« June 2007 | Weblog | August 2007 »

July 2007 Archive

Broadband at the Edge: Now a Public Utility?

What comes to mind when you think of the words "public utility?" I bet most people think of water, electricity, and sewers.

Giving it a little more thought, I think of services that are essential to a society, valuable to all or nearly all the population, services that are most effectively delivered over an infrastructure that most often looks like a natural monopoly.

Traditional examples that come to mind are water/wastewater, electricity, natural gas, telephony, and cable TV. Wikipedia, on of my frequent Internet resources, confirms this description of a public utility, adding that "public" utilities serve the public, but can be privately or publicly owned. When it comes to providing essential services, societies have demonstrated considerable flexibility in ownership, and myriad examples of both public and private provisioning of utility services are out there for us to contemplate.

So, what about broadband Internet access? Is broadband access really an essential service? And why does it matter what we call it, and whether or not it has now become a “public utility?” How we define terms creates a foundation for our paradigms and ultimately, our reality. And a lack of a common understanding on terms hinders debate in society. So it is important that we have this conversation, sooner or later, hopefully, sooner.

If we determine that broadband is essential to modern society, just the act of drawing that conclusion should elevate broadband from its current status as a premium, highly valuable service. That alone would create a greater sense of urgency when it comes to infrastructure, wouldn't it? When a service is a utility, it has a broader base of support, by definition.

So the question for us to ask is this: "Is broadband now essential?"

I guess that would be a subjective question, but there's a strong argument that in any developed society it is, because of its role in facilitating digital communications and commerce. I've got a more simple answer. For those who currently use it, just try to imagine life without it. The more you use it, the more essential it becomes.

But before I draw such conclusions, a quick look back at the origins of broadband is revealing. (I'm looking through an American lens for this analysis).

These Internet and access issues came about only quite recently, in historical terms. According to the Internet Society, in A Brief History of the Internet, the Internet arose from the ARPANET, a US Defense Department-funded project to connect individual research networks. After that catalysis by the feds, organic growth took over.

By 1990 the ARPANET was decommissioned, and by 1995 the term "Internet" was adopted. But the key point I take away from reading this history is this:

The Internet is as much a collection of communities as it is a collection of technologies, and its success is largely attributable both to satisfying basic community needs and to utilizing the community in an effective way to push the infrastructure forward.

From such community origins, the Internet enjoyed dramatic, unprecedented growth as an emergent network, with its dramatic expansion driven from the bottom up. So by the mid 1990s, the Internet starts to look more like what we know today. But last mile access remained somewhat crude.

Remembering dial-up makes me shiver. A data modem let one use telephone lines to connect, but it was slooooooow. Remember this adage? "WWW = World Wide Wait."

Maintaining the status quo, telecommunication companies focused on selling extra phone lines to residential consumers and relatively expensive T-1 lines to businesses. In so doing, they missed the initial mass uptake of broadband (hindsight really is 20/20). Competing cable systems brought consumers an improved, faster data service over cable TV infrastructure, where it gained the names "high-speed Internet access" and "broadband," based on its ability to carry lots of data at high speeds.

Looking at the introduction of first cable, then DSL broadband, the rapid adoption of broadband where it has been made available is further evidence of its essential nature. This move from slow to high speeds has made broadband as qualitatively different from dial-up as the move to the automobile was from a horse drawn economy.

But at this very early stage - remember, we are only ten years into the Broadband Era, a mere blink of an eye when it comes to history - it's too soon to rest on our laurels. We are an impatient society, with tremendous pressure to adopt technology and innovation to remain competitive. We must acknowledge that the extension of broadband last mile infrastructure has failed to keep up with the demand for the services the infrastructure enables. Why is that?

First, FCC policies set the bar low and make the situation appear better than it is (calling 200 Kbs broadband, while Japan enjoys 20 Mbs as a broadband standard). Second, private sector companies go where the money is, so the result in coverage is more than likely urban and far from universal. At a higher level, the result is that availability of very high speed services compared to other countries is relatively minimal. While the telco/cable duopoly argues that progress is being made, society grows impatient.

So, back to the utility question. Why take a utility approach? Being argumentative, I might ask, why not? After all, continuing to do the same thing is unlikely to give us different results, is it? How long do we wait for the duopoly approach to bear fruit?

Treating broadband as a utility must be seen as a viable alternative to the status quo, especially in the non-prime markets. While private companies did indeed provide the energy and initiative behind this first wave of broadband extension, and we should give them their due, much more is possible. Driving broadband service over their existing networks made for a good start, but choosing between cable and DSL broadband need not remain our only option.

In fact, doing so is bound to limit the expansion and adoption of broadband as the task of extending the network grows tougher. As a society, we need a fresh approach, another alternative, and thinking in terms of a public utility is a practical way forward.

Broadband service is essential to residential, business, and government consumers. For those who enjoy broadband at work and home, a return to dial-up is truly unthinkable. For those who have yet to experience broadband, we know what awaits them - it’s a one-way service, you don't go back. New customers will take the service when it becomes available at the right price, because they need to communicate with their loved ones and their customers, and because Internet-delivered services and IP applications have become the norm of modern society.

A utility approach is highly efficient because it spreads costs out over a broad population and allows a long-term cost recovery period. By letting go of the duopoly paradigm, which has served us well so far, but has its limits, we free ourselves and society of its limits. By recalling models from the past, we see how we brought about our other essential services, from water and wastewater to natural gas and electricity. We have models to draw on to extend broadband to the last mile.

Under a utility paradigm, we accept that it is the role of all society, not just its telecom and cable providers, to finance and build the infrastructure necessary to provide broadband service to all consumers at an affordable rate. That approach drove the penetration of electricity and later, telephone service, and such a universal service model brought about dramatic economic development benefits.

And by accepting diverse methods and technologies to provide such ubiquitous service, as a society we can harness the power of a portfolio and iterative feedback loops to manage risk and exploit innovations.

Broadband at the last mile around the globe has been most successful so far in tightly knit societies with dense populations and where there is strong national government guidance and leadership. An American approach could be, must be different. We're too big a country, and we don't like heavy central control at the federal government level anyway. We do have an independent streak, though, which we should tap into.

Extending broadband on such a scale to cover the nation would mirror the extension of early electric and telephone networks, which were seen as utilities to be provided to all citizens and businesses at affordable rates, because they were essential to society. So is broadband.

I would urge this debate to be joined far and wide. Where broadband infrastructure is slow to build out, why not try a utility approach? It's worked before.

Posted on July 14, 2007 at 11:20 AM | Comments (0)

A Declaration of Independence for Broadband Connectivity

It's hard to believe that another year has come and gone since last Independence Day 2006! Here we are on July 4, 2007.

Last July 4, I published a Broadband Declaration of Independence, capturing my initial thoughts about the role of communication infrastructure and the need for a new way to look at things. Four days later, I refined my thoughts into a more cohesive document, publishing it as Declaration of Independence for Broadband Connectivity 2.0. I revisited those essays this morning and I'm struck by how consistent my thoughts are one year later.

The gist of the argument is that there comes a time when a people, a society need to take a hard look at where they are and where they seek to be, and take a stand to make the changes they need to get to their collective objective. My argument is that we have arrived at that time when it comes to broadband connectivity, but much of the population is "stuck" in the current paradigm of service providers (mostly large corporations) and service consumers. All well and good if this paradigm is serving us. But it's not. While I'm a big advocate of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," I believe we should as a society acknowledge how the current paradigm for broadband connectivity fails to provide us with what we need, and how we can as a society address that failure.

So, for my readers in the US, Happy Fourth of July / Independence Day to you all! I hope you have a great time, with barbecue, beer, and fireworks. According to our family discussion ten minutes ago, it looks like we'll be going to the downtown fireworks show in raincoats and galoshes. Should be an adventure. For my global readers, please check out the essay below and see if it fits for your country and society as well.

Enjoy the Declaration below, which I think is worthy of a second read.

A Declaration of Independence for Broadband Connectivity

A new opportunity for connectivity independence has emerged
Society today has a unique opportunity to unite and collaborate to establish communication independence. Ubiquitous, universally affordable broadband connectivity that enables multiple data and voice communication options has become vital to indiivdual and community economic and lifestyle independence, and increasingly, political independence as well. Independence means the right to choose alternatives for broadband connectivity from the perspective of the "first mile," not that of providers' last mile. The right to universal and ubiquitous broadband connectivty is now equivalent to other fundamental rights in our lives.

Connectivity is vital to individuals and communities
Open and robust communication infrastructure supports a healthy democracy and a capitalist market-based economy. Connectivity includes not only broadband Internet access at the residence and in the workplace, but also ubiquitous connection options, both wired and wireless, at the "first mile" - out at the ends of the networks. Humans and societies, diminshed in isolation, thrive in collaborative environments, stimulated and supported by high levels of open and affordable communication. We all benefit when we are all connected.

Big business and government have been slow to adapt
Telecommunications, now including broadband connectivity, has historically been provided by large corporations in the private sector, regulated by different levels of government on the public sector side. Big business and government (both state and federal) have fallen into a groove and have demonstrated a preference for continuity and evolution over innovation and revolution. They have continued in place systems and processes that reflect a sensibiity from a bygone era; the viewpoints in the debate, as well as the supporting infrastructure, have not been updated to provide US citizens the best options and the United States has become less competitive as a result.

The system that would give us ubiquitous broadband is broken
A dispassionate assessment of the current US broadband infrastructure system in the United States must conclude that it is broken, but not beyond repair. Most data and voice access in this country is provided by incumbent duopolies (large telecom and cable providers) and access is not available at affordable rates to all citizens in this country. Nor does the access we do have take advantage of the most current technological possibilities - we have set the bar very low on what constitutes "broadband," for instance. Ranked in 16th place for broadband penetration, we are not only behind other nations, we are falling further behind when digital inclusion is considered: even as some segments of our society progress, others that do not become separated by a still wider gap.

The system no longer acts in the best interest of the citizen: we need a Plan B
To date, state and federal regulatory and legislative officials who oversee telecommunication infrastructure and services companies as representatives of the public interest have acted conservatively in support of their own interests, with a short-term perspective. In general, they have acted more to preserve the status quo, generating revenue from spectrum auctions, and addressing incumbent player interests than they have to embrace the future strategically, enabled by radical technological change. As citizens, we must continue to work within the system to affect positive change and reform, but that path will take a long time to bear fruit. An alternate path for connectivity is needed, or we will all suffer the consequences. We need independence - we need a "Plan B."

A national dialogue on connectivity independence is needed
The solutions that will benefit the most citizens of the United States include some that lie outside of existing authority and power players, so we must begin to develop a flexible path around these problems, which will include a new connectivity plan. The people of the United States must begin an explicit, national dialogue on what it means to be independent with regard to connectivity.

Political will is necessary to make a paradigm shift
Indeed, technology advances have already set us free and provide us with the tools, but what we're still missing is widespread political will to shake off the old paradigm - when institutions and government act in harmony to keep our options under their control, they exert a very strong hold on our psyches and define our universe of possibilities. When they say "Telecom is a complex scale business - leave it to us to take care of you - your role is to keep on buying and consuming - you're a subscriber for our services," individuals become disempowered and find it difficult to imagine a different way of doing things.

Collective action is key to changing the paradigm
At the individual level, most lack the skills and experience to conceive, much less implement new connectivity concepts on their own and are at a power disadvantage relative to the big strong players in the private and public sectors. Many are unwilling to compete with these giants, having seen others fail in the past. But working collectively, we can be much more than subscribers and consumers. We can own our networks and produce and distribute our own content.

Cities, Chambers, and Neighborhoods have roles to play to create a new network
All cities have a role to play and should at a minimum be allies to this new movement. Small, targeted residential and commercial wireless cooperatives and networks are acheivable; we are limited only by our imaginations and political will. A linked network of infrastructure-access cooperatives, similar to the global Internet, can be created by linking wireless local area networks with common protocols.

In a highly dynamic environment, a portfolio of small players is less risky than a handful of large players
In a future that is less and less predictable, there's safety in a portfolio approach. A society with tens of thousands of innovation-friendly cooperative broadband access networks, each with a few thousand voluntary cooperative members, will adapt better to rapid change than a few conservative telecom corporations that provide service to millions of captive subscribers each.

Community cooperatives are a compelling alternative to large corporations
Where decision-makers at large corporations tend to act primarily to preserve and enhance corporate revenues, community cooperatives have incentives to experiment and learn from each other, reinventing the nature of communications and connectivity.

Natural systems use collaboration and competition to deal with uncertainty, so can we with connectivity
Telecommunications and connectivity in the 21st Century face a period of transition and change brought about by a disruptive Internet and advances in digital technology. Ubiquitous connectivity now has the potential to become more "edge-oriented," and we should apply new knowledge about how nature deals with risk and change. Connectivity can and should become more adaptive to change and innovation; it can become more biologically-oriented, developing and changing in a bottoms-up fashion, harnessing the power of natural selection and adopting an ecosystem approach. In a rapidly changing technology world, such a flexible approach makes more sense by better mitigating risk and providing more upside through more rapid adaptation and adoption of new innovations.

Infrastructure is only a path to applications, which provide solutions and value
There is a middle path between big traditional incumbents and newer municipal wireless franchises on the one hand, and more radical non-profit community network approaches on the other hand. That middle way is customer-owned, professionally-managed community cooperatives. Moving expeditiously past this infrastructure debate, visionary communities can install networks and cross over to the more interesting and rewarding world of new broadband and wireless applications, showing the rest of us the way to go.

We should start the natioal discussion with this declaration and these principles for connectivity independence

1. Complexity v. Simplicity in Design. Wired or wireless networks are complex, to a degree. Complexity doesn't go away with independence, but a new business model and paradigm can embrace more simplicity, challenging existing "rules" and traditional assumptions. Occam's Razor, for instance, would imply that the optimal solution may well be the simplest solution. We should be free to pursue more simple solutions to connectivity.

2. Professional Operations. The rules of physics, however, impose some boundaries on simplicity: initially, these networks will not be simple to deploy or maintain - they could be owned by the customers in cooperatives, but they will need to be managed and maintained by professionals. Network operators may come in a variety of forms, from traditional telcos to a network of smaller firms using standard operating processes, to a new large company or an existing large company - keys to professional operation will be network expertise and financial stability.

3. Local involvement. Local involement is important: limited partnerships with local investors funding the networks and recovering their investment from cooperative dues with interest holds potential. Nobody understands a local area better than locals, making them the best boosters for local infrastructure and a new approach to connectivity. Limited partnerships would give local business leaders a lasting incentive to make new networks successful.

4. Corporate Sponsorships. National, regional, and local sponsors can support network infrastructure deployments, not unlike the sponsors of neighborhood baseball parks whose signs line the outfields. Such sponsorships, similar to those that supported the development of US commercial TV network infrastructure fifty years ago, and public broadcasting since, indicate a model to emulate.

5. Comprehensive Stakeholder Buy-In. Such alternative network infrastructure approaches do best with widespread buy-in. Wireless neighborhood demonstration networks represent a low-hurdle and as such, are a good transition to the fiber networks that would provide the ultimate connectivity. Time and numerous local demonstrations should capture the imagination of the masses. Starting with a massive number of small wireless networks is the best way to get the most people familiar with a new broadband paradigm.

Posted on July 04, 2007 at 02:29 PM | Comments (0)

Getting By With a LITTLE Help from Your Friends at USDA

Deputy Agriculture Secretary Chuck Connor today announced the availability of $8.9 million in grants for communities without broadband service to provide residential service and connect facilities such as police and fire stations, health care, libraries and schools.

"The Community Connect Grant Program has proved to be effective in reaching those rural communities where broadband service is least likely to be deployed," Conner said. "Connecting residents and essential community facilities improves local services and the protection of the citizens of these communities." USDA ANNOUNCES AVAILABILITY OF $8.9 MILLION IN BROADBAND GRANTS

Looking for help from Uncle Sam when it comes to connectivity? Don't hold your breath, this is what passes for a Rural Broadband connectivity strategy.

Read the USDA press release and do the math - when you divide up $8.9 million - and where did they get that number? Loose change they found in the USDA sofa under the cushions while vacuuming? - with a minimum of $50,000 and max of $1M, you get at most 188 projects with minimal funding each - yawn - or 9 projects with nearly $1M each - of if we assume a back-of-the-envelope average of $200,000 per project (avg cost of a turnkey mesh network of 1 sq. mi, fully loaded), you get 45 rural projects, or less than one per state.

This must be seen as some sort of experiment, right? I'm depressed....

Posted on July 04, 2007 at 11:49 AM | Comments (0)