For those of you following the M2Z saga, the latest is that the FCC rejected M2Z's application and is releasing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to figure out what to do with the band. Here's an article from Network World that provides a good analysis:

From: http://www.networkworld.com

Is free nationwide wireless broadband dead?
Future of the 2155-2175MHz band up for debate

By Brad Reed, Network World, 09/11/07

Much to the dismay of some smaller Internet providers, the fate of the 2155-2175MHz band is still up in the air.

The band, which is unlicensed and unused, has been sought by companies, such as M2Z Networks and NetfreeUS, as a means to provide nationwide wireless broadband services. Each of the two companies had applied separately with the Federal Communications Commission for the rights to operate the band and use it to make a nationwide wireless network. However, the FCC announced Aug. 31 that it was dismissing both applications, and thus leaving the band’s future uncertain.

In a statement supporting the applications’ dismissal, commissioner Michael Copps said that “the proper way to allocate this spectrum in the manner that best serves the public interest is to conduct a general rulemaking.”

He described four different options that the commission should consider for dealing with the band, including opening it up for unlicensed use, designating it as an “open access model that would combine wholesale broadband access and a Carterfone mandate,” using it to create a free nationwide broadband network that would be supported both through advertising revenue and revenue generated from premium service fees and licensing it through an open auction.

In a separate statement, commissioner Jonathan Adelstein expressed frustration with what he said was a lack of progress by the commission in designating rules for the band’s use.

“I’m disappointed that despite the aggressive interest in and availability of this spectrum, the commission is only now expressing intent to seek comment on service rules for this band,” he said.

The companies that filed applications to operate the band haven’t given up, though. Shant Hovnanian, the CEO of Speedus Corp., the managing member of NetfreeUS, says that his company hoped to work with the FCC to shape their decision on the new rules.

“We are hopeful that there’s an expedited process now to establish rules where we could still be victorious in getting our format approved,” says Hovnanian, who wants to see the band used to create a free wireless network that will be funded by advertising. The idea is to make the Internet more like analog radio and television, where people can tune in for free in exchange for being exposed to advertisements.

M2Z CEO John Muleta says he would like to see the commission adopt rules similar to what M2Z had proposed in its application. M2Z’s original proposal would have given the company operating rights for the 2155-2175 MHz band in exchange for developing a nationwide wireless network that the company claimed would have provided free Internet service to 95% of Americans. The network would have operated at a speed of 384Kps, and would have also featured an obscenity filter administered by M2Z’s own National Broadband Radio Service.

Muleta says that while he’s happy to see the FCC undertaking rulemaking sessions for the band, their actions may be too little, too late.

“We’d have welcomed this if they’d started it 15 months ago,” he says. “A lot of the big carriers want to forestall competition, and the longer they make us wait to deliver our services, the better it is for the . . . Americans are dying for broadband, and it’s not that it’s not available, it’s just incredibly expensive. We’re offering a free service that’s being retailed today for $40 to $90 a month.”

Mike Jude, a senior analyst at Nemertes Research, says that his preferred solution for the band would be to open it up for unlicensed use, which he says could open the door for more innovation akin to the early days of citizens’ band radio, which he describes as “a free-for-all that ultimately led to a lot of interesting ideas.” However, he says the prospects for getting the current FCC to make the 2155-2175MHz band unlicensed are grim.

“The FCC has long history of wringing its hands in public, and often what they do is most politically expedient thing, which means going to go through the same traditional auction,” he says. “That seems to be the path of least resistance, and it has a lot of attraction for politicians.”

Sascha Meinrath, the research director for the New America Foundation's Wireless Future Program, says that any of the four options for the band laid out by Copps could be beneficial depending on the details. In particular, the ideas he finds most appealing are either making the 2155-2175 MHz band unlicensed or using it to provide a nationwide broadband service free of charge. However, he sees some potential concerns with some of the proposals laid out by M2Z and NetfreeUS. Obscenity filters such as the one proposed by M2Z, for instance, give him pause.

“You’re either providing Internet access -- and the good, the bad and the ugly that entails -- or you end up becoming a government censor, which has incredibly scary connotations,” he says. “Likewise, how advertising works on a free tier is vitally important. Ads should not be intrusive or end up degrading the user experience.”

Meinrath says that auctioning off the band could be beneficial if it correlates mainly with providers’ abilities to provide free service, and not simply their ability to pay. Among the criteria he’d like to see included in any potential auction are “free tier service speeds, buildout requirements and wholesale/open access.”

“Opening the band up for auction a la the 700 MHz block is probably the worst idea of the lot,” he says. “Let’s have an auction that actually generates benefits that people will directly experience.”

All contents copyright 1995-2007 Network World, Inc. http://www.networkworld.com

Just when we'd hoped that the US administration might finally begin working on a national broadband strategy, it comes out against one of the key components that more successful countries have implemented. Preston Gralla hits the nail on the head -- from www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/6153:

U.S. Justice Dept. should stay out of net neutrality debate
By Preston Gralla on Fri, 09/07/2007 - 2:04pm

It's clear that the U.S. Department of Justice is far more interested in politics than it is in enforcing the law. What else to make of its recent bizarre criticism of network neutrality proposals?

In a press release, the department said that it had cautioned the FCC against any network neutrality proposals because, the proposals could "deter broadband Internet providers from upgrading and expanding their networks to reach more Americans."

First off, that's flatly wrong. The U.S. has among the worst broadband penetration rates and speeds in the developed world, because the government refuses to take actions to ensure we have adequate broadband coverage.

Secondly, net neutrality would increase competition, not harm it, and there would be better broadband services overall.

That's not the real point, though. The point is that the Department of Justice is supposed to enforce laws, not push specific political positions. Under Attorny General Alberto Gonzales, the department was all about politics, not law enforcement. But he's resigned, and so many people assumed the department would go back to its roots of enforcing laws.

It's clear, though, that the problem is deeper than Gonzales, as this latest statement proves. Whether you are for or against network neutrality, you should hope that our Department of Justice would stay away from politics. For the moment, though, it's as knee-deep in partisanship as ever.

Here's a new paper that's out in the most recent issue of IEEE's Internet Computing. We required a Creative Commons co-license (attribution, non-commercial, share-alike) with IEEE in order to publish our work, so you can download the paper for free (or buy yourself a subscription if you'd rather).

The (un)Economic Internet?

kc claffy, Sascha D. Meinrath
Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis - CAIDA

San Diego Supercomputer Center,
University of California, San Diego

Scott O. Bradner
Harvard University

The Internet Economics track will address how economic and policy issues relate to the emergence of the Internet as critical infrastructure. Here, the authors provide a historical overview of internetworking, identifying key transitions that have contributed to the Internet's development and penetration. Its core architecture wasn't designed to serve as critical communications infrastructure for society, but developed far beyond the expectations of the original funding agencies, architects, developers, and early users. The incongruence between the Internet's underlying architecture and current use and expectations, however, means we can no longer study Internet technology in isolation from the political and economic context in which it is deployed.

Read the full paper: PDF

Here's a great list from the Ramsay Report of all telecom bills introduced (thus far) in the new congress:

Read more...

Lots of folks have asked me for a copy of the presentation I gave at the 2007 National Conference for Media Reform. Beyond LANS, MANS, and Community Intranets: The CAIDA COMMONS Project is available here. The general COMMONS Project website is currently housed at: http://www.caida.org/projects/commons.

The New Network Neutrality includes ten criteria laid out by Sascha Meinrath and Victor Pickard that help create a more participatory and democratic Internet:

• Requires Common Carriage.
• Is Open Architecture and Supports Open Source Driver Development.
• Is Open Protocol and Open Standard.
• Supports and End-to-End Architectures (i.e., is composed of a "dumb" network).
• Is Private (e.g., no back doors, deep packet inspection, etc.).
• Is Application-Neutral.
• Is Generally Low-Latency and First-In/First-Out (i.e., requires adequate capacity for both).
• Is Interoperable.
• Is Business Model Neutral.
• Is Run by its Users (i.e., is internationally representative and non-Amerocentric).

Download the full paper here.

The COMMONS Project seeks:

to simultaneously solve three acute and growing problems facing the Internet: a self-reported financial crisis in the Internet infrastructure provider industry; a data acquisition crisis which has severely stunted the field of network science; and a struggle for survival within emerging community and municipal networks, who are in an ideal position to address the first two problems but often lack resources and experience to make informed operational decisions, and are also continually threatened by incumbent-driven legislation.

This week, three dozen visionaries and thought leaders are meeting in San Diego to plot out how to build the COMMONS. Information on the Workshop is available here. I'll going to look into getting permission to post the participants list (it's really an incredible group of people).

I've been working with folks to set up a new national coalition called "Save the Internet" focusing on Network Neutrality and maintaining a participatory and democratic Internet. Though the coalition doesn't officially launch until Monday, we've decided to offer sneak peeks through coalition members' own networks. Here's more:

Read more...

What is Network Neutrality? Ask a dozen people and you're sure to get a dozen different answers. Driven by recent attempts to undermine the freedom of the Internet, it's a question that more and more people are asking. My colleague, Victor Pickard, and I are in the midst of drafting up a piece on just this issue. Something that goes beyond the wishy-washy and strike at the heart of what it means to have a participatory, democratic commons.

Meanwhile, here's what the folks at Annenberg have thought up on this issue:

Read more...

A great picture of the North American Internet backbone. One can spend hours tracing interconnections... click on the picture below to download the entire 1MB .pdf: