multicast

(or: The End of Reliability)

(or: Why is the FCC Broadband Study Good News?)

(or: Comcast Digital Voice Gets me One Service Outage Every 63 Days)

I just spent my morning troubleshooting my Comcast digital voice telephone. I get my phone service via my Comcast cable modem… which is to say, over the Internet.  It wasn’t working.

I followed the instructions on the Web troubleshooting wizard, which required me to dig up the only corded telephone that I still own.  I finally found it in the basement. It dates from the late 1980s and it still has the speed-dial list written in pencil… speed dial #1 is “Live 105 Request Line.” Anyone get that reference?

Anyway, after switching to corded phones and re-wiring my home entertainment center so that I could easily get to the back of my Comcast cable modem with a paperclip, nothing had changed. I still had no dial tone.  Finally after a chat session with the Comcast customer support they sent a mysterious reset signal to my house that solved the issue.

But this made me reflect… I’ve had Comcast digital voice service since March 28 (see my previous post about how hard it was to get).  So that’s four months and one week.  In that time I’ve had two major telephone outages.

The first was a neighborhood-wide outage that was corrected two hours after I noticed it.  This one went on for two days until we noticed it — according to reports from a friend that couldn’t reach us.  (Since we didn’t dial out during that time, we just thought no one was calling us.)

Almost a tangent: I’m also concerned about my backup battery, as the battery light on my modem sometimes turns off and on by itself.  (In the old phone system backup batteries used to be centralized but with digital voice over the cable network each cable modem has to have one.) I haven’t gotten around to complaining about that — I’m not sure if I have the energy.

The whole experience screams: not-ready-for-prime-time. Cheap-looking flimsy gray plastic boxes that have to be reset with paperclips. Nothing like the good old Model 500 telephone from Western Electric (pictured). That thing was solid as a rock–and as heavy as one.

The whole time I had plain-old-telephone-service from AT&T I never had any service problems.  Currently my average with Comcast digital cable is one service outage every sixty three days — and those are only the ones that I noticed.

Is this the way of modern telecommunications? Reduced regulatory requirements lead to the death of reliability?

Crappy cell phone service quality has softened us up to expect poor quality across other areas of telecommunications. The quirky and opaque nature of Internet service is no help.  Low quality there seems to be lowering standards elsewhere as well.

This week in the media a FCC study of broadband speeds has been trumpeted across all major outlets.  The finding that made the news? ISPs now deliver 80-90% of their advertised speeds. This is hailed as a triumph. (And it’s an increase since the 2009 report.)

Yet another way to present the same numbers is: Only two ISPs out of every single one studied by the government actually provided the speeds that they advertise (see p. 15 of the report). In telecom that’s the kind of news that we’re happy about these days. It’s a new era.

Preface: I’m also blogging over at the Social Media Collective.  This entry is cross-posted with our collective blog over there.  –CS

What new norms are we evolving via the use of social media?

Way back in 1967 sociologist Harold Garfinkel proposed that the social world was filled with hidden rules for behavior that were so taken for granted it could be very difficult to notice them even if you tried to.  To make this point he famously sent his college students home for spring break with an assignment: He asked them to “spend from fifteen minutes to an hour in their homes imagining that they were boarders and acting out this assumption” (p. 38). In short, they were to be polite to their families and note what happened.

It turns out that people aren’t polite to family.

As family norms were broken the result was often pandemonium.  Unsuspecting family members quickly diagnosed their children as ill… or even insane. Speaking politely to your parents is so unusual that most families took it as cruel mockery, or as a kind of elaborate, unsuccessful joke.  Students found the experience unaccountably stressful, given the apparently innocuous instructions. Garfinkel’s experiment is now widely known as “the lodger” or “the boarder.”  He advocated this technique of de-familiarizing everyday life by challenging some unstated assumption as a way to discover the existence of hidden norms.  He called it “breaching.”

What would Garfinkel’s breaching experiment look like if we designed it to investigate emerging norms in social media?  In the class that I teach at the University of Illinois called Communication Technology and Society we set out to figure this out.  Here is a sampling of some of the breaching experiments we designed and conducted.  (Siddhartha Raja, Matthew Yapchaian, Dawn Nafus, and Ken Anderson contributed to this list.)

I’ll list the experiments here but not the results.  Note that a few of them produced results we did not expect.  Dear Internet: Can you think of any other social media norms to investigate with norm breaching experiments? This is like making your own failbook for the sake of science. All new Garfinkels welcomed.

Social Media Norm Breaching Experiments

• CHATTY FLICKR MARKUP: Sign up for an account and find users on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/) that you do not know. Try to start a conversation with them using the “add note” tool and the “add your comment” box to mark an image that they have uploaded. Try varying the kind of image you comment on from those that are very personal (wedding, kids birthdays, etc.) to those that are very impersonal (buildings, landscapes) and see how the reactions vary. Note that you may have to post a lot of notes and comments to get any reaction. You may have to try different and creative strategies to get people to respond to you. Describe the reactions.
• GCHAT STRANGER. If you have a gmail account already, use gchat to begin chat conversations with people that you don’t know (or don’t know very well). Vary the kinds of things you say to see if you can get them to start a chat conversation with you. Describe what kind of chat message will successfully get a stranger to chat with you on gchat. Remember to be polite and respectful at all times. Note: You may have to try to gchat A LOT before you get someone to respond to you. Do not keep trying the same people if they do not respond.
• WAY OFF TOPIC. On Facebook or a similar site that has threaded conversation (e.g., status updates with replies), over a period of three days leave a large number of comments that are all completely and obviously off-topic and not relevant to the thread. For this to work, there can be no relation between the reply and the topic at all; just start talking about something else. If you like, address some of them to the wrong person as well. Describe the results.
• FACEBOOK WALL INQUISITOR. On Facebook, friend five strangers — people you don’t know (maybe friends of friends). Once they accept your friend request, post a public comment to their wall introducing yourself and asking them about themselves. In your posts, do not refer to any friends that you have in common; just talk about yourself and ask them about themselves. Try to get information from them about themselves. (You must start this assignment before Monday for it to work!). Describe the responses.
• ONLY ONE MEDIUM. Choose one popular communication technology. Only use that technology for 3 days. (e.g. Use Facebook direct messages for ALL communication even when it is obviously inappropriate or impractical.) Describe the reactions.
• ALWAYS MIX MEDIA. For 3 days, always “mix” media–always respond to a communication using a different medium of communication than the one that was used to contact you. (example: if you get a phone call, let it go to voicemail then SMS them. If you get an email, send a picture to their phone, etc. Respond to your twitter @’s in person.) Describe the reactions.
• THE OVERSHARER. Pick either an acquaintance you don’t know that well or a parent. In a 24 hour period dramatically increase the amount of information you send this person using a text-based mobile communication technology that you know they can receive (likeIM on your phone, text/SMS, or e-mail on your phone/PDA). For example, you could communicate with them every time you do anything (“hi I am getting on the bus”, “arrived in class,” “class is boring,” “having lunch,” “talking with friend.”) Describe the reactions.
• LAPTOP ALTRUISM. In a public place, ask to borrow a stranger’s laptop “for a second” to check something and then spend an excessive amount of time using it to do things on Facebook. If you get no reaction or the overall experiment is very short, repeat the experiment with another person.

(Or, Non-Broadband Broadband)

I’m on Marketplace Tech Report this morning talking about the slowest broadband Internet in the USA, which is located in Pocatello, Idaho according to a new study by Pando Networks.

Click here to listen to the story, or read it.

We all know that the Internet isn’t the same everywhere in the US, right?  That may not be the most riveting finding in the story.  Also we know that the rich are probably more likely to have faster Internet.  Nothing new there.

What *is* the most interesting thing about this story is the shift from describing broadband by presence/absence toward describing its qualities. We are finally starting to appreciate the idea that a high-latency connection, an unreliable connection, or a low-bandwidth connection might each be examples of non-broadband broadband, if you follow my meaning. Each of them rules out some class of important broadband applications.  For example:

• Low-bandwidth: no video for you, and even some flashy Web sites won’t be pleasant
• High-latency: forget your interactive gaming
• Low-reliability: you won’t be using skype or Google talk for business
• Transfer-capped: video looks like a bad idea, and watch those software updates!
• Very asymmetric: no content production for you

I hope we’ll see more of this kind of careful analysis.  It’s the kind of thing that the national broadband map was supposed to tell us, before the mapping requirements were eviscerated by the carriers.

(or: Are Media Fast Assignments Inherently Dishonest?)

I just received a fascinating comment in my teaching evaluations from last year.  On the back of the eval form there is a free-response section where people are invited to make constructive suggestions about the course.  The results are usually fascinating, but in a bad way. Or in a puzzling way.

For example, one student in a previous class complained extensively about the discussion sections in a course that didn’t have any. I’ve also been propositioned in Korean. There are compliments, yes, and insults.  But this particular comment I received made me pause.

In the course I teach at the University of Illinois titled, Communication Technology and Society, one of my assignments is a new media fast. Basically it is 24 hours without “new” media, with a short reflection on it followed by an in-class discussion about what happened. This was accompanied by readings about the Amish, the Luddites, and the Appropriate Technology movement.

Media fasts have been a part of media studies courses forever, but I gave this assignment because I was particularly influenced by David Silver’s attempts to teach media by getting away from them.  (I also got my definition of “new media” from this other fast assignment I found online.)  I’ve attached the full text of my assignment at the end of this post.

Here’s the anonymous comment I received that made me pause (slightly paraphrased):

Requiring a media fast is inherently dishonest. It is impossible for anyone to be away from media for this long, or at least it is so much easier to lie than to complete the assignment that you’ve done nothing more than incite dishonesty… among 100% of the class.

At the time, I thought some of the responses to the fast were interesting, even insightful.

One student noted that they had to ask everyone the time all day because the only clock they own is a Blackberry. Another student wrote “I feel like I’m being punished for something.”

Someone decided to define the microwave and dishwasher as “new media” and voluntarily fasted from using them as well.

A student had previously fasted for religion and compared the two experiences of doing without: they concluded that doing without media is harder than doing without food.  (I’m sure a longer fast would reverse the situation though.)

Now I’m going over these in my head and thinking… are all of these lies?  How many of these responses are fabricated? It’s true, it would be much easier to simply make up the response than to actually complete the fast. Is this assignment worth giving?

It may be that for the U.S. college student avoiding new media is functionally impossible… or at least unlikely to ever work as an assignment.

________________________

ASSIGNMENT: New Media Fast

Part I: Select your fast time. The word “fast” used in this context means “to abstain.” Choose a time frame between now and this assignment’s due date when you will be able to spend 24 consecutive hours without new media. State the time period that you chose. Be sure that the time period requires some adjustment to your lifestyle, but it should not make you lose your job or harm your work in another class. For instance, you might choose one evening and the following morning so that you are not offline for an entire day. (No fair choosing 24 hours when you would already not be using new media.)

Part II: Fast. For the purpose of this assignment, new media technology is being defined as anything that has become common among consumers since 1980. During your “new media fast,” do not use these technologies. Keep notes (with paper!) about the adjustments that you needed to make in order to stay honest to your fast.

Part III: Reflect. After the end of your fast, write a blog post reflecting on this experience. Make specific reference to at least one quote or concept discussed in lecture on 3/30 (on Technology Resistance) or in the C&T book, Ch. 5 or Ch. 6 in a way that demonstrates that you understand them. Please explain:

• What you gave up.
• How you did it.
• What you did instead.
• What was easiest and what was most difficult to forsake.
• If you failed (i.e., used new media), what you did when you failed and why.
• Your thoughts, emotions and feelings about the assignment as it began and evolved.
• What you learned about your own media consumption habits.
• How this relates to the ideas in the readings.

This assignment must be at least 300 words (about 1 page).

(or, Dirty Tricks and Spectrum Politics)

I was on NPR today talking about LightSquared, the controversial would-be 4G broadband provider that has provoked the hyperbolic Save Our GPS campaign.

The slice of electromagnetic spectrum controlled by LightSquared is adjacent to the GPS signal, and the GPS industry has launched a public campaign to warn about the potential for interference between LightSquared and GPS.  My position is that there is no way that the FCC would allow the GPS signal to be jeopardized.  Here is the transcript of what I said on Marketplace Tech Report:

The GPS industry says that building these ground stations all over the place for LightSquared is going confuse the GPS receivers because they happen to be the adjacent use for those frequencies. But I have to say I think it might all may be bunk.

Worrying about GPS is sort of like saying, “The town planning board is now considering landscaping in the median of the freeway.” And then someone says, “but wait, what if they decide to destroy the freeway?”  It just seems very unlikely. They know the freeway is really important. So we have the Air Force, sport fisherman, everyone who uses GPS very upset about this. But it’s not clear at all to me that the FCC would allow anything to proceed that would jeopardize the GPS signal.

UPDATE: Originally I complained about the Marketplace Tech Report abstract of the above.  Now they’ve slightly changed the abstract after they read this blog post.  (Thanks!) Now it’s great.  It reads: “All the signals should get along just fine after the FCC’s review this summer. Sandvig says the FCC would never let anything bad happen to GPS.”

In fact, as things stand now LightSquared isn’t allowed to build anything until the GPS interference issue is resolved.

So why is everyone from Sport Fisherman to the Air Force getting all riled up about this issue?  What’s the fuss?

The Register’s Bill Ray already did a great job writing about this so I’ll quote his excellent prose.  LightSquared’s competitors were hoping that the FCC would rescind LightSquared’s license over GPS interference concerns. The FCC refused, “so now the general public is being courted in the hope of a less-well-informed opinion.”  Ray goes on to write,

One can’t help wondering if putting a little fear and uncertainty into the heads of potential investors, threatening the entire business plan with health-and-safety concerns over GPS interference, isn’t just what the existing operators might have asked for.

The more uncertain LightSquared’s L-band network looks, the more valuable the S-band (not adjacent to GPS) licenses are that are held by companies that want to try the same business model.  I’m talking about DBSD (bought by Dish last month for this spectrum) and Terrestar.

The GPS industry would be happier if there were no engineering tests at all (other than theirs) and the whole idea of this adjacent use was simply scrapped.  That’s because impartial engineering tests can find all kinds of things.  They could indeed find that the GPS receivers are not operating to specification.

Don’t be surprised, this kind of thing happens all the time. A few years ago I really enjoyed using my in-car Sirius satellite radio receiver because the FM retransmitter worked so well. (I could tune to a specified FM station to hear my satellite radio rather than plugging the device in with an audio jack.)

Indeed it worked well because it was over powered, and it was illegally interfering with the FM reception of all of the cars driving around me while it was making me happy. (Sirius paid a $20m fine for that and some other things.)

All sorts of noble, well-meaning people (like airplane pilots) are being pressed into service to “stand up for GPS.” It’s an emergency, they are told. “GPS Signal Interference Could Jeopardize America’s Safety,” the Coalition warns.

In fact they are being used to manipulate the value of companies that hold S-band licenses, and as a competitive weapon against new entrant LightSquared.  The value of the entire electromagnetic spectrum itself has been recently quantified as around $629 billion. Dish bought DBSD explicitly for access to its S-band spectrum which might be used in a similar way to LightSquared’s license, and Dish paid $1 billion for it.

With these kind of figures, wouldn’t you expect some dirty tricks? Like a fake grassroots campaign or two? In spectrum policy, a quick punch or two below the belt when the referee isn’t looking is what we call the start of negotiation.

___

Updated: 4/27 — 5:33 p.m. Revised to reflect changes in Marketplace Tech Report abstract as noted above.