefan Agamanolis (Distance Lab)

Spectrum 2.0 – What's Really Happening? - Brough Turner (Ashtonbrooke)

Stealth Approaches to Legislating Open Spectrum - Brough Turner (Ashtonbrooke)

Technology and Biological Evolution: What This Means for Media and Communications Technologies - Tomas Rawlings (University of the West of England)

Telemedia Futures - Gerd Leonhard (MediaFuturist.com)

The Emerging Telecology of Social Networks and the Status Update - Stuart Henshall (Phweet)

The Future of Interconnection - Rudolf van der Berg (Logica)

The Global Battle for Communications Justice: An Open Spectrum Manifesto - Sascha Meinrath (New America Foundation)

The Next Wave of Communications Applications - Cullen Jennings (Cisco)

The Practical Edge of Speech Technology - Moshe Yudkowsky (Disaggregate)

Ubiquitous Voice over Broadband - is There a Future Role for the Smart Pipe? - Martin Taylor (MetaSwitch)

Unlicensed Spectrum: Future Regulation - Prof. William Webb (Ofcom)

Video Killed the Telephone Czar? - Jan Linden (Global IP Solutions)

When Will HD Voice Become a Reality? - Martyn Davies (Dialogic)

What Would Telephony be Like if we Designed it Today? - Matt Ranney (RebelVox)

If you've read this far, there's a 10% discount via this registration link - register here.  And for more information, visit http://eComm.ec.  This one conference is at the top of my list for:  interesting, productive and an excellent set of contacts.

Happy One Web Day

Thanks to Susan Crawford for creating One Web Day and directing attention to just what the Web has done for mankind, and towards some of the issues in sustaining and growing the benefits of the World Wide Web.

Ofcom goes nuts - will they regulate visible light next?

Ofcom, the UK regulator, has deigned to allow UK citizens license-exempt use of the 275-3000 GHz band.  These are freqencies have historically been lumped in with Infrared.  Of course, these are temporary regulations while they await an international decision at the World Radio Conference in 2011 (WRC-2011).  So it's not just Ofcom that troubles me, but spectrum regulator's in general.  Best bets are, after 2011, everyone will be regulating 275-3000 GHz, but why jump the gun?  As for light, there will also be a discussion at WRC-2011 about regulating "free-space optical" communication.  At least the US is on record as opposed to regulating free-space optical links.

Over the decades, government regulators have gradually expanded the range of frequencies they consider to be the radio spectrum subject to their regulation.  But until recently the highest frequency that anyone considered "radio" has been 300 GHz.  See for example this excerpt from a US Department of Commerce chart in 2003 (full chart here).

Very little use has been made of any spectrum above 60 GHz although there are commercial products in development in various bands between 60 GHz and 100 GHz.  The problem is, at higher and higher frequencies, absorption due to oxygen molecules and water vapor increases until you reach a "window" that we know as the visible light portion of the spectrum.  Since the atmosphere contains oxygen, not to mention water vapor (yes, even in desert areas), transmissions above 300 GHz are severely attenuated.

So whatever happened to the principal that you leave things unregulated until and unless it becomes clear that regulation is required?

eComm in Amsterdam ― shameless self promotion

I've just wrapped up a focused effort that delayed blogging and many other things.  As a result, I finally submitted the detailed description for my plenary slot at eComm Fall 2009 which will be happening in Amsterdam October 28th-30th.  My abstract is not up on the website yet, but hopefully the next few weeks will bring details on my talk and many others.  For now, let me just say my title is
   Stealth Approaches to Legislating Open Spectrum
in which I propose what I hope is a novel approach to dramatically expanding the capabilities and commercial success of license-exempt consumer devices.

This will be the first time eComm has been held in Europe but, based on the first two eComm conferences (2008 and Spring 2009), this is the meeting for the future of communications.  It's not a trade show and it's not a mass event.  Instead, it's three days of rapid paced information ― high level, insightful and non-commercial.  Even more important, the people are very, very interesting.  It's not cheap, but it costs less if you sign up now (especially if you sign up before July 21st).  What's more, because I'm such an enthusiast, and I'm on the conference's advisory board, I've been given a discount code.  For an additional 20% off type in "BroughTurner" as the eComm discount code, i.e. where the registration form says "Click here to enter a promotional code."

I hope to see you in Amsterdam in October.

Opportunity Doesn't Always Knock. Sometimes It Calls.

The mammoth telecom industry ― fixed and cellular ― is in the process of being re-written. You can stand on the side and be written into history or join with the growing community that's writing the future. Opportunities have never been so great ― to influence how humanity connects, communicates and collaborates and to profit from radical restructuring.

The Dumb Pipe Paradox ― How open access networks build shareholder value

On more than one occasion, "natural monopoly" arguments have been used to obtain, and/or hold onto, a government granted monopoly,  This is definitely true of access networks where the physical right-of-way to any specific real estate parcel is a limited resource, but the economics of what you put in it have changed over time.  At one time it made sense to consider telephone service a natural monopoly.  And for most of the twentieth century, telephone service was operated that way (think Bell System in the US and government run PTTs in most of the rest of the world).  In the latter 20th century, cable TV became a second such monopoly.  Today, it's increasingly clear that telephony and television are higher layer services, not inherently tied to the access network.  Yet our laws and regulation have barely evolved ― each access network is still regulated as a different vertically integrated monopoly.  And, managers in each business focus on preserving their historic monopoly even as market forces or government regulations force them to also offer Internet access.

So it's interesting to see solid economic analysis showing that access network shareholders would make more money if management was willing to open up their access networks, i.e. become "dumb pipes."

The first such argument I encountered was by Craig Moffett and Amelia Wong of Bernstein Research who wrote an interesting paper The Dumb Pipe Paradox, early in 2006.  The original paper is not on line but I have some quotes here and there are some other comments here.  Craig and Amelia were looking at Cable TV's hybrid fiber-coax networks and concluded that cable companies could make more return on investment if they were in the pure dumb pipes business.

More recently, I reported on a speech given by Benoît Felten of Yankee Group and Fiberevolution in which he argued that new fiber to the home (FTTH) investments could be paid back more rapidly if the FTTH network were open, i.e. offered to competitors at attractive wholesale rates.

Now Benoît has written a detailed report describing his findings.  Although the report is for Yankee Group subscribers only, Benoît is also giving a webinar on the subject next Tuesday and that's open to all.  Register here.

I particularly liked the polite suggestion near the end of Benoît's report:

Recommendations for Incumbents
• Re-examine your economic fundamentals in light of the FTTH business model. It’s irrational to cling to antiquated business practices if new approaches, no matter how disruptive, deliver better shareholder value.

Open Spectrum slide deck is now on-line

Here's the slide deck I used at last Thursday's meeting of the Boston section of the IEEE Communications Society.

Open Spectrum - Physics, Engineering, Commerce and Politics

View more presentations from Brough Turner.

Among other things, I debunk the following spectrum myths:

• Spectrum is scarce
• 4G is the future of wireless
• Auctions drive efficient use of spectrum
• Spectrum utilization requires massive investments
• TV spectrum is “beach front” property

The full write up from the IEEE announcement:

Communications Society

7:00 PM, Thursday, May 14

The Open Spectrum Potential for Evolutionary and Revolutionary Technology and Business Solutions

Brough Turner; Founder and CTO at Ashtonbrooke and Chief Strategy Officer at Dialogic

In November 2008, the FCC voted unanimously to permit unlicensed wireless devices that operate in the empty "white space" between TV channels. Their “TV White Spaces” decision was the culmination of many years of proceedings, but it's just one step in a much larger discussion, commonly referred to as “Open Spectrum.”

Our use of radio spectrum is regulated under principles that were established in the 1920s, when radio spectrum appeared to be a scarce resource and frequency was the only reasonable basis for allocation. Today’s wireless technology vastly exceeds anything imagined in the 1920s and from physical principles we know that many, many orders of magnitude further improvement are possible. Already the application of new approaches in just a few slivers of spectrum has fostered new industries – WiFi, Bluetooth and more.

The presentation discusses the predecessors, potentiality, and directions for Open Spectrum, including:

• A brief history spectrum regulation from before the Radio Act of 1927 to today.
• Results from measurements of actual spectrum utilization in New York and Washington DC.
• An overview of "Open Spectrum" experiments to date, including “license exempt sharing” in the 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands and different forms of "secondary use" including UWB, 3650 MHz and now TV White Spaces.
• The physics of propagation and its impact on the range of White Spaces services vs. WiFi, WiMAX, 3GSM and LTE.
• IEEE 802.11y protocols and the prospects for expanding secondary use beyond TV White Spaces.

Brough Turner is founder and CTO at Ashtonbrooke and Chief Strategy Officer at Dialogic. Formerly he was founder and CTO at Natural MicroSystems and NMS Communications. He speaks and writes on a variety of communications topics including 3G and 4G wireless tutorials. He presented most recently at the 4G Wireless Evolution conference in February. Brough is an electrical engineering graduate of MIT and has 25 years experience in telecommunications.

Open Spectrum ― I'm presenting at an IEEE meeting this Thursday

This Thursday evening (May 14th), I'll be discussing Open Spectrum at the May meeting of the Boston chapter of the IEEE Communications Society.  My working title:  Open Spectrum ― Physics, Engineering, Commerce and Politics.  This is a technical audience, so we'll touch the physics of electromagnetic propagation and examine radio engineering solutions as they stood in the 1920s, as they are today and where they're likely to take us in the coming decade.  But we'll also look at the politics of spectrum regulation and the commercial implications of recent developments.

Just to get your attention:

• We'll explain why the TV White Spaces (TVWS) won't be considered  "beach front spectrum" in the future, and
• Why the lasting impact of the FCC's recent TVWS decision may be what it does for "secondary access"

If you're in the greater Boston area and at all interested in spectrum policy or the commercial evolution of WiFi and other unlicensed technologies, please stop by. 

The meeting begins at 7 p.m. and the presentation soon after at the Verizon Labs, 117 West Street, Waltham. The meeting is preceded by an optional dinner at Bertucci's, Winter St, Waltham, at 5:30 p.m.  The meeting is open to all, but please let Paul Zorfass know if you plan to attend the dinner at Bertucci’s. Paul can be contacted at paul.zorfass@embeddedtrade.com.  More directions and details here.

Spectrum Transparency: Can the US catch up with France?

Richard Whitt has a good article, Taking stock of the nations airwaves, on the Google Public Policy Blog.  He focuses on the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act, a bill introduced in the US Senate by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Olivia Snowe (R-ME).

It's hard to argue spectrum policy if you can't actually determine who has what rights in which parts of the radio spectrum.  This bill is a start.

For a first cut at what we should aspire to, look at this site by the Autorité de Régulation des Communications électroniques et des Postes - the French equivalent of the US FCC.  Try typing in a frequency or a frequency range; then hit "Rechercher."

I haven't figured out how to determine who owns individual licenses to spectrum in France and, of course, that is critical.  The proposed US law, S.649, explicitly calls for such information to be gathered and made available to the public on a website.  Let's hope this passes.

40th anniversary of RFC 1

April 7, 1969 was the day a graduate student at UCLA, Steve Crocker, published RFC 1 to the somewhat informal Network Working Group associated with the ARPA Network project.  I have heard Steve Crocker speaking informally about those days and my understanding is he created what became the "Request for Comments" series because anything more formal would have brought down several layers of governement bureaucracy.

It's interesting that the Internet owes its origins to a government project, but a lot of what happened was done by individuals and groups working around and/or in spite of government processes.

Highlights from eComm 2009

This year's Emerging Communications conference, eComm 2009, was the best telecom conference I've been to in ages (ever?).  Now presentations and videos from the conference are becoming available on the web.  The presentations are on SlideShare; search by speaker name or for the tag "eComm."  Here's my presentation, Structural Bypass - A simple proven path to "Real Broadband."

Brough Turner's Presentation at eComm 2009

View more presentations from eCommConf.

Videos and transcripts are also coming, although not as rapidly as I'd like (a matter of resources - one person editting and releasing 2-4 videos per week).  Here's a transcript of the Spectrum 2.0 panel that I moderated.

Videos will show up on Fora.tv, for example, here is the really cool keynote address by Ge Wang entitled "New Expressive Social Mediums on the iPhone."

For more information and pointers, subscribe to the eComm blog.

David Weinberger is blogging F2C rather completely

And David is a expert blogger!  i.e., really good coverage.
  http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/

The first Freedom to Connect conference entry is here. 

Latency is the cause; bandwidth is the solution

Actually, what Herman Wagter of Amsterdam's Citynet said at F2C 2009 was:  latency is the cause, bandwidth is the effect.  But his explanation matched my title above.

If you are attempting to interact with other people, whether by VoIP or just playing cards together (with video) you need less than 200 milliseconds of end-to-end delay.  If it's playing cards together, with video, and you need to exchange 500 Kbps in less than 200 ms, you need a 100 Mbps pipe!

It's latency that drives the need for high bandwidth.  Most people won't fill that pipe most of the time, but they need the pipe to guarentee that what they do send gets through rapidly.

Highlights from Day 1 of F2C

Shamelessly ranked by my areas of interest...

Tim Nulty of East Central Vermont Community Fiber.  Tim is a veteran network builder and a forceful speaker, so he's happy to tell it like is.  He's also got that Yankee mix of liberal politics with extreme fiscal conservatism.  He's building fiber networks, in rural Vermont, which pay for themselves.

Ken Biba of Novarum has been measuring actual wireless networks in buildings and in cities for years.  While the detail is in a report available for purchase, the summary is that WiFi-based Muni WiFi yields significantly better performance than 3G cellular.  Interestingly coverage and reliability is right up there in selected cities, as well.  The take-away - 802.11n really rocks. I.e., the next cycle of WiFi is going to be vastly better than what he's been measuring over the past 3 years.

Ellen Miller of Sunlight Foundation was low key by comparison with Tim or Ken, but her stories were compelling - multiple instances of Internet community feedback creating the kind of information that the "open government" initiatives aspire to.

Finally, Dewayne Hendricks is always interesting.  This year he seemed more optimistic than last, presumably the result of the recent election.  In any event, here's another speaker with deep experience in building networks.

I'm off to the Emerging Communications Conference in San Francisco

It's snowing in Boston and my American flight has been cancelled but Virgin America claims their 8:35am flight is going to leave on time.  So here I am in the Virgin gate area.  Wish me luck.

At this point there are a ton of people I'm hoping to hook up with at eComm 2009.  The agenda looks really good.  And, of course I'm looking forward to good discussions around two favorite policy topics: broadband access and wireless spectrum.

My talk on Wednesday is: Structural Bypass: A simple, proven path to “Real Broadband.”

While the US struggles to define "broadband," high speed Internet access (100 Mbps & above) is widely available at modest cost in several countries and quite a few more cities. So far, US political discussion has largely neglected these successes. Brough will point out what's common among diverse international success stories and propose a path for the US that has proven to work elsewhere, despite established monopolies and political processes dominated by vested interests.

On Thursday, I've organized a panel entitled:  Spectrum 2.0 - What's really happening?

WiFi, UltraWideBand and now TV White Spaces represent new commons-based approaches to radio spectrum regulation. While some advocate commons-based approaches for all wireless spectrum, that's hardly acceptable to broadcasters or the mobile phone industry. By questioning a diverse panel of industry experts, we will expose the roots of today's controversy - technical, commercial and political - and see what's likely to occur over the next two to five years and in the long term.

The panelists are top notch:  Richard Bennett, Maura Corbett, Peter Ecclesine, Darrin Mylet and Richard Whitt.

If you're attending, please say hello.

Wireless Tutorial slides posted

The slides we used for our four part Wireless Tutorial at the 4G Wireless Evolution conference in Miami last week are now up on the web.

History and Evolution of Mobile Radio

Part One covers the history of mobile wireless from the earliest days

to the latest 4G technology.

Part one is also available as a webinar recorded in 3 sections last fall.

IEEE Wireless Ethernet Keeps Going and Growing

Part two covers the IEEE wireless systems:  WiFi, WiMAX and more...

Mobile Broadband: New Applications and New Business Models

Part three covers emerging world of mobile broadband access and some of the applications it enables.

White Spaces and Open spectrum Issues

Finally, part four focuses on Open spectrum and the recent decision by the FCC to permit unlicensed devices to operate on unoccupied TV channels - the so called TV White Spaces.  In the end, there's alot more that will be possible eventually...

Grey market Broadband access in Bangladesh

Here's another great picture from Tariq, taken when he was in Dhaka, Bangladesh to speak at the January 2008 meeting of SANOG.

At the top of the pole are power lines, but the rest of the stuff in the middle is an assortment of cable TV and fiber infrastructure, almost all run without the benefit of formal government regulation.

The result is people in at least some neighborhoods of Dhaka have access similar to what's on offer in Karchi, Pakistan.

Sasha Meinrath has a good explanation of "Interference Temperature"

Sasha Meinrath is Research Director for the New America Foundation's Wireless Futures Program and will be one of the speakers at eComm 2009.  I've just read his comments in a recent interview by Lee Dryburgh on the eComm blog.  Sasha has a particularly good explanation of an arcane concept, interference temperature.

Why does this matter?  It's one way to open up otherwise assigned radio spectrum to new uses without impeding existing uses.  The FCC made an attempt to float the idea in 2003 but after much comment (and pressure from those with existing licenses), they backed off in May 2007.  It's still a good idea, so perhaps Sasha's explanation will help get it back on the table.

The second one that we've been fighting for, and have lost thus far, is what's called "Interference Temperature," which is that, in the same way, at a rock concert people in the audience can whisper, or yell for that matter, and not be disruptive to the concert itself, we want to see very low powered usage <permitted> on occupied channels.

The idea is, if you're sitting next to a 100,000-watt television transmitter and you want to utilize a device to connect your laptop computer to your television, fifteen feet away, you should be allowed to do that in the same space.

Thank you Sasha.  That beats all the gobbeldygook spouted between 2003 and 2007.

I look forward to talking with Sasha at eComm 2009 in San Francisco in March.

Community Networks — the Robin Hood Approach

What kind of broadband Internet access would be possible if there were no government regulation?  Today every government in the world has laws or regulations on who can run cables in public rights-of-way but, in some places, these rules are not effective.  This has produced some very interesting case studies on what markets do in the absence government granted monopolies.

Last fall, I wrote two blog posts about the situation in Bucharest where essentially anyone can string cables in public rights-of-way.  The result are widespread fiber and Cat 5 cable networks and bundles of CATV + FTTB (100 Mbps FastEthernet) + telephony are routinely available for as little as 9 Euros (~US $12) per month.   Here is another case:

Desi Cable Networks in Lahore

Recently, I had a very interesting email exchange with Tariq Mustafa in Lahore about informal broadband access arrangements in Southeast Asia. (Tariq blogs as Tee Emm on Pakistan NextGen Issues and is also active on Telecom Grid Pakistan).  Tariq also has direct knowledge of local networks in Lahore and Karachi and indirect information about Dhaka (Bangladesh).  With Tariq's permission, I'll quote extensively from his emails, but first a quick summary of the situation as I understand it.

Access to neighborhood rights-of-way is governed by local relationships rather than by official government license.  As a result, there are extensive local broadband networks (fiber and Cat 5 cable) providing excellent local connectivity (typically up to 100 Mbps symmetric), including high speed access to local content caches.  Actual connections to the Internet are still limited so, while one can download movies from a file server at 30 - 50 Mbps, connections to the real Internet tend to be limited to 512 Kbps each.  On the other hand, the whole package costs roughly Rs 600 or about US $8, per month.  And, while exact figures are not available, it appears the number of grey market subscribers far exceeds those officially counted by the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority.

In short, where there is no government and no government empowered monopolist (in this case, the first 5-15 km), both fiber and Fast Ethernet are widely deployed, and prices are extremely low.  Actual connections to the Internet have to go through licensed ISPs and need access to the country's limited International cables.  These remain expensive.

Tariq's Explanation of Desi Cable Networks

Everything that follows is quoted directly from Tariq's emails to me:

DCN - Desi Cable Nets as I want to call them. (Desi is the word that means 'local' in our South Asian Languages. The word was necessary to differentiate these networks from the original hybrid fiber coaxial network that are generally called Cable Networks in the developed countries).

To answer your questions, here are some more facts. Feel free to get back to me if you have more questions. I consider myself a vocalist when it comes to these DCNs and the impact that these have created (in the absence of the actual formal industry rising up to the occasion for the digital needs of the masses). I talked about this at Sanog XI in Dhaka (Bangladesh) earlier this January <2008> and the title of the talk was 'Community Networks - Crowning the Robinhood'. This summaries what I mean.

1. DCN is an eco-system of operators, consumers and social realities.

2. A DCN eco-system is characterized by high desires for middle class community to get online, low affordability, lack of regulation, low concerns of digital communication security and poor infrastructure of electricity and underground cables.

3. A DCN successfully delivers (often partial) Internet services in the wake of the above obstacles to large parts of population.

4. In a DCN eco-system, there is one part that can be referred to as the 'junknet'. The junknet is an instance of anywhere from 50 to 150 houses connected to empirically <located> Ethernet switches mounted generally on top of utility poles and interconnected to each other over Cat5 cables. A junknet is characterized by lack of any intelligence. There are no AAA servers, no bandwidth managers, no routers etc. It is essentially a collection of Cat5 cables coming out of houses and connecting to Ethernet switches on the utility poles. These Ethernet switches are cascaded to allow the junknet to connect together from 50 to 150 houses typically.

5. A junknet operator essentially performs the following in this ecosystem:

1. Maintenance of the Junknet cable system.
2. Making cable connections for end users.
3. Helping end users with the set up of the connection at the PC.
4. Securing rights (mostly informal, driven by local influence) of taking the cable in the vicinity.
5. Provisioning and upkeep of the Ethernet switches mounted atop the utility poles in the area.
6. Securing UPS based power for the switches where possible by offering discounted or free DCN service to participating teens in the area.
7. Fee collection from the end users and depositing to the aggregator. Bills or pre-paid balances are managed and are generated by another entity.

6. Junknets terminate at router points that are placed in the locality by another player within the DCN eco-system. Let us call them aggregators. To save costs and to remain at the lowest price points, the aggregator uses small Linux based PCs with up to 6 Ethernet interfaces running Zebra for routing. Aggregators are intelligent in that they have elements that do routing and silence the broadcast storms that are possible (and often quite common) in the individual Junknets they power.

7. Aggregator networks make extensive use of optical fiber, once again, running on utility poles. Again, to keep costs down, these operators do not use optical Ethernet switches as one would expect but employ low cost media converters to connect the router PCs together over great distances - generally 5 to 15 km.

8. These router PCs are aggregated on proper Cisco Ethernet switches (for the first time in the ecosystem).

9. Typical DCNs operate over 1 Gig of network capacity between the switches with recent news of the trunks being upgraded to 10 G on experimental basis. The DCNs in Pakistan run on a rich diet of fiber which gives them the ability to support hundreds of end points in densely populated areas.

10. A network wide DHCP hands out one set of IP addresses to any device that connects to this huge network of 10 to 15 thousand end points. However, these IPs are not routed and are of no direct use to the average end customer.

11. A home grown VPN client than connects a VPN concentrator at the DCN HQ to get a functional IP address which is either a real globally routed IP address or an IP address that is recognized by one of the many proxy servers in the DCN HQ and lets the user access the Internet.

12. Non-paying customers are denied access to the VPN box until the payment is received traversing the chain mentioned above (Junknet - Aggregator - HQ).

13. It is common for the end uses to download pirated movies and software from the file servers managed by the DCN HQs. Users expect these downloads to take place at around 4 to 5 MB per second and when this goes down below 2 MB per second, the users actually complain against the service to their operator.

14. As a DCN approaches higher number of users and buy bulk bandwidth (most that I know are running STM1 or multiple STM1s for transit capacity), the statistical multiplexing effects gets stronger and end users' experience gets better.

15. For Rs 600 ($8) per month, users of these DCN generally get a service upwards of 512 kbps in middle class localities.  The DCNs often do not explicitly cap the throughput. At times, when the load is less, users get to enjoy multi-megabit Internet access. However, of late, with better traffic shaping techniques being cheaply available to the DCN operators, some permanent traffic policing is being witnessed. This is managed at the DCN HQ.

16. The cable systems running these DCNs - the fiber or cat5 cables atop utility poles - are not governed by regulations of either PEMRA (Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority) or PTA (Pakistan Telecommunication Authority) as both bodies find the operations lying in the middle gray area. PTA deals with the formal, tax paying and well organized ISP and Telecommunications industry while PEMRA deals with the TV cable systems that, at the edge, depend on the coaxial cable running atop utility poles to reach their end users. The fiber that takes the DCNs from one locality to another locality (with the PC routers as bridges between them and the junknets) runs along with these TV channel cables.

And from a subsequent email answering some additional questions:

2. There is a tremendous potential for DCNs to peer, at least in the cities. The trump card here, again, is the near universal availability of fibers-on-the-poles which can allow DCN HQs to peer at multi gigabit speeds. However, the biggest challenge is not technological unfortunately. The biggest challenge is that the DCN top-guys are yesteryears street roamers and getting them to digest the idea of putting a dedicated switch (vs a PC based multi Ethernet port aggregator) is tough beyond expectations. Telling them why peering is important and the subsequent marvels this will bring in is like explaining a fine color shade to <someone> born blind. I've had personal experience in this respect.

3. Pakistan is paying through its nose for the Internet Transit it buys for its population. As a country, it is estimated that Pakistan subscribes to around 10 GB of Internet transit.  For operators like my employer, STM1 costs in the vicinity of USD 23,000 per month and STM-4 transit capacities in the vicinity of USD 65,000 per month. In Pakistan, where broadband penetration is just 170,000 broadband connections (BB is defined as anything above 128 kbps), there is a huge potential <demand for> domestic bandwidth which is just not being taken care of. The entire country is depending on what I insist to call 'imported Internet' and there is no way this model can scale if we are to touch a few million broadband users by the next 18 months.

