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, July 12, 2011
It's been threatened and squawked about for some time now, but pay-per-byte broadband services have been largely stayed by consumer uprising.  And rightly so.  The demand of the marketplace is what should guide product development and pricing.  But, for a moment, lets consider the benefits to broadband consumers of pay-per-byte programs.

1. It could save you money.  That's right!  It is entirely possible that, if priced fairly, some mobile broadband users would find that they use far less than the fair usage of their plan. Of course, those who are opposed to this pricing model are not likely in this category, so let's move on.
2. It would drive demand for WiFi once again.  With a more bandwidth-conscious consumer, there will be again a demand for WiFi meshes and hotspots.  The development of these projects have stalled recently due to the ubiquitous coverage of wireless broadband, but if consumers were asked to pay for their usage, they would quickly look for more cost-effective solutions, demanding WiFi infrastructure once again.
3. It would speed up the Internet.  No seriously!  If there is a cost to download senseless data, random videos, huge apps, and music then traffic would shrink -- at least, the clutter would shrink.  It's kind of like toll roads.  Their generally faster to travel because fewer people get on them.  Only those who are serious about transit will pay for the access to the freeway.  
4. It would make broadband efficiency a central topic.  When oil reserves seemed limitless, we built cars that required a gallon of gasoline to travel just 7 or 10 miles.  As petroleum has become more precious, it's forced car designers to become more efficient.  Software today is designed with the premise that bandwidth is limitless, and thus patches, updates, frequent API calls, back-and-forth syncing, etc. are used without any discretion -- resulting in a slower user experience. 

In the end, the key is determining a fair price.  Proposals for the per-byte costs have been met with resistance because they don't seem to fairly equate the value of the byte with the dollars asked.  But, if the supply and demand can meet at a reasonable price, then maybe (juuuuust maybe) pay-per-byte could have positive impacts on the technology industry.  

Labels: Broadband Speed, Economy, Fixed Wireless Broadband

posted by Unknown at 9:11 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Thursday, March 10, 2011
In the U.K. (where data is king and data analysis is parliament) some chap decided to do a study of the connection speed lost when connecting over WiFi vs plugging one's laptop directly to the router.  But, although this article doesn't name its research source, the study entailed over 14,000 homes.  And, not only in the U.K., but that 14,000 included homes throughout Europe and in the U.S.

What they found, however, should not shock anybody. The average home internet user sacrifices 30% of their speed for the freedom of wireless connectivity. 

As a fixed wireless broadband provider, WiFi isn't exactly synonymous with our industry, but the implications could overlap.  So, we have a few thoughts to share.

1. First of all, duh.  One of the interesting perspectives not explored in the study is that people can connect to the internet at speeds of 35 Mbps (50 Mbps, less 30% = 35 Mbps) while they sit on their patio watching the sun set.  It could be said that they sacrifice ONLY 30% speed.  
2. Second of all, the test was conducted in homes.  This brings up an important point.  Most consumers use bottom-dollar antennae technology available to the public.  The quality of signal and wireless router affect speeds.  Secondly, these wireless routers are likely (due to the consumer's lack of sophistication in all things techie) using default channels.  Assuming that all your neighbors do the same, speed can suffer.  Accel uses proprietary and heavily dialed-in antennae technology.  The way we get our signal is the most important thing. 
3. It is doubtful that an engineer provisioned the antennae and tested speeds throughout the home.  In fact, at our house, the router sits under the couch.  We not only sacrifice speed for convenience, we sacrifice it for aesthetics, too.  When the router is hidden like this, speed will suffer.  In business, however, routers are business-critical and antennas can be placed and tested by a provisioning process.  

All in all, the report seems to be much of what you get from most such studies: stuff we already knew and expected.  If anything, it is a testament to the quality of wireless routers available to the consumer market today.  With expert installation and higher quality equipment, businesses can expect even higher performance, making us all the more confident that wireless remains the way of the future.

Labels: Broadband Speed, Fixed Wireless Broadband, Wifi

posted by Unknown at 7:18 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The cloud is all the rave these days, thanks in part to the Windows 7 commercials--which I have yet to figure out the meaning of, by the way.  But, one thing their advertising has done is to bring the term "cloud computing" into every sphere of computer usage, from home computers to enterprise networks.  But, as with any new lingo coined by the masses, its definitions vary widely.  I would like to offer one important point of clarity that I believe we can all agree on:

There is a difference between cloud data storage and true cloud computing.

Cloud data storage has actually been going on for years, if not over a decade.  Companies have long shared files via FTP, shared drives, even newer SaaS products like DropBox.  In fact, Google Docs made it's debut as a cloud sharing tool to many small businesses, not a cloud computing tool.  While their word processor and spreadsheet tools were woefully under-developed, the ability to store office documents online and collaborate with anyone was quite a succeess.

But this differs categorically from true cloud computing because the manipulation of this cloud-stored data is still done on the local machine.  Cached updates and even command processes are done on the local RAM and local CPU.  When the user is done, he/she simply publishes the changes to the cloud for others to see. 

Cloud computing, on the other hand, puts the computing itself on the cloud.  The simplest example is Google Docs as it's used today.  People open their doc in the browser, where, with the exception of some client-side javascript commands, the actual computing is done in the cloud. 

But this puts a new strain on broadband networks, and makes desktop computing stats obsolete.  Whereas we used to talk about how fast the computer's processor was, and how large of a bus it had, now the processor speed that matters is the server's, but the bus is the broadband connection.  If your pipe to and from the server is not big enough--if your broadband speed is too slow--then your cloud computing experience might not be all its cracked up to be.

In the next era of cloud computing, the discussion over a CPU's speed will be replaced by the discussion over how fast a set of commands can make it from terminal to server--from desktop to the cloud.  Cloud computing changes everything.

Labels: Broadband, Broadband Speed, Cloud Computing

posted by Unknown at 6:05 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Wednesday, October 20, 2010
There's been no small discussion recently about the use of "up to" in advertising broadband speeds. When ISP's publish rates "up to" a certain speed, how often does the connection actually get up to that speed, for how long, and for how many subscribers. That's what the FCC wanted to find out recently, and what consumers want to make sure is being advertised honestly.

So, is it?

An independent study says, "yes!" Ookla--the brains behind such testing services as pingtest.net and speedtest.net-- decided to do some comparisons recently. They charted advertised speeds in over 100 countries against the actual broadband speeds the end users experience on average. What they found may shock you... honesty.

That's right. They're report "concludes that Americans get 92.91 percent of their advertised throughput rate" (ARS Technica, 10/2010). In short, we get what we pay for over 90% of the time--a stat that the telecommunications industry is sure glad to tout. The global study puts the U.S. 11th among the 26 countries tested, led primarily by former Soviet nations in Eastern Europe. According to Ookla's standings, the U.S. leads Western European nations such as the UK and France, who bottomed out the list at 25th and 26th respectively--delivering honest speeds less than two-thirds of the time.

So, what does this mean for business? First and foremost, it ought to (but still might not) quiet some of the accusations levied against the telecom industry at large. Why might it not? Because of exactly what the report says: nearly 8% of customers don't get what they think they're buying. In this debate, we have what many would call a "loud minority" petitioning for justice on behalf of what is likely to be a select few perpetrators in advertising. The reality is that most ISP's are honest, most customers get what they pay for, and still a few sour apples are spoiling the bunch.

Ookla's report, while encouraging, should not stop the efforts of the telecom industry to continue pushing for honesty. False advertising, however rare, must be addressed no matter what industry it is in. However, consumers of broadband services can rest assured--at least 90% sure, that is--that the rates they think they're getting are being delivered.

Labels: Advertising, Broadband, Broadband Speed, FCC, Ookla, Published Rates, Telecommunication

posted by Unknown at 5:55 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Thursday, September 2, 2010
One topic that periodically hits the news headlines, and thereby the blogosphere, is the issue of truthful advertising of broadband speeds. The question, really, is whether the statement "up to" a certain speed can actually be substantiated, trusted, and regulated by the FCC and FTC. Virgin Media took the lead on this issue recently by voluntarily opting to change their messaging strategy in an attempt to remain above reproach (and probably spur their competitors to do the same). But is a wide-scale change, specifically a regulated and mandated change, in messaging really called for?

First, let's start with defining the grievance. What's the beef? The problem, as most consumers have identified, lies in the fact that advertised speeds for broadband services most commonly boast the highest allowable speed using "up to" phrasing. However, such messaging falls under criticism when the broadband customers cannot achieve said rate. Now, of course, nobody ever promised consistent and guaranteed speed, but the supposition is that if the advert says "up to" that I would periodically and not-so-rarely get up to that speed. In many cases, however, the customers do not.

And so it is concluded, the broadband provider must have been dubiously planning this deceit. Now, that is possible, and certainly does take place. But, as one in the industry, I'd like to offer a pause for some objective criticism of the critics, shall we?

First, consider all of the factors that contribute to the connection speed of a network terminal--how many of those are within the Broadband Provider's control? When connection speeds were low at my office, the problem was eventually traced to an issue from the punch panel to my desk. Second, don't be so quick to presume the promise of speed was so dubiously presented. Many broadband providers are starting to offer simple speed calculators on their sites to allow customers to test their connection speeds.

Ultimately, however, as a one not only in the industry, but specifically involved in marketing, I'd like to explore this topic of "published rates." It is often not the contract rates that are in question, it's the advertised rates. Virgin Media has decided to publish their average speed in lieu of their optimal speed. But, do we expect that to be the norm in advertising? Mortgage rates are often advertised "as low as" what a good borrower could qualify for. C-Stores advertise the price of regular unleaded, not premium, on their signs. Airlines publish the anticipated arrival times, not considering the potential for disaster, technical failure, weather, etc. Are these deceitful--intentionally trying to mislead the buyer? I don't believe so.

Most importantly, "up to" rates are no more misleading than an "average" published speed. Average means that still 50% of subscribers will fail to reach even that par. Among those who do fall within the average, they will certainly not do so consistently -- they will enjoy spikes of speed during low-traffic times and dip well below average during peak usage hours. It remains a select few customers who could count on a consistently average speed.

Should the lying stop? Absolutely. Is it as easy to regulate as you might think? Not really. Are the broadband providers as universally unscrupulous as accused? Hardly. In fact, as is common with categorical prosecution, many are blamed for the sins of few.

Labels: Broadband Speed, C-store, Published Rates, Virgin Media

posted by Unknown at 11:08 AM Link to this Article  1 Comments

Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Do you remember when that jumbo postcard came in the mail from your local Time-Warner Cable affiliate and it had all those impressive sounding numbers on the front? Do you know what they were? Some figure of mbps or kbps or something like that, right? Or, when you signed your service level agreement (SLA) with your current broadband provider, do you have any idea what speeds you're contractually guaranteed? Moreover, are you getting what you paid for?

The FCC thinks not. Or, at least, they think the consumer public needs to know for sure. We commented last week on a push by the FCC to label broadband speeds. Since then, the FCC has upped their push even more. Yesterday, they asked 10,000 Americans to participate in a nation-wide study to know the broadband speeds (see www.testmyisp.com for details).

Actually, these tests (albeit slightly less sophisticated than what the FCC may offer) exist all over the Internet. So, if your curiosity has been stoked the FCC's urging and you now want to know for certain, follow these steps:

1. Know what you're entitled to. When you signed up for broadband, you received a Service Level Agreement (SLA) from your vendor. If you did not keep it, or cannot find it, a copy can be provided to you upon request. Among other things, this agreement will let you know the level of service, i.e. the speed of broadband connection, you should receive.
2. Create a Comparison Chart. In Excel, create a spreadsheet with 8 columns and 5 rows. Your first 8 columns will be for storing two metrics--upload and download--from 3 different tests. Then, in the 7th column and 8th column, you will average the results from all three. The 5 rows will be for storing those metrics at 5 different times throughout the day.
   
3. Test From Three Sources. It is IMPORTANT that you test from multiple sources as the accuracy of free web-based testers may vary. A sampling of three different tests at 6 times throughout the day will be enough to tell you whether you have something to squalk about to your vendor. Here are three FREE tests you can run (note: be sure to convert results to a common unit in your spreadsheet. Some display kbps whereas other display mbps)
   
   • http://www.speedtest.net/
   • http://www.mybroadbandspeed.co.uk/
   • http://www.auditmypc.com/broadband-speed-test.asp
   
   
4. Test Throughout the Day. Unless you have an SLA that's different from most, your broadband provider probably promises an average speed above a certain mark, not a permanent speed above a certain mark. This means that if your speed drops slightly at 3pm when all the local kids get off the bus and get onto Facebook, that's outside the provider's control. So, to get a good sampling, I recommend testing at the following 5 times:
   • 8:10 AM - when usage spike from employee arrival & login is highest
   • 10:00 AM - an average workload
   • 12:30 PM - a below-average load over lunch break
   • 3:00 PM - an average workload, but commonly compounded by residential users on the same network (note: this is irrelevant for dedicated t1 subscribers)
   • 5:30 PM - a below-average load after hours
     
5. Get the overall average. Get the overall average of each time, and from all 3 testers, and compare that number against what you expect from your provider.
   

Chances are, you're going to find that your speeds are up-to-par with what you purchased. In that event, there is still one more thing to consider: are you purchasing what you need. Many people are not in the correct solution for their needs simply out of an uninformed buying decision. If your speeds are still insufficient for your business despite meeting the SLA requirements, talk to Accel Networks about what sort of solution you should be looking for.

In the event you find that your numbers incriminate your provider, don't call the feds yet. Don't panic. Remember, this was an in-house test using free resources. First, check your math. Second, contact your provider with your findings and allow them to explain. Maybe they're aware of some service interruptions that day and ask you to test again tomorrow. Or, maybe... juuuust maybe, they'll send a tech out to your location with their equipment to perform a highly accurate test. Rest assured, if they value their license, they'll fix the problem.

Labels: Broadband, Broadband Speed, FCC, Service Level Agreement (SLA)

posted by Unknown at 5:04 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

Tuesday, November 10, 2009
There's been plenty of talk on Capital Hill and all throughout the blogosphere about the economy, the stimulus, and broadband. But a recent survey coming from the UK revealed a totally different side to this debate than I had ever seen before. Could you imagine real estate sales being affected by broadband infrastructure? I can.

According to a survey from ISPreview.co.uk, broadband speeds could help or hinder home sales. According to the article, "from 721 respondents to our latest monthly survey reveal that 75% of readers would not buy a house, even a lovely one, if the best broadband ISP speed it could achieve was just 1Mbps." This presents a not-so-obvious connection among seemingly unrelated economic trends.

Now, although these are largely UK respondents, a sampling of US buyers would likely show similar trends. Working from that assumption, there are a few alarming insights to be gained. First, the simple fact that this trait of a home is not something the seller can fix. Thanks to HGTV and the like, we're all becoming familiar with concepts like home-staging, flipping, fix-ups, etc. But if you're in a rural area with no broadband access, or even an urban area with poor access, your options for making your house more marketable are slim in this area.

Second, and perhaps more alarming, is the standards which we in the U.S. hold. Note that 75% of readers in the UK would NOT buy the house with 1 Mbps. That's nearly 250 Kbps faster than our current "standard" for broadband in the U.S. But, to the UK consumer, that is an unacceptable downstream speed. Now, there are a lot of factors to consider in setting the bar for what constitutes broadband speed, but the fact remains, other nations have set the bar considerably higher than the U.S. How far away are we from catching up?

As we consider the future of broadband infrastructure in the U.S., we have to think of the ripple effects that a lack of broadband can have on a community. Businesses cannot compete. Education is hindered. And, homes can't sell. And, without question the technology that can most quickly deliver broadband to rural communities is fixed wireless.

Labels: "Internet infrastructure", Broadband Speed, Economy, Fixed Wireless Broadband, Rural Broadband, Stimulus

posted by Unknown at 7:27 AM Link to this Article  1 Comments

Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) asked for input last month on what actually should constitute "broadband" connection speeds. The government sets a standard for what is technically considered broadband and what is not. The motivation, at least originally, was simply that we could not allow dubious tech companies to slap a road-runner emblem on a 56K modem and try to advertise it as broadband.

But the current definition was recently opened to debate by the FCC, eliciting a range of responses from those affected by any modifications. A public interest group called Free Press, urged the FCC to dramatically ramp up requirements to 5 mbps for both upstream and downstream. For a sense of perspective, that would be over 8x the current definition for downstream speed, and 25x the current upstream speed. But companies directly affected by any decision, such as Verizon Communications Inc., urged the FCC to be more conservative.

Appeals to the FCC cited competing nations' who have set the bar for broadband far higher than the U.S. However, it's important to note that the nations cited in Reuters report (France and Japan) are in fact 1/18th 1/26th the size of the U.S. respectively. The challenge of Rural Broadband presents a uniquely different landscape for technology and business in the U.S. than in most other nations on the globe.

Where do you think the bar for broadband should be set? If higher, how shall we ever get there? If the same, what will motivate carriers to improve?

Labels: Broadband, Broadband Speed, FCC, Rural Broadband, Verizon

posted by Unknown at 9:31 AM Link to this Article  2 Comments