Tuesday, May 31, 2011
The first thing that anyone might think of when they think of wiring a building for broadband is copper, fiber, or perhaps twisted pair.  But first, you have to think of access.  Will they hang overhead, or be buried deep below?  Both have their pros and cons, but what some retailers find is that sometimes nether will suit.  Whether it's the complications of zoning or the shear cost of access, sometimes wires aren't a viable option. 

For example, as commercial real estate becomes scarce, many new edifices can be found corners of what used to be parking lots for major shopping centers.  Will you trench through the asphalt?  Not likely.  And, simple as it may sound, with the popularity of buried fiber, piggy-backing your broadband connection on the poles overhead still begs the question: how do we go from underground to overhead? 

Bud Morgan, Director of Technology for Romulus, Inc. is a 20-year veteran of the IT industry keeping the company's ever-expanding IHOP franchise base (now up to 35 locations across 3 states) connected and online. In February 2007, however, he found himself navigating such a "concrete jungle" as he called it.  When wires weren't an option, he considered satellite.  But, thankfully he discovered fixed wireless broadband and Accel Networks' solutions.  Today, Bud trusts Accel more and more because of their ease-of-deployment, uptime, and PCI compliance. 

When your company plots to build in a concrete jungle, you don't have to worry about the cost to connect.  Consider Accel Networks' fixed wireless broadband and compare the costs.  You might be surprised.

Labels: Fixed Wireless Broadband, Retail

posted by Unknown at 2:08 PM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Friday, May 27, 2011
This Monday, I couldn't believe the news.  Joplin, MO was hit hard by a devastating tornado, and severe weather was still on the horizon.  But, as the week has gone by, there's more to this story than just devastation.  I've been encouraged, as usual in this great nation, by the charity of others who have traveled across the country to come lend aid.

Among the corporate responders, Verizon Wireless pitched in to help in a less obvious way: cell towers.  On Monday, Verizon reported that they would be sending 3 temporary cell towers to Joplin and coordinating with emergency management to determine the best sites.  Why?  To meet one of the most basic human needs that this tornado stripped from so many: community.

Communication between emergency responders is almost always 2-way radio.  Cell towers may offer some benefit to the recovery effort, but more importantly, Verizon says it is for the families affected "so that they can contact family, friends and loved ones."  No news yet as to the data capacity of these temporary towers, nor whether they'll support 3G broadband access in addition to voice coverage.  If they do, then this would open up the possibility for even deeper connectivity via Facebook, Twitter, MMS messaging, and the like. 

In addition, Verizon has also committed a slew of mobile charging stations.  These generator-powered stations supply the second vital component to wireless connectivity: power.  Phones need recharging and these stations will afford residents in the area the ability to do just that in a time when utilities may be weeks from being restored.

We'd like to thank Verizon for this gesture that reminds us not only how charitable people can be, but just how important connectivity has become to our society.

Labels: Cell Towers, Joplin, Verizon

posted by Unknown at 9:56 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Risks of broadband?  There's a risk to having your office, store, or home connected to high-speed internet?  That's what Peter Radizeski tells us in his take on the FCC's recent comments.  Citing a Symantec stat [or, propaganda, depending on who you ask] Radizeski reminds readers that "The average cost of each cyber attack to small and medium sized businesses is nearly $200,000."  Does this give you pause?  Should it?  Let's consider.

First, I must admit that it's somewhat refreshing to hear a counter-argument for broadband.  With all the dialogue these days, it can be assumed that the need for broadband is a foregone conclusion in business, leaving the only problem left unsolved how to get it.  Radizeski reminds us to consider the pro's and con's. 

Nonetheless, I'm not inclined to think that this Symantec statistic should deter a business owner from investing in broadband, nor the government form encouraging broadband delivery as a means to economic development.  Here's why:

1. The statistic itself needs to be scrutinized.  Is the average cost of a cyber-attack really $200,000?  What does that entail?  How much of that figure is comprised of conjecture over the lost-time, lost-data, etc. that could all be skewed grossly?
2. What's the probability of a cyber attack of this scale?  Symantec also stated that 74% of small businesses suffer cyber attacks.  If that's true, and the $200,000 figure is to be accepted, that would translate to a contention that small businesses spend ON AVERAGE $148,000 against cyber attacks.  Is that annually, or over the course of a business' lifetime?  
3. Finally... and most importantly... Is this a false-correlation?  Are having broadband-speed internet connection and being subject to cyber attack mutually exclusive?  Not at all!  If my computer screeches and beeps while a modem dials up at 56k, I run the exact same risk of getting a virus or being hacked.  

Ultimately, my conclusion remains that broadband is a phenomenal investment for economic development.  Admittedly, I put the FCC's statement that "A recent study found that having a broadband connection makes a $200,000 a year difference in median annual revenues for businesses, by helping them reach new markets and increasing productivity" under less scrutiny than I have Symantec's, but I do find it far more believable and useful.  As our nation's economy continues to rebound, we cannot let the fear of success and progress hinder our efforts.

Labels: Broadband, cyber attack, Economy

posted by Unknown at 10:02 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Can the idea of using satellites for Rural Broadband really fly?  That's what the RuMBA is asking, and the industry seems up in arms over their conclusion.  The Rural Mobile and Broadband Alliance, or RuMBA for short, released a whitepaper last week detailing the feasibility (or lack thereof) of satellite service as a broadband upline to rural subscribers.

The whitepaper cited, among other things, latency and bandwidth issues.  Latency, in addition to affecting speed in general, makes communication such as VoIP veritably useless over satellite.  And the bandwidth is a simple matter of how many nodes (satellites) there are to service the subscribers and their data demands.  The whitepaper concluded that the capabilities of satellite as a broadband service fall far short of the FCC standards for "broadband" and further would be unsuitable to meet the standard broadband demands such as cloud back-up solutions, realtime video streaming, and other constant high-bandwidth uses.

But proponents of satellite companies are not so happy with the research, calling it biased and innacurate.  Connected Planet points out that satellite companies are enhancing their protocols as we speak to improve on the bandwidth and latency issues.  The article in response to the whitepaper articulates a position that is none-too-pleased with the ommission of these details in the RuMBA's research.

First of all, let's be clear: research surrounding feasibility cannot be based on announced plans that haven't even made their way into production yet.  The fact that several sattelite companies have received stimulus money to invest in improving bandwidth doesn't mean they've done it (they haven't) and cannot be expected to weigh on the conclusions of academic research.

But secondly, can anyone really improve the latency problem?  Satellites travel roughly 1000 miles above the earth's surface.  Now, at first glance, that doesn't seem like much.  It's less than half the distance from New York to LA, and there's relatively low latency on that data journey.  But that's assuming the satellite is directly overhead.  Your chances of that ever happening are roughly 1 in 3.6 Million.  Most of the time, you will be connecting at an obtuse angle to the satellite.  Distances to the node can be 3 to 4x the distance the satellite is from the earth.  And that's just to your first node.  From there, the signal then must be relayed back to earth again.

Short of finding lower orbits or increasing the speed at which radio waves travel, the latency issue for satellite broadband will be insurmountable.  Considering the fact that both of these solutions would be physically impossible, I would have to agree with the findings of the RuMBA's whitepaper.  If rural subscribers are going to enjoy broadband access, it's going to ride waves, but it won't ride them all the way to orbit and back. 

Fixed Wireless Broadband connects to the first terrestrial node within a few miles of signal origination.  Latency is a non-issue.  And as for bandwidth, the federal stimulus money allocated to wireless broadband is not only greater than that of satellite, it's also being implemented in more towers and upgrades as we speak.  The solution to rural broadband is decidedly found in wireless.


posted by Unknown at 10:39 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, May 3, 2011
The state of Missouri is asking its residents a silly question in May.  Surveys are being sent to approximately 44,000 people in the state's most rural communities to determine two things that they see crucial to their broadband expansion plans:
 1) How much do you use the internet?
 2) Would you use high-speed (broadband)?

Now, those are two silly questions for a lot of reasons.  First, from a survey and data analysis standpoint, it's erroneous to ask an audience how much they currently use a given product when part of the reason for the survey in the first place is the lack of availability of that product.  It's like asking starving people how much they eat, then determining their rations based on that number.  It's not how much is presently consumed that matters, its the demand -- however un-met -- that truly matters. 

Second, gauging the interest in high-speed broadband connection is perhaps less silly, but certainly needs to be framed correctly in order to be useful.  Again, asking the starving person if they'd like a meal is folly.  Of course, the answers will be unanimously yes.  Instead, a survey of this nature should try to place a value on that un-met need.  Rather than asking openly, "do you want it?"  What if we asked, "How much would you be willing to pay for it?" 

That last question gets to the heart of the issue.  See, Missouri already (yes, prior to finding the survey results in the first place) has set a plan in place to make broadband available to 95% if the state's residents by 2014.  Much of that will be delivered via grants, favorable loans, federal stimulus and tax abatements all designed to incentivize private enterprise to enter a market they have otherwise avoided for reasons of profitability.  What if the survey could help to substantiate some level of consumer demand in these unreached rural broadband areas?  The long term solution to rural broadband will not be 100% subsidy, but the cost-effective means of delivering a service that is in demand at a price that the market will bear. 

Labels: Internet, Rural Broadband, Rural Broadband Access

posted by Unknown at 7:03 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments