Wipro Launches Prepaid Broadband Solution for US Cable Market - Yahoo! Finance
I'm not so sure that adopting a pre-paid pricing scheme like that of the personal wireless market will provide sufficient incentive and ARPU for cable companies to build out their infrastructures to capture new customers. But from a consumer perspective, it's far better than the current practice of asking would-be customers to come up with $65,000 per mile (with no equity in return) to build out to their neighborhoods under so-called "self help" provisions of cable franchise agreements.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
Software solution touted as way to help cable companies ration, monetize bandwidth
Active Broadband Networks Ensures Accuracy of Internet Usage Data in DOCSIS Networks - Yahoo! Finance: FRAMINGHAM, MA--(Marketwire - Oct 9, 2012) - Active Broadband Networks, an innovative supplier of next-generation operation support systems (OSS) for broadband providers, today announced enhancements to its software that improve operator visibility into the integrity of Internet protocol detail record (IPDR) data collected from Cable Modem Termination Systems (CMTSs) in DOCSIS networks. Cable operators rely on IPDR data to compute subscriber Internet usage for usage metering and usage-based pricing as well as a variety of broadband service management applications, so accuracy is a critical requirement as they seek to measure, manage and monetize increasing Internet usage.
When the business model is based on getting more out of existing customers rather than expanding to get new ones, this makes perfect sense. A key component is commoditizing Internet bandwidth so it can be segmented into discrete unit prices. The company issuing the above news release is selling a tool to cable companies to help them do just that.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Google's Kansas City fiber build doesn't change underlying infrastructure economics
This Kansas City Star article discusses the implications of Google's rollout of fiber to the premise (FTTP) infrastructure in Kansas City.
The newspaper interviewed Josh Olson, a technology industry analyst for Edward Jones & Co. Olson sees the Google fiber deployment as a template to boost user demand for higher bandwidth and speeds. If new applications that can run on this gigabit speed capable infrastructure emerge, it would increase pressure for incumbent cable and telephone companies in other markets to upgrade their networks. However, Olson goes on to dismiss that notion, noting incumbent telcos and cablecos can make money off their existing services. Of course they can when these are the only wireline services available to most U.S. homes and small businesses unless their communities build their own fiber networks operated by local governments or consumer cooperatives.
And as industry analyst Dave Burstein points out, Google's fiber deployment in a single U.S. city cannot change the underlying economics for incumbent providers that must earn a rapid return on investment to keep their shareholders happy -- a business model that directly conflicts with the long term ROI associated with high cost infrastructure projects. Plus telecommunications company shareholders are accustomed to receiving high dividends -- money that can't be directed toward CAPex.
“The problem is it costs a lot of money to climb all those poles and dig all those trenches to make it happen,” Burstein told the Star. “You don’t make money in three years, but you make money in 10 years."
The newspaper interviewed Josh Olson, a technology industry analyst for Edward Jones & Co. Olson sees the Google fiber deployment as a template to boost user demand for higher bandwidth and speeds. If new applications that can run on this gigabit speed capable infrastructure emerge, it would increase pressure for incumbent cable and telephone companies in other markets to upgrade their networks. However, Olson goes on to dismiss that notion, noting incumbent telcos and cablecos can make money off their existing services. Of course they can when these are the only wireline services available to most U.S. homes and small businesses unless their communities build their own fiber networks operated by local governments or consumer cooperatives.
And as industry analyst Dave Burstein points out, Google's fiber deployment in a single U.S. city cannot change the underlying economics for incumbent providers that must earn a rapid return on investment to keep their shareholders happy -- a business model that directly conflicts with the long term ROI associated with high cost infrastructure projects. Plus telecommunications company shareholders are accustomed to receiving high dividends -- money that can't be directed toward CAPex.
“The problem is it costs a lot of money to climb all those poles and dig all those trenches to make it happen,” Burstein told the Star. “You don’t make money in three years, but you make money in 10 years."
Verizon Won’t Expand FiOS Beyond Current Franchise Obligations, CFO Tells Investors | Stop the Cap!
Verizon Won’t Expand FiOS Beyond Current Franchise Obligations, CFO Tells Investors | Stop the Cap!
This development makes it eminently clear that for those communities in Verizon's wireline service area that don't now have its FiOS fiber to the premises service, they will have to build their own community owned infrastructure. Verizon is getting a better ROI on wireless, but wireless can't provide the bandwidth and headroom homes and businesses require.
This development makes it eminently clear that for those communities in Verizon's wireline service area that don't now have its FiOS fiber to the premises service, they will have to build their own community owned infrastructure. Verizon is getting a better ROI on wireless, but wireless can't provide the bandwidth and headroom homes and businesses require.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
AT&T may invest in rural lines rather than divest, CEO says
AT&T may invest in rural lines rather than divest, CEO says: AT&T has said it would consider selling its rural access line unit, but Mr. Stephenson hinted earlier this year that such a sale could prove complex. The difficulty comes from the lines spanning multiple states and therefore needing several regulatory approvals that would likely take significant time.---------------
On Wednesday, he said finding an internal solution for the business would avoid having to go through that process.
There is also a simple business fact at play. Who wants to buy obsolete copper cable plant?
He also noted that AT&T's wireless service could ultimately prove to be a solution for fixed-line broadband connections in less-dense markets as its next-generation LTE network rolls out.---------------
"LTE can become a fixed-line replacement or even better than what you get from fixed line," he said.
If Mr. Stephenson is talking about first generation ADSL, he would be right. But wireless cannot equal or exceed wireline fiber to the premise.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Public utility district Internet as alternative to Google fiber
Most rural communities lag in the type of broadband Internet service available in urban areas. But northeast of Spokane, in Newport and the surrounding hills and valleys, around 5,000 homes and businesses have the chance to connect soon to a fiber-optic system with lightning-fast speed.
The network being built by the Pend Oreille Public Utility District will allow users to download and upload data all the way up to 1,000 megabits, or 1 gigabit, per second - far faster than the 10 to 20 megabits that is a popular consumer choice today.
It will rival the Google Fiber system rolling out in the Kansas City area and is fast enough to download a movie in seconds, conduct video conferencing at home, and watch multiple high-definition TV programs simultaneously online.
“We believe it’s kind of the footprint for the future of rural communities,” said Joe Onley, manager of the Community Network System for the Pend Oreille PUD
I expect PUDs like this one and consumer cooperatives will take the lead in building out fiber. The key reason is the time to return on investment is too long for private sector players, whether they be AT&T, Verizon, or Google. And that applies in all areas -- not just rural locations.
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
The great paradox of Silicon Valley traffic
This item from Silicon Valley's Mercury News reporting on increased traffic congestion as a propitious sign the economy is picking up speed is thick with irony. An excerpt:
Authors William A. Draves and Julie Coats provide an explanation in their 2004 book Nine Shift. Silicon Valley invented what they term the Internet Age. But that invention was produced by Industrial Age companies. They predict suburbs and commuting -- vestiges of the Industrial Age -- will go into decline during the first two decades of the 21st century, mirroring a two-decade-long shift from a primarily agrarian society to an industrial one during the first 20 years of the 20th century.
Santa Clara County's busiest bottleneck -- where Highway 101 splits Interstates 280 and 680 -- featured more vehicles in 2011 than ever during an average day, according to Caltrans data. The most heavily traveled stretch on the Peninsula, Highway 101 in San Mateo, set a record last year for rush hour vehicle counts after an extra traffic lane was added to meet the demand.The irony? Over the past three decades, Silicon Valley companies revolutionized information technology that makes it possible to work and conduct most business remotely from most anywhere and at any time without the need to commute to a central office during set time schedules, feeding the burgeoning "rush hour" traffic. Yet thousands of people are working as if none of it ever happened and it's still 1975.
Authors William A. Draves and Julie Coats provide an explanation in their 2004 book Nine Shift. Silicon Valley invented what they term the Internet Age. But that invention was produced by Industrial Age companies. They predict suburbs and commuting -- vestiges of the Industrial Age -- will go into decline during the first two decades of the 21st century, mirroring a two-decade-long shift from a primarily agrarian society to an industrial one during the first 20 years of the 20th century.
Sunday, September 02, 2012
My Turn: A critical look at the state's broadband policy | Burlington Free Press | burlingtonfreepress.com
My Turn: A critical look at the state's broadband policy | Burlington Free Press | burlingtonfreepress.com: What is happening now and why is that a problem? Much federal money has been coming into the state in support of broadband and the state has allocated some of its own. Some of the federal money is going into fiber optic networks to be built by Waitsfield/Champlain Valley and by VTel in its home territory.
But most of the money supports two technologies: DSL and fixed wireless. The problem with this is that neither of these technologies can deliver the broadband service that will soon be required.
Vermonter Henry Swayze couldn't be more correct in his criticism that federal telecom subsidies should not be directed toward stopgap technologies that can't offer adequate reach, throughput and future network demand capacity. It's an inefficient, wasteful use of public money. It would be like subsidizing a high speed transcontinental railroad system that's a patchwork of metro streetcar systems that end at the edge of towns, forcing people to walk to the next town to continue their journey.
Silicon Valley professionals head to the Sierra Nevada foothills
The Sacramento Bee reports Silicon Valley transplants are moving to Loomis in Placer County for a better real state values and an enhanced quality of life outside the bustle of the Bay Area. A key driver of the shift: staying connected to Silicon Valley by working remotely from home.
But that raises questions not addressed in the Bee article. First, is the telecommunications infrastructure sufficient in some of these semi-rural areas to support remote work? Many Sierra Nevada foothill locales are still on dialup Internet connections or have spotty, slow legacy DSL service. Second, how does this trend jibe with the predominant Silicon Valley work culture based on collegial beehiving in open office architecture at massive corporate "campuses?" Or does this workshifting 150 miles away from Silicon Valley campuses represent a counter trend?
But that raises questions not addressed in the Bee article. First, is the telecommunications infrastructure sufficient in some of these semi-rural areas to support remote work? Many Sierra Nevada foothill locales are still on dialup Internet connections or have spotty, slow legacy DSL service. Second, how does this trend jibe with the predominant Silicon Valley work culture based on collegial beehiving in open office architecture at massive corporate "campuses?" Or does this workshifting 150 miles away from Silicon Valley campuses represent a counter trend?
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
FCC report finds broadband deployments still too slow | Politics and Law - CNET News
Roughly 19 million Americans still don't have broadband Internet, according to a report released Tuesday by the Federal Communications Commission.
This is the eighth year that the FCC has issued the report, which is a requirement of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. And for the third year in a row, the agency has found that broadband service is not being rolled out in a "reasonable and timely fashion." Still, the report sees an improvement over the year before, when the FCC found that 26 million Americans lacked broadband.
About 14.5 million of the 19 million Americans without broadband live in rural areas, according to the report. The FCC has been working to remedy the issue. Earlier this year, the FCC converted a $4.5 billion fund for rural telephone service into a fund that will subsidize expansion of broadband access.
And this doesn't just apply to rural areas. There are plenty of people living in metro areas of the U.S. and exurbs lacking fast, dependable wireline Internet connectivity.
After eight years of these reports that basically say the same thing, one might conclude that rural Americans are getting the message that the incumbents aren't going to serve their needs and they'll have to form telecom cooperatives just as their predecessors did several decades ago. As Christopher Mitchell of the Institute for Local Self Reliance so aptly put it, "Help is NOT on the way." Not unless you and your neighbors help themselves.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Phone cos. lose broadband subscribers for 1st time - Yahoo! News
Phone cos. lose broadband subscribers for 1st time - Yahoo! News
And the telcos won't be able to catch up to the cablecos either. Not when replacement of obsolete telco copper cable plant with fiber to the premise doesn't reach ROI fast enough and needed revenues to pay fat dividends are growing on the mobile wireless side of the house.
And the telcos won't be able to catch up to the cablecos either. Not when replacement of obsolete telco copper cable plant with fiber to the premise doesn't reach ROI fast enough and needed revenues to pay fat dividends are growing on the mobile wireless side of the house.
Sunday, August 05, 2012
Big Bandwidth Can Unlock a New Competitive Advantage - Blair Levin - Voices - AllThingsD
Big Bandwidth Can Unlock a New Competitive Advantage - Blair Levin - Voices - AllThingsD
I haven't always seen eye to eye with Blair Levin, lead author of the Federal Communications Commission's National Broadband Plan issued in 2010 shortly before he joined the Aspen Institute think tank that year. However, the above linked opinion article by Levin recently published in All Things D includes a number of statements with which I heartily agree.
First, Levin seems to be abandoning his prior stance that the private sector alone must invest in the massive, multi-billion dollar build of the necessary telecommunications infrastructure America needs to be competitive in an information based economy. Levin now shares my view that incumbent, investor owned incumbent providers aren't in a position to do so because of their need to pay large dividends in the case of telcos and service high debt loads in the case of cable companies. "When it comes to wireline access to the Internet, instead of discussing upgrades, we are discussing bandwidth caps, tiers and rising prices. Instead of witnessing investment for growth, we are witnessing harvesting for dividends," Levin observes.
Levin also appears to have had an epiphany on what premises telecommunications service should be capable of delivering. Two years ago, Levin advocated for the subsidization of infrastructure than could deliver the FCC's minimum throughput standard of 4 Mbs down and 1 Mbs up to nearly all premises by 2020. Levin now advocates what Andrew Cohill and others have dubbed "big broadband" (I prefer Levin's term, "big bandwidth"), perhaps not surprisingly since Levin also recently founded Gig U, an organization that Levin writes will build "gigabit hubs in nearly a dozen communities across the country, as well as a project to bring a 25X+ upgrade to hundreds of communities in rural America." As to the latter project, this is the first I've heard of it and will be watching closely since it is these communities and not the university towns prioritized by Gig U that have the greatest need, being effectively disconnected from the Internet and relegated to substandard dialup and satellite connections.
I also found myself in strong agreement with Levin's call for a massive attitudinal shift away from the current mindset of bandwidth poverty fostered by incumbent providers who want to create the impression that more bandwidth cannot be created and therefore must be rationed and assessed a price premium. Levin instead calls for a “psychology of bandwidth abundance:”
Finally, Levin notes this dismal state of affairs where accessing the Internet in 2017 will for many Americans be much like it was three decades before is not inevitable. Levin is correct when he suggests that we must find ways to lower the cost of building needed infrastructure rather than shrugging and claiming it is simply out of reach:
I haven't always seen eye to eye with Blair Levin, lead author of the Federal Communications Commission's National Broadband Plan issued in 2010 shortly before he joined the Aspen Institute think tank that year. However, the above linked opinion article by Levin recently published in All Things D includes a number of statements with which I heartily agree.
First, Levin seems to be abandoning his prior stance that the private sector alone must invest in the massive, multi-billion dollar build of the necessary telecommunications infrastructure America needs to be competitive in an information based economy. Levin now shares my view that incumbent, investor owned incumbent providers aren't in a position to do so because of their need to pay large dividends in the case of telcos and service high debt loads in the case of cable companies. "When it comes to wireline access to the Internet, instead of discussing upgrades, we are discussing bandwidth caps, tiers and rising prices. Instead of witnessing investment for growth, we are witnessing harvesting for dividends," Levin observes.
Levin also appears to have had an epiphany on what premises telecommunications service should be capable of delivering. Two years ago, Levin advocated for the subsidization of infrastructure than could deliver the FCC's minimum throughput standard of 4 Mbs down and 1 Mbs up to nearly all premises by 2020. Levin now advocates what Andrew Cohill and others have dubbed "big broadband" (I prefer Levin's term, "big bandwidth"), perhaps not surprisingly since Levin also recently founded Gig U, an organization that Levin writes will build "gigabit hubs in nearly a dozen communities across the country, as well as a project to bring a 25X+ upgrade to hundreds of communities in rural America." As to the latter project, this is the first I've heard of it and will be watching closely since it is these communities and not the university towns prioritized by Gig U that have the greatest need, being effectively disconnected from the Internet and relegated to substandard dialup and satellite connections.
I also found myself in strong agreement with Levin's call for a massive attitudinal shift away from the current mindset of bandwidth poverty fostered by incumbent providers who want to create the impression that more bandwidth cannot be created and therefore must be rationed and assessed a price premium. Levin instead calls for a “psychology of bandwidth abundance:”
This psychology is what has fueled the uniquely American spirit of experimentation and innovation — from the first wave of European immigrants to the post-World War II America that helped rebuild Europe and Asia and created our modern economy and unleashed huge new industries from transportation to telecommunications. Unfortunately, however, the current environment suggests that we aren’t building that foundation. International studies on wireline bandwidth use differ, but all suggest we are mid-tier at best, and declining.Lest anyone doubt that the United States stands at a policy crossroads when it comes to upgrading its outdated telecommunications infrastructure, Levin notes that "[f]or the first time since American ingenuity birthed the commercial Internet, we do not have a single national wireline provider with plans to deploy a better network. For most Americans, five years from now, the best network available to them will be the same network they have today." Levin's absolutely right on this point.
Finally, Levin notes this dismal state of affairs where accessing the Internet in 2017 will for many Americans be much like it was three decades before is not inevitable. Levin is correct when he suggests that we must find ways to lower the cost of building needed infrastructure rather than shrugging and claiming it is simply out of reach:
We can regain leadership by improving the math for wireline investment through policy choices that have the effect of lowering capital or operating expenses or by raising the potential revenues or competitive threat to incumbents or new entrants. We have done this before. In fact, every new communications network deployment or upgrade has been preceded by a policy change that had one or more of these impacts.
Saturday, August 04, 2012
Large WISP bites the dust; Satellites swarm for former customers
Main Street Broadband shuts down | JCFLORIDAN
According its LinkedIn profile, Atlanta-based Main Street Broadband, LLC is a privately held wireless broadband service provider "committed to bringing affordable high speed internet access and digital phone service to the un-served and underserved markets in the southeast" using "the latest in wireless broadband technology for both residential and business services."
The reason for the shutdown of the WISP according to the linked newspaper story is loan funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service was terminated.
Fixed wireless premise service like Main Street's plays an important interim role until communities and alternative business models emerge to construct fiber to the premises infrastructure needed for today and tomorrow's Internet protocol-based services.
Now satellite Internet providers are swarming to scoop up the defunct WISP's former customers. Unfortunately for them, they now like all too many Americans face the lousy choice of sucking a satellite and its punitive bandwidth caps and poor connection quality or turning back the calendar to 1992 and dialugging over obsolete legacy telco copper cable. But it doesn't have to be that way. Communities can and should invest the necessary time, money and energy to build their own fiber infrastructure and operate it prudently and sustainably as a community and economic development asset.
According its LinkedIn profile, Atlanta-based Main Street Broadband, LLC is a privately held wireless broadband service provider "committed to bringing affordable high speed internet access and digital phone service to the un-served and underserved markets in the southeast" using "the latest in wireless broadband technology for both residential and business services."
The reason for the shutdown of the WISP according to the linked newspaper story is loan funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service was terminated.
Fixed wireless premise service like Main Street's plays an important interim role until communities and alternative business models emerge to construct fiber to the premises infrastructure needed for today and tomorrow's Internet protocol-based services.
Now satellite Internet providers are swarming to scoop up the defunct WISP's former customers. Unfortunately for them, they now like all too many Americans face the lousy choice of sucking a satellite and its punitive bandwidth caps and poor connection quality or turning back the calendar to 1992 and dialugging over obsolete legacy telco copper cable. But it doesn't have to be that way. Communities can and should invest the necessary time, money and energy to build their own fiber infrastructure and operate it prudently and sustainably as a community and economic development asset.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Verizon, AT&T Decline Broadband Connect America Funding
Verizon, AT&T Decline Broadband Connect America Funding: Two of those carriers – AT&T and Verizon – yesterday declined all of the funding they had been offered. In a letter to the FCC shared with Telecompetitor, AT&T — which was offered $47.8 million — said it is “optimistic” about its ability to get more broadband into rural areas, “particularly as the technology continues to advance.” But the company said it could not commit to participate in the program until it finalizes that strategy.
One year ago, the big incumbent telcos urged the FCC to reform the Universal Service Fund with standards that would effectively subsidize deployment of first generation DSL service introduced more than a decade ago. Now that the USF has been reformed into the Connect America Fund along the lines of what they wanted, they're saying thanks but no thanks to the subsidies. Most likely because the legacy DSL standards the telcos proposed last year were already outdated by a decade or more -- and now look even more obsolete and unable to keep up with burgeoning bandwidth needs.
The Man from Glad meets Ma Bell
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Google Unveils Superfast Internet in Kansas City, Mo. - NYTimes.com
Google Unveils Superfast Internet in Kansas City, Mo. - NYTimes.com: Milo Medin, the company’s vice president of access services, said the technology and technical capacity were available to create this product on a global scale, but economics, such as the cost of constructing the fiber network in communities, presented a barrier.
Google's demonstration project does nothing to alter the cost and business model constraints that require communities to build their own fiber networks rather than investor owned providers. While everything may be up to date in Kansas City, unfortunately for much of the United States it is not when it comes to premises Internet access.
It also starkly illustrates the dismal state of Internet capable premises telecommunications infrastructure in America -- accurately described as "incomplete" by President Barack Obama in his January State of the Union address -- where many must still rely on obsolete dialup modem technology that was state of the art when Obama's predecessor Bill Clinton was starting his first term two decades ago. One city does not a network make.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Rural U.S. mired on Internet dirt road
The Calix U.S. Rural Broadband Report not surprisingly found rural United States remains a copper-paved dirt road of Internet access where it has remain mired for years:
The rumored slow pace of life in rural America may be
giving way to faster broadband speeds, but rural areas
clearly started from farther behind. The most common
peak downstream broadband rate consumed by endpoints
in rural America was between 1.5 Mbps to 3 Mbps in
Q1 2012. During the quarter, 60% of rural broadband
subscribers received a maximum downstream broadband
speed of 3 Mbps or less – approximately one-eighth of the
U.S. peak downstream average published by Akamai in its
most recent published ”State of the Internet” report. In fact,
71% of rural subscribers received a downstream broadband
speed that was slower than the target for the Connect
America Fund (CAF) of 4 Mbps, and approximately 90%
fell below the CAF upstream target of 1 Mbps. Upstream
rates remained slow as well, with 95% receiving 1.5 Mbps
or less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)