Your Friendly Internet traffic cops Time Warner Cable and Comcast paid for research that suggests those Internet speed slowdowns are your fault (or at least not theirs).

A study from MIT suggests that broadband speed test results that show “real world” broadband speeds far below what your provider promises are actually better than you think, and if they’re not — it’s not your provider’s fault.  The paper, Understanding Broadband Speed Measurements, finds slow Internet speeds are often your problem, because you run too many applications on your computer, visit inaccurate speed measurement sites, use a wireless router, or have run into an Internet traffic jam outside of the control of your ISP.

The research comes courtesy of MIT’s Internet Traffic Analysis Study (MITAS) project, financially backed by some of North America’s largest cable and phone companies — Clearwire, Comcast, Liberty Global (Dr. John Malone, CEO), and Time Warner Cable in the United States, Rogers Communications and Telus in Canada.  Those providers also deliver much of the broadband speed data MITAS relies on as part of its research.  Additional assistance came from MIT’s Communications Futures Program which counts among its members Cisco, an equipment manufacturer and promoter of the “zettabyte” theory of broadband traffic overload and cable giant Comcast.

The study was commissioned to consider whether broadband speed is a suitable metric to determine whether an ISP provides good or bad service to its customers and if speed testing websites accurately depict actual broadband speeds.  Because Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have set minimum speed goals and have expressed concerns about providers actually delivering the speeds they promise, the issue of broadband speed is among the top priorities of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan.

“If you are doing measurements, and you want to look at data to support whatever your policy position is, these are the things that you need to be careful of,” Steve Bauer, technical lead on the MIT Analysis Study (MITAS) told TG Daily. “For me, the point of the paper is to improve the understanding of the data that’s informing those processes.”

Bauer’s 39 page study indicts nearly everyone except service providers for underwhelming broadband speeds:

While a principal motivation for many in looking at speed measurements is to assess whether a broadband access ISP is meeting its commitment to provide an advertised data service (e.g. “up to 20 megabits per second”), we conclude that most of the popular speed data sources fail to provide sufficiently accurate data for this purpose. In many cases, the reason a user measures a data rate below the advertised rate is due to bottlenecks on the user-side, at the destination server, or elsewhere in the network (beyond the access ISP’s control). A particularly common non-ISP bottleneck is the receive window (rwnd) advertised by the user’s transport protocol (TCP).

In the NDT dataset we examine later in this paper, 38% of the tests never made use of all the available network capacity.

Other non-ISP bottlenecks also exist that constrain the data rate well below the rate supported by broadband access connections. Local bottlenecks often arise in home wireless networks. The maximum rate of an 802.11b WiFi router (still a very common wireless router) is 11mbps. If wireless signal quality is an issue, the 802.11b router will drop back to 5.5mbps, 2mbps, and then 1 mbps. Newer wireless routers (e.g. 802.11g/n) have higher maximum speeds (e.g. 54 mbps) but will similarly adapt the link speed to improve the signal quality.

End-users also can self-congest when other applications or family members share the broadband connection. Their measured speed will be diminished as the number of competing flows increase.

The study also criticizes the FCC for relying on raw speed data that does not take into account the level of service being chosen by a broadband customer, claiming many service providers actually deliver higher speed service than their “lite” plans advertise.

In short, it’s everyone else’s fault (including yours) for those Internet speed slowdowns.

Ultimately, the report’s conclusion can be summed up in three words: change the subject.  It’s not slow broadband speeds that are the problem — it’s the lack of understanding about what you can accomplish with the speeds you do get from your ISP:

In the next few years, as the average speed of broadband increases, and the markets become more sophisticated, we expect that attention may shift towards a more nuanced characterization of what matters for evaluating the quality of broadband services. Issues such as availability (reliability) and latencies to popular content and services may become more important in how services are advertised and measured. We welcome such a more nuanced view and believe it is important even in so far as one’s principal focus is on broadband speeds.

One thing the paper does effectively deliver at top speed are industry talking points, particularly the one that says less regulation is better (underlining ours):

Our hope is that progress may be made via a market-mediated process that engages users, academics, the technical standards community, ISPs, and policymakers in an open debate; one that will not require strong regulatory mandates. Market efficiency and competition will be best served if there is more and better understood data available on broadband speeds and other performance metrics of merit (e.g., pricing, availability, and other technical characteristics).

These kinds of research reports are often tainted by the industry money that pays for them.  Researchers and universities routinely deliver industry-pleasing, sober-sounding studies in return for considerable financial contributions, grants, and other forms of underwriting.  This report lacks full disclosure about who is helping to pay for it — North America’s largest cable operators, who also deliver much of the data MITAS relies on for their research.

Ask yourself how much longer these companies would be writing checks to MIT had they delivered a report implicating them in false advertising of speeds they do not deliver or for relying on inadequate upstream providers to handle their Internet traffic?  The report pulls any and all punches delivered to the companies who finance it — a clear sign of bought-and-paid-for research in action.

Google today launched a new website which could become a major advocacy center to promote fiber broadband service across America.

Google Fiber for Communities opened with a thank you message for the enormous number of submissions it received for its experimental 1Gbps fiber broadband network.  Google expects to announce the winning application(s) for its experimental  network sometime this year.

But in the meantime, Google also acknowledges what big telecom companies keep trying to downplay and dismiss — “people across the country are hungry for better and faster broadband access.”  That is… better and faster service than their current provider is willing to supply.

The new website provides hints as to its greater purpose:

1. The name itself.  Notice “communities” is plural.
2. The site intends to mobilize for fiber networks across the country, starting with lobbying for pending federal legislation that would require installation of fiber conduit as part of federal transportation projects.
3. The site’s links heavily promotes municipal broadband advocates and organizations, including the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, the Fiber to the Home Council, the Baller Herbst Community Broadband Page, the Broadband Properties Municipal Fiber Portal, and Muni Networks.  Outside of the Fiber to the Home Council, which has some big telecom company members and isn’t above advocating for their interests, the rest of the list suggests Google advocates that communities do for themselves what their local phone and cable companies won’t do — deliver world class broadband service at non-duopoly prices.

Stop the Cap! shares many of these goals with Google, as we are strong advocates for community fiber-based broadband, and believe additional competition is highly needed in America’s broadband marketplace to break up an anti-consumer duopoly that delivers slow broadband service (or none at all) at the highest prices companies can get away with.  Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Jerry here in Rochester for sending word.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Bad engineering and all-out deception from Apple’s public relations department have led Consumer Reports to declare the Apple iPhone 4 defective — not recommended for consideration until Apple either fixes the antenna or declares the phone a dud and recalls them.  For those who already made their purchase, the magazine suggests a roll of duct tape may help mask the problem.

[flv width=”320″ height=”200″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Consumer Reports iPhone4 Defect 7-12-10.flv[/flv]

Consumer Reports’ engineers carefully tested Apple’s latest iPhone release and quickly discovered a serious defect in its basic functionality and design. (1 minute)

Consumer Reports recommends a well-placed strip of duct tape to resolve Apple's engineering failure

Apple’s deceptive comments claiming that a “software problem” was responsible for the shoddily-engineered antenna has only fueled additional lawsuits against the company for fraud, deception, negligence, concealment, and breach of warranty.  Consumer Reports, which independently tests all of the products it reviews, easily found the iPhone 4 flawed to the point of not functioning in marginal signal areas (something AT&T specializes in providing its customers) just by holding it in your hand.

It’s official. Consumer Reports‘ engineers have just completed testing the iPhone 4, and have confirmed that there is a problem with its reception. When your finger or hand touches a spot on the phone’s lower left side—an easy thing, especially for lefties—the signal can significantly degrade enough to cause you to lose your connection altogether if you’re in an area with a weak signal. Due to this problem, we can’t recommend the iPhone 4.

We reached this conclusion after testing all three of our iPhone 4s (purchased at three separate retailers in the New York area) in the controlled environment of CU’s radio frequency (RF) isolation chamber. In this room, which is impervious to outside radio signals, our test engineers connected the phones to our base-station emulator, a device that simulates carrier cell towers (see video: IPhone 4 Design Defect Confirmed). We also tested several other AT&T phones the same way, including the iPhone 3G S and the Palm Pre. None of those phones had the signal-loss problems of the iPhone 4.

Our findings call into question the recent claim by Apple that the iPhone 4’s signal-strength issues were largely an optical illusion caused by faulty software that “mistakenly displays 2 more bars than it should for a given signal strength.”

No surprise there.  Apple’s claims that a “software problem” was responsible for dropping phone calls and misstating AT&T’s reception quality was accepted primarily by tech bloggers who live or die based on the access they get to Apple’s latest product releases, as well as an army of Apple fans who reflexively defend the company from any criticism, regardless of how well-placed.  Independent tests from Consumer Reports prove the iPhone 4 cannot be relied on to make and receive phone calls while being held, unless you mitigate their design flaw with an external case, or as Consumer Reports suggests, a piece of well-placed, hideously ugly duct tape:

We did, however, find an affordable solution for suffering iPhone 4 users: Cover the antenna gap with a piece of duct tape or another thick, non-conductive material. It may not be pretty, but it works. We also expect that using a case would remedy the problem. We’ll test a few cases this week and report back.

The fact that the magazine issued a “Not Recommended” rating for the phone generated a new round of negative stories in the mainstream media about the company and its latest smartphone.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Apple iPhone Flaw Consumer Reports 7-12-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News ran three news reports today talking about Apple’s strategic problems and also extensively interviewed Michael Gikas, senior electronics editor at Consumer Reports.  He wants Apple to hand out its $30 Bumper case to consumers for free, something Apple has so far refused to do. (11 minutes)

[flv width=”600″ height=”356″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WABC New York Apple iPhone Flawed 7-12-10.flv[/flv]

WABC-TV in New York also ran a significant report this evening about the Consumer Reports findings, and get consumers’ reactions. (2 minutes)

Rep. James Boles Jr. of Moore County seen yawning as the North Carolina Legislature worked long hours to close the session for the year. (Photo: Charlotte Observer photographer Corey Lowenstein)

A bill to temporarily ban municipal broadband projects in North Carolina went down in flames early Saturday after a marathon 19-hour closing session of the legislature allowed a handful of pro-consumer legislators to finally corner and kill the bill.  But that victory would not have come without a coordinated effort by consumers and communities across the state vociferously objecting to legislation designed to protect the duopoly of phone and cable service offered by Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and CenturyLink.

This was the fourth attempt by big telecom companies to get state legislators to do their bidding.  It’s almost as if they want to work harder to stop competitors from delivering service than they work at delivering it themselves.  North Carolina is ranked 41st out of 50 states in broadband adoption. Significant areas of the state are not served by any broadband provider, and broadband speeds experienced by customers in North Carolina are among the slowest in the country.

This year’s battle was among the most difficult because its biggest backer, retiring Senator David Hoyle (D-Gaston), was considered a heavyweight in the legislature, serving in the North Carolina Senate for 18 years.

The drama that would eventually wind its way to the bill’s demise began late Friday evening in an overnight session of the state legislature.

Catharine Rice from the SouthEast Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (SEATOA) is our tour guide through the winding, treacherous waters of a North Carolina legislature in its final hours of the session for the year:

Saturday morning, July 11, at 5 a.m., the NC House of Representatives killed Senator Hoyle’s (D-Gaston) attempt  to force a moratorium on municipalities seeking to provide their communities broadband service. This was the industry’s 3rd (actually 4th) attempt to stop municipalities from providing superior broadband infrastructure to the communities.

Rep. Luebke

The bill died on Saturday after a one-two punch. First, the House Ways & Means Committee had refused to hear S1209 since June 8, under the hands of Committee Chair-Rep. Faison (D-Orange, Caswell), when it crossed from the Senate to the House. Then late Friday evening, the House itself added an amendment to its Study Authorization Bill (SB900) permitting, but not requiring, the Revenue Laws Study Committee to study the laws and circumstances surrounding municipalities providing broadband service to their communities, but dropping all other terms of S1209, mainly  the moratorium. The Senate concurred with House bill 900 unanimously later in the evening (9:49pm) and it was enrolled for review and signature by the Governor. (See Sections 7.5 (a) and (b) here)

Ten minutes later, Sen. Clodfelter introduced H455, a bill whose effect would have changed the approach of the House’s version of the municipal bbnd study. With H455, Senator Clodfelter gutted a House kidney awareness bill, and poured into it the “study” portion of S1209 (Hoyle’s Anti-Muni broadband bill), changing the House version by setting a date certain when the study (and recommended legislation) would have to be completed (March 2011), and increasing the number of seats on the subcommittee from 12 to 14, adding assigned seats for telephone coops and the NC County. The House version did not mandate a study, but made it optional, did not specifically authorize the committee to recommend legislation, and set the seats for the subcommittee at 12, naming 8 with an additional four unassigned seats. Clodfelter’s H455 contained two other sections, one addressing a fluke in sales tax refunds for MI-Connection, the Mooresville-Davidson muni broadband system.

Around 2:45 Saturday morning, on Rep. Paul Luebke’s (D-Durham) motion, the House denied concurrence with the Senate on H455 (96 to deny, 1 to allow). At 3:45 a.m., the House approved a Senate/House conference committee report for the purpose of keeping only one section of H455, (effectively deleting H455′s changes to the House study version of S1209). H455 (here) now provides a state sales tax refund status for Davidson and Mooresville’s MI-CONNECTION system, status the two towns would have if individually providing cable service, but from which they were disqualified by having  joined together to provide broadband cable  service.  On a vote of 91 to 6, the House approved the Senate/House conference report. At 4:55 a.m. the Senate concurred with that report and it was enrolled for the Governor’s attention.

Source: SpeedMatters/CWA

Bottom line, the effort to place a moratorium on consideration for new municipal broadband projects in the state is dead for 2010.  The next opportunity big telecom has for another anti-consumer bill is in January 2011.  At least the North Carolina legislature passed some additional ethics and government reform measures that will give consumers even more tools to fight the next battle:

• It toughens penalties for illegal campaign donations above $10,000.  As we’ve seen repeatedly, big campaign contributions can make all the difference when legislators throw their constituents’ interests under the bus.  Big phone and cable interests are among the most generous contributors, making it easy to find one or more members willing to carry their legislative agenda forward;
• Requires board and commission members to account for campaign fundraising activities for elected officials who appointed them.  A case of mutual back-scratching, powerful legislators can often find places for their special interest friends and supporters to serve on state commissions and boards.
• Expands personnel information that must be released to the public about state employees.  We saw the implications of conflicts of interest in the legislature this past session when one member contemplating municipal broadband bans also happened to be one of Time Warner Cable’s engineering contractors.  More information, this time about past work by state employees, prevents these kinds of conflicts from staying secret.

Please thank Reps. Faison and Luebke for their hard work to stop the broadband moratorium.  It’s unfortunate Rep. Faison’s efforts to bring better broadband to Caswell County, part of his district, were unsuccessful.  But at least Caswell County leaders won’t face a broadband moratorium should they wish to renew their efforts to provide broadband service where CenturyLink will not.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WBTV Charlotte Salisbury A Wired Community 5-2010.flv[/flv]

Why we fight.  Communities like Salisbury, N.C., can now move forward on their own municipal broadband projects.  Back in May, WBTV-TV in Charlotte highlighted Fibrant, the community’s answer to bad service from incumbent providers.  (4 minutes)

I’d like to hear your impressions of Clear’s 4G wireless broadband service, which is also known as Road Runner Mobile in Time Warner Cable territories or Comcast High Speed 2Go where Comcast provides cable service.

I am specifically looking for speed results, coverage impressions — whether the coverage maps reflect reality or not, and what type of wireless modem you’ve chosen with the service.  Also, customer service impressions are welcomed.  Feel free to leave your comments in our comment section or use the Contact Us link above if you’d prefer to remain anonymous.  Please remember to include your city and state.

YouTube is littered with negative reviews and complaints about the service, but I’d like to hear from our readers.

Here is one annoyed customer who literally attached her USB modem to a broom handle and mounted it halfway up the side of her home and still could not connect. (Warning: Profanity) (3 minutes)