Oregon: EZ Wireless covers 600 sq miles

When Pigs Wi-Fi - New York Times I had an image of the New York Times Pullitzer Prize-winning Nicholas Kristof in an ill-fitting cowboy hat, whizzing down an East Oregon highway in a pickup truck, with tie blowing in the breeze as he leaned out the window with his laptop to get a better wireless signal. In this editorial, Kristof plays up the "rural" angle, from the title to the ending line: The fact is, unless you're a cowboy here in eastern Oregon, you're behind the times. But never did I see him look down his nose at his rural brethren. Rather, he looked up to them for their innovation and accomplishments, and chastised urban leaders in the US for falling behind those out in the sticks.

Could we possibly see the rural areas take the lead in this new wireless movement, and the urban areas as laggards? It could easily happen, and here's why. One hundred years ago, technology was much more basic, and the rural areas were relatively much more backward. So when electricity came along, with its high infrastructure costs, investors formed corporations and went after major urban areas, same with telephone networks and cellular networks in later years. It took LBJ's political weight and the hard work of municipal utilitites, as well as rural electric and telephone cooperatives to get modern services extended out into the country.

We can expect wireless network penetration to be different, however. It actually helps that rural areas are lacking in broadband now (demand) and that their populations are less dense, their territories less attractive to the big guys (less competition). First, wireless in its new forms (Wi Fi Mesh and WiMAX) is dramatically less expensive to install than wired networks, and goes in much quicker. Second, technology has matured and not only do we have a tremendous array of tools at our disposal, we also have lots of lessons on how to "get the job done" from an entrepreneurial perspective. Third, low barriers to entry mean that smaller providers will be there when rural area governments or businesses decide they need wireless networks. Web sites like mine are trying to raise the awareness level of the potential of such public-private partnerships and soon the benefits of such networks will be more and more common knowledge.

So Kristof poses an interesting challenge - how will urban wireless networks develop? and when? We're waiting on some RFPs to wind their way through the process, and this is a key challenge in larger cities - this is territory worth fighting for, and cable and telecom incumbents will do all in their power to slow any interlopers on "their turf." I expect prices to come tumbling down where wireless networks are installed. And I expect prices to come down when cable and telecom DSL start to slug it out. Just not as fast.

This prevailing view is shared by an accommodating FCC, which views an unshackled duopoly of cables and telecom DSL providers as the quickest route to broadband, equating deregulation with competition. So as you listen to the telecom establshment talk about a broadband blowout prize fight between the cables and the telecom DSL heavyweights following the DSL ruling on Friday, don't be surprised if the rollout of broadband doesn't happen quite as quickly as you might expect.

There are political hurdles to overcome and a duopoly, if that is what we end up with in urban areas, can be expected to move at its own pace, especially if the telecoms stick to their Fiber to the Home or Fiber to the Curb plans. There will most likely be further excuses for why penetration is not proceeding apace, now that they have slain the regulatory dragon. "Progress takes time," you can almost hear them say.

Urban areas will no doubt get their wired broadband, and in time prices will creep down, and some wireless networks as well. But for now, as Kristof suggests, wireless networks in rural areas seem like a sure thing. It may be that to get on a wireless network for free or next to free in the next two years, you will have to get in the car and drive ten miles out of town. Wouldn't that be ironic, for those who witnessed electricity's rollout 100 years ago, to witness today?

Posted on August 07, 2005 at 05:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

DSL Ruling Will Be A Landmark

FCC eases rules on DSL providers A spate of articles on the Internet offer preliminary analysis of the FCC ruling from Friday, August 5. In case you haven't heard, the FCC took another step to "level the playing field" between the two dominant broadband technologies: cable and telecom-based DSL. See the other three articles at the bottom of this blog for alternative perspectives on the FCC DSL ruling.

Six weeks ago in the Brand X decision, when the Supreme Court disagreed with the 9th Circuit and reaffirmed the FCC's contention that cable broadband was an information service, and so not subject to traditional telecom regulations, we heard the final word on a long-held question - is broadband a telecom or an information service?

While Congress in a rewrite of the Federal Telecom Act of 1996 is likely to speak further on the regulation of broadband, the Supreme Court's action left the FCC with a perceived imbalance, because if cable broadband was information service, why wouldn't telecom DSL broadband be information service also? So they corrected this awkward policy position on Friday by giving telecom-based DSL the same treatment - its broadband service is an information service also, so not subject to telecom regulations, which will be phased out.

According to the telecom establishment, a broadband tsunami will be unleashed by this ruling, as the lack of control of their infrastructure (they were required to let competitors onto their networks) kept the Bells hamstrung, and prevented them from waging an aggessive rollout of broadband infrastructure. Now, finally, they can get going. But their reliance on wired infrastructure means that it will take time to deploy networks.

So what does cable/DSL broadband competition look like? We could look a lot of places, but my hometown paper offered a convenient article (Deals galore for Net access) today, so let's check that out.

Competition like we've become accustomed to with cellphones may be coming to broadband soon, according to this article. So far, I haven't seen it (I'm still paying $45/month for Time Warner broadband, reluctant to switch to DSL), but here in the most wired city in the US, maybe we'll be on the front row.

One way to cut prices is to hop from promotion to promotion, but providers have figured that out and tend to tie in a commitment, as with SBC, which has cut its price even more this year, down to $14.95 a month with a 12-month contract. And they're starting to break up service into levels, ranging from a little faster than dial-up to multiple-megs.

In recent months, SBC, Time Warner and other companies have been slashing prices, with cut-rate offers that make some grades of broadband as affordable as old-fashioned and far slower dial-up service.

Citing penetration of about 35 million U.S. households with some form of high-speed Internet access since it came about in the late 1990s, the Statesman says the target of the rate cuts is the estimated 36 million dial-up users (at the end of 2004) who might switch to broadband if the price were right — and who might then become customers for other services the companies sell.

Time Warner Cable, the dominant cable provider in the Austin area, responded to aggressive moves by SBC by promoting Road Runner Lite, a slower version of its high-speed service, for $19.95 a month, which I may consider, but I wonder how "lite" it is and if I'll notice the difference.

Broadband Internet service is moving from a novelty to a necessity, thus my hesitation to go down in speed in order to go down in price. I like my high-speed Internet. Would you seriously consider cutting your phone bill in half if it meant that the sound quality would go crackly now and then, and sometimes your phone wouldn't ring? I'm not buying that I have to go down in quality in order to get a discount. It's one thing when your standard of comparison is dial up, but another when you've been using high-speed for years. So, they are not focused on winning me over.

But a lot of consumers are more price-sensitive than I am. Clearly, this is the growth area for cable and DSL broadband providers, not only dial up users, but price sensitive broadband users. And there is more at stake than broadband, as the price skirmishes are part of a bigger war between cable and phone companies.

Each industry is trying to expand onto the other's turf. Both are offering broadband as part of a bundle of services that include phone, Internet and cable television. It's the so-called triple play that the industry believes will be the basis for business well into the future.

"Both these industries see where their rivals are headed, and they are trying to capture customers now and keep them," Brumfield said. "They are trying to rope in service to the home."

The goal is to lure new customers with bargain prices and hope they like broadband service enough to keep it after the introductory price expires.

What I hate is the irony of this marketing, where they seem to be begging me to switch. I don't feel loved by my broadband provider. Get this, they are actually nicer to the customers they don't have, than the ones that they do have - that's not real competitive behavior, in my book. Most of the promotional offers are not open to that provider's current broadband customers. And indeed, that was the case when I talked to Time Warner last week. So, I'm hesitantly banking on FCC Chairman Martin's wisdom, and will be watching from a ring-side seat as two of the biggest broadband providers duke it out in one of the most penetrated markets in the US. But I'm also promoting wireless at the same time, more or less written off in all the discussion this weekend - I really believe that a wireless network inserted into a duopoly wired network will keep all the players more honest, and result in even more competition.

Let's watch the Bells closely and the cables even closer. "The phone companies' voice business is already drying up," Brumfield said. "That's why they are making sure they get as much market share as possible as quickly as possible before the cable companies come in and eat their lunch with low-cost phone service. They are really trying to solidify as many customer relationships as they can before the real competition arrives."

SBC and its peers have been losing phone customers over the past few years, as more people rely on cell phones or switch to new services such as cable's Internet phone service... and Brumfield and other analysts said the cable companies are cutting prices grudgingly.

"The cable companies don't want to harm their profit margins," Brumfield said. "They don't want to get into a commodity competition."

Time Warner, Brumfield said, is not promoting Road Runner Lite on a national basis. "This is very much specific to markets where they are feeling some competitive heat."

See these three articles for further perspective on this complicated issue.

FCC removes DSL network-sharing rules | InfoWorld | By Grant Gross, IDG News Service This article by Grant Gross provides a good overview - picked up by many Internet news providers, so you will start to read the same article over and over again as you surf.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation Blog: Bravo on Broadband FCC protects property rights of telecom companies, finally coming to their senses. Pheww!!

PCWorld.com - DSL Deregulation Effort Sparks Opposition Consumers Union and other consumer groups' prayers go unanswered as FCC deregulates telecom DSL to create a duopoly. Consumer groups predict dire consequences, and hey they called it right with FTA 96...

Posted on August 07, 2005 at 02:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

One Shoe Drops

FCC to hammer out new DSL rules | CNET News.com On Friday, along with a lot of other industry watchers, I was waiting for two shoes to drop. First, a ruling on DSL service by telecoms was expected from the FCC. Second, Philadelphia was expected to select a vendor to build their wireless network. One of the shoes dropped on Friday. The FCC made a ruling, but the City of Philadelphia will not decide for another week or two.

This article, published on Thursday, does a good job of spelling out the speculation prior to the FCC's ruling on DSL service on Friday. Good reading for background. The issues?

1) The FCC felt a need to respond to the ruling by the Supreme Court last month that said cable companies did not need to let third-party Internet Service Providers (ISPs) on to their networks, to provide a level-playing field for telecom providers of DSL, who were required under current rules to open their networks to third-parties (FCC ruled in 2002 that cable modem service was an information service and not subject to telecom rules). So they sought to reclassify DSL services as information services rather than telecom services, a move which would result in more lax regulations for traditional phone companies providing the service.

2) Democrats on the FCC want a gentle off ramp for ISPs (a transitional period where ISPs would still be guaranteed access to wholesale DSL service), as well as maintaining access for Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs).

3) At risk are ISPs such as EarthLink, who buy finished DSL services at wholesale prices and sell customers Internet services using the DSL service from the phone companies. CLECs such as Covad only lease the copper infrastructure from the phone companies, and in turn provide the infrastructure equipment to create the DSL service.

4) The Universal Service Fund (USF), drawn from telecom bills, subsidizes phone service in rural areas and helps fund programs such as e-rate. The initial draft proposed that DSL providers would no longer have to contribute 10 percent of their revenue into the fund.

Posted on August 06, 2005 at 09:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Pass the Brand X, Please

FCC Chief Pushing For DSL Deregulation What was rumored a month ago when the Supreme Court came to their decision on the Brand X case (see this link Cable industry wins Supreme Court ruling for a good background on this June 27 Supreme Court ruling), now appears about to happen. A month ago, the Supreme Court ruled that cable companies do not have to open up their networks for third parties who would seek to use the networks to provide broadband Internet access service to customers. In a move to provide a "level playing field," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has indicated that the same provision should apply to telephone company's DSL networks, and according to this article, that move by the FCC could come as soon as tomorrow's meeting.

The June ruling and the potential move by the FCC are significant because they limit the use of existing networks to the owners of those networks. What are companies like AOL, Earthlink, and the bevy of Independent Service Providers to do if they do not have access to incumbent networks? Will they go the way of the Competitive Local Exchange Companies (CLECs), who sprung up after passage of the Federal Telecom Act in 1996, only to fade away when the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) failed to cooperate on use and interconnection with their networks? It appears so, and prospects for such "non-facilities based competitors" are gloomy ... unless .... new independent networks arise to compete and offer an alternative.

Enter the municipal broadband network. Whether wired or unwired, these networks are expected to get a boost from these recent government rulings concerning network usage. More vital than ever for non-incumbent competition, these networks offer hope for a vital competitive marketplace of service providers. The time is right to take a long hard look at a network for your city.

Follow activity in Cincinnati, where Cinergy has been working with BPL provider Current Communications, which recently received a $100 million investment by Google, Goldman Sachs, and others (See the July 7 blog UnwireMyCity.com: Shocking Information: Huge Cash Injection into BPL Firm.

Or check out Lafayette, LA, where voters recently approved a $125 million bond package to build a fiber optic network, over the objections of incumbent providers (See the July 17 blog UnwireMyCity.com: Public's Voice Rings Out in Louisiana: "I want my broadband!".

Or watch the news for a selection in the next few days in Philadelphia, which recently selected a short list of vendors for a wireless network (See the July 21 blog UnwireMyCity.com: And Then There Were Three ... Feels more like the Final Four.

The options abound, the trick is to get busy and take control of your destiny. For hints on getting started, see the July 29 blog UnwireMyCity.com: Stick to Your Knitting, Work Within Your Circle of Control.

Posted on August 02, 2005 at 09:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

DSL: a "Phoney" Broadband Solution?

ePrairie.com: Midwest Technology Business News In this rather harsh look at copper line-based DSL technology, author James Carlini offers a good historical perspective on DSL, but then proceeds to tear down DSL as a valid technology on which to base our Internet connectivity future.

DSL on copper is like putting a vinyl top on a stagecoach. It's still a stagecoach in the age of space shuttles. Trying to repackage a copper-based solution with a new name and slogan just isn't working in today's ever-demanding society.

Check out this article for a good (if skeptical) review of how we got ADSL and for how it may compare to more robust, forward-looking technologies now being deployed. It's not a pretty picture, but it will make you think.

It made me think and I concluded that much of what Carlini says makes sense, but everyone has an opinion, and there are two sides to every coin. Consider another way to make copper work - very high bit-rate DSL, or VDSL. See How VDSL Works in How Stuff Works for a more in-depth look at DSL and an alternate viewpoint. You'll want to read the entire article to get the full picture on the potential of VDSL. This is a bona fide resource for understanding DSL as a broadband resource.

Posted on July 14, 2005 at 12:03 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack