David Isenberg:

At the August 5, 2005 meeting of the FCC, following the Supreme Court’s decision that cable modem connectivity is an information service, the FCC leveled (lowered) the playing field by declaring that DSL, too, is an information service. These decisions remove the common carrier obligation of the line owner to share — non-carrier ISPs like Earthlink are left to twist slowly in the wind. The industry is, for all intents, re-verticalized.
The central idea of the Telecom Act of 1996 — that competition would replace regulation — is all but dead. Regulation has systematically fought competition since 1996. Regulation has won.

More worth reading on blocking useful network apps here.

Pew Internet:

The report argues that, while broadband adoption has grown quickly in recent years, there are reasons to believe that it is slowing. The report develops a model of broadband adoption that hypothesizes that the intensity of online use is the critical variable in understanding the home high-speed adoption decision and the trajectory of the adoption curve. Using national survey data from 2002 and 2005, the paper shows that the role of online experience in explaining intensity of internet use has vanished over this time frame; the explanatory effect of having a broadband connection has grown. This suggests that relative to 2002 there is not much pent-up demand for high-speed internet use at home.

[PDF]

Seth Jayson:

This is big and potentially scary news, for a couple of reasons. The first is fairly obvious: If the reports of Google’s purchasing of “dark fiber” — unused bandwidth and network infrastructure — are true, the firm could conceivably roll out a “last-mile” Internet delivery service. Maintaining and operating all that infrastructure (along with servicing all those WiFi hubs) would be very expensive. But the idea makes more sense if you assume that the company will deploy its real capital once the new WiMax standard, which broadcasts wireless Internet over a much wider area than WiFi, rolls around. Coupling this with an upgraded version of Google Talk could conceivably make the tech startup a force in telecom

Google WiFi traffic is subject to their privacy policy, which everyone should be fully aware of.

Grant Gross:

The 77-page draft legislation, released to generate discussion from broadband providers and other stakeholders, would also require broadband providers to allow subscribers access to lawful content, even though some broadband providers have suggested a so-called ‘Net neutrality requirement isn’t needed.

Representatives of Verizon Communications and SBC Communications in the past have said a ‘Net neutrality requirement could prevent them from cutting off service to bandwidth hogs or customers posing a security risk.

Sara Grant:

Robert Austin: By “broadband explosion” we mean the coming together of real-time communication and rich media technologies to produce a truer form of interactivity across geographic distance than has been possible up until now. We’ve had some forms of interactive technologies for a long time (e.g., telephone) and many kinds of media too, but real-time interactivity at a distance that comes anywhere near what we experience in face-to-face communication has been elusive. That’s too bad, because people have been anticipating profound effects from the ability to collaborate in real time at a distance for a long time. One of our favorite examples of this is described in a paper written in 1968 by Internet pioneers J. C. R. Licklider and Bob Taylor, called “The Computer as a Communication Device.” These guys imagined human capabilities moving to a new level when real-time interactivity was realized. They expected an acceleration of our abilities to innovate and work creatively. The vision is compelling. The only thing they got wrong was how long it would take us to get there. We are suggesting that the day may finally be arriving. The implications, if so, will be numerous and important. Various chapters in the book describe how business strategy, production technologies, and marketing—to name just a few—may be changed dramatically.

David Isenberg: Qwest — the former disruptive fiber player that wisely bought an ILEC so it’d be too big to shut down — is suing the City of Portland for running a municipal network. The Oregonian reports.

Andy Kessler:

But it turns out cities get to sort of cheat, cite eminent domain, and place a lot of gear on their own light poles and radio towers. No startup gets that deal. And new mesh technologies mean Philly can plug into the Internet just once, paying wholesale rates, unlike the folks that run Starbucks or hotel hotspots, who overpay (probably to Verizon) for the Internet connection their Wi-Fi users share.
But the real whopper is that – as Ms. Neff claims – by the third year, Philly will be saving $2 million a year on their $150 million IT budget by not having to pay Verizon for Internet access at their 24,000-employee city offices. Hmmm. That whole disadvantaged thing is just icing. Sounds like some sort of arbitrage.

David Isenberg:

In Utah, if you live in a UTOPIA (muni FTTH) city, you can get 10 megabit symmetrical Internet service for $40 a month. Or you can get Comcast Internet service for $29.95. If you don’t live in a UTOPIA city, Comcast Internet costs $45.95 a month. One thing is sure; Comcast can afford to lose money longer than UTOPIA.

More here.

Madison continues to fall behind in true 2 way broadband, as Jon Van illustrates:

The Mudd Group uses high-speed optical fiber lines supplied by the Cedar Falls Utility, a municipal operation that offered affordable high-speed data connections years before the local cable TV operator or phone company made such services available.
Municipalities from Lafayette, La., to Philadelphia are moving to provide residents with broadband connections, while in others, such as Geneva, Batavia and St. Charles, voters rejected the idea. The initiatives, which proponents say boost local economic development opportunities, are spurring intense battles across the nation with cable and phone companies, which believe the competition is unfair.
The issue is whether it’s appropriate for government entities to use taxpayer money to invest in infrastructure that is also a commercial technology because it’s offered by cable and phone companies.

Intel along with several large firms announced a project with communities around the world to make municipal WiFi a reality:

Cleveland, Ohio; Corpus Christi, Texas; Philadelphia; Portland, Ore.; Duesseldorf, Germany; Jerusalem, Israel; Taipei, Taiwan, are among the urban communities participating in Intel’s project. Other participants are Mangaratiba, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Gyor, Hungary; Principality of Monaco; Seoul, South Korea; Osaka, Japan; and Westminster in London.