Data Transmission on T1 Carriers - Part 2

In Part 1of this topic I described how a T1 carrier is used to transmit data. Data transmission by nature is "bursty" meaning large amounts of information are typically transmitted and then followed by relatively quiet transmission periods. This can cause transmission problems for T-carrier systems since they rely on timing synchronization. Let's take a look how this potential problem is avoided.

Data Transmission on T-1 Carriers Part 1

Back in December I wrote a post here titled T1 Lines - What They Are. In the post I discuss the Digital Signal (DS) Level System and how combining the equivalent of 24 DS-0 voice channels along with overhead consisting of timing and synchronization bits brings the DS-1 bit rate to 1.644 Mbps - that's a T1. In this post, let's have a look in more detail to get a better idea of how the entire system works. 

The T-1 Carrier uses time division multiplexing and was designed for voice call transmission. When used for data one would think it would be possible to achieve a data bit rate of 64 Kbps over a T-1 carrier. Looking a little closer one sees that data on T-1 carriers is transmitted in the form of only 7 bit words, all eight bits are not used. Why? 

Remember the T carrier system was initially designed for voice. The first signal synchronization used for the T-1 carrier substituted a single in band signaling bit, used for control, for each of the 24 channels in every sixth frame. This means in the sixth and twelfth frames of every T-1 carrier master frame there is a bit used for in-band signaling. This is referred to as bit-robbing. Bit robbing is usually not a problem when transmitting voice. Even though the signal is slightly distorted, the listener on the receiving end cannot perceive the distortion. However this is a major problem when transmitting data as any data received with missing bits will be distorted and received incorrectly. To eliminate the problem caused by bit robbing data on the T-1 carrier is limited to seven bits per frame in all frames. By decreasing the number of bits transmitted the data bit rate is reduced.

For this reason, 56 Kbps Clear Channel Capability is the term used to refer to the T-1 carrier single channel maximum data bit rate.

T-1 Carrier Pulse Cycles

If we look closer at a T-1 Carrier signal we see there are negative and positive pulses combined in the digital pulse train. A sample T-1 signal pulse train is shown in the figure below.

Sample T-1 Pulse Train

It has been found that alternating positive/negative pulse trains (bipolar) produces fewer transmission errors than all positive or all negative pulse trains. These pulses are used to represent binary 1’s and each pulse, when non-zero, is positive half the non-zero cycle (50%) and negative half the non-zero cycle. We can look at an example of a positive (cycle 1) and negative (cycle 4) pulse from the above figure.

Sample T-1 Positive and Negative Going Pulses

In the figure above, T represents the period, or time it takes to complete a single pulse cycle. We can calculate the percent duty cycle using the following equation:

The pulses here are not zero for one half of the pulse period and have a 50% duty cycle. Let’s go back now and look at the original pulse train diagram and look at each cycle:

You can now see that if a pulse is present within a cycle time slot, whether positive or negative, it represents a 1 bit and if no pulse is present, it represents a 0-bit.

In Part 2 of this series I'll cover something called Bipolar with Zero Substitution (B8ZS) for T-1 signal synchronization.

Broadband Divide Continues

Earlier this week, the Department of Commerce's Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) released a study titled Exploring the Digital Nation: Computer and Internet Use at Home. The study analyzed 54,000 households using 2010 census data. Here's some details from a blog post at speedmatters.org:

• 68 % of households used broadband in 2010.

• Broadband adoption rates are slower that mobile.

• Households with lower incomes and less education, as well as Blacks, Hispanics, people with disabilities, and rural residents, were less likely to have Internet service at home.

• Seventy percent of urban households had broadband at home, compared to 57 percent of rural households.

• Less than half (43 percent) of households with annual incomes below $25,000 had broadband access at home, while 93 percent of households with incomes exceeding $100,000 had broadband.

Here's more from the study report:

• As of October 2010, more than 68 percent of households used broadband Internet access service, up from 64 percent one year earlier. Approximately 80 percent of households had at least one Internet user, either at home or elsewhere. 

•  Cable modem (32 percent) and DSL (23 percent) ranked as the most commonly used broadband technologies. Other technologies, including mobile broadband, fiber optics, and satellite services, accounted for a small, but growing, segment of households with broadband Internet access service.

• 2000s – continued to decline from five percent in October 2009 to three percent one year later.

• Over three-fourths (77 percent) of households had a computer – the principal means by which households access the Internet – compared with 62 percent in 2003. Low computer use correlates with low broadband adoption rates.

• Broadband Internet adoption, as well as computer use, varied across demographic and geographic groups. Lower income families, people with less education, those with disabilities, Blacks, Hispanics, and rural residents generally lagged the national average in both broadband adoption and computer use. For example, home broadband adoption and computer use stood at only 16 percent and 27 percent, respectively, among rural households headed by a Black householder without a high school diploma. Also, households with school-age children exhibited higher broadband adoption and computer use rates than other households.

• The differences in socio-economic attributes do not entirely explain why some groups lagged in adoption. Broadband Internet adoption disparities decrease when regression analysis holds constant certain household characteristics, such as income, education, race, ethnicity, foreign-born status, household composition, disability status, or geographic location. For example, the gap with respect to broadband Internet adoption associated with disabilities decreases from 29 to six percentage points when controlling for income, education, age, and other attributes.

• The most important reasons households without broadband Internet or dial-up service gave for not subscribing were: (1) lack of need or interest (47 percent); (2) lack of affordability (24 percent); and (3) inadequate computer (15 percent).

• Households reporting affordability as the major barrier to subscribing to broadband service cited both the fixed cost of purchasing a computer and the recurring monthly subscription costs as important factors. Our analysis of the expanded CPS data suggests that work, school, public libraries, and someone else’s house were all popular alternatives for Internet access among those with no home broadband Internet access service. Not surprisingly, individuals with no home broadband Internet access service relied on locations such as public libraries (20 percent) or other people’s houses (12 percent) more frequently than those who used broadband Internet access service at home.

The study also describes the $7 billion Recovery Act funding directed towards broadband in the U.S. Be sure to check out the complete study document linked here.

Hybrid-Terrestrial-Satellite Networks?

That's what Charlie Ergen at Dish Networks is putting together and it makes sense. Ergen's a former professional blackjack player billionaire currently transforming Dish to a wireless mobile video company. An October 17-23, 2011 Business Week Companies & Industries piece titled Charlie Ergen Wants To Beam You Everything does a nice job summarizing where Ergen is taking Dish. Here's some details.

Dish has spent over $5 billion this year on acquisitions of companies in bankruptcy. Here's three of the biggest:

• Blockbuster video chain - video content 
•  EchoStar set-top box maker - IP-based end device connectivity
• Hughes Communications  - satellite Internet service provider

Ergen moved fast with the Blockbuster acquisition, rolling out a Blockbuster branded movie streaming service to Dish customers last month. 

What's next? Ergen currently has a $1.9 billion offer on the books for Hulu which is currently owned by News Corp., Walt Disney and Comcast. Picking up Hulu would give Dish rights to more than one million paying subscribers.

Dish also has pending deals to pick up DBSD North America and TerreStar Networks. These two companies also own wireless spectrum which could be the real prize and an indication of things to come. What the company really needs is more wireless. Access to an existing broad wireless network (DBSD and TerreStar will not be enough) is coming so watch for Ergen to go after a provider (maybe Sprint?) or maybe cut a deal with one of the other providers (Verizon Wireless or AT&T?).

What about competition from companies like Netflix? Peter M. Hoffman from GHL is quoted in that Business Week piece "What Charlie's done is put together content and distribution. Netflix still has to rely on someone else's distribution to deliver its content."

Adding that wireless broadband piece (that Ergen needs for video delivery) could turn Dish into a viable broadband alternative to telcos like Verizon and cable companies like Time Warner. What really excites me is the access Dish could offer rural areas where there is currently not good broadband options.

Rural Broadband - Holland, Massachusetts

The Springfield (MA) Sunday Republican runs a Q&A piece every week titled Just Ask. this past Sunday a woman who lives in Holland, MA posted a pretty interesting question. Before we get to the question though, let's take a quick look at Holland (source Wikipedia). According to the United States Census Bureau: 

• The town has a total area of 13.1 square miles (33.9 km²), of which, 12.4 square miles (32.1 km²) of it is land and 0.7 square miles (1.8 km²) of it (5.34%) is water. 
• As of the census of 2000, there were 2,407 people, 898 households, and 668 families residing in the town. The population density was 194.2 people per square mile (75.0/km²). There were 1,317 housing units at an average density of 106.3 per square mile (41.0/km²). 
• The median income for a household in the town was $52,073, and the median income for a family was $57,024.
• Holland has it's own elementary school but is considering merging its elementary school with the town of Wales. Holland students attend Tantasqua Regional Junior High School (grades 7-8) and Tantasqua Regional High School in Sturbridge.

A typical rural New England town that can be compared to likely hundreds of other rural communities across the U.S. Now for the newspaper reader question.

Question: Is it true that Verizon Communications does not have fiberoptics in my home area, Holland, and that there are no plans to install same? What I have now is a dial-up modem with Verizon, and it is very slow. It takes 10 full minutes for me to access my checking account online, after four screen changes. I understand the need for security, but this is ridiculous. I’m a teacher and need to cover a lot of ground on the Internet in a single day. At such snail speeds, I’m limited to very few online tasks like collecting emails. Over the past three years I have made numerous calls to Verizon service to ask if I could sign-up for high-speed Internet service, and the answer was always “no.” 
In this year of speed-of-light communications, do I have any other options? 
– Kathleen McGrory, Holland 

And the answer from reporter Jim Kinney:

Answer: While it is true Verizon does not offer DSL service for people in your area of Holland, there are other options available. Cox Communications, Holland’s cable provider, does offer provide high-speed Internet in this area. Since you sent us this inquiry, we understand you signed up with Cox’s Broadband service and can now quickly access your checkbook online. Welcome to the 21st century, Kathleen. 
Verizon spokesman Philip G. Santoro said, “There just aren’t enough customers there (for Verizon) to justify the expense.” He suggested people like you contact their local cable operator.  He also pointed out that there is a third option, and that is Verizon Wireless’ 3G coverage, which would provide high-speed Internet through cell phone coverage.

Many small rural towns in the U.S. do not have any option except dial-up. It is upsetting to read the Verizon spokesman's honest answer regarding high speed landline based service in Holland. Nothing against Verizon - it's the frustrating reality of situations across our country. From a business perspective it does not make sense for a traditional telephone company to offer high-speed data service in a town like Holland. With current data caps in place from Verizon Wireless and other providers I don't see 3G (or upcoming 4G) services as a competitive alternative. 

Holland residents are fortunate they do have a cable option. Many similar communities in our country are stuck with dial-up as their only option.


9/14/11 at 7:28 PM

This comment came in from retired Cable Executive Steven Solomon via Google+.

Gordon, I would add this comment to your post. What is often invisible to the public is the real demographics of a community like Holland. I know about this first hand. I helped negotiate the cable TV franchise with the town on the part of the predecessor provider to Cox, Continental Cablevision.

As of 1994, of the 2,400 or so residents of the town, only about 600 homeowners lived in their homes all year round. The rest kept their residences as vacation or second homes. This put the full-time residents at a great disadvantage in getting broadband by landline of any sort.

Putting in broadband plant at about $20G a mile is not a reasonable business proposition for the private sector if the company is relying only on the margin earned from Internet (which now competes with phone and cable TV). Thus, I don't see any alternative to the private sector stepping in with the 21st century equivalent of rural electrification.

1 Gbps Next Generation Internet Services in Rural Britain

Fujitsu, Virgin Media, TalkTalk and Cisco have agreed to collaboratively build a fiber based network to deliver next generation internet services to 5 million homes in rural Britain. In addition to all of the benefits broadband services provide to homes and businesses (education, entertainment, remote healthcare, government services, etc), there are a number of other things I find appealing about this collaborative effort:

• It's rural - these are areas that typically suffer most, lacking any broadband services.

• The network will be Fiber To The Home (FTTH) based with initial symmetrical bandwidth of 1 Giga bit per second (Gbps).

• Because they are going to be using fiber, the network is future-proofed with  the potential to run at speeds greater than 10 Gbps. 

• The network will be open access to any ISP,  giving rural customers options. When broadband is available in rural areas, often there is only a single choice. Competition should be good because it usually drives prices down and bandwidths up to the consumer.

• The collaboration will involve local community broadband groups, enabling dynamic and flexible solutions in rural communities.

 It would be nice to see a collaboration like this in the U.S.

FCC Internet Access and Telephone Competition Reports Released

The Federal Communications Commission released a couple of reports today titled Internet Access Services and Local Telephone Competition.  Both  reports are based on data submitted by carriers every six months on FCC Form 477. Each report tracks Internet service subscribers using 72 different speed teir combinations along with the number of wireline, mobile and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephone subscribers. These reports cover FCC data collected through June 30, 2010.

Highlights from the Internet Access Services report include the following:

• 60% of connections were slower than the benchmark 4 megabits per second (Mbps)
  download speed identified by the FCC as the minimum bandwidth generally required to
  accommodate today’s uses: high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video. 
• Growth of fixed broadband service appears to have flattened at 1% in the first half of 2010, to 82 million connections.

Highlights from the Local Telephone Competition report include the following:

• Interconnected VoIP grew by 21% between June 2009 and June 2010.
• Conventional switched access lines (i.e., traditional wireline telephone lines) decreased
  by 8% between June 2009 and June 2010.
• 28% of all residential wireline connections were interconnected VoIP as of June 2010.
• An estimated 77% of interconnected VoIP subscribers received service through a cable
  provider.
• The number of subscriptions to wireless phone service grew by 5% in the year.

 Both reports can be downloaded at www.fcc.gov/wcb/stats.

Last month, the FCC began to consider reforms to the Form 477 program, with concerns about the lag time time between data collection and reporting. As an example - we're just seeing reporting today on data that was collected the first six months of 2010.

You can comment on reforms here http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/, using WC Docket No. 11-10. Initial comments are due on or before March 30. Reply comments are due on or before April 14.

FCC Chairman - Net Neutrality Proposed Rules

I've written here in the past about Net Neutrality and the issues. Yesterday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced a set of proposed rules to protect the open Internet. Here's a summary of Genachowski's announcement with pieces taken from a post by Nick Farrell:

• Genachowski will present the principle that broadband companies shouldn't block or degrade rival web content, services or applications to a vote that will be held on 21 December.
• The compromise rules in theory mean that US Internet users can use peer-to-peer software and see whatever websites they like and use any equipment they like on their cable or DSL connections.
• Carriers and ISPs will be barred from slowing down or blocking content from competitors. The ISPs will also have to be transparent about how they manage congestion on their networks to ensure that anti-competitive behavior isn't being disguised.

Sounds good so far but is it enough? Carriers will still be allowed to create paid fast lanes on the net and the FCC is not reclassifying the Internet as a "telecommunications service", which would have given the FCC clear authority to enforce its rules.

According to Farrrell, Genachowski has the support of Cisco CEO John Chambers, AT&T senior executive VP Jim Ciccono, and Comcast EVP David Cohen. The Communication Workers of America is also in support with a petition you can sign here. Not everyone thinks it goes far enough though. Sascha Meinrath, director of the New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative has a post over at Wired. Here's a quote from Meinrath's piece:

Without fundamental changes to the current order, the Chairman’s proposal will be a great victory for the largest telecom corporations and a sound defeat for those working to support innovation and the economic vibrancy that an open Internet facilitates. The New America Foundation is hopeful that the Chairman’s office and Commissioners that support open Internet rules will develop a final order that uphold the FCC’s responsibility to protect consumers and Internet freedom.

In order to take effect, the proposal must be approved by a majority of the five FCC commissioners . Here's how Wireless Week breaks down that vote if it were to happen today.

• There’s no way Genachowski will vote against a proposal he himself introduced and has fought so hard for. He's a YES.
• Michael Copps issued the most carefully-worded statement of the bunch, but so far he’s been a big proponent of Genachowski’s net neutrality push and it’s unlikely he’ll back out now. Also a YES.
• Mignon Clyburn seemed to be in favor of the plan, saying “clear rules of road are absolutely necessary.” Another YES.
• Meredith Baker and Robert McDowell came out against the idea in comments filed today. That is two NOs.

Right now it looks like it would pass 3-2. We'll see what happens on December 21.

DSL = (D)ead, (S)low and (L)ousy?

That’s what a post over at Stop the Cap! called Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) after reviewing a report from Credit Suisse analyst Stefan Anninger. Here’s some highlights from that report:

• DSL will increasingly be seen as the “dial-up” service of the 2010s, as demand for more broadband speed moves beyond what most phone companies are willing or able to provide.
• DSL accounts sold in the United States top out at an average speed of just 4Mbps, while consumers are increasingly seeking out service at speeds of at least 7Mbps.
• A growing number of Americans understand cable and fiber-based broadband deliver the highest speeds, and consumers are increasingly dropping DSL for cable and fiber competitors. Any investments now may be a case of “too little, too late,” especially if they only incrementally improve DSL speeds.
• By 2015, cable companies will have secured 56 percent of the broadband market in the U.S. (up by 2 percent from today), phone companies will drop from 30 percent to just 15 percent, Verizon FiOS, AT&T U-verse, and wireless broadband will each control around 7 percent of the market, with the remainder split among municipal fiber, satellite, and other technologies.
• An online survey of 1,000 consumers in August found that less than half would consider going wireless only. The reasons? It’s too slow, too expensive and most plans have Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles.

Regarding the FCC’s recent push for broadband reform by reclassifying broadband under Title II - Anninger suggests that Net Neutrality enforcement at the FCC is not a priority. Anninger goes on to say if action hasn’t been taken by winter or spring of next year, it’s a safe bet the Commission will never re-assert its authority.

Why Broadband Service Is So Poor In The U.S.

In an October 4, 2010 editorial titled Why Broadband Service in the U.S. Is So Awful And one step that could change it, Scientific American discusses the poor condition of U.S. broadband service when compared to much of the rest of the world. Here’s a couple of key points (we’re all way too familiar with) from the piece:

• The U.S. came in dead last in a recent study that compared how quickly 40 countries and regions have been progressing toward a knowledge-based economy over the past 10 years.
• A decade ago the U.S. ranked at or near the top of most studies of broadband price and performance.

From the top of the list to the bottom – what happened in the last 10 years? Scientific American traces the start of our problems back to 2002 when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reclassified broadband Internet service as an “information service” rather than a “telecommunications service.” This reclassification allowed infrastructure owners (essentially telco and cable companies) to keep their infrastructure private (some would say monopolize), stifling competition.

How are places like Japan and Korea different? Countries that are beating the pants off us require infrastructure companies to wholesale access to independent providers. This means consumers in these countries have many options from companies competing on price and service. Simply said, broadband competition is good but unfortunately, we don’t have it.

Can we fix it? The Scientific American editorial also discusses the net neutrality debate. Here’s another piece:

A separate debate—over net neutrality, the principle that Internet providers must treat all data equally regardless of their origin or content—has put the broadband crisis back in the spotlight. Earlier this year a federal appeals court struck down the FCC’s plan to enforce net neutrality, saying that because the FCC classified the Internet as an information service, it does not have any more authority to ensure that Internet providers treat all content equally than it does to ensure that CNN treats all political arguments equally.

In response, the FCC announced its intention to reclassify broadband Internet as a telecommunications service. The move would give the FCC power to enforce net neutrality as well as open broadband lines up to third-party competition, enabling free markets to deliver better service for less money.

Sounds great but…. current FCC chair Genachowski has said that although he regards the Internet as a telecommunications service, he does not want to bring in third-party competition. The Scientific American editorial speculates this move may have been intended to avoid criticism from policy makers, both Republican and Democrat, who have aligned themselves with large Internet providers such as AT&T and Comcast that stand to suffer when their local monopolies are broken.

The Scientific American editorial is an excellent read along with the growing number of reader comments. Check it out.

1200 bits per second on an IBM PC

Silicon Alley Insider put up an interesting post today titled AOL To Launch New Ad Campaign – Here Are The Best Old Ones. The post links ten old AOL ads dating back to 1996. It’s pretty interesting to watch them (my favorite is number 6! :)

This got me thinking about how far we’ve come regarding bandwidth and (for many of us fortunate to have broadband service available) the old days of dial-up. Poking around for a couple of minutes on YouTube I found this video of an old IBM PC running DOS 2.0 connecting to a Bulletin Board Service (BBS) with a Hayes Smartmodem 1200. I had the exact same system minus the color monitor around 1982 or so.

Memories of DOS, dial-up sounds and the old AT command set...... I paid around $700 just for that modem and have still got it sitting on my desk as a curiosity piece. Just can't bring myself to tossing what still looks like $700 (in 1982 money) to me!

Thanks to vintageibmnet for posting the video.

New Pew Internet Study: Home Broadband 2010

On August 11, as part of the Pew Internet and American Life Project, the Pew Research Center published a new study titled Home Broadband 2010. According to the report, findings are based on data from telephone interviews conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International between April 29 and May 30, 2010, among a sample of 2,252 adults ages 18 and older, including 744 reached on a cell phone. Interviews were conducted in English.

Here’s some report highlights:

• Two-thirds of American adults (66%) now have a broadband internet connection at home, a figure that is little changed from the 63% with a high-speed home connection at a similar point in 2009.
• Most demographic groups experienced flat-to-modest broadband adoption growth over the last year. The notable exception to this trend came among African-Americans, who experienced 22% year-over-year broadband adoption growth.
• In 2009 65% of whites and 46% of African-Americans were broadband users (a 19-point gap)
• In 2010 67% of whites and 56% of African-Americans are broadband users (an 11-point gap)
• By a 53%-41% margin, Americans say they do not believe that the spread of affordable broadband should be a major government priority.
• Non-internet users are less likely than current users to say the government should place a high priority on the spread of high-speed connections.
• A fifth of American adults (21%) do not use the internet. Many non-users think online content is not relevant to their lives and they are not confident they could use computers and navigate the web on their own.

This Pew report is concise, packed with good information and easy to read. You can download a PDF version here.

100 Mbps Wireless To Your Home Coming Soon? Even Out In The Sticks?

It's likely just a matter of time before those copper telecommunications wires still connecting most of us are history..... in Australia..... and a little later..... in the United States.

Australia currently has a broadband goal of 100mbps to 90% of homes by 2018 and the country’s largest telecommunications firm, Telstra, and Nokia Siemens Networks, have demonstrated 100 Mbps of bandwidth downstream on a 4G LTE network over a 75 Kilometer distance - that is approximately 46.6 miles!

Here's an interesting broadbandbreakfast.com quote from Kalevi Kostiainen, head of Nokia Siemens Networks, Australia and New Zealand:

The benefits of LTE in urban environments are currently being deployed globally, having already been extensively tested and the business benefits well understood. Through this unique joint trial we can now see how LTE can be extended to provide cost effective solutions for rural and remote environments.

This year in the U.S., Verizon Wireless is rolling out LTE and next year AT&T will start their LTE rollout. In addition, Sprint/Clearwire continues to roll out 4G WiMax service. It is just a matter of time.....

Mixed Results for 4G Wireless Trials

Cox Communications released some interesting results at the Mobile World Congress trade show in Barcelona, Spain yesterday. The company has been testing Long Term Evolution (LTE) wireless delivery on both its AWS and 700 MHz spectrum in San Diego and Phoenix. I've written here in the past about the 700 MHz spectrum range - back in 2005 Congress passed a law that requires all U.S. TV stations to convert to all digital broadcasts and give up analog spectrum in the 700 MHz frequency band. This law freed up 62 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band and effectively eliminated channels between 52 and 69. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) held a 700 MHz auction in 2008 with Cox and others buying some of that spectrum for technologies like LTE. The Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) band is similar to 700 MHz but operates at a higher frequency, representing 90 MHz of spectrum in the 1.7- to 2.1-GHz range.

Some industry people have been saying fourth generation (4G) technologies LTE and WiMAX will effectively backfill areas where high speed "wired" broadband services (Cable, FTTN, FTTH, etc) are not available. I've been one of those with my fingers crossed, hoping 4G technologies will eventually provide high-bandwidth services to underserved areas of our country. If Cox's test results are any indication, it does not appear this will be the case though. Stephen Bye, Cox's vice president of wireless services presentation is referenced in a Fierce Wireless post yesterday:

Cox's LTE trials showed peak speeds of around 25 Mbps with 2x2 MIMO technology over a 2x5 MHz channel in the carrier's AWS spectrum. However, those speeds were for a single user very close to the cell site.

On the cell edge, that same single user would only get around 10 Mbps, according to Cox's tests.

Multiple users on the cell edge would see far slower speeds.

To put those numbers into perspective, Bye said Cox's wired Internet subscribers average around 8 GB per month of data use, and the top 1 percent carrier's most active wired Internet users access 200 GB of data per month (those users enjoy wired Internet speeds of up to 50 Mbps, he said).

Bye said Cox has witnessed a 200 percent growth rate in 12 months in its customers' wired Internet usage.

In his presentation, Bye described wireless as "complementary" to the MSO's wired network and explained that LTE will never handle the traffic loads that fully wired Internet users generate.

A dose of reality - unfortunately - I have to agree with him. The consumption and desire for more and more bandwidth is not slowing. Even if a wireless provider like a Cox, Verizon or AT&T could provide 25 Mbps sustained to underserved areas - in the end it is still not going to be enough when compared to much higher bandwidth "wired" services we're seeing in many parts of the U.S. and other countries.

NTCA 2009 Broadband/Internet Availability Survey Report

Over the last 11 years the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA) has run a broadband/Internet availability survey of member companies that measures deployment rates of advanced connectivity services. The NTCA refers to itself as "the voice of rural telecommunications," and, according to their website, is the premiere non-profit association representing more than 580 small and rural telephone cooperatives and commercial companies.

The 2009 survey was run in the late spring/early summer and 156 member companies (31%) responded. Here's some of the survey results:

• 98% of respondents offer broadband to some part of their customer base, compared to the 58% in 2000
• 98% of those who offer broadband utilize digital subscriber line (DSL)
• 59% utilize fiber to the home (FTTH) or fiber to the curb (FTTC) (up from 44% last year and 32% the year before that)
• 25% utilize licensed wireless
• 22% utilize unlicensed wireless
• 15% utilize satellite
• 10% utilize cable modem
• 78% of respondents’ customers can receive 200 to 768 kilobits per second (kbps) service.
• 73% of respondents’ customers can receive 768 kbps to 1.5 megabits per second (Mbps)
• 77% of respondents’ customers can receive 1.5 Mbps to 3 Mbps
• 53% of respondents’ customers can receive 3 Mbps to 6 Mbps
• 39% of respondents’ customers can receive greater than 6 Mbps.

Among the companies surveyed, the overall take rate for broadband service was 37%.

The full report is linked here.

A Report on Internet Speeds In The U.S.

The Communications Workers of America released their third annual Speed Matters survey of Internet speeds last week. The 67 page report takes a look at how U.S. Internet speeds compare state-by-state and with the rest of the world. Here's some highlights:

• The United States ranks 28th in average Internet connection speeds.
• The average download speed for the nation was 5.1 megabits per second (Mbps) and increased from 4.2 Mbps last year.
• The average upload speed for the nation was 1.1 mbps and increased from 873 kilobits per second (Kbps) last year.
• The U.S. average upload speed is far too slow for patient monitoring or transmitting large files such as medical records.
  

How do we compare? 24 other countries in the world have faster broadband than we do in the U.S. Here's some of the faster ones:

• In South Korea, the average download speed is 20.4 Mbps.
• In Japan, the average download speed is 15.8 Mbps.
• In Sweden, the average download speed is 12.8 Mbps.
• In the Netherlands, the average download speed is 11 Mbps.

According to the CWA report, at our current rate of increase, it will take the United States 15 years to catch up with current Internet speeds in South Korea. Also:

• 90% of Japanese households have access to fiber-to-the-home networks capable of 100 Mbps.
• The average advertised download speeds offered by broadband providers in Japan was 92.8 Mbps and in South Korea was 80.8 Mbps.

The report also indicates relatively few Americans have access to truely high-speed two-way communications:

• 18% of those who ran the speed test on the Speed Matters website recorded download speeds slower than 768 Kbps which does not even qualify as basic broadband according to the new(er) Federal Communications Commission definition.
• 64% of speed test participants connected at less than 10 Mbps downstream which is not enough bandwidth for high-definition video.
• Only 19% connected at speeds greater than 10 Mbps and only 2% of those exceeded 25 Mbps downstream.

In the United States, Delaware was ranked number one with an average download speed of 9.906 Mbps and an average upload speed of 2.310 Mbps. Puerto Rico was ranked last (53rd) with average download speeds of 1.043 Mbps and average upload speeds of 383 Mbps.

Some will argue about the way the data was collected and things like sample sizes, etc. In the end though we are performing incredibly poorly when compared with the rest of the world.

The Speed Matters website has the full free report that includes a state-by-state breakdown along with the option of viewing and downloading individual state specific reports. Be sure to check it out and see how your state did.

[Note: Image above taken from full report, page 1]

FCC National Broadband Plan: Defining Access

It's a busy time of year with my daughter graduating from high school, the end of the semester, etc, etc, etc. Things are settling down now and I wanted to get back to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to develop a modern national broadband plan that will seek to ensure that every American has access to broadband capability.

As I've written in the past, the NOI is currently open for comment until June 8 with FCC reply to comments on July 7. In my last post I took a look at Defining Broadband Capability. Today let's look at Defining Access to Broadband as described in the 59 page report. I've listed selected items the FCC is seeking comment on, followed by my comments.

The FCC seeks comment on what it means to have access to broadband capability. For instance, the FCC seeks comment on whether the determination of availability should take into consideration the provision of broadband at locations, such as at home, at work, in schools, in transit, in libraries and other similar community centers, and at public Wi-Fi hotspots.

Broadband capability needs to be everywhere. Prioritizing (for example, saying a library requires more bandwidth per user than a home) makes little sense. We need to make broadband available to everyone.

The FCC seeks comment on whether to interpret the capability term differently depending on the technology used or whether it is used in a fixed, nomadic, or mobile context.

A minimum definition should be set that all technologies should meet and then categories should be broken out. For example, a fiber to the home (FTTH) fixed technology connection is going to have considerably more capability than a mobile wireless connection.

The FCC seeks comment on whether (and if so, how) the Commission should evaluate the term “access” with certain basic consumer expectations in mind.

In 2005 the Commission adopted an Internet Policy Statement in which it committed “to preserve and promote the vibrant and open character of the Internet as the telecommunications marketplace enters the broadband age” by incorporating four consumer-based principles into its ongoing policy making activities. (1) “consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice”; (2) “consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement”; (3) “consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network”; and (4) “consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.”

I believe these 4 principles are critical as we move forward and these principles should be turned into rules (through a rulemaking).

To what extent should the Commission consider price or marketplace competition for broadband as it considers whether people have access to broadband capability?

Competition is key if we want bandwidths from different providers to leapfrog and prices to drop. In Massachusetts we've seen fierce competition in the eastern part of the state as Verizon (FiOS) and the cable companies go back and forth with each other. In Western Massachusetts (where I live) FiOS is not available and we are seeing little competition when compared.

Areas where there is only a single provider typically have to wait for long periods of time to see new broadband delivery technologies. More competition in under-served areas is critical areas or these areas will continue to fall further behind. I'd like to see the national broadband plan focus stimulus money on these areas with limited competition and capability.

What benefits to consumers are unique to differentbroadband technologies? How should the Commission consider the different qualitative features discussed in the definition of broadband, such as latency, peak download speed, and mobility?

We must set these features aggressively and at a level that does not just compete but leads the rest of the world - this must be our goal. The OECD maintains a portal that provides access to a range of broadband-related statistics gathered by the OECD. The OECD has indentified five main categories which are important for assessing broadband markets - Penetration, Usage, Coverage, Prices, and Service & Speeds. For example, fiber is the dominant connection technology in Korea and Japan and now accounts for 48% of all Japanese broadband subscriptions and 43% in Korea. With fiber comes lower latency, higher peak download speeds and (yes) even more mobility.

The FCC also seeks comment on the extent to which access hinges on affordability.

Simply put, it needs to be fast and it needs to be cheap. Referring to the OECD portal again and as an example, on average, subscribers in OECD countries pay 15 times more per advertised megabit of connectivity than Koreans. We must be faster and cheaper than Korea if we want to compete with the rest of the world.

The FCC seeks comment on what it means for a person with disabilities to "have access" to broadband capabilities.

The report references the Assistive Technologies Act of 2004, supporting state efforts to improve provision of assistive technology to individuals with disabilities; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,requiring common carriers to provide telecommunications relay services for deaf and speech-impaired individuals; and the Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets; Petition of American National Standards Institute Accredited Standards Committee C63, that focuses on adopting hearing aid compatibility requirements for mobile wireless devices.

Higher bandwidths and lower costs per megabit will drive innovation and applications that help and support people with disabilities. That said, assistive technologies must continue to be regulated and ratcheted up as bandwidth and access continues to improve.

I believe residential broadband (to the home) is key in our country. Homes in our broadband equation are the lowest common denominator. Lots of inexpensive and reliable bandwidth to everyone's home will drive bandwidth up and costdown at work, libraries, public Wi-Fi hotspots, etc. We must set our residential broadband bar higher than the rest of the world in each of the five OECD portal categories.

FCC National Broadband Plan: Defining Broadband Capability

I've been writing about the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to develop a modern national broadband plan that will seek to ensure that every American has access to broadband capability. The NOI is currently open for comment until June 8 with FCC reply to comments on July 7.

The 59 page report starts with some introductory information that I've covered here in prior posts. The FCC hopes to establish these four primary goals and benchmarks:

1. Defining Broadband Capability
2. Defining Access to Broadband
3. Measuring Progress
4. Role of Market Analysis

Today, let's take a look at Defining Broadband Capability.

Broadband is defined lots of different ways and the FCC is seeking comment on how the definition should capture the various issues that should be considered as the FCC defines broadband capability, including how to take into account the various existing and emerging technologies.

According to the NOI, the FCC currently uses the terms advanced telecommunications capability, broadband, and high-speed Internet. Most of us think of broadband as data - high speed data but just data. That's changing for many of us - we're in the middle of the migration to all IP networks and I believe voice and video must be included along with data in the new broadband definition. I'd be fine with just calling it just broadband.

We're also dealing with a wide range of technologies - Fiber To The Home (FTTH), Fiber To The Node (FTTN), WiMAX, LTE, DOCSIS, ADSL, etc. Each of these provides a different range of bandwidths depending on distance, signal strength, etc. I'd like to see specific bandwidth ranges that can be easily adjusted as we ramp up speeds. This is the way we did it with dial-up data access using analog modems - 300 bps became 1200 bps became 2400 bps, etc. I also believe we need to define both upstream and downstream bandwidths for these ranges. Here's the way the FCC started defining bandwidth tiers of service last year:

First Generation data: 200 Kbps up to 768 Kbps

Basic Broadband : 768 Kbps to 1.5 Mbps
1.5 Mbps to 3.0 Mbps
3.0 Mbps to 6.0 Mbps
6.0 Mbps and above

A service is categorized if bandwidth in only one direction (the faster direction) meets the ranges listed. Most consumer services are asymmetrical with more bandwidth provided in the downstream direction that the upstream direction. I'd like to see these tiers broken out further and include separate listings for upstream and downstream bandwidths.

I'd also like to see average speeds calculated over the course of 24 hour/7 day a week periods be listed. It makes no sense for my provider to list maximum speeds that I can only get at 3 in the morning when all of my neighbors are sleeping.

In addition, these tier levels must be dynamic and adjust up with technology improvements. I hope I'm not still sitting at the 3-6 Mbps tier (in one direction) a year from now.

I don't believe there should be different definitions or standards for the type of broadband service provided. For example, we don't need separate definitions for mobile broadband services (e.g. wireless) and fixed broadband services (e.g. cable modem). Bandwidth is bandwidth so keep them all the same.

I also don't believe rural and other hard to get to areas should have lower tier standards and definitions. We must make every effort to provide equal service to as many people as possible in our country.

For details be sure to see the entire 59 page report. In the next post I'll discuss Defining Access to Broadband.