The feedback is coming in fast from the Federal Communication Commission's request for a definition of broadband, and the message from big cable is clear. The last thing it wants is a standard that defines ISP service by real-time performance. "The Commission should continue to look at maximum advertised speed rather than some measure of 'actual' speed," advised the National Cable and Telecommunications Association in its response to the FCC's call for input.

This counsel was prompted by an observation that the Commission made in its request for comments—that debates over defining broadband tend to focus on stated download and upload throughput. "But neither is precise or diverse enough to describe broadband satisfactorily," the agency noted. "For example, advertised throughput rates generally differ from actual rates, are not uniformly measured, and have different constraints over different technologies" (we've got a feature on this issue here).

Define as delivered

The minimal requirements for broadband access can look very different, depending on the beholder. And for disability rights groups, the baseline looks very different than it does for AT&T, or even most other public interest advocates.

Most of the public interest groups that have weighed in on this issue agree that this is a real concern. "Any definition on broadband must be rooted in actual delivered speeds, because delivered speeds—not advertised speeds—influence the practical utility of the broadband connection," counsels Free Press in its filing. NCTA does not like this idea, arguing that it would be difficult to develop "a single figure that consistently and reliably describes the 'actual' speed of all types of broadband connections for all purposes."

Ditto says Comcast. While the company writes that it shares the FCC's concerns, "the actual online experience of any particular consumer at any particular moment in time involves a wide range of factors, many of which are outside the control of the Internet service provider." Given this, the cable ISP suggests that "the 'provisioned' speed is still the most useful metric in evaluating whether any particular Internet service is 'broadband.'"

Free Press acknowledges that the FCC can't be running around all day and night measuring the throughputs of ISPs. "But it can establish a standard for classifying delivered speeds," the group argues. "We suggest that such a measure would be the bandwidth that service providers can be reasonably expected to deliver to end users on their own networks during peak-use times."

It is what it does

But this sticky wicket is nothing compared to another question the FCC put to the public. Should the agency take an "application-based approach" to defining broadband? In other words, does "broadband" get you a minimum, baseline suite of capabilities? For example, I'm sitting here with a YouTube video review of the Blackberry Curve up on my Web browser, listening to the last.fm radio service, while my e-mail app filters spam. There's an FTP client dormant in the background, and BitTorrent is seeding a few copyright-unencumbered files. If I can't access one or more of these capabilities, do I still have "broadband"?

Google argues that this is real concern. "Ultimately what interests us about broadband is not what it is, but what it enables," the search engine giant writes. "Broadband should be defined to ensure that Americans have access to speeds that enable full utilization of broadband services and applications." And: "The FCC should further make clear that there must a sufficiently robust connection to permit users to receive, generate and interact with voice, data, graphics and video, which will enable users to receive the maximum value of broadband."

Minimal meanings

AT&T begs to disagree. Hold on here, the telco says in its filing. The objective outlined by Congress in its Recovery and Reconstruction Act was to ensure that Americans in un- and underserved areas had access to broadband. Sure, real-time voice, streaming video and other fancy stuff are no doubt part of the broadband experience. "But for Americans who today have no terrestrial broadband service at all, the pressing concern is not the ability to engage in real-time, two-way gaming, but obtaining meaningful access to the Internet’s resources and to reliable email communications and other basic tools that most of the country has come to expect as a given," AT&T says. "Fulfilling that need is the appropriate national priority at this time."

Broadband must be defined in way "that ensures that the Act’s goals are achievable—and that the services that are deployed are meaningful to the unserved citizens who sorely need them," AT&T says. So first, the FCC should define the "minimal set of applications" that Americans need to be integrated into the Internet economy.

And what are they? "For residential customers, that minimal set of applications should include the ability to exchange e-mails, participate in instant messaging, and engage in basic Web-browsing," AT&T says. "It also should include the ability to engage in Internet-based education programs, interact with Internet-based government services, and participate in online energy, healthcare, and public-safety programs."

But the minimal requirements for broadband access can look very different, depending on the beholder. And for disability rights groups, the baseline looks very different than it does for AT&T, or even most other public interest advocates. Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. argues that a definition of broadband will be pretty meaningless to folks with hearing issues if it doesn't encompass access to Video Relay Services, Internet-based captioned telephone services, and Web-based video captioning.

"The inclusion of captioning, along with video description services for people who are blind, for video programming distributed over the Internet is expected to increase and become the norm," TDHH writes. "As such, broadband must be defined in a manner that enables these and other access features from the outset to ensure that people with disabilities have equal access to communication, video programming, media and information."

Other public interest groups want the FCC to be cautious about this applications question. The Center for Democracy and Technology wants broadband to be defined "to include unrestricted access to the entire Internet." But an applications-based approach should not be the "primary benchmark" by which the Commission defines broadband, CDT warns. "Basing the definition of broadband on specific services available today could freeze expectations and disincentivize investment in improving networks."

Ah, Ars longs for the happy, simpler days of, well, three weeks ago, when the FCC defined "basic broadband" as 768kbps to 1.5Mbps, and that was about it. Now a whole lot of cats are out of the cyber-bag. In any event, if you want to get in on this merry mess, you can upload comments to the FCC here (the docket number for field 1, "proceeding," is 09-51).

One procedural point: you can also weigh in on this question over at blogband.gov, and over 70 commentors already have, which is great. But as blogband's Moderation Policy page notes, "commenting in this blog is not a substitute for submitting a formal comment in the record of a specific Commission proceeding." So if you want your ideas included in the official public record, you still have to upload comments the old fashioned way. Hopefully the FCC will soon make that easier too.