The 3 biggest obstacles to rapid deployment of advanced last mile telecom infrastructure

The biggest speed bumps on the road to rapid deployment of advanced IP-based fiber optic last mile telecommunications infrastructure aren't likely to be purely economic due to its high costs. Instead, these are likely to be the greatest impediments going forward:

1. Top down thinking by large telecom providers and governmental agencies tasked with subsidizing and otherwise facilitating the deployment of advanced telecommunications infrastructure. Wrong approach. Locals best know their needs and have the greatest incentive to see they are met over both the short and long term. They are intimately familiar with their incomplete last mile telecom infrastructures and are in the best position to know where gaps need to be bridged. Governmental programs to increase access to advanced telecom services should be directed to the locals -- local governmental entities and telecom cooperatives.

2. Self-centered thinking by ISPs more interested in preserving their proprietary technologies -- such as satellite Internet service -- that cannot substitute for robust fiber-based last mile advanced telecommunications infrastructure and are already technologicially obsolete or will be soon.

3. "Analysis paralysis" in the form of attempts to "map" broadband black holes and household and socioeconomic demographic surveys that distract from and delay the urgent task of getting fiber that should have been in place a decade ago deployed and deployed ASAP -- particularly at a time when such deployments will create badly needed jobs and increased economic activity. We cannot study, map or talk our way to where we should be with our telecommunications infrastructure. What counts is getting fiber on the poles and in the ground.

Broadband black holes: Not just a rural issue

One of the most persistently inaccurate and misleading portrayals of U.S. broadband availability is that broadband black holes are confined to rural areas. Unfortunately for those marooned within them, they can be found in plenty of other places due to telco deployments of technologically limited DSL that deteriorates just a few miles from a central office or remote terminal -- and less than that if the copper cable isn't in pristine condition.

Case in point is part of the Northern California suburb of Vacaville, located not far from Interstate 80 west of the college town of Davis. AT&T is requesting a 40 percent subsidy from the California Public Utilities Commission's California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) to extend wireline broadband to 33 households in this area as one of five AT&T CASF projects up for consideration Thursday by the CPUC.

These projects -- designated for "underserved" areas where residents can't get broadband of at least 3 Mbs down and 1 Mbs on the upload side -- are being trumpeted by the CPUC as helping close Golden State's digital divide. But given their small size -- ranging from just five households for the smallest to 125 for the largest -- there's a danger this will make the CPUC look like it's putting out AT&T PR puffery.

FCC seeks comment on U.S. broadband deployment plan

The Federal Communications Commission is seeking comment on how to best achieve universal broadband access. The FCC's mandate to develop a broadband strategy and deliver it to Congress by February 2010 is required under the federal economic stimulus legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, enacted in February.

Here's a link to the FCC news release.

New mindset emerging on U.S. broadband build out

There's a new mindset on broadband infrastructure build out emerging in the United States, moving away from self interest and the proprietary profit centers of the telco/cable duopoly to broadband as a community resource.

So reports internetnews.com in this dispatch on the Freedom to Connect conference held April 1 in Silver Spring, Maryland discussing the $7.2 billion in broadband build out subsidies allocated in the recently enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

Some key excerpts:

"We are turning away from what I believe was a misguided effort to restructure the economy along the lines of selfishness: I've got mine and if you don't have yours, that's too bad for you because it's how the market works," said Harold Feld, legal director of consumer lobby Public Knowledge.

The act assumes that broadband provides benefits to a whole community, creating a new ecology. "For years, the debate has been about incenting the market and getting carriers to invest," Feld said. "Entities that were despised in yesteryear -- and I mean literally last year -- such as state and local entities and non-profits are now presumed to be most in tune with the philosophy of a broadband ecology."

Forget about broadband mapping; it's time for consumers to take control

I concur with Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge that "broadband mapping" is an exercise in distraction and a waste of time and money better directed to getting broadband infrastructure in place. Infrastructure that was needed yesterday, last year and five years ago in much of the U.S. No map can provide that.

In fact, as Brodsky suggests, mapping is nothing but a feel good PR ploy favored by the telco/cable duopoly to create an impression they're doing something to fill in the holes while at the same time playing hide the pea. It's about going through the motions while doing nothing.

Homeowners and small business owners don't need a map to know they're in a broadband black hole when they're forced to resort to early 1990s era dial up or substandard satellite for Internet connectivity. They should get together with their neighbors and take control of their telecommunications destiny by forming fiber optic telecom consumer cooperatives as quickly as possible and applying for federal and state grants and loans to help finance the cost of deploying the fiber. Bringing the U.S. last mile telecommunications infrastructure up to date is a bottom up-- not top down -- endeavor that does not require maps.

Just say no to broadband stimulus funding for satellite

Here's another boondoggle in the making: a plea by satellite Internet providers for some of the $7.2 billion in federal economic stimulus funding for broadband infrastructure.

Giving even a dime to satellite Internet providers would be a major mistake and waste of taxpayer dollars. Doing so would underwrite an inferior and costly stopgap technology intended to temporarily fill in where advanced telecommunications infrastructure is lacking -- and not be a permanent solution. Talk about unclear on the concept.

4 of 5 proposed California state subsidized broadband projects challenged

Since the California Public Utilities Commission began accepting proposals last year for broadband infrastructure projects eligible for 40 percent subsidies from the CPUC's California Advanced Services Fund (CASF), about four out of five of 30 projects proposed to date have not been approved.

The reason, according to a recently issued CPUC resolution as well as other documentation posted on the CPUC's Web site is they were challenged by unnamed providers on the grounds they didn't comply with CASF funding guidelines targeting unserved areas (no broadband access) and underserved areas of the Golden State (broadband access at speeds less than 3 mbs down and 1 mbs up).

There's a lesson here as the federal government revs up its own plans for subsidizing broadband infrastructure buildout: avoid going down this slippery, ever changing slope of throughput requirements and attempting to define what constitutes served, unserved and underserved when it comes to advanced IP-based services.

These metrics are simply too subjective and prone to being manipulated and gamed by providers, particularly incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) more interested in preserving their territorial hegemony than serving their customers' telecommunications needs.

The better course is to allow entities such as local governments and telecommunications cooperatives with priority for federal broadband economic stimulus funding determine for themselves where infrastructure buildout is most needed. Most of these entities will likely opt for fiber and avoid the issue of throughput speeds altogether given fiber's tremendous capacity to accommodate current and future bandwidth requirements.