4. Asymmetry sometimes comes into play because some DSN have HFC cablenet and/or DSL connection bundles as their upstreams or backups. When these are in play, the upstream performances get bad.

Own (or control) your Internet access

Apparently IT conversations has just made the presentation "Own the Network" that I gave at eComm last March more readily available as I've gotten three emails about it in the past 72 hours and notice that Michael Graves just mentioned my presentation in a blog post about US broadband policy.

IT Conversations summary of the presentation is short and to the point:

Brough Turner says, “Don’t fight for anything above dark fiber.” Changes in telecom tend to happen on a decade's time scale so be careful what you ask for - it will be with you for a long time. His proposal for improving internet communications in the United States is based on the paradigm of owning the dark fiber ourselves or controlling who lights the dark fiber that comes into our homes.

He describes models from Quebec and Sweden of condominium fiber and municipal fiber, and gives Sweden as the example of a successful model because of their dark fiber widely available. Telephony is not a natural monopoly as that is defined. With dark fiber widely available in a condominium or municipal model, independent ISP’s can compete and customers can control who lights their dark fiber.

The whole talk was 14 minutes (with pre-roll and intro the IT conversations clip is 16 minutes).  There were also some slides, most pictures, which complement the audio but are not essential.

Access to right-of-way and it's impact on Broadband cost & performance

For my presentation at eComm 2008 in March, I searched out the cost and availability of 100 Mbps symmetric Internet Access in various locations.  At that time (1Q08), the ranking and approximate monthly cost (in US $) was:

Stockhom        $16

Tokyo              $25

Seoul               $32

Hong Kong       $35

In each case, 100/100 Mbps symmetric service was widely available in the city and in many other parts of the country, (but I only obtained costs for those specific cities).

Now I have a new data point to add:

Bucharest        $11
Image via WikipediaFor 9 Euros per month you actually get a quad play service:  CATV + FTTB (FastEthernet 100 Mbps) + fixed voice + mobile with some hundreds of minutes included.  The only catch is connectivity to the rest of the Internet is subject to congestion.  Here's a mid-afternoon measurement between Bucharest and Frankfurt which shows 43 Mbps upstream, but less than half that downstream.   Thanks to Catalin for the detail and the measurement.

Access to the right-of-way

It's interesting that the best deal is in Bucharest where there is open access to public rights-of-way, as I blogged last month.

The second best deal is in Stockholm where dark fiber is widely available to all comers.  Stockholm's abundant dark fiber is mostly due to Stokab AB, a government sponsored corporation originally chartered in the mid-90s to install dark fiber and make it available at break even costs.

Open right-of-way leads to FTTH galore in Bucharest

Esteemed reader Jim Van Meggelen was in Romania last summer, in part because both the YATE and OpenSER/OpenSIPS/Kamailio open source projects are based in Bucharest.  That's fascinating, but look at what else he found, Fiber to the Home - a lot of it!

To quote Jim:

I was in Romania this summer and they had a fascinating approach to the last mile: run your own fibre. It was really funny to see the massive numbers of fibre strands running all over Bucharest, hung willy-nilly from lampposts, power poles, balconies, traffic signals, weather vanes, and pretty much any structure that one could figure out a way to attach a cable to. Messy? Yes. Unregulated? Effectively, yes (you simply sneak up the pole late at night). The upshot of all this is that most of the urban centres in Romania have massive amounts of bandwidth right to the residence. It is common to be able to download data as fast as the NIC in the PC is able to consume it. They have access to last-mile bandwidth that we in North America can only dream of, for the same cost as we get DSL.

  Here's some more local color from one of Jim's later emails:

Pretty much all the cables you see in that picture are fibre.

Given the fact that Romanians don't have much respect for authority (which is probably true of most former-Communist countries), the concept of anyone owning the last mile is not something I think is given much thought. They've got a lot of worse problems to sort out before they worry about that sort of thing. It is fascinating to see them taking their economy from Communist through corruption to Western. I am no economist, but my gut feeling says they're on the right track.

The locals feel that all that cabling is an eyesore, but what is far more funny is to see a rusted out Dacia on cinder blocks, parked right next to a brand new Ferrari, and then an old Trabant ready for the scrapyard, flanked by an Aston Martin or similar. Bucharest is a bit of a mess, but not in a way that is unpleasant. For some reason it reminded me of a Mexican city somehow. I'm not sure why. It is certainly not an ugly city (at least not to my eye), but it is clear that they have a long ways to go, yet.

The Romanian people are wonderfully polite and generous, although they seem surprised that anyone would want to visit their main city (they laughed when I asked where to go to get Bucharest souvenirs). They have a fantastic sense of humour, but at first they seem a little stone-faced. What was a really pleasant surprise was that since Romanian is a Latin language, anyone with a passing French, Spanish or Latin vocabulary stands a fair chance of reading much of the signage and such.

Romania was not on my list of places I wanted (nor expected) to visit. I ended up there because both the YATE and OpenSER/OpenSIPS/Kamailio projects are based in Bucharest, and I was doing some writing on those projects, so I figured a trip out there was in order. Although the list of places I have yet to visit is fairly long, Romania is a place that I would be happy to visit again.

Regards,
Jim

Strangely, Bucharest's do-it-yourself fiber reminds me of mobile service providers in Somalia, a country with no central government and no regulation of radio spectrum.  None-the-less, Somalia has multiple GSM service providers who share standard GSM frequencies in semi-cooperative fashion.  In each case there is no law enforcement, yet people work out ways of coping, and of arbitrating disputes.  Likely this is what common law was before it became Common Law.

Customer owned fiber in Ottawa

Arstechnica had a nice article yesterday by Timothy Lee entitled The Long Tail following up on Derek Slater's article last week on the Google Public Policy Blog entitled What if you could own your Internet connection?  Both articles are about a pilot project in Ottawa.

The "tail" in Timothy's article is the "last mile" (or as I prefer, "first mile") fiber connection from individual homes to a network peering point or other aggregation point where individuals can then choose from among multiple competing ISPs.  The importance is, as Timothy Lee puts it,

Without the expense of rolling out last mile infrastructure to every home, many more ISPs could afford to serve a given neighborhood by running wiring to the peering point, leading to more competition and lower prices. Perhaps best of all, the growth of customer-owned fiber could make debates over "open access" and network neutrality moot, as robust telecom competition should prevent the worst of the monopolistic behavior exhibited by telco and cable incumbents.

Typical costs run below $3000 per household depending on density and the number of households that agree to participate.  Considering the cost of a home, this is one investment that should easily increase the value of the home, most likely by much more than the cost!

Mentioned by Derek although unmentioned by Timothy is the most important person here, Bill St. Arnaud, Chief Research Officer at CANARIE, a Canadian nonprofit that focuses on network infrastructure.

Bill is driving the Ottawa trial and is the leading proponent of condominium fiber as described in his presentations here.  His work has also had a major impact on my thinking about "layer zero" competition.

Either way, articles on the Google blog and at Arstechnica will help promote this excellent concept and, hopefully, improve the quality of discussion in policy circles.

NGN ≠ the Internet, and never will

I see and hear a lot of confusion about next generation networks (NGN).  In most cases people are using the term roughly as the ITU-T defines it:

A Next Generation Network (NGN) is a packet-based network able to provide services including Telecommunication Services and able to make use of multiple broadband, QoS-enabled transport technologies and in which service-related functions are independent from underlying transport-related technologies.

but many people don't realize how little this has to do with the Internet.

The Internet is a "network of networks" that includes millions of smaller domestic, academic, business, and government networks interconnected using IP.  It is a hierarchy because there is a backbone of ~28,000 autonomous systems (ASs) which exchange IP packets using routes established by Border Gateway Protocol (BGP).  The remaining millions of networks connect to that backbone via hundreds of thousands of ISPs and other intermediaries who are ASs or connect to an AS.

All of the NGN proposals (Wikipedia has a good summary) involve sophisticated QoS.  But it is well established that there is no technical or commercial requirement for QoS on the Internet backbone (references discussed here and here).

The thousands of organizations that are ASs exist in hundreds of different jurisdictions.  While some ASs are heavily controlled by governments (there is basically one AS for all of China), AS interconnection is independent of any single government.  Interconnections occur based on tradeoffs between the cost of doing business locally and the cost of routes to other locations.

Indeed, to the extent Tier 1 ISPs have attempted to limit free peering, Tier 2 ISPs have established peering agreements that form a donut around the Tier 1s, thus cutting Tier 2s' transit costs to an absolute minimum.  So the effectively unregulated Internet backbone is working remarkably well based on commercial arrangements between thousands of parties, just as it has for 15+ years.

