Tuesday, October 4, 2011
The 2009 stimulus bill earmarked more than $7 billion for broadband grant funding. Most of the money was allocated to the Commerce Department and the Agriculture Department. According to a report put together by House Republicans, of the $4 billion so far made available, only $138 million had been spent by the end of 2010. The Republicans have asked about the status of the rest of the money.

Because no clear answers have thus far been provided, the GOP is putting forth a bill this week requesting that some of thegrant money targeting broadband expansion be rescinded. And, really, why shouldn’t they?

Proponents of the funding will cry foul, lamenting that the money is necessary for building economic growth in rural areas. In fact, several political campaigns have made increased access to broadband a key campaign platform. But if the GOP report is accurate, why has so little of the money been spent? Who has oversight responsibility to ensure that projects are planned and executed properly?

Language in the report states that the lack of implementation is equivalent to, “putting the cart before the horse.” The report also raises concerns that, “some cable and phone companies believe awards have been issued for projects that substantially duplicate their existing service areas.”

Look at it another way: If you were running a business, wouldn’t you want to know that the money set aside for building your company was being used properly? The need for expanded broadband access is indisputable; the key is ensuring that the money to build the networks is applied effectively.

What’s your take on the subject?

Labels: Broadband Plan, Economy, Stimulus

posted by Unknown at 10:25 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The United Nations reported this week on a topic that many of us already take for granted: broadband is a catalyst for economic growth.  "Broadband telecommunications have the potential to spur rapid economic growth and facilitate job creation" according to the UN's position and official findings.  So naturally, they offer some advice -- nay, an imperative -- to developing nations: invest in broadband.  The UN's position is that every nation ought to have a Broadband Plan.

Sounds great, right?  You want your economy to grow, so give it the infrastructure that it needs.  Lay the cables, build the towers, and deliver both terrestrial as well as fixed wireless broadband.  But I have a philosophical question.  Is broadband a state-supplied utility?  Is it a national issue?  Is it an imperative that states can act upon as the UN would encourage? 

Perhaps it is.  I'm no history expert, but I dare say that the first telecommunication networks in the U.S. were government funded, if not even government controlled.  Telegraph cables traversed the country along railways and served largely to facilitate state activities such as military.  The first commercialization of these services were done via leasing the use of these lines from the government by private companies. 

But if developing nations are to use the already-developed nations as a model, I would say that the good old invisible hand (thank you Adam Smith) built the great broadband infrastructures that we see today in Europe and America.  Cables were not laid and cell towers built in order to create commerce, but rather they were demanded by those who understood that they could. 

So, to challenge the UN's findings that broadband leads to economic development and job creation, let me challenge this: isn't it quite the opposite?  Doesn't economic development lead to broadband by virtue of demand.  And if so, then one must ask, what really does create economic development?

Labels: Broadband Plan, Economy

posted by Unknown at 8:37 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Wednesday, August 25, 2010
At the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, a broadband summit to address the service-level divide for rural households was standing room only yesterday. Organized by U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the summit was to address the lagging availability of high-speed broadband connections in rural areas. The summit featured FCC chairman Julius Genachowski as a presenter.

Genachowski challenged that the greatest casualties of the lagging broadband are education, health care, and job creation. Calling it a "national crisis", Genachowski re-iterated the need for his National Broadband Plan, unveiled back in march, continuing to argue that regulations are needed for ISP's in the best interest of the country.

But, the statistics that Klobuchar and Genachowski presented at this summit seem weak in making their case. First, whereas only 6% of households in rural areas had high-speed internet access in 2000, that number is over 60% today. It seems that Minnesota, sans Broadband Plan, has made some incredible strides on it's own.

Moreover, Genachowski's plea that job creation and education will suffer don't seem to coincide with the demographics of this under-served rural market that still remains. Less than 20% of the households still without high-speed broadband are of retirement age. Only a fraction of those households even own a home computer. Which leads to the question: what job creation is Genachowski talking about, precisely?

Of course, the b2b side of things must also be considered--namely Genachowski's health care position. The doctors offices servicing these rural communities also suffer from similar lack of service, and health information available via the Internet is unattainable for the aging demographic identified earlier.

I cannot say that I disagree with the Broadband Plan's premise, nor Genachowski's agenda. However, it is apparent that they could use some better data in building their argument. The bottom line is: will there be enough of a benefit to our nation to warrant the cost of bringing broadband to Small Town, USA?

Labels: Broadband Plan, Rural Broadband, Rural Broadband Access

posted by Unknown at 4:51 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Thursday, July 1, 2010
We are all familiar with the famous words of our founding fathers that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (Declaration of Independence). Those are some broad sweeps describing a wide range of rights. Just what life and liberty entail can be debated, but most broad and most debatable would have to be the definition of what it means to pursue happiness.

In Finland, it would seem that this pursuit now includes the right to broadband. The Finnish government recently made broadband a basic legal right. Now, lest that seem an illogical leap for you, realize that previously the Finnish government had already ordained other communication mediums--telephony and postal services, for example--as unalienable rights for their citizens. So, the addition of broadband to that list is not too far a stretch.

As a patriotic and freedom-loving American, I have to wonder: would I welcome this sort of law in the U.S? As much criticism as has been blasted toward the FCC and their Broadband Plan, we must confess that at least the FCC (on the surface) is trying to spur private development of rural broadband, not mandate it. That is to say: it's more carrot and less stick that will drive our nation-wide and local providers to bring broadband to the rural masses.

Issues of national debt and troublesome new budgets to fund these projects aside, one does have to marvel that the greatest challenge facing our own initiative to bring broadband to everyone is the availability of spectrum. Stop and think about what that means. We're delivering so much data, so much tcom, so much news, communication, emergency broadcasts, and the like that we are running into a shortage of broadcast spectrum. It's quite a different paradigm than in other nations where broadband access is still emerging.

One thing is true: there will always be critics. But, ask yourself, how would the reaction of U.S. citizens be different if the FCC had mandated private companies to serve rural areas, as opposed to incentivizing them to do so?

Labels: Broadband Plan, FCC, Finland, Rural Broadband

posted by Unknown at 6:12 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Thursday, June 3, 2010
We've all come to know and love the nutrition labels required by the FDA for any consumed food item, right? Or, what about the stickers on all new vehicles that designate an EPA and fuel mileage rating. These federally-mandated disclosures provide valuable information for consumers. So, why not disclose broadband speeds in the same way?

That's just what the FCC is proposing. As a part of the Broadband Plan (or, what some consider an addition to the plan), the FCC has proposed some form of required disclosure that would affect all broadband providers. The data would be presented in a series of common metrics to allow for reasonable comparisons among vendors.

But, is this really what our nation needs, or is the FCC nuts? Well, let's first ask ourselves the desired result. The FDA required food labeling to encourage smarter eating and a healthier culture. The EPA required MPG labeling to encourage more fuel-efficient cars and a cleaner environment. What pandemic social problem will the FCC be able to thwart? What's the deep, scarring impact on our economy when a business buys a slower internet connection than they should have? After the FCC's recent announcement of their intentions for such a labeling requirement, many in the telecom industry were simply wondering: WHY?

The biggest threat to our nation's economy related to broadband is the utter lack of availability for rural areas. Where no options exist, the addition of labeling is of little value. The FCC may offer rural businesses the ability to compare zero to zero, but what we need most greatly is a plan to bring at least one broadband option to these areas.

If the nation were inundated with countless broadband options seemingly indistinguishable one from another, AND the impact of a poor buying decision had socio-economic impact on a grand scale, then I could see the need for such a labeling system. As it stands, however, I would encourage the FCC to put tighter regulation on hold while it implements a plan to bring broader service areas to unreached areas.

