Australians Moving On Broadband

There's an interesting post on Reuters today about how the Australian government has rejected private company bids and has decided to lead a new private-public company, building out their own $31 billion high-speed broadband network. The government will ask private companies to join the infrastructure project, building a network that would be up to 100 times faster than the current network.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is quoted in the piece, saying:

It's time for us to bite the bullet on this. The initiative announced today is a historic nation-building investment focused on Australia's long-term national interest.

After the network is fully operational for five years, the government plans to sell its majority stake.

A gutsy move by Rudd in uncertain fiscal times that will likely pay off when things start to improve.

The initiative still requires Australian parliamentary approval.

U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture: Rural Broadband At A Glance

The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently published an interesting six-page (short!) report titled Rural Broadband At A Glance . The report draws on research done by the Dept of Agriculture's Economic Research Service , the Federal Communication Commission and the U.S. Census Bureau.

Rural Internet is investigated and indicates rural residents are less likely to have high-speed, or broadband, Internet access than their urban counterparts. The main limitation of slower, dial-up Internet access is that many content-dense applications and documents, and such critical services as anti-virus protections, are not readily usable via dial-up due to low transmission capability and speed.

Circumstantial evidence in the report suggests that the difference in access may lie in the higher cost and limited availability of broadband Internet in rural areas. As a result, rural residents depend more on Internet use outside of the home, relying on places like the library, school, and work, where broadband Internet access is available.

Here's some selected report stats:

• Internet use is lower for individuals in rural areas (71 percent) than in urban areas (77 percent).
• In 2007, 63 percent of all rural households had at least one member access the Internet, at home or elsewhere, compared with 73 percent of urban households.
• Fifty-two percent of all rural households had in-home Internet access compared with 64 percent of urban households.
• In 2005, 30 percent of farmers were using the Internet for farm business; 2 years later, use had increased to 63 percent. As Internet adoption increases, the need for high-speed Internet also rises as online purchasing and marketing become the norm.

The report summarizes that rural communities have not been left out of the ever-changing information economy, although issues of equal access exist. Evidence suggests that the difference in access may lie in the higher cost or limited availability of broadband Internet in rural areas. The report indicates more information is needed, saying data on broadband use in households and businesses and its cost are needed to better address this issue.

You can download and read the full report PDF here.

IBM and IBEC Providing Broadband to Rural Markets

There's been a lot of ups and downs in the delivery of broadband services over power lines (Broadband over Power Lines or BPL) here in the United States. Trials have been setup and the technology has been demonstrated to work but really has not gone anywhere.

Here in Western Massachusetts I recall a trial setup by one of the electric companies that delivered broadband services to wireless access points hung on poles. Customers made their connections by logging in wirelessly. That trial was done in a suburb/residential type area where other broadband options were available. The technology worked but I believe, in the end, the power company could not compete price-wise with the cable and telecommunications companies already servicing the area and the trial was dropped.

This scenario has played out across the country - here's an interesting quote from a BPL piece at NetworkWorld :

BPL so far has not caught on as a broadband technology in the United States. As of June 30, 2007, the FCC reported that only 5,420 people in the United States subscribed to broadband over power line, vs. 34 million cable subscribers and 27.5 million asymmetrical DSL subscribers.

Rural areas are different though - what if BPL service was made available to customers that have no option except dial-up? This is the question IBM asked and, as a result, the company signed a $9.6 million agreement with International Broadband Electric Communications (IBEC) to expand broadband services to rural customers. IBM and IBEC plan to roll out BPL service through seven electric cooperatives in Alabama, Indiana, Michigan and Virginia and say they could end up providing broadband connectivity to approximately 200,000 people that otherwise, would not have it.

IBEC's trademarked tag line is "For Underserved and Rural Markets™" - exactly what we need in our country. I'm hoping this will be a sign of more good things (broadband) to come.

Gigonomics: The New Workforce Model?

Newsweek published an interesting piece today titled The New American Job: Are freelance and part-time gigs the future? The piece discusses how, in the current economy, a job is not a job using the traditional definition. Work for many has become a pastiche of part-time gigs, project contracts and fill-in freelance work. Here's an interesting quote from Newsweek:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment was up in December across all fifty states from the previous month and the prior year. Some 2.5 million full-time jobs have evaporated in the last 13 months, contributing to what's being called the "gig economy." But there is a convergence of other, more developed trends at play as well. Tight-budgeted company managers long ago embraced outsourcing to only pay for what they can use. A new generation of workers has 24/7 connectivity, lacks corporate loyalty, and thinks like (if the McCain/Palin contingent will give us back the word) mavericks. Put them together and you get gigonomics.

New York is a good example of what's being seen around the country where (from Newsweek) two thirds of the opportunities created last year were either part-time, temporary or contract based, according to Sara Horowitz of the Freelancers Union, a group which does advocacy work and provides benefits for independent workers. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed giving tax relief to the thousands who actually pay more in taxes because they are self-employed.

Will self-employment stick or is this just the result of our current economic meltdown? Should we be teaching business/self-employment survival skills in our science, technology and engineering classes?

My final question is do we have the broadband infrastructure in place in our country as we shift to this model and compete with the rest of the world? I think most of us realize the answer to this question is no.

Be sure to read the entire Newsweek piece linked here.

Will U.S. Continue Broadband Slide Under Obama?

Since 2001, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States has moved from fourth in the world to fifteenth in broadband penetration. Not exactly bragging rights. Lot's of us have been out advocating for broadband reform and a new definition of broadband. Congress is working to determine what speed broadband should be defined as, whether taxpayer money should be invested in areas that do not have broadband access and whether existing slower networks should be subsidized for upgrades.Here's a summary from an article in today's Wall Street Journal:

Large cable operators are seeking to increase the FCC's definition of broadband download speed to about five megabits per second, about 6½ times as fast as the current definition, according to people familiar with the situation. Internet-service providers building out "unserved" regions, where service of that speed isn't available, would be given the full benefit of tax incentives or grants.

The big cable providers also want to target "underserved" areas, where there is only one broadband provider or the service isn't widely available. In those markets, companies would get incentives to build out next-generation services. The download speed that would qualify as next-generation would likely be in the range of 40 to 50 megabits per second, people involved in the discussions say.

I'm loving this right now but.... the smaller telcos don't like it - how come? Here's more from the Journal:

The cable plan would disadvantage phone companies, especially smaller ones whose digital-subscriber-line services are slower than cable modems. The Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, which represents midsize phone companies, is pushing for a slower broadband standard, in the range of 1.5 to three megabits per second. Curt Stamp, the group's president, says the federal largesse should be used to subsidize carrier investments in rural areas rather than to finance upgrades to their existing networks.

I've written in the past here frequently about our lack of a competitive broadband policy in this country. So..... cable companies pushing for higher speed broadband definitions and wanting to target "underserved" areas at speeds up to 50 megabits per second. Smaller telecos pushing for a new broadband definition that is about half of what the cable companies want. Here's a little more from the Wall Street Journal:

The Telecommunications Industry Association, which represents equipment makers, is pushing for a $25 billion grant program for Internet service providers. Under another proposal that is being discussed, grants could go to state and municipal authorities, which would build high-speed networks and then open them up to competing service providers. That would likely meet with considerable resistance from large carriers like Verizon Communications Inc., which have challenged attempts by local governments to build and operate their own wireless or high-speed fiber networks.

Cable companies, smaller telcos, big telcos and equipment manufacturers all lobbying and every day we continue to fall further behind the rest of the world. Obama will have his hands full trying to turn this one around - his transition team declined comment to the Journal.

2009 - Lots of Bandwidth?

Yesterday, Comcast announced 50Mbps service in Baltimore, Chicago, Atlanta, and Fort Wayne, Indiana. The service is being offerred over upgraded DOCSIS 3.0 tiers and will initially cover only parts of the listed cities.

The company is offering two new residential tiers:

• Extreme 50, offering up to 50 Mbps of downstream speed and up to 10 Mbps of upstream speed at $139.95/month.
• Ultra, offering up to 22 Mbps of downstream speed and up to 5 Mbps of upstream speed at $62.95/month.

And two new business class tiers:

• Deluxe, offering 50 Mbps / 10 Mbps tier for $189.95/month, which includes a full suite of features and support.
• Premium, offering speeds up to 22 Mbps / 5 Mbps for only $99.95/month.

The company says they will complete upgrading these cities early next year and will continue to roll out high bandwidth (what Comcast is calling wideband ) services at a rapid pace.

With the cable companies rolling out these tier levels we should see the telcos (Verizon and AT&T especially) respond pretty quickly. If you are fortunate enough to live or work in an area where there is this kind of broadband competition 2009 should be a nice year - you'll be seeing some very nice service offerings as the cable companies and telcos go after your business.

Some Good Broadband News for the U.S.

Last July I wrote about a couple of bills that were before Congress - S. 1492, the Broadband Data Improvement Act and H.R. 3919, the Broadband Census of America Act of 2007. These bills would improve information-gathering about current broadband deployment and assist in targeting resources to areas in need of such services.

A few days ago on September 26, S.1492 passed in the Senate by unanimous consent. Today (September 29), S.1492 passed in the House of Representatives without objection.

S. 1492 was introduced by Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye in May of 2007. The bill would require the FCC to provide users with more accurate information about the cost and capability of their broadband connection, and to better compare the deployment and penetration of broadband in the United States with other countries. It would also encourage private and public partnership efforts that identify barriers to broadband adoption on the state level. Senator Inouye is quoted on the Speed Matters blog:

If the United States is to remain a world leader in technology, we need a national broadband network that is second-to-none. The federal government has a responsibility to ensure the continued roll-out of broadband access, as well as the successful deployment of the next generation of broadband technology. But as I have said before, we cannot manage what we do not measure. This bill will give us the baseline statistics we need in order to eventually achieve the successful deployment of broadband access and services to all Americans.

S.1492 will now move to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions.

McCain and Obama on Broadband in the United States

Before I start...... and if anyone wants to know - I will not endorse a specific candidate here and will keep my final choice to myself.

That said...... I've been picking apart the candidates technology policies - specifically in the area of broadband. I've written frequently here about the broadband divide - basically the bandwidth have and have-nots. Our track record over the Bush presidency period has not been good - in 2001 the U.S. was rated number 5 in the world for broadband penetration by the OEDC, today we rank 22nd. What happened over the past 8 years? What have other countries done that we have not been able to do? How come someone in Japan can get a 1Gbps Internet Connection in Japan for $51 / month while all I can get in South Hadley, MA is around 5Mbps for right around the same price?

Lawrence Lessig (an Obama supporter) claims our nosedive is because of changes in government policy. Lessig says we began the Bush administration with literally thousands of ISPs, both narrowband and broadband ISPs. We will end the administration with essentially two, if you are lucky, in any particular district.

From my perspective, Lessig is right - in 2001 I had one choice for broadband (cable modem) and I had probably 20 choices of narrowband (dial-up) service. Today I've got two choices for broadband - ADSL from Verizon and cable modem from Comcast. I'm not sure how many dial-up choices I have and don't really care! I do find myself asking why there is not more DSL competition where I live. Providers can legally co-locate in Verizon facilities and offer service over Verizon lines - what's up here? Why didn't the dial-up ISPs move to offering ADSL service? Many of them tried but most of them failed. Has policy driven these providers out of the market? Have the markets consolidated to the point where we do not effectively have competition any more?

Speaking of competition - I'm jealous of those who live in Verizon FiOS territory - we're just starting to see the cable companies and Verizon starting to leapfrog each other in bandwidth and price offerrings. Am I seeing this kind of response where I live - no. Why? I only have the two broadband options - cable modem from Comcast and ADSL from Verizon. Sources at Verizon tell me it will be years before I'll see FiOS in my neighborhood. Am I seeing any competition? Minimal - the two companies compete on price in my region, not bandwidth.

In his policy, McCain describes his “People Connect Program” that rewards companies that offer high-speed Internet access services to low income customers by allowing these companies offset their tax liability for the cost of this service. Former FCC Chair Reed Hundt (another Obama supporter) estimates this would cost us over $8 billion for just the top two U.S. broadband providers. If Hundt is right and not playing politics, the People Connect Program will end up driving most of the money to the largest providers and further burying smaller competing companies.

Obama's policy says: As a country, we have ensured that every American has access to telephone service and electricity, regardless of economic status, and Obama will do likewise for broadband Internet access. Obama's policy continues saying: we can get true broadband to every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation’s wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives.

The Universal Service Fund (USF) Obama's policy references is one fund with four programs. The four programs listed on the USF website are:

High Cost - This support ensures that consumers in all regions of the nation have access to and pay rates for telecommunications services that are reasonably comparable to those in urban areas.

Low Income -This support, commonly known as Lifeline and Link Up, provides discounts that make basic, local telephone service affordable for more than 7 million low-income consumers.

Rural Health Care - This support provides reduced rates to rural health care providers for telecommunications and Internet services so they pay no more than their urban counterparts for the same or similar telecommunications services.

Schools & Libraries - This support, commonly referred to as E-rate support, provides affordable telecommunications and Internet access services to connect schools and libraries to the Internet. This support goes to service providers that provide discounts on eligible services to eligible schools, school districts, libraries, and consortia of these entities.

Here's more from the USF website:

Currently, all telecommunications companies that provide service between states, including long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers, are required to contribute to the federal Universal Service Fund. Carriers providing international services also must contribute to the Universal Service Fund. Telecommunications companies pay contributions into one central fund. USAC makes payments from this central fund to support the four Universal Service Fund programs.

McCain's policy does not mention the USF but does say ......he supports private/public partnerships to devise creative solutions and help rural area and towns and cities in their efforts to build-out broadband infrastructure through government-backed loans or low-interest bonds.

So, Obama says he'll reform the USF fund and use it to give new tax and loan incentives. McCain says he'll build out the infrastructure using government-backed loans and low-interest bonds...... I like Obama's idea of appointing the nation's first Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services for the 21st century. The CTO will ensure the safety of our networks and will lead an interagency effort, working with chief technology and chief information officers of each of the federal agencies, to ensure that they use best-in-class technologies and share best practices.

Both lack enough detail to really get down to specifics. For example, neither policy includes what I consider one of the biggest broadband roadblocks in this country - a modern definition of broadband bandwidth. Obama's policy uses the term true broadband (whatever that is) and I did hear Obama use the word broadband in the debate last week. I did not hear McCain use it in the debate. I wonder if we'll ever see the 1Gbps they are getting today in parts of Japan for $51 / month in South Hadley, MA.

I teach so I suppose I should give them each some sort of a grade for the broadband sections of their policy papers:

McCain: C-
Obama: C

If McCain updated his policy, saying he would also appoint a CTO, I would probably change his grade to a C .........

McCain on Technology and Innovation

A few days ago I wrote about Barack Obama's policy for technology and innovation and take a look at John McCain's policy today. I got a lot of hits and a lot of feedback (I have not posted any of it) on the Obama piece with many asking who I was supporting. My intentions here are not to support or endorse a single candidate - my goal is to outline the plans of each candidate and keep my political preferences to myself - this is a technology blog not a political one!

In mid-August, about 8 months after Obama released his technology and innovation policy paper, John McCain released his 3000 word paper titled Technology. McCain's policy was drafted in-part by Michael Powell, former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. In a format similar to Obama, McCain's policy lists 6 key points (Obama lists 5) with detail:

1. Encourage investment in innovation:

• Supports risk capital for investment in American innovation
• Will not tax innovation by keeping capital gains taxes low
• Will reform and make permanent the R&D tax credit
• Will lower the corporate tax rate to 25% to retain investment in U.S. technologies
• Will allow first-year expensing of new equipment and technology
• Will ensure technology and innovation is not hampered by taxes on Internet users
• Opposes higher taxes on wireless services

2. Develop a skilled work force:

• America must educate its workforce for the innovation age
• Fill critical shortages of skilled workers to remain competitive

3. Champion open and fair trade:

• Has been a long and ardent supporter of fair and open world trade
• Offering opportunity, low prices, and increased choice for our citizens
• Will protect the creative industries from piracy

4. Reform intellectual property protection:

• Will push for greater resources for the patent office
• Will pursue protection of intellectual property around the globe
• Provide alternative approaches to resolving patent challenges

5. Keep the Internet and entrepreneurs free of unnecessary regulation:

• Will preserve consumer freedoms
• When regulation is warranted, McCain will continue to act

6. Ensure a fully connected citizenry:

• Will pursue high-speed Internet access for all Americans
• Would place a priority on science and technology experience
• Would ensure that the federal government led by example
• Would support the federal government as an innovator
• Would make sure that all citizens can participate in the technology revolution

In my Obama post I included detail on how Obama would encourage the deployment of a modern communications infrastructure. Here's some detail from John McCain:

John McCain has long believed that all Americans, no matter if rich or poor, rural or urban, old or young, should have access to high-speed Internet services and receive the economic opportunities derived from technology. Access to high-speed Internet services facilitates interstate commerce, drives innovation, promotes educational achievements, and literally has the potential to change lives. As President, John McCain would continue to encourage private investment to facilitate the build-out of infrastructure to provide high-speed Internet connectivity all over America. However, where private industry does not answer the call because of market failures or other obstacles, John McCain believes that people acting through their local governments should be able to invest in their own future by building out infrastructure to provide high-speed Internet services. For this reason, Senator McCain introduced the “Community Broadband Bill,” which would allow local governments to offer such services, particularly when private industry fails to do so.

John McCain has fought special interests in Washington to force the Federal government to auction inefficiently-used wireless spectrum to companies that will instead use the spectrum to provide high-speed Internet service options to millions of Americans, especially in rural areas. As President, John McCain would continue to encourage research and development in technologies that could bring affordable alternatives to Americans, especially in rural areas.

John McCain would seek to accurately identify un-served or under-served areas where the market is not working and provide companies willing to build the infrastructure to serve these areas with high speed Internet services incentives to do so. He also supports private/public partnerships to devise creative solutions and help rural area and towns and cities in their efforts to build-out broadband infrastructure through government-backed loans or low-interest bonds.

John McCain will establish a “People Connect Program” that rewards companies that offer high-speed Internet access services to low income customers by allowing these companies offset their tax liability for the cost of this service.

Ubiquitous connectivity can allow employees to telecommute, or better yet, open up job possibilities to millions of Americans who wish to work from their home. As President, John McCain would pursue an agenda that includes encouragement of telecommuting in the federal government and private companies.

Comparing the two policies I see a few differences of opinion with the biggest being the issue of network neutrality. I'll write about those differences in an upcoming post.

Obama on Technology and Innovation

The Democratic National Convention starts today so I thought it would be interesting to take a look at Barack Obama's communications and Internet policies. Obama has a comprehensive technology and innovation plan posted on his website -the nine page document is titled BARACK OBAMA: CONNECTING AND EMPOWERING ALL AMERICANS THROUGH TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION. He lists 5 key points with detail:

1. Ensure the full and free exchange of information among Americans through an open Internet and diverse media outlets:

• Protect the Openness of the Internet.
• Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership
• Protect Our Children While Preserving the First Amendment
• Safeguard our Right to Privacy

2. Create a transparent and connected democracy:

• Open Up Government to its Citizens
• Bring Government into the 21st Century

3. Encourage the deployment of a modern communications infrastructure:

• Deploy Next-Generation Broadband

4. Employ technology and innovation to solve our nation’s most pressing problems, including reducing the costs of health care, encouraging the development of new clean energy sources, and improving public safety.

• Lower Health Care Costs by Investing in Electronic Information Technology Systems
• Invest in Climate-Friendly Energy Development and Deployment
• Upgrade Education to Meet the Needs of the 21st Century
• Create New Jobs
• Modernize Public Safety Networks

5. Improve America’s competitiveness.

• Invest in the Sciences
• Make the R&D Tax Credit Permanent
• Reform Immigration
• Promote American Businesses Abroad
• Ensure Competitive Markets
• Protect American Intellectual Property Abroad
• Protect Intellectual Property at Home
• Reform the Patent System

I found parts and pieces of the last three especially interesting. Let's look at some detail for #3 - Encouraging the deployment of a modern communications infrastructure. Specifically, Obama proposes the following policies to restore America’s world leadership in this arena:

Redefine “broadband:” Current Federal Communications Commission broadband definitions distort federal policy and hamstrings efforts to broaden broadband access. Obama will define “broadband” for purposes of national policy at speeds demanded by 21st century business and communications.

