While fixed terrestrial wireless Internet service providers (WISPs) are well situated to pick up where DSL has derailed on the route to fiber to the premises (FTTP), their major challenge going forward is to provide users decent connectivity at an attractive price point. Especially as consumers and businesses become more frugal in the current economic contraction.
The challenge is evident in the case of one WISP that recently expanded into your blogger's area of El Dorado County, California. When I mentioned Central Valley Broadband in a Dec. 3, 2008 post, the WISP was offering 3 Mbs service to telco neglected SOHOs (Small Office/Home Office) at a relatively appealing monthly rate of $60.
According to the company's Web site, that's no longer the case. Now its best business plan offers 2 Mbs down and 1 Mbs up -- at the much higher price of $130 a month. A lower priced business plan at $90 a month provides throughput of 1 Mbs down and 512 Kbs up.
While some SOHOs might be willing to pay that price, it's likely to give pause to others and limit the company's growth prospects in the SOHO segment. Additionally, neither of these nominally businsess grade plans meet the minimum wireless connectivity standards of 3 Mbs down and 1 Mbs up established for California Advanced Services Fund subsidies or for grant funding under federal economic stimulus legislation curently making its way through Congress. Nor do any of the company's consumer plans, which start out at $40 a month for 512 Kbs down and 256 Kbs up and go up to $90 a month for 1.5 Mbs down and 1 Mbs up. The latter plan might barely support video downloads depending on the latency. But even if it proves adequate, late adopter residential users currently on dial up aren't likely to be motivated to pay nearly 100 bucks a month in order to watch YouTube and NetFlix video at minimum recommended throughput.
For WISPs hoping to pick up significant numbers of customers in the years before FTTP is widely established (and be perceived as a superior alternative to the crippled and costly connectivity of satellite Internet) their challenge is to offer services with both decent throughput and attractive pricing. Otherwise their growth prospects are severely constrained and self limiting.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
FCC data show DSL availability hit wall in 2006; nearly 20 percent of U.S. homes continued to lack access in 2007
Newly released data show U.S. telco DSL availability hitting the wall in 2006 with virtually no increase during 2007. The data are contained in Table 14 of the Federal Communications Commission's semi-annual report on broadband deployment as of Dec. 31, 2007.
The data show show the percentage of residences that can get DSL from their telcos during the last half of 2007 -- about 80 percent averaged among all states -- barely budging compared to all of 2006. That leaves about 20 percent of telco customers stuck with circa early 1990s dial up or the substandard option of satellite Internet, a technology more appropriate for the Alaskan frontier than the lower 48 states.
That telco DSL availability showed virtually no increase over 2006 and 2007 starkly illustrates that DSL provided by incumbent telcos over copper cable is a failed technology for delivering high speed Internet access to Americans that should be abandoned in favor of fiber optic-based telecommunications infrastructure.
As with previous versions of the semi-annual reports required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the same states remain in the cellar measured on lack of telco DSL access including Vermont (31 percent), Virginia (35 percent), New Hampshire (38 percent), Maine (31 percent), Michigan (29 percent), Mississippi (28 percent), Maryland (25 percent) and even New York (24 percent). DSL availability exceeded 90 percent or greater in just two states, Georgia and California.
The data show show the percentage of residences that can get DSL from their telcos during the last half of 2007 -- about 80 percent averaged among all states -- barely budging compared to all of 2006. That leaves about 20 percent of telco customers stuck with circa early 1990s dial up or the substandard option of satellite Internet, a technology more appropriate for the Alaskan frontier than the lower 48 states.
That telco DSL availability showed virtually no increase over 2006 and 2007 starkly illustrates that DSL provided by incumbent telcos over copper cable is a failed technology for delivering high speed Internet access to Americans that should be abandoned in favor of fiber optic-based telecommunications infrastructure.
As with previous versions of the semi-annual reports required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the same states remain in the cellar measured on lack of telco DSL access including Vermont (31 percent), Virginia (35 percent), New Hampshire (38 percent), Maine (31 percent), Michigan (29 percent), Mississippi (28 percent), Maryland (25 percent) and even New York (24 percent). DSL availability exceeded 90 percent or greater in just two states, Georgia and California.
Government funded info tech, telecom spending as potential economic elixir
This item in today's L.A. Times paints a bleak outlook for the U.S. economy during Barack Obama's four-year presidential term that begins tomorrow. Additionally, investment in information and telecommunications technology has remained weak since the 1999 dot com bust and the 2001-02 recession, the article notes, suggesting goverment spending in this sector could help stimulate the overall economy.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Broadband infrastructure provisions of U.S. economic stimulus legislation
The House Appropriations Committee has released a draft of the economic stimulus legislation titled the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 appropriating $6 billion in loans, loan guarantees and grants for the build out open access broadband telecommunications infrastructure.
Slightly less than half of the funds will be directed to the Rural Utilities Service prioritizing rural areas that received funding for electrification under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. The Secretary of Agriculture would determine which rural areas lack sufficient access to high speed broadband service.
The balance of the funding would be directed to a State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (NTIA) $1 billion would be allocated to wireless and $1.85 billion to wireline broadband; up to 20 percent could be shifted between wireless and wireline.
Within 75 days of the proposed legislation's enactment, states desiring access to funding would be required to submit reports to the NTIA identifying areas with the greatest need for broadband infrastructure. States would be required to identify those areas that lack basic wireline broadband -- defined asymetrically under the measure as capable of providing throughput of at least (not "up to") 5 Mbs download and 1 Mbs upload -- and advanced wireline broadband -- defined asymetrically as 45 Mbs download and 20 Mbs for uploads. Both voice only and advanced wireless telecommunications infrastructure are eligible for funding, however 75 percent would be set aside for advanced wireless infrastructure in capable of providing broadband connectivity of 3 Mbs down and 1 Mbs up.
Lacking from the throughput requirements for both wireline and wireless broadband are latency standards, which should be a maximum of 50-60 milliseconds.
Notably, entities eligible for grant funding include private providers of broadband services, states, local governments and other entities as authorized by the NTIA. The measure requires the agency to adopt rules to prevent unjust enrichment of grant recipients including meeting build out requirements for proposed projects.
The bill leaves it to the Federal Communications Commission to define broadband ‘‘unserved" and "underserved" areas as well as what constitutes open access broadband infrastructure. I would suggest that it be defined to mean the opposite of the proprietary broadband infrastructure owned by the large telcos and cable companies that has been only partially built out, leaving gaping broadband black holes and lack of access to modern IP-based telecommunications services. As World Wide Web creator Vint Cerf observed in 2008, these providers have impeded the expansion of broadband since they have large amounts invested in legacy infrastructure that was never intended for broadband and IP-based services.
Slightly less than half of the funds will be directed to the Rural Utilities Service prioritizing rural areas that received funding for electrification under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. The Secretary of Agriculture would determine which rural areas lack sufficient access to high speed broadband service.
The balance of the funding would be directed to a State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (NTIA) $1 billion would be allocated to wireless and $1.85 billion to wireline broadband; up to 20 percent could be shifted between wireless and wireline.
Within 75 days of the proposed legislation's enactment, states desiring access to funding would be required to submit reports to the NTIA identifying areas with the greatest need for broadband infrastructure. States would be required to identify those areas that lack basic wireline broadband -- defined asymetrically under the measure as capable of providing throughput of at least (not "up to") 5 Mbs download and 1 Mbs upload -- and advanced wireline broadband -- defined asymetrically as 45 Mbs download and 20 Mbs for uploads. Both voice only and advanced wireless telecommunications infrastructure are eligible for funding, however 75 percent would be set aside for advanced wireless infrastructure in capable of providing broadband connectivity of 3 Mbs down and 1 Mbs up.
Lacking from the throughput requirements for both wireline and wireless broadband are latency standards, which should be a maximum of 50-60 milliseconds.
Notably, entities eligible for grant funding include private providers of broadband services, states, local governments and other entities as authorized by the NTIA. The measure requires the agency to adopt rules to prevent unjust enrichment of grant recipients including meeting build out requirements for proposed projects.
The bill leaves it to the Federal Communications Commission to define broadband ‘‘unserved" and "underserved" areas as well as what constitutes open access broadband infrastructure. I would suggest that it be defined to mean the opposite of the proprietary broadband infrastructure owned by the large telcos and cable companies that has been only partially built out, leaving gaping broadband black holes and lack of access to modern IP-based telecommunications services. As World Wide Web creator Vint Cerf observed in 2008, these providers have impeded the expansion of broadband since they have large amounts invested in legacy infrastructure that was never intended for broadband and IP-based services.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Economic stimulus measure includes $6 billion down payment on U.S. broadband infrastructure
The House Appropriations Committee today released an outline of the economic stimulus funding bill being readied for President-elect Barack Obama's signature after he takes office next week.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009 will include $6 billion in grants earmarked for broadband and wireless services in underserved areas of the nation "to strengthen the economy and provide business and job opportunities in every section of America with benefits to e-commerce, education, and healthcare." The summary of the stimulus measure estimates that the $6 billion investment in broadband will produce a $60 billion multiplier effect for the nation's struggling economy.
This is just for starters. Blair Levin, a technology advisor to the incoming president, told the State of the Net Conference in Washington Jan. 14 that the $6 billion being set aside for broadband in the stimulus legislation represents only a portion of the incoming administration's planned efforts to boost broadband deployment in the U.S.
Update 1/16/08: For details on how the funding is parsed out, here's what I've obtained from the actual draft legislation.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009 will include $6 billion in grants earmarked for broadband and wireless services in underserved areas of the nation "to strengthen the economy and provide business and job opportunities in every section of America with benefits to e-commerce, education, and healthcare." The summary of the stimulus measure estimates that the $6 billion investment in broadband will produce a $60 billion multiplier effect for the nation's struggling economy.
This is just for starters. Blair Levin, a technology advisor to the incoming president, told the State of the Net Conference in Washington Jan. 14 that the $6 billion being set aside for broadband in the stimulus legislation represents only a portion of the incoming administration's planned efforts to boost broadband deployment in the U.S.
Update 1/16/08: For details on how the funding is parsed out, here's what I've obtained from the actual draft legislation.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Fiber infrastructure build out -- not throughput speed-- should be focus of planned stimulus funding
The Washington Post reports today a debate is brewing over how broadband should be defined under the incoming Obama administration's goal to fund new broadband telecommunications infrastructure as part of its planned economic stimulus package. Specifically, the debate is over what level of throughput defines broadband.
Throughput speed is not the issue. Building out fiber optic infrastructure over the local access network -- the so-called "last mile" -- is. Fiber provides a proven, future proof technology that can accommodate the rapidly increasing demand for bandwidth needed by video and other bandwidth-intensive applications. Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge correctly observes in the Post article that providing stimulus funding to telcos for increasingly obsolete metal wire-based broadband services would turn into a wasteful boondoggle.
History supports Brodsky's warning. The bell companies that today comprise AT&T, Verizon and Qwest were to have built out their networks with the tax incentives provided more than a decade ago under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to provide fiber connections to all homes and businesses by 2006. They didn't. Consequently, the U.S. suffers with incomplete telecom networks that leave millions unable to get decent Internet access more than a decade after the law's enactment. Repeating this error would ignite a race to the bottom and leave the U.S. even further behind other developed nations when it comes to broadband Internet access and modern IP-based telecommunications services.
Rather than large telcos and cable companies, economic stimulus funding should be directed to local entities including for profit companies, nonprofit cooperatives and local governments to construct fiber optic infrastructure over the critical but long neglected last mile.
Throughput speed is not the issue. Building out fiber optic infrastructure over the local access network -- the so-called "last mile" -- is. Fiber provides a proven, future proof technology that can accommodate the rapidly increasing demand for bandwidth needed by video and other bandwidth-intensive applications. Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge correctly observes in the Post article that providing stimulus funding to telcos for increasingly obsolete metal wire-based broadband services would turn into a wasteful boondoggle.
History supports Brodsky's warning. The bell companies that today comprise AT&T, Verizon and Qwest were to have built out their networks with the tax incentives provided more than a decade ago under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to provide fiber connections to all homes and businesses by 2006. They didn't. Consequently, the U.S. suffers with incomplete telecom networks that leave millions unable to get decent Internet access more than a decade after the law's enactment. Repeating this error would ignite a race to the bottom and leave the U.S. even further behind other developed nations when it comes to broadband Internet access and modern IP-based telecommunications services.
Rather than large telcos and cable companies, economic stimulus funding should be directed to local entities including for profit companies, nonprofit cooperatives and local governments to construct fiber optic infrastructure over the critical but long neglected last mile.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Minnesota muni fiber project prime example of where broadband infrastructure stimulus funding should go
Blandin on Broadband tipped me to this municipal fiber project whose $18.5 million bond financing goes before North St. Paul, Minnesota voters next month.
It's a prime example of where the new Congress and the incoming Obama administration should be directing economic stimulus infrastructure funding. Federal funding would help reduce the financial risk of these municipal fiber projects by helping them cover their start up costs sooner while creating badly needed jobs and stimulating electronic commerce.
North St. Paul City Manager Wally Wysopal has the right idea in suggesting this isn't simply about filling in broadband black holes but instead is putting in place vital telecommunications infrastructure that can meet the city's needs going into the future. This approach is far superior to simply playing catch up by wasting stimulus funding on rolling out increasingly obsolete copper cable-based DSL that should have been more widely deployed years ago under the incentives and tax breaks of the 1996 federal Telecommunications Act.
"The idea here is to become the best-connected small town in Minnesota," Wysopal told the TwinCities.com Pioneer Press. "We're not getting into this for the sake of providing lower rates for cable or telephone but to provide a service that's superior to anything that's being contemplated today."
It's a prime example of where the new Congress and the incoming Obama administration should be directing economic stimulus infrastructure funding. Federal funding would help reduce the financial risk of these municipal fiber projects by helping them cover their start up costs sooner while creating badly needed jobs and stimulating electronic commerce.
North St. Paul City Manager Wally Wysopal has the right idea in suggesting this isn't simply about filling in broadband black holes but instead is putting in place vital telecommunications infrastructure that can meet the city's needs going into the future. This approach is far superior to simply playing catch up by wasting stimulus funding on rolling out increasingly obsolete copper cable-based DSL that should have been more widely deployed years ago under the incentives and tax breaks of the 1996 federal Telecommunications Act.
"The idea here is to become the best-connected small town in Minnesota," Wysopal told the TwinCities.com Pioneer Press. "We're not getting into this for the sake of providing lower rates for cable or telephone but to provide a service that's superior to anything that's being contemplated today."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)