With no technical need for QoS on backbone routes (as discussed here) and no commercial reason that anyone has articulated, it's hard to see how the thousands of parties who make up the core of the Internet would agree to do anything with QoS, ever.

Established telephone companies will deploy NGNs for telephone service.  To the extent they have a monopoly on Internet access, they will be able to use their NGNs to block access to the Internet, but the existence of NGNs won't change the way the Internet core works or the way anyone else's network works.

So NGN's are an evolution path for existing telephony networks, not the Internet, and they will last as long as the existing telephone service model lasts and no longer.

China's 3G license delay is a smoke screen

Last week there was a flurry of stories about China's 3G plans after Jonathan Dharmapalan of Ernest & Young was quoted as saying he expected it to take 12 to 24 months from the start of China's commercial TD-SCDMA trials, i.e. from now, until 3G licenses were issued.  But there was little analysis or comment on what's really happening.

3G licenses are a formality.  They delay the deployment of 3GSM & CDMA 2000 which could otherwise happen rapidly — just plug new cards into existing radios and offer established handsets (already being manufactured, in China, for the world market).

China 3G is happening, without licenses.  China Mobile Group already has deployment-scale TD-SCDMA radio networks on assigned, but not "licensed" frequencies, in eight cities.  The bottleneck is TD-SCDMA handset silicon.  Commercial trials were finally enabled by the recent delivery of an initial batch of 60K handsets.  This also allows China to meet, at least technically, their pledge to have 3G service in time for the Olympics.

Dharmapalan is speculating that it will take 12-18 months of commercial trials to get the bugs out and the system to scale.  That's plausible.  If so, it will be 12-24 months before "licenses" are granted, i.e. before 3GSM and CDMA 2000 deployments are allowed to proceed in parallel with TD-SCDMA.

The problem is China's patent position.  The core patents for 3G and for 4G are already held by the likes of Ericsson, Nokia, and Qualcomm.  TD-SCDMA provided a way for China to obtain patents on a specific 3G implementation and the size of China's market makes that implementation interesting to Ericsson, etc.  Since China missed the boat on core patents for both 3G and 4G, expect TD-SCDMA and it's 4G successor to exist on a parallel path for the next 10-20 years.

The good new is commercial TD-SCDMA deployments have finally started.

I'm most interested in 3G applications.  China has a vibrant market in value-added services for 2G.  As more and better TD-SCDMA handsets get deployed, we should see some really interesting innovation coming out of China — innovation that will be applicable to any 3G technology, anywhere in the world.

Models for Muni WiFi completely neglect technology evolution

Modern travel means interminable waits, but it's a good time for reading. I finally read Wireless Pittsburgh: Sustainability of Possible Models for a Wireless Metropolitan-Area Network by Jon M. Peha, published in February as a working paper of the New America Foundation.

The good news — it’s full of interesting cost estimates and projected subscriber take rates based on specific demographics in Pittsburgh, Minneapolis and Philadelphia.  The paper also examines a range of business models, in detail, from complete monopoly to structural separation (wholesale–retail) to let-the-market-take-care-of-it.

The bad news — all of the models turn out to be extremely sensitive to revenue assumptions, i.e. to the estimates of subscriber adoption and willingness to pay.

The flaws in this study

All of the models compute a net present value based on five years of stable operations, but there is no mention of technology evolution or adoption rates of competing broadband services, i.e. cable and telco (DSL or FiOS) services since this is a US study.  Technology is evolving at a great rate.  You can’t bet on stability.

During the past five years we saw WiFi go from 11 Mbps to widely deployed 54 Mbps systems and bleeding edge (pre-standard 802.11n gear) systems doing well over 100 Mbps.  The last five years also saw costs decline to the point where we see widespread deployment of WiFi by individual consumers, a significant percentage of which are running open WiFi hotspots. 

On a recent drive through three different neighborhoods in Portland Maine, I was interested in looking up real estate information on the web.  On each of a half dozen occasions, I was able to find a open WiFi hotspot within one city block of deciding I wanted to connect.  In January, I was in north New Hampshire and spent two nights at small motel (not part of any chain) in Littleton, NH.  They had no Internet on offer, but a quick check for WiFi signals revealed two within range of our room.  If you don’t like my anecdotal information, look at the WiFi hotspots that have been mapped by Navizon.  It’s very different than five years ago.

No matter how much it simplifies the analysis, you can’t bet on stability.

What might happen with WiFi in the next five years?  The latest WiFi specifications add multiple input, multiple output (MIMO) support, additional modulations and other goodies.  As low cost WiFi routers incorporate these advances we’ll see speeds go over 300 Mbps, but more importantly MIMO technology increases both range and directionality.  This means overlapping systems work better (despite their overlap) and the signals from isolated systems reach further.

If you’re worried today’s open systems will be locked down, then spend your time thinking about schemes like FON which offer more secure ways for consumers to share WiFi bandwidth.

If you’re worried consumer solutions won’t reach the inner city, perhaps someone needs to relook at where WiFi has already been deployed, and then forecast what might happen over the next five years, given the cost of a basic PC is approaching that of a television and the Cable and Telco duopolists both push triple play bundles. 

Don’t short change technology evolution. 

Dark fiber policy — my talk at eComm

At eComm 2008 in March, I gave a short presentation (15 minutes including questions) on dark fiber as a key element of broadband policy.  Brad Templeton has a good summary in the last four paragraphs of this post.

Recently Lee Dryburgh posted all the eComm presentations on Slideshare. Since my presentation was mostly pictures, you need the script that went with the slides. The only way I can see to support this on Slideshare is to add one comment per slide, which I have now done.  If you are interested, go to the version on Slideshare.net, click on the "Comments on Slide 1" tab and then click forward from there.

I discussed the clear line between rights-of-way, conduits, poles and dark fiber - all of which are long-lived elements - and the technologies that light up fiber or run traffic over it.  The latter get obsolete very quickly, so it makes sense to foster rampant competition at these layers, or give control to users. The idea is those that want the latest electronics ought to be able to get them.

Dark Fiber

Turns out there are multiple examples of communities and even whole countries (Sweden) that have fostered the availability of dark fiber.  Not surprisingly, these locations lead in broadband performance (and in price-performance!).

NY Times grossly misreads WEF report

Today's New York Times includes an article by John Markoff entitled "Study Gives High Marks to US Internet."  But either John Markoff is fuzzy about exactly what the Internet is or he didn't actually read the report.  His title is way off base.  He did interview a few people who are quoted in the latter part of the article, so there is some information in the article.  But he's done a major disservice for the many who read only the title or perhaps first paragraph.

The study in question is the Global Information Technology Report recently published by the World Economic Forum.  While the printed report costs money, the summary is on-line and an interactive version gives access to all their data.

This is a report on information technology not specifically on the Internet (just look at the title).  The researchers measured 68 different attributes of information technology, only a few of which directly pertain to the Internet, e.g.

Attribute	US Rank
Internet users (per 100 pop.)	7
Internet access in schools	12
Broadband Internet subscribers	17
Internet bandwidth	19

To his credit, the first section of the report is about "network readiness" and the US is ranked #4, however the study's definition of network readiness includes all sorts of features of the broad business environment, regulatory aspects and computing infrastructure.

Prior to this, I remember John Markoff only for the book Takedown, which I enjoyed.reading even though my sympathies were with Kevin Mitnick.  :-)  So this article is a major disappointment.

Here are the 68 attributes the World Economic Forum study examines:

Visualizing African Internet Connectivity

Here is a great illustration of the not-so-fast or reliable connectivity at African Universities as seen from Trieste, Italy.  Only 46 seconds.

Thanks to Marco Zennaro at the Science Dissemination Unit (via TIER at UC Berkeley).

WiMAX in the US, a limited window of opportunity?

Their first service launch has been delayed, but Sprint Nextel CEO Dan Hesse repeated his vow to blanket the US with a WiMAX network in his talk at CTIA this week.

I sincerely hope he succeeds.  We need as many competing data networks as possible, if we're to see any measure of open mobile Internet access. However, I'm worried.

WiMAX has been quite successful in emerging markets, providing fixed wireless Internet access in countries as diverse as Pakistan, Bulgaria, Nigeria, Georgia, Ethiopia and Georgia (the country!).

The US is another story.  The only significant US deployment is Clearwire's with roughly 400K subscribers, but on a mostly “pre-WiMax” network.  Again, the application is fixed wireless Internet access. 

It’s one thing to use fixed WiMAX to provide Internet access in Pakistan.  It’s another thing to compete for fixed access in the US.  Yes, our telephone & cable duopoly is moving slowly, but they are going after all the more profitable neighborhoods with broadband offerings substantially faster than what fixed WiMAX provides.

What about mobile WiMAX?  Mobile WiMAX is in trials today, using technology and providing performance that the 3GSM community will only see 2–3 years from now.  Sprint clearly hopes to use WiMAX as a springboard past its competitors and past concerns about its declining user base.  Presumably, in the longer term, they hope to converge their dissimilar networks (Sprint EVDO and Nextel iDEN) on mobile WiMAX.  But can mobile WiMAX build a large enough market soon enough? 

Volume drives down cost and cost advantages win in the end — witness Verizon’s announcement that they are jumping ship on Qualcomm’s CDMA evolution in favor of the 3GSM community’s long term evolution (LTE).  Today, GSM networks (GSM/ EDGE/ W-CDMA/ HSPA) have 80% of the world mobile phone market with billions of subscribers and a billion or so handsets manufactured each year.  Right now the entire Sprint-Nextel customer base is ~54 million subscribers.  Perhaps emerging markets will also adopt mobile WiMAX, thus driving up volumes?  Unfortunately emerging markets are even more price sensitive with the high volume application being basic voice telephony plus SMS.  GSM is the lowest cost solution by a wide margin. 

I hope I'm wrong.  I hope mobile WiMAX's performance lead (over LTE) is enough to carry the day.  And, in particular, as I’ve written before, I would very much like to see Sprint succeed, with or without Clearwire, because their WiMAX network would represent yet another source of wireless Internet access.  With four of more networks capable of mobile broadband Internet access, competitive pressures alone should give us what the FCC is currently ignoring, i.e. mobile data plans that are both open and reasonably priced.

 

Off for three days in Loma Linda California

I'm leaving (very) early in the morning for Gordon Cook's meeting on the Architecture and Economics of IP Networks, a.k.a. the Cook-In.  It looks like a full schedule, some people I know and many others I know only via email.  This should be very good.

Broadband penetration vs. broadband capabilities

I'm listening to the first session in the VON pre-conference workshop on Competition Policy and getting increasingly depressed.  Everyone on the panel is entrenched in traditional policy infrastructure — no thinking out of the box here.  What's more, at least two of the five people on stage seem to think the US is doing well, among OECD countries, with our deployment of fixed line broadband access.

The problem is definitional.  They are comparing broadband penetration rates.  I am comparing the relative performance of readily available broadband services.

The FCC's defines "broadband" as at least 200 Kbps in at least one direction.  The OECD uses 256 Kbps, while the ITU definition is “transmission capacity that is faster than primary rate Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) at 1.5 or 2.0 Megabits per second (Mbits).”  Using the OECD's definition, the US comes in 15th for broadband penetration by country.

But that's not the point!

Speeds of available broadband services

In Stockholm, dark fiber reach to every city block and an enormous number of buildings.  This dark fiber is available for lease by anyone.  As a result, there are many ISPs offerring services in greater Stockholm (and elsewhere in Sweden).  Just about anyone in Stockholm can get 100 Mbps symmetric Internet connectivity for 98 Kroners pe rmonth — that's $16 per month.

Similar service (100 Mbps) in Tokyo costs ~$26 per month and in Seoul it was closer to $30 the last time I checked with friends there.

In the Boston suburbs I have Verizon FiOS Internet access.  Downstream capacity is 20 Mbps most of the time and upstream measures out at 2.7 Mbps.  This costs $50/month.  I'm extremely fortunately to be able to get service this fast.

So my friends in suburban Stockholm have 5 time the downstream capacity and 30 times the upstream capacity for 1/3rd the cost.

Why don't people talk about broadband performance?

Woman in High Tech — Is it getting better?

Woman's Radio News has a great interview with Dr. Dawn Nafus about her upcoming appearance at eComm 2008.

Dawn Nafus, Ph.D., an anthropologist at Intel, discusses why a technology company would have an anthropologist on staff, and exactly what she does for them. Dawn will be speaking at the eComm Conference being held March 12 - 14, 2008 at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, CA. Her topic will be “Context Aware Technologies” and how they can assist different cultures and countries around the world.

About 4:30 minutes into the interview, Pat Lynch asks Dr. Nafus why there are only a few women on the program at eComm and indeed at most high tech conferences.  She doesn't have a simple answer but she does point out it's a myth that women's position in high tech is getting better gradually over time, at least in Silicon Valley.  Silicon Valley is very young in the grand scheme of things, it has little or no history.  And yet, it has reproduced the male dominated culture that was a characteristic of older industries.  Now older industries are improving at a greater rate than high tech.

I just recently read Herman Goldstine's classic history of the early days of computing, The Computer from Pascal to von Neumann.  Interestingly, some women play key roles, not just Ada Byron (Lady Lovelace), but multiple women during and after WWII.  And when I think back to the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) that I joined as a student in the early 1970s, there were more women involved in programming, and the mathematical side of the computer industry than in traditional industries.  Also my first part time job was with a small company where 25% of the software staff (1 out of 4) were women.  :-)

Recent counts by VC Christine Herron of women at high tech conferences range from 13% to 18%.  Many old line industries have changed.  But not high tech?

I look forward to hearing Dr. Nafus speak on "Context Aware Technologies" at eComm this coming week.  Hopefully I'll also get a chance to talk with her, as she mentioned some references to recent literature on women in high tech.

Broadband Access — What should we regulate?

Network Neutrality is a hot topic in the US.  The FCC held hearings in my neighborhood recently (while I was in Asia).  Now I see Professor Susan Crawford will be testifying next Tuesday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on "Net Neutrality and the First Amendment."  I look forward to her remarks, but I worry that the whole discussion will be focused on "IP Pipes," that is connectivity at network layer 3. This distracts us from the fundamental problem.  Imposing network neutrality is patching an obsolete regulatory system. We must be careful what we ask for. Despite the best of intentions, laws and regulation can easily produce unexpected results, as I've discussed here & here & here.

More importantly, laws and regulation evolve slowly with major changes taking years, even decades, so it's critical to understand first principles and what makes sense for the long term.

Consider the useful life of various network elements involved in fixed broadband connectivity.

This diagram says a lot about what can be efficiently regulated and where one would prefer competition.  Notice the logical dividing point is NOT at layer 3 — IP Routers.  It's at layer zero — Dark Fiber.

This suggests a regulated dark fiber provider and multiple competitive providers of access, connectivity and other services, operating above the dark fiber layer.

Is there a natural monopoly, and if so, where?

Local rights-of-way (ROW) are a bottleneck.  Whether they are owned by the state, the municipality or a neighborhood association, or are deeded arrangements between adjacent property owners, local rights-of-way are a limited resource.  Installing poles and conduits in these rights of way results in visual blight and/or construction mess, of concern to the owners of the rights-of-way.  And a given set of conduits holds a limited number of cables, although each cable may have very many fibers.

Between major US cities, we find competing cables in competing rights-of-way and a vibrant market where dark fiber strands are available as well as every conceivable higher level service.  That's not the case in front of my house where there is just one city-owned street and one customer (me), or in the "middle mile" between my neighborhood and the nearest major communications hub where there are a limited number of routes and a limited market (me plus my neighbors).  So, at least for local and middle mile dark fiber, some kind of communal, condominium, municipal or regulated monopoly provider makes sense.  But above that level?

Certainly telephony is not a natural monopoly.  Just look at long distance and VoIP pricing.  The only place where telephony has significant per-minute cost is where it's been granted a statutory monopoly.

Lighting the fiber need not be a natural monopoly

A fiber is only useful once it's lite, but the person or company that lites it has the potential to control what goes over the fiber, a distinct problem if there's only one dark fiber per home.  There are at least two solutions:

1. regulate the services of the company that lites the fiber,
2. give control of the fiber to the homeowner, allowing them to pick which ISP lites their fiber.

With option 1, all homes get the same speed electronics and are likely to be locked at that speed until the whole neighborhood is upgraded, perhaps years after the technology becomes available.

With option 2, each home owner gets to select a service provider and the speeds and services they desire.

Which would you personally prefer?  Which would you like to see adopted in the US?

What's happening in the rest of the world

1.  Condominium fiber.  Developers, or contractors working with groups of interested parties, lay fibers and sell individual fibers on a condominium basis.  There's a good overview of the subject here and there are success stories like these from Quebec.

2.  Municipal dark fiber.  The government organizes fiber deployment, making dark fiber available to all comers.  Stokab AB in Stockholm is a very successful example of this model.

Dark fiber is no more complex for the homeowner or businessman.  They need only select an ISP to light their fiber. The point is to make it easy for many, many providers to compete to offer services to individuals and businesses using the latest and greatest electronics.

Is anything like this possible in the US?

We have an existing, highly obsolete, regulatory system in place and therefore many vested interests, but if we can articulate the desired end goal, the compelling reasons why it makes sense and proof points like broadband in Sweden, anything is possible.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll be speaking on this subject at eComm 2008 next week (that's in addition to my panel on Wireless Innovation) and I expect to be discussing these subjects the week after in the Unconference track at Spring VON.  If you will be at either event, please join in.

