Template Tools
DSL Prime
LTE 300 Megabits? Singapore is covered
Tuesday, 02 September 2014 09:13

Realworld likely speeds of 50-150 megabits 90+% of the time. Two 20 MHz bands will deliver speeds like this. You rarely will need that kind of speed but higher capacity wireless means more bandwidth for all. The 2 gigabyte and 5 gigabyte caps need to disappear and they will where there's enough competition. 55% of Singapore is covered now and they'll be close to 100% next year.

   Rwanda will soon be supporting 750 megabits, as they build a network that can aggregate 5 carriers. The Africans look to leapfrog the west as they have plenty of spectrum available. There are very, very few phone wires in sub-Saharan Africa so the service will be wireless and they intend to make it efficient. 

Last Updated on Tuesday, 02 September 2014 10:23
~50 MHz Enough for a Verizon-sized Network. Really.
Thursday, 28 August 2014 13:54

How many mobile networks can be supported in a given amount of bandwidth? Verizon is currently the best LTE network in the U.S., a good starting point. LTE is remarkably efficient, even without MIMO and better antennas. Based on Verizon data and eight grade math, I calculated all the traffic on Verizon's network could be easily handled in 50 MHz, about half of what they own. People were startled, but the number makes sense.

    Verizon's CFO, Fran Shammo told Wall Street 64% of all their traffic was being carried in 20 MHz with LTE. http://bit.ly/1pmLdyh If 64% fits in 20 MHz, than 100% of the traffic would require 31 MHz. My figure of about 50 MHz is well above that. 

    If spectrum owners like Dish or Lightsquared were to build a new network, 40-50 MHz would give them a very robust service. In effect, that's what Sprint is doing,  using other spectrum to maintain services to earlier customers not on LTE.

     It wouldn't be trivial to squeeze today's Verizon down to 50 MHz. Voice on Verizon's network currently goes over an inefficient 2G network; it would need to be moved to VoLTE, a process just beginning. VoLTE provides higher quality voice using much less bandwidth. Glen Campbell of Merrill pointed to that bandwidth savings as part of his 2009 analysis that the spectrum crisis was bogus. I asked one of the world's most respected engineers about Verizon's claim ""Verizon needs more spectrum and will need more than that in the future." He replied "c__p," although he was more polite when the recording was turned on. To get down to 50 MHz, Verizon would also need to move the 3G customers quickly to LTE. That might require subsidizing new phones, a large cost but not impossible. 

Last Updated on Thursday, 28 August 2014 21:19
Comcast-Time Warner:$10 for poor families, 50 megabits for most
Saturday, 23 August 2014 23:49

David Cohen

David Cohen announced at TPI Aspen most of the subscribers in both Comcast and Time Warner will soon have 50 megabit service. Poor families will be able to get broadband for $10/month in New York, Los Angeles and other Time Warner territories. Other groups in need may be covered. (I suggest Medicaid recipients and less affluent senior citizens.)

I applauded when Cohen said, "Comcast strongly supports net neutrality" some issues remain with their practice. I was sitting at a table with senior AT&T & Verizon execs who looked glum. Net Neutrality will sidetrack the Bells' effort to get their "New Telecom Act" through Congress, Congressman Rick Boucher predicted. "Unless Net Neutrality is compromised, the bill won't go through in the next two years." Any support for neutrality makes it harder for the Bells to get their bill.

Comcast's $10 offer for the poor has connected more people to the net than $billion of mostly wasted government money. The program's not perfect, but Comcast has consistently simplified procedures and eliminated red tape. It's tragic that JG allowed the other cable companies to renege on their commitment to do similar made to the broadband planners. The Bells have done nothing for the poor. They've now have some of the highest prices in the developed world. The cheapest offering on Verizon's FiOS website is about $75 including fees; it was about half that a few years ago.

CEO Brian Roberts and EVP David Cohen strike me as decent men who want to do the right thing, especially for the poor. Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon likewise demonstrated good faith in his dealings and was very proud he delivered two of the best networks in the world, FiOS fiber and the first really big LTE network. They are hard driving and very effective businessman who undoubtedly have charged over many on the way to great riches. Almost no one gets to their level without making choices that put their company's interests before consumers. Of course they know they get pr value from moves like these, but they at least get done. As we say in Yiddish, most top executives I've met would rather be mensches than gonifs.

Not all succeed.

Last Updated on Monday, 25 August 2014 00:04
Q2 U.S.: Comcast strong. AT&T and other telcos weak
Friday, 22 August 2014 15:02

DSL getting killed where not upgraded. AT&T lost 55K broadband customers. They want to abandon about 25% of their landline territory and go wireless only. The areas are profitable but rural wireless customers are extraordinarily profitable once the network is built. So they want to eliminate competition even from their own landlines. They stopped maintaining those lines years ago and many have 1999 technology 6 megabit DSLAMs. AT&T and Verizon are best thought of as companies with two parts. The upgraded areas, FiOS and U-Verse, are doing fine against cable. They are getting clobbered where they haven't upgraded but allow that. They want to shut off most of those lines. Century/Qwest lost 2,000 customers and Windstream 17,000. 

     Comcast added 203K subscribers to 21,271,000. Some received the $10 rate for poor families but I believe most at paying full rate. But Cablevision and Cable One actually lost customers. Telcos can compete just fine against cable; in Canada at Britain, telco DSL is beating cable. http://bit.ly/1t89qXa 

     Revisiting the debate on fiber versus DSL. AT&T lost 55K, Verizon added 46K. There have been several recent quarters where Verizon FiOS fiber home did noticeably better against the competition than AT&T's fiber/DSL. Verizon offered 25 and 50 megabits upstream, while DOCSIS is stuck at 1-5 megabits up. Fiber remains a magic word, with connotations of modernity and reliability. The glamour of Google's well-publicized gigabit fiber may be helping the (not so fast) Verizon variety. Different marketing and pricing strategies could explain the (relatively modest) difference in results. 

Last Updated on Monday, 25 August 2014 00:06
Point-Topic: Egypt Growing 17%, China 8% and much more
Thursday, 21 August 2014 18:50

40 free research summaries worth examining. Point-Topic's broadband data are the best available. They've been at it more than a decade and constantly refining their methods. Their service is professionally but fairly priced. I assume nearly all the companies in the business subscribe. Point-Topic always have been generous releasing free data as well and just made 40 country summaries available. http://bit.ly/PTbroadband A wealth of data.

   I commend the data to all those in the U.S. government who are spending $millions to create an Internet Governance framework that excludes China and Russia. China began this year with  189M broadband subscribers, twice America's 95M. The gap is getting wider. Russia is growing at 13% to 23M. China's growth was 8%, which is far down from previous years. 3G and now 4G will limit landline growth in China. The U.S. is at 4%. The fastest growth is from developing countries. Egypt grew 17% in 2013 despite economic chaos. 

Last Updated on Sunday, 24 August 2014 22:14
50 MHz of Spectrum Creates 500 megabit DSL
Friday, 15 August 2014 13:22

Today's 100 megabit DSL combined with today's gigabit WiFi, driving to a gigabit. 50 MHz of newly available spectrum may be diverted from sharing to private use, particularly LTE small cells the Bells probably won't build anyway. I'm headed to Colorado for the TPI conference where the 3.5 GHz spectrum will be a hot topic. I wrote this quickly because I wanted a dramatic example of what could be done with that 50 MHz.

How DSL + WiFi can get to hundreds of megabits and more. Nobody believes John Cioffi (yet) but it's easy to understand why it will work. Vectored DSL is delivering 50-100 megabits reliably in Europe. ~40M lines are on order at Deutsche Telekom and others. Vectoring is ready although not all the problems are solved.

Because DSL isn't shared, that means six apartments or nearby homes receive a total of 600 megabits (at 100 megabits/home.) Most places, 99% of the time the total demand will be less than 200 megabits. The result: 400-500 megabits will usually be available to share with neighbors. With WiFi now going into the gigabits (links), that can be shared between 5 - or 25 - families.

Last Updated on Saturday, 16 August 2014 09:51
How to lie with statistics, part 243
Thursday, 14 August 2014 18:52

Any conclusion you want. In France in the first quarter, 3 of the 4 DSL providers grew faster than cable. But if I look at the prior twelve months, cable beat 3 out of 4 DSL companies. Without lying, I could say either DSL is beating cable or cable is beating DSL. I just have to choose which period to use.  In fact, the data is too sparse to firmly support any conclusion.

     9 out of 10 “studies” about telecom policy are similarly weak and prove nothing. Or, as Teresa Mastangelo promises clients, “I can guarantee my report finds you #1.” As she explained to me, she simply looks carefully at the data until she finds some way to slice it to come to that conclusion.

   The classic example in broadband was when Copper Mountain reached a market cap of $1.5B on sales of $120M/year and losses every quarter. Brilliant pr woman Molly Miller invented a new category of “business DSLAMs” in which they were #1. Actually, they were far behind DSLAM makers like Alcatel and went broke a few years later.

Last Updated on Saturday, 16 August 2014 11:43
Kummer Coup: Telcos. Incumbents running the new IGFSA group
Monday, 01 September 2014 12:01

Almost guaranteed to fight change in the system. Verizon's Cheryl Miller, AT&T's Virat Bhatia and former AT&T lobbyist Marilyn Cade have a third of the votes. Combined with the three working for the currently dominant incumbents - ICANN, a registry head and an ex-registry head now at ISOC - there's a solid majority wedded to the current structure highly likely to support the U.S. Government position "We are trying to preserve the existing system of Internet Governance." The U.S. and allies, as everyone knows, dominate the process except at the ITU, although generally with a light hand.

    The biggest issues for Internet progressives are Net Neutrality, affordability to enable access, representation for Internet users around the world, privacy and security from surveillance. This board seems to have been chosen in deference to money and power, not the goal of "The Internet is for Everyone." Verizon FiOS' cheapest Internet service is $75/month, one of the highest prices in the developed world. Verizon went to court to oppose net neutrality. They strongly support the U.S. government in government as well as security. AT&T is right alongside them, both working actively to reduce competition in the U.S. and drive up prices.  

Bells promise nothing on 3.5 GHz
Thursday, 28 August 2014 02:47

IEEE 5G posterWasting enough spectrum to increase most homes' Internet speed 100-500 megabits. 150 MHz at 3.5 GHz is the largest spectrum band likely to become available for many years. AT&T and Verizon of course want to control as much as possible, even though they likely will not build the small cells they want it reserved for. I wrote ten days ago 3.5 GHz Spectrum: Bells want it but WiFi clearly a better choice. http://bit.ly/1vV1cH Further research and a chance to discuss the issues at TPI Aspen bring me back to the subject.

   In a few years. AT&T will almost certainly be focusing their "small cells" either on conventional WiFi (the best choice) or using 5G small cells at millimeter wavelengths, probably 28 GHz. Japan is confident they will deploy 28 GHz by 2018, because the hundreds of MHz available at high frequencies can easily carry gigabits. Capacity will be 10's or 100's of times more than at 3.5 GHz. Anyone at AT&T who doubts 28 GHz/5G should ask AT&T Group President and Chief Strategy Officer, John Stankey. He keynoted the 5G Summit at NYU Wireless and you could tell where their roadmap was headed. It's absurd to hold things back based on technology the D.C. lobbyists haven't yet realized is out of date.

    China Mobile has just ended their small cell build after spending $3B and deploying 4.3 million cells. LTE is working so well they'd rather invest in more LTE bandwidth than in small cells. A friend at the FCC asked me for my source because he couldn't find anything to confirm it. The details come from a story from China http://it.sohu.com/20140703/n401704351.shtml, which I read in Google translation. Robert Clark's blog http://bit.ly/XUPNZj, picked up by Light Reading, pointed me to the Chinese source. If I have time, I'll write up the details. CM used carrier WiFi, not LTE, but the economic problems are similar. I learned working at the Vermont Tel project that backhaul costs usually kill the economics of carrier small cells.

   This chart from Nokia suggests an 80% drop in cost of delivering a gigabyte over LTE. Verizon and AT&T have done a great job proving how well LTE can work. LTE-Advanced carrier aggregation, MIMO and MU MIMO are just starting to be deployed and will increase capacity on basically the same infrastructure at least 5X and maybe 25X. Stanford's Andrea Goldsmith predicted in a Marconi webinar “Wireless capacity can grow 50-100x in the next 5-10 years. The technology is becoming clear." Her Stanford colleague Arogyaswami Paulraj and legendary engineer Henry Samueli concurred. A few days ago, Vint Cerf agreed.

Last Updated on Thursday, 28 August 2014 13:36
AT&T or someone orders half million fiber homes
Saturday, 23 August 2014 19:25

Jorge Mas CanosaMasTec gets $250M contract for 2015, 2016. "We were awarded a contract for approximately a quarter of a billion dollars of 1-gigabit fiber deployment work," CEO Jose Mas announced. Fiber opportunities "are much greater than people quite understand. I think we are in for an incredible cycle in that business" http://bit.ly/1p3ic4t He added "Every time you pick a publication in the telecommunications sector, it’s got a carrier talking about building out 1-gigabit capabilities and what you are seeing is, you’re seeing multiple markets today where you have multiple carriers building in the same markets.... We’re going to be working 1-gigabit work for multiple customers over the next couple of years.

