Analysis & commentary on America's troubled transition from analog telephone service to digital advanced telecommunications and associated infrastructure deficits.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Arizona state broadband authority backed
The council also proposed a revolving fund under the control of the authority that would be used to help pay for rural broadband projects that could be funded by a 50 cent surcharge on the monthly bills of existing broadband customers, said Michael Keeling, chairman of the council. Implicit in this subsidization scheme is the recognition of broadband as vital as basic telephone, roads and utilities.
Federal measure would map broadband black holes, redefine broadband
A broadband census has already been enacted in California as part of that state's Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006, AB 2987. It requires those providers who hold broadband "video franchises" issued by the California Public Utilities Commission to provide the PUC broadband penetration data by census tract each year beginning April 1, 2008.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Tales from the dark side of the digital divide, 95709
Today, another postcard — actually the size of a flyer — arrived in the mail. This one from HughesNet satellite Internet and addressed to:
DIAL UP INTERNET USER AT
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE, ZIP
"Been overlooked by DSL and cable?” it asks. “Your high-speed Internet solution has arrived."
Judging from a neighbor’s experience with HughesNet, I hardly think so. It’s maddenly sluggish and not surprisingly so considering each keystroke to load a Web page must make a 46,000 mile round trip up to the HughesNet satellite and back down to the surface. For months, about 20 percent of his inbound email wouldn’t download to his Outlook Express program. So we installed Thunderbird mail as an alternative. The emails came in OK, but nothing would go out.
We spent two hours on the phone with some incompetent HughesNet support guy in Bangalore who couldn't solve the problem. So my neighbor is now relegated to using HughesNet’s crappy Web-based mail program. That’s not all. About a month ago, his granddaughter downloaded a TV program and HughesNet responded by throttling down the throughput to dialup speed as punishment for using too much bandwidth since it has too many ex-dialup desperados trying to cram onto too little HughesNet bandwidth. Many of these ex-dialuggers including my neighbor — large numbers of them seniors simply seeking a viable Internet connection to share pics with the grandkids — have been sucked into signing two-year contracts for what more aptly should be dubbed “MolassesNet” on steroids.
I imagine in another two years, another postcard will arrive in the mail addressed to:
DIAL UP INTERNET USER AT
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE, ZIP
Telecom association chief's assertions at odds with reality
“In addition to deploying new and innovative products and services in urban and suburban communities, telecom companies are spending billions of dollars to reach many of the most geographically challenging and expensive rural areas in the nation,” said USTelecom President and CEO Walter B. McCormick Jr. “The FCC’s market-based policies encourage communications companies to stay ahead of the competition and continue to make significant infrastructure investments. These policies are working and we strongly urge the Commission to allow the highly competitive broadband market to continue to thrive.”
First of all, there's no real market competition in areas that lack broadband access since no one's providing service there. Second, telcos are NOT investing in infrastructure in less populated portions of their service areas. Just the opposite. Infrastructure investment is being concentrated in urban areas such as AT&T's Project Lightspeed and U-Verse initiatives and Verizon's FiOS fiber optic deployment. The FCC's own research found that as of last June, more than 20 percent of telco customers couldn't even get DSL over telcos' aging copper cable plants.
Protecting the telco/cable duopoly
The telco/cable duopoly has pursued similar legislation in about a dozen states, claiming it would allow them to bypass local governments, bring greater market competition (pretty hard to do in a duopolistic market) and deploy broadband-based services more rapidly. However, at the slow pace at which the telcos and cable companies are expanding the availability of their broadband services, doing with local government regulation one area at a time certainly doesn't seem to be an impediment.
Rather than speed up deployment of broadband, the true objective of the state franchise measures, like a recently-promulgated Federal Communications Commission rule (which is being legally challenged by local governments), is to protect telcos and cable companies from local government demands they hasten the build out of their infrastructures in order to make broadband available to unserved areas.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Ma Bell pipe dream: $1 billion in ad revenue in 3 years
John Stankey, AT&T's president for operations support, told the Reuters Global Technology, Media and Telecoms Summit in New York that advertising could bring $1 billion to Ma Bell's top line in three years time. Stankey said AT&T can reach that revenue goal by virtue of being the biggest U.S. broadband provider, a wireless carrier and most recently, a purveyor of Internet Protocol Television Service (IPTV) via its nascent U-Verse video service.
Rather than the pipe providers getting into the advertising biz, the more likely scenario is the media giants like Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and Web portals Yahoo! and Google getting into the pipes business, partnering with other companies to build their own broadband infrastructure after tiring of waiting on the telco/cable duopoly to expand their networks.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Vermont legislature approves $40 million bond measure to speed universal broadband access
The bill encourages both public and private provisioning of service. It includes authorization for up to $40 million in revenue bonds by the State to build infrastructure like radio towers and middle-mile fiber. The State is NOT authorized to become a retail ISP but the plan is to encourage private wireless ISPs (WISPs), wireline ISPs, and cellular operators – as well as municipalities – by making infrastructure broadly available at a reasonable cost even in areas where the short term economics are tough. The bonds need to be repaid out of revenues but this will be “patient” money.
The measure also authorizes local governments to engage in municipal broadband projects. As Evslin states in an earlier post on the legislation, implementation of it could prove more difficult than getting the bill into law. I would agree, considering that $40 million likely represents a small portion of the investment that will be needed to bring universal broadband access to Vermont in just three years.