|
|||||
FEATURED TOPICDigital Transition -The term "Digital Transition" describes the process all organizations must go through in the 21st Century, as they leverage new technologies that provide new options for Applications, Equipment, Processes, and Networks that make them more effective. In contrast, the term "Municipal Wireless" is limiting. It puts the network technology ahead of the application and process changes that drive the business case. ORIENTATION |
« August 2007 | Weblog | October 2007 » September 2007 ArchiveBroadband in America: a "Wicked Game We Play"What a wicked game you play Nooooo-body loooovves nooooo one Chris Isaak - "Wicked Game"
"Do we have the political will to address the issue of Broadband Infrastructure before it's too late?" "Are we so fragmented as a society and so complacent as consumers and citizens that we will accept the status quo on Broadband Infrastructure as inevitable?" "Does anyone outside our industry really care about this topic?" "Do those who have the power to find a solution have the incentive to find a solution?" Leading to this cynical question: In other words: "Can we act proactively, or are we left with reactive solutions as our only option?" On top of this blog topic, which has me wondering, I read this in the Sunday paper today, reprinted from the LA Times on September 27: Clash over Internet access tax heats up. The article details the conflicting discussion in Washington about continuing to exempt Internet access services from the taxes that currently are piled onto telephone and video services. It's a mess, with conflicts everywhere. I'm not sure how they can make policy on taxing services when they can't even agree on what the Internet means to them or where it is taking our society. Before you get discouraged, let's just acknowledge that there will be no EASY way out of this broadband infrastructure conundrum - this taxation discussion only serves to highlight that we are indeed in a crisis, and we should acknowledge that. I would argue further that progress outside the US and the steady march of technology already combine to create a figurative GUN TO OUR HEAD, leaving for a minute the issue of tax policy at various levels of government and in various geographies. In the issue of what Broadband means to us as a national government and as a national community, we have a sense of urgency that is there for the taking, if it is as yet unacknowledged by our political leaders. But let's probe further on the problem we face. I would argue that these and other questions regarding broadband infrastructure are characteristic of a phenomenon that social theorists call "Wicked Problems." We have to work together to solve such problems, or else we punt them down the road and they get worse. (See also my recommendation earlier today for a national dialogue that can lead us to a National Broadband Policy here). The concept of "wicked problems" was originally proposed by Horst Rittel (a pioneering theorist of design and planning, and late professor at the University of California, Berkeley) and M. Webber in a seminal treatise for social planning. Rittel expounded on the nature of ill-defined design and planning problems which he termed "wicked" (ie. messy, circular, aggressive) to contrast against the relatively "tame" problems of mathematics, chess, or puzzle solving. Wicked problem - Wikipedia So a preliminary conclusion from this assessment is It will take a lot of time and effort to get this dialogue underway, but I'm convinced that we need some public acknowledgment that we are in a crisis when it comes to lacking a national broadband policy and a world class broadband network, both wired and wireless. Until we have a consensus on the problem, we're going to haggle endlessly on the solution. A dialogue leading to consensus on the problem is a big step to reaching consensus to the solution. But, then - there's the Rub. See this interesting analysis below by the CogNexus Institute. Problem wickedness demands tools and methods which create shared understanding and shared commitment. Because the group or team's understanding of the wicked problem is evolving, productive movement toward a solution requires powerful mechanisms for getting everyone on the same page. There will be volumes of facts, data, studies and reports about a wicked problem, but the shared commitment needed to create durable solution will not live in information or knowledge. Understanding a wicked problem is about collectively making sense of the situation and coming to shared understanding about who wants what. CogNexus Institute: Wicked Problems Jeff Conklin, Ph.D., founder of the CogNexus Institute, has even written a book about working through Wicked Problems: Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. For now, I think it's useful to look at their white paper titled Wicked Problems and Social Complexity (well worth the time - recommended!). While his book and white paper address the issue of complex problem solving in the context of an internal organization problem, I would suggest they offer helpful insights for this national problem (we're just not starting with any shared corporate mission or shared paycheck source! - although we all are in this boat together, in a sense). The gist of the paper is that solving a complex or "wicked" problem requires collaboration. Collaboration requires a shared view of the problem and an agreement to work together to solve it. Fragmentation and Social Complexity work to thwart best efforts to achieve collaboration. I think this approach offers a good way to understand what we are talking about when we talk about the need for a National Broadband Policy. Step One will be to have everyone acknowledge the need for such - at least, to get as broad a consensus as possible to acknowledge the underlying issues that lead us to suggest such a need in the first place. In Dr. Conklin's words, "The antidote to fragmentation is shared understanding and shared commitment." Collective intelligence is a natural property of socially shared cognition, a natural enabler of collaboration. But there are also natural forces that challenge collective intelligence, forces that doom projects and make collaboration difficult or impossible. These are forces of fragmentation. The concept of fragmentation provides a name and an image for a phenomenon that pulls apart something which is potentially whole. Fragmentation suggests a condition in which the people involved see themselves as more separate than united, and in which information and knowledge are chaotic and scattered. The fragmented pieces are, in essence, the perspectives, understandings, and intentions of the collaborators. Fragmentation, for example, is when the stakeholders in a project are all convinced that their version of the problem is correct. Solving a complex, "wicked problem" then requires a different approach and different problem solving tools than a rational approach to solving a traditional problem. One tendency when faced with a complex problem is to work harder and apply linear tools that we have had previous success with - it's a very rational, if doomed approach. See the image below.
In contrast, consider the diagram below, where the jagged lines involve practical experiments with solutions that reveal nuances of the problem, so that both the nature of the problem and the solution evolve over time - and as this paper explains - they evolve together FOREVER. In other words, with a wicked problem you never arrive at a solution, because the nature of the problem is that it is dynamic.
The paper goes on to describe how multiple competing solutions can muddy the waters of the iterative solution/problem approach in the second diagram. This is where social complexity enters the picture, because complex problems most often occur in a socially dynamic situation. Things get further complicated when there is an element of technical complexity. We face all three of these fragmenting forces when we consider how to develop a National Broadband Policy. See the diagram below.
The white paper really starts to get interesting when it gets to the section on how complex problems are typically dealt with, describing two typical reactions: Studying and Taming. A hint - neither is effective, according to Dr. Conklin. Studying the Wicked Problem seems rational - "This issue is so complex, we need to form a task force to study it and come back to us with recommendations." That is, in fact, in the CEO's job description, isn't it, to form task forces to study problems? The catch with this approach is, the studying process often can take so much time and consume so many resources, and the ever present risk is the dreaded "Paralysis by Analysis." While a little studying can be helpful, this solution path quickly reaches its limits. On the other hand, Taming the Wicked Problem generally gets the group of stakeholders pretty quickly into "The Games People Play." Tying in our problems with broadband policy, consider these cases below, keeping in mind our current executive (FCC), legislative (Congress), and judicial (Supreme Court) regulatory and legal approaches to telecommunications problems in general, and to broadband infrastructure in particular. Taming Methods 1. Lock Down the Problem Definition. The risk is defining the problem too narrowly, with a solution in mind, all the better to be able to declare victory. SUPREME COURT BRAND X AND FCC DECISION TO REMOVE OPEN NETWORK REQUIREMENT (PROBLEM WAS "TOO TIGHT REGULATION.")? 2. Assert that the Problem is Solved. Combining artful definition of the problem (see above) with mustering of ample evidence, this is another way of making the problem go away (but not really). CELLULAR COMPANIES CLAIMING TO OFFER WIDESPREAD AVAILABILITY OF "BROADBAND"? 3. Specify objective parameters by which to measure the solution's success. Involves locking down the problem, then measuring success objectively, leaving the real problem over in the areas not measured. DEFINE BROADBAND AS 200 KBS AND UP, COUNT BB AVAILABILITY IN ONE PLACE IN THE COUNTY AS AVAILABLE EVERYWHERE IN THE COUNTY? 4. Cast the problem as "just like" a previous problem that has been solved. This approach usually ignores or filters out differences from previous situations, to make the problem simpler and more like what was previously addressed with some success. THE PROBLEM IS CAPITAL AVAILABILITY, WE NEED A RURAL LOAN PROGRAM LIKE THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND (USF) OR THE RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AGENCY (REA)? 5. Give up on trying to get a good solution to the problem. I think that this is where many in the FCC and the Congress are currently - keeping their heads down and hoping someone else will come along to solve this - LATER? 6. Declare that there are just a few possible solutions, and focus on selecting from among these options. Limiting the solution set has the appearance of making the problem simpler, but is an artificial construct. IT WILL BE EITHER CABLE OR TELECOM THAT BUILDS THIS NETWORK? Moving beyond these false methodologies, Dr. Conklin suggests that there is one major hurdle to avoid in overcoming these forces of fragmentation (wicked problems, social complexity, and technical complexity) - namely, the tendency to place blame. The notion of fragmentation points to all of these problems, but it is pretty abstract. Because it points deep into the culture and practices of project work, it is difficult to observe fragmentation directly. There is, however, a more observable indicator of fragmentation: blame. Instead of seeing the systemic nature of project challenges and the value of social diversity, we tend to see a big mess, to view it as the result of incompetence, and to blame each other for it. Until we can move beyond blaming "incumbents" for causing this problem, blaming "incompetent bureaucrats and corrupt politicians" for failing to drive wise public policy, blaming "upstart fly-by-night companies" and "socialistic governments" for seeking to put the public sector in front of the private sector, blaming "free-riding IT content companies" for seeking to use networks without paying for them - I could go on and on - until we can move past this Blame Culture, we will not be any nearer to forging a common National Broadband Policy that we can all live with. I'll close with Dr. Conklin's summary - he puts it better than I could. The antidote for fragmentation is coherence. How, then, do we create coherence? In organizations and project teams - in situations where collaboration is the life blood of success - coherence amounts to shared understanding and shared commitment. Shared understanding of meaning and context, and of the dimensions and issues in the problem. Shared commitment to the processes of project work and to the emergent solution matrix. Coherence means that stakeholders have shared meaning for key terms and concepts, that they are clear about their role in the effort, that together they have a shared understanding of the background for the project and what the issues are, and that they have a shared commitment to how the project will reach its objectives and achieve success. Coherence means that the project team understands and is aligned with the goals of the project and how to reach them. Coherence means that a wicked problem is recognized as such, and appropriate tools and processes are constantly used to "defragment" the project. With increased coherence, more collective intelligence becomes available to deal with change and complexity. Coherence means that despite social complexity there is a sense of ability and confidence in crafting shared understanding and negotiating shared meaning. I'm going to get this book and dive down deeper on the potential of shared understanding, shared commitment, and dialogue mapping. I think this approach holds great potential for bringing together the multitude of viewpoints that arise whenever the issue of National Broadband Policy is brought up. If it's going to be a "Wicked Game We Play," then we better start the discussion with a set of shared rules. I just hate it when my family breaks into an argument about the rules and how to play the game, and loses sight of the fun we have when we play together - with a shared understanding and shared commitment that we've set aside time to play a game in order to have fun. For too long, we've avoided this discussion on our shared interests in building a 21st century broadband infrastructure, but the circumstances are forcing us together to figure out the Wicked Problem of Broadband and how to get a National Broadband Policy. Posted on September 30, 2007 at 03:44 PM | Comments (0) Way Past Time for a National Broadband Policy"The mindset that we have ... to work under [at the FCC] is 'don't worry about it, the marketplace will take care of this,'" said FCC Commissioner Michael Copps. "While we all revere the marketplace, there are some things that cannot get done by themselves." "We have consolidation, lack of competition ... prices are shooting up, there are no alternatives for small businesses," said Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein. "One way to start is a summit on broadband" that would include the public and private sectors, Congress, the executive branch, agencies like the FCC, he said. Where is Bush's National Broadband, Senate Asks Earlier this week, FCC Commissioners Copps and Adelstein appeared before a US Senate Small Business Committee convened by Committee Chairman John Kerry to discuss how improved Internet access would help small businesses. This discussion begs the question of the lack of a National Broadband Policy in the United States, and shines a light on the lack of leadership we labor under on this issue. This topic is an issue begging for leadership, as we meander around the issue, busy within our own little spheres of influence, but without a game plan to unite the nation and allow us to forge ahead, as have other countries with stronger leadership on the issue, such as South Korea and Japan. What makes them special on this topic? They have focus, we don't. Well, it occurs to me that the timing is right for this issue to be picked up by one of the many talented and politically motivated would-be leaders in our country. The 2008 presidential campaign will kick off in earnest at the start of 2008, with the first primaries, a mere 3 to 4 months away. Many see this campaign as unique in modern history, given that no sitting incumbent president or vice-president will be running for re-election, and that there is a likelihood of Democratic Party victories at both the executive and legislative branches, potentially changing the political direction from a long march towards more conservative policies to a re-emergence of a more progressive direction. In short, this election cycle portends dramatic change on the horizon and new consideration of issues such as Health Care, Climate Change, Energy Independence, and our area of focus today, National Broadband Policy. But these issues will have to fight for attention with the Iraq War and Terrorism, two dominant and critical issues that have sucked up most of the political energy in this country for far too long. I'm not saying they're not important, it's just that we need to get on with the business of running a country as well. See Tom Friedman's article in today's NY Times for a similar view: 9/11 is Over. Setting aside the divisive topics of War and Terrorism for the moment, there is no denying the theme of Change in the air. This presidential campaign, and the myriad lesser campaigns that we will see waged next year, represent an opportunity for our nation to finally have a discussion on a broadband policy and strategy for the United States. Despite President Bush's call in 2004 for ubiquitous broadband by the end of 2007 (and that goal has not been achieved, by the way), we're no closer to having a strategy to build such a national infrastructure, or even consensus on a policy to provide us a more principle-centered debate. Commissioners Copps and Adelstein the other day called for a National Broadband Summit to bring that focus. While that's a good start, I'm not sure that will be enough - we're so far behind (see this slide deck on Canada's National Summit on Broadband Deployment III in October 2004). There remains the need for considerable education of both the body public and governmental leaders at all levels. We need a full court press, one that might start with a Summit, but would need follow-on national, state, and local incentives to raise this issue up and ratchet up the priority levels. It's not for lack of trying. Witness the recent letters sent by the Community Broadband Coalition to both chambers of the U.S. Congress on September 23, representing the collective view of 25 different organizations and companies, ranging from the American Library Association and the National Association of Counties to Google, Intel, and EarthLink. The letters urge passage of Senate Bill 1853, the Community Broadband Act of 2007 introduced by Senators Frank Lautenberg, Gordon H. Smith, John Kerry, John McCain, Claire McCaskill, Olympia J. Snowe, Ted Stevens, and Daniel K. Inouye and of House Bill 3281, which was introduced by Representatives Rick Boucher and Fred Upton. The letters urge Senators and Representatives to co-sponsor the legislation. Community coalition pushes for national broadband policy These are steps in the right direction, but we will need more than that to stimulate change - we need a very public debate - the time has come for a fair and balanced discussion at all levels of society. I admit it's a challenge. The current ideas and discussion by leaders in broadband innovation and creativity and thought leaders in the emerging alternative broadband industries cover a wide spectrum. Unfortunately, the alternatives to the status quo of the incumbents and their supporters in government often fall on deaf ears, or the message becomes mixed. When we hear "MuniFi Fails" as we have over the past month, instead of "Progressive experiments move the ball forward," which is the nature of experimentation, the wrong message is conveyed. Policy makers need to hear a louder voice with a clear concise vision as an alternative to the de facto broadband policy we have had for the past decade: the incumbent view of evolutionary change. Let's take a look at the The Status Quo, (which I admit is not necessarily all bad, just not what it needs to be). Broadband has experienced explosive growth over the past five years, both worldwide and in the US, as Internet access increasingly has come to mean broadband, rather than dial-up. The lion's share of broadband in the US (> 98%) is provided as a premium service by our nation's large telecom and cable companies over their existing infrastructure (telecom's twisted-pair copper for DSL, cable's coax for its broadband service), an extension to the other voice, data and entertainment services they traditionally provide. The Supreme Court and the FCC in the summer of 2005 made rulings that enabled these companies to close off their networks to third-party providers, effectively securing their market dominance in providing critical broadband access. Whether a policy of building on the status quo, relying on incumbents and freeing them from regulatory constraints, will truly serve our nation well in the long run is in the end a matter of perspective. For better or worse, the current momentum of Internet development and broadband policy is heavily weighted towards the viewpoint of incumbent telecoms and cable companies. They have tremendous cash reserves, dominant political power, and the benefit of pre-existing infrastructure as a sunk cost, not to mention the institutional momentum and market inertia they have on their side. Clearly, the incumbent telecoms and cable companies believe the system is working and that it should continue on its present course. And as huge, important industries, they have the ear of powerful politicians and government leaders, where they focus their considerable resources for influence at the local, state and federal level, the better to maintain their economic dominance. If there is to be a discussion on national broadband policy, they plan to control it and influence it to reflect their interests, and they have a proven track record in modern history of successfully controlling the debate when it comes to telecommunications policy. There is, however, a small but growing challenge to the status quo when it comes to broadband. Consumer groups, high tech companies, and local governments, and others are giving voice to a competing view, raising the complaint that a) the infrastructure is inadequate to meet future demand, which will require fiber optics instead of copper and coax; b) bandwidth and speeds offered in the US are inadequate to meet the needs of up and coming applications, much less present day needs, and the gap is widening; and c) the prices paid in the US are kept artificially high due to the lack of competition and choice. To make their case, critics of the status quo point to the growing demand for capacity (e.g., the coming Exaflood) and the inadequacy of broadband infrastructure. They cite broadband progress in other countries and the declining position of the US in worldwide rankings of broadband penetration (from 4th in 2002 to 15th in 2007). It's time for a Second Opinion to gain a louder voice. Whether one sides with the current champions (the incumbents and their supporters) to continue the status quo, who see the need for less regulation to free up the incumbents, or the challengers (those agitating for change) to support an alternate path, who see the need for greater diversity of options, it is hard to dispute the growing importance of broadband to our nation's digital economy. The critical nature of this infrastructure to our 21st century economy demands a broader more open debate. To continue down the present path of outsourcing strategic decisions on broadband infrastructure, services, and pricing to the present incumbents is to hand the keys to our future to a group of powerful corporate interests that have competing loyalties. It's time for the patient to seek a second opinion, the current treatment is not curing the disease. In 1955, GM Chairman and CEO Charlie Wilson made a famous proclamation: "What is good for General Motors is good for America." Whether that statement was ever true, it reflected national sentiment about the world's largest corporation at the time. And in that era, AT&T was dominant on the telecommunications front. It would seem that our de facto broadband policy of supporting incumbent strategies continues in that tradition 50 years later, still looking to large corporations to steer our economic future. But even though we could pause and marvel at technological progress over the ensuing six decades, our current broadband situation challenges continuing with the predominate regulatory approach - today, one could easily say: "What's good for telecom and cable incumbents is not necessarily what's good for America." At a minimum, we should have this debate and arrive at a policy that is good for all of America, not just for incumbent interests. If we are to remain competitive with other nations forging ahead with broadband, we must be better informed, we must listen with an open mind to a second opinion that challenges the status quo, we must weigh our options, and we must come together to chart a middle path. The direction we take should honor and build on the best of what the incumbents still have to offer us, while accommodating and adding in new and innovative thoughts, technologies and approaches to optimize our national broadband prospects. We must crack open the closed windows of policy making to let in fresh air and new thoughts. A Second Opinion is needed to provide policy makers with background facts on how the rising broadband Internet is changing the rules of the telecommunications industry. We need an examination of new digital and radio technologies that challenge the current method of regulating spectrum, for instance. We need a fresh look at what is currently happening out in the laboratories of innovation across the United States. We need to listen more to those who are actively working to make a difference for our broadband future, if on a small scale at present. These innovators are the voices of the future. If we truly desire to compete in the global market, we cannot continue to hold up the industries of the past at the expense of the industries of the future. That path is a recipe for mediocrity and gradual decline, and the preliminary results are already in on that strategy. Let's recognize that fact, leverage our considerable advantages (including both the incumbent strengths and the diversity of innovation) and mobilize to do something about it. Like I've said before, anything interesting starts with a conversation. Let's start talking about National Broadband Policy and a Winning Strategy, so we can broaden the debate and enlist all the energy now sitting on the sidelines. We need to build a 21st century digital infrastructure for the US to support a better future for all citizens in the US. Posted on September 30, 2007 at 07:41 AM | Comments (0) Mining Distilled WisdomAt this stage in my career, and my life, I realize that I've been exposed to a lot of wise people and can learn much from past successes and more importantly, from past failures. It's humbling to realize how much one doesn't know after so much time trying to learn as much as one can. As much as we're tempted to keep our eyes firmly focused on the present-day crises and upcoming future events, it behooves us all to reflect back on the past at the same time and realize we're all standing on the shoulders of great men and women who went before us. It makes sense to spend time "Mining Distilled Wisdom." Those who do this have a distinct advantage over those who don't. We do this when we go to school and get an education - it's amazing how much has been added to the store of wisdom in the 32 years since I graduated high school - I can't believe the things my daughter is studying in the 8th grade. Whatever one's personal thoughts on religion and God, we mine wisdom when we do Bible study or sit in church listening to a sermon - we're drawing moral lessons on how to live life, built up over thousands of years. We read history books and study past events, not just for entertainment, but also for illumination. History is a never ending trail of repeated mistakes, human errors, and human struggle. Inevitably, much of what we encounter today is either a repeat of a past event updated in modern clothing or slightly altered by today's realities. We can't get all of what we need from looking backwards, but we can arm ourselves with a tremendous amount of wisdom and insight and leverage the lessons learned from past successes and failures. This rational approach to science was the big breakthrough of Western thought a few hundred years ago - it was the convenience of the printing press and the socialization of wisdom that brought about the scientific method and the modern economic and government successes that provide us with such wonderful standards of living today. And it's the absence of these rational practices that mire other governments and societies in continuing misery in today's world. Woe be unto those who neglect the past or go through the present and future with blinders on, reinventing the wheel and repeating past mistakes. I shudder at what some governments put their people through, all in the name of maintaining political control in the hands of a few, flying in the face of political history and accumulated wisdom. Government leaders in Myanmar, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, the Sudan, etc, etc, all in the news recently, continue to repress political expression, in the face of dismal results and pretty clear signs in modern history that democracy and progressive political behavior is linked to successful and dynamic economic results. On a personal level, I captured my thoughts on how I apply these principles in my engagements, and how leaders can engage in planning based on principles (and mined distilled wisdom) in a white paper a few years ago, which you can download here: Principles of Planning. Reflecting on my experience with compiling wisdom is an exercise in evaluating what makes good business and good government, how they differ, and how they can leverage each other. Taking time to reflect on such issues, I hope, may lead government and business leaders to rethink their paradigms on broadband communication infrastructure. Among the lessons I learned in Business School and in the private sector afterwards, were these: B1. Risk / Reward - The more risk one is willing to take should result in a greater reward. Risk represents downside outcomes, reward represents upside. The key to good investments and sound business planning is in finding ways to mitigate the downside risk in order to increase the upside reward. By my early 30s, I'd spent my career learning about selling, providing winning customer service, managing administration in the public sector, and maneuvering through politics. But I'd learned precious few business basics, so I like to tell people I got more value out of my MBA from UT than almost anyone. I paid relatively little and received tremendous insights. From my earlier career doing legislative analysis, then running the little office that would become the Texas Senate Research Center, then a stint at earning my Masters in Government (which I ultimately abandoned), and also time at a public utility, I also learned a lot about what makes government and politics tick. Here's a stab at some wisdom mined from working with the public sector. G1. The importance of balancing competing interests - Good public administrators work within a political environment of competing interests and find a way to strike compromises, or better yet, forge synergies to solve problems of conflict in creative fashion. G2. Pressure and Influence impact political decisions - Good politicians understand human nature and create situations that produce outcomes in their favor. Businesses and special interest groups, aware of this connection, hire professionals (lobbyists) to influence decision makers, but also work with the press and different interest groups to bring pressure to bear from the public side. G3. A focus on cost management bears more fruit than focusing on revenue enhancement - In the public sector, there are more tools for bringing about efficiencies to control costs than there are for creatively raising revenues. This is one of the key differences between public and private sector enterprises. G4. Creativity is needed to make the most of what you have - Within the geographic confines of a government enterprise, a local, regional, state, or even national government has to take what it has and make the best of it. There are limits to how far a government can go to create new opportunities beyond the natural constraints under which it works. G5. Good infrastructure stacks the deck in your favor - A regional economy rises and falls on its infrastructure. Ask any business considering relocation about traffic congestion and they will tell you it's a strike against a region. An effective and healthy infrastructure is a key to a smooth flow of commerce in a region. Putting these two lists together is the genius of the Public Private Partnership. Having spent considerable time on both sides of the fence, I'm convinced that there is tremendous potential for local and regional leaders who manage to effectively tap into the collective wisdom from business and government and get these two sides to work together with common cause. One thing I learned on going over to the alternate universe of the B-school long ago, from my perch at the Senate, was that Government is not the same as Business. I cringe when I hear a political candidate say that we need to bring more business practice into government - they generally learn the hard way that many things are not transferable. Some things transfer, many do not. They are two distinct cultures, but that's not to say that each cannot benefit from the other; there are lessons to be gleaned, and that's the root of the Public Private Partnership. One final thought - we're all stuck living in linear time. Absent a time machine, where we can race into the future, check things out and fly back, we have only hints and clues with which to make our plans on how to behave here in the present in order to get what we want. Unlike Biff Tannen in Back to the Future, we don't have the benefit of a sports trivia handbook to tell us the future outcomes of sporting events we place bets on. Too bad for us, there are no sure things in real life. But we can get pretty close to a sure thing. Stuck here in the present, watching the future unfold hour by hour, day by day, we make educated guesses about what will happen. Smart business people and smart government officials observe events around them, put two and two together, and gather up a pretty good idea on how things are changing and they position themselves to take advantage. When it comes to adapting to the impacts of technology change, the smart money is on betting that digital tools and processes will become more and more prevalent. Replacing older processes from the analog world with newer more efficient processes based on digitization is a relatively safe bet. The challenge, and the art of managing change then, is knowing how much and where to spend here in the present to accommodate such upcoming change and take advantage of trends. Like many others, I've determined that Broadband and Mobility are two of the only sure things we can look at with some certainty. I've bet the farm and staked my career on working to promote better infrastructure to hasten the changes that will bring us all more communication capacity and more mobility options. The evidence is all around us, if we only open our eyes. The daily challenge I face is in convincing the rest of the world that 1) the changes are happening faster than we think; 2) that preparing takes longer than we think; and 3) that the steps we need to take will be more dramatic than we think. Here in the US, most governments are taking Baby Steps into the Future. When it comes to infrastructure, it's mostly Baby Steps, if you could say we're moving forward at all as a society here in the US. But we need to be taking Giant Leaps, and it doesn't have to be as risky as it seems - there are ways we can do so while minimizing risk. We don't lack the evidence to assure us of the need to add broadband infrastructure, we lack imagination, motivation, and courage. In summary, its leadership that's in short supply. We're more comfortable here in the present taking baby steps, and lacking leadership, we're stuck with incremental change and evolution, which is fine, as long as we're willing to accept the consequences of not preparing adequately. The consequences are that other societies with better strategies and bolder moves regarding infrastructure race ahead of us. Over time, their superior infrastructure will stack the deck in their favor. They're becoming more competitive when it comes to areas that we have grown accustomed to leading, like development of innovative technology based on digital applications and broadband communications. This post is an appeal to government and business leaders to heed lessons from the past, focus on infrastructure, and prepare for a future where broadband dominates. Otherwise, it takes little brilliance to deduce that we will be left behind while other societies race ahead. We're ignoring lessons from the past, as well as signposts on current environmental change, when we neglect to give emphasis to building a robust broadband infrastructure in this country. We won't get where we want to go by continuing down the same path. We are entering a time of disruption when it comes to the Internet and broadband infrastructure, and unfortunately for us Americans, we are for the most part neglecting our future. Hopefully, we can turn this ship around and change some paradigms, with some well-publicized successes in the next few years. It's never too late to learn, it's never too late to change, and it's never too late to be redeemed. Managing to smoothly let go of the present and embrace the future, while keeping an eye on the past, is a learned skill, but one we must all learn given the pace of change in today's business and government climate. And as I try to tell my 6th grade son, learning a new skill can only begin with an open mind. That's where it all starts, keeping an open mind. Keep watching this space, keep an open mind, and keep mining distilled wisdom and applying lessons learned, and finally, keep your fingers crossed. The rest is out of our control. Posted on September 27, 2007 at 11:43 AM | Comments (0) Utility Forum Shows Multiple Broadband ApproachesHaving cleared out my brain of my pent up frustrations over utilities and broadband in a long post last night, I offer this less passionate overview of the very good Utility Forum at the Broadband Properties Summit 2007 in Dallas one week ago. A series of panels convened to discuss the connection between public utilities and broadband initiatives. The Forum was sponsored by PacketFront (a pioneer in Open Access FTTH networks, mostly in Europe, but with a growing presence in North America). The Forum hosted several distinguished visitors and saw some lively discussion on the connection between broadband service and utilities. Introduction Introductory Briefings from PacketFront team included Doug McMurray - Director of Business Development as Forum Moderator; Tim Scott - Vice President, Marketing; and Matt Wenger - President, who offered these key points regarding utilities and broadband: Doug MacMurray followed as the Forum Moderator, with a brief presentation to introduce the concept of utility broadband under the following categories: Key Business Drivers for Utility Broadband Utility Advantages of Broadband Utility Broadband Applications Components of a Successful Broadband Deployment Lessons Learned from Utility Broadband Projects that Struggled Lessons Learned In An FTTH Deployment Next up was Joe King, Asst City Manager and Utility Director for the City of Danville, VA, whose presentation seemed to embody many of the points in the description laid out by Doug MacMurray in the introduction. (Be sure to check out the nDanville Case Study as well, download here.) Joe's vision for nDanville was informed by his political philosophy, to have government play a minimum role as it promoted a private sector solution. He determined that the best approach would be to approach the project in the same manner as the city and county build streets and roads. He would pursue an Open Access Network. His project plans and guidelines included: The nDanville network ultimately provided service to the city's 46,000 residents over a 44-square mile territory. The city's electric, gas, water, and wastewater utilities are able to benefit from the network. In addition, the electric utility provides services over a larger region, a 500 sq. mi. area. While AMI is under review, there is no AMI system in operation yet. The system has a strong economic development rationale, as the local area has suffered from struggling foundation industries, tobacco and textiles, with resultant high unemployment. Education levels are not traditionally high in the area, given the reliance on blue-collar work opportunities. With the need for workforce transition, city leaders see a public-stimulated broadband network as a good solution. In addition, the state of Virginia has a large Rural/Urban Digital Divide, and Danville is a good case study, located in the rural southern portion of the state. Project planners envisioned a need for 3-4,000 residential subscribers as a threshold to attract private service providers to the network. They made an initial investment of $2 M, which enabled 70 miles of fiber to be deployed. Broadband: Key To A Community's Growth And Vitality Jerry Brown from Bristol, VA, showed the audience how a utility-provided broadband infrastructure enhances economic development. (Virginia was well represented in the Forum). Bristol's project was all about economic development from the start. In introducing Jerry, Andy Cohill, a consultant whose firm Design Nine is a pioneer in community broadband, gave some background on how his community of Blacksburg and VA Tech University came together to launch the first broadband network in the US, back in the early 1990s, ultimately labeled Blacksburg Electronic Village. Their ambitious goal was to provide broadband Internet access to everyone in the county, back before "broadband" was barely a defined term. Be sure to see the Blacksburg Case Study - click here. Jerry Brown brought an interesting counterpoint to Danville's approach in his discussion about Bristol's network, as he is a career Economic Development professional. (See both Access Bristol, the economic development website and BVU OptiNet, the network services website.) Jerry described a market focus, whereby the network was intended to spur economic development into a new arena of technology (they had already gone through job growth phases in industry and retail). In Bristol, the project benefited from a strong champion in the VP of Operations for BVU, the Bristol Utility. In contrast to Danville's Open Access approach, Bristol decided to proceed with a Closed FTTH Network, stressing the need for Quality of Life in the Bristol Region. Working Lunch with Resource Panel The Hon. Hilda Legg, former director of the federal Rural Utility Service (RUS) and current vice chair of Broadband Properties moderated this panel - her style of walking in front of the podium, microphone in hand, stimulated the discussion and made for a good interchange of ideas. On the panel, which was quite interactive with the audience, were James Moskowitz, Fleischman and Harding, L.L.P. (a Washington DC telecom regulatory firm); Dr Jey K Jeyapalan, a civil engineer and consultant, with a specialty in pipe infrastructure; Andrew Cohill, president & CEO of Design Nine; and Jim Kelley, VP Operations, BVU OptiNet. I was an active participant in the discussion, which had two or three themes. One was the personal / human aspect of utility managers, who face a culture shift to adopt these broadband practices - broad adoption (pardon the pun) of utility broadband will require a paradigm shift and strong utility leadership - these panelists at the Forum are on the cutting edge, and are the exception to the rule. Second, we had an interesting debate on whether broadband itself is a utility or a service (see my long post from yesterday). Finally, the idea of using trenches and pipes as common ducts for multiple utilities received considerable discussion. Dr. Jepyapalan is a passionate promoter of full and efficient utilization of water/wastewater infrastructure, while Jim Kelley's practical experience in Bristol cautioned against putting broadband fiber down in water pipes, based on the human error element. It may be efficient in theory, but according to Jim, it's hard to do in practice. Key Questions For Utility Managers The next panel featured an in-depth look at the community of Gainesville, FL, home of 2006 National Champions, the University of Florida Gators. On the panel were Commission Member Ed Braddy and two representatives from the Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU), Frank Latini, Technical Services Manager, and Dan Clark, Marketing Specialist for Gator.Net. They outlined a low-key strategy that has enabled the utility to bring new Internet opportunities to the citizens of Gainesville by incrementally extending the FTTH network on a project by project basis, without raising political objections or opposition from the incumbent cable and telecom broadband providers. The website GRU.net provides more detailed information on the services offered. Commission Member Braddy described a communication strategy to compare the fiber network to "digital streets and roads," which he said has been an effective communication method. While the team holds a goal of engaging in an advanced deployment of a fiber optic loop for industrial purposes, their method is to engage in public private partnerships with MDUs and property developers, who share the costs of deployment. Their advice to any utilities, when asked how to manage perceived risk, is to "Go Slow." So, in summary, we saw in great detail how three creative electric utilities worked within their communities to bring in compelling communication infrastructure to support economic development and enhance the standard of living for their communities, but in three distinct ways: * Danville - planned Open Access Network with a focus on workforce devleopment It was a productive session for me, and good to see this dialogue getting started. Posted on September 19, 2007 at 10:30 AM | Comments (0) "Service" or "Utility"? What's in a Word?Pop Quiz today, Kids! Put up your books, close your desks, and get out a #2 pencil. 1. Complete the following statements by filling in the blank from the choices below. Broadband is _________________________. a. a premium consumer service like Cable TV, cellular phone minutes, long-distance, or local telephone. How you fill in the blank above goes a long way to how receptive you will be to the concept of characterizing broadband access service. 2. Broadband should be provided by _________________________. a. competitive service providers as a premium service (telecom companies, cable companies, ISPs, WISPs, etc.) I think we all should be asking ourselves questions like this to stimulate a dialogue. We should be asking our leaders some hard questions about broadband in the 21st century in the United States, such as: 1. Is broadband a Premium Service to be delivered along with my cable TV or telephone service? No questions should be off the table at the start of a debate like this. 1. Why don't I have world-class broadband access (100 Mbs - 1 Gbs)? And for you all, my gentle readers, with more focus and expertise in these areas, I'd ask these questions. If you're a regular reader of this blog, you know I have a Jones for broadband and electric utilities. My focused experience in the converging sectors of public policy, electricity, telecommunications, and wired (FTTH) and wireless broadband has left me with the quite logical conclusion that an information network and an electricity network belong together, like bread and jam. There are untapped efficiencies to be had. To get deep and philosophical and in a common frame of mind for this somewhat meandering blog, let's all pause for a moment - get comfortable, take three deep breathes, exhale, and relax - and consider this: "Information and Electricity are the Fundamental Foundations of the Universe - Quantum Mechanics shows this to be the case." OK, open your eyes and back to the here and now. More relevantly, those two services are the foundations of our 21st Century Digital Economy and both depend on a highly reliable infrastructure. And infrastructure points to utility. My definition of a "utility" then: "Any commodity service can be seen as a utility when it is most efficiently delivered to the widest segment of the market at the lowest cost over a distribution network that works best as a natural monopoly, generally a fixed distributed network with high capital costs." Some may find this definition an inappropriate fit in fully developed urban markets where competitive private sector providers have incumbency and already provide broadband as an add-on premium service: "That was then, NOW is different - we can't just pick up where we left off 100 years ago, times have changed." Well, I respectfully disagree, but I'm willing to fight my battles in stages. For starters, I'm willing to concede the large cities to the incumbents, and focus on the under-served markets. A strong argument can be made that broadband should be approached as a utility service at least in markets that are under-served. There is certainly plenty of precedent for this approach - see rural electricity and rural telephony. In summary, I'm left with this current position: I can only acknowledge at this point that achieving this new level of consciousness among decision makers in the public and private sector will be a significant paradigm shift for long-time industry types, both in electricity and in telecom. They're just not used to looking at broadband in this way and only time will tell if the level of urgency is such to drive them to look at their industries differently and make this connection. They may well never agree to this paradigm shift. But we should have the discussion nevertheless, because this is a matter of Public concern. Rooted in deep thoughts on these issues, and wanting answers to these questions and more, I welcomed the dialogue last week at the Broadband Properties Summit 2007 in Dallas. A series of panels convened to discuss the connection between public utilities and broadband initiatives. If the forum was lightly attended (15-30 in the audience), the panels were robust with innovators and pioneers. Sponsored by PacketFront (a pioneer in Open Access FTTH networks, mostly in Europe, but with a growing presence in North America), this forum was host to several distinguished visitors and some lively discussion on the connection between broadband service and utilities, and it was a good start. I wish there had been an audience of 200 in the room, it was that good. We need many more fora like this. While I was pleased to see this forum on the agenda, I think this topic needs to be part of a much-needed wider public dialogue on the role of broadband infrastructure in our lives and in our economy, including how the US will be best served to get this vital infrastructure, the sooner the better. Barack & Hilary, Mitt & Rudy, are you out there? Anybody? After the jump, I'll provide some more background (and vent my spleen some more). I'll have to post separately on to the Forum Dialogue from last week, in a new blog because at this point, I'm afraid I've gotten too long winded. In the early 20th century, access to the life-changing service of electricity (and soon thereafter, telephony) were the topics on everyone's lips. Just imagine going from kerosene lanterns to incandescent light bulbs! What a dramatic shift! It was a big, big deal and it's really hard for us to put ourselves back in that place. But times moved slower back then, so I guess folks were both a little more excited about electricity and telephone service, and a little more patient than we are now, used to instant gratification as we are. At any rate, it certainly proved worth the wait to get electricity and the telephone. As today, larger cities were first to get electric networks, first for light, and soon thereafter, for power to run electric machines in households, businesses and factories. Those unfortunate souls without this utility service looked on their more privileged brethren with envy and soon brought political pressure to bear. Electrification became a national debate and presidential, gubernatorial, legislative, and municipal elections were won and lost based on policy positions on these utility topics (and don't forget, multiple fortunes were also made with these new technologies and spin-off industries). And let's not forget telephony. AT&T became a blue-chip stock, after all, a foundation of Wall Street, and Bell Labs the source of unending innovation. Back then, unlike now, we started with an agreed upon public policy of cheap affordable electric access for all thanks to strong leadership from the public and private sectors, and open public debate. We ended up with three types of electric utility monopolies mostly (along with some rare competition in dual or multi service territories), as well as state and federal regulatory regimes to ensure that the policy of universal and affordable access was carried out. About the same time, when telephone networks began to be constructed, we had a similar approach to fair and affordable access and rates, and ended up with a national monopoly utility regulated at the state and federal level, and a Universal Service Fund to fill the gaps. It was a matter of national policy to ensure that everyone got connected, regardless of location. When it came to electricity and telephony back then, rural areas received special, if a little belated attention from the federal government. The dramatic impact on the 20th Century US economy of these policies and strategies, and the networks they spawned, is not in dispute. But somehow, Broadband Access at this early stage we're currently in receives different treatment than electricity and telephony did in their own youths, at least here in the US. And what's more, despite great success from national utility policies and strategies in other countries that actively encourage broadband deployment, here in the US we continue to rely on incumbents and a laissez-faire regulatory regime - yet most seem resigned to accept this as a political reality that we're not positioned to challenge or impact. Sad, but not necessarily inevitable. Where is the fire in the belly? In the absence of a national strategy, or even a national debate, we're puzzled about how to treat broadband and what to do. Amid industry head-scratching and disputes over the definition of broadband, the best delivery technology, and the appropriate business models, we fall behind competitively. Why do we accept this fate? I think it's not too late for change - we're just confounded by our assumptions and paradigms, which make the problem seem more complicated than it need be. We need a collective "whack upside the head," a clean slate and a fresh start. As Homer Simpson would say, "Doooohhh!" I'm reminded of the Winston Churchill quote: The fact is, there are buckets of money at stake on the outcome of this debate, if we ever get around to having it, and there will be as many opinions as there are technology and business options, no matter when we get the debate started. But that's no reason to not get the debate started. So far, rational discussion tends to be sidetracked by politics, strongly held positions, and industry biases. We talk past each other at different conferences and in different publications. As a nation, we're in the middle of that quote, busy "exhausting all other possibilities" before we "do the right thing." Despite the impact on our collective futures, we still see relatively little leadership in this debate from the federal level, and little discussion about a utility approach, at least so far. That's my main beef. We're stymied not only by a lack of leadership, but also by a motivation for change. The issues appear too numerous and too complex. but also,when it comes to John and Mary Consumer, most have grown accustomed to their $100+ Triple Play bundles, cellular calling plans, and latest digital devices. For many, there is no sense of urgency. Yet. I believe most consumers today are unaware of the different broadband paradigm in advanced countries, where prices for broadband are dramatically lower and service options bounteous. But what if something were to come about to change that level of awareness? For instance, what if the ExaFlood materializes, where would we be as a nation then? We need to start talking now and come up with a plan that works for all parties. And what of the current industry leadership? What of the telephone, cable and electric providers? Incumbent telecoms and cable companies jealously guard control of the networks for themselves in our National Broadband Status Quo (and who can blame them?). If I held stock in their companies, I might even support their approach. (I'm stretching here for the sake of argument.) Electric utility managers, on the other hand, with a sterling record of providing a miracle service, have done well by sticking to their knitting and not sticking out their necks. But the Smart Grid debate, climate change, and national energy policy are beginning to change that long-held status quo. The bottom line on current utility and telecommunication providers: unless pushed and prodded under some new set of motivations, the lion's share of current utility, telecom, and cable leadership are unlikely to step out with a new approach to broadband service anytime soon, certainly not on someone else's time line. I'd argue then that it's time to quit waiting on leadership from the top, and to create the necessary leadership from the bottom up. (I'm not alone - See ConnectKentucky in an upcoming blog). Notwithstanding current leadership constraints, from where I sit, the similarities between fixed and wireless broadband infrastructure and services and the electric and telephone national experience are compelling, and they become more and more apparent as time goes on. Some combination of wireless broadband and FTTH becomes ever more likely as a standard for a vital communication service of the 21st century. But there's that little Last Mile Infrastructure headache, and the unspoken question on everyone's lips is "Who will pay for it?" Then fingers start pointing. The utility approach is how they managed this 100 years ago. My perspective is no doubt somewhat different than most, because I'm a generalist with background in public policy, electricity, and telephony, and wireless broadband. I get a little impatient, but I have to admit I'm seeing more progress in connecting the dots between information and electricity. But it's all so sloooow... * From 1995-2000, I worked at a pioneer telecom subsidiary of an electric utility, Central and South West (now part of American Electric Power), where we did some pioneering work in demand response and fixed wireless automated meter reading. It makes good business sense for all kinds of electric utilities to take a much greater interest in broadband (municipally owned, investor owned and cooperatives), consider the impact, if only: If not for any of those reasons, electric utility managers should strongly consider that the nature of broadband (information access) is arguably akin to the nature of electricity (energy access). Why not see broadband then as another utility service, that they could lend a hand to on behalf of their communities? Who has more experience at delivery of a non-differentiated commodity? How about some local community leadership from the network operators out in the sticks, among the communities that need broadband help? I'll stop for now, and drill down on the Utility Forum tomorrow morning, I promise. Posted on September 18, 2007 at 09:32 PM | Comments (0) On the Cutting Edge - Citywide Broadband on SteroidsThe major AHA moment for me at the Broadband Properties Summit 2007 in Dallas last week occurred on the second day, during this great panel discussion featuring pioneering, award-winning city officials and organization leaders who are pushing out the envelope on what the definition of "community broadband" can be. So much of my time in the metropolitan broadband industry over the past four years has focused on wireless broadband - even defined by the more common term "Municipal Wireless," where we often talk about duplicating current broadband speeds (about 1.5 Mbs) through the air, to support mobile applications, but also to provide an alternative to DSL and Cable broadband services. If you've been reading my previous three posts on Open Access FTTH, Broadband Applications Convergence, and the Coming ExaFlood, then you realize there's a more complete broadband picture than that described by the term "Municipal Wireless," and you know that future networks will need to pull together both wired and wireless broadband, and the faster, the better. My AHA is that it's Not EITHER FTTH OR Wireless Broadband. That's a false choice. It's BOTH FTTH AND Wireless Broadband. FTTH can lead, if the community is ready to make the leap to a 21st Century Future-Proof Broadband Network, if community and economic development are front and center, and if more competitive broadband market rates are needed. Wireless Broadband will be important as well for mobility, and that can come initially with Hot Spots, Hot Zones, or more ubiquitous coverage. I've been moving in this direction for quite some time, even writing an RFP this summer that promoted a converged wired and wireless network, leveraging the best of current broadband technology (see City of San Marcos RFP). But this conference really gave me an opportunity to shine a light on what a converged wire line/wireless broadband network would look like. This has to be one of the best aspects of a conference like this, getting to meet and talk to world-class city officials and private sector movers and shakers who have successfully pioneered projects that addressed real-world problems with solutions that are available today - none of that pie-in-the-sky policy or technology discussion here - this is the future, real, here and now. Note: Be sure to see also this link to the Agenda for the conference as a reference on presentations and speakers. Details on the panel, after the jump. This particular panel on Tuesday afternoon featured Bjorn Sernhed - CTO, Affarsverken Municipal Utility, City of Karlskrona, Sweden; Joseph Franell - Director of IT at the City of Ashland, Oregon (and manager of the Ashland Fiber Network); Bill Hutchison - Chairman, i-Waterfront Advisory Council, Waterfront Toronto; and Tim Scott - Vice President, Marketing, PacketFront. Karlskrona, Sweden First up was Bjorn Sernhed - CTO, Affarsverken Municipal Utility at the City of Karlskrona, Sweden (For his pioneering work at Karlskrona, Bjorn won a Broadband Properties Cornerstone Award). Bjorn described the unique situation of Karlskrona, an archipelago city at the tail end of Sweden, on the North Sea. A city of 62,000, Karlskrona is off-the-beaten-track when it comes to Internet backbone in Sweden. Faced with a need for better connectivity, Karlskrona was able to lean on its city-owned multi-utility authority, the Affarsverken Municipal Utility, to get the ball rolling. Acting as the lead anchor tenant, Affarsverken worked with PacketFront and leaders from the broader community, including a regional group, the Swedish Urban Network Association. From the outset, these community leaders determined that they wanted a "future-proof" technology, so they choose an Open Access network approach, where they incubated a market of smaller service providers after the network was put in place. They attribute their success to three factors: 1) One unified network; 2) detailed, documented process and procedures; and 3) focus on quality network management. Ashland, Oregon, USA Next, Joseph Franell - Director of IT at the City of Ashland, Oregon (and manager of the Ashland Fiber Network) told a very compelling story. You'll remember, back in 2005, opponents of municipal wireless would cite the city-owned fiber network in Ashland as an example of a "failed city-owned network." Fact is, things were very rough to begin with, and the city officials and leaders working the network made many mistakes. But this is a story of persistence. An expensive story of persistence, but that's also life on the cutting edge, when there are no models for success - it's trial and error on the path to success. Joe was brought in after many mistakes were made, and he's had the pleasure of helping to set the ship on an even keel, documenting the lessons learned. Now, in contrast to the municipal broadband opponents case studies from two years ago, Ashland represents a FTTH success story, recognized as a Smart 21 Community by the Intelligent Community Forum. Among the Mistakes Made / Lessons Learned: In particular, Joe stressed the Open Carrier Model as a key to success, highlighting the need to make room for smaller niche service providers, while acknowledging a downside of this model: the inherent conflict between the needs of citizens (best-in-class network over the long-term) and the needs of the smaller service providers (need to maximize profits in the short-term). It takes work to balance this inherent conflict, but the benefits are worth the trouble. Joe's bottom line summary for Ashland Fiber Network: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Bill Hutchison - Chairman, i-Waterfront Advisory Council, Waterfront Toronto stressed the difference between a "redevelopment" project and a "revitalization" project - it's about a lot more than property development - it's about changing the lifestyle potential for a major world city. This world-class project, when completed, will represent the world's largest revitalization project. An RFP is anticipated for Fall 2007. (For their pioneering work in Toronto, Bill also accepted a Broadband Properties Cornerstone Award). In this unique project, the national, provincial, and city governments came together to form a management corporation. In addition, a community advisory council has ensured that local stakeholder viewpoints are represented. The project will reclaim land and create substantial waterfront parkland. My own AHA moment was underscored when Bill stressed that the project would feature BOTH a FTTH network AND ubiquitous wireless. After all, we need access to high-bandwidth applications not only when in the office or home, but also when mobile. The system must work together. Key elements of their plan include Featured eApplications will include The Winning Approach of Waterfront Toronto, according to Bill, included these features PacketFront and the Open Access Model Tim Scott - Vice President, Marketing, at PacketFront summarized the common threads of these three projects. They all have Vision, they all feature Partnerships, and they all rely on the Community as Facilitator. Ashland's city leaders finally determined that the Open Network is the right approach, and realized that the network is not about retail rates and revenue. A Community Broadband network requires both FTTH to ensure access for residential and commercial consumers and Wireless Broadband for access to mobile applications, the Internet, and the LAN. Toronto's leaders have had success by stressing planning and marketing. And like Ashland, they figured out that broadband access requires fiber for sufficient capacity and future-proofing as well as wireless for mobile access. Posted on September 16, 2007 at 09:33 PM | Comments (4) EXAmine This: A Growing Gap in Capacity Demand and Bandwidth Supply?The "ExaFlood" Dliemma, A Digital Divide of a Different Sort Recent research reports have suggested that data growth may be greater than the planned Internet infrastructure can handle. While some have challenged the precise numbers, it is clear that the amount of data traffic, especially video, on the Internet is growing at an accelerating rate. This will soon create a situation in which billions of gigabytes of data - exabytes - will transit the Internet each year. The Exabyte Internet promises to bring new services, applications and opportunities to both consumers and businesses in America, but it will not do so automatically. In addition to investments in additional infrastructure and capacity, there will need to be innovations in core technologies and network management, flexible strategic plans and a national broadband policy that supports investment and innovation over regulation and a continuation of the status quo. David McClure, US Internet Industry Association in Broadband Properties: The ExaByte Internet On the second day of the Broadband Properties Summit 2007, a panel discussion on the ExaFlood (see the Featured Item in the top left corner of the Home Page for more information) kicked off the second day's events. On the panel: Larry Irving - Co-Chairman, Internet Innovation Alliance; David Kozischek - Manager, Strategic Technology, Corning Cable Systems; and David P. McClure - President & CEO, U.S. Internet Industry Association (and author of the above article). But before you get off and running with this posting, I'd urge you to check out the FTTH Council Video on the ExaFlood - a snappy little video that provides a quick overview of the themes of this discussion. It only takes a few minutes, and it's quite well produced. Note that the ExaFlood and Net Neutrality debates are - inevitably - interwoven, and predictably, political. It will take some work to pull out the facts from the propaganda and marketing, but, what the heck, that's what I'm here for, right? It will doubtless take more than one posting, but this is a fascinating topic that we will hear more about as time goes on. As I wade into this loaded debate, I'll give it the good old college try (which hopefully is better than my University of Texas Longhorns did yesterday against the University of Central Florida Knights. Sheesh. But that's a different story altogether...) Another preliminary note: I'm adding some new terms to the Glossary to be clear on bits, bytes, gigabytes, exabytes, etc. More on the Keynote discussion after the jump! So, Bret Swanson of the Discovery Institute gives this debate a name (i.e., "exaflood") in his Jan 2007 Wall Street Journal editorial, entitled The Coming ExaFlood. As you read this article (and the others on this post), you pretty quickly realize there is a political agenda here, as there usually is when we talk about coming shortages and the need for a change in public policy (and/or government spending???). The key point driven home in this fascinating keynote panel discussion was that not one, but several signs indicate a growing issue, if not a coming crisis. I guess that depends on your viewpoint, whether it's an issue, a crisis, or a market opportunity. Guess which one I prefer? The sign posts are certainly there that something big is coming down the tubes (pardon the puns, henceforth). The signs include: 1) the dramatic growth in Internet traffic to date; I believe those three main constraints are not in dispute. What's in dispute is how those constraints should best be addressed, and whether this phenomenon constitutes a crisis or not. Advocates of Net Neutrality tend to argue in favor of flat pricing for access and separation of infrastructure ownership and/or management service from content delivery service (structural unbundling). Opponents of Net Neutrality argue for continuation of status quo vertical integration, variable pricing options to ensure quality of service and network management flexibility and little-to-no regulation to ensure adequate / abundant revenue to finance network construction. There is significant distrust on both sides of the argument, and lots of history. But back to the approaching shortage of bandwidth - if you buy this scenario - it reminds me a little of debates about the coming oil shortage as we approach Hubbert's Peak, which of course is a widely discussed theory about approaching finite limits of oil production on the planet. Or projections of world population growth and coming shortages and famine - see also the Limits to Growth by the Club of Rome and Thomas Malthus. But the difference is that while the Club of Rome's projections of disaster and calamity have been proven wrong (so far), and Hubbert's Peak remains an unknown (so far), the ExaFlood dilemma seems more immediate and real, and it can be seen as manageable, at least it is, IMHO. My Bottom Line The ever growing demand for bandwidth is quite real, but I also believe that it can be incremental and need not be a crisis, but we will need much greater attention and more creativity. This scenario makes a strong argument on all sides to build out real broadband infrastructure (100 Mbs - 1Gbs) ASAP. That means fiber in all its forms - nothing else will get us those speeds and be truly future-proof, or in this case, Exa-Ready. And it means letting go of limiting the number of players in the infrastructure business. We need more energy and creativity to accomplish this Herculean task. And that is the thrust of conferences like this one, I believe, to raise the hue and cry and get people motivated and busy. This is a project no less exciting than building the railroad network was in the 19th Century. I would add that we should be building out broadband networks, both wired and wireless, as robustly as possible. Given these trends of exploding data needs, most especially the growing popularity of video applications in all their forms, we are at little risk of overbuilding (certainly out on the edge we are not), and we will see an unending need for bandwidth in the foreseeable future. We have a long way to go, but we are up to the challenge if we open our minds to new approaches. Drowning in the ExaFlood gives an interesting counterpoint to this suggestion of a coming "flood" of data transmission shortage. Tim Lee makes the argument that we are talking less of a "flood" of bandwidth shortage and more of a simple extension of the continuing need for telecom firms to build out their infrastructure and the rationale for government to get out of the way (of course, author Tim Lee is a fellow at the Libertarian Cato Institute, so he would think along those lines.) Still, I recommend you bookmark Tim's website The Technology Liberation Front. I especially enjoyed the artwork with Communist overtones, very 1980s Gorbachev and all that... Finally, see also Bring On The Exaflood by Bruce Mehlman, former assistant secretary of commerce under President Bush, and our own Larry Irving, former assistant secretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton. These guys should know what they're talking about. Oh, and they are both currently co-chairmen of the Internet Innovation Alliance. I'll give them the last word here: All sides agree that we need ongoing investment in content, massive upgrades of infrastructure and relentless innovation to handle the phenomenal growth in data traffic. We need advancements in how we build and operate networks, including new file compression technologies, upgraded traffic management software, better spam and virus filters, and new delivery platforms. And we need substantial investments in short-haul bandwidth through fiber to homes, broadband over power lines, satellites and fourth-generation wireless networks. The formula for encouraging such extraordinary investments is clear: minimize tax and regulatory constraints and maximize competition. Policymakers across the nation have ample opportunity to implement this blueprint right away. They should pass common-sense legislation such as permanently extending the Internet tax moratorium, building broadband-ready public housing, and cutting depreciation schedules for network equipment and infrastructure. Posted on September 16, 2007 at 06:23 PM | Comments (1) What will we do with all this Bandwidth?Sometimes its nice to daydream about having one of those 100 Mbs connections like they have in Japan. Sighh. Someday. I enjoyed the Broadband Properties Summit 2007 in Dallas last week for many reasons, but one key reason was the different perspective - it was refreshing to see a new set of faces and to meet a dynamic group of activists who are passionate about broadband, but in this case, mostly about WIRED broadband, fiber to the home (FTTH), to be specific. The keynotes started off the three day event - I already wrote about Matt Wenger, PacketFront, and Open Access FTTH in Vasteras, Sweden, in my previous post. Next up on the first day at the Summit were two speakers who emphasized the use of broadband networks. Kurt Scheff, VP and Principal Analyst at Parks Associates, provided a great overview of the industry with loads of statistics. Then Herb Hauser, President at MidTown Technologies, talked to us about Genius Buildings and Genius Communities. THE DIGITAL HOME Scheff is an old hand at Parks Associates, where he covers a variety of consumer applications and tracks changes and trends in the industry. In providing this overview of The Digital Home, Scheff described the convergence at hand, where consumer applications and devices will more and more take advantage of increasing broadband availability, but also drive on the broadband networks in a virtuous circle. Here's a quick overview of some of the statistical data he threw our way (it came fast and heavy). Digital Lifestyles Categories 1. Data / Voice Computer Networking Broadband Trends Voice Services 2. MultiMedia / Entertainment 3. Home / Lifestyle Management 4. Value Added Services Scheff finished by highlighting the following trends to watch, which are all closely tied to the presence of (and need for) ever increasing amounts of broadband access. 1. Convergence in Communications GENIUS BUILDINGS AND COMMUNITIES Hauser stepped out to call information the fourth utility. Just as we wouldn't think of a house today without water, wastewater, electricity, and heating/AC, so we would not contemplate a home without access to information, which today must include voice, video, and high speed data. As FTTH becomes more and more common, look for the following qualities of the Genius Building to become more common: 1. e-appliances, or in Hauser's vernacular, eppliances, which provide the buildings and communities their genius status. Sounding a theme that would be echoed throughout the conference, Hauser emphasized that broadband is not just about FTTH, but also includes Wi Fi Mesh - he said that innovative Genius projects show Positive Resonation when they begin with installation of Wi Fi Mesh at the construction site, gaining the benefits of broadband from the very beginning. In summary, Broadband brings benefits to property developers and property owners as follows: Posted on September 16, 2007 at 02:41 PM | Comments (0) Open Access FTTH: An Alternative, Attractive RealityI'm here at the Broadband Properties Summit 2007 in Dallas. It's at the Hyatt DFW, one of those hotels embedded within the airport. Those flying in today would complain about the weather conditions, rainy and wet, but since I drove in this morning and since I'm locked in here for meetings in a series of hotel conference rooms, I'm kind of glad that it's raining and ugly outside. These conferences are more painful when it's a pretty day. Before I get into the first presentation, see this link to the Agenda for the conference as a reference on presentations and speakers. The conference kicked off with a Keynote Presentation by Matt Wenger, president of PacketFront, a company with a focus on Open Access Fiber to the Home (FTTH) projects. The title of the presentation was Developments in FTTH Business Models Around the World. With more than 200 community broadband deployments worldwide, mostly open-access FTTH, Wenger spoke from considerable experience, and offered some key insights. He spent a lot of time talking about what may be their principal case study, MalarNetCity, an open access FTTH deployment sponsored by the municipal utility in Vasteras, Sweden. There, customers have access to 15 different ISPs for broadband service, five telcos for voice, and three video service companies. That's consumer choice. Wenger put up the MalarNetCity community web portal as a model and highlighted their unique pre-sell technique. Imagine - city leaders addressed the considerable capital requirement of their network by pre-selling the FTTH development to residents, convincing each household to put up $3,500 to have fiber strung to their home. Imagine. That's a bold enough challenge to take on, even visionary, you might add. But what's incredible is that they had over 22,000 residents do just that. If I do the math correctly, that's something like $77 M in capital to finance construction of their network. They were able to implement such creative approaches as pushing that down payment through the mortgage loans of the residences, which must have been a big help. I'm still blown away by those numbers and that level of community participation. One great fringe benefit of a FTTH community with a unified set of subscribers is the LAN aspect: each subscriber gets access to 100 Mbs of intraLAN communication - and Wenger said that this local asset leads to a change in network behavior - much greater percentage of traffic is over the LAN than is over the Internet - it's more efficient. Four Key Lessons Wenger talked about four key lessons he's learned as he's built networks around the world: Triple Play Commoditization The "Goods & Services Life Cycle in a Free Market" graphic is fairly simple - a modified hump, with Average Gross Margin on the Y Axis and Time on the X Axis. Every business tries to extend Phase One Optimization, where margins rise with production levels, and Phase Two Maximization, where market dominance sees the cash roll in. But inevitably, over time Phase Three kicks in, as Competition and Commoditization take their toll and cause margins to drop. Inevitably, that is, except in many of the major US markets, where a "free market" cannot really be said to exist. Consequently, these incumbents postpone the inevitable downturn in margins that commoditization brings. With regard to profit maximization n the US, a strong argument can be made that monopoly / duopoly conditions have enabled broadband providers (telcos and cable cos) to extend their Phase Two Margin Maximization via regional dominance in voice/video, and more recently broadband services. However, now and in the future, all three of these services are coming under increasing competition as the markets mature. Wenger's experience in network building at PacketFront shows that Open Access models accelerate this trend of shrinking margins, presenting a challenge to service providers, but a boon of lower prices for consumers. Wenger explored the Open Access model, which is evolving into three commercial forms. 1. The Original model features retail customers who pay Internet Service Fees to Retail Service Providers, who in turn pay Wholesale Access Charges to a Network Owner/Operator. Other Case Studies In Denmark, a local energy company sponsored a network and used babies and the future in their marketing campaign. In The Netherlands, a community of 8,000 homes used a price promotion (free 10 Mbs for the first year) to sign up subscribers, who were then willing to pay $50/month, which included a $26/month connection fee. They managed a measly 98% take rate. The Bottom Line / Final Conclusions 1. All take rates are over 60% I'll be chewing on this idea for a while ... Posted on September 10, 2007 at 09:25 PM | Comments (0) Get Ready for Some Alternate Views | ||||