     That this probably is AT&T is my conclusion. Mas carefully provided no information on who the customer was, despite being pressed by investment analysts.

Last Updated on Sunday, 24 August 2014 22:18
Current Edge Tolls Actually Small
Friday, 22 August 2014 14:17

They could gouge if the precedent is set. I've called the current prices that the carriers are demanding from the video people "a hill of beans," that wouldn't be worth fighting over if they weren't likely to go up. Respected streaming media analyst Dan Rayburn pointed me to this comment from Chris Libertelli of Netflix confirming what I knew from off the record sources.  

“It’s fair to say that the interconnection fees that are being charged here are — and I think our CFO said this at the same conference that Jim alluded too — not as big for example as our content costs, so the price differentiation you’re referring too is likely to be so small that the costs of it would outweigh the benefits because the differences in price wouldn’t be so huge and customer affecting.”  http://bit.ly/1zdFUBg

    Rayburn I think goes too far suggesting that means edge tolls/sender pays are OK. We all know Ed Whitacre said "They are not going to use my pipes without paying."

Last Updated on Sunday, 24 August 2014 23:32
3.5 GHz Spectrum: Bells want it but WiFi clearly a better choice
Sunday, 17 August 2014 19:33

China Mobile giving up after $3B, 4.3M small cells. 100 MHz of spectrum - enough to build 3 networks the size of Verizon - will become available in much of the U.S. The military has agreed to share the 3550-3650 MHz spectrum in much of the U.S. They primarily use the frequencies on the coasts so they don't need the MHz. The high frequencies have a short range so can't be used from towers but are great for WiFi and other small cells.

     Bill Smith, now of AT&T, taught me "The sooner the bit gets to a landline, the less it costs us." Every plan for the urban wireless future is based on WiFi, small cells or short range high frequency transmitters. You can usually have 10-30 small cells in the space covered by a tower, each reusing the same spectrum. The most efficient method turns out to be public WiFi rather than monopoly use, which is becoming obsolete.

Last Updated on Saturday, 16 August 2014 11:42
"This argument is utterly farcical."
Friday, 15 August 2014 09:36

Straight talk in a DC world of obfuscation. The automakers want to restrict users of WiFi despite having 75 MHz of monopoly spectrum of their own. That's enough to build two Verizon sized networks, far more than makes sense to monopolize in 2014. TIA, the manufacturers' group, is right to call it farcical. http://bit.ly/Autofarce  The car guys want to hobble the WiFi band near the spectrum they control above 5850 MHz. I'm tempted to petition the FCC to return 40 MHz of the auto spectrum to the public domain. 35 MHz is plenty for even safety-related car communication.

     Denise Coffey and Dileep Srihari of TIA were blunt, "The Automakers state that the FCC must protect the 'reasonable interests and expectations of its operators' – with which TIA, of course, concurs. However, what the automakers assert to be their “reasonable” expectations is entirely unreasonable, bordering on unbelievable."

     In five or ten years more people will understand that we already have too much monopoly spectrum. WiFi provides enormous benefits with much more to come.  Soon, adding WiFi to today's 100 megabit vectored DSL would allow nundreds of megabits to most homes without needing expensive construction. (The tech works although the business side needs to be developed.) Requiring car makers to add 50 cents or so of parts to make their radios work right is a very small price for major public benefits.

    'Use it or share it" - Mike Calabrese's compelling slogan, is the way to go on all spectrum.


Last Updated on Friday, 15 August 2014 10:10
DSL beating cable yet again
Wednesday, 13 August 2014 19:12

Winning in Canada and England.  DSL upgraded since 2005 goes 25-50 megabits (VDSL2) and competes well with cable. 1998 ADSL (3-6 megabits) gets clobbered by cable. The dismal results from areas with obsolete equipment, especially in the U.S., have convinced many that the race is over. It's a different story where the DSLAMs aren't 10 years out of date.

    British Telecom "added 104,000 retail broadband customers." Cable competitor Virgin Media actually lost 300 subscribers. Bell Canada added 18K and Telus 15K. Rogers and Shaw cable added only 14K, combined. In a recent quarter, AT&T actually beat cable in U-Verse homes, about 60% of their network.

