As we start moving more real-time communications into web browsers with the upcoming WebRTC/RTCWEB offerings, what do we do about congestion control? How do we ensure that all these browser-based communications sessions share the network fairly? With RTC capabilities now already available in builds for browsers such as Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox, how do we deal with the expected increase in voice, video, chat and data traffic?
It's been a quarter of a century since the world's governments convened to draft up a common set of regulations about the conduct of international telecommunications. In December of 2012 the world's governments will convene to reconsider these regulations, to hopefully sign an updated set of regulations. This time around, this activity is generating considerable levels of public interest. Congressional hearings in the United States have been held, and various pronouncements of intent from various governmental, regional, and industry groups have been made.
There is some good news about the decision by Verizon Wireless to offer shared monthly data plans. But there could be a lot more if the FCC applied its Carterfone policy. That policy gave consumers the power to decide what and how many devices to attach to a network connection. If Carterfone applied, consumers could use multiple devices to access a network subscription, albeit perhaps not at the same time.
If your company becomes a huge dominate market player in both broadband and content delivery, scrutiny will come your way, like it or not. Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA) has been so successful in building both a content and delivery system to such a mass audience; it's beginning to look like former monopolies which grew unwanted investigations and break-ups in the 1980's. Remember AT&T and the DOJ anti-trust decision to split the monopoly into smaller regional companies?
On my flight back from Washington, DC last night, I prepared much of what follows, minus references. Today, while looking for references, I uncovered a very recent (6 June 2012) posting to the ITU blog that seemed entirely appropriate to mention here. It is fascinating reading, and I especially like one snippet "we are not about to take over the Internet - that suggestion is frankly ridiculous". I quite agree and hope that the ITU is genuinely interested in working with others to ensure that nothing of the sort happens. Now on to what I had prepared.
Not understanding the need for a newer, more economically sound, eco-friendly, and secure utilities infrastructure can be a (socio-economic disaster in the making), if top leaders of U.S. industry and government do not seek a solution to our historically aged telecommunications, power, and water delivery systems. The legacy systems in place are expensive, un-reliable, publically unsafe, and vulnerable to sabotage on both a large and small scale.
Communications will be one of the most critical areas during the London Olympic Games. The industry is working to establish shared access networks -- would it not be nice if they did this everywhere, all the time? They are also working very closely with British Olympic Association, London Transport, the broadcasters and content providers. Mobile coverage will be the biggest shared infrastructure in the world.
We continue to see consolidation in the broadband market and various games played by the cablecos and telcos to thwart competition or undermine network neutrality. Until regulators create true structural separation between infrastructure and service providers the chances of seeing genuine broadband competition are slim. It is interesting to note telecom regulators in North America have imposed structural separation in the past.
There are a number of stimuli which are pushing Canada's burgeoning FttH market, and the government and telcos alike have made significant steps to improve the reach and capacity of broadband infrastructure. These measures will show real benefits for consumers in recent years. From the government's side, its Economic Action Plan, launched in 2009 as a response to the global financial crisis, included a pledge to provide $225 million over three years towards its Broadband Canada Program, geared to extending broadband coverage to underserved communities.
Representatives of both AT&T and Verizon have stated that their companies will soon offer "toll free" broadband services. So far they have not provided much detail, but the prospect for customer and content provider surcharges should trigger concern, even outside the context of the network neutrality debate. First let's consider the frame the carrier reps use: "Toll Free." This is an old school "Bellhead" reference...