Showing posts with label digital divide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label digital divide. Show all posts

Friday, July 28, 2023

The origins of the FCC "speed trap" and U.S. digital exclusion, inequity

Longtime telecom industry observer and blogger Doug Dawson delves into the origins of the “speed trap” U.S. telecom policy has fallen into as it struggles to provide ubiquitous, affordable advanced telecommunications infrastructure. It begins with the definition of the colloquial term to describe advanced telecommunications: “broadband.”
This raises a question of the purpose of having a definition of broadband. That requirement comes from Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that requires that the FCC make sure that broadband is deployed on a reasonable and timely basis to everybody in the country. The FCC interpreted that requirement to mean that it couldn’t measure broadband deployment unless it created a definition of broadband. The FCC uses its definition of broadband to count the number of homes that have or don’t have broadband.
https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2023/07/28/too-little-too-late/

Section 706 is codified at 47 U.S. Code § 1302(d)(1), to define advanced telecommunications capability:
The term “advanced telecommunications capability” is defined, without regard to any transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology. (Emphasis added).
"Broadband" isn’t defined in the statute. As Dawson notes, the FCC has attempted to define it over the past three decades, distinguishing it from narrowband dialup connectivity commonplace when the 1996 law was enacted. This created sluggish dialup as an anchor, making a commercial market in incremental improvements over dialup sold as an upgrade at a price premium. The more bandwidth, the larger the upgrade and the higher the price.

That market has become firmly entrenched, creating a perception of bandwidth scarcity and digital exclusion leading to what is now termed the “digital divide:” a split between those who can order and afford to pay for sufficient bandwidth to access “high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications” referenced in the law and those who cannot – typically those living where the commercial return on infrastructure investment is insufficiently profitable in the broader market context. The commercial market in incremental bandwidth improvements reinforced the FCC policy Dawson describes as both are based on the metric of incremental bandwidth gains.

Supporting this circumstance is the lack of an affirmative policy to modernize copper to fiber to the premises connections. The technology came about two decades before the emergence of the mass market Internet.
First developed in the 1970s, fiber-optics have revolutionized the telecommunications industry and have played a major role in the advent of the Information Age.[7] Because of its advantages over electrical transmission, optical fibers have largely replaced copper wire communications in backbone networks in the developed world.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber-optic_communication

Legacy telephone companies built on copper developed for carrying analog voice telephone service saw fiber’s potential to deliver high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications. By the early 1990s, they planned to replace their legacy copper with fiber to support the rollout of video services. But they opted not to make the transition, instead investing in more readily profitable mobile wireless services according to industry analyst Bruce Kushnick. They included NYNEX, the regional bell operating company created after the 1982 court ordered breakup of AT&T that was rebranded as Verizon. Verizon’s copper to fiber transition was short lived, from 2005 to 2010.

Wednesday, August 12, 2020

The "digital divide" wouldn't exist had copper phone lines been replaced with fiber

Lack of Broadband Handcuffs At-Home Schooling in Ohio: As Columbus, Ohio, students look toward a school year with largely online learning, a new report shows that more than 30% of households in some city neighborhoods don't have broadband access. The gap is not due to lack of infrastructure — internet service providers are available in even the most-impoverished areas — but the result of economic factors, technical literacy and personal choice, researchers said. Internet service is now "the fourth utility," on par with electricity, natural gas and water, said Pat Losinski, president and CEO of the Columbus Metropolitan Library. "I don't know if we've called it out that way as a community and a nation, but it really is," he said.  The Columbus library system handles about 1.6 million reservations for computer use each year, Losinski said. "We have been trying to do the best that we can to serve that need," he said. "But what's happened in the last 120 days is this issue has been laid bare in ways it hadn't been in the past."

Actually, it is due to infrastructure. And what's happened in the last 120 days in Columbus, Ohio isn't necessarily local to that metro or confined to that short time frame. Had the United States as a nation undertaken a comprehensive plan to transition its legacy copper telephone to fiber three decades ago, this problem would be non existent. Households would obtain voice, video and data using Internet protocol technology over fiber connections. 

Consequently, there wouldn't be gaps for data connections commonly referred to as the "digital divide" and blended learning  -- a combination of school and home-based education -- would be in place and able to better weather a pandemic. Moreover, had the U.S. planned this telecommunications infrastructure transition rather than allowing "broadband" to be sold as a luxury option, lower income households would have had time to become more familiar with Internet-delivered services. Particularly considering personal computers have been around for decades and have become more affordable over time.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Title II common carrier regulation would be problematic for Google Fiber

If the U.S. Federal Communications Commission takes President Obama's advice and decides to impose Title II Common Carrier regulation on the Internet (and thereby mandate Internet service providers serve all premises in their service areas), it would throw a monkey wrench not only in the business models of legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies that are based on serving only selected neighborhoods, but that of Google Fiber as well.

Christopher Mitchell of Institute for Local Self-Reliance opines in this piece on Google Fiber in The Kernel suggesting that Google's walled garden strategy is actually reinforcing the digital divide that plagues much of the United States.
“Google is popularizing the idea of building essential infrastructure with a market-driven approach. We don’t build roads like that—if we did, there’d be no roads in rural areas. We don’t build electricity like that—if we did, our economy could be far weaker. We recognize that those things are essential infrastructure.”

Tuesday, September 09, 2014

The Great Wall of incumbent telecommunications infrastructure

Every divided territory has a boundary, border or wall mark its limits. Throughout much of the United States, it's that place where despite having plenty of existing infrastructure, incumbent telephone and cable companies draw an arbitrary boundary where the "footprint" of their landline telecommunications infrastructure capable of providing modern Internet service ends and the digital divide begins.


 
On the other side of the border, digital subscriber line (DSL) signals peter out and can't reliably provide service over twisted pair copper designed for a time when the Internet hadn't yet been conceived. There are also pockets of homes and small businesses in sufficiently close proximity of each other to qualify for cable Internet service, but do not because there are aren't enough along short spans of roadway between them and the wall's edge. Like border signs, the boundaries of these areas are often demarcated with utility pole advertisements offering those in the digitally deprived zone "New Super Fast Internet" that's actually substandard satellite service that should only be offered in the most remote and isolated areas of the U.S.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission could tear down the wall by enforcing the universal service provision of Title II, Section 254(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (as amended in 1996) that provides that access to advanced telecommunications and information services be available in all regions of the nation. Section 202 of the law also contains an anti-redlining provision barring providers from discriminating against localities in providing service.



Wednesday, August 07, 2013

The rural "digital divide" isn't the same in UK, US

Millions miss-out as Britain's broadband divide reaches record levels - Yahoo! Finance UK: Telecoms regulator Ofcom warned the difference between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' would also get worse before it gets better as telecom and pay-TV giants focus investment on next generation "superfast" fibre networks in Britain's biggest towns.

Figures revealed by Ofcom today showed the average internet connection speed in urban areas is now 26.4Mb per second. In rural areas it's just 9.9Mb. Rural speeds have more than doubled since 2011 but households in the countryside now trail city dwellers by an unprecedented 16.5Mb per second.
Americans living in rural, quasi-rural and exurban locales and stuck with dialup or satellite or forced to make do with costly, data capped mobile broadband for their premises Internet service would find this account puzzling. For them, having access to nearly 10Mbs throughput would hardly be considered deprivation at the present time.

Sunday, December 04, 2011

Susan Crawford on the state of U.S. Internet access

Susan Crawford has penned an excellent overview of the current state of Internet access in the United States in The New York Times, The New Digital Divide.

As the title of her piece suggests, Internet access is highly fragmented. Cable companies provide limited wired access in discrete, monopolistic markets in densely populated metro areas for those able to afford the $100 monthly cost (when bundled with voice phone and video) that these cablecos can increase at will absent the check and balance of market forces and rate regulation.

Meanwhile, lower income Americans who can't afford both wired and wireless access rely on wireless smartphones for Internet connectivity that costs half as much as bundled wired access. So must those who can afford wired access but can't get it at any price because of incomplete build out of wireline infrastructure. But it's not full access and comes with major disadvantages versus wired premises service. Crawford explains:

The problem is that smartphone access is not a substitute for wired. The vast majority of jobs require online applications, but it is hard to type up a résumé on a hand-held device; it is hard to get a college degree from a remote location using wireless. Few people would start a business using only a wireless connection.

It is not just inconvenient — many of these activities are physically impossible via a wireless connection. By their nature, the airwaves suffer from severe capacity limitations: the same five gigabytes of data that might take nine minutes to download over a high-speed cable connection would take an hour and 15 minutes to travel over a wireless connection.

Even if a smartphone had the technical potential to compete with wired, users would still be hampered by the monthly data caps put in place by AT&T and Verizon, by far the largest wireless carriers in America.

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

California PUC proposes broadband build out rules, wireless broadband reporting requirement

The California Public Utilities Commission has issued draft rules implementing the state's Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act's build out requirements for telcos and cable companies wishing to obtain a state franchise to offer broadband-based video services.

The draft rules require franchisees to include "clearly stated build-out milestones " that "demonstrate a serious and realistic planning effort." In addition, franchisees must "clearly state the constraints affecting the build-out" and "clearly delineate and explain" areas within the franchisee's service area that pose "substantially higher" costs.

The CPUC declined requests by consumer groups to require franchisees to provide data on the broadband transmission technologies they use and throughput speeds. However, under the proposed rules, it would require franchisees to provide data on the extent it is utilizing wireless broadband technology.

"The State and the Commission have a strong interest in making sure that unserved or underserved areas gain access to broadband services," the proposed decision states. "We believe areas currently unserved or underserved by broadband at this point will likely
be rural areas, or other areas that are high cost due to distance, terrain, demographics and density issues. It is thus important that the Commission gather data that will help us understand the extent to which wireless broadband is reaching these difficult-to-serve areas, and the degree to which consumers view these services as a means to satisfy their on-line needs. Accordingly, we will require subscriber data relating to wireless broadband to indicate whether the subscription is for a data-enabled wireless phone, PDA or other wireless hand-held device, or whether the subscription is for the use of a wireless data card. Wireless data cards are capable of providing either mobile or fixed broadband access to the internet from a customer’s personal computer, and may effectively substitute for wireline broadband access. Data about the adoption by customers of wireless broadband access for use with their personal computers will help guide our policies aimed at increasing investment in broadband infrastructure and closing the digital divide in our State."

Monday, April 30, 2007

Emerging fault line of the digital divide: new vs. older neighborhoods

The outlines of a new fault line along America's digital divide separating broadband haves from broadband have nots is becoming more and more apparent.

The split is between older, established neighborhoods and newer subdivisions, the latter often governed by a homeowner association. Telcos and cable companies like these developments because they believe new homebuyers will purchase more profitable bundled services such as the so-called "triple play" package of voice, high speed Internet access, and video programming. They can also negotiate exclusive deals with the association that lock out other providers and assure a higher take rate.

This is leaving older neighborhoods currently without broadband with greatly dimished prospects for ever getting broadband as providers effectively redline these areas, concentrating instead on new developments. This is bound to produce a political backlash from homeowners in older neighborhoods who will increasingly turn to their local governments for a solution. That in turn will drive incentives for public-private parterships in which local governments provide public rights of way for the construction of open access broadband telecommunications networks.

Friday, April 20, 2007

Remotely program my U-Verse DVR? Huh?

A lot of AT&T customers are going to respond with a collective "Huh?" when they read this announcement informing them they can now program their U-Verse DVRs remotely via AT&T's Yahoo broadband portal. Like I said, "Huh?"

First of all, only a small number of AT&T customers can get Ma Bell's IPTV (Internet Protocol TV) service. Second, large numbers of AT&T customers aren't even offered broadband services at all, left twisting in the wind on the wrong side of the digital divide.

Yet another exercise in irrelevancy by AT&T. What planet are AT&T product managers living on?