Another Broadband Report

One question I would like answered is why everything the government announces in the way of telecom-related initiatives will take ten years to accomplish.

With the FCC being required to submit a long-range broadband plan to congress by March 17, I thought I would write my own report ahead of the FCC’s and see how they differ. Through recent speeches by the FCC Chairman and others, we know the following about the FCC’s pending report:

• The FCC’s goal is to have 100 Mbps data speeds to 100 million of the population by 2020.
• The FCC has pledged to “find” 500 MHz of additional spectrum for wireless broadband services within the next decade.
• The FCC plans to auction the 700-MHz D Block as originally envisioned, however, it is also asking Congress to set aside between $12B and $20B (depending on whom you listen to) for the public safety nationwide broadband build-out and operation.
• The public safety community should have access to the entire 700-MHz band on a priority roaming basis.

You can count on there being many other details in this report and I wonder if it will actually be read by those in congress who are involved with telecommunications or only by a staff member who will give his or her  boss a five-minute overview. If the latter is the case, congress will merely accept the report as written and move on to other business.

In any event, this report will outline the FCC’s vision of how to achieve deeper penetration of broadband services. However, it may not result in any concrete action beyond moving forward with the D Block auction and trying to locate more spectrum that can be reallocated to broadband services.

As for the goal of providing 100 Mbps broadband to 100 million customers by the year 2020, this will happen with or without the FCC’s report. The market will demand it and those running fiber to the home have already expanded their plans to deploy fiber more quickly. It will only be a matter of time until 100 Mbps data speeds are achievable. Google, which owns a lot of dark fiber and has the resources to move ahead quickly, is also planning to run fiber experiments in several areas, as are the major telcos.

One question I would like answered is why everything the government announces in the way of telecom-related initiatives will take ten years to accomplish. You might remember that in 2008 when the FCC was talking about auctioning the AWS-3 band, the winning bidder would have ten years to cover 95% of the U.S. population, the new 500 MHz of spectrum will be found and made available within ten years, and the 100 Mbps capability will also take ten years. There are faster ways to accomplish a lot of what the FCC is recommending, and some of them are discussed below.

The Broadband Challenge

The goal of a broadband plan should be to provide broadband connectivity to the 13 million homes that have only dialup access and the 45 million households without Internet connectivity (some by choice), as well as businesses located in rural areas of the nation. The $7.2 billion stimulus plan for broadband that is being administered jointly by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is being awarded slowly and most of that money so far is going to fiber to the home systems and it won’t go very far. There appears to be no correlation between the FCC broadband plan and the NTIA/RUS grants being handed out. Business as usual is for each governmental agency to move ahead without coordinating with other agencies. If we are to come close to solving the broadband divide, as some are calling it, then it would be logical to assume that all of the programs being aimed at providing or making use of broadband services would be coordinated and that there would be some synergy between them. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

I believe that a more sensible approach to the entire broadband issue is needed, and that the basic premise should be to use existing resources wherever possible, extending them into uncovered areas and developing new services where needed. Finally, in some very rural areas, the only solution, for the moment, will be to make use of two-way satellite systems. When determining which solution is best suited for which area, we need to take into account not only homeowners and business customers, but also the educational, medical, and other communities that are interested in providing services over broadband and for which, in some cases, there are funds available. The economics of rural deployment has been a challenge for all types of services. Rural electric co-ops were founded by groups of farmers who needed electricity. The federal government assisted in these efforts for the formation of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and with funding. Rural wired telephone systems were also deployed with funds provided by various governmental agencies and the phone companies were sometimes compelled to provide services even in areas where they could not justify the cost.

Why does the government or its various agencies believe broadband deployment will be any different, or that $7.2 billion in stimulus fund grants will solve the underlying problem of attracting commercial companies to build out systems where there is no rational return for their investment? We need to pool the resources that are available and work on solving the economic issues associated with broadband deployment. One of the many solutions available today is to combine the resources of commercial service companies with the resources of those are already operating in these areas. For example, there are power co-ops in 47 states today. These co-ops need to find broadband solutions for their own needs, including becoming part of the smart grid systems. They own right-of-ways through much of America, and they have service trucks on the road to serve their customers. It seems logical, at least to me, that in areas covered by these co-ops, wireless broadband services could be deployed and used by the co-ops and their customers, as well as by educational and health organizations.

The above example is only one of the many ways organizations with common goals that can share the burden of deployment and operational costs can be brought together. Because we are living in an IP-connected world, it does not matter if we use different wired and wireless technologies in different parts of the country. For example, some experimental TV White Space systems are being deployed in North Carolina, WiMAX is being used effectively in other states, and in still other areas, current 3G wireless technologies and the new LTE systems will be deployed. There are also combination systems either in service or planned, including fiber to the street and wireless to the home using two different types of wireless—one as the pipe that feeds a more local technology to provide coverage into homes and offices.

Defining Broadband Speeds

One issue that has not been resolved is how to define broadband data rates and what speeds should be considered broadband data rates. I would like to propose a tiered approach, realizing that data over wireless and some cable systems share bandwidth so speeds will vary with the number of customers using the service at a given time in a given coverage area. My suggestion is as follows:

Tier one:       50 Mbps and higher (download speeds)
Tier two:       25 Mbps to 50 Mbps
Tier three:      5 Mbps to 25 Mbps
Tier four:        1 Mbps to 5 Mbps
Tier five:       500 Kbps to 1 Mbps

Defining Rural America

The latest available U.S. Census figures for rural population are for the year 2000. At that time, there were three methods of determining how much of the U.S. population resided in rural areas. Based on this, the areas considered to be rural America have an average of 79.6 people per square mile and include 97% of the U.S. land mass. These numbers are important because any expansion or building of new broadband systems by the public sector will have to have a return on investment potential or be subsidized by the government, just as phone and electric service were. In our market-driven world, no company or group of companies will build out broadband services of any type where there is no a way to make money by doing so.

This is why when wireless systems first came to the United States in the early 1980s, the focus was on building them in densely populated areas. When the systems were upgraded to follow-on generations of voice and then broadband service, this too came first to densely populated areas where the total available market of potential customers (TAM) was high. These systems have been expanded to cover a lot more of the population over time, but covering the entire population with service is not feasible because of the low density of potential customers in outlying areas.

According to the latest data on wireless networks, 96% of the total U.S. population has access to at least one voice wireless system and 90% to 92% has access to at least one wireless data network. DSL and cable services do not extend this deeply in the United States, and DSL services are limited to a fixed distance from the nearest central office. There are technologies available to extend this range, but they have been slow in being deployed, again because of the cost versus density issues.

In many other countries including some areas of Canada, the governments are mandating the extension of fiber connections. However, the governments are also making funds available to pay for both the construction and monthly charges associated with maintaining fiber.

One Step at a Time

It has become clear to me that with limited funds and an economic model that is difficult to apply to rural areas, our “plan” should be flexible and make use of different technologies in different parts of the nation. It is also clear to me that the issues are significantly different in urban areas than in rural areas. Most of the top cities in the United States have four or more broadband providers for wired, cable, fiber, and wireless, and a large number of Wi-Fi access points, many of which are free. The challenge in these areas is not to provide additional broadband services; it is to find a way to provide broadband access to those who cannot afford it.

I do not propose that the for-profit broadband operators simply lower their prices. What I suggest is that we need to put together plans on a region-by-region basis that will help enable those who want broadband to be able to afford the service and the terminal (computer) to access it. We should also realize that many of those we consider to be unconnected are unconnected by choice. If part of the plan is to connect these people, the first step would be to give them solid reasons to become connected, perhaps by helping their children advance their education, over-the-net job training, or job hiring.

Many organizations including libraries, job assistance centers, senior residences, churches, and schools offer broadband connectivity on their premises. They already have computers set up on a broadband connection for general use and many offer connectivity to those who have their own computers. Further, many Wi-Fi sites in coffee shops and other public places now offer free access and it is not unusual to see many people sitting at tables in these places connecting over Wi-Fi to the Internet.