Models for Muni WiFi completely neglect technology evolution

Modern travel means interminable waits, but it's a good time for reading. While waiting to check luggage in Amsterdam, I finally read Wireless Pittsburgh: Sustainability of Possible Models for a Wireless Metropolitan-Area Network by Jon M. Peha, published a few weeks ago as a working paper of the New America Foundation.

The good news — it’s full of interesting cost estimates and projected subscriber take rates based on specific demographics in Pittsburgh, Minneapolis and Philadelphia.  The paper also examines a range of business models, in detail, from complete monopoly to structural separation (wholesale–retail) to let-the-market-take-care-of-it.

The bad news — all of the models turn out to be extremely sensitive to revenue assumptions, i.e. to the estimates of subscriber adoption and willingness to pay.

The flaws in this study

All of the models compute a net present value based on five years of stable operations, but there is no mention of technology evolution or adoption rates of competing broadband services, i.e. cable and telco (DSL or FiOS) services since this is a US study.  Technology is evolving at a great rate.  You can’t bet on stability.

During the past five years we saw WiFi go from 11 Mbps to widely deployed 54 Mbps systems and bleeding edge (pre-standard 802.11n gear) systems doing well over 100 Mbps.  The last five years also saw costs decline to the point where we see widespread deployment of WiFi by individual consumers, a significant percentage of which are running open WiFi hotspots. 

On a recent drive through three different neighborhoods in Portland Maine, I was interested in looking up real estate information on the web.  On each of a half dozen occasions, I was able to find a open WiFi hotspot within one city block of deciding I wanted to connect.  Last weekend I was in north New Hampshire and stayed at small local motel in Littleton, NH.  They had no Internet on offer, but a quick check for WiFi signals revealed two within range of our room.  If you don’t like my anecdotal information, look at the WiFi hotspots that have been mapped by Navizon, some examples here.  The picture is very different from five years ago.

You can’t bet on stability.

What might happen with WiFi in the next five years?  The latest WiFi specifications add multiple input, multiple output (MIMO) support, additional modulations and other goodies.  As low cost WiFi routers incorporate these advances we’ll see speeds go over 300 Mbps, but more importantly MIMO technology increases both range and directionality.  This means overlapping systems work better (despite their overlap) and the signals from isolated systems reach further.

If you’re worried today’s open systems will be locked down, then spend your time thinking about schemes like FON which offer more secure ways for consumers to share WiFi bandwidth.

If you’re worried consumer solutions won’t reach the inner city, perhaps someone needs to relook at what’s already been deployed, and then forecast what might happen over the next five years, given the cost of a basic PC is approaching that of a television and both Cable and Telco are pushing triple play bundles. 

You can't expect to usefully model Muni WiFi if you ignore both technology evolution and the consumer behavior that results.

 

iPhone, Android, 700 MHz — What maximizes wireless innovation?

At the Emerging Communications Conference eComm 2008, I'm moderating a panel "Wireless Innovation, with or without operators."  This will be a discussion — smart people from differing camps responding to (hopefully) probing questions from yours truly, and the audience.  Points of view represented include Google Android, J2ME/JavaFX Mobile, iPhoneWebDev.com, Skype and Trolltech Qtopia (Nokia), plus Chris Sacca, formerly head of Google's wireless initiatives.  I've been thinking about subjects and questions for the panel.  As a start, I'll set down my current views, then seek others' views and questions.

2007 Breakthrough — Public discussion of "Open" wireless networks

For the first time ever, US mainstream media is talking about open handsets and open networks.  It started with the iPhone launch in June, as people discussed pros and cons of the Apple-AT&T lock in.  Then Google proposed, and the FCC partially adopted, a set of open access criteria for the 700 MHz auctions that are currently in progress.  Finally, speculation about a G-Phone got resolved when Google announced the Open Handset Alliance and Android open source mobile phone software.

What's Next?

In the near term, we won't see open wireless Internet access at 700 MHz — that will take years.  The 700 MHz spectrum doesn't even become available until analog TV is turned off (scheduled for February 2009).  Then building out a network takes time, independent of whether it's WiMAX, HSDPA, EVDO or LTE.  And at this point, neither base stations nor mobile devices are available for the 700 MHz band.  Vendor's will talk a good story, but are unlikely to make major product investments until they know they have orders in the pipeline.

There are two areas that should drive innovation in the US wireless market over the next 24 months.

• Affordable open mobile Internet access as a result of competition, i.e. in advance of 700 MHz
• Further innovations in the handset space

Open mobile Internet access in advance of 700 MHz services

As I've pointed out elsewhere, US competition to offer mobile Internet access is about to ratchet up significantly, as T-Mobile USA uses the spectrum they acquired in the 2006 AWS auctions to go head-to-head with AT&T, Verizon and Sprint.  In 2006, T-Mobile USA spent more than $4B to buy additional spectrum that will allow them full national coverage. Then they committed another $2.7B to build out 3G mobile coverage on this spectrum.  Recently, they've disclosed $10B of investment for 2007-2009.   In addition to these four cellular networks, there's at least the threat of a national WiMAX network, between Clearwire and/or Sprint.  Finally, WiFi access points continue to proliferate.  Four plus competitors is enough to unbalance a market, so it's likely we'll see affordable flat rate data bundles that are effectively open access at some point in the next 24 months.

Handset innovation

Here's the real excitement, at least in the next 24 months.  The iPhone is truly a break through device, if nothing else it's the first mobile Internet browser that really works.  Every other handset vendor has embraced iPhone concepts and is scrambling to bring out their own next generation devices.

Meanwhile phones based on the Android stack should show up later in 2008.  During the next 24 months we'll see if the Google initiative has a significant impact on handset software.  Remember, Google doesn't have to make money on their software (as Microsoft does with Windows Mobile) or on handsets (as Nokia does with Symbian).

Finally, there's an open question of where, in the handset stack, maximum innovation will occur.  John Puterbaugh distinguishes five layers where innovation might occur:

1. Operating Systems and Mobile Platforms - Symbian, RIM, Windows Mobile, Palm, Java FX Mobile, Android, LiMo
2. Application UI Frameworks - Series 60, Qtopia, uiONE, GNOME / GMAE, KDE, GTK
3. Runtime environments - Java, JavaScript, Flash, BREW, and various Mobile Internet Browsers
4. Media Players - Windows Media Player, Quicktime, Real, Ogg Vorbis
5. Applications - Celltop, Yahoo! Go, Nokia WidSets, and various Mobile AJAX “players”

I might have separated out mobile Internet browsers and mobile AJAX as an area that deserves a layer of it's own, but you get the idea.  Yes, there is no single answer for mobile application development and that's a problem, but it's also prompting an enormous amount of competition and innovation.

Do you have questions for the panel?

I look forward to a lively discussion at eComm 2008 in Mountain View California on March 14th and hope to see you there.

In the spirit of full disclosure, NMS Communications is a member of, and contributor to, the Open Handset Alliance, primarily through our LiveWire Mobile subsidiary.  But then we're also active in various GSM Association working groups including contributing to the GSMA's (IMS-based) Video Share Project and we've delivered IMS handset software for Symbian, Windows Mobile and several other environments.

Google is playing to win in the 700 MHz auctions

Many say Google will bid to lose in the upcoming 700 MHz auctions and many more are equivocating.  The idea is Google's entry alone will induce enough openness, and besides they couldn't afford to become an operator.  This shows a total lack of understanding!

Google is run by idealists who want to change the world and have the money to undertake grand projects.

They are already seeking to index, and make available, all the world's information. As part of this vision they are scanning all existing books and fighting the legal battles this implies.  When their own video repository failed to gain traction, they bought YouTube for $1.65B, and took on their legal hassles. Most recently their Palimpsest project is going to host enormous scientific databases for free.  In short Google is not afraid to spend money or take large risks, including legal risks, to accomplish something they believe in.

Critical for Google's vision, and for their business, is open Internet access.  Fixed access is relatively open today, but mobile is a big problem.  So Google won't seek a little opening on the part of some US operators.  Google needs open mobile access, i.e. dumb pipes, which means the total destruction of existing mobile operator business models.

They've already started from the edge with the Open Handset Alliance and the Android open-source mobile handset stack. Google's made a major investment here, not to compete for revenue on handset software or to control applications on edge devices, but to tip the balance from operators to the edge.  First and foremost, Android is an open platform to encourage innovation.  It's also free.  Google doesn't need or expect a direct return on this investment.

The 700 MHz auctions are just the next step.  Again, look for something unconventional.  Google doesn't need or want to become a mobile operator.  They want to create an industry where mobile dumb pipes are widely available.

 

Assuming Google wins, what might they do?

This is speculation on my part, but a good plan might be two fold. 

First pick the latest mass market technology for mobile broadband access, probably mobile WiMAX, and set up a program to foster numerous independent wireless ISPs (WISPs) rolling out services on Google's frequencies.  In the 1990s, the US had thousands of ISPs providing dial up access over traditional phone lines.  The goal here would be to duplicate that entrepreneurial flurry for both fixed and mobile wireless access.

You may argue fixed is OK as services are local, but for mobile you really need regional and national coverage.  Yes, but Google themselves could offer WISPs the opportunity to participate in a federation for national roaming, perhaps using Google Checkout for payments.

Second, formalize a set of rules for smart-radios based on the work they've been doing for open access to TV White Space.  Throw open their spectrum to anyone who's willing to use appropriate smart radio technology, thus fostering long term innovation.  Open access in the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands has certainly fostered innovation.  Google could achieve something similar.

These two steps, a mass market technology like WiMAX for rapid deployment, and open access for innovation, yield the maximum long term benefit for this spectrum and increase the likelihood that other countries will follow the US lead (as the world has done for 2.4 GHz and WiFi).

========================================================

 

The Moral Instinct, cyberjustice and Internet law

There's an excellent article in today's NY Times Magazine, The Moral Instinct, in which Steven Pinker summarizes recent neuroscience research on the human moral sense.  This bears directly on how we think about justice and morality in cyberspace.

He covers the enormous progress (at least since I was in college) in our understanding of where the human moral sense comes from, including what is universal, what is cultural and how we can be easily mislead by "an aura of sanctity, distracting us from a more objective reckoning of the actions that make people suffer or flourish."

Illusions are a favorite tool of perception scientists for exposing the workings of the five senses, and of philosophers for shaking people out of the naïve belief that our minds give us a transparent window onto the world (since if our eyes can be fooled by an illusion, why should we trust them at other times?). Today, a new field is using illusions to unmask a sixth sense, the moral sense. Moral intuitions are being drawn out of people in the lab, on Web sites and in brain scanners, and are being explained with tools from game theory, neuroscience and evolutionary biology.

While the article doesn't mention the Internet, a better understanding of our moral sense can only help temper our approach to law and culture in the new social relationships facilitated by the Internet.  Depending upon the cultural setting, subjects as diverse as ethnic humor, pornography and religious discussion can be completely acceptable or morally outrageous and yet, except for some language effect, the Internet cuts across cultural boundaries.  Then there are Internet-related tragedies like the death of Megan Meier which provoke discussion and calls for sweeping laws to regulate cyber-behavior.

Undoubtedly, our laws and culture will evolve in response to the Internet age, but hopefully we do this with care, taking advantage of what we can learn from history and from the new science of the moral sense.

Here are a few short quotes from Pinker that struck me:

There are many other issues for which we are too quick to hit the moralization button and look for villains rather than bug fixes.

Our habit of moralizing problems, merging them with intuitions of purity and contamination, and resting content when we feel the right feelings, can get in the way of doing the right thing.

Far from debunking morality, then, the science of the moral sense can advance it, by allowing us to see through the illusions that evolution and culture have saddled us with and to focus on goals we can share and defend. As Anton Chekhov wrote, “Man will become better when you show him what he is like.”

If you are at all interested in morality, neuroscience or evolutionary biology, I highly recommend the Pinker article.

Tracing Internet connections by inter-packet timing correlation

Susan Crawford's post The Auction, the Cops, and Comcast, highlights a request from the US Department of Justice to the FCC that is likely to result in an FCC Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM).  As I read her post, I recalled an interesting paper on surveillance.  Here's the relevant part of Susan's post (bold italic highlighting is mine):

The NPRM, if it follows the DOJ’s request, will suggest (among other things) that all of these providers should build their routers and network hardware to provide “packet activity reporting” for all packets crossing their networks, and physical location information for all of their customers at all times. It will also suggest that very fine-grained timing information is needed - something that the internet and its applications don’t provide at the moment. “Packet activity reporting” means that the broadband provider will need to know the destination IP address and port number for everything happening on its network.

The idea is that these designs will help law enforcement when they want to carry out a request for call-identifying information.

A few months ago I happen to read a 2002 paper by Xinyuan Wang, Douglas S. Reeves and S. Felix Wu entitled Inter-Packet Delay Based Correlation for Tracing Encrypted Connections Through Stepping Stones.

I should comment that, when I travel in China, I use TOR (The Onion Router)
to bypass the Great China Firewall.  TOR works by passing your traffic through a series of intermediate routers, with intermediate connections encrypted, so a third party observer can't tell whose traffic is going where.  This is mildly useful to me when I'm in China, but it can be life saving for dissident writers living in totalitarian states. 

So it was somewhat distressing when I read the paper by Wang et al.

From their abstract:

... we address the problem of tracing encrypted connections through stepping stones. The incoming and outgoing connections through a stepping stone must be correlated to accomplish this. We propose a novel correlation scheme based on inter-packet timing characteristics of both encrypted and unencrypted connections. We show that (after some filtering) inter-packet delays (IPDs) of both encrypted and unencrypted, interactive connections are preserved across many router hops and stepping stones.

and from their conclusion:

Our correlation metric does not require clock synchronization, and allows correlation of measurements taken at widely scattered points. Our method also requires only small packet sequences (on the order of a few dozen packets) for correlation. We have found that after some filtering, IPDs (Inter-Packet Delay) of both encrypted and unencrypted, interactive connections are largely preserved across many hops stepping-stones. We have demonstrated that both encrypted and unencrypted, interactive connections can be effectively correlated and differentiated based on IPD characteristics.

So it's clear what the Department of Justice has in mind.  Of course, if the Department of Justice gets this through, it will just be an added expense on all ISPs (and thus on their customers, i.e. you and me).  It won't actually work against the bad guys (or the good guys) as it's fairly simple to imagine an outbound packet scheduler that introduces jitter into each flow at each onion router.

Singapore's Next Generation National Broadband Network

My post on Tuesday was in response to a Singapore government press release that used the phrases "structural separation" and "passive network." 

Subsequently I've been pointed to this website where the Singapore government has posted the qualification documents, mainly document IDA(PQ)-010V2, dated 11 December 2007.  It appears the actual RFP is only available to qualified bidders, but the qualification document has good information on the project structure.

Here is their view of structural separation:

Here is the supporting text:

3.3.2  There will be three distinct types of functional entities operating on the NGNBN.  At the lowest layer, the NetCo would be responsible for the design, build and operation of the NGNBN's passive infrastructure, which includes ducts and wirelines.  The NetCo would offer this passive infrastructure at a wholesale, non-discriminatory and cost-competitive basis (Layer 1 Open Access) to the OpCo(s).  The NetCo's passive infrastructure would be rolled out extensively throughout Singapore.  The NetCo infrastructure is expected to be capital-intensive with massive implementation effort.

To me that implies multiple OpCos can get access to dark fiber.  Hopefully private companies, who want their own dark fiber from one building to another, would also be able to lease dark fiber.  However, they don't make this clear so we'll have to wait and see. 

Only the NetCo portion is covered by the current RFP.  The Singapore government expects the NetCo piece to be built and operated by a private company or consortium, and they are prepared to provide up to S$750M (US$521M) in grants to make this happen.  Responses are due 25 March 2008 and will be evaluated based on:

• Attractiveness of business plan to industry
• Quality of network infrastructure
• Level of Government grant
• Financial proposition and strength of bidder

This is one to watch!

Structural Separation for Singapore's Next Generation Broadband Network

Two different sources have pointed me to this extremely interesting press release from Singapore on how they are contracting for their next generation National Broadband Network (NBN).

8. IDA’s findings indicate that a next generation broadband network will
contribute to Singapore’s continued economic success. It is also critical for the Next
Gen NBN to provide effective open access to downstream operators. This will
create a more vibrant and competitive broadband market. As a policy, we have
therefore decided to adopt separation between the different levels of the Next Gen
NBN to achieve effective open access. The RFP to construct the network will
therefore provide for structural separation of the passive network operator from the
downstream operators. If necessary, the government is also prepared to consider
legislation to achieve such effective open access for downstream operators in
the next generation broadband market.

As I've pointed out in the past, the real "natural monopoly" is the right-of-way between individual buildings and network aggregation points.  Given the rapid pace at which electronic components are evolving, it makes sense to focus competition there, i.e. the government contracts for a "passive network" a.k.a. "dark fiber" and makes that available to any ISP or enterprise (or potentially any individual) that wants network connectivity.

Structural separation has been discussed in many contexts and many countries, but frequently with the wrong point chosen for that separation.  Given the chart above, it's clear that just above the "dark fiber" layer is the only place that makes sense.

Singapore knows what they are doing here!