Tuesday, August 30, 2011
When I read in the news this morning that a new deal was reached to provide broadband access to never-before-serviced areas of Egypt, I got excited.  That is, until I read the sub-heading.  It seems that Egyptsat and Skylogic have reached a deal reported over $20 Million to provide satelite broadband to rural Egypt.

First of all, to be fair we have note that the term "rural" as it applies to a desert climate is not quite the same as when we use it in the U.S.  Over half of Egypt has a population density averaging 5 people or less per square mile.  of course, that doesn't mean there are households of 5 every mile.  It means there are communities of 500 that are 100 miles apart.

So, when columnist Robert Briel reported that the deal would "provide broadband services to users beyond reach of terrestrial or wireless networks across Egypt" it's not too hard to imagine the accuracy of his statement.  Remember that even wireless broadband needs wires as a backbone.  It would seem obvious, then, that satellite broadband is the only answer.

But what have we forgotten?  What about the costs to install thousands of satellite dishes?  Maintain them?  Service them?  Will a customer be served well over time to have invested in a dish that will need replaced every 3 to 5 years (or more frequently in the desert climate).  When we consider the long-term cost of the local access amortized over time, the reality is that laying a grid of fiber today could pay for itself in under a decade--which is less than 1/3rd it's expected service life.  Is VSAT the best option that rural Egypt really has?

Labels: Egypt Internet, Fixed Wireless Broadband, satellite broadband, VSAT

posted by Unknown at 6:59 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Thursday, August 25, 2011
When I think of all the ways to try and communicate to people why fixed wireless broadband is a technology that demands investment for rural areas, this infographic speaks volumes (courtesy of IIA).

---

Labels: Fixed Wireless Broadband, Rural Broadband

posted by Unknown at 7:38 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Growing up, to get a job at McDonald's meant you would learn a lot.  Sure, it was a thankless job, but it gave a teenager the chance to learn about responsibility, customer service, taking orders, counting money, and generally the ways of the world.  Broadband, and all the business systems that it empowers, is about to change that.

Fast food chains like McDonald's are realizing the efficiency of specialization more and more.  What if the staff at the restaurant didn't need to operate an order-entry system?  What if the back-room at a restaurant was simply an on-site production unit staffed only to meet the needs of food production in-store? 

How could that work?

Simple.  The drive up ordering microphone simply connects you via VoIP to an order-taker at a call-center in Dubai, or perhaps in his/her own home office.  The order is entered into the computer and displayed to the people in the shop for them to assemble.  Specialization!

But how far can this go?  Restaurants are just one example of a localized business unit with on-site staff for everything from production to finance.  What about banks?  Why do tellers need to be on-site?  I remember the first time that I visited a bank where -- for security purposes -- tellers communicated with me via closed-circuit television from behind a brick wall.  Why not across town, or across an ocean?  If one person can be trained to do nothing but appointment-setting, then countless chairs behind the window at doctors and dentists offices could be found vacant--replaced with an off-site specialist.

The point is this: as broadband connects the world at higher and higher speeds, there is less and less of a need for each site, each franchise, each individual store to staff on-site for business operations that can be entered elsewhere.  Where else could your job be done, and for how many sites could one person do it if that's all they had to focus on?

Labels: Broadband

posted by Unknown at 5:14 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Jeffrey Carlisle, EVP of Regulatory Affairs for the controversial new broadband provider, LightSquared, made a suprising statement yesterday.  In referencing a recommendation by the National Executive Committe for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, & Timing (that's a mouthful) to the FCC, Carlisle said it “should be given no weight by the commission.”  Which, on the surface sounds harsh, but begs the question: who, then, can policy-makers trust?

Carlisle's argument is not unintelligent.  The board's recommendation that the FCC should refuse LightSquared's use of spectrum previously dominated by satellites was reached before LightSquared announced it's plans to avert any ill-effects of their technology.  Carlisle also pointed out that the board, while having an impressive title, does not write policy or have any real "power" over executive decision. 

What Carlisle didn't include in his appeal (and wisely so, perhaps) is the fact that this "National Executive Committee" consists primarily of private-sector agents representing the interests of businesses who stand to be affected by LightSquared's new technology.  Why does that matter?  It means that Carlisle and LightSquared cannot be slanted as the only party in this matter with financial motives at heart.  The FCC must decide what's just and what's best for the nation's communication infrastructure realizing that both their National Executive Committee and LightSquared's appeals have commercial motives.

The trouble is: whose advice can the FCC trust?  The reality is that the best and brightest minds in a capitalist world will be employed in the private sector.  So, when the government needs unbiased and highly technical analysis, who will perform it? 

I don't envy the FCC's role in making this decision. Whichever direction they decide to go, much criticism will befall them.  If the businesses dependent on satellite technology suffer because of the FCC's decision to permit LightSquared to proceed, age-old industries will be at risk.  However, the FCC also stands the potential err of protecting established industry at the cost of single-handedly destroying an innovating tech start-up.  Quite honestly, that prospect scares me. 

The answer, perhaps, lies in the T-Com industry at-large.  Competitors, vendors, and allies of LightSquared should consider sending their own suggestions and feedback to FCC regulators.  Unbiased and biased alike, if the FCC is to make a just ruling, then more input may be required for a wide range of sources.  Fortunately, the FCC has invited you to do just that.  Via the website reboot.FCC.gov, you can submit feedback directly to the FCC regarding this and any other matters.  So, I encourage you: consider the matter, compose your thoughts, and submit the feedback.

Labels: Broadband, FCC, lightsquared, tcom

posted by Unknown at 8:34 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments