Analysis & commentary on America's troubled transition from analog telephone service to digital advanced telecommunications and associated infrastructure deficits.
Showing posts with label bandwidth demand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bandwidth demand. Show all posts
Thursday, August 12, 2021
Explicit fiber to the prem FTTP telecom infrastructure standard absent in infrastructure measure. But it contains language favoring it.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed out of the Senate this week falls short of the Biden administration’s “build back better” pledge by failing to establish an explicit fiber to the premises FTTP advanced telecommunications infrastructure standard to replace outmoded 20th century copper telephone lines.
Instead, the bill establishes a throughput-based service level standard inconsistent with the administration’s goal of building “future proof” telecom infrastructure. It’s a much-needed objective. The past four decades have shown that throughput-based standards tend to become quickly outdated as end user bandwidth demand inexorably grows. Only fiber infrastructure has the headroom to accommodate that demand well into the future.
However, language in the legislation indirectly favors fiber. It requires the National Telecommunications and Information Administration prioritize infrastructure funded by $42 billion of grants to states to “ensure that the network built by the project can easily scale speeds over time to meet the evolving connectivity needs of households and businesses.” Not a direct fiber infrastructure specification. But a good operational definition that could influence the NTIA to promulgate rules on funding eligibility and awards that favor a de facto fiber standard.
Additionally, the measure defines a “reliable” service standard that fits well with fiber. It’s “service that meets performance criteria for service availability, adaptability to changing end-user requirements, length of serviceable life, or other criteria, other than upload and download speeds, as determined by the NTIA in coordination with the Federal Communications Commission. (Emphasis added) It would also require the NTIA to develop and incorporate best practices “for ensuring reliability and resilience” of the infrastructure funded by the measure.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
A crisis in telecommunications infrastructure as Moore's Law turns 50
Silicon Valley marks 50 years of Moore's Law - ContraCostaTimes.com: Thanks to Moore's Law, people carry smartphones in their pocket or purse that are more powerful than the biggest computers made in 1965 -- or 1995, for that matter. Without it, there would be no slender laptops, no computers powerful enough to chart a genome or design modern medicine's lifesaving drugs. Streaming video, social media, search, the cloud -- none of that would be possible on today's scale.As I've blogged in this space before, Moore's Law is directly affecting and redefining Internet telecommunications where bandwidth demand is growing at a pace comparable to microprocessor capacity.
"It fueled the information age," said Craig Hampel, chief scientist at Rambus, a Sunnyvale semiconductor company. "As you drive around Silicon Valley, 99 percent of the companies you see wouldn't be here" without cheap computer memory due to Moore's Law.
That's creating a crisis because the fiber optic telecommunications infrastructure serving homes, businesses and institutions that's needed to accommodate this growth isn't in place in most areas or plans drawn up for its construction and financing.
Monday, March 23, 2015
Obama administration continues to ignore US need for ubiquitous FTTP
The Obama administration continues to ignore the need for ubiquitous fiber to the premise infrastructure serving all American homes and small businesses.
The administration instead is pursuing a PR campaign to shift attention to mobile wireless service that can't accommodate growing premise bandwidth demand as well as pointless activities such as "broadband mapping" and measuring "broadband speeds" that will do nothing to construct the FTTP infrastructure the nation should have been putting in place a generation ago.
The administration instead is pursuing a PR campaign to shift attention to mobile wireless service that can't accommodate growing premise bandwidth demand as well as pointless activities such as "broadband mapping" and measuring "broadband speeds" that will do nothing to construct the FTTP infrastructure the nation should have been putting in place a generation ago.
Friday, September 05, 2014
FCC chair signals end of “broadband” era and rise of FTTP
Sooner
or later – more likely sooner – the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will
recognize the irrelevance and futility of defining and subsidizing landline
premise telecommunications infrastructure based on specified “broadband”
download and upload speeds as Internet bandwidth demand growth tracks Moore’s
Law for microprocessor processing power, doubling every 18-24 months.
Consequently,
it will likely repurpose the mission of the FCC’s Connect America Fund (CAF)
program created to subsidize infrastructure construction in high cost areas to instead
help defray the cost of deploying fiber to the premise (FTTP) infrastructure in
these areas. At the same time, the FCC could also realize that significantly greater funding will be needed to do the job than the $9 billion the CAF has budgeted for its second phase covering the period 2014-2019.
The
FCC this year recognized that its current eligibility criterion for CAF
subsidies is potentially outdated. It’s targeted to high cost areas where
premises are not served by landline connections providing at least 4 Mbs down
and 1 Mbs up. The FCC issued a notice
of inquiry in August to take testimony as to whether that standard should
be increased and modified to include latency as well as speed.
In prepared
remarks delivered this week, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler suggested 25 Mbs
should be considered the new minimum. He went on to observe that might also be
too low and only a quarter of the throughput that Americans presently expect given
their growing appetites for high definition streaming video and multiple
connected devices in their homes and small businesses.
“Today, a majority of American homes have access to 100 Mbs,”
Wheeler continued. “It is that kind of bandwidth that we should be pointing to
as we move further into the 21st century. And while it’s good that a majority
of American homes have access to 100 Mbs, it is not acceptable that more than
40 percent do not.”
Relative to high cost areas, Wheeler noted the FCC “will continue to establish
requirements for our universal service programs, but beyond that, consumers are
establishing their own expectations.” That recognition of end user needs represents
a significant departure from existing policy where telecommunications providers
and governments tell consumers in these areas what they should expect instead
of the reverse. It’s also an implicit recognition that there should be a single
standard and not a separate and lesser standard for high cost areas of the nation.
Which makes sense given that core content providers and other services are
tailored for a single standard of quality at the network edge.
Noting
FTTP deployments in several metro areas of the U.S., Wheeler impliedly recognized
FTTP infrastructure is replacing the speed-based “broadband” metal wire paradigm
of the legacy telephone and cable companies. That model utilizes “bandwidth by
the bucket,” speed-based pricing tiers based on the assumption that metal wire
infrastructure has limited carrying capacity and that service must accordingly be
rationed and priced based on demand.
Wheeler
recognized with FTTP, that pricing model that irks many consumers faces obsolescence.
“Once fiber is in place,
its beauty is that throughput increases are largely a matter of upgrading the
electronics at both ends, something that costs much less than laying new
connections,” Wheeler said.
Wheeler also acknowledged that
mobile wireless services cannot substitute for FTTP. “While LTE and LTE-A offer
new potential, consumers have yet to see how these technologies will be used to
offer fixed wireless service,” he said.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Why wireless premise Internet won't cut it -- and only fiber will
Why you will need a 300 Mbps broadband connection — Broadband News and Analysis: There are several reasons for this, but it boils down to the presence of more devices in the home and streaming video. Other dynamics such as whether or not folks are gamers or work from home also comes into play, but across the board it’s the rise in Netflix subscriptions, YouTube videos and family members toting smart phones, tablets, perhaps while watching content on a connected TV. If there are four people consuming media with a tablet in one hand and their eye on the TV, your home requires a fat connection.Back in October 2010, I observed bandwidth demand emulating Moore's Law.
This item explains what's driving the demand, which slows no sign of slowing and also makes clear that only fiber to the premise infrastructure will be able to keep up.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Verizon's residential LTE "HomeFusion" likely to serve only fringes of small number of metro areas
Verizon's announcement today of its HomeFusion wireless residential Internet service offering based on its nascent 4G cellular LTE service appears aimed at picking up marginal residential market share in suburban and exurban fringes of U.S metro areas where wireline connectivity from incumbent telcos and cable providers is sketchy. These are also areas where Verizon might otherwise deploy its FiOS fiber to the premise residential wireline product but will not because the company has called a halt to further FiOS expansion.
It's not likely HomeFusion will be broadly deployed in predominantly rural and quasi-rural areas. Like Verizon's mobile wireless offerings, it's bandwidth metered and can't offer the ample headroom for bandwidth demand growth -- much of it driven by video -- that fiber does. In order to improve Internet deployment and access in these areas, these communities will have to build their own fiber to the premises networks constructed by local governments or telecom cooperatives.
AT&T has effectively thrown in the towel in serving these areas. HomeFusion represents Verizon's last ditch effort to pick up some limited revenues in these underserved markets.
It's not likely HomeFusion will be broadly deployed in predominantly rural and quasi-rural areas. Like Verizon's mobile wireless offerings, it's bandwidth metered and can't offer the ample headroom for bandwidth demand growth -- much of it driven by video -- that fiber does. In order to improve Internet deployment and access in these areas, these communities will have to build their own fiber to the premises networks constructed by local governments or telecom cooperatives.
AT&T has effectively thrown in the towel in serving these areas. HomeFusion represents Verizon's last ditch effort to pick up some limited revenues in these underserved markets.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Local governments, coops better positioned than legacy providers to meet burgeoning bandwidth demand
Check out Lance Whitney's July 21 cnet News article that illustrates the growing conflict between burgeoning bandwidth demands of Internet video content and the incremental billing business models of the legacy telco and cable providers that ration bandwidth.
Faced with the explosive demand for bandwidth, the legacy providers are responding the only way they know how given their business models: charging more money for more bandwidth via tiered service offerings and rationing bandwidth with the use of caps.
This puts the legacy providers in a bad spot since incremental bandwidth pricing and punitive caps will only tick off their customers. What's worse is the legacy providers can't upgrade their infrastructures to accommodate the jump in bandwidth demand and leave room for future growth over the foreseeable. That's because they are owned by shareholders who have been with them for decades and expect a nice safe, utility company style dividend -- money that can't be allocated to capital expenditures.
The take away here is alternative providers such as local governments and consumer telecom cooperatives who don't have to pay those fat shareholder dividends are better positioned to deploy fiber to the premises infrastructure that can easily deliver the bandwidth needed today and leave headroom for tomorrow.
Faced with the explosive demand for bandwidth, the legacy providers are responding the only way they know how given their business models: charging more money for more bandwidth via tiered service offerings and rationing bandwidth with the use of caps.
This puts the legacy providers in a bad spot since incremental bandwidth pricing and punitive caps will only tick off their customers. What's worse is the legacy providers can't upgrade their infrastructures to accommodate the jump in bandwidth demand and leave room for future growth over the foreseeable. That's because they are owned by shareholders who have been with them for decades and expect a nice safe, utility company style dividend -- money that can't be allocated to capital expenditures.
The take away here is alternative providers such as local governments and consumer telecom cooperatives who don't have to pay those fat shareholder dividends are better positioned to deploy fiber to the premises infrastructure that can easily deliver the bandwidth needed today and leave headroom for tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)