Obama cites America's "incomplete" telecom infrastructure in State of Union address

Since this blog was created in 2006, it has been dedicated to the exploration of strategies and methods for the build out of America's incomplete digital telecommunications network that leaves millions disconnected from the Internet because modern telecommunications infrastructure does not reach their homes and small businesses.

It was thus very encouraging to hear President Barack Obama call out the nation's "incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world" in his State of the Union address to Congress this week. Millions of Americans are painfully aware of just how incomplete Internet infrastructure is as they look only a couple of miles away or even just down the road or street to neighbors who have access while they do not.

The president also used his speech to call upon Congress to fund telecom and other critical infrastructure. Congress should respond to Obama's urging by providing technical assistance and construction funding for community-based networks to finish the job where investor-owned providers such as legacy telcos and cable companies cannot make a business case for doing so. This is what was done in the 1930s when market failure led to a similar problem with telephone service and electrical power and cooperatives and local governments filled in the gaps.

Incumbents v. Illinois over proposed broadband stimulus projects

The telco/cable duopoly has gone to battle stations in Illinois, where according to this report in Crain's Chicago Business it's opposing five dozen applications for federal subsidies for broadband telecommunications infrastructure build out including projects proposed by the state of Illinois, Chicago and Cook County. The subsidies are contained in $7.2 billion allocated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed into law in February.

According to the story, the incumbents contend the projects would overbuild their proprietary cable plants that already provide adequate broadband access. But the Illinois Department of Central Management Services counters that the proposed project areas must rely on leased circuits costing hundreds of dollars per month (such as 1970s era T-1 lines) that are "too costly to achieve statewide 21st-century information and communication capabilities."

Playing the T-1 card? If the state of Illinois has the facts right, this story sheds light on what might be the incumbent telcos' strategy for challenging proposed broadband stimulus projects: simply contending broadband is available most everywhere in developed areas of the United States since anyone can order up a T-1 or higher bandwidth leased line. That's hardly the case when price is taken into account. If this is the linchpin of the incumbent telcos' strategy to shoot down proposed broadband stimulus projects, it's not likely to go over well and will earn the incumbents even greater enmity.

California seeks $1 billion in broadband stimulus funding

Here's a story in today's Sacramento Bee on California's desire to get $1 billion of the $7.2 billion earmarked for broadband infrastructure build out in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed into law in February.

Your blogger -- walking his talk in urging local empowerment and action to fill in broadband black holes -- is quoted. Sunne Wright McPeak, president and CEO of the nonprofit California Emerging Technology Fund, is also quoted.

New mindset emerging on U.S. broadband build out

There's a new mindset on broadband infrastructure build out emerging in the United States, moving away from self interest and the proprietary profit centers of the telco/cable duopoly to broadband as a community resource.

So reports internetnews.com in this dispatch on the Freedom to Connect conference held April 1 in Silver Spring, Maryland discussing the $7.2 billion in broadband build out subsidies allocated in the recently enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

Some key excerpts:

"We are turning away from what I believe was a misguided effort to restructure the economy along the lines of selfishness: I've got mine and if you don't have yours, that's too bad for you because it's how the market works," said Harold Feld, legal director of consumer lobby Public Knowledge.

The act assumes that broadband provides benefits to a whole community, creating a new ecology. "For years, the debate has been about incenting the market and getting carriers to invest," Feld said. "Entities that were despised in yesteryear -- and I mean literally last year -- such as state and local entities and non-profits are now presumed to be most in tune with the philosophy of a broadband ecology."

Feds shouldn't provide broadband funding directly to large telcos, cablecos

From Bloomberg today:

March 16 (Bloomberg) -- Groups representing companies including Comcast Corp. and AT&T Inc. pressed U.S. regulators to let broadband providers and equipment makers apply to a federal program disbursing $4.7 billion in grants to expand high-speed Internet. Companies already providing broadband “have extensive technical, financial, and managerial experience and expertise,” Curt Stamp, president of the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, told a meeting in Washington today. The program is part of the U.S. economic recovery package.

Bad idea. True, these companies have technical expertise to deploy broadband infrastructure. But their role -- except perhaps for small, locally owned providers -- should be limited to that when it comes to distributing $7.2 billion in grants and loans contained in the recently-enacted federal economic stimulus legislation. They should NOT be the direct recipients of any grants or loans for last mile infratructure.

Instead, the stimulus finding should be directed to nonprofit telecommunications cooperatives and local government entities to put in place buried and aerial fiber optic cable and distribution plants over the last mile the telco/cable duopoly has neglected for years.

We should not forget the lessons of history and repeat the fiasco following the enactment of the Federal Communications Act in 1996 that saw an estimated $200 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to deploy advanced digital telecommunications infrastructure virtually disappear, spawning in the current plague of broadband black holes instead of near ubiquitous fiber that was to be in place by 2006.

If the feds directly provide the telco/cable duopoly broadband infrastucture monies as either part of the stimulus measure -- described by the Obama administration as a down payment on America's sorely needed telecommunications upgrade -- or in follow on funding, the U.S. will likely find itself shortchanged again with a substandard telecommunications infrastructure done on the cheap that won't meet the nation's current or future needs.

Tax cuts, expanded NTIA funding for broadband proposed

Provisions of economic stimulus legislation rapidly moving through Congress could be expanded to include tax cuts and tripling the amount of grants for broadband infrastructure.

Bloomberg reports today U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) will propose tax credits to encourage telephone, cable and wireless companies to expand broadband access. The Bloomberg item also states the Senate Appropriations Committee wants $9 billion for broadband grants administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), compared to $3 billion in the House Appropriations Committee's version of the stimulus legislation.

The broadband provisions of the economic stimulus measure will likely undergo more revisions before the bill reaches President Barack Obama, who has called for its enactment by mid February to shore up a flagging U.S. economy.

President Obama reiterates need for broadband infrastructure in weekly radio address

President Barack Obama mentioned the expansion of broadband telecommunications infrastructure in his weekly radio address today urging swift enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The measure, which cleared Congressional committees this week on track for passage by mid-February, includes $6 billion in grants and loans to finance broadband build out.

Here's the relevant passage from the president's address:

Finally, we will rebuild and retrofit America to meet the demands of the 21st century. That means repairing and modernizing thousands of miles of America’s roadways and providing new mass transit options for millions of Americans. It means protecting America by securing 90 major ports and creating a better communications network for local law enforcement and public safety officials in the event of an emergency. And it means expanding broadband access to millions of Americans, so business can compete on a level-playing field, wherever they’re located.

Broadband infrastructure provisions of U.S. economic stimulus legislation

The House Appropriations Committee has released a draft of the economic stimulus legislation titled the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 appropriating $6 billion in loans, loan guarantees and grants for the build out open access broadband telecommunications infrastructure.

Slightly less than half of the funds will be directed to the Rural Utilities Service prioritizing rural areas that received funding for electrification under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. The Secretary of Agriculture would determine which rural areas lack sufficient access to high speed broadband service.

The balance of the funding would be directed to a State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (NTIA) $1 billion would be allocated to wireless and $1.85 billion to wireline broadband; up to 20 percent could be shifted between wireless and wireline.

Within 75 days of the proposed legislation's enactment, states desiring access to funding would be required to submit reports to the NTIA identifying areas with the greatest need for broadband infrastructure. States would be required to identify those areas that lack basic wireline broadband -- defined asymetrically under the measure as capable of providing throughput of at least (not "up to") 5 Mbs download and 1 Mbs upload -- and advanced wireline broadband -- defined asymetrically as 45 Mbs download and 20 Mbs for uploads. Both voice only and advanced wireless telecommunications infrastructure are eligible for funding, however 75 percent would be set aside for advanced wireless infrastructure in capable of providing broadband connectivity of 3 Mbs down and 1 Mbs up.

Lacking from the throughput requirements for both wireline and wireless broadband are latency standards, which should be a maximum of 50-60 milliseconds.

Notably, entities eligible for grant funding include private providers of broadband services, states, local governments and other entities as authorized by the NTIA. The measure requires the agency to adopt rules to prevent unjust enrichment of grant recipients including meeting build out requirements for proposed projects.

The bill leaves it to the Federal Communications Commission to define broadband ‘‘unserved" and "underserved" areas as well as what constitutes open access broadband infrastructure. I would suggest that it be defined to mean the opposite of the proprietary broadband infrastructure owned by the large telcos and cable companies that has been only partially built out, leaving gaping broadband black holes and lack of access to modern IP-based telecommunications services. As World Wide Web creator Vint Cerf observed in 2008, these providers have impeded the expansion of broadband since they have large amounts invested in legacy infrastructure that was never intended for broadband and IP-based services.

Economic stimulus measure includes $6 billion down payment on U.S. broadband infrastructure

The House Appropriations Committee today released an outline of the economic stimulus funding bill being readied for President-elect Barack Obama's signature after he takes office next week.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009 will include $6 billion in grants earmarked for broadband and wireless services in underserved areas of the nation "to strengthen the economy and provide business and job opportunities in every section of America with benefits to e-commerce, education, and healthcare." The summary of the stimulus measure estimates that the $6 billion investment in broadband will produce a $60 billion multiplier effect for the nation's struggling economy.

This is just for starters. Blair Levin, a technology advisor to the incoming president, told the State of the Net Conference in Washington Jan. 14 that the $6 billion being set aside for broadband in the stimulus legislation represents only a portion of the incoming administration's planned efforts to boost broadband deployment in the U.S.

Update 1/16/08: For details on how the funding is parsed out, here's what I've obtained from the actual draft legislation.

Obama calls for U.S. broadband build out

Here's the relevant passage from a speech U.S. President-elect Barack Obama delivered Thursday on his proposed American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan:

To build an economy that can lead this future, we will begin to rebuild America. Yes, we’ll put people to work repairing crumbling roads, bridges, and schools by eliminating the backlog of well-planned, worthy and needed infrastructure projects. But we’ll also do more to retrofit America for a global economy. That means updating the way we get our electricity by starting to build a new smart grid that will save us money, protect our power sources from blackout or attack, and deliver clean, alternative forms of energy to every corner of our nation. It means expanding broadband lines across America, so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world.

The President-elect raised the issue again two days later in his Saturday, Jan. 10 radio address:

We’ll put nearly 400,000 people to work by repairing our infrastructure – our crumbling roads, bridges and schools. And we’ll build the new infrastructure we need to succeed in this new century, investing in science and technology, and laying down miles of new broadband lines so that businesses across our nation can compete with their counterparts around the world.

Alabama governor announces initiative to boost broadband availability

Here's the news release issued by Alabama Gov. Bob Riley and an AP story based on the release. According to the AP story, the initiative -- funded mostly by federal grants -- will fund the deployment of both wireline and wireless broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved areas of the state.

Riley has apparently grown frustrated at the lack of broadband access in Alabama, which according to Federal Communications Commission ranked among the lowest of all states as of June 2007 -- the most recent period for which the FCC has released data -- measured on wireline-based telco broadband availability.

Trouble down under with national broadband program

The Australian labor government and the nation's predominant telco Telstra are at loggerheads over the government's National Broadband Project, the goal of which is to bring broadband to 98 percent of homes and businesses, reports Business Day. Telstra isn't willing to go that far and wants its rollout to reach only 80 to 90 percent.

It's also balking at the government's demand that its infrastructure and retail arms be separated, apparently to discourage the latter from driving the former's broadband deployment strategy as has occured in other nations including the U.S. where telcos concentrate on selling services to more profitable areas while leaving others without broadband access.

California PUC considering expanding eligibility for broadband build out subsidies

The California Public Utilities Commission is soliciting comment on potentially expanding eligibility for 40 percent grant funding from its California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) to build out broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved areas of the Golden State. The commission has set aside $100 million for qualifying projects to be funded over a two-year period, paid for by a 0.25 percent surcharge on end-users’ intrastate telephone bills.

Proposals to serve unserved areas were due July 24 and underserved areas by Aug. 25. Only entities with a certificate of public convenience and necessity to offer telecommunications services or those registered with the CPUC provider of wireless telecommunications services were eligible to submit project proposals by those dates. The CPUC is now considering accepting proposals from municipalities, community-based cooperatives, Native American tribes as well as funding economic development corporations to issue loans to finance projects.

"We further anticipate significant unserved and underserved areas will remain after grant of the current pending applications," CPUC's Oct. 15 ruling states. "During our first round of applications we received significant interest from serious potential applicants who were uncertificated internet service providers in areas geographically close to unserved or underserved areas."

Private, public sectors clash on broadband deployment

As fiber optic guru Tim Nulty accurately observed, wireline telecommunications infrastructure is a natural monopoly. That fact has spawned conflict between the private and public sectors over which will build out infrastructure to provide modern IP-based services. At issue in this confrontation that has played out throughout much of the United States over the past decade is who will get first rights to build since whoever deploys infrastructure first dominates the market given its monopolistic nature.

But there's more to it than that. Both sides have conflicting agendas. The private sector telcos and MSOs (cable companies) want to maintain an open ended option to build whereas public sector entities like muncipalities motivated by constituent pressure to rapidly deploy, pressure that naturally increases over time as demand for broadband-based services from consumers and businesses grows. In that regard, time is on the side of the public sector. That reality has spurred private sector players to employ litigation to buy time to preserve the option to serve a given area.

Case in point: this week, a Minnesota judge ruled this week that Minnesota cities have the authority to issue bonds to finance community fiber-optic networks. Monticello, a town of 12,000, has been locked in a legal battle with its incumbent phone company, TDS Telecom, which filed a complaint to prevent the city from building a network its citizens overwhelmingly approved in a referendum last year, according to Christopher Mitchell, Director of the Telecommunications as Commons Initiative for the Institute for Local Self Reliance (ILSR). “All along, we have said that this lawsuit is frivolous and was merely a delaying tactic,” Mitchell said in a news release. Mitchell adds that TDS "was merely trying to protect its monopolistic interests, much to the detriment of the citizens of Monticello who clearly want a local, accountable alternative to existing services.”

More delay could be in store. ILSR reports Monticello had to put the project on hold until the case was decided and escrowed funding until the case is fully resolved and all appeals are exhausted.

At present, the rules allow private sector providers to game the system to buy time. Even if they lose on the merits of muni fiber project legal challenges as in this case, they still win because they've achieved their goal of buying time to exercise their option to build. The problem is that option is currently open ended at a time when the nation is falling farther and farther behind on broadband and time is of the essence.

It needs to be tightened up with legislation that would give either public or private sector providers the option to build broadband infrastructure and subject the party exercising the option to deploy it to stringent oversight including incremental progress deadlines, late penalties and completion bonds.

"Behold America's broadband backwater"

Behold America's broadband backwater. For the nation that pioneered the Internet, extending fast connections to small towns and rural areas has proved a daunting challenge. Carriers are loath to build networks where they can't sell service at a profit, and since 2003 more than $1.2 billion in federal loans aimed at helping private carriers serve remote areas has addressed only the most extreme cases. According to a study by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, released in July, only 38% of rural American households have access to high-speed Internet connections. That's an improvement from 15% in 2005, but it pales in comparison with 57% and 60% for city and suburb dwellers, respectively.

The lack of fast Web access is helping create a country of broadband haves and have-nots -- a division that not only makes it harder for businesses to get work done, but also impedes workers' efforts to find jobs, puts students at a disadvantage, and generally leaves a wide swath of the country less connected to the growing storehouse of information on the Web -- from health sites to news magazines to up-to-date information on Presidential candidates. "Broadband is a distance killer, which can especially help rural Americans," says John Horrigan, a Pew researcher. "Broadband is not just an information source for news and civic matters, but it's also a pathway to participation."

Expert says municipalities should facilitate fiber builds versus wireless

Tim Nulty, a name that has appeared on this blog before, is once again sharing his sagacity on the future of U.S. broadband. Nulty, who until recently served as director of Burlington Telecom, a publicly owned broadband system serving the city of Burlington, Vermont and who now runs ValleyFiber, a nonprofit organization focused on bringing municipal fiber to Vermont towns, suggests municipal wireless broadband isn't going to hack it because it doesn't have sufficient bandwidth.

Nulty uses a transportation metaphor to illustrate that while wireless systems may offer mobility, a fiber-optic network connected directly to homes boasts nearly unlimited capacity. "Think about 747s and helicopters,” Nulty told The Progressive magazine. “Helicopters are marvelous when they’re used for what they’re good at. But you don’t use them to fly thousands of people between Boston and Chicago. For that you need 747s.”

Nulty makes a valid point that has been missed by most industry observers. Exploding demand for bandwidth could make even wireless broadband technologies with 20Mbs throughput such as WiMAX and 4G LTE cellular obsolete not long after they are projected to hit the market by 2010-12. (Indeed, existing wireless broadband infrastructure is arguably already obsolete, typically unable to deliver even speeds matching DSL and hamstrung by 1970s era copper T-1 technology used for backhaul)

Only wireline-based fiber has the capacity to handle the booming demand for bandwidth. Local governments should encourage fiber optic infrastructure investments, particularly since their residents and business owners cannot necessarily count on telcos and cable companies to step into the gap.

Uneven U.S. broadband deployment distorts market perceptions, drives digital downturn

The uneven, hodge podge deployment of last mile broadband infrastructure in the United States in the current decade has affected market demand by distorting perceptions about broadband availability. In areas that still don't have wireline-based broadband access in 2008, some inhabitants have apparently concluded that if they don't have service now they aren't likely to in the foreseeable. The practice of cable companies and telcos of not giving residents time frames as to when broadband will be offerred only reinforces that perception.

Commenting on the recently released Home Broadband Adoption report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (NRTC) observes in its July 2008 Update newsletter that the perception ironically persists even when broadband services are actually available. That naturally drives down demand, known as "take rate" among providers.

Cost and lack of availability were the main reasons rural consumer gave for not subscribing to broadband. Twenty-four percent of the rural dial-up users in the Pew survey said they would take broadband if it were available. This might indicate that rural consumer perceptions in some areas do not match the actual amount of service available from rural broadband providers. For years, NTCA broadband surveys have shown that rural providers have been building out broadband services, but that there have been very low take rates.

This market phenomenom isn't confined to rural areas since broadband black holes can be found in all areas of the U.S.: urban, surburban, quasi-rural and rural.

Low take rates understandably make providers reluctant to invest in broadband infrastructure, particularly in higher cost areas. The end result of this depressed dynamic is self perpetuating and highly persistent broadband black holes in those areas where there are in fact no wireline-based broadband services. Providers in turn can justify the existence of these black holes, fearing low take rates. It's the equivalent of an economic downturn: a lack of confidence on the part of both sellers and buyers.

This is primarily a supply side problem given that the supply of broadband services in these areas has been nonexistent over a period of many years. The way out of this digital downturn is for providers to drive demand by both aggressively deploying services and advertising their availabilty. The latter element is key to overcoming entrenched market perceptions in long-established broadband black holes that broadband isn't available and isn't coming any time soon.

On Sept. 8, 2008, the Broadband Stakeholder Group (BSG), the British government’s advisory group on broadband, issued what it termed "the most comprehensive analysis produced to date on the costs of deploying fibre in the UK."

This report supports the notion that ISPs must proactively drive up demand for advanced services in order to support the business case for fiber-based broadband infrastructure deployment in costlier, less densely populated areas instead of passively writing them off as unservicable as all too many are wont to do. “If operators could achieve a higher than expected level of take-up in rural areas, then the business case for deployment in those areas could improve significantly”, said the BSG's CEO, Antony Walker.

U.S. at "critical juncture," in danger of becoming second class broadband state

Yet another organization is sounding the alarm over the pathetic state of U.S. broadband telecommunications infrastructure. This time it's the National Association of Telecommunications Officers & Advisors (NATOA), which today adopted and released formal Broadband Principles encouraging the immediate development of a national broadband strategy.

"Today, the United States is at a critical juncture," the organization states. "Economic and social development increasingly depend on advanced communications infrastructure. However, there is no strategy in place for widespread deployment of next-generation broadband networks. Our failure to take immediate action threatens to relegate our country to second-class status in the broadband age."

Forget about studies, broadband demand aggregation surveys and pretty maps of broadband black holes and other delaying tactics, well meaning or otherwise. The situation is so dire, NATOA asserts, it requires urgent action rather than contemplation: the immediate deployment of advanced broadband infrastructure -- preferably over open access fiber optic cable systems -- providing synchronous connections.

The NATOA's statement also shuns a search for magic bullets to speed broadband deployment. "Different methods may be preferable in different communities," it reads. "For example, networks may be financed by private investment, by government investment, by public-private partnerships, by tax incentives, or by other means. None of these approaches should be prohibited by law or burdened by special restrictions (such as laws that forbid cross-subsidy by governments but allow it for private entities)."

Aside from the need for immediate action, another theme strongly emerges from the NATOA's statement: that local government play a key role and the current model of that concentrates ownership of telecommunications infrastructure in the hands of just a few private owners is part of the problem.

That makes sense given that the U.S. broadband crisis is really a local crisis over the so-called last mile connection. Consider roads and highways to which the telecommunications system has often been compared. The big telecom players may own and operate the interstates and major highways. Local governments have traditionally had responsibilty for providing roads and streets and NATOA argues they should also play a critical role in upgrading the nation's inadequate broadband infrastructure.

Palo Alto moves forward with open access fiber

After more starts and stops than a dial-up connection, ultra-high-speed broadband Internet may soon be feasible in Palo Alto.

In a new business plan recently submitted to city staff, a group of companies proposed funding and constructing an open network capable of delivering cutting-edge communications, including voice, data and video services.

The city council will review the plan at a study session on Monday and will direct staff later this month whether to move forward with the project.

The new network would have the capability of delivering Internet to residents at a speed of 100 megabits per second. In contrast, a regular broadband service sends out information at a speed of two-tenths of a megabit per second, said Palo Alto resident Bob Harrington, one of three council-appointed citizens advising on the project.

This is the kind of thing I like to see: solid steps toward actually building broadband infrastructure in a public private partnership instead of useless projects by telco-funded nonprofits to study broadband black holes and aggregate demand, as if the latter activity is going to have any influence whatsoever on telcos' broadband depolyment plans. It doesn't as shown by numerous petition drives directed at telcos and cable companies over the past several years by folks who are still waiting in vain for high speed Internet.

Funding these nonprofits are merely cynical PR efforts by the telcos to paper over their sprawling broadband black holes and give the impression they are "concerned" about the lack of broadband access, costing them very little money relative to the real dollars they would have to invest to bring their infrastructures into the modern digital age.

FCC’s Martin doesn’t get it when it comes to U.S. broadband build out, fuels myth it’s largely a rural problem

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin continues to mischaracterize America’s poor broadband build out track record as a rural issue, telling last week’s D: All Things Digital Conference that the U.S. lags on broadband access “because it costs a lot more to build out in more rural areas and people who live further apart.”

Memo to Mr. Martin: It’s not a rural vs. non-rural issue. Rather, it’s one of incomplete telecommunications infrastructure that for all too many is an unfinished onramp to the information highway. Or a Balkanized “hodge podge” as the Communications Workers of America termed it.

There are plenty of folks residing in metro areas who can’t get wire line broadband connections from either telcos or cable companies. Oftentimes a neighbor will get service while another down the street cannot. In my own case, there’s both buried telco fiber and Comcast aerial cable 1.5 miles from my home that has existed for years. But neither the cableco or telco offer wireline broadband to me or my neighbors.