Last Updated on Thursday, 14 August 2014 14:58
4 U.S. Companies: 70% of the Net, 78% of Pay TV
Saturday, 30 August 2014 22:49

Wall Street Journal Stats

Shalini Ramachandran dramatically shows how concentrated the U.S. is getting. This chart from the Wall Street Journal shows how little competition we have in the United States. When Tom Wheeler lets through the giant Comcast-Time Warner merger, Brian Roberts will control 36% of the U.S. broadband market. Add AT&T, Verizon & Cox and 4 companies control 70% of the U.S. fast Internet. Not long ago, we had 7 Baby Bells, GTE and a dozen fairly large MSO's. The industry has about half as many companies today. 

     Columbia's Eli Noam, the world's leading public intellectual in communications, calculates that concentration in U.S. broadband went up 60% from 2002 to 2013. The prices in the U.S. are "higher than in many other countries." Lack of competition holds back innovation, which Noam believes essential for the U.S. to compete when so many countries have lower wages. The high prices result in high profits that may increase investment, Eli added. Christopher Yoo has done some work that suggests there is an effect, although personally I find competition and improved technology a far more important factor. Eli's book, Media Ownership and Concentration in America, is the standard reference. The follow-up, Who Owns the World's Media?: Media Concentration and Ownership around the World  http://bit.ly/noammedia is a thousand page opus with many international co-authors, soon to be published.

Comcast, Verizon & AT&T proved how effective that market power can be by forcing Netflix to pay them to send video to their customers. Sender pays is a mistake. There's no way to reach 21 million homes without going through Comcast. That's called a "terminating monopoly." Broadband customers typically won't change ISPs for 5 years or more so Comcast's control will continue. A video company can't make it if blocked from a quarter of the customers in the U.S., especially if the other ISPs do the same. 

    At 36% of the U.S., Comcast will be large enough to destroy almost any independent video companies. They haven't used that power maliciously but the profits from aggressive charging will be hard to resist. With no choice, video providers will have to pay even exorbitant rates. Some of that inevitably will be passed on to consumers.  

Last Updated on Sunday, 31 August 2014 22:25
More traffic doesn't equal higher costs TOLL-1
Tuesday, 26 August 2014 16:25

Router salesRouter/switch $sales actually down. Anyone who says increased traffic is raising carrier costs is misinformed, as I and many other tech reporters have been saying for years. True, wireline traffic and customer counts continue to grow. Wireless traffic is up significantly in the last year. Yet the total dollars spent on service provider routers and switches actually declined in Q2 from last year. This is the largest category of equipment needed for increased broadband bandwidth. Other gear (DWDM, etc.) also came down in price. 

     Equipment costs have been falling as fast as traffic has been going up for at least the last decade. The net result has been the cost per month of a broadband customer has remained steady or slightly declined on any large network. That cost - less than $1/month - is about 2% or 3% of the price of the service.

Last Updated on Tuesday, 26 August 2014 21:49
Not so fast on G.fast
Friday, 22 August 2014 19:46

Not a gigabit; a demo, not a field trial; 2016 or later. The reality of G.fast is impressive, 200-600 megabits over short loops of perhaps 100 meters.  G.fast is the telcos' answer to 400 meg and faster DOCSIS. New York, Los Angeles and much of Europe are getting 300-400 megabit (shared) cable this year. Kabel Deutschland is optimistic on a gigabit (shared.) But the hype goes further.

At two extraordinary recent conferences I met nearly all the top engineers working on G.fast. Les Brown, Tom Starr and others from standards; Hubert Mariotte, Trevor Linney and more from the carriers; Chip guys (they are all guys) Dudi Baum, Rami Verbin, Debajyoti Pal, from Lantiq & Broadcom. Analysts Teresa Mastrangelo, Erik Keith, Richard Jones, Rupert Wood, Stephen Wilson. No one has anything ready to sell, which improved the conversation. 

Here's some basics they told me:


That's the only thing most people know about G.fast and most have it wrong. There are certain circumstances in which speed goes to a gigabit, so the ITU Standards Committee press release has some truth. Bands have to be notched out to avoid interference. Vectoring to cancel noise is required and difficult to implement at the speeds involved. It's not clear when, if ever, the full bandwidth will be put to use. 

    Swisscom has set expectations of 580 megabits at 100 meters and 280 megabits at 200 meters. Speed falls off very rapidly after that. G.fast is only 40 megabits at 400 meters, much slower than vectored VDSL at that distance. G.fast speeds are measured as combined upstream and downstream. Time domain multiplexing allows varying the ratio.

Last Updated on Saturday, 23 August 2014 23:43
For the record: Dave to FCC on wireless choices
Thursday, 21 August 2014 22:24

In the note below to John Leibowitz, I recommended a close look at MU MIMO to dramatically increase wireless capacity for rural areas. That's almost a cliche in advanced wireless circles and normally wouldn't be a story. But I make a practice of recording things I say to FCC officials in the spirit of the ex parte rules. Companies directly contacting the FCC are required to make a public filing of what they said, a good rule. As a reporter, I'm probably exempt from the requirements but try to write up what I said.

     At TPI Aspen, I recommended to any D.C. policy people who would listen they come to the October 2 Marconi Symposium and connect with some of the best engineers in the world. http://bit.ly/MarconiDC D.C. is a town of lawyers, economists and the like but very few engineers. That is one reason policy is so often misguided and I do what I can to bridge the gap. The policy crowd has remarkably few technical resources that don't have a company agenda. Liebowitz, a senior FCC wireless guy, said he'd be interested in talking to engineers. So I introduced him to Stanford Professors Paulraj and Cioffi, both of whom had told me they'd like to connect while in D.C. Paulraj is  the inventor of MIMO and this year's Marconi Fellow. John Cioffi won a Marconi for his work on DSL. 

     Almost all the people at the FCC and other agencies read their own email and actually want to hear from you if you're well-informed.

Last Updated on Monday, 25 August 2014 01:18
New York, Los Angeles Getting 400 Meg Cable
Saturday, 16 August 2014 09:37

300-400 Meg (shared) now standard off the shelf. I've heard from an engineer that the gear for New York is being installed and tested. They've been losing customers to both Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-Verse in LA, Time Warner Cable  is upgrading download speeds. My 15 down, 1 up service ($63/month) is set to go to 50/5 for the same price.

Going from 160 shared to 300-400 shared in DOCSIS 3.0 is only a software change on most equipment. Extra backhaul costs are minimal. Now that the analog switch-off has freed spectrum channels, expect that change almost everywhere. Giant Liberty Global is upgrading across Europe and offering 200-250 meg service routinely.

Time Warner has also committed to a gigabit (shared) in 2016, per this strong LAT article by Paresh Dave http://lat.ms/1rEQZrY.  No one except the engineers believed John Chapman of Cisco in 2004 when he promised the gigabit in DOCSIS 3.0 but now equipment is starting to ship. Last year, TWC also offered a gig in 2016 to North Carolina.

Last Updated on Saturday, 16 August 2014 09:45
5M U-Verse Homes on Hold
Thursday, 14 August 2014 22:06

Biggest current U.S. broadband build virtually stopped  I haven't confirmed Paul de Sa's suggestion that the AT&T/DIRECTV deal is a cause. 

"Prior to the DTV deal, Project VIP (announced November 12, 2012) planned to expand AT&T's U-verse video footprint from 24.5m customer locations as of 4Q12 to 32.9m by 4Q15.6 At the end of 1Q14, we estimate the project was ~45% complete, with ~28.2m locations offered U-verse video." 

    I have double confirmation that the AT&T neighborhood DSLAM (FTTN build) is barely moving forward. I've asked AT&T if they'd release the actual deployment figures for the last three quarters to get a precise measure of what's going on. 

Last Updated on Friday, 15 August 2014 14:38
Verizon, truth, and what's really going on with the network
Monday, 28 July 2014 13:45

Earned a remarkable reputation. When someone on Dave Farber's IP list criticized Verizon for lying, I spoke up. Verizon's comment that there was congestion at the point where they peered to the Internet was accurate. That, and not congestion on the network, is the current battleground. Fortunately, problems at peering points can be resolved in a few weeks and at minimal cost. That's what happened when Netflix agreed to the carrier demands for money. 

​​Based on 15 years of reporting, I believe it's wildly inappropriate to say "anything VZN​ says in public is a self-serving lie based on a poor understanding of the Real World" I'm often extremely critical of Verizon's policy, including this one. But Tom Tauke and Ivan Seidenberg overwhelmingly were truth tellers.

Covering dozens of Verizon stories,  I only once heard a Verizon policy person tell me something he had reason to believe untrue. Even in that case it may be that the D.C. policy person really didn't know but should have.

In my experience, Verizon stands out as virtually the only lobbying shop that persuasively makes its point while not distorting the truth. In this case, Verizon is accurate saying the problem is "there is [not] adequate capacity for the traffic to enter our network."

Last Updated on Thursday, 28 August 2014 13:52
More Articles...
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 9