Universal Service Reform: Obama will establish a multi-year plan with a date certain to change the Universal Service Fund program from one that supports voice communications to one that supports affordable broadband, with a specific focus on reaching previously un-served communities.

Unleashing the Wireless Spectrum: Obama will confront the entrenched Washington interests that have kept our public airwaves from being maximized for the public’s interest. Obama will demand a review of existing uses of our wireless spectrum. He will create incentives for smarter, more efficient and more imaginative use of government spectrum and new standards for commercial spectrum to bring affordable broadband to rural communities that previously lacked it. He will ensure that we have enough spectrum for police, ambulances and other public safety purposes.

Bringing Broadband to our Schools, Libraries, Households and Hospitals: Obama will recommit America to ensuring that our schools, libraries, households and hospitals have access to next generation broadband networks. He will also make sure that there are adequate training and other supplementary resources to allow every school, library and hospital to take full advantage of the broadband connectivity.

Encourage Public/Private Partnerships: Obama will encourage innovation at the local level through federal support of public/private partnerships that deliver real broadband to communities that currently lack it.

C-SPAN recently ran an interview with Barack Obama policy advisor and former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Bill Kennard who discusses Obama's telecommunications policy. You can watch the 31 minute interview here.

Last week John McCain issued his own 3,000 word technology policy statement - I'll take a look it in my next post.

CostQuest Study: United States Lacks National Broadband Policy

CostQuest Associates, a national telecommunications cost consulting and software company, released results today of a 50 state survey conducted earlier this year. the survey was done to try and understand individual state policies to expand high-speed Internet availability. The survey was conducted over a six week period this past spring and involved (depending on the state) public utility commissions, legislators, governor's offices and various task forces. Overall, the survey concluded although most states have undertaken broadband initiatives, there is neither a single national model nor a consensus on best practices.

Here's some highlights from the survey report:

At least 39 of the 50 states have some form of broadband initiative in place, either through legislation or through a more informal effort to increase broadband access.

Only 10 of the 50 states have undertaken a definitive broadband mapping effort.

Only a select few have looked at the cost to deploy broadband in the currently unserved areas so as to provide information to encourage private capital as well as delineating the issue to determine if state assistance is needed in uneconomic areas.

According to Jim Stegeman, president of CostQuest Associates:

Most states are searching for ‘best practices’ and those currently developing broadband initiatives have taken an ‘a la carte’ approach, selecting elements of programs from other states. Many states are still in the planning stages, but there does not seem to be a one-size-fits all approach.

Stegeman also says:

By surveying what other states are doing, we are able to give federal policy makers a snapshot of how individual states are approaching broadband deployment with limited resources.

Take a look at the two page survey summary results linked here.

Dissenting Statement of FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party and all are appointed by the President. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business.^₁ Current Commissioners are:

Jonathan Adelstein (D-SD)
Michael Copps (D-WI)
Kevin Martin (R-NC) - Chairman
Robert M. McDowell (R-VA)
Deborah Taylor Tate (R-TN)

Commissioners make decisions and have to have thick skin - any time a decision is made there is going to be positive and negative feedback. Often the Commissioners stick together and defend each other but sometimes there are dissenting statements made when there is strong disagreement. In response to the June 12, 2008 FCC Fifth Section 706 Report I wrote about a couple of days ago that examines the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans, Commissioner Michael J. Copps let lose with a whopper of a dissenting statement - here it is as posted on the FCC website:

It’s no secret to most people here that I have not been leading the cheers for previous editions of our Section 706 reports. Based on a paucity of data –mostly primitive and generally-unhelpful –these reports claim progress that simply did not reflect reality. The data lacked a plausible definition of broadband, employed stunningly meaningless zip code measurements concerning its geographic distribution, ignored the prices people paid for broadband completely, and for years failed to look at what other countries were doing to get broadband deployed to their people. As I noted the last time we issued a section 706 Report, way back in September 2004:

“America’s competitors around the world are implementing comprehensive broadband plans. Countries like Japan, Korea, and Canada have left us far behind. This is unacceptable. Broadband is our central infrastructure challenge. High-capacity networks are to the Twenty-first century what roads, canals and railroads were to the Nineteenth and highways and basic telecommunications were to the Twentieth. Our economy and our future will be driven by how quickly and completely we deploy broadband.

That is why Congress charged the FCC with promoting broadband deployment for all Americans—whether they live in rural areas, inner cities or tribal lands; whether they are affluent or of limited income; whether they live with or without disabilities. Recently, we heard an announcement from the very top of our government that our goal is universal broadband access by 2007. But we are not making acceptable progress toward that goal. Yes, there are good stories in these glossy pages. Schools and libraries enjoy broadband access like never before. New technologies offer new promise. Strides are being made in some rural communities. Companies are working hard.

