Accel Networks

Connecting to Compete

2011-11-21T08:58:00.001-08:00

The FCC, with support from several cable companies, has announced a new program called ConnecttoCompete. Families that qualify would be able to receive broadband access for less than $10 a month, including no installation or modem rental fees, as well as opportunities to purchase low-cost computers (in the $150-$250 range). To be considered, a household must not be a current broadband subscriber and must have a child enrolled in a federal free- or reduced-lunch program. It’s no secret that access to broadband is a necessary component for underserved kids to stay competitive in future job markets. A recent Federal Reserve study noted that graduation rates for kids with computers and broadband access at home had a six to eight percentage point higher graduation rate than those without these tools. Access to technology is a requirement to compete. But what makes this program so exciting is that it’s funded largely by the private sector. Other current or upcoming programs that use public funds to subsidize the large communications companies have found justifiable resistance. Budgets are already tight and the general public is working hard enough to support themselves. Extra taxes and fees on existing bills tend to make people angry. By delivering ConnecttoCompete via private funds – and because the students who benefit are likely to one day work for these private sector companies – the program is, in essence, a form of investment. Now the key is to see how fast it can be implemented. What do you think about the program?

Where Should the Money Go?

2011-11-14T05:34:00.001-08:00

No matter what side of the argument you’re on, the FCC’s decision to redirect funds to subsidize rural broadband access was a step in the right direction. The status quo was no longer working. But a new complaint has now entered the discussion.

Civil rights groups are upset because they feel that some of the money that has been earmarked for the new rural broadband fund should be going to the Lifeline program. Lifeline is a $1.2 billion program that offers low-income citizens credits to help pay for their phone bills. These groups feel that the money to help the poor would, in total, benefit more people than those with broadband needs in rural areas.

It’s an interesting argument. Some statistics indicate that there are a lot more people currently with the wiring necessary to get broadband who just can’t afford it, than those without access at all. But even if they had the money, would they subscribe?

The debate then boils down to what segment of people is in a worse situation. People with low education, low income, and high poverty live in both rural and urban environments. How should the government best spend its money?

Obviously, this is just speculation. The funds have already been approved for rural broadband extension, so the argument is, essentially, too little, too late. But dismissing the complaints of the civil rights groups without full consideration of merit would be flippant. Without politics getting in the way, figuring out which group of people is truly more in need would be a fascinating study.

What do you think?

It Depends on Your Definition of Fast

2011-11-07T09:20:00.001-08:00

Last week’s post discussed the FCC’s decision to end the obsolete Universal Service Fun and replace it with a new fund focused on subsidizing increased rural broadband access. One of the new fund’s requirements is that providers create a network that allows for 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload speeds. Despite what some might say, that’s not fast.

Need proof? Consider this: Competitive Companies Inc. (CCI) just announced that it has deployed its 4G+ Mobile Broadband technology with average mobile broadband speeds exceeding 25 Mbps. And that’s a conservative number. Company CEO William Gray said that download speeds could ultimately be more than 100 Mbps, far faster than anything currently on the market.

Here’s how it works: To deliver 4G+ speeds, CCI uses Wytec, Incorporated’s patented Multichannel Radio Frequency Transmission (MRFT) technology. By combining that with cognitive radio and macro-diversity technology,a Group Cooperative Relay, mesh network architecture, and frequency banding, CCI can deliver super-fast broadband.The cost of delivery is also less because CCI manages spectrum use and administers transmission power.

Back to speed. On one hand, the government is pushing old technology that requires certain speeds that many would consider irrelevant. On the other hand, you have companies developing technologies that are faster, cheaper, adaptable, and easier to implement. The bottom line is that there’s a disconnect between what’s necessary and what’s possible. The FCC needs to start thinking more in terms of the latter.

The FCC Still Playing Catch-Up

2011-11-01T06:42:00.000-07:00

Last week the FCC officially ended the Universal Service Fund, which subsidized traditional phone service, and replaced it with a new fund to subsidize broadband. The FCC bigwigs hailed the change as a history-changing decision.

Unfortunately, it’s not.

Yes, the change was needed. The Universal Service Fund was no longer a viable option because it focused on voice service. But the FCC move is still essentially subsidizing the large carriers, only this time so they can build out more rural broadband capabilities. The problem is that the changes, though positive in spirit, will likely have little impact.

The new fund requires that carriers build out a system that enables 4 Mbps downstream and 1Mbps upstream capability. That’s anything but fast. For the rural broadband user the new regulations are supposed to help, that kind of speed isn’t enough.Four down and one up is already borderline obsolete. Those requirements are also curious when you consider that rural broadband models currently exist at five-to-seven times that speed. The capability is there.

