The FCC has released new data about American consumer internet use.

The Technical Paper [2.82 MB, pdf] “analyzes residential consumer usage of broadband and the performance of fixed broadband connections in the U.S.”

This paper is organized into three sections: the first looks at how residential consumers use their internet access service and classifies consumers into four user profiles; the second looks at the performance of U.S. consumers’ broadband connections; and, the third explains how the data led to the FCC’s National Broadband Plan target of 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps up.

Although the data is from the U.S., there are many points that are likely highly portable to Canada. Much has been made of download caps from the internet service providers. The FCC found that that the median user consumed 1.7 GB/month, while the average (mean) U.S. Internet user consumed 9.2 GB/month. The extreme between the mean and median was explained by the FCC as principally due to a relatively small number of users who consume very large amounts of data each month – sometimes as high as terabytes per month.

The most data-intensive 1% of residential consumers appear to account for roughly 25% of all traffic, the top 3% consume 40%, the top 10% consume 70%, and the top 20% of users consume 80% of all data. While half of all users consume less than 2 GB per month, the last 6% of users consume more than 15 GB each month.

These results are from a country that already has streaming TV services like Hulu and Netflix.

Important quantitative data that can hopefully contribute to the dialog on broadband services evolution on both sides of the border.

Why would we censor electronic communications that are completely legal in paper form?

This question continues to trouble me.

I received mail at my cottage last week – advertising that was addressed to me. I don’t have a mail box. All of my utility bills, tax notices etc. are sent to my home. But the post office delivered the mail to my neighbour who handed the junk mail to me.

So, some company bought a mailing list and sent me an addressed letter advertising specials that I might be interested in. Sure, it is junk mail. But there is nothing fraudulent about it. The advertiser is a real company. I didn’t ask to be on their mailing list, but I opened the letter and even thought about whether I might be interested in their product.

The direct mail piece was completely legal.

But if Canada’s Electronic Commerce Protection Act [an Orwellian named bill] gets re-introduced and passed, I find it bizarre that we will have a class of otherwise legal communications forbidden – censored – just because it is in electronic form.

It isn’t spam: this isn’t a case of mail that is trying to hide the identity of the sender; or, trying to sell illegal goods; or, misrepresent the product. All electronic communications that aren’t specifically requested will be banned. So much for encouraging businesses to lower their costs through an electronic equivalent of direct mail.

We have so many people who argue that we should not censor electronic communications that are illegal in paper form. Where do they stand on the issue of bannishing electronic transmission of legal communications?

I continue to wonder how this provision of the Electronic Commerce Protection Act is really going to encourage electronic commerce.

The Pew Internet and American Life Project provides wonderful insights into trends in broadband adoption and attitudes for our neighbours south of the border.

The 2010 Report [pdf, 2.2MB] was released last week and the headline from Engadget observed that “Pew study finds majority of Americans don’t want government to prioritize affordable broadband.”

we have to imagine researchers might have seen this coming. Those with broadband don’t need it, those without it don’t want it.

It is a telling statistic – that should concern those who are looking to build enthusiasm for national or regional digital strategies.

The US is seeing a drop-off in adoption rates now that residential broadband penetration has reached two-thirds of American adults. But policy makers need to understand what is causing the lack of support for increasing adoption to the remaining third of the population.

Digital literacy remains a concern.

A fifth of American adults (21%) do not use the internet. Many non-users think online content is not relevant to their lives and they are not confident they could use computers and navigate the web on their own.

What information can be extrapolated for Canada? Is broadband access too much of a focus, when education and skills training appear to be holding back even more users?

Can we explore similar research being conducted in Canada?

Have you noticed that computers never seem to work as fast as they do the first day you take them out of the box?

Want to fix that?

Working from my northern office, I have gained an appreciation for the challenges faced by small businesses that are hours away from the hundreds of specialty computer stores that we take for granted in the cities. Within a few minutes from my office in the city, I can visit a number of shops that can sell every accessory or replacement part for my computers – from disk drives, to memory, monitors or media – and ‘my guy’ is always willing to take a quick look when a problem arises.

Over the weekend, Muskoka celebrated the grand opening of the first Staples store to come to Bracebridge , bringing office supplies and business services (at city price levels) to cottage country.

I also discovered an application that seems to have succeeded in finding system problems and restoring the cottage computers to faster speeds. One of our computers had just started generating Windows infamous blue screens of death thanks to a hiccup in the video driver.

System Mechanic has the machines singing again. If you’re having problems, let me suggest that you give it a try.

Much has been written about the Google – Verizon joint policy proposal for reasonable internet traffic management practices [release from Google here, Legislative Framework Proposal here], which was really a continuation of the work identified in January in their joint letter to the FCC.

I observed that the companies appear to recognize that American consumers and the US industry are disadvantaged by not having a non-discrimination provision set out for FCC enforcement. As I have pointed out before, the US lacks an equivalent to Canada’s Section 27(2) of the Telecom Act.

Google’s position has evolved over the past two years, as it indicates in its release of the joint proposal:

we have listened to all sides of the debate, engaged in good faith with policy makers in multiple venues, and challenged each other to craft a balanced policy framework.

I looked at Google’s position in December 2008, reflecting on Google’s clarification of its evolving position.

Google had set out a position as part of the Open Internet Coalition (OIC) [comments – doc and final argument – pdf] in the CRTC’s proceeding that led to its landmark internet traffic management policy. Google’s thinking on the handling of specific types of traffic management practices is an obvious evolution.

Last year, the OIC said “the Commission should require that any application specific ITMP undergo an ex ante review of the practice against our proposed test.”

Now, Google is acknowledging that certain classes of traffic can reasonably be managed differently

Reasonable network management includes any technically sound practice … to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency…

Further, it no longer calls for prior regulatory approval, instead calling for enforcement on a case-by-case basis.

In Google’s New Media submission nearly two years ago, the company referred to Canadians’ leadership in adoption of a number of internet applications (such as social networking). Has the CRTC’s global leadership in dealing with net neutrality helped influence the direction of an industry consensus for US regulatory policy? At the time, Google’s submission attracted attention from its Californistic reference to keeping the internet “awesome”.

The more significant quote in that same paragraph may have actually been the second sentence: “The Commission should resist the temptation to try to fix what is not broken.”