Virginia local governments endeavor to get broadband infrastructure in place

“People are tired of us saying it’s coming, it’s coming - they want results,” said Corum, the director of economic development and tourism in Nelson, on whose lap the responsibility for coming up with a solution to the county’s broadband problem has fallen.

Broadband for far too many in Virginia and other states is merely an unfulfilled promise. Kudos to Nelson County Virginia Economic Development Director Maureen Corum and other Virginia economic development directors who are working to bring broadband to their counties. They like and their counterparts like El Dorado County, California Economic Development Director Sam Driggers wisely see the issue as vital infrastructure linked to the economic health of their counties.

Spread broadband, not asphalt

Some words of wisdom for our time from Washington Post syndicated columnist Neil R. Peirce. Policymakers, read closely:

Put your ear to the ground, and you can hear other voices, especially in new technologies, suggesting a less frenetic lifestyle in a nation clearly confounded by congestion, obesity, energy consumption, global warming and air quality issues.

Enter then the broadband-transportation link. Fast, reliable Internet connection makes telecommuting far more feasible –– to transfer files, worksheets and video clips, access company databases, create videoconferences and more. But "telework" can't function well when employees don't have broadband access. Simple equation: Universal broadband equals increased telecommuting, which in turn means less roadway demand, fewer greenhouse gas emissions and less pollution. Even if a worker telecommutes a day or two a week, it can make a real difference.

Local governments play critical role in ending digital divide

Illinois IT consultant Jim Carlini reports representatives of communities outside urban regions throughout the US who attended this month's Rural Telecon Conference in Springfield, Illinois are developing an increasing sense urgency as they continue to remain mired on the wrong side of the digital divide by the telco/cable duopoly. They realize they cannot count on the telcos and cable companies to build out their infrastructures to provide advanced telecommunications services like broadband and need alternatives.

Carlini suggests they turn to their local elected officials. "If your municipality isn’t looking at creative ways to develop new strategies that include having a state-of-the-art network infrastructure to support economic growth and development, they will be stagnating your property value and quality of life in your area," Carlini writes at MidwestBusiness.com.

"Simply put, the three most important words in real estate (“location, location, location”) have turned into “location, location, connectivity” in urban, suburban and rural America. Corporate site selection committees have included broadband connectivity as one of the top three criteria they are looking for when researching locations for corporate facilities. If your community does not have a good platform for broadband connectivity, it will simply be passed over in favor for one that does."

El Dorado County, California, while located in the Sacramento metro area, is like many other areas of the country, plagued by spotty and inferior broadband access. County Economic Development Director Sam Driggers conveyed Carlini's point recently to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors.

Your blogger agrees with Carlini that local governments must take a proactive role in ensuring their telecommunications infrastructures can support the current and future needs of their residents and businesses. In that spirit, I've drafted petitions to El Dorado County Board of Supervisors and the El Dorado Irrigation District urging those local government entities to partner with private fiber optic telecommunications providers to lay fiber in their rights of way to build a fiber to the neighborhood network as the foundation for a badly needed upgrade to the county's telecommunications infrastructure.

Municipal WiFi struggles for viable business model

Municipal WiFi continues to struggle to find a viable business model in Sacramento and other U.S urban centers, Sacramento Bee business writer Clint Swett reports today.

Why competition suffers in the broadband market

One of the biggest debates is over how much broadband telecommunications should be regulated. That debate is in turn fueled by another over the fundamental nature of the market. Is it a competitive market and will competitive pressures force the market to provide broadband to those who want it at reasonable prices? Or is it an uncompetitive market as Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, described it at a conference today in San Francisco.

Atkinson like your blogger and many other observers tend to see it as a monopoly or duopoly with broadband provided by just a telco, a cable company or in all too many cases, neither, leading to the formation of broadband black holes stretching across the landscape. The reason, Atkinson explains, is the high cost of becoming broadband provider and deploying the necessary infrastructure.

Atkinson's right. By way of illustration, if another high cost infrastructure such as roads and highways was left to private market providers who would charge tolls for access, there would only be a small number of road builders and plenty of places where roads -- like broadband -- don't go. That's why roads in the vast majority of places are provided by the public sector.

Despite the substantial financial heft of the big telcos and cable companies and their ability to raise money on Wall Street, they simply can't put up the money themselves to build out their infrastructures to provide broadband to nearly every one who wants it. They'd have to take on billions more of bond debt and sacrifice near term earnings --something their investors wouldn't tolerate.

Increasingly, it appears only a partnership of both the private and public sectors can eliminate America's numerous broadband black holes and close the digital divide.

Connecticut should tell AT&T to hit the road

AT&T is at loggerheads with Connecticut regulators that want it build out its infrastructure to serve more residents and businesses as a condition of getting approval to deploy its triple play (voice telephone, Internet access, Internet protocol TV) "U-Verse" offering in the state.

AT&T contends it can't do so profitably and is threatening to pull the plug on U-Verse in Connecticut. Good riddance; this technologically challenged turkey probably won't fly anyway. Connecticut should stick to its guns and tell AT&T in clear terms that building a swiss cheese telecommunications infrastructure filled with broadband black holes is not acceptable.

This is a prime illustration of the need for the locals to take charge and create public-private partnerships with locally owned and operated telecommunications providers and tell the big, out of state corporations who would create broadband winners and losers to hit the road.

Connecticut AG, AT&T clash in court over broadband build out

As this blog reported in early August, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal wants to ensure the "connect" in Connecticut means the entire state and not just selected local jurisdictions when it comes to broadband access.

Blumenthal therefore is moving to force AT&T to deploy its triple play U-Verse service under state rather than local regulatory jurisdiction. AT&T is fighting back, taking Blumenthal to court to challenge his order.

This is a high profile legal showdown worth watching as a state AG with a strong consumerist reputation is basically telling the telco/cable duopoly that with market domination comes the responsibility to serve everyone as is current regulatory policy for basic telephone service.

WISP pulls out of Northern California, El Dorado County

In June 2006, NuTel Broadband Corporation, a Cranbury, NJ-based broadband wireless managed services provider announced plans to deploy wireless "mesh" broadband networks in Sacramento, Chico, San Jose and El Dorado County as part of a 14-state rollout. The company is now pulling out of Northern California.

The WISP had plans to begin rolling out service in Folsom and El Dorado Hills and then head east up US 50 into the foothills. NuTel CEO Joe Fiero confirmed the withdrawal in an email today. Fiero said the decision to pull the plug on the region was prompted by concerns from would be business partners that Fiero says feared potential competition from municipal Wi-Fi networks that would provide free or very low cost access to users. NuTel's business model involves partnering with existing ISPs and WISPs as well as residential telecommunications wiring contractors, with NuTel providing back office management as well as a VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) offering via NuTel's proprietary backbone and switch.

"From a demographics point of view, we would love to be in the region," Fiero wrote. "It’s finding willing partners to build and operate the system that has been the issue. We have done exhaustive research and spent hundreds of hours to locate economic sources for bandwidth and proper antenna locations. Someday we hope to put all that to good use."

El Dorado County's locally owned and operated WISPs including Remotely Located and Sierra Advantage likely welcome Nutel's retreat, although from this blogger's perspective it appeared doubtful NuTel like Clearwire and other big multi-state WISPs would have ever served areas east of El Dorado Hills. Nor would they likely face competition there from free or cheap public Wi-Fi.