The main argument for rural broadband access is that extension of the networks to the underserved areas will open up economic opportunities. Studies already conducted indicate that outcome is unlikely. As much as someone might enjoy living the rural lifestyle, businesses still need to be able to compete. Old technology isn’t going to spur entrepreneurial ventures and job creation.

So what’s the solution? Is it increased governmental change? Or is it wiser to bet on the private wireless and cloud-based providers? Considering it took years to dissolve the Universal Service Fund, I’d put my scratch on the leaner organizations.

You Know the Rules of Rural Broadband are Changing, Right?

2011-10-25T03:57:00.000-07:00

Minnesota’s LocalLoop announced last week that it has developed, in partnership with Israel’s Runcom Technologies, a new 4G product designed to deliver Internet access to those in underserved rural areas. LocalLoop believes this new cloud-based, turnkey solution will revolutionize the industry. Rather than rely on the established notion that carriers need localized, on-site equipment to distribute the service, LocalLoop says its’ cloud-based, Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platform avoids the limitations of the existing systems, and at a reduced cost.

Meanwhile, political candidates and the established providers are fighting over money and ideas to extend the old networks. Do they not realize that the rules of rural broadband are changing?

While the old guard remains bogged down in stale battles, the upstart companies are redefining the game. Cloud-based, wireless internet service providers (WISPs) are developing new technologies that make the “last mile” talk irrelevant. Companies like LocalLoop and PowerCloud™ Systems are creating new, forward-thinking business models that capitalize on cutting-edge technologies. Perhaps even more noteworthy is that these companies are doing so using private funding. The push and pull of governmental finance options becomes irrelevant.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a statement recently that it is close to revising the Universal Service Fund (USF), which determines how rural companies are subsidized. The new rules are supposed to add emphasis to broadband communications. Based on what’s happening in the private sector, you have to wonder if the changes are even going to be effective.

Waiting for WISP's

2011-10-18T04:36:00.000-07:00

The 2011 WISPAPALOOZA conference was held in Las Vegas last week. The event is dedicated to Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs), which are entrepreneurial ventures – often privately funded – with a goal of building a wireless
infrastructure to support broadband internet access to underserved markets. Unlike the traditional telecommunications companies that are slow to market, WISPs are agile organizations that can adapt and roll out services quickly and efficiently.

One of the big announcements at the conference was PowerCloud™ Systems unveiling of its CloudCommand™ OPEN Software as a Service (SaaS) platform. The new platform will support access points from the Ubiquiti Networks' Unifi family and the Arada Systems' MaxR family. Ubiquiti, in particular, is one of the growing players in the burgeoning equipment provider market, with plans for an Initial Public Offering.

PowerCloud’s announcement is significant. Ubiquiti Networks and Arada Systems supply affordable hardware that, when combined with the CloudCommand OPEN platform, enables services providers to supply all the tools necessary to operate and manage Wi-Fi networks. More important, the cost is significantly less than the traditional systems.

The established telecommunications companies and government entities that are providing funding need to take notice. One of the key arguments in the debate to close the rural divide has been the cost of establishing networks in remote areas. As WISPs spread, the point becomes moot. And because WISPs are privately funded and adaptable ventures that can provide service at a fraction of the cost, rural broadband no longer becomes a political issue.

The Need for Better Oversight in the Rural Broadband Battle

2011-10-11T05:15:00.000-07:00

Omnicity, a Southern Indiana rural broadband provider, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last week. Just two years ago, with the governor at the official press conference, the company announced plans for expansion in Ohio while promising job opportunities. At the time, Omnicity provided rural broadband access to more than 30 Indiana counties with plans to be one of the primary sources of connectivity in the country. What happened?

The problem was bad business – the company secured loans they were unable to repay. The most infuriating part, however, is that these were government loans that now have little chance of being repaid. Was the company in solid fiscal shape before acquiring the loans? Was the government, so caught up in the idea of economic development via rural broadband expansion, blinded by the reality that Omnicity wasn’t financially viable?

Omnicity’s bankruptcy filing is a prime example of why government should reconsider involving itself in rural broadband expansion. If the need is there, people will buy the product. But all the effort – as well as the political grandstanding – is for naught if the demand isn’t strong enough. And if those in rural communities are in such dire need of broadband access, perhaps they need to consider whether they’re living in the right place.

To be sure, Omnicity isn’t the only company trying to recognize the potential in a relatively open, untapped market. But companies need to grow the right way. If the government insists on being involved, they need to do their homework.

What do you think?

Broadband Stimulus: Money for Nothing?

2011-10-04T10:25:00.001-07:00

The 2009 stimulus bill earmarked more than $7 billion for broadband grant funding. Most of the money was allocated to the Commerce Department and the Agriculture Department. According to a report put together by House Republicans, of the $4 billion so far made available, only $138 million had been spent by the end of 2010. The Republicans have asked about the status of the rest of the money.

Because no clear answers have thus far been provided, the GOP is putting forth a bill this week requesting that some of thegrant money targeting broadband expansion be rescinded. And, really, why shouldn’t they?

Proponents of the funding will cry foul, lamenting that the money is necessary for building economic growth in rural areas. In fact, several political campaigns have made increased access to broadband a key campaign platform. But if the GOP report is accurate, why has so little of the money been spent? Who has oversight responsibility to ensure that projects are planned and executed properly?

Language in the report states that the lack of implementation is equivalent to, “putting the cart before the horse.” The report also raises concerns that, “some cable and phone companies believe awards have been issued for projects that substantially duplicate their existing service areas.”

Look at it another way: If you were running a business, wouldn’t you want to know that the money set aside for building your company was being used properly? The need for expanded broadband access is indisputable; the key is ensuring that the money to build the networks is applied effectively.

What’s your take on the subject?

Sattelite Broadband - The Canadian Game Changer?

2011-09-27T05:53:00.000-07:00

For many Canadians, October 18 can’t come soon enough. On that day, North America’s first 4G broadband satellite will launch into space.

ViaSat-1 is designed to provide a fast and affordable broadband connection to Canadians, including many in remote areas. Not only does the satellite have capacity to support download speeds of up to 25 Mbps, but all current North American broadband satellites combined don’t boast the total capacity of ViaSat-1. An estimated 1.5 million customers who thus far have had little or no access will now be able to take advantage of broadband services and all its social and economic advantages.

Sounds great, right? But consider the following: Canada’s largest provider of rural broadband access, Xplornet Communications, has purchased 100 percent of the Ka-band capacity on the satellite. Xplornet already has a national, fixed-wireless 4G network, and plans are in place to launch a second 4G satellite next year.

You can look at this information one of two ways. First, Xplornet is going to single-handedly eliminate the Canadian rural divide, long a hot-button issue. The other, more conspiratorial perspective, questions how wise it is for one company to have such overwhelming dominance of the market.

Other countries, like France, Australia, Germany, and India have already determined that 4G satellite broadband, with its speed and increased capacity is the key to providing affordable access for everyone. But is it prudent for any nation to allow one company that much power?

What’s your perspective on this substantial shift?

A Global Broadband Conundrum

2011-09-20T10:41:00.000-07:00

In a post a few weeks ago, I discussed the growing broadbandaccess divide between urban and rural areas in the United States. Some believe it’s imperative that access be expanded to rural areas to bridge the information gap and improve economic opportunities. Others feel the focus should be on improving the quality of access in more densely populated areas.

A report issued this week by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) adds a new layer to that discussion. According to the report, the broadband access gap between countries is also increasing. South Korea sits at the top of the list in terms of communication technology, followed by several European nations.

The United States dropped three spots in this year's report, coming in at number 17. According to the ITU, the U.S. has lower, "penetration rates for mobile cellular subscriptions and households with computer and Internet."

The average American citizen averages 27Megabits/second of Internet bandwidth to their name. In comparison, the average European citizen has an estimated 77 Mb/s. Pretty substantial.

Now the questions becomes the following: If the United States is to try and keep up--or even improve--on a global level, what is the best strategy? Is it better to extend broadband access within the U.S. to these remote areas, or is the country better served by improving the infrastructure where the majority of people are clustered? Who’s the better customer? Of particular importance is the age of these potential target markets. Younger people are more likely to adapt to technology.

What’s your perspective?

Swapping the Spectrum

2011-09-12T06:28:00.001-07:00

In his American Jobs Act speech to Congress last week, President Obama presented the idea of incentive auctions to generate money for paying down the deficit while freeing up space for wireless broadband on the broadcast spectrum.

An incentive auction, in this scenario, would be when a wireless broadband company pays a television station to give up their license to broadcast on a specific frequency. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would oversee the process at a cost.

The President says the plan would increase broadband availability while creating jobs. Supporters also believe that a large chunk of the television spectrum should be earmarked for wireless broadband use because of the increasing prevalence of smart phones and tablet computers. Those devices need space to operate. Opponents argue that incentive auctions would lead to fewer free-to-consumer TV stations and hurt the over-the-air market.

Both sides have a point. The need for wireless broadband access is only going to increase. If space is out there not being used – and realistically may not be used in the near future – why not make it useful? On the other hand, pay television companies have been increasing their rates to consumers for years. Content creators are finding new, less expensive ways to market directly to the general public. For the “cut the cord” movement to work, the broadcast spectrum has to accommodate the over-the-air signals.

And so the debate continues. What do you think is more valuable, broadband availability or space on the broadcast spectrum?

