As progressive the term "Fourth Industrial Revolution" sounds, it's really regressive

Powering the Fourth Industrial Revolution with 5G | About Verizon: The arrival of 5G – the next generation of wireless networks – unleashes an opportunity for smart cities to take full advantage of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, where everything that can be connected will be and the full force of transformative technologies like artificial intelligence and autonomous vehicles will permeate where we live, work and play. What 5G delivers that 4G and earlier networks cannot are the blazing speeds and ultra-low latencies (data transfer delays) that allow massive amounts of data to be relayed between connected devices, systems, and infrastructure in near real time. In other words, 5G enables the super-fast response and data analysis that can allow driverless cars, cloud-connected traffic control, and other sensor-laden smart city applications to truly thrive.

As progressive as Verizon's use of the term "Fourth Industrial Revolution" might sound, it's really regressive. In the 20th century, the Industrial Revolution represented a major phase in settlement patterns, bringing masses of people to cities to work in centralized offices and factories. In the latter half the century, automobiles, cheap motor fuel and telephones sparked a second migration to the suburbs -- and with it daily commuting that now in 21st century is overloading 20th century era transportation systems and creating choking traffic congestion encompassing urban centers and suburbs.

Verizon and other telecom companies are talking up the potential of information and communications technology (ICT) and specifically a developmental 5G wireless technology to reinforce the metro commute pattern. Instead of a more progressive use: to replace it by more widely distributing knowledge work and other economic activity beyond costly and congested metro areas. That's truly a revolutionary use of ICT with far greater potential to improve people's lives.

The short term business models of Verizon and other investor owned telcos can't fully support that large scale deployment of advanced telecommunications infrastructure (ATI) because it would require significant long term investment in fiber optic cable serving homes and businesses in less densely populated areas of the United States. Lower population density means slower return on infrastructure investment that isn't tolerable to their shareholders. That's why a publicly funded and owned model of ATI is needed.

3 ways Trump administration telecom infrastructure proposal falls short

White House to unveil latest 5G push and rural broadband initiative - The Verge: President Trump and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai are expected to announce the administration’s latest plans to ensure US leadership in 5G and expand high-speed broadband access to rural areas across the country. On Friday morning, the FCC announced a new plan to roll out high-speed broadband to rural communities through the creation of the commission’s new Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. According to the FCC, the fund will “inject” $20.4 billion into broadband networks to connect up to 4 million rural homes and businesses with high-speed broadband over the next decade. “This is a critical tool towards closing the digital divide and will provide some of the critical infrastructure to connecting rural Americans with 5G technologies,” Pai said.

This isn't going to timely solve the America's problem of an urgently needed upgrade of its legacy metallic copper and coax telephone and cable TV plant of the 20th century to fiber to the premise for the 21st. The scope of which can't be narrowly described as a "rural broadband" issue. Rather than a simple plan to construct the necessary fiber, it follows previous subsidy program flaws:

1. Inadequate funding relative to construction costs dispersed over time frames far too long to catch the nation up to where it should be on telecom infrastructure modernization. A couple of billion dollars a year won't go far in a nation as large and diverse as the United States. A Deloitte study concludes the nation needs to invest $130–150 billion in "deep fiber" between 2017 and 2023-25 to provide sufficient bandwidth for premise and mobile wireless services.
2. Additional subsidies to legacy phone and cable companies with no universal service, quality or price strings attached.
3. Continued use of a speed versus technology definition of advanced telecom infrastructure that permits subsidization of metallic plant and and substitution of wireless infrastructure including still under development 5G wireless.

"Amying" low: Klobuchar telecom infrastructure plan retreads incremental "broadband" strategies instead of ensuring universal fiber

Amy’s Plan to Build America’s Infrastructure – Amy for America – Medium: Connect every household to the internet by 2022. Roughly one in four rural Americans say access to high-speed internet is a major problem. That’s why as President, Amy will connect every household in America to the internet by 2022. Amy’s plan will help close the urban-rural divide by creating accurate broadband maps to identify areas that lack adequate access, focus on bringing high-speed internet infrastructure to areas most in need, and provide greater incentives for existing providers to use funds to upgrade their networks to cover unserved and underserved areas. Broadband creates jobs, opens new economic opportunities, and allows America to compete and succeed in an increasingly digital world.

Presidential candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)'s plan retreads failed approaches that rely on defining America's advanced telecom infrastructure challenge as a "broadband" issue. The solution in that context is creating better "broadband maps" (what for?) and giving money to legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies to boost "broadband speeds." Rather than doing what's truly needed: building fiber to every American doorstep -- that should already be in place now -- and will be needed going forward into the 21st century.

Blair Levin misses key distinction on advanced telecom infrastructure

A broadband agenda for the (eventual) infrastructure bill: Governors have internal agencies and incentives for spending federal discretionary funding on traditional infrastructure sectors like water, sewer, and roads, a point missed in the White House’s argument that money would flow to rural broadband. If we want universal connectivity, the reality is that we need dedicated funds.

Blair Levin's right. But he misses a crucial distinction. Current U.S. policy regards advanced telecommunications infrastructure not as infrastructure per se but rather as a commercial enterprise of selling "broadband" bandwidth to individual customer premises. Expanding it has thus involved tossing token sums (millions for infrastructure that costs billions) to mostly incumbent legacy telephone companies with no real strings attached and no universal service mandate -- unlike subsidies for analog voice telephone service over copper in high cost areas.

And since the focus has been on bandwidth, the debate over subsidization has bogged down over what constitutes adequate bandwidth -- a debate in which Levin has found himself mired in the rest of his piece. It's absurd since bandwidth isn't static and demand continues to grow rapidly with various connected devices and high definition video. Tragically, as the years long controversy over bandwidth adequacy continues, the United States continues to fall further behind where it should be: having fiber connections to every address and not just a select few. That is a real, solid definition of universal service.

Time to abolish the term "broadband" and progress to AT or IP

PUD plans internet questionnaire: Survey part of strategy to expand broadband | Peninsula Daily News: Community member Tom Thiersch said that the terms “broadband” and “high-speed” were used randomly and interchangeably in the survey. He felt the demographic questions were invasive and served little purpose. He said he would provide a marked-up copy of the survey for commissioners to review. Thiersch added that the survey responses will be part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Randy Trost, senior broadband consultant with Magellan — which was selected in December to provide planning services to the PUD, funded with a grant from the Community Economic Revitalization Board — told commissioners that broadband has several definitions. “The term broadband has become a little broad, no pun intended,” Trost said. “Someone who only has dial-up considers it broadband. The FCC has its definition. Everyone uses broadband differently."

A good argument to abolish the term "broadband." It's become an overused, misunderstood term overly prone to BS usage and the incumbent telco and cableco agenda to keep people fixated on throughput speed (so service can be sold in speed tiers) instead of modernizing legacy metallic infrastructure to fiber to the premise (FTTP). The term came into common use in the 1990s to differentiate it from narrowband, dialup and ISDN connections. Advanced telecommunications and Internet protocol (IP) telecommunications are more accurate descriptors. Or AT or IP for short.

Speed tests, "broadband surveys" no longer make sense in 2019

PUD plans internet questionnaire: Survey part of strategy to expand broadband | Peninsula Daily News: Commissioners aim to help expand access to broadband infrastructure throughout the county and will gather information though a survey of customers March 19-25.

“We are going to be getting more information on what internet and what broadband access is available in Jefferson County,” said Will O’Donnell, PUD communications manager. “We will be doing a survey of the county’s households and businesses to find out how they are using the internet, what kind of access they have and what kind of speeds they have,” he said. Denver-based Magellan Advisors worked with PUD staff and members of the Citizens Advisory Board broadband subcommittee to develop the fact-finding questionnaire that will be made available to customers through an online portal. A link to a speed test is part of the survey along with questions about cost, what the internet is used for and how reliable it is.

These kinds of surveys and "speed tests" might have made sense a generation ago when IP-based telecom was a novelty and people "went online" to browse websites and retrieve email. It would have been prudent to determine people's needs and preferences around a newly emerging pre-utility service before making plans to build it.

In 2019, it's antiquated, backward looking and no longer makes sense for future telecom infrastructure planning. Fiber to the premise (FTTP) is the infrastructure standard and not prone to throughput speed limits like earlier, metal cable technologies. Now that so much communication has migrated to Internet protocol-based services (voice, data and increasingly HD and UHD video) consuming an ever growing amount of bandwidth, there is no question about it.

"Broadband maps," mobile speed tests won't fix America's telecommuncations infrastructure deficiencies

NACo, Rural LISC and RCAP announce Bridging the Economic Divide Partnership: WASHINGTON, DC — The National Association of Counties (NACo), the Rural Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP) and Rural LISC (Local Initiatives Support Corporation) have partnered to address the critical need for affordable high-speed internet for rural communities across the country. Together, the three organizations developed a mobile app that gives mobile phone users the power to accurately identify areas with low or no internet connectivity and share that information to push for change. Armed with that data, the organizations will advocate for adequate funding for broadband infrastructure across the country.

TestIT Mobile App “TestIT” (available for iOS and Android) uses an open-source sampling tool developed by Measurement Lab (MLab) to aggregate broadband speeds from mobile device users across the country. Accurate data ensures that broadband infrastructure receives the investments needed to provide internet access to rural communities.

America's telecommunications infrastructure crisis is not due to lack of accurate data. Nor will more granular data promote the needed investment to fix it. Identifying the holes in its deplorable swiss cheese advanced telecom infrastructure -- be it by government sanctioned "broadband maps" or mobile speed tests -- won't remedy them because no one is out looking to fill them. Only government investment in the infrastructure can because there is no business case for private sector, investor owned providers to do so.

Municipal broadband internet: The next public utility? | Smart Cities Dive

Municipal broadband internet: The next public utility? | Smart Cities Dive: “Indeed, according to new data, over half of these municipal fiber systems fail to bring in enough revenue to cover their ongoing operating costs, bleeding red ink every day they operate and falling further and further into debt,” McAuliffe, who is also federal affairs manager at the conservative Americans for Tax Reform organization, wrote. “These bad investments crowd out other needs and, in the worst case, can put a city’s financial solvency at risk.”

This warning is grounded in the paradigm of so-called "take rate risk:" that too few premises will subscribe to advanced telecom connections. It's predicated on the now two-decade-old view of advanced telecommunications over Internet protocol as a cutting edge, luxury service that would be shunned by many. That's no longer the case. The expectation now is there be landline connections as common as voice telephone connections were in most of the 20th century. Particularly now that they deliver such a wide array of voice, data and video services. And unlike private sector, investor owned providers wholly reliant on subscription revenues, governments have other forms of financing available to them to build and operate advanced telecom networks.

The more real risk public sector owned advanced telecom projects face now is faulty financial planning and poor project management that leads to cost and budget overruns -- a common problem that many public works projects encounter. These can be managed by employing best practices and fails to support the view expressed here that only private sector, investor owned entities are competent to own and operate advanced telecom networks.