Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Sattelite Broadband - The Canadian Game Changer?
For many Canadians, October 18 can’t come soon enough. On that day, North America’s first 4G broadband satellite will launch into space.
ViaSat-1 is designed to provide a fast and affordable broadband connection to Canadians, including many in remote areas. Not only does the satellite have capacity to support download speeds of up to 25 Mbps, but all current North American broadband satellites combined don’t boast the total capacity of ViaSat-1. An estimated 1.5 million customers who thus far have had little or no access will now be able to take advantage of broadband services and all its social and economic advantages.
Sounds great, right? But consider the following: Canada’s largest provider of rural broadband access, Xplornet Communications, has purchased 100 percent of the Ka-band capacity on the satellite. Xplornet already has a national, fixed-wireless 4G network, and plans are in place to launch a second 4G satellite next year.
You can look at this information one of two ways. First, Xplornet is going to single-handedly eliminate the Canadian rural divide, long a hot-button issue. The other, more conspiratorial perspective, questions how wise it is for one company to have such overwhelming dominance of the market.
Other countries, like France, Australia, Germany, and India have already determined that 4G satellite broadband, with its speed and increased capacity is the key to providing affordable access for everyone. But is it prudent for any nation to allow one company that much power?
What’s your perspective on this substantial shift?
Labels: Canada Broadband, Rural Broadband, satellite broadband
posted by Unknown at 5:53 AM
Link to this Article
0 Comments
###
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
A Global Broadband Conundrum
In a post a few weeks ago, I discussed the
growing broadbandaccess divide between urban and rural areas in the United States. Some believe it’s imperative that access be expanded to rural areas to bridge the information gap and improve economic opportunities. Others feel the focus should be on improving the quality of access in more densely populated areas.
A report issued this week by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) adds a new layer to that discussion. According to the report, the broadband access gap between countries is also increasing. South Korea sits at the top of the list in terms of communication technology, followed by several European nations.
The United States dropped three spots in this year's report, coming in at number 17. According to the ITU, the U.S. has lower, "penetration rates for mobile cellular subscriptions and households with computer and Internet."
The average American citizen averages 27Megabits/second of Internet bandwidth to their name. In comparison, the average European citizen has an estimated 77 Mb/s. Pretty substantial.
Now the questions becomes the following: If the United States is to try and keep up--or even improve--on a global level, what is the best strategy? Is it better to extend broadband access within the U.S. to these remote areas, or is the country better served by improving the infrastructure where the majority of people are clustered? Who’s the better customer? Of particular importance is the age of these potential target markets. Younger people are more likely to adapt to technology.
What’s your perspective?
Labels: Fixed Wireless Broadband, Rural Broadband, Rural Broadband Access
posted by Unknown at 10:41 AM
Link to this Article
0 Comments
###
Monday, September 12, 2011
Swapping the Spectrum
In his American Jobs Act speech to Congress last week, President Obama presented the idea of incentive auctions to generate money for paying down the deficit while freeing up space for wireless broadband on the broadcast spectrum.
An incentive auction, in this scenario, would be when a wireless broadband company pays a television station to give up their license to broadcast on a specific frequency. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would oversee the process at a cost.
The President says the plan would increase broadband availability while creating jobs. Supporters also believe that a large chunk of the television spectrum should be earmarked for wireless broadband use because of the increasing prevalence of smart phones and tablet computers. Those devices need space to operate. Opponents argue that incentive auctions would lead to fewer free-to-consumer TV stations and hurt the over-the-air market.
Both sides have a point. The need for wireless broadband access is only going to increase. If space is out there not being used – and realistically may not be used in the near future – why not make it useful? On the other hand, pay television companies have been increasing their rates to consumers for years. Content creators are finding new, less expensive ways to market directly to the general public. For the “cut the cord” movement to work, the broadcast spectrum has to accommodate the over-the-air signals.
And so the debate continues. What do you think is more valuable, broadband availability or space on the broadcast spectrum?
Labels: Broadband, FCC, spectrum
posted by Unknown at 6:28 AM
Link to this Article
0 Comments
###
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
The Rural Divide
The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced last week that telecommunications companies in 16 states would receive federal funding to expand broadband Internet access in rural areas. More than $103 million – $90 million from infrastructure loans, the rest supplied by the USDA’s Community Connect grants program – will be shared by Alabama, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
The funding is intended to minimize the information gap between urban and rural areas. Recent reports estimate that 1 in 10 American’s don’t have access to a quality Internet connection. An FCC report titled Bringing Broadband to Rural America reported that 28% of rural America, or about 19 million people, have insufficient Internet access.
The logic behind the funding is this: Without access to a quality broadband connection, people in these rural areas have reduced economic opportunities. In addition, the educational infrastructure suffers. Proponents argue that, long-term, younger people won’t stay in these remote areas without quality connectivity.
But would they stay anyway?
For the sake of argument, consider the following: If there were no jobs or growth opportunities in an area, would the people in that area flee no matter where they were located? People will always search for a better way of life. If you choose to live in a remote part of the country, is it the government’s responsibility to provide you with the connectivity comforts of a more populated area?
What’s your take on the subject? Are the potential downstream economic advantages worth the associated costs?Labels: Fixed Wireless Broadband, Rural Broadband, USDA
posted by Unknown at 7:26 AM
Link to this Article
0 Comments
###