Urban Broadband

One of the chief fallacies in the argument for additional broadband suppliers in urban areas is that more operators, wired or wireless, will mean that connectivity prices will drop and more customers will be able to subscribe to broadband services.

While it is true that competition tends to drive down prices, it is also true that having too much competition makes it more difficult for service providers to earn a decent return on their investment. If they cannot make money providing their services, they will go out of business and those who had signed up for service would have to scramble to find another provider. Or the return on investment would not be sufficient to upgrade to newer, faster services with better capacity. The U.S. broadband market, at least in urban areas, is already fiercely competitive and new entrants are at a decided disadvantage. They have to pay for the network build-out, attract customers, and hopefully make a decent return on investment before the incumbents increase their marketing budgets and/or trim their prices in an effort to force out the new companies. This is how a truly competitive landscape should operate.

An example of the fierce urban competition can be demonstrated with Clearwire’s recent Clear wireless broadband offering in Las Vegas, the 28^th largest U.S. city based on population (558,383). Here is what the broadband landscape looks like in Las Vegas:  

Wireless Services
Verizon Wireless           3G Data                                 $40-$60/Month
AT&T Wireless             3G Data                                 $40-$60/Month
T-Mobile                     3G Data                                 $40-$60/Month
Sprint                        3G Data                                 $60/Month, 5 GB
Sprint/Clear              3G/4G Data                          $70/Month Unlimited
Metro PCS                  No 3G Data                            $45/Month Unlimited

Wired ServicesN
Cox Cable                    up to 16 Mbps                          $20-$40 Month
AT&T DSL                     “100X more than dial-up”          $20-$35/Month
Embarq                        786-10 Mbps (down)                $30-$55/Month

Not included are all the hotels that offer Wi-Fi or hard-wired Internet connectivity, the thousands of Wi-Fi hotspots, Verizon’s and AT&T’s new LTE wireless broadband services about to be deployed, and anyone who might want to offer TV White Space unlicensed broadband access. Further, while the above pricing schedule does not take into account current pricing models for smart phones (usually around $30 for unlimited broadband access), it does represent connectivity to home and mobile laptop computers.

As you can see, fixed wireless pricing is the least expensive, with a premium being charged for mobile services. AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon also offer packages that include their wide-area services along with access to hundreds of Wi-Fi access points in the city. These price points will continue to change over time. With this much competition in a single market, each of the competitors will offer special package-pricing to connect, offer combined voice, data, and TV services on a single monthly bill, and find other ways to attract more customers, some new and some who move from one service to another.

I do not believe that adding more broadband services in large cities, such as Las Vegas, will continue to drive price points down enough to make a noticeable difference. Even with special Clear launch pricing at about 50%, Clear has not gained much ground. Moreover, most wireless data pricing will go up over time because pricing is one of only a few controls network operators can use to manage demand for their broadband services. Consider this: AT&T has stated publically that 40% of all iPhone broadband services are being generated by only 2% of the total iPhone population.  Since both wireless and cable data services are based on shared data and capacity, network operators need to use all of the network management tools at their disposal. They will not be able to efficiently manage their broadband networks in the future with all-you-can-eat wireless data pricing.

Federal, state, and local government agencies and organizations in urban America need to identify ways to encourage broadband connectivity and to provide subsidies for those who cannot afford to become connected where there are multiple choices. It makes no sense to enable additional broadband service providers in urban areas that already have eight to ten choices. To grow broadband connectivity, the emphasis needs to be directed toward rural America, and the planning process should not be limited to deploying broadband services, it should include partnering with the many different groups that are trying to find ways to enable broadband services.

We can strive for faster access speeds in urban areas using fiber connections, increased cable modem speeds, and next-generation wireless technologies, and these new speeds will be offered for a very small premium over today’s prices. The FCC’s plan to have 100 million people connected to 100 Mbps service in ten years is achievable but should not be the main goal of a master plan for us. Many of the recent broadband stimulus grants from the NTIA and RUS have been for fiber to the home installations, yet the cost to deploy fiber to the street and use wireless or some other technology to complete the last 100 feet would reduce these costs to a point where we could supply fiber to more streets and provide better broadband speeds to a larger segment of the population.

Because urban areas are already saturated with broadband services, plans should be made now to increase access speeds in these areas. The major focus for providing broadband connectivity, I believe, should be in the more rural areas of the United States where there are either no broadband capabilities or limited access.

The most important focus for the federal government, then, should be to assist state and local governments, and both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, in extending broadband services to rural America based on a return on investment model that could be used to attract the private sector. This does not mean applying a cookie-cutter approach to the access problem, we should be willing to mix and match solutions depending on the area in question, looking first at what is already available within or adjacent to the area that could be expanded. The second consideration would be to examine how we might create centers of coverage within the area.

We should begin by improving areas that have broadband to the home and business with what might be considered “slower” broadband and plan to go back and enhance these capabilities over time rather than pursue immediate full mobility services. We should decide if some areas of rural America are best served by a single provider that does not have to compete with others and can thus attract a larger number of customers, or if we will demand that each area be served by two or more vendors in order to provide for competition. In this regard, we should be willing to revisit earlier build-outs of power lines and wired telephone services.

How It Used To Be Done

In many areas of the nation, these earlier services were mandated by the federal or local government and were partially or completely funded by government organizations. If the rural power companies or wired phone companies had to build their original systems based on a return on investment to stockholders, few systems would have been built.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was proposed by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 and was created by congress the same year. The President asked congress to create “a corporation clothed with the power of government but possessed of the flexibility and initiative of a private enterprise.” This organization began generating electric power for delivery to rural America and the U.S. Government picked up the tab for much of the work.

Until 1934, most rural telephone systems were built as co-ops by groups of farmers. In 1934, the newly created Federal Communications Commission (FCC) passed the Communications Act of 1934, and during the New Deal Era, what is known as Universal Access was adopted, “making available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges…”

In 1944, the Senate passed a bill creating the Rural Telephone Administration (RTA) modeled after the already successful Rural Electrification Administration (REA). This agency made long-term low-interest loans to rural telephone companies that sparked deployment.

In other words, the federal government enabled the electrical and telephone systems in rural America with direct investments and long-term low-interest loans. It would seem that a similar program could be used today to promote broadband services in these same areas. The difference today is that we already have rural companies that could be used as the basis for expansion.

Today the Stimulus Fund

Instead of following a proven formula for success for rural electric and telephone services, the federal government decided to use stimulus grants to increase the number of people served by broadband services. Some of this money is being distributed by RUS and some by the NTIA, which also administers the spectrum used by the federal government. The total amount of the grants is $7.2 billion, which sounds like a lot of money, but if the funds, for example, were divided equally among the 50 states, the U.S. territories, and the tribal lands, each would get a mere $150 million, which wouldn’t go very far toward broadband for all.

The few grants awarded so far have been mostly for the deployment of fiber, perhaps the most expensive of all the options available. Further, most of the applications are very limited in scope. The best examples of this are the grant applications being submitted by the tribes. They address only their own reservations and do not extend to the surrounding rural communities that could be served at the same time with a slightly larger grant.

As information regarding the FCC’s report to the Congress becomes available, it is growing clear that its idea is to focus on wired strategies in the near term as it will be a number of years, if ever, before wireless networks are capable of 100 Mbps data speeds, and even then, the speed will be on a shared basis. Perhaps the FCC should look at the tradeoffs between wired and wireless broadband service and the cost of deploying these systems to chart a more realistic course for the next five to ten years.

What Should Be Done?

When building out rural electric and early wired telephone systems, each area had to abide by the nationwide standards. The electric service had to be 60 Hz, 120 VAC, the telephone systems had to interface to other systems, and the numbering plan had to be built on a standard, as did the switch interconnections. When it comes to broadband services, we have several advantages because a common infrastructure is not required. All that is required is that the systems be Internet Protocol (IP) capable. IP networks are cross-compatible and it does not matter whether these cross connections use the same technology as a backbone. If this is the case, it does not matter if one region is served by wired (DSL) connections, another by cable, yet another by fiber, and others by a variety of wireless technologies. Since IP networks have been designed to communicate with each other, the underlying transport can be different, and there is no need to provide a new nationwide network to expand broadband access.

This means we should plan on making use of wired, cable, fiber, and various forms of wireless broadband. In an ideal world, each region or area would conduct an assessment of what is already in place surrounding the underserved area and then develop plans to both expand that coverage and deploy additional types of technologies. In some areas, the number of competitors will be limited by the size of the initial investment, the ongoing operating costs, and the number of subscribers and what they are willing to pay for these services.

Other areas can support multiple competitors and different technologies, but the initial business model needs to allow for each service provider to be able to earn a return on its investment. If the funds to build out the service are supplied in part by stimulus dollars or the Universal Service fund, then the largest investment for a private, commercial network operator would be ongoing network costs, which would make it more attractive for more companies to either enter the market or expand their existing infrastructure to cover underserved areas.

While a goal of providing 100+ Mbps connectivity is laudable, it would be much more cost effective for rural America to deploy different technologies in different areas than to try to force fit higher-speed systems. Where customers have Internet access only through dial-up connectivity or not at all, filling these gaps with networks that will provide access of 500-700 Kbps data speeds will be a big step forward. If the systems are planned correctly, including the backhaul and back-end services, speed upgrades can be accomplished more economically over time.

One Example of Extending Services

In rural markets today, 96% of the population has access to at least one wireless voice and text phone service and 90-92% (depending on whose number you use) has access to at least one wireless broadband service provider.

Since most commercial third-generation wireless broadband systems are built on top of existing second-generation voice networks, and the initial cost of deployment is to locate and build cell sites, it is logical to incorporate expansion to data as part of the overall plan for rural America. There are a number of components already in place that will make the investment in this expansion less expensive to build and they will be completed in less time than building new, standalone networks. There are still a number of issues with this approach including the cost of the 3G communications equipment, the availability of devices at reasonable prices, and the transport of the data from each cell site back over the network and onto the Internet. However, the cost to deploy broadband wireless services where we already have existing wireless voice services will be far less expensive than wired or fiber options.

The cost factors to fill the gaps between wireless voice and wireless broadband will be less than the cost of deploying an entirely new network where there is none today. The major expenses are the cell site equipment upgrades and the backhaul needed to supply broadband capacity to these sites. There are ways to install and make these systems operational in stages and it would be possible to deploy 3G or even 4G wireless capabilities on a nomadic versus fully mobile basis in some areas. While full mobility is the preferred method of operation for wireless networks, they can be extended into rural areas with a smaller upfront cost by proving fixed broadband services to homes and businesses.

Fixed wireless broadband also has the advantage of being faster to devices mounted in a home or office and in-building coverage can be improved by the use of a 3G/4G to Wi-Fi device that can be customer-located near a window to provide Wi-Fi coverage inside. If the systems are designed with backhaul capacity for full mobility, they can be deployed initially as nomadic and full mobility can be added in the future. Further, once the network has been built out, speed upgrades will be possible as wireless standards advance.

If the existing broadband wireless coverage was extended from the 90-92% population coverage to match that of wireless voice services (96%), we would have extended wireless broadband services to an additional 3-5% of the population. This, coupled with the other methods for providing broadband coverage discussed below, would be a significant increase in the number of rural citizens with access to broadband services. These systems could be built out using existing 3G and 3G+ services and then upgraded to LTE. Therefore, there are two upgrade paths: nomadic wireless to full mobility, and 3G to 4G technology as it becomes available.

WiMAX Systems

A number of companies believe they can deploy WiMAX networks at 2.5 or 3.5 GHz and drive the networks to profitability because of the often quoted lower cost of cell site deployment. There are already a number of these systems in operation, the largest being Clearwire. However, over the past two years, Clearwire has basically abandoned its original business plan to roll out pre-WiMAX nomadic networks in smaller cities. With Sprint’s assistance, it is instead deploying WiMAX mobile in major cities in the United States. Instead of competing with one or two other networks for more rural cities, Clearwire is now competing with 6-8 other broadband providers in the major cities. So far, this change in tactics has resulted in poor uptake from potential customers, a high rate of churn, and huge monetary losses every quarter.

Even so, Clearwire does hold a number of licenses that include rural coverage areas, has leased more of this spectrum from school districts, and says it will partner with others in some of the more rural areas. Clearwire and other WiMAX vendors have an advantage in the amount of spectrum they own in each license area. If demand for their services does increase, they have enough spectrum in most markets to be able to offer broadband services to a large number of customers. While their business model has not proven viable at this point, a number of smaller WiMAX operators have built and deployed systems in rural areas and claim they are on a course to become profitable. But it is difficult to verify this information since they are mostly small private companies.

Like 3G and 4G commercial wireless services, the key to success, in addition to wireless coverage, is being able to support the traffic across the network’s back-end to and from the cell sites. When service is first introduced, companies can deploy wired connectivity, which is relatively inexpensive. However, as demand for broadband services increases, these operators will have to add either fiber or microwave backhaul to be able to handle the demand.

It is our belief that the smaller WiMAX companies that own or lease spectrum in the 2.5-GHz band may have a business model that will earn them a decent return on their investment. However, a company such as Clearwire, which is trying to have a nationwide impact, will not have the same financial flexibility. As with 3G and 4G networks, WiMAX networks can be built out initially as nomadic and then upgraded to full mobility. But the backhaul, and therefore the cost to deploy it, will be about the same on a per-site basis as 3G and 4G and the WiMAX operator at 2.5 GHz will have to deploy more cell sites than commercial network operators on 700, 800, and 1900 MHz. The ratio of cell site deployments between 700 MHz and 2.5 GHz is about 5 to 1. That is, for every 1 site deployed at 700 MHz, 5 sites will be required on the higher 2.5-GHz portion of the spectrum. While this is a disadvantage when the systems are first installed, building more sites closer together does provide more bandwidth capacity in a given area and as demand for data grows, companies that can satisfy this increased demand will be able to attract more customers.

Again, WiMAX networks could easily extend their range using a WiMAX to Wi-Fi device mounted near the front of a home or office, and WiMAX or even a 4G technology could be used to provide wireless backhaul from the cell sites back to the network. One of the most economical ways to develop networks in rural America is to mix and match wired, fiber, microwave, 3G/4G, WiMAX and Wi-Fi, and perhaps in the future, add the new TV White Space unlicensed spectrum to the mix. None of the systems have to use the same technology throughout the network. As long as all of the interfaces are IP complaint and the user latency remains low, there should be no concerns about using different technologies in different portions of the network.

The practicality of deploying a full WiMAX network in a rural area will, as with other types of networks, depend on the population per square mile, capex costs, and monthly opex.

Single-Site Wireless Extensions

The federal government is also working on providing broadband coverage to schools and libraries in rural America. These systems currently provide access for people within the school or library, but do not provide coverage outside these buildings to the adjacent homes and business customers. Further, the service is only available during normal hours of operation. It would not be difficult to design systems that would make use of these existing or new broadband connections and connect them to a single WiMAX radio system mounted on a tall support structure at the school. Depending on the terrain, the power of the radio, and several other factors, it would be possible to provide broadband services to those who live within an 8-10 mile radius of the school or library. Again, the system would be designed for fixed wireless usage—that is, from the school to homes and even offices within the coverage area. Each system would be cost effective and could provide solid broadband coverage within the coverage footprint.

If the WiMAX system was deployed and if combination WiMAX to Wi-Fi devices were installed at the homes, the range could be increased and, since the service would be point-to-point, the data rates could also be higher. If this system became congested, it could be split into a standard 3-sector cell site, which would triple the amount of bandwidth available in each 120-degree sector. Pricing for this type of system has been estimated at about $50K per site, including the tower, radio, and service. The devices for the home could be sold for less than $50 each and a small access fee could be charged to each subscriber to help defray the ongoing cost of the system.

TV White Space

The FCC recently authorized the use of what is known as TV White Space—the vacant spectrum between TV channels. In major metropolitan areas, there is not enough white space available to make this a viable option, but in suburban and rural areas where there are fewer TV stations on the air, this option is showing promise. One company has deployed at one or more test systems using TV White Space. The first system is in Claudville, Virginia . The system designed by Spectrum Bridge uses TV White Space for the “middle mile” connecting the town’s computer lab via wireless to Wi-Fi hotspots, which then provide coverage to homes and businesses.

This is the first system of its kind deployed in the United States and while the data speeds are only about 2 Mbps, the next generation of this type of network will make use of Wi-Fi access points modified for use on TV White Space, providing much higher data speeds and capacity. Systems are in the works in Wilmington, NC, as well as in Colorado where a power cooperative will be using this technology for its own version of a smart grid as well as for reselling the connectivity to its existing power customers. These systems are still required to run low power, basically to the same level as in the 2.4 and 5.8-GHz Wi-Fi bands, but because the spectrum is in the lower 700-MHz range, the coverage is much better and, because the next generation of systems will be based on Wi-Fi, the cost will be substantially reduced.

Satellite Internet Access

There are a number of satellite providers of Internet access. At the moment, the equipment is expensive, the data rates can only barely be considered as broadband, and the latency between the home or office and the Internet is long (which makes it difficult to successfully use bank and other high-security applications). These systems have been and are being deployed in rural America and can be used in the overall broadband plan to fill in areas of extremely sparse population.

Conclusions

The FCC seems to be determined to drive us toward a goal of 100 Mbps of Internet connectivity for 100 million of the nation’s 303 million people by 2020. This is a laudable goal that will be reached with or without involvement from the federal government. History has shown that data speeds will increase and we will have more capacity year-over-year. We believe the federal government should be more concerned about providing basic broadband access to the balance of the population and that the ideas expressed above could go a long way toward helping us achieve the objective of a connected America.

If we are to achieve more ubiquitous broadband coverage in the United States, we must be flexible and not become fixated on finding a single solution for every area. The most important component of Internet and broadband connectivity is to build robust back-end solutions capable of handling data demands well into the future.

If fiber is to be the end-all for these solutions, it makes sense to light up fiber (and microwave) to points where broadband can be extended with existing wired and wireless technologies. If there are capacity problems over time, it will be far less expensive to change out the last mile technology than to have to re-deploy back-end systems to carry the traffic. A well thought-out and implemented play will make use of the resources already in place, extending them where we can, and then developing new systems where there are still gaps in coverage.

To accomplish our goal of broadband for the majority of Americans, we must remain flexible and we must make use of the resources at our disposal. To focus on some point in time (2020) and set a goal to provide 100 Mbps services to 1/3 of the population does not accomplish anything. We need to focus on more near-term objectives. Those who have no access today or access via dial-up at 56 Kbps data speeds will be pleased to be able to connect at 1 to 5 Mbps and reap the benefits of broadband access.

They will also be ready and willing to pay for additional bandwidth as it becomes available because they will have learned, firsthand, the advantages of being connected on a 24/7 basis. For a while, those who have never had broadband access will be satisfied with lesser data speeds, and with today’s compression technologies and smarter networks, slower broadband data speeds can still provide opportunities they have not experienced before. Today, many of the homes in America are served by broadband services in the 1-5 Mbps range. Wireless networks can provide the same data rates and the technologies will continue to advance. In the meantime, we should concentrate more on those who have no broadband access than those who are looking for higher data rates and more capacity.

As a final note, we will have to manage broadband networks in a smarter way. All access is shared at some point along the route. With cable and wireless, the sharing occurs in the last mile and in the backhaul to the Internet. With fiber and other higher-speed services, the chokepoints are the Internet provider’s capacity and the Internet itself. Along with providing broadband access for all, we need to ensure that Internet access becomes smarter and that new compression technologies are deployed to enable more data capacity. In short, we to need continue to investigate all options for optimizing our Internet access and usage.

Andrew M. Seybold