Labels: Broadband Plan, Broadband Speed, Economy, FCC

posted by Unknown at 9:50 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Wednesday, May 12, 2010
As the FCC continues to research (and study, and research, and study, and research some more) about how to best implement their Broadband Plan, one interesting nugget rises to the top. Cost has been one major concern in the push to bring broadband to unserved areas of the country. In fact, it's the single most compelling reason NOT to bring broadband to the unserved areas (sorry farmers). The fact is, cost varies inversely with density and distance from a central office or cable headend. A relatively small chunk of end-users, 250k to be exact, would require over 50% of the entire $23.5 Billion broadband plan budget.

So, ever seeking the most cost-justifiable solution, the FCC's exhaustive research has shown one simple truth (and this should be no surprise to anybody): wireless broadband is the cheapest route. For over 90% of the yet unserved households and businesses in the U.S., fixed wireless broadband is cheaper than any terrestrial network option.

What is most revealing, however, is that in 100% of cases (a figure the government does not throw around lightly) a wireless local loop is the least expensive option for connecting broadband to the premise. From the line to the building, in every instance of a broadband customer, the FCC recommends using wireless, not fiber, to finish the final stretch.

In fact, this same cost advantage can be found regardless of how urban or rural the location is. In nearly every instance, a wireless local loop will require a shorter lead time, less man-hours, and an overall lower cost than terrestrial network. Accel Networks proprietary antenna technology can be installed and provisioned in under 3 days, allowing businesses to (especially new locations and new tenants) to be up and running in no time... and when time is money, that's important.

One last plug for wireless... the FCC also commented on something vital to our economy: competition. Where terrestrial networks are the sole dependency, the ability for multiple providers to serve a single market (and thereby bring much-needed competition) is nil. Wireless is faster to deploy and lends itself to multiple carriers entering the marketplace. Competition breeds innovation and options for consumers. Products such as Accel Networks multi-carrier wireless broadband are made even better as more options come online.

Labels: Broadband Plan, FCC, Fixed Wireless Broadband, Rural Broadband

posted by Unknown at 6:41 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Would you? FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed to congress in his recent National Broadband Plan that over 500 Mhz of spectrum be devoted to wireless broadband in the coming decade. Where will this spectrum come from? Nearly 1/4 of it is expected to be reclaimed from existing broadcasters. The question is, will they fold?

In a speech earlier this week, Genachowski presented his proposed auctioning of spectrum as a win-win for broadcasters. They can profit from the sale of their existing air-wave property, meanwhile consumers gain greater access to wireless broadband. It all seems logical, to a point.

The costs are high for broadcasters to make this shift. For starters, for the portion of viewers still receiving their signal via antenna, they may have to change their dial to find their favorite station. But, on the broadcaster's side, they'll have to change dials too. Lots of dials. They will need to find new avenues for broadcasting their signal which could entail anything from switching settings to installing new systems and equipment.

Gordon Smith, president of NAB, likened the FCC's tactics to those of the mafia. "Either your signature or your brains will be on the contract," the Los Angeles Times quoted him as saying, paraphrasing the "Godfather" mafia don, when talking about Genachowski's pitch.

Of course, the point is moot in the end anyway, as the FCC reserves "plan B" which entails forced surrender of the required spectrum. So, will the auctions really benefit broadcasters as Genachowski suggests?

But, lest we fault the government too harshly, consider the flip side of the coin. On that flip side, the nation has an undeniable need for broadband. More so, I might argue, than we have for local broadcast communications. Genachowski is in a bit of tough position, forced to choose which is more advantageous for the future of our nation's economy: preserving age-old broadcast licensing or enabling the expansion of a communication medium that has shaped our world for the last decade.

Labels: Broadband Plan, FCC

posted by Unknown at 8:06 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, March 30, 2010
At the risk of sounding politically charged, I think it's fair to ask: to what degree should the FCC regulate broadband? We're in a free market society, right? (actually, not exactly, but the principals are employed) So, why not let the market create demand for broadband and the enterprising businesses create solutions to supply it?

Just so you know, I didn't wake up this morning with a political axe to grind. Google and Verizon opened this can of worms for us early this week. In a joint article, the two internet moguls urged the FCC to reconsider their regulation of the Internet. While they don't seem to be opposed to government incentives for creating new broadband networks, the two companies (and many others like them) are hesitant to greet new regulations and government involvement with open arms.

While the FCC's broadband plan is generally viewed as a good idea, some telecom companies are beginning to wonder about the details. The FCC plans to reclassify ISP's, making their services easier to regulate. And, to justify these fears, the FCC came under scrutiny recently for overstepping it's authority interjecting terms into a recent merger of two t-com companies.

So, how much is too much? We already know that the U.S. lags painfully behind many other nations in the speed and ubiquity of it's broadband network. But why not let the profit-driven providers like Verizon and AT&T make the decision to bring broadband up to par? Or, a capitalist may ask: is there demand for broadband in the underserved areas?

Labels: ATT, Broadband Plan, FCC, Google, Verizon

posted by Unknown at 5:11 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The whole country is getting excited over the broadband stimulus plan, as well they should. But, in my old stomping grounds, it's exciting to see the "good-ole" Mid-Westerners with their ears perked up over the matter. While Indiana is already quietly making waves in technology industries--manufacturing, EMR, web2.0 businesses, and the like--visiting Ball State University professor Stuart Brotman sees the stimulus plan brining "rapid expansion of broadband infrastructure" in the state as well as an employment boost.

The federal government has allocated more than $25 million to Indiana to improve its broadband infrastructure. Part of that funding will go toward continuing the very popular I-Light network--a fiber-optic network in Indiana serving universities and heavily populated metro areas. But, as small business and start-ups continue to be incubated in Indiana fixed wireless solutions for faster provisioning, low-cost local loop solution, and rural broadband are going to be increasingly needed.

Among the most exciting provisions in the FCC national broadband plan is the recommendations to accelerate employment assistance. That means, for companies in Indiana who are on the fence about hiring more linemen, network technicians, etc. the decision to hire could be much easier and more advantageous.

Indiana is, of course, only one (admittedly small) story of how the broadband plan will impact our nation's economy. But, the story at the local level in small towns like Muncie, IN echo the story of the nation at large. Will every state meet the federal plan with such enthusiasm? What are you hearing in your neck of the woods?

Labels: Broadband Plan, FCC, Fixed Wireless Broadband, Rural Broadband

posted by Unknown at 6:04 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Wednesday, March 3, 2010
In just two weeks, on March 16th, the FCC presents its National Broadband Plan. And, while I would say that anticipation is building, it's a bit like finding your parents' stash of Christmas gifts early. The FCC has started leaking details of the plan, including a promise to find 500MHz of spectrum for wireless broadband and a request for Congress to cough up $16 Billion for a public-safety network to be integrated with priority access to commercial networks--a major homeland security beef-up.

In previous years, the FCC has tried getting such a network in the hands of first responders by ear-marking it onto the sale of spectrum between 10 and 700mhz. But, since nobody wanted that string attached, the air space simply didn't sell. Just exactly how the FCC intends to bring this plan to fruition this time around remains to be seen.

I also am curious to uncover where this 500MHz of spectrum will come from. The American public surely won't endure another fiasco like the DTV switch-over. But, assuming they can pull it out of the air (pardon the pun) this certainly will open new doors for wireless broadband providers to increase their bandwidth and ultimately service more of America's public with fixed wireless broadband solutions.

Ultimately, as I've blogged numerous times already, I am overjoyed to see wireless taking such a prominent role in the FCC's plan. I think this due largely to the feedback submitted, both by the public and from the carriers. From what little I've seen "leaked" thus far, I am hopeful. I'll be counting the days to March 16th.

Labels: Broadband Plan, FCC, Fixed Wireless Broadband

posted by Unknown at 2:16 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Wednesday, February 24, 2010
A few weeks ago, I learned about Google's broadband service entre (maybe). They announced that they would be selecting communities in which to test an incredibly high-speed fiber network. Fed up with waiting on government and other big business to act on U.S. broadband's needs, Google--always the innovator--is taking action.

I read the news, but to be honest, didn't give it much more thought. Until, that is, my phone started ringing. Here in my home town of Indy, at least two friends of mine in other tech businesses wanted to know if I would sign their petition to Google to choose our humble city as their testing ground.

Surely this was just a few over-zealous fans, I thought. Then I saw the twitter conversation growing. My Facebook wall got flooded. Apparently, someone, or some group of someones, really wants Google fiber in Indianapolis.

There has even been an official site launched to gather signatures: fiber4indy.com. For all of my neighbors and friends, I am proud to report that I have now signed the petition.

In truth, I'm very encouraged on two fronts. First, that Google's offer did not fall on deaf ears. It is a testament to how ready the US is for broadband change that such a stir has been created. Had their announcement been met with a flat golf clap and then faded into the background of internet chatter, we would know the problem of broadband in the U.S. was not as big as we may have thought.

Second, however, is that the people still speak. Petitions? Really? I haven't signed a petition since our 3rd grade class banded together to get a different candy option in the vending machines. When it could be easy to wait for the broadband plan to be implemented and place the impetus on the government to take action, at least for my local Hoosiers, the people are taking action.

Go Google. Go people.

Labels: Broadband Plan, Google Fiber

posted by Unknown at 7:12 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, January 26, 2010
March 17th is the deadline for the FCC to deliver what is being called a "national broadband plan" to congress. Following the Recovery Act in 2009, funding (and awareness over the need) was made available for ramping up broadband infrastructure in the U.S. as part of an overall plan to bolster our economy and remain competitive nationally. By the urging of this blog and countless other activists in the broadband community, the FCC has received no shortage of input on the broadband plan.

Last Friday, another big player joined the mix. The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) filed it's comments with the FCC. What did they have to say? According to their own report to WISPA members and constituents, their focus involved 6 major points:

1. Many rural communities do not yet have access to broadband (24 million households).

2. Without access to broadband, the best and brightest young people usually leave for bigger cities causing a “rural brain drain” that negatively affects rural economies.

3. WISPs who want to extend service to unserved and underserved rural communities need both better access to funding and better access to spectrum.

4. WISPA suggests several methods of improving WISP funding mechanisms, including the creation of a “Universal Broadband Fund”.

5. WISPA also suggests several methods of improving access to clean spectrum for WISPs. The availability of clean spectrum positions WISPs to benefit from more favorable funding options.

6. The FCC’s support and promotion of WISPA’s suggestions in the National Broadband Plan (including this filing) will help revitalize America’s economy.

Not surprisingly, the focus remains on rural broadband access as well as continued talk over the spectrums available to wireless broadband. Whatever the outcome, the most important matter, however, is that the FCC receives enough support and public outcry to make sure that on March 17th, congress indeed sees the great need for change. You can provide your own feedback at www.broadband.gov.

Labels: Broadband Plan, FCC, Fixed Wireless Broadband, Rural Broadband, WISPA

posted by Unknown at 3:46 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Over the past year, the issue of the FCC's broadband plan has come up over and over on this blog. One of the most important topics, of course, is the charge to tell the FCC your thoughts on Fixed Wireless Broadband. Well, guess what! They listened.

Tony Bradley of PC World reported just a few weeks ago: FCC Urged to Expand Wireless Broadband Access. Urged how? Via the very request for your input that we shared months back. The FCC has sought input via formal submission, as well as via social media, blogs, etc. The Government, it would appear, is listening to the people.

As Bradley's article notes, however, one of the overwhelming proposals on the table has to do with the availability of spectrum. In April of last year, we reported on Verizon's buy-up of a huge chunk of the 700mz spectrum. But that brings up two dilemmas: do we want only one company dominating the FCC licenses, and even so, is this spectrum enough?

If fixed wireless broadband is indeed the technology that can make broadband ubiquity a reality in the U.S., then shouldn't we have more spectrum devoted to it? That's what some critics are suggesting. However, the Department of Justice is not so quick to meddle where existing media markets are already succeeding. The switch to digital television, after all, went SOOO smoothly, we certainly don't want to endure such a switch-a-roo again.

The lines haven't closed. Your voice can still be heard. Let the FCC know your thoughts on Fixed Wireless Broadband.

Labels: Broadband Plan, FCC, Fixed Wireless Broadband, Stimulus, Verizon

posted by Unknown at 7:11 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, December 1, 2009
As we have discussed several times on this blog, the FCC is drafting a National Broadband Plan which will lay out ways the government can improve broadband service in the U.S. The plan is scheduled to come out in February, allowing plenty of time for feedback on the issue. And, it warrants mentioning that there are no certainties as to how many of its suggestions will ultimately be adopted.

But, there are other measures--policy measures which the FCC does not require congressional approval to make--that are already being put in place. It would appear that the FCC is wasting no time in getting us caught up with global broadband standards. Examples include educating the consumer on wireless broadband, freeing up air-waves for wireless broadband use, and most recently: making it easier to get towers in the air.

Amy Schatz of the Wall Street Journal reported that:

"Of the 3,300 applications for new towers or to put a new antenna up on an existing tower, more than 700 have been pending for more than a year..."

That means communication companies like Verizon and AT&T who want to add more coverage are stalled by local and state government bureaucracy. Before any new tower is erected, or even a new antenna is placed on an existing tower, approval must be sought from the local authorities. When those applications are delayed, the expansion of fixed wireless broadband in our communities is slowed.

Under the new policies handed down by the FCC, local agencies will have only 90 days to review and respond to new antenna applications, and 150 days where a new tower is requested. If the agency fails to respond in that time frame, then the wireless carriers can seek a decision from federal courts.

If you've got an idea for how wireless broadband can be expedited across our nation, let your voice be heard. Download the FCC's public notice and follow the instructions found there.

Labels: ATT, Broadband Plan, FCC, Fixed Wireless Broadband, Verizon, wireless carriers

posted by Unknown at 7:19 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, September 15, 2009
It would seem that the social-media savvy of our commander and chief is beginning to trickle down the government bureaucracies. Last week, the FCC jumped into social media with both feet as they seek to engage the public on issues regarding the nation's broadband coverage. And, this is no sterile so-called blog hosted on a government server. I half expected to see nothing more than a news feed with comments disabled, but instead found a web 2.0 blog design with comments enabled.

It gets even better. Broadband.Gov is turning, just as web 2.0 demands, to 3rd party social media venues as well. Their public feedback mechanism is powered by IdeaScale and allows the populus to vote and comment on what we feel should be the top priorities of any federal broadband plan. Go ahead, weigh in on the FCC's broadband plan... you can even add your own topics ad-hoc!

And, of course, no social media reach would be complete without a presence on Twitter and Facebook. The FCC has managed to secure a 3-character twitter user name "FCC"--which certainly required some cooperation from Biz Stone and the crew. Likewise, the FCC's Facebook page can be found at www.facebook.com/FCC.

So, what is all this buzz about. Well, to learn more about the Broadband Plan, I would direct you to (where else) the social-media video site, YouTube, where the FCC's own YouTube channel has been created.

In all seriousness, however, I want to first of all applaud the FCC for such a monumental step. To see a bureau of the Federal Government moving so enthusiastically into the realm of social media is a much greater advancement than many might realize. Second, I want to encourage readers to take this opportunity. Our leaders are reaching out. They're listening. So, be heard.

Labels: Broadband Plan, FCC, Federal Communications Commission, Social Media, Stimulus

posted by Unknown at 5:12 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments