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

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

Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Minnesota’s LocalLoop announced last week that it has developed, in partnership with Israel’s Runcom Technologies, a new 4G product designed to deliver Internet access to those in underserved rural areas. LocalLoop believes this new cloud-based, turnkey solution will revolutionize the industry. Rather than rely on the established notion that carriers need localized, on-site equipment to distribute the service, LocalLoop says its’ cloud-based, Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platform avoids the limitations of the existing systems, and at a reduced cost.

Meanwhile, political candidates and the established providers are fighting over money and ideas to extend the old networks. Do they not realize that the rules of rural broadband are changing?

While the old guard remains bogged down in stale battles, the upstart companies are redefining the game. Cloud-based, wireless internet service providers (WISPs) are developing new technologies that make the “last mile” talk irrelevant. Companies like LocalLoop and PowerCloud™ Systems are creating new, forward-thinking business models that capitalize on cutting-edge technologies. Perhaps even more noteworthy is that these companies are doing so using private funding. The push and pull of governmental finance options becomes irrelevant.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a statement recently that it is close to revising the Universal Service Fund (USF), which determines how rural companies are subsidized. The new rules are supposed to add emphasis to broadband communications. Based on what’s happening in the private sector, you have to wonder if the changes are even going to be effective.

Labels: Local Loop, Rural Broadband

posted by Unknown at 3:57 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, October 18, 2011
The 2011 WISPAPALOOZA conference was held in Las Vegas last week. The event is dedicated to Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs), which are entrepreneurial ventures – often privately funded – with a goal of building a wireless
infrastructure to support broadband internet access to underserved markets. Unlike the traditional telecommunications companies that are slow to market, WISPs are agile organizations that can adapt and roll out services quickly and efficiently.

One of the big announcements at the conference was PowerCloud™ Systems unveiling of its CloudCommand™ OPEN Software as a Service (SaaS) platform. The new platform will support access points from the Ubiquiti Networks' Unifi family and the Arada Systems' MaxR family. Ubiquiti, in particular, is one of the growing players in the burgeoning equipment provider market, with plans for an Initial Public Offering.

PowerCloud’s announcement is significant. Ubiquiti Networks and Arada Systems supply affordable hardware that, when combined with the CloudCommand OPEN platform, enables services providers to supply all the tools necessary to operate and manage Wi-Fi networks. More important, the cost is significantly less than the traditional systems.

The established telecommunications companies and government entities that are providing funding need to take notice. One of the key arguments in the debate to close the rural divide has been the cost of establishing networks in remote areas. As WISPs spread, the point becomes moot. And because WISPs are privately funded and adaptable ventures that can provide service at a fraction of the cost, rural broadband no longer becomes a political issue.

Labels: Entrepreneurship, Rural Broadband, SaaS, WISP

posted by Unknown at 4:36 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Omnicity, a Southern Indiana rural broadband provider, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last week. Just two years ago, with the governor at the official press conference, the company announced plans for expansion in Ohio while promising job opportunities. At the time, Omnicity provided rural broadband access to more than 30 Indiana counties with plans to be one of the primary sources of connectivity in the country. What happened?

The problem was bad business – the company secured loans they were unable to repay. The most infuriating part, however, is that these were government loans that now have little chance of being repaid. Was the company in solid fiscal shape before acquiring the loans? Was the government, so caught up in the idea of economic development via rural broadband expansion, blinded by the reality that Omnicity wasn’t financially viable?

Omnicity’s bankruptcy filing is a prime example of why government should reconsider involving itself in rural broadband expansion. If the need is there, people will buy the product. But all the effort – as well as the political grandstanding – is for naught if the demand isn’t strong enough. And if those in rural communities are in such dire need of broadband access, perhaps they need to consider whether they’re living in the right place.

To be sure, Omnicity isn’t the only company trying to recognize the potential in a relatively open, untapped market. But companies need to grow the right way. If the government insists on being involved, they need to do their homework.

What do you think?

Labels: Economy, Omnicity, Rural Broadband

posted by Unknown at 5:15 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, September 27, 2011
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
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

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

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

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, June 14, 2011
Since we first introduced the topic of LightSquared and their controversial encroachment on the GPS spectrum, it seems that the coalition to save GPS, the U.S. government, several private companies like John Deere, and even LightSquared themselves have been very busy testing the real impact of their technology on GPS.  The prognosis: it's a mortal blow.

Two government agencies, the National Space-Based PNT (Positioning Navigation and Timing) National Executive Committee and the Federal Aviation Administration, tested LightSquared's technology.  In May, they confirmed that the interference was significant.

Deere & Company, makers of John Deere agriculture equipment, independently tested their GPS units and confirmed that LightSquared's broadband transmitters create a dead-zone for their equipment up to a 22-mile radius.

First, how does this happen?  Well, simply put, LightSquared is transmitting from earth's surface whereas GPS transmits from space.  The intensity of the signal is overwhelmingly larger (40,000 times, to be exact).  And, while LightSquared is not using the same spectrum that GPS uses (the FCC sees to it that doesn't occur) their spectrum is adjacent to the GPS spectrum.  So, while devices used for GPS were tuned to listen very carefully to a weak signal, their magnifying technology also leaves them susceptible to interference when such a strong signal exists just a few wave-lengths away.

Second, however, is the question: what do we do about it?  LightSquared has agreed not to deploy their network until a solution can be found.  Awfully gracious of them considering it's not really their problem to begin with.  And, mind you, they haven't asserted that they themselves must find (and fund) that solution.  To date, filters and amplifiers have been suggested, but LightSquared has not (nor should not, in my opinion) bear the financial burden of deploying that fix.  Their goal is to determine that a viable solution to the technological hurdle exists, however theoretical, at which point they can move forward with their plans knowing that their peers in the GPS industry have a recourse.

What's really at stake?  Rest assured, plains will not fall from the sky and tractors will not go on an unguided rampage through neighborhoods--although that's more or less what the GPS industry would have you to believe.  The risks are far more subtle than that.  If/when LightSquared is able to demonstrate that a viable filtering option is available, there will be great costs to deploying.  This could mean huge burdens for local municipalities and emergency response already working on tight budgets.  Private farmers, agricutlural industries, and utility companies will have some costly upgrades to swallow in order to keep their GPS equipment in working order.  All of this will mean either a higher tax burden or a higher cost of food and goods that depend on GPS, or both.  Meanwhile, LightBound's continued mission is to deliver rural broadband in the interest of  -- you guessed it -- economic development.

Is it all worth it?  You tell me. 

Labels: Fixed Wireless Broadband, GPS, Rural Broadband, spectrum

posted by Unknown at 5:30 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, May 3, 2011
The state of Missouri is asking its residents a silly question in May.  Surveys are being sent to approximately 44,000 people in the state's most rural communities to determine two things that they see crucial to their broadband expansion plans:
 1) How much do you use the internet?
 2) Would you use high-speed (broadband)?

Now, those are two silly questions for a lot of reasons.  First, from a survey and data analysis standpoint, it's erroneous to ask an audience how much they currently use a given product when part of the reason for the survey in the first place is the lack of availability of that product.  It's like asking starving people how much they eat, then determining their rations based on that number.  It's not how much is presently consumed that matters, its the demand -- however un-met -- that truly matters. 

Second, gauging the interest in high-speed broadband connection is perhaps less silly, but certainly needs to be framed correctly in order to be useful.  Again, asking the starving person if they'd like a meal is folly.  Of course, the answers will be unanimously yes.  Instead, a survey of this nature should try to place a value on that un-met need.  Rather than asking openly, "do you want it?"  What if we asked, "How much would you be willing to pay for it?" 

That last question gets to the heart of the issue.  See, Missouri already (yes, prior to finding the survey results in the first place) has set a plan in place to make broadband available to 95% if the state's residents by 2014.  Much of that will be delivered via grants, favorable loans, federal stimulus and tax abatements all designed to incentivize private enterprise to enter a market they have otherwise avoided for reasons of profitability.  What if the survey could help to substantiate some level of consumer demand in these unreached rural broadband areas?  The long term solution to rural broadband will not be 100% subsidy, but the cost-effective means of delivering a service that is in demand at a price that the market will bear. 

Labels: Internet, Rural Broadband, Rural Broadband Access

posted by Unknown at 7:03 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Thursday, April 21, 2011
I have a Google News alert set up for wireless broadband related news.  I see dozens of stories a day.  Something about this one caught my eye: "Man brings broadband network to rural Virginia."  Perhaps it's my fondly-held roots reaching back to Appalachia.  Maybe I just wondered how the story could be about a "man" and not a "company" or "coalition."  Whatever it was, I couldn't help but read more. 

I'm glad I did, too.  For starters, I (like most readers, I imagine) got a good chuckle out of Dennis Hunt's quotes, replete with words like "yonder," "gotta," and of course, "momma."  But beyond that, it's a fascinating story of individual determination, ingenuity, and good old fashioned entrepreneurial spirit.

Dennis Hunt was told that providing high-speed broadband to his community simply wasn't profitable.  When he made attempts to buy broadband services from the nearest ISP, he was plainly told that there was no money it for them.  They couldn't turn a profit piping packets up the mountainside to the few hundred scattered homes in the hills.  But Dennis wanted to prove them wrong.

His ingenuity is astounding, and I'll simply leave it to the original reporter to tell that story.  If  you have not already, click here to see pictures and descriptions of Dennis' 190-foot tall cellular tower which Dennis, now in his 60's, climbs regularly to service. 

But what I find remarkable is, first, the scalability of his project and, second, what it could mean for broadband industry.  First, scalability.  The article notes that Dennis is providing fixed wireless broadband for nearly half what his competitor, AT&T does.  But, the business-minded person will also note that Dennis does all of the work himself, bypassing expensive insurance costs for the dangerous tower-climbing job.  Then again, micro-enterprise doesn't always have to be scalable.  That's the advantage of it.  When the income of the entrepreneur is the greatest expense, business can compete on a much different level.

But, though Dennis can compete on a high level with AT&T, he cannot compete on a large scale level.  This brings the question: does Dennis' story have any impact on the broadband industry?  To be frank: is this news story really news at all?  As-is, the answer is no.  But he has proven a concept that might have larger ramifications.  Smaller ISP's were bought out decades ago and merged into larger, allegedly more efficient conglomerates.  Dennis seems to be going the opposite direction.  Does a niche exist in rural broadband that can be reached and served economically by micro-enterprise where the big 3 network providers (AT&T, Verizon, & Sprint) cannot justify the expense to reach the customer?  Only time will tell.  

Labels: ATT, Fixed Wireless Broadband, Rural Broadband

posted by Unknown at 11:44 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Monday, April 18, 2011
Among the latest misguided arguments is the recent scuffle over wireless vs. fiber in Australia, where proponents of wireless broadband fear that the national emphasis on a fiber-backed network will impede their mission to provide wireless broadband to the rural areas.  And this is misguided why, you might ask?  Because, the fiber back-bone built out by the NBN will serve to bolster wireless broadband, not impede it. 

The truth is, without fiber, wireless would be weaker, if it were viable at all.

Wireless is a local-loop solution.
To get data from New York to Los Angeles, packets ride on the back of copper cables, twisted pairs, and most recently: fiber optic cables.  Where does wireless come in?  Wireless performs best moving those packets from the terrestrial network to the end user.  Network engineers agree that moving data thousands of miles from hub to hub is the easy part.  But it's the last leg of the journey that gets tricky.  Often called the "local loop" or the "last mile," from network hub to end-users can be costly and time consuming to deploy when trenches and cables are required.  This is where wireless broadband comes in most handy.

But wireless travels at the same speed, right?Theoretically, radio waves travel at the speed of light.  And, if you consider the latency added by fiber optic refraction or copper cable resistance, perhaps wireless signal would win in the land-speed record.  But there are some major challenges in an end-to-end wireless network.  First, spectrum limits the total amount of data that can be transmitted.  If you imagine each distinct range of spectrum as one usable "cable" over which to transmit data, then the nation would have fewer than 1000 cables over which to transmit data.  Compare that to the current grid of over 100,000 discreet channels of fiber and cable which span the country and you can see wireless suffers a great bandwidth deficit. 


The shortest distance from A to B...More importantly, however, wireless (for the most part) is a line-of-site medium.  This means that the simple curvature of the earth presents a problem, as a truly straight line from New York to Los Angeles would actually fall over a thousand feet below the earth's surface.  Bouncing off the atmosphere is a precision game and hardly reliable.  Not to mention, over long distances, interference from other radio sources (storms, personal devices, and the sun, to name a few) degrade the signal.

So, to move a data packet from end-to-end without ever hitting a wire requires the use of tools called repeaters.  Repeaters simply pick up the signal and re-transmit it immediately.  When you add the computing time required by each repeater, even if micro-seconds, that would be required to reach New York from Los Angeles, the latency of the signal is now far greater than a pure fiber network.  Of course, fiber hits repeaters of sorts, too.  The difference is, however, that fiber suffers little-to-no degradation of signal in between.  What's being repeated is a pure packet, unadultered by solar flares or car stereos.  The net impact of incremental degradation as it repeats hundreds of times is the net effect of playing the telephone game with grade-school children. 


Can't we all just get along?The truth is, without a strong terrestrial network, fixed wireless broadband is not much of a solution all by itself.  Wireless broadband is a local loop solution, more cost effective and quicker to deploy in most situations than its wired alternatives.  But for the long distances, terrestrial networks are our most valued partner.

Labels: Copper Cable, Fiber Optic, Fixed Wireless Broadband, NBN, radio waves, Rural Broadband

posted by Unknown at 4:34 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, January 18, 2011
We hear the petition: we need more broadband penetration.  It's been a battle cry for years.  There are entire organizations committed to it (www.internetforeveryone.org) and political battles raging over it.  For the most part, it seems, the conversation centers on rural broadband.  While some urban communities still lack broadband options, the more compelling (not to mention heart-warming) case is made for rural broadband investment--which of course, is usually followed by a discussion of grants and federal dough.

But here's what I don't understand.  Among the arguments for bringing "internet for everyone," as the activist group as titled itself, is economic development.  Businesses cannot be established in areas without broadband.  Ergo, jobs cannot be created in areas without broadband.  Ergo income levels are lower in areas without broadband.  Ergo, lack of broadband penetration = economic depression.

So, help me understand why the only statistics tossed about are residential statistics.  Depending on which report you read, somewhere in the neighborhood of 75% of American homes have access to broadband speeds.  Would you believe that I have scoured the web and cannot find a statistic on business penetration?  Perhaps it's because the figure would be far too high to fuel the debate. 

Of course, there is an element of self-fulfillment here.  As I noted above, the lack of broadband means lack of businesses... not businesses without broadband.  So, by a mere percentage, the businesses with broadband might not look as bad as it is.  The figure we should be more worried about is how many businesses do not exist (not adding to the divisor on that percentage) as a result of broadband penetration lack.

Nonetheless, has there been any research as to the number of businesses sustainable in these rural areas?  Here are some stats that I'd love a researcher to produce:

• Percentage of commercially zoned properties (developed or not) without broadband penetration.
• Purchasing power (not number of households) of retail consumers in communities without broadband penetration.
• Unemployed workforce (remember, many "rural" households are self-employed farmers) in communities without broadband penetration.

Let me be clear: I'm a proponent of extending broadband penetration. I am all for rural broadband investment.  I just think we could make a more compelling argument with the aforementioned data.

Labels: broadband penetration, Economy, Rural Broadband

posted by Unknown at 6:09 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Monday, November 22, 2010
I spent last week in a jungle paradise. For the record, if you have not experienced an all-inclusive resort, I highly recommend it. We stayed a week in what amounts to a small village on nearly a square mile of jungle with beach-front access, 4 swimming pools, over 10 restaurants and countless shops and stores: all included. Oh yeah, and so was the broadband.

This resort was, as I said, in the jungle. No, really. We flew into Cancun, but drove at least an hour to get to the final destination from the airport. This place made the rural broadband challenges of the U.S. Western Plains look like upper Manhatten.

Add to that, the resort was actually built some time in the mid-70's, over 20 years ago. At the time, provision was made to route electrical and plumbing from one building to the other across the complex. It wasn't until the 90's that the resort decided that telephone was a must-have in the guest rooms in order to remain competitive. Needless to say, however, trenching the jungle floor post-construction in order to lay cable was not an option. The camouflaged above-ground conduits were noticeable, but not mood-killing.

But telephone would soon prove not enough. The wealthy American business elites vacationing there demanded access to their email and business data while on this "get-away." So, time for new conduit? Not this time, they said.

Each guest lodging building had a small micro-wave antenna atop the building, nicely disguised and hardly visible. A wireless broadband canopy was cast over the entire resort, beach-side and all, allowing guests to surf at broadband speeds wherever they chose to sip their martini.

Whether your network is a square mile and separated by jungle growth, or its global and separated by mountains and oceans--wireless networking is becoming the mode of choice for the last-mile or local loop connection. Why cable more than we have to? Let Accel provision an antenna system and have broadband up and running in days, not weeks.

Labels: Fixed Wireless Broadband, Rural Broadband

posted by Unknown at 12:40 PM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Tuesday, November 9, 2010
What's all this hubbub about folks in the country, the rural towns, the under-privileged, the minorities... all having broadband access? Why are countless bloggers, online news outlets, and even major voices like the LA Times and CNet in a flurry of commentary over the NTIA's recent report about the socioeconomic gap in broadband users? Is it really that fundamentally necessary to our nation's well-being that everyone--we mean everyone--has broadband access?

If you're reading this blog, you likely loaded it at speeds somewhere north of 3 Mbps. That means, according to the FCC, you have broadband speed. And, according the NTIA's report, that means that the likelihood is greater than 70% that you're not below the poverty line and not a minority.

So, what does that mean?

My daughter woke up yesterday with a little bit of a runny nose, and she was flat out cranky. Nothing unusual, however, because runny noses are common when babies are teething, as is crankiness, and she was cutting a new chomper on top.

How'd we know that? Google, accessed via my wifes iPhone from the comfort of the rocker in the nursery.

So, not to be alarmist parents, we dismissed it. Today, however, she's even more fussy... and woke up covered in sweat. Sure enough, she's running a fever. Also (according to Google, not uncommon with teething). But, when her fever rose, and we noticed her cries fade into long slow moans, we had some concerns. As she moaned, she would sit still... no reaching for toys, no crawling, and really screamed if we moved her.

Again, from the iPhone, Google: "baby fever moaning stiff"

Result #2. Meningitis.

Google: "baby menangits", which of course, Google re-spelled for us "baby meningitis" and displayed correct results.

We're getting treatment. Our daughter will be just fine. But what re-write that scene sans iphone. Sans computer. Sans internet.

Access to data impacts our society in innumerable ways. Health scares like this story may be extreme, but what about simple things: job searches, online college education, resume-writing tips on someone's blog, candidate information from unbiased sources. Where can any of this be accessed sans broadband? Can you really argue it's immaterial?

Labels: Broadband, iPhone, NTIA, Rural Broadband

posted by Unknown at 10:24 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments

Thursday, October 28, 2010
The past few weeks have been nothing less than embarrassing for the FCC and their National Broadband Plan. Grumblings had been heard all along that it might be heading in the wrong direction, but the numbers released by Ookla earlier this month showed that advertised speeds were far better than the FCC once thought. One of the authors, Blair Levin, bared some interesting insight in a tell-all interview with PC World today.

"Conventional wisdom says the primary metric for measuring the validity or power of a national broadband plan is the speed of the wireline network to the most rural of residents." Levin told reporter David Lamli. But he continued: "That way of looking at the problem is entirely wrong, is profoundly wrong -- almost every word in the sentence I just uttered is wrong."

Levin explained that using this metric points us in the wrong direction and leads to wrong conclusions. "it's almost always about wireline and it turns out wireless is going to be the key driver of growth in the next decade." The FCC's apparently one-sided focus on improving wireline speeds turned out to be costly, not feasibly, but worst of all, not the real problem in the first place. Levin explained, "I would say that 4G is going to end up being more important to more people over the next couple of years than increases in wireline speed."

It's ironic, really, considering we dug up reports from the FCC months ago that explicitly recognized wireless broadband as the most cost-effective solution for rural broadband. Nonetheless, Levin laments that the National Broadband Plan apparently overlooked this fact, or perhaps, discovered it too late.

But Levin later made a striking comment about the wireless/wireline argument. "It's a mistake to think of wireless communications as separate to wired communications. Most wireless communications are riding over wire, so one has to have both networks working well." The goal of our broadband infrastructure should be to improve speed and accessibility, neither of which isolate any particular means as the sole solution. Even though wireless is the most cost-effective to reach rural subscribers, the wireline network must be robust enough to support those users.

In the end, the network as a whole has been proven to be two things: first, not at all as bad as we thought it once was; but second, still an important endeavor for our government and industries to continue improving. Levin leaves us with a telling comment to keep in mind, "The most important thing to understand is that broadband is not important in and of itself. It is important because it is the vehicle of knowledge exchange, which turns out to be an incredibly important driver of economic and job growth and critical for a civic society."

Labels: Blair Levin, FCC, Fixed Wireless Broadband, National Broadband Plan, Rural Broadband

posted by Nick Carter at 12:54 PM Link to this Article  1 Comments

Wednesday, October 13, 2010
For months, now, the country has been talking about the national broadband plan and it's alleged restoration to a so-called lagging national broadband infrastructure. Of course, as with any government initiative, the FCC's findings and the plan that they led to have been under constant scrutiny by consumers, broadband providers, and media alike. Today, a new critic weighs in: another federal agency.

The U.S. General Accounting Office (or GAO) decided to audit the FCC's findings and make sure their proposition was in good reason. Turns out, they did some digging on their own, and their stats may surprise you... I'm sure they surprised the FCC.

95% of the U.S. Population has access to broadband.

The U.S. only lags behind other nations in price, stemming from lack of competition, not in access.

The GAO is calling into question whether the government needs to step in and fund new infrastructure for existing broadband providers, or whether creating a business environment where new competition can thrive would be the better option.

The difference between the two agency's respective positions has to do with the figure of broadband access versus broadband service. It's true, still less than 80% of U.S. households are serviced with Broadband -- a figure the FCC believes marks a horrible "lag." However, the GAO is suggesting that the issue is not so much one of inaccessibility to service, but rather, affordability that causes adoption to be low, even where access is available.

So, who is right? Well, both, really. Even if the GAO is correct in their assessment that 95% of Americans could get to broadband if they could afford it, it will require infrastructure in order to add competitors, and thereby drive prices down. Currently, those most difficult to be reached are also the most expensive to reach with broadband signal... and therefore making an expensive service to boot. The FCC's intention in developing new infrastructure is to bring even more access options, and thereby increase the rate of adoption.

Will it work? What do you think? What is the answer to our broadband lag? Or is there a lag at all?

Labels: "Internet infrastructure", FCC, GOA, National Broadband Plan, Rural Broadband

posted by Unknown at 1:56 PM 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

Tuesday, July 20, 2010
I admit it, I fit the stereotype of Americans. I'm quick to see the American issues as unique, our own, and quite frankly care little for the news and current events beyond my own borders (truthfully, beyond my own neighborhood). But at Accel, growing, and out-growing my own myopic vision. It's a very good thing, both for the company, and for my own mind's expansion.

Last week, it was announced that Accel Networks would be crossing the border to the North and providing fixed wireless broadband to Canada. Since that time, I've been reading more and more about the state of broadband in Canada. Where do we fit? Why is this so monumental? Who really cares?

What I found surprised me--which, as you'll see, merely perpetuates the notion of my silly myopia.

Canada, it would seem, is tackling the same overarching problem that the U.S. has been trying to address for the past couple of years. Rural broadband (or lack thereof), both in the U.S. and Canada, is seen as a great hindrance to the advancement of local economies. According to Broadband Canada, the Canadian Government just approved a second round of funding for several broadband providers to roll-out services in more rural areas.

But what sort of broadband infrastructure are they building? The truth is, the majority of development focus remains in terrestrial networks. That's where Accel comes in. Through our partnership with TELUS, Accel Networks now offers fixed wireless broadband services to businesses in Canada on a completely wireless local loop. No cables, no ditches dug, no expensive routing.

Fixed wireless broadband remains the fastest and most cost-effective solution for rural broadband, not to mention an alternative to terrestrial local loops even in urban centers. We're excited to be a part of bringing broadband to the masses, both in the U.S. and abroad.

Labels: Canada Broadband, Fixed Wireless Broadband, Local Loop, Rural Broadband

posted by Unknown at 5:03 AM Link to this Article  0 Comments