Telcos Deny Trying To Turn FCC's Open Network Diagnostics Into A Closed, Proprietary Affair

from the well-of-course-they-are dept

The FCC has been working with M-Lab to measure basic network diagnostics using an open source solution, providing public information about internet network performance. This seems like a good thing... though you can see why not everyone would like data public about the performance of their networks. Over the weekend, a warning went up that the telcos are pushing the FCC to stop using M-Lab and switch to their own ISP-managed diagnostics tools. Vint Cerf is raising the alarm about this:
Recently, the FCC measurement program has backed sharply away from their commitment to transparency, apparently at the bidding of the telcos in the program. The program is now proposing to replace the M-Lab platform with only ISP-managed servers. This effectively replaces transparency with a closed platform in which the ISPs -- whose performance this program purports to measure -- are in control of the measurements. This closed platform would provide the official US statistics on broadband performance. I view this as scientifically unacceptable.

For the health of the Internet, and for the future of credible data-based policy, the research community must push back against this move.
The FCC keeps insisting that it's committed to openness -- but all too frequently seems to give in to telco demands. So this warning is concerning.

For what it's worth, the telcos are claiming that Cerf is overreacting. In a response to his call for action, Verizon's David Young responded that there's nothing to see here, and that M-Lab and the telco efforts have co-existed and can continue to co-exist going forward.
Vint breathlessly suggests that the FCC is now backing away from this openness "at the bidding of the telcos" and claims the program is proposing to replace the M-Lab platform with only ISP-managed servers. THIS IS FALSE. ISPs have made no such request of the FCC nor has the FCC proposed to eliminate use of M-Lab’s servers.

What has been proposed is that, in addition to continuing to use the data collected via the M-Lab servers, the FCC and SamKnows may also rely on the ISP provided servers that have been in use since the beginning of the project. These ISP-provided servers meet the specifications required by SamKnows as do the M-Labs servers. In fact, it was only because of the presence of these non-M-Lab, ISP-donated servers, that SamKnows was able to identify problems with an M-Lab server that was affecting the results of the tests being conducted. M-Labs did not identify this server problem on their own. It was only fixed when SamKnows brought the issue to their attention. By the way, this problem forced the FCC to abandon a month's worth of test data, extend the formal test period and delay production of their report. Later, another M-Lab server location had transit problems that again affected results. This was the second M-Labs-related server problem in two months and once again, it was SamKnows, using the ISP-provided servers as a reference who identified the problem and brought it to M-Labs attention.
As with many such disputes, the reality may be somewhere in between the two claims here. It seems like Cerf's fear is that by establishing the telcos' servers on equal footing with the M-Labs' open setup, it opens the door to replacing the M-Labs' efforts and then potentially locking up the data. Young is correct that the openness is mainly due to FCC policy at this point, but that policy is dependent on the current leadership of the FCC, which could change. At the very least, it would be nice to see a stated commitment to keeping the information open on an ongoing basis, so that there isn't any need to worry going forward.

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, network diagnostics, open, proprietary, telcos, vint cerf
Companies: verizon

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    ECA (profile), 18 Jul 2012 @ 2:15pm


    1. sign-in isnt working, not for me anyway..
    2. that funny bar on the bottom is stupid.

    For those that understand a few things about BENCHMARK programs..and how MANY corps have inserted their OWN code to bypass or MOD the program to work BEST on their OWN CARDS.

    Then comes the idea of a CORP offering you to USE a certain SPEED program to test their SITE..
    there are many things to SEE/TEST when you test a site, and connections.
    How many JUMPS-LAG
    Even your video card can add windows WAITS for your video to DO SOMETHING before it decides to keep connecting.(fun isnt this)
    LAG is a general term. Different programs TEST in different ways also. from JUST testing from your NET card to another NET CARD, is very quick. TESTING a PROGRAM, transfer and render, and then RETURN that program is more thorough. AND TESTS MORE THEN ping from 1 machine to another.
    I wont even get into TRAFFIC monitoring but certain GROUPS, which can also ADD to your lag times..

    For those of us OLDER then dirt, we remember some of the OLD programs that DID something, in a straight forward fashion and gave us DETAILS and information we could use that was TRUTHFUL. and in a way would tell us WHERE the problems were.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.