|
|||||
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 |
« EXAmine This: A Growing Gap in Capacity Demand and Bandwidth Supply? | Weblog | "Service" or "Utility"? What's in a Word? » 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 CommentsSeems a very sensible statement. Phase II of this analysis might include references to ways to involve or neutralize the objections of cablecos and telecos. Posted by: Don Samuelson on September 17, 2007 11:35 AM John, Bravo! I couldn't agree with you more. I have been communicating this message to audiences for the past several years and have felt like a lone wolf. It is clear that there is often a stong desire for proponents of broadband to lead with their technology answer instead of focusing on community and business requirements, and THEN develop the appropriate application of technology options and roadmap that will serve those needs best. Thank you, John, James Farstad Posted by: James Farstad on September 17, 2007 01:35 PM John Cooper's description of my speech is better than my speech itself. He really understands the tremendous possibilities provided for communities by the new wireless and fiber ultra broadband infrastructures. Bravo John Posted by: Bill Hutchison on September 21, 2007 03:41 AM I think we could all use a little refocus away from the either/or duality mindset of mobile v. fixed, because after all, we all rely on both types of communication in our daily lives. Of course its about both Mobility and Capacity...it seems so obvious on its face. Thanks for your comments! Posted by: John Cooper on September 21, 2007 07:37 AM Post a comment |
METRONET VENDOR DIRECTORYMY OTHER BLOGSMetroNetIQ E-Store - Be sure to visit the MetroNetIQ E-Store and pick up a copy of The ABCs of Community Broadband: How Digital Transitions Will Transform America's Communities, One at a Time. The E-Store will offer special discounts on this valuable guide for community leaders, discounts that won't be available to the general public on Amazon! |
|||
| Powered by Movable Type | ©2006 MetroNetIQ.com | Website Design by zilkoweb | |||