|
Broadband Access
Commentary
U.S. national broadband policy: live or Memorex?
Self interest and stockholders could inhibit the idea
by Sean Buckley
As progressive as Thomas Jefferson was when he took up residence at the Graff house to write
the Declaration of Independence, it’s unlikely he was thinking about
broadband. I would argue that if he were to write the same document
today, the famous lines about freedom might read more like this: Life,
Liberty and the right to a broadband connection.
Well that’s what FCC commissioner Michael Copps thinks.
"No matter who you are, or where you live, or how much money you
make... you will need, and you are entitled to have these tools
(broadband Internet) available to you, I think, as a civil right," said
Copps FCC at a recent Carnegie Mellon address.
The commissioner’s speech is an idea that’s being reflected in the
actions of some state, local and even federal government efforts to
expand broadband availability.
In New Hampshire, Senators Judd Gregg and John Sununu said they have
gotten the approval to provide US$700,000 to fund broadband projects
in more remote northern counties of Coos, Carroll and Grafton.
Meanwhile, Massachusetts, Gov. Deval Patrick said he supports a
US$25 million bond bill, which was just increased by the state’s House of
Representatives to US$40 million. Interestingly enough, Patrick’s efforts
focus on the broadband-strapped Western Massachusetts, an area
where he owns a second home.
But while these efforts are encouraging, they are a far cry from what we
really need: a national broadband policy that can bridge between the
broadband haves and have nots. Part of this divide is
attributed to the fact that many of the large service providers have a
mentality that they can get more of a quicker return on investment
(ROI) if they go after the more affluent communities.
Perhaps the U.S. government should take a look at South Korea where the government subsidizes and encourages broadband growth. The United States lacks such a policy. In fact, the ITU in its "Digital Opportunity Index: the Top 20 Countries" survey shows Korea
taking the top spot with household broadband penetration of 89.4
percent, and the U.S. at number 20. (see:
Korea BANGs into broadband, October 2007)
A national broadband policy in the U.S. could have a number of positive
implications. For one, it could enhance the education experience in both
affluent and poorer communities with greater Internet access and
enhanced distance learning applications. In addition, having more
expanded broadband capabilities could encourage more telecommuting
and take more people off the roads.
Unfortunately, such a broadband policy is more political ballyhooing that
will likely continue as the fall presidential election nears.
Grass roots efforts
Although some communities like the Frankfort Plant Board in Kentucky
have been delivering cable TV services since 1952, the rise of the
community-based telco and data providers really did not start taking off
in earnest until the late 1990s. When I profiled FPB in the February 2001
edition of Telecommunications in that edition’s cover story (Triple Threat:
Is Next-Gen Voice a Home Run for MSOs?), the board was moving forward
with their own triple play network.
Municipal telco-providers, while different in their size and scope, all
have a couple of common characteristics.
Frustrated with a lack of broadband access from the local cable and
telephone companies, these communities have taken matters into their
own hands and are either building or have built their own fiber-based
broadband networks.
I first came upon the municipal telco in the late 1990s when I saw a story on the Braintree Electric Light Department (BELD). BELD's HFC network, which now supports voice, video and data, was initially being built for an automated meter-reading (AMR) system.
When BELD was 70 percent complete with the network, broadband services were starting to take off and the department realized it could use some of the latent HFC spectrum to deliver television and then later broadband services. BELD’s plan was met with overwhelming support from the local town officials and has been off and running ever since.
But not all of these networks get a welcome mat.
Take Monticello, Minnesota’s more recent move to build a FTTH network. That city’s proposed FTTH build has been faced with a lawsuit from local telephone operator provider Bridgewater Telephone/TDS.
Being outside the big city of Minneapolis' belt, Monticello wanted to get
a FTTH network to improve the city’s economic viability. However, when
they asked Bridgewater Telephone/TDS to build this network,
Bridgewater answered "No."
In turn, Monticello said, “Okay, fine. We’re going to build it
ourselves.”
Right as the city was about to secure bonds to pay for the project,
Bridgewater Telephone/TDS decided to sue the town because it said
using municipal bonds to pay for the $25 million network was “illegal.”
Monticello’s case is not completely uncommon. Powell, Wyo., which is also building its own FTTH network, faced a similar situation. Envisioning an applications-rich environment that will stretch beyond just a triple play of voice, video and data, Powell decided to launch its own
FTTH network. In a good faith effort, Powell met with the local service providers and
welcomed them to ride on their network. Again, the answer was “No.”
“The incumbents early on said, ‘you need to be happy with what you
have; what we offer is good enough and you don’t need more than what
we offer,' was their exact comment,” said Ernie Bray, President of U.S.
Metro Nets, a consulting and networking company that’s helping to build
the network. “The city said, 'well we’re looking at the future and we got
to look at how were going to fare as far as economic development'.”
There does appear to be some glimmer of hope for community
broadband.
Last year, a bipartisan group in the U.S. House of Representatives, developed
the Community Broadband Act to help overturn bans on municipal
networks that exist in various states like Arkansas, Florida and Texas.
To help level the playing field, the Act would require any municipality to
get feedback on their business plans and deployments from private
companies.
Even if such an act were to be passed, the telcos and cable operators
will be lobbying hard to squelch it.
A challenging environment
But a telco’s protest is only one of many challenges community
broadband network providers face.
Who can forget the overhyped iProvo network in Provo, Utah? After
failing to get the right support and enough profitable local providers to
sign up on the open access network, the city of Provo threw in the
towel and sold off its assets to smaller competitive FTTH provider
Broadweave. (see FTTH: Leave it to the experts)
Then there was the ballyhooed free Wi-Fi network in Philadelphia — built in
partnership with Earthlink, it ultimately closed up shop.
Where other ambitious community-based Wi-Fi and FTTH networks may
have failed, there does seem to be some promising new projects on the
horizon.
Although the network has not been built yet, Powell seems to be on the
right path.
Unlike other municipal networks, Powell, through the counsel U.S. Metro
Nets, decided to seek out private versus public funding and it conducted
extensive studies on all of the elements including financing, legal counsel
and service provisioning.
Besides the fact that Powell and their service provider partner TCT
settled on Calix as its GPON broker and has experience doing similar deals
with other communities, it appears they want to educate other
communities on how to properly built out a FTTH network.
Still, as with other municipalities it will take time to prove out that the
model’s ultimate success.
Broadband needs a makeover
Even before we can even talk about developing a national policy, the
telecom industry needs to do a better job defining what broadband is.
As the so-called champion of consumer telco competition, the FCC
defines a broadband connection as 200 Kbps and above.
I mean, 200 Kbps? That’s it?
While I did switch to cable modem recently, even my old DSL connection
was about 384 Kbps up and 1 Mbps down.
However, it does appear that since its initial speed designation, the FCC is making some proactive efforts to expand the scope and definition of broadband speeds.
As part of the Data Reporting docket, the FCC revamped the functional definition of broadband to include several tiers:
Basic Broadband Tier 1 – 768 kbps to 1.5 Mbps;
Broadband Tier 2 – 1.5 Mbps to 3 Mbps;
Broadband Tier 3 – 3 Mbps to 6 Mbps;
Broadband Tier 4 – 6 Mbps to 10 Mbps;
Broadband Tier 5 – 10 Mbps to 25 Mbps;
Broadband Tier 6 – 25 Mbps to 100 Mbps;
Broadband Tier 7 – Greater than 100 Mbps
Still, a lot of work lays ahead to make broadband more ubiquitous.
A recent study commissioned by Tellabs pointed out that 94 percent of survey
respondents said that the FCC’s definition was not adequate to “deliver
a true broadband experience.” Taking it a step further, 84 percent argued that
broadband is better defined when it can support “high-quality streaming
video.” (see: Tellabs argues for the closing of the broadband divide)
To bridge the haves and have-nots' access to broadband, the FCC will
have to revamp the meaning of broadband.
With the presidential election looming large and a sagging economy to boot, the timing for the redefinition of broadband and revamping local
and national policies could not be better. Instead of just catering to large companies and their precious bottom line, the two candidates should take a stand on providing US citizens
with the right to broadband access.
Send your comments to Sean Buckley.
|
