Sorting through the high-speed connection issues

Friday, May 26, 2006

But there are also a majority of people in our community who can’t do any of this because high-speed broadband service just isn’t available for them.

In addition to being chairman of the Charles County Technology Council, I also serve on the county’s Cable Advisory Commission, which is an advisory board to the county commissioners on the cable ordinance and franchise agreements.

Our experience these last few years has been that most people who have cable service in the county are fairly satisfied.

Sure, there is the occasional loss of service complaint or requests for new channels. And there are always the comments and complaints about the rising costs of service and customer service issues.

But overall, we just don’t get a lot of complaints about the cable television service itself.

What we do get in growing numbers are complaints that cable service is not available economically where people want it — at their home or business. And they are not asking because they want the cable television service, but because they want cable broadband service.

And they are passionate about it.

I can understand their passion. They see a better future for themselves when connected. Our community at large sees it, too.

Maybe that’s why Charles County has one of the highest penetration rates for cable broadband service in the Comcast system.

But things in the world of technology are never simple. Just as we are starting to get a handle on how to bring faster and more ubiquitous service to our community, the telecoms and cable companies are switching gears.

They are pushing for things like national franchise agreements or a new competitive Internet model (the opposite of net neutrality). Some have even been pushing in the recent past to prohibit local jurisdictions from providing broadband services.

Congress is already considering and debating major changes in telecom regulations. The two most prominent issues are:

National franchising. Under current law, it is up to the states (and therefore local jurisdictions) to establish and control franchising rights within their borders.

This is the arena that cable companies have been operating in for years where they negotiate and sign a franchise agreement with the local jurisdiction to allow for use of the public rights of ways in order to provide services.

(In the case of Charles County, Comcast is currently the only franchisee — although other franchisees are permitted.) This has been repeated in hundreds (probably thousands) of jurisdictions across the country, and each agreement is unique.

Now appear the telecom companies that want to enter the television business.

Having to negotiate separate franchise agreements with every jurisdiction can be a pretty significant barrier to entry. They want to lay fiber to provide these services along with high-speed broadband like the cable companies, and so they have come up with the idea of a national franchising model. Sure, there are lots of details and ways to implement this model, but the basic idea is to eliminate the need to negotiate separately with every jurisdiction — thereby creating a more level playing field and competitive environment.

Sounds great, right? Well, maybe.

Having competition is a good thing. Changing the current regulatory regime always takes time and costs money — usually ours. And don’t forget that depending on the investment models of the providers, Charles County could end up, once again, on the short end of stick when it comes to deployment.

Net-neutrality. I am not sure exactly when or where this idea first surfaced, but it’s out there and it is getting serious consideration in Congress as we speak.

Basically, the Internet has been operating under a ‘‘neutral” policy since its inception — meaning that end users have been the determining factor in the speed at which they receive information. When an end user requests information, the systems on the other side adjust their download speeds as needed to send the information at a speed the end user’s system can understand it.

The network in the middle has been ‘‘neutral” — meaning that it just passed the information between the sender and the end user when requested prioritizing only as needed on a first-come, first-served basis.

But now there is this idea that the network should be an open playing field for network providers, where they should be able to prioritize the flow of information across their networks based on other parameters, like whoever is willing to pay for it. In the big picture, this is not really anything new, as end users who have had specific priority bandwidth needs in the past have been willing to pay for it in the form of leased lines or private networks.

But the devil is in the details.

Consider this scenario: Google comes out with a new service that relies on high-speed broadband and decides it wants to crush Yahoo’s competing product in a certain market, so it pays the major network providers to give priority to its traffic on the network so that it’s new service runs well. But because of the combination of local network limitations and Google’s priority, the competing Yahoo product loses its appeal. So instead of the end user having the choice of two good products, now there is one that works very well and one that doesn’t and eventually disappears.

And remember, again, who is ultimately going to pay for this increased cost? You and me.

So what does all this mean for Charles County?

The future prosperity of Charles County, as a part of the greater Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, will hinge on our community’s success in ensuring ubiquitous, competitive, high-speed broadband services are available throughout the county — and most especially in our centers of commerce.

The regulatory landscape of broadband is changing, and our community has come a long way the last four years. That said, there remain untapped resources and opportunities to bring enhanced and redundant broadband services that would greatly enhance the future potential and prosperity of Charles County.

Broadband infrastructure ensures competitiveness in communications, and is a powerful enabler for the entrepreneurs among us in business, government and academia.

It is and will be an integral part of enhancing and improving the quality of life in our communities. The time for study and conversation here in the county is over. The time for action — and most importantly investment — is now.

Upcoming CCTC events

*Lunch and Learn at noon May 30 at the Charles County Chamber of Commerce office, 101 Centennial St., Suite A, La Plata. Speaker to be announced. Cost is $15 for nonmembers and $10 for members. RSVP required to info@thetechcouncil.net or 877-282-5734.

*‘‘Navy Innovation for Commercial Development” from 8:30 a.m.-2 p.m. June 1 at the Village Green Pavilion, Indian Head. Event will feature Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head technologies and procurement opportunities. Go to www.TheTechCouncil.net or register at www.MarylandTEDCO.org.

*2006 Leading Edge Awards at 6 p.m. June 21 at the Waldorf Jaycees Community Center, 3090 Crain Highway, Waldorf. Sponsored in cooperation with the College of Southern Maryland. Go to info@thetechcouncil.net or call 877-282-5734

James B. Lynn Jr. is chairman of the Charles County Technology Council and can be reached at 877-282-5734 or by e-mail at jlynn@thetechcouncil.org.