Monday, November 21, 2011
The FCC, with support from several cable companies, has announced a new program called ConnecttoCompete. Families that qualify would be able to receive broadband access for less than $10 a month, including no installation or modem rental fees, as well as opportunities to purchase low-cost computers (in the $150-$250 range). To be considered, a household must not be a current broadband subscriber and must have a child enrolled in a federal free- or reduced-lunch program. It’s no secret that access to broadband is a necessary component for underserved kids to stay competitive in future job markets. A recent Federal Reserve study noted that graduation rates for kids with computers and broadband access at home had a six to eight percentage point higher graduation rate than those without these tools. Access to technology is a requirement to compete. But what makes this program so exciting is that it’s funded largely by the private sector. Other current or upcoming programs that use public funds to subsidize the large communications companies have found justifiable resistance. Budgets are already tight and the general public is working hard enough to support themselves. Extra taxes and fees on existing bills tend to make people angry. By delivering ConnecttoCompete via private funds – and because the students who benefit are likely to one day work for these private sector companies – the program is, in essence, a form of investment. Now the key is to see how fast it can be implemented. What do you think about the program?

Labels: Broadband, FCC

posted by Unknown at 8:58 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Monday, November 14, 2011
No matter what side of the argument you’re on, the FCC’s decision to redirect funds to subsidize rural broadband access was a step in the right direction. The status quo was no longer working. But a new complaint has now entered the discussion.

Civil rights groups are upset because they feel that some of the money that has been earmarked for the new rural broadband fund should be going to the Lifeline program. Lifeline is a $1.2 billion program that offers low-income citizens credits to help pay for their phone bills. These groups feel that the money to help the poor would, in total, benefit more people than those with broadband needs in rural areas.

It’s an interesting argument. Some statistics indicate that there are a lot more people currently with the wiring necessary to get broadband who just can’t afford it, than those without access at all. But even if they had the money, would they subscribe?

The debate then boils down to what segment of people is in a worse situation. People with low education, low income, and high poverty live in both rural and urban environments. How should the government best spend its money?

Obviously, this is just speculation. The funds have already been approved for rural broadband extension, so the argument is, essentially, too little, too late. But dismissing the complaints of the civil rights groups without full consideration of merit would be flippant. Without politics getting in the way, figuring out which group of people is truly more in need would be a fascinating study.

What do you think?

Labels: Economy, FCC, Rural Broadband

posted by Unknown at 5:34 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Monday, November 7, 2011
Last week’s post discussed the FCC’s decision to end the obsolete Universal Service Fun and replace it with a new fund focused on subsidizing increased rural broadband access. One of the new fund’s requirements is that providers create a network that allows for 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload speeds. Despite what some might say, that’s not fast.

Need proof? Consider this: Competitive Companies Inc. (CCI) just announced that it has deployed its 4G+ Mobile Broadband technology with average mobile broadband speeds exceeding 25 Mbps. And that’s a conservative number. Company CEO William Gray said that download speeds could ultimately be more than 100 Mbps, far faster than anything currently on the market.

Here’s how it works: To deliver 4G+ speeds, CCI uses Wytec, Incorporated’s patented Multichannel Radio Frequency Transmission (MRFT) technology. By combining that with cognitive radio and macro-diversity technology,a Group Cooperative Relay, mesh network architecture, and frequency banding, CCI can deliver super-fast broadband.The cost of delivery is also less because CCI manages spectrum use and administers transmission power.

Back to speed. On one hand, the government is pushing old technology that requires certain speeds that many would consider irrelevant. On the other hand, you have companies developing technologies that are faster, cheaper, adaptable, and easier to implement. The bottom line is that there’s a disconnect between what’s necessary and what’s possible. The FCC needs to start thinking more in terms of the latter.

Labels: 4G, Broadband Speed, FCC, Fixed Wireless Broadband

posted by Unknown at 9:20 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Last week the FCC officially ended the Universal Service Fund, which subsidized traditional phone service, and replaced it with a new fund to subsidize broadband. The FCC bigwigs hailed the change as a history-changing decision.

Unfortunately, it’s not.

Yes, the change was needed. The Universal Service Fund was no longer a viable option because it focused on voice service. But the FCC move is still essentially subsidizing the large carriers, only this time so they can build out more rural broadband capabilities. The problem is that the changes, though positive in spirit, will likely have little impact.

The new fund requires that carriers build out a system that enables 4 Mbps downstream and 1Mbps upstream capability. That’s anything but fast. For the rural broadband user the new regulations are supposed to help, that kind of speed isn’t enough.Four down and one up is already borderline obsolete. Those requirements are also curious when you consider that rural broadband models currently exist at five-to-seven times that speed. The capability is there.

The main argument for rural broadband access is that extension of the networks to the underserved areas will open up economic opportunities. Studies already conducted indicate that outcome is unlikely. As much as someone might enjoy living the rural lifestyle, businesses still need to be able to compete. Old technology isn’t going to spur entrepreneurial ventures and job creation.

So what’s the solution? Is it increased governmental change? Or is it wiser to bet on the private wireless and cloud-based providers? Considering it took years to dissolve the Universal Service Fund, I’d put my scratch on the leaner organizations.

Labels: FCC, Fixed Wireless Broadband, Rural Broadband

posted by Unknown at 6:42 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments