Georgia cities oppose proposed legislation curbing community networks

Representatives from several Georgia cities testified last week in opposition to state Senate Bill 313, legislation sponsored by investor-owned telecommunications providers that would bar local governments from using public funds to finance municipally owned Internet infrastructure. From the Associated Press story:

Leaders from cities including Elberton, Hogansville, Thomasville, Monroe and Toccoa lined up to tell senators that broadband is necessary infrastructure for the 21st century economic development they hope to attract — and that they are doing what they must to keep their communities competitive.

"We cannot wait for the private sector to ride to our rescue," said Tim Martin, executive director of the Toccoa-Stephens County Development Authority.

Martin is correct. Investor owned providers cannot earn a sufficiently rapid and adequate return on capital expenditures on last mile Internet infrastructure to satisfy their shareholders. That's why public funding is entirely appropriate just as it finances construction of roads and highways. This isn't rocket science -- just simple economics.

California PUC misstates public policy goal of Internet infrastructure subsidy fund

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has adopted a decision implementing a grant and loan program to subsidize the construction of advanced telecommunications infrastructure in the Golden State through its California Advanced Services Fund (CASF). Under urgency legislation enacted in 2010, SB 1040, $100 million was allocated for grants and $15 million in revolving loans for the CASF's Broadband Grant and Revolving Loan accounts. The CASF is one of several subsidy funds administered by the CPUC to help offset the cost of providing telecommunications services in areas of the state where it is costly to provide them in order to make them more widely available.

The CASF is codified at California Public Utilities Code Section 281(a) which directs the CPUC to "develop, implement, and administer the California Advanced Services Fund to encourage deployment of high-quality advanced communications services to all Californians that will promote economic growth, job creation, and the substantial social benefits of advanced information and communications technologies..."

While not stated as a finding of law in a draft of the decision issued for public comment prior to its adoption earlier this week by the commission, the decision adopted by the CPUC nevertheless states on page 3:

"We emphasize that the ultimate goal of the CASF program is to increase the adoption of broadband."

A plain reading of that assertion does not comport with California Public Utilities Code Section 281(a), which clearly states public policy intent that the goal of the CASF is "deployment of of high-quality advanced communications services to all Californians."

The CPUC's declaration is also illogical. In order to increase the adoption of broadband, infrastructure must first be built to deliver it. That's the commission's stated purpose of the CASF Broadband Grant and Revolving Loan -- to help capitalize the construction of infrastructure capable of providing premises Internet connectivity in high cost areas where it hasn't been deployed. Moreover, the CPUC's decision distinguishes adoption from infrastructure deployment, noting at page 9 that applicants for CASF-funded infrastructure projects must submit a plan to encourage adoption of the broadband service in the proposed area(s) including the number of households the applicant estimates will sign up for the service (the take rate), the marketing or outreach plans the applicant will employ to attract households to sign up for the service.

Without deployment of the necessary infrastructure, broadband simply isn't available as hundreds of thousands of Californians trying to get by on dialup and satellite are painfully aware. And if broadband isn't available at any price, it cannot be adopted by anyone. First things first.

Obama cites America's "incomplete" telecom infrastructure in State of Union address

Since this blog was created in 2006, it has been dedicated to the exploration of strategies and methods for the build out of America's incomplete digital telecommunications network that leaves millions disconnected from the Internet because modern telecommunications infrastructure does not reach their homes and small businesses.

It was thus very encouraging to hear President Barack Obama call out the nation's "incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world" in his State of the Union address to Congress this week. Millions of Americans are painfully aware of just how incomplete Internet infrastructure is as they look only a couple of miles away or even just down the road or street to neighbors who have access while they do not.

The president also used his speech to call upon Congress to fund telecom and other critical infrastructure. Congress should respond to Obama's urging by providing technical assistance and construction funding for community-based networks to finish the job where investor-owned providers such as legacy telcos and cable companies cannot make a business case for doing so. This is what was done in the 1930s when market failure led to a similar problem with telephone service and electrical power and cooperatives and local governments filled in the gaps.

It's no longer 1996: Outdated perceptions of the Internet persist

There remains a major misapprehension in the United States -- in the nation that invented it -- that the Internet is only about email and websites when in fact it delivers Internet Protocol TV and movies. It's also the updated version of Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) over copper to Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP). And that's not even mentioning videoconferencing, telehealth and distance learning. All can be delivered simultaneously over a single fiber optic connection.

Nevertheless, there remain many media accounts such as this one from Minnesota Public Radio that would have readers believe it's still circa 1996 when the Internet was a relative novelty (then mostly accessed via AOL over dialup connections). A decade and a half ago, it was understandable that as this January 17, 2012 MPR story reports there were "Many people don't believe there's anything on the Internet they need." That was a relevant perception back then. But it's badly outdated in 2012.

Why "wireless broadband" will remain in mobile market segment

This article in CED magazine explains why 4G cell service can't substitute for premises wireline Internet service:

Even if you’re a light user or a millionaire, you might still think twice about going entirely wireless. Allen Nogee, principal analyst for In-Stat, says he actually tried an LTE modem as his sole Internet connection for about four months. He was pleased with the service; however, he did eventually go back to a fixed line for a number of reasons.

Nogee says that while price is certainly an issue, depending on usage, spectrum is the truly prohibitive element that will prevent LTE from becoming an in-home solution. Nogee says that eventually the cell towers currently pumping out LTE will get crowded, and that’s when things get complicated.

“It’s a shared resource, with a set amount of spectrum, and operators only have so much spectrum,” Nogee says. “If we had no wired Internet in the United States and everyone attempted to use LTE, it just wouldn’t work. There’s just not enough capacity there.”

Another analyst, Strategy Analytics, predicts fixed wireline will remain the primary premises Internet connection and will not be displaced by 4G wireless connections where wireline infrastructure exists and serve as an alternative means of access where it does not.

“We see two parallel markets for 'Mobile Only' in the US: users in remote or underserved areas where dependable fixed broadband is unavailable, and cost-conscious casual users, who are unlikely to exceed imposed data caps, and for whom mobile data rates are ‘good enough,’” said Ben Piper, Director of the Service Provider Strategies program at Strategy Analytics.

What about tablets? Might tablet users cut the cord to these devices and instead rely exclusively on mobile wireless connections, especially since tablets are so portable? Not likely. Nearly all tablet data traffic will be transported via fixed premises Internet service, Sandvine says in its broadband predictions for 2012.

Documentary explores challenges and alternatives to getting sorely needed Internet infrastructure

Rob Osborn of Sacramento, California-based shibuya-tv, LLC has released his long awaited documentary, Broadband Blindness, that discusses the challenge of building adequate digital infrastructure to deliver premises Internet connectivity to meet exponentially growing bandwidth demand.

Also covered are alternative business models to construct the necessary infrastructure to customer premises including telecom cooperatives such as the one I formed in my community, the Camino Fiber Network Cooperative.

Susan Crawford on the state of U.S. Internet access

Susan Crawford has penned an excellent overview of the current state of Internet access in the United States in The New York Times, The New Digital Divide.

As the title of her piece suggests, Internet access is highly fragmented. Cable companies provide limited wired access in discrete, monopolistic markets in densely populated metro areas for those able to afford the $100 monthly cost (when bundled with voice phone and video) that these cablecos can increase at will absent the check and balance of market forces and rate regulation.

Meanwhile, lower income Americans who can't afford both wired and wireless access rely on wireless smartphones for Internet connectivity that costs half as much as bundled wired access. So must those who can afford wired access but can't get it at any price because of incomplete build out of wireline infrastructure. But it's not full access and comes with major disadvantages versus wired premises service. Crawford explains:

The problem is that smartphone access is not a substitute for wired. The vast majority of jobs require online applications, but it is hard to type up a résumé on a hand-held device; it is hard to get a college degree from a remote location using wireless. Few people would start a business using only a wireless connection.

It is not just inconvenient — many of these activities are physically impossible via a wireless connection. By their nature, the airwaves suffer from severe capacity limitations: the same five gigabytes of data that might take nine minutes to download over a high-speed cable connection would take an hour and 15 minutes to travel over a wireless connection.

Even if a smartphone had the technical potential to compete with wired, users would still be hampered by the monthly data caps put in place by AT&T and Verizon, by far the largest wireless carriers in America.