Topic: Uncategorized

The wireless broadband market took a giant step back from free metro wireless networks last year. Instead service providers and municipalities have leaned more toward funded, applications-based networks for such things as public safety, utility monitoring, healthcare and government operations. (Read Last Mile's story on wireless mesh networks for more.)

However, does this scaling back from free metro networks preclude the idea of a nationwide free wireless network? The FCC's Kevin Martin apparently doesn't think so. (Thanks to On the Mark for the source.) Martin says that the FCC will auction 25MHz in the 2155-2180 MHz spectrum, and the winning bidder will have to provide a free wireless network to 95 percent of the country in 10 years.

Meanwhile, the wireless association CTIA has denounced the idea in a June 5 filing to the commission.

"History has proven that prescriptive auction regulation ultimately undermines the public interest, rarely achieves its advertised benefits and is a poor substitute for allowing the marketplace to function freely," the CTIA said in the FCC filing. "The public interest is best advanced by the Commission's long-standing flexible-use spectrum policy, which provides spectrum licensees the freedom to innovate and respond to consumer demands."

FCC's prescriptive auction of the D Block in the recent 700 MHz auction failed to meet the reserve price, and the commission is still debating how to proceed with a re-auction.

In a sustained commitment to address the nation’s public safety communications challenges, the FCC is seeking public comment on how the commission should proceed with the reauction and licensing of the 700 MHz D Block spectrum while maximizing the public safety and commercial benefits of a nationwide, interoperable broadband network.

In July 2007, the FCC adopted rules for the 700 MHz Band spectrum that included the creation of a 10-megahertz license in the D Block to be part of a 700 MHz public-private partnership with the adjacent 10 megahertz of spectrum dedicated to a Public Safety Broadband License. The 700 MHz public-private partnership was designed to achieve the important public policy goal of promoting public safety interoperability, allowing police, fire and other first responders to better communicate with one another in times of emergency. Because the D Block did not meet its $1.3 billion reserve price in the 700 MHz auction, the FCC intends to re-auction this spectrum under revised rules.

The FCC seeks comment, ideas and recommendations on how to revise the rules for the D Block and whether such a public safety network remains in the public interest. In addition, the commission is interested in technical requirements of the shared wireless broadband network.

The FCC also seeks comment on how the D Block should be auctioned and licensed for commercial use if it were not required to be part of a public-private partnership. The FCC requests input on other ways to facilitate the deployment of a public safety broadband network if it found such a partnership were no longer in the public interest.

Certainly, the public is interested in free wireless Internet and a nationwide public safety network, but has the FCC forgotten that broadband is a business? Why should service providers buy spectrum licenses that don't offer much in return? I just don't see it happening.

Once again the United States ranked behind most of Europe and Asia in broadband availability, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which surveyed its 30 member countries and ranked the United States 15th -- for the second consecutive year.

Meanwhile, it appears after a decade of rapid growth and reaching approximately 60 percent penetration in the United States, broadband has reached a plateau point. Some researchers, like John Hodulik of UBS Research quoted in PC Magazine, speculate that the broadband has simply run out of room to grow.

Even if that were true, has broadband run out of room to improve? Growth does not have to measured in terms of available infrastructure and per capita subscription. PC Magazine defines broadband as 256 Kbps, which is similar to FCC broadband speeds we've discussed in previous posts. Internet content is sucking up more and more bandwidth and soon -- heck, now -- those speeds will not be adequate for the video, voice and data services that consumers enjoy.

If the the United States is expected to climb the international rankings in broadband, service providers will need to find ways to grow. Supporting content is key. Else broadband providers will be seeing a negative impact on penetration, rather than this perceived plateau.

How can the United States stay competitive on a global scale? Are we really at a plateau? Let us know in the comments.

Last week, I had the opportunity to attend the Collaboration Technology and Engaging the Campus symposium at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. The event's focus was on bridging the digital divide and broadening broadband communication to improve education and business competition in a global marketplace.

Many times, the phrase "from town to gown" was used to describe the cooperation between society and educational institutions. It struck me that the needs for broadband networks is essentially the same for municipalities, businesses, schools, hospitals and any other entity that might come to mind. Broadband networks enhance those communities, period.

For example, OneCommunity and CWRU launched a new wireless network on the campus, which also encompasses the surrounding community. Such a network enhances both the university and its surrounding neighborhood by providing Internet access to residents and fostering communal interaction between towners and gowners. Similar networks -- regardless of the technology used -- help draw interest to the area and bolster the quality of life in a community.

The relationship would be the same if the network were municipal-based. In simple terms, such a network makes the people happy by supporting applications that students and residents enjoy and need. The same would logically be true with other communities (such as businesses and hospitals mentioned above).

What the discussions at the Collaboration Technology symposium suggest is that collaboration between all interested parties -- and leadership among those interested parties -- is essential to the proliferation of broadband networks. If everyone wants improved video, voice and data services over IP, as we assume they do, then everyone should get involved with the processes that bring those networks to bear.

It may sound like a grassroots proposal, and maybe it should be. Let the people speak, and let them be heard. Getting people more involved in the deployment of broadband networks would help drive demand to push these networks to all corners of the United States, which in turn would improve our ability to compete in the global marketplace.

How do we encourage more involvement from the communities that broadband networks serve? Where are the leaders to promote better connectivity?

Sometimes a headline catches your eye that makes you think the writer must have been half drunk when he wrote it. That's what I thought when I saw "Broadband to be Obsolete within a Decade." But then I kept reading.

The post at HighPosition.net describes "the Grid," which is the name of the network that was created to  support the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland, at the European Organization of Nuclear Research. (Otherwise known as CERN, for you Dan Brown fans.) The LHC produces massive amounts of data that would strangle average computer networks -- we're talking petabytes, here, or millions of gigabytes.

The Grid was designed with "super-fast" fiber optic cables that send research data to scientists all over the world at near instantaneous speeds. The network delivers data about 1,000 times faster than today's broadband services, according to HighPosition.net.

According to the CERN site, the Grid handles enough data to fill 100,000 DVDs a year. Now, that's a network I could get used to. No more bogging down when someone's using BitTorrent or streaming video. No more waiting for YouTube to load. I wonder where my service provider is on this network upgrade ...

We've talked about re-defining what broadband means. This blows those definitions out of the galaxy. However, could this truly be a reality in 10 years given today's market? It sure sounds like something fun to write about in the coming years.

Is David McClure, CEO and president of the United Sates Internet Industry Association (USIIA),
getting enough fiber in his diet? According to a post on the Web site, Broadband Reports, McClure says, "virtually every U.S. household and business has access to broadband, and even in many rural areas has a choice of broadband technologies -- fiber, wireless, cellular, cable DSL or satellite." Really?

What McClure is really arguing is that it's not broadband deployment that is the problem, but broadband adoption is lacking in these seemingly neglected communities, as he writes in this editorial in the DesMoines Register. [You can read more about McClure's view's in "Deployment of Broadband to Rural America" (PDF) from the USIIA.]

Is the issue really about the willingness of the public to adopt broadband? McClure's report shows that "broadband" is deployed in so-called rural areas. Sadly, McClure sticks to the FCC's and other antiquated definitions of broadband, which we have discussed previously here. I will give him props for admitting that the broadband definition is inadequate. But doesn't that admission debunk his whole argument?

What do you think? Are rural communities underserved in the broadband market? Or are those communities disinterested in services?

The Federal Communications Commission recently released a report that shows high-speed Internet access has risen 22 percent and penetrates 99 percent of the zip codes in the United States. However, those statistics come with two significant caveats: the FCC defines "high speed" as 200 Kbps and any zip code with at least one such "high speed" connection is considered penetrated.

It's promising to see access continue to proliferate the United States, but these statistics don't show that the crossing of the digital divide is upon us.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has said that the commission is planning to recategorize its definition of high-speed access by breaking services into tiers. The lower-end categories would be split into six smaller tiers: 200 to 768 Kbps at the low end, 768Kbps to 1.5 Mbps for "basic" service, 1.5 to 3 Mbps for "high speed" service, 3 to 6 Mbps for "robust" service, and a 6 to 10 Mbps for "premium" service.

I've written a little about defining high-speed services here in the past. I don't see the need to define what high speed is because the definition of high speed -- like the broadband industry itself -- is dynamic. Megabit-per-second service will be replaced by gigabit-per-second service and terabit-per-second will eventually replace that and then petabit to exabit to whatever frontiers that lie beyond. There are no limits and no need for bureaucratic boundaries.

The FCC needs to get with the 21st century with its idea of high speed, yes, but it doesn't need to put a definition in writing. Instead, the commission should spend its ink on drafting a definite broadband policy that lifts the United States to the level of the leaders in Asia and Europe.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments.

Look around, wherever you may roam, and you will likely notice a lack of pay phones. These old reasons to carry a quarter around have slowly started to disappear as cell phones have become increasingly popular. And in those same places you used to find pay phones -- restaurants in particular -- you will likely find a Wi-Fi hot spot. Are these access points soon to go the same way of the phone booth?

Apparently, that's what Ericsson’s chief marketing officer Johan Bergandahl thinks. As reported here and here, Bergandahl thinks these hot spots will be replaced by high speed packet access (HSPA), a kind of wireless broadband technology that Ericsson just happens to promote. So obviously, these statements should not be heard as gospel, but as part of a marketing agenda. But, let's think about it ...

Will Wi-Fi hot spots disappear? Probably, but not in the near future. The technology seems perfect for coffee shops, restaurants and other places where people will hang out for long periods of time. However, you can't deny that a bigger, better, badder technology won't knock W-Fi off its pedestal.

Let's hear it: Is Wi-Fi here to stay? Let us know in the comments.

Net Neutrality created a big buzz this month when the New York attorney general's office subpoenaed Comcast for its alleged throttling of customers' Internet use and when Reps. Ed Markey and Chip Pickering introduced the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008" (PDF).

In a nutshell, the Net Neutrality argument is over whether access to IP services should be limited. Below is a YouTube video that helps explain the issue a little more.



You can also read more about Net Neutrality at Save the Internet, a public advocacy coalition.

Google has taken a firm stance in favor of Net Neutrality. The search engine even includes the topic in its help directory. In essence, Google argues that Internet users should have the sole power to choose what content and services they want to use.

The other side of the argument concerns managing bandwidth. Anti-Net Neutrality advocates argue that certain broadband users hog bandwidth with such applications as peer-to-peer (P2P) services like BitTorrent that allow them to download and upload massive amounts of content. In a Times (Trenton, N.J.) editorial, Jose Marquez recently compared these users to Wild West oil tycoons, sucking up every last, valuable drop of bandwidth for their own benefit.

However, these arguments would be moot if there were a national broadband program to improve network infrastructure and expand these services into rural and other under served areas.

What are your thoughts on Net Neutrality? Will legislation help or hinder broadband use in the United States?

Well, here we are at the closing keynote speaker. Mark Goldstein, president of the International Research Center and member of the Arizona Telecommunications and Information Council (ATIC), put the topper on the Digital City EXPO cake with his presentation "Storm Clouds, Silver Linings and Blue Skies for Wireless Broadband."

Goldstein's message: despite the worries in the wireless broadband market in 2007, there are plenty of reasons to be hopeful for 2008. And what a fine message for municipalities to take with them as they leave Phoenix and continue their plans for enhanced communications infrastructures in this yet new year.

Now, it's time for the Last Mile staff to hop the next flight home. Trading the mild desert sun for the bitter Midwest snow is no trade at all.

We'll comb through our notes and give one final wrap of our insights and highlights about the Digital City EXPO. Until then, good luck with your travels across that last mile of the digital divide. We hope to see many more Smart Communities in 2008.

Many municipalities here at Digital City EXPO are in the process of releasing or have just released an RFP for a broadband network. Jeanne Foreman of PacketFront, a veteran in the RFP writing process, had a good point: Don't be shy about what you want.

In fact, Foreman says, it's good to be as comprehensive as possible when writing an RFP for a broadband network--or any other project for that matter.

So, go ahead, ask for the moon.

Other pointers:

• Ask open ended questions
• Don't ask a company to explain its weaknesses. "No company will be honest about this," Foreman says. "Or they'll try to make their weakness sound like strength."
• Know what you want