FCC Asks: What's the Impact of Rural Broadband on the Economy?
First and foremost: bravo! Twice in one year we've reported on the federal government soliciting feedback from the business community on its plans for the future (the last time being when the NTIA requested feedback on rural broadband). There's something heart-warming to see government working in such a way.
Yes, indeed, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is asking for comments from for-profit businesses, non-profit organizations, and economic development programs around the nation. As congress prepares to hear a bill next February on the FCC's famed Broadband Plan, the commission is going to dig deep for some hard numbers to back up their proposed needs for the nation.
Specifically, the FCC is asking about what does exist and what would be required. Can people access broadband at libraries and community colleges? If so, are they. And if not, what level of broadband is needed in a rural community in order to actually attract new business--and thereby jobs--to that community? What bitrates are required? Redundancy? And, on the docket we also find the question: is wireless broadband a viable solution?
As we consider how to get broadband access to the rural areas of the United States, there's an obvious economic incentive to go wireless--no, not just the stimulus money. It's less expensive to implement, faster to get live, and easier to build redundancy. But, I dare say that the FCC already knows all of that. What they want to know is, after it's implemented, live, and redundant--will it meet the demand? With ever-increasing speeds, network coverage, and security, it's safe to say "yes." What many fail to realize is that this is not your average air card anymore.
In early November, AT&T took legal action against Verizon for what they call misleading advertising which allegedly made false claims about AT&T coverage. You have probably seen the ads in question (an example shown below). In a recent ad campaign, Verizon has taken their longstanding emphasis on network coverage to a level of direct comparison. The popular "can you hear me now" campaigns implied Verizon's general advantage over their competitors. But, the "there's a map for that" campaign directly references AT&T coverage maps, and the slogan cannot be mistook as anything but a spoof on recent iPhone advertising--a popular product of the AT&T network. But did they go too far?
First, let's understand what is at the heart of this issue. Is Verizon posting inaccurate or false claims about AT&T? Not exactly. And AT&T doesn't claim that they are. The injunctions sought are on the basis, not of technical accuracy, but of a misleading presentation. The maps displayed only depict 3G coverage, not overall coverage. The map of AT&T coverage has notably less color than Verizon's. "Through the use of a coverage map in [Verizon] ads, they suggest through all white or blank space, not only that AT&T doesn't offer 3G coverage but no coverage at all," spokesman Mark Siegel said in an interview. "That's misleading and that's why we filed the lawsuit."
Misleading. That is the root issue. After Wilt Chamberlain's famed 100-point game in 1962, a no-name teammate reportedly said in an interview, "Wilt and I teamed up to score 101 points that game." The teammate had hit a free-throw. Accurate? Yes. Misleading? Indeed. Now, AT&T must now show a federal judge that Verizon misled in much the same manner--by not presenting all the facts. My mother taught me that a partial truth is not necessarily truth.
But, the other questions is the question of intent. Wilt's teammate intended to mislead. But what Verizon will try to demonstrate (or should, in my non-expert legal opinion) is that they did not launch this campaign with the intent to mislead. In Verizon's ads the company does clearly mark the maps as "AT&T 3G Coverage" and "Verizon Wireless 3G Coverage." The courts will have to answer the question: could the viewing audience surmise by these maps that AT&T has no coverage outside the colored regions?
With both companies having invested heavily in their market share, advertising, and in their respective network infrastructures, there is no doubt that much is at stake. Truthfully, I'm pleased to see the improvements that such fierce competition has spurred in our nation's Tcom markets, as well as the due process by which any party can be assured of "fair play" in business competition. I'm anxious to see the decision (and as split as I am on the issue, glad it's not mine to make).
There's been plenty of talk on Capital Hill and all throughout the blogosphere about the economy, the stimulus, and broadband. But a recent survey coming from the UK revealed a totally different side to this debate than I had ever seen before. Could you imagine real estate sales being affected by broadband infrastructure? I can.
According to a survey from ISPreview.co.uk, broadband speeds could help or hinder home sales. According to the article, "from 721 respondents to our latest monthly survey reveal that 75% of readers would not buy a house, even a lovely one, if the best broadband ISP speed it could achieve was just 1Mbps." This presents a not-so-obvious connection among seemingly unrelated economic trends.
Now, although these are largely UK respondents, a sampling of US buyers would likely show similar trends. Working from that assumption, there are a few alarming insights to be gained. First, the simple fact that this trait of a home is not something the seller can fix. Thanks to HGTV and the like, we're all becoming familiar with concepts like home-staging, flipping, fix-ups, etc. But if you're in a rural area with no broadband access, or even an urban area with poor access, your options for making your house more marketable are slim in this area.
Second, and perhaps more alarming, is the standards which we in the U.S. hold. Note that 75% of readers in the UK would NOT buy the house with 1 Mbps. That's nearly 250 Kbps faster than our current "standard" for broadband in the U.S. But, to the UK consumer, that is an unacceptable downstream speed. Now, there are a lot of factors to consider in setting the bar for what constitutes broadband speed, but the fact remains, other nations have set the bar considerably higher than the U.S. How far away are we from catching up?
As we consider the future of broadband infrastructure in the U.S., we have to think of the ripple effects that a lack of broadband can have on a community. Businesses cannot compete. Education is hindered. And, homes can't sell. And, without question the technology that can most quickly deliver broadband to rural communities is fixed wireless.
It's that time again: IT upgrades. The purchasing department wants bottom-dollar, but you know better than that. How long will it last? Can we get signal (believe it or not, the wireless broadband antenna technology makes a huge difference)? What's the throughput that it can handle?
According to independent market research firm, In-Stat, speed, security, and range are the top concerns among buyers. In-Stat recently published their research results pertaining to the purchasing decisions for Broadband Customer Premise Equipment (CPE). Not surprising, brand name was actually low on the list. Many companies today don't even trust a brand's reputation without first testing the equipment in their own environment.
So, according to the experts, speed tops the list. Can the hardware we're talking about handle the number of users on my network? The bandwidth we require? Most importantly, is the speed reliable. If the upstream and downstream speeds are high for half of the day, but unexpectedly and unpredictably hit peaks and valleys based on either signal strength, interferences, or usage spikes, that could be a big deterrent for many companies.
Range also tops the list. With fixed wireless broadband, there are a lot of factors to consider. RF interference, distance to the nearest tower, geographic barriers, and even the physical makeup of the location. Accel Networks has faced incredibly difficult scenarios at locations with high security--which basically means thick concrete and steel walls.
But, most notable at the top of this list is the demand for security. Ever since major network news magazines began warning consumers of the danger in wireless internet at their home (neighbors able to access sensitive data) everyone is keenly aware that passing company data over the airwaves can be problematic. Accel Networks offers layer 2 wireless broadband solutions--the standard required by the PCI-DSS.
So, what do you care about? When considering wireless broadband hardware (or services) does a big name impress? Are higher costs for higher dependability worth it? Do In-Stat's stats represent your mind?
