Schwarzenegger issues executive order to expand broadband access

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has issued an executive order to expand broadband access in the Golden State. Schwarzenegger's Press Office says the order, Twenty-First Century Government: Expanding Broadband Access and Usage in California, is to "clear the government red tape for building broadband networks" and "ensure all government agencies are using the best technologies to serve the people." The order also creates a broadband task force to "identify and eliminate obstacles to making broadband internet access ubiquitous in the state." The governor sees broadband as a "great equalizer" when it's accessible to all Californians, an administration source tells me.

Schwarzenegger says expanding broadband access will ensure California's high tech leadership, promote economic growth and enhance government operations through telemedicine for healthcare, distance learning for education, and better coordination of public safety.

While not specifically mentioned in Schwarzenegger's order, expanding broadband in California would also promote telecommuting. That would reduce automobile trips on California's overcrowded and deteriorated freeways and roads as well as fuel usage and environmental pollution.

Broadband becoming an essential utility

Here's a story on some research that illustrates the urgency for rapid deployment of robust broadband Internet in El Dorado County and elsewhere as Americans and Canadians have come to regard broadband as essential as basic telephone service.

The research also found that 85 percent of all broadband household segments are interested in receiving multiple telecommunication services over their broadband connections.

"Blue" California most likely to benefit from AB 2987

There's an interesting political angle to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's recent approval of AB 2987, the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006, that hasn't been picked up by the mainstream media.

Readers of this blog should be familiar with this legislation that takes effect next year and puts the California Public Utilities Commission in charge of issuing franchises to cable companies and telcos. For the major players such as Comcast and AT&T, the legislation requires the companies to upgrade their networks to provide video services and broadband Internet for only half or less of their service areas by Jan. 1, 2012.

Most likely, residents and businesses located in more densely populated coastal urban areas -- which also tend to lean Democratic and hence are dubbed "Blue" California -- will be in this group. Less densely populated inland areas -- Republican leaning "Red" California -- are likely to be given low priority by the cable and telco providers and left on the wrong side of the digital divide.

Schwarzenegger may have been attempting to make nice with legislative Democrats in this election year by approving AB 2987, championed by Democratic speaker Fabian Nunez. But he left his political base in GOP Red California hung out to dry while Blue California is likely to be first in line for advanced telecommunications and video services.

Big telcos see shift from DSL to fiber

Telecommunications Industry News reports big telcos such as AT&T and Verizon anticipate a movement away from copper-based Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) broadband service and toward fiber optic-based infrastructure, citing a similar trend in heavily fibered East Asia.

El Dorado County's incumbent telco, AT&T, hasn't responded to multiple requests for comment on industry reports that Ma Bell has ceased deployment of all new copper cable DSL infrastructure in AT&T's 13-state service area to focus exclusively on fiber installations.

Former FCC chair calls for "full scale policy debate" on U.S. digital divide

Excerpts from an op-ed by former FCC Chairman William E. Kennard in today's New York Times:

"The nation should have a full-scale policy debate about the direction of the broadband Internet, especially about how to make sure that all Americans get access to broadband connections."

"As chairman of the F.C.C., I put into place many policies to bridge the narrowband digital divide. The broadband revolution poses similar challenges for policymakers. America should be a world leader in broadband technology and deployment, and we must ensure that no group or region in America is denied access to high-speed connections. "

Hilary Clinton takes up broadband access cause

In the late 1960s, the federal government devised the Internet. Now it's time for the feds to speed its deployment in areas of the U.S. that lack broadband service, argues blogger Pretson Gralla.

Gralla puts in a plug for legislation by Sen. Hilary Clinton, who frames the issue in the context of helping her upstate New York constituents, many of whom live in broadband black holes. However, given Mrs. Clinton's former first lady status and much rumored presidential ambitions, her championing efforts to bridge the digital divide could put the issue in the national spotlight.

Mrs. Clinton's bill would create an Office of Rural Broadband Initiatives at the Department of Agriculture to provide grants and loan programs to spur investment in broadband infrastructure in underserved rural areas. It would also create a Rural Broadband Innovation Fund which would invest in broadband services to rural areas including satellite, fiber, WiFi, and broadband over power lines (BPL).

AT&T sends mixed messages on broadband service

I recently blogged about the seeming arbitrariness of one El Dorado County neighbor with access to wireline high speed Internet while one nearby or even next door can’t get it. Most vexing.

There’s another huge annoyance. How many of you have seen or heard advertisements by AT&T for DSL on sale — as low as $12.99 a month — as if broadband connections were so plentiful Ma Bell would basically give them away cheap?

The pitches are seemingly everywhere. In full page newspaper ads, on television, and on the Internet where AT&T has teamed up with Yahoo. Even on the outside of the phone bill. They’re misleading and unrealistically raise customer expectations. One has to read through gobs of dense fine print to find the disclaimer: “Not available in all areas.” More accurately, it should read not available in many areas and not available in most areas of El Dorado County.

In other words, service is available. But maybe it isn’t. Here’s a striking example of AT&T’s Orwellian doublespeak excerpted from a news release the company issued today headlined AT&T Simplifies Residential Broadband Pricing and Adds New Speed Tier.

“AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet service is available in the company's 13-state incumbent local exchange areas,” the news release states. Then in the same sentence comes the qualifier: “where high speed Internet service is available...”

Like Ma Bell says, it’s available…but then again it really isn’t.

Schwarzenegger signs AB 2987 into law

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office announced today the governor has signed into law the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006.

Your blogger's analysis of the legislation found it would reinforce California's digital divide between urban and non-urban areas by not requiring telephone and cable companies to build out their digital networks to serve all customers, leaving many in El Dorado and other counties stuck in the early 1990s or earlier without access to wireline-based broadband Internet services. (On an interesting political note, many of these counties are in "red" California representing Schwarzenegger's Republican voter base)

Schwarzenegger however insists that AB 2987 will "help speed the spread of new and innovative technologies across the state." Perhaps it will after decades have gone by. In the meantime, much of non-urban California will slide into the telecommunications equivalent of third world nation status.

Internet boom leaves rural areas disconnected

Here's an excellent article in today's New York Times (registration required) that illustrates how the Internet boom is colliding with reality in rural areas of the United States that still rely on sluggish, impractical dial up Internet access that was state of the art when Bill Clinton was entering the White House in 1993.

The article details declining economies of scale as major telcos sell off land lines, inconsistent federal subsidies, and impatient capital that discourages private sector investment in rural telecom infrastructure.

"My neighbors get high speed Internet. Why can't I?"

For many El Dorado County residents, one of the most vexing aspects of the telecommunications infrastructure is its seeming arbitrariness. They rightfully wonder why folks just down the road — or in some cases immediate neighbors — have access to broadband Internet while they’re stuck with dialup or the undesirable choice of having to sign up for satellite Internet service.

It simply doesn’t make sense. It would be like those neighbors getting electric power while those who by the mere misfortune of their address must generate their own or live like the early settlers.

The reason is the county’s incumbent local exchange carrier, AT&T, relies on a less than robust technology to provide broadband to those able to receive it: Digital Subscriber Line (DSL). DSL transmits digital data over copper cables that were not designed to carry data but rather standard, plain old analog telephone service. Since copper cable — and particularly aged, pair gained cable that’s plentiful in El Dorado County — isn’t optimally designed to carry digital data, DSL data has a hard time moving over the cable. After just a few miles from the central switching office, the data stream falls apart and can’t deliver reliable broadband service.

In the telecom industry, DSL’s fragility is part of a bigger problem known as the “last mile problem.” In short, the last mile problem refers to systemic shortcomings in the nation’s telecom system. Telcos are able to build vast networks of major transmission lines and trunks, but they can’t seem to build a complete system that reaches all homes and businesses in their service areas. It’s a truly odd circumstance that begs serious analysis. Why, by comparison, is there no last mile problem in the electric power industry? Power distribution goes over high voltage transmission lines to substations and distribution systems that bring it to all consumers. One never hears of a “last mile” problem in electrical power systems despite physical parallels to wire line telecommunications systems. Why is that?

AT&T sinks fiber in Lake Tahoe

The Tahoe Daily Tribune (registration required) reports AT&T has laid fiber optic cable in Lake Tahoe between lake's north and south shores.

Durocher Marine also installed a new fiber optic cable for AT&T as a part of the project. Sierra Pacific and AT&T partnered in coordinating their work so that both cables could be installed simultaneously, minimizing the cost of installation and environmental impacts. The old power and phone cables were not removed from the lake because of their historical significance and because environmental studies of the project concluded it was best to not to stir up sediment by pulling them up, Matthews said.

Virginia governor signs executive order to promote broadband access, telework

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger take note of this item from NRTC Update:

“A key success factor for the adoption of telework is the availability of affordable broadband level telecommunication services. Because of the critical role broadband plays in the deployment of advanced applications such as telework, widespread access to broadband services is critical to the economic well-being of the Commonwealth of Virginia,” the governor said in the text of the order. “At present, too many communities both urban and rural are not afforded access to broadband telecommunications and hence deprived of their ability to participate in enhanced social, education, occupation, healthcare, and economic development opportunities.”

Report: U.S. faces broadband availability crisis

Last week, I blogged (America stands at broadband crossroads) about market and policy failures that are holding the United States back from other nations when it comes to broadband (high speed) Internet access. I suggested that these failures might spawn a massive federal government program similar to the interstate highway construction project in the 1950s to rapidly bring the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure up to where it should be for America’s present and future needs and economic competitiveness.

Apparently I’m not the only one thinking along these lines. A report issued today by The Free Press, the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union, Broadband Reality Check II, concludes the U.S. now faces a broadband availability crisis in which a third of the nation’s households remain stuck with dial up access. Here are some excerpts:

It may be time for the government to think boldly and build a true “information superhighway” by deploying “dark fiber” to American communities nationwide — rural and urban, rich and poor alike. With the pipes built, private companies would then be free to “light” the fiber and provide broadband and other services. Competitive companies could pay the government a nominal rental fee for use of the dark fiber lines.

Fiber-to-the-home or fiber-wireless hybrid networks would develop in competitive markets where multiple service providers compete on the basis of quality of service, rather than stifling competition through gatekeeper control over infrastructure.

A project on this scale wouldn’t be cheap, with some estimates as high as $1,000 per home, $115 billion to wire the entire nation. But the cost of not taking this path could be even higher. Some economists estimate the social surplus of a universally wired broadband nation at $350 billion. Regardless of the path U.S. policymakers chooses, it is imperative that we guide the market toward some big ideas for our broadband future. Absent that vision, we will continue to fall behind.

The report places blame squarely on the Federal Communications Commission, charging the FCC “has failed to adequately oversee the timely deployment of affordable broadband to every American, as they were mandated to do by the 1996 Telecommunications Act.” Consequently, Congress as well as state and local entities need to step up and solve this problem, it concludes.

AT&T’s blighted neighborhood bad for El Dorado County

Imagine a neighborhood where the roads and streets are deteriorating, their paved surfaces eroded and ending at least two miles from most homes and businesses. After the pavement ends are badly rutted, pothole filled dirt roads with no funds budgeted to complete them. Such a community could well be deemed blighted, subject to local government comdemnation and redevelopment efforts.

This blighted neighborhood aptly describes AT&T’s existing wire line infrastructure in much of El Dorado County. The roads and highways of AT&T’s decades-old copper cable system are old and worn out. They’re in such bad shape they have a difficult time carrying reliable phone calls, especially when it rains and the potholes of poor connections grow larger. Nor can they transport broadband Internet access. Like the roads of our blighted neighborhood, once the pavement ends so does access to high speed Internet. Finally, like the byways in our blighted community, there are no funds budgeted to replace them.

It’s time for the residents and businesses of El Dorado County to call the county’s antiquated telecommunications infrastructure for what it is: blighted. AT&T should either make needed repairs and upgrades to bring the county’s dilapidated telecommunications infrastructure up to snuff, or sell her local holdings to make way for a more responsible landlord. Sign the petition urging AT&T to do so today!

Yes, we have broadband in Grizzly Flat

It's a story that seemed so improbable at first blush that it was difficult to believe. About a week ago in this space, I reported that I'd received several unconfirmed reports that AT&T has deployed broadband Internet access in Grizzly Flat.

Your blogger has now confirmed that broadband Internet service is indeed available on a limited basis in this remote El Dorado County community that lies deep on the far side of the digital divide that forms a three mile radius around central Placerville.

About two months ago, a notice was posted on the community's post office bulletin board advising that DSL service was available and residents began signing up. (Resident Ryan Snyder reports service extends only as far as the post office. Snyder, who lives beyond the post office, said he was told when the service was introduced to expect to DSL in a few weeks but says it's still unavailable.)

Bob Anderson, a 22-year resident of Grizzly Flat and owner of Short Circuit Computer Repair in Placerville as well as another Grizzly Flat resident confirmed the story.

Equally improbable is how it happened. Anderson tells me his understanding is AT&T ran fiber optic cable (yes, fiber) to bridge the 25 miles between its central office in Placerville and Grizzly Flat, where the fiber optic cable was then connected to a remote distribution terminal that feeds DSL service to local subscribers. Anderson says he's getting solid connections at 2.5mbs.

But why Grizzly Flat of the many El Dorado County communities with the misfortune to lie within the county's many massive broadband black holes? Anderson theorizes it was to bring distant medicine to the community's many elderly residents who are far from their doctors. With a high speed Internet connection, doctors and their patients can visit in real time video conferences and physicans can remotely obtain various diagnostic data.

AT&T's not commenting on the Grizzly Flat deployment to confirm Anderson's account. But he's a computer guy and thus brings some degree of technical credibility to bear.

Is this only a demonstration project? Or will Ma Bell lay in more fiber to bring the other numerous digitally dark communities of the El Dorado County into the light of the 21st century?

America stands at broadband crossroads

Much of America like El Dorado County remains stuck with an outdated telecom infrastructure better suited to the 1970s and 1980s than 2006 and beyond. Perceptive commentators are rightly beginning to ask deep questions to determine why that’s the case and why market competition hasn’t spurred more rapid deployment of advanced telecommunications services.

Al Senia suggests in America’s Network that the lack of a national telecom policy rather than fostering vibrant competition benefiting consumers amid minimal regulatory oversight is actually holding us back. Another article appearing in techdirt postulates a key reason is telecom infrastructure is an inherently uncompetitive monopolistic system just like roads and highways. We don’t see competition for thoroughfares because they are so expensive to build and maintain that the only the government can afford to run them.

Given the very slow deployment of telecom infrastructure, it appears increasingly possible that private sector providers despite their substantial resources won’t be able to rapidly raise the billions of dollars of investment capital that will be necessary to expeditiously put the telecom infrastructure on a par with those of other nations that are now surpassing the U.S.

The nation may well need a huge national telecom infrastructure authority like the Eisenhower administration’s massive federal highway project in the 1950s to get us caught up. Otherwise, America may fall further behind and become economically uncompetitive with other nations, relegated to driving the telecom equivalent of the old Route 66 while the rest of the world travels on modern freeway systems.

Letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger requesting veto of AB 2987

Readers are encouraged to send this letter or a modified version to Gov. Schwarzenegger.

* * *

The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor
State of California

RE: AB 2987

Dear Gov. Schwarzenegger:

I urge you to veto AB 2987, the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006. While the legislation’s stated purpose is to expand modern digital telecommunications and market competition and consumer choice, it would not benefit large numbers of Californians living and working outside urban areas of the state.

Since the bill’s provisions require telephone and cable companies to only partially build out their digital networks, it locks in a flawed public policy of leaving less urbanized areas behind and undermines the decades-old public policy of universal common carrier access to telecommunications services.

AB 2987 would produce two separate but unequal Californias: one with access to modern, digital telecommunications services and one without. Residents of urban areas would be the winners and those outside these areas the losers under AB 2987.

There is no doubt that modern telecommunications services including broadband Internet access is critical to California’s economic well being by facilitating commerce and encouraging business and job formation. Such services also reduce impact on highways and the environment by reducing commute trips since they allow information work to be conducted remotely. Since most jobs are located in urban areas whereas housing development has spread far beyond these areas, Californians are traveling ever-longer distances between their homes and workplaces.

It is vital that all Californians and not just those in urban areas share in the benefits of modern, digital telecommunications services. Given the enormous impact of telecommunications policy on California’s economy, rather than sign AB 2987 into law, I suggest you instead direct the Public Utilities Commission or other appropriate body to study California’s telecommunications needs to determine the best policies and incentives to encourage the rapid deployment of digital telecommunications services that will benefit all Californians.