Economic stimulus legislation on a congressional fast track that would allocate $6 billion (House version) and $9 billion (Senate version) for broadband telecommunications infrastructure build out to underserved areas is unsurprisingly eliciting whining from the big telcos.
Industry representatives and think tanks that front for them complain the measures' minimum connectivity speed requirements for wireline and wireless service to underserved areas as well as open access requirements would not dispose them to applying for broadband infrastructure grants, loans and loan guarantees.
What they want instead are tax breaks just as telcos received under the 1996 Communications Act that was to have brought broadband to all Americans in a decade's time. Bottom line: business as usual. Continued proprietary (and geographically limited and underpowered) DSL access over crappy, aging (depreciating from the telcos' perspective) copper cable, maintaining wireless Internet connectivity at or below the less than impressive capabilities of current deployments and continuing to tell millions of Americans to go suck a satellite or live in dial up purgatory.
Congress should reject these whiners that have led the U.S on a race to the bottom when it comes to advanced IP-based telecommunications services. The telcos propagated a broadband boondoogle with the 1996 Communications Act. Broadband access is too important to allow them to repeat the fiasco.
Maintaining open access requirements in the stimulus legislation will assist local governments and citizens by providing seed funding to form their own fiber cooperatives. That will allow them to break free of the telco/cable duopoly that has failed to provide them adequate broadband access for their current and future needs.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Tax cuts, expanded NTIA funding for broadband proposed
Provisions of economic stimulus legislation rapidly moving through Congress could be expanded to include tax cuts and tripling the amount of grants for broadband infrastructure.
Bloomberg reports today U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) will propose tax credits to encourage telephone, cable and wireless companies to expand broadband access. The Bloomberg item also states the Senate Appropriations Committee wants $9 billion for broadband grants administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), compared to $3 billion in the House Appropriations Committee's version of the stimulus legislation.
The broadband provisions of the economic stimulus measure will likely undergo more revisions before the bill reaches President Barack Obama, who has called for its enactment by mid February to shore up a flagging U.S. economy.
Bloomberg reports today U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) will propose tax credits to encourage telephone, cable and wireless companies to expand broadband access. The Bloomberg item also states the Senate Appropriations Committee wants $9 billion for broadband grants administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), compared to $3 billion in the House Appropriations Committee's version of the stimulus legislation.
The broadband provisions of the economic stimulus measure will likely undergo more revisions before the bill reaches President Barack Obama, who has called for its enactment by mid February to shore up a flagging U.S. economy.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
President Obama reiterates need for broadband infrastructure in weekly radio address
President Barack Obama mentioned the expansion of broadband telecommunications infrastructure in his weekly radio address today urging swift enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The measure, which cleared Congressional committees this week on track for passage by mid-February, includes $6 billion in grants and loans to finance broadband build out.
Here's the relevant passage from the president's address:
Here's the relevant passage from the president's address:
Finally, we will rebuild and retrofit America to meet the demands of the 21st century. That means repairing and modernizing thousands of miles of America’s roadways and providing new mass transit options for millions of Americans. It means protecting America by securing 90 major ports and creating a better communications network for local law enforcement and public safety officials in the event of an emergency. And it means expanding broadband access to millions of Americans, so business can compete on a level-playing field, wherever they’re located.
Friday, January 23, 2009
The challenge facing WISPs
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)