Still, one glaring fact stands out: the United States is ranked eleventh in the world in broadband penetration! [Note: we’ve fallen to 15th in the interim.] This Report somehow finds that this is acceptable, and that our efforts are resulting in timely deployment.”

I could continue with the rest of my 2004 statement and it would sound as eerily applicable today as these first few paragraphs do. We can write reports that conclude that Americans are receiving broadband in a reasonable and timely fashion. But the facts are always there, glaring and staring us in the face, showing us where we really stand.

I've always been a proponent of free markets and smaller government but, in this case I have to agree with Copp, we're just fooling ourselves. I don't believe we are going to fix this critical problem without strong national policy.

Finally..... FCC Ups Broadband Definition..... Is It Enough?

On June 12, 2008, the FCC released it's Fifth Section 706 Report, examining the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans, as required by section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 706 directs the Commission to encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans by using measures that “promote competition in the local telecommunications market.” Further, it requires the Commission to conduct a regular inquiry to determine“ whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.The fourth report was published in 2004 so this report was due.

I've written here frequently about the definition of broadband in our country - here's a quote from the FCC website:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) generally defines broadband service as data transmission speeds exceeding 200 kilobits per second (Kbps), or 200,000 bits per second, in at least one direction: downstream (from the Internet to your computer) or upstream (from your computer to the Internet)."

According to the FCC report, the Commission will start measuring broadband in the U.S. using the following tiers of service:

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

So, according to the FCC, broadband in the United States is now defined as 768 Kbps or greater.

I've also written in the past about how broadband is mapped in the United States:

Currently, the FCC counts a single broadband subscriber in a 5-digit zip code as indicating the entire zip code has broadband availability, even if the sole subscriber is a business and not a residential consumer. This can lead to highly inaccurate and overly generous notions of actual broadband availability and use, particularly in rural areas where zip codes are quite large."

According to the new Section 706 report, the FCC will obtain and map additional information about broadband service availability to better direct resources toward unserved and underserved areas. Armed with this additional broadband data, the Commission will be better able to assess and promote the deployment of broadband across the nation.

To answer my post title question "Is it Enough?" - in my opinion no way. I'll pick the 76 page FCC report apart, focusing on the highlights, in my next few blog entries.

Cable Companies Moving Fast With DOSCIS 3.0 Products and Services

There's been a lot of DOCSIS 3.0 activity recently as the cable companies move rapidly towards bandwidths of 100 Mbps and greater. In April 2007, CableLabs, the cable modem certification consortium, accelerated their certification plan time-line and we're now seeing certified products at deployable levels. Earlier time-lines did not have product reaching deployable levels until late 2008 or early 2009.

Key to this accelerated certification plan was CableLabs decision to "tier" feature availability for product manufactures with the following qualification levels:

Bronze Qualification: Supports IPv6 and Downstream Channel Bonding

Silver Qualification: Adds Advanced Encryption System (AES) and Upstream Channel Bonding

Full Qualification: All DOCSIS 3.0 Features

This tiered level of certification is expected to be dropped in early 2009, when all cable modems will need to have "Full" qualification.

Today (a little over a year later) we're seeing nice results from the accelerated time-line. Here's a couple of quotes from a recent Cable Digital News interview with Time Warner Cable president and CEO Glenn Britt:

Time Warner Cable conducted some Wideband tests in Austin, Texas, last year, "and it works fine."

While 100 Mbit/s seems to be the early sought-after speed benchmark for DOCSIS 3.0, Britt said he's seen it deliver speeds up to 200 Mbit/s, albeit in a lab setting.

Britt also said Time Warner will begin testing Docsis 3.0 in New York "later this year" and roll out DOCSIS 3.0 more widely in 2009 and 2010, "in response to demand." We'll see if Time Warner accelerates the New York City roll-out in direct competition with Verizon's New York City FiOS roll-out.

Comcast is also moving fast with DOCSIS 3.0, having launched the service in the Minneapolis area and working to have as much as 20 percent of its footprint DOCSIS 3.0 ready by year's end.

Run a Speed Test and Support Broadband Reform in the U. S.

I've written here frequently about the broadband divide in the United States - poor availability, low relative (to much of the rest of the world) speeds where you can get it and high cost. A recent post by Mike Q referencing a piece from E-Business titled The Sad State of the United States Broadband Industry describes broadband services in our country:

Although the Internet was started here, the U.S. can't seem to catch up with other developed nations when it comes to giving citizens access to high-speed connections.

For the second year running, the U.S. ranked 15th among the 30 members of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development in terms of broadband availability. Denmark ranked first again in the annual OECD survey, followed by a host of European and Asian nations. Indeed, while the number of Americans with access to broadband service rose 20 percent last year, to nearly 70 million people, the most in the OECD, that amounted to just 23 of every 100 residents. By contrast, the top five countries in the OECD ranking all sport per-capita penetration rates of better than 30 percent.

Lack of modern definition and policy by the FCC, the antiquated Telecommunications Act of 1996, politics, business decisions...... lots of variables have resulted in many of our global competitors like Korea, Sweden, and Japan passing us by. FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps recently admitted:

America's record in expanding broadband communication is so poor that it should be viewed as an outrage by every consumer and businessperson in the country.

So..... what can we as individuals do? Last year SpeedMatters.org published the first-ever state-by-state report on Internet connection speed [PDF] and they are currently collecting data for a 2008 report. You can help by running a short (< 60 seconds) speed test - your data will be included in the SpeedMatters 2008 report. Here's a link to the test:



I'll be writing more about this over the summer.

FCC Expands and Improves Broadband Data Collection

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted an order that will increase the precision and quality of broadband subscribership data collected every six months from broadband services providers.

I've written in the past about how the Federal Communications Commission currently defines broadband in the United States:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) generally defines broadband service as data transmission speeds exceeding 200 kilobits per second (Kbps), or 200,000 bits per second, in at least one direction: downstream (from the Internet to your computer) or upstream (from your computer to the Internet)."

I've also written in the past about how the FCC currently collects broadband data. Here's a piece from a press release by House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Chairman Ed Markey describing the current FCC broadband data collection methods:

"...the fact that current data collection methods used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are inadequate and highly flawed. Currently, the FCC counts a single broadband subscriber in a 5-digit zip code as indicating the entire zip code has broadband availability, even if the sole subscriber is a business and not a residential consumer. This can lead to highly inaccurate and overly generous notions of actual broadband availability and use, particularly in rural areas where zip codes are quite large."

Here's a brief outline of the new order summarized from an excellent post at CNET's News.com:

200Kbps speeds are no longer considered "broadband"

768Kbps, typical entry-level speed offered by major DSL providers, will be considered the low end of "basic broadband," a range that extends to under 1.5Mbps.

Broadband service speeds will have to be reported both for uploads and downloads

Previously the FCC had six big categories of broadband speeds, and they effectively only tracked download speeds. Now the agency says it will require reporting on upload speeds.

Upload and download speeds will have to be reported in a more specific way

At the moment, the broadband speeds most commonly offered by cable and telephone companies are lumped into two major categories: those between 200Kbps and 2.5Mbps, and those between 2.5Mbps and 10Mbps. The FCC's new rules would require them to be broken down further, in an attempt to address charges that the current buckets have the potential to overstate the number of high-end subscriptions and understate the number of low-end subscriptions. Those new tiers will be: 1) 200Kbps to 768Kbps ("first generation data"); 2) 768Kbps to 1.5Mbps ("basic broadband"); 3) 1.5Mbps to 3Mbps; 4) 3Mbps to 6Mbps; and 5) 6Mbps and above.

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will be required to report numbers of subscribers, and at the census-block level

The ISP's will have to report the number of subscribers in each census tract they serve, broken down by speed tier. The FCC decided to use census tracts because researchers may be able to use other demographic statistics collected by the U.S. Census, such as age and income level, to gain insight about what drives broadband penetration rates.

In addition, ISPs will not have to report the prices they charge at this time but like will have to in the future. You can read the March 19 FCC press release titled "FCC EXPANDS, IMPROVES BROADBAND DATA COLLECTION" here.

This is a significant and necessary decision that we all should be excited about.

Broadband Divide: NTIA Broadband in America Report

An interesting report was released last week by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The report is titled Networked Nation: Broadband in America, 2007 and outlines "how the Administration’s technology, regulatory and fiscal policies have stimulated innovation and competition, and encouraged investment in the U.S. broadband market contributing to significantly increased accessibility of broadband services".

Here's more from a January 31 NTIA press release announcing the report:

Four years ago, President Bush established a national goal of universal, affordable broadband access for all Americans. Since then, the United States has witnessed remarkable results in the growth of the broadband marketplace and the proliferation of broadband platforms and service options. The existing data indicate that broadband is available to the vast majority of U.S. households:

• According to the FCC’s 2006 data, broadband service was available in 99 percent of the nation’s zip codes, encompassing 99 percent of the nation’s population;
  
  
• Since President Bush took office, the total number of broadband lines in the United States has grown by more than 1,100 percent from almost 6.8 million lines in December 2000, to 82.5 million in December 2006, according to the most recent FCC data.
  
  
• By December 2006, 91.5 percent of ZIP codes had three or more competing service providers and more than 50 percent of the nation’s ZIP codes had six or more competitors.

Here's a couple of contradictory points from a Speed matters blog discussing the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s high speed Internet rankings:

Just 22.1 percent of Americans have high speed connections, compared to more than 34 percent in Denmark, the top-ranked country.

The U.S. fares no better when it comes to the speed of Internet connections and the growth of high speed Internet access, coming in 19th place in both categories, behind nations like New Zealand, Portugal, and Luxembourg.

I've written in the past about how the Federal Communications Commission defines broadband in the United States - here's a quote from the FCC website:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) generally defines broadband service as data transmission speeds exceeding 200 kilobits per second (Kbps), or 200,000 bits per second, in at least one direction: downstream (from the Internet to your computer) or upstream (from your computer to the Internet)."

I've also written in the past about how the FCC currently collects broadband data. Here's a piece from a press release by House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Chairman Ed Markey describing the current FCC broadband data collection methods:

"...the fact that current data collection methods used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are inadequate and highly flawed. Currently, the FCC counts a single broadband subscriber in a 5-digit zip code as indicating the entire zip code has broadband availability, even if the sole subscriber is a business and not a residential consumer. This can lead to highly inaccurate and overly generous notions of actual broadband availability and use, particularly in rural areas where zip codes are quite large."

The NTIA included the following in the report conclusion:

The U.S. Government is taking action to improve its data collection tools to obtain more granular information that will provide a more detailed view into these issues.

Broadband Divide: People and Businesses Moving for Bandwidth?

Ars Technica has an interesting post titled FiOS tops satisfaction survey; worth moving for? The post discusses a recent issue of Consumer Reports that rated Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In the Consumer Reports article Verizon's fiber optic FiOS service was declared to be best of breed. The Ars Technica post then goes on to highlight a couple of people who's recent moves were, at least in part, due to Verizon FiOS availability. Here's a quote describing Andru Edwards' relocation:

Andru Edwards of Gear Live tells Ars that he's one of those willing to relocate for the promise of fiber optic goodness. "I moved 10 minutes north of Seattle specifically for FiOS service," he tells Ars. "We push a lot of video to the web, and Comcast's 768k upload wasn't cutting it. Gear Live now has a 30 megabit down/15 megabit up connection. While customer service is horrendous (even ignoring possible security flaws that can result in easy identity theft), the FiOS connection is a Godsend for us."

And another quote describing Ars Technica's Editor in Chief' Ken Fisher's move:

"We're in a region where everybody is getting FiOS within six months, so it didn't really influence our exact location," he said. "We've had FiOS for almost four months and there hasn't been a single outage. It's always fast, it's so reliable that when you see performance problems online you can assume it's something other than your connection. In fact, some people will be disappointed when they get it and realize that it can't make Yahoo serve to you any faster."

I'm sure Yahoo (and others) will catch up in serving these high bandwidth areas so I'm not too worried about that. This is also not new news - Realtors have recognized over the past year or so that high bandwidth (like FiOS) availability can be used as a marketing/selling point - much like a 3 car garage or bonus room!

I'm also sure we'll see the cable companies going in with competing DOCSIS 3.0 based services in areas of high bandwidth availability. My concern continues to be the under served areas and, over the past year, my definition of an under served area has expanded to places where ADSL is offered. Sure ADSL is faster than dialup (if that is all you have) but when you compare it to FiOS type bandwidths.... it crawls. And........... don't forget, the "A" in ADSL stands for "Asymmetrical" - I've written in the past about the shift to symmetrical services.

Here's a few questions I've been asking myself:

• Will people start moving out of areas where high bandwidth is not available?
• What will happen to property values in these under served areas?
• Will businesses want to move into areas where high bandwidth is not available for the business and their employees?
• What kinds of academic issues will these communities face?

The Speed Matters blog has a post titled To candidates: How will we get high speed Internet?
Sounds like a pretty good question to me.

Closing the Digital Divide: Vermont's e-State Initiative

On a recent trip to Vermont, while scanning FM radio somewhere near Bellows Falls, I came across an interview with Lieutenant Governor, Brian Dubie. In the interview he described an integrated mobile satellite and terrestrial communications pilot project Vermont is involved with in partnership with TerreStar Networks. This partnership is in response to Vermont Governor Jim Douglas' e-State Initiative to provide universal cellular and broadband coverage everywhere and anywhere within Vermont’s borders.

If you've been to Vermont you know it is rural - basically lots of mountains with homes and businesses spread out across the state. Cell service is poor in many areas along with broadband availability.

The TerreStar Networks project will be an interesting pilot that should provide broadband speeds to even the most rural areas of Vermont. Here's a piece from the company website:

The company's first satellite, TerreStar-I, currently under construction by Space Systems/Loral, will be the world's largest and most powerful commercial satellite ever deployed. With an antenna almost 60 feet across, and up to 500 dynamically-configurable spot beams, TerreStar-I will surpass current satellites in terms of signal sensitivity and the number of spot beams it can generate.

The satellite's powerful antenna will enable TerreStar to deliver services over a broad range of commercially available consumer-style wireless devices utilizing existing commercial chip technology including cell phones, PDAs, laptops and legacy devices such as Land Mobile Radios (LMRs)-effectively outdating bulky and cumbersome satellite phones.

The system will be fourth-generation wireless (4G) all Internet Protocol (IP) based and use two 10-Mhz blocks of contiguous spectrum in the 2 GHz band. TerreStar Networks says the spectrum footprint will cover almost 330 million people across the United States and Canada. TerreStar Networks currently has a Launch on Demand contract with Arianespace that commenced last month (November 2007). The contract includes two additional launch options which TerreStar Networks could use to cover other parts of the world.

According to Brian Dubie, the Vermont pilot project will not require state funds and, once in place, the network will be available for all voice and data service providers currently operating in Vermont, as well as new providers.

If all proceeds on schedule, Vermonters could have access by late 2008 or early 2009.