The Rural Divide

2011-09-07T07:26:00.000-07:00

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced last week that telecommunications companies in 16 states would receive federal funding to expand broadband Internet access in rural areas. More than $103 million – $90 million from infrastructure loans, the rest supplied by the USDA’s Community Connect grants program – will be shared by Alabama, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

The funding is intended to minimize the information gap between urban and rural areas. Recent reports estimate that 1 in 10 American’s don’t have access to a quality Internet connection. An FCC report titled Bringing Broadband to Rural America reported that 28% of rural America, or about 19 million people, have insufficient Internet access.

The logic behind the funding is this: Without access to a quality broadband connection, people in these rural areas have reduced economic opportunities. In addition, the educational infrastructure suffers. Proponents argue that, long-term, younger people won’t stay in these remote areas without quality connectivity.

But would they stay anyway?

For the sake of argument, consider the following: If there were no jobs or growth opportunities in an area, would the people in that area flee no matter where they were located? People will always search for a better way of life. If you choose to live in a remote part of the country, is it the government’s responsibility to provide you with the connectivity comforts of a more populated area?

What’s your take on the subject? Are the potential downstream economic advantages worth the associated costs?

VSAT for Rural Egypt... Better Than Nothing?

2011-08-30T06:59:00.000-07:00

When I read in the news this morning that a new deal was reached to provide broadband access to never-before-serviced areas of Egypt, I got excited. That is, until I read the sub-heading. It seems that Egyptsat and Skylogic have reached a deal reported over $20 Million to provide satelite broadband to rural Egypt.

First of all, to be fair we have note that the term "rural" as it applies to a desert climate is not quite the same as when we use it in the U.S. Over half of Egypt has a population density averaging 5 people or less per square mile. of course, that doesn't mean there are households of 5 every mile. It means there are communities of 500 that are 100 miles apart.

So, when columnist Robert Briel reported that the deal would "provide broadband services to users beyond reach of terrestrial or wireless networks across Egypt" it's not too hard to imagine the accuracy of his statement. Remember that even wireless broadband needs wires as a backbone. It would seem obvious, then, that satellite broadband is the only answer.

But what have we forgotten? What about the costs to install thousands of satellite dishes? Maintain them? Service them? Will a customer be served well over time to have invested in a dish that will need replaced every 3 to 5 years (or more frequently in the desert climate). When we consider the long-term cost of the local access amortized over time, the reality is that laying a grid of fiber today could pay for itself in under a decade--which is less than 1/3rd it's expected service life. Is VSAT the best option that rural Egypt really has?

Rural Broadband Infographic

2011-08-25T07:38:00.000-07:00

When I think of all the ways to try and communicate to people why fixed wireless broadband is a technology that demands investment for rural areas, this infographic speaks volumes (courtesy of IIA).

Broadband and Specialization

2011-08-16T05:14:00.000-07:00

Growing up, to get a job at McDonald's meant you would learn a lot. Sure, it was a thankless job, but it gave a teenager the chance to learn about responsibility, customer service, taking orders, counting money, and generally the ways of the world. Broadband, and all the business systems that it empowers, is about to change that.

Fast food chains like McDonald's are realizing the efficiency of specialization more and more. What if the staff at the restaurant didn't need to operate an order-entry system? What if the back-room at a restaurant was simply an on-site production unit staffed only to meet the needs of food production in-store?

How could that work?

Simple. The drive up ordering microphone simply connects you via VoIP to an order-taker at a call-center in Dubai, or perhaps in his/her own home office. The order is entered into the computer and displayed to the people in the shop for them to assemble. Specialization!

But how far can this go? Restaurants are just one example of a localized business unit with on-site staff for everything from production to finance. What about banks? Why do tellers need to be on-site? I remember the first time that I visited a bank where -- for security purposes -- tellers communicated with me via closed-circuit television from behind a brick wall. Why not across town, or across an ocean? If one person can be trained to do nothing but appointment-setting, then countless chairs behind the window at doctors and dentists offices could be found vacant--replaced with an off-site specialist.

The point is this: as broadband connects the world at higher and higher speeds, there is less and less of a need for each site, each franchise, each individual store to staff on-site for business operations that can be entered elsewhere. Where else could your job be done, and for how many sites could one person do it if that's all they had to focus on?

Who Should Government Regulators Listen To?

2011-08-09T08:34:00.000-07:00

Jeffrey Carlisle, EVP of Regulatory Affairs for the controversial new broadband provider, LightSquared, made a suprising statement yesterday. In referencing a recommendation by the National Executive Committe for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, & Timing (that's a mouthful) to the FCC, Carlisle said it “should be given no weight by the commission.” Which, on the surface sounds harsh, but begs the question: who, then, can policy-makers trust?

Carlisle's argument is not unintelligent. The board's recommendation that the FCC should refuse LightSquared's use of spectrum previously dominated by satellites was reached before LightSquared announced it's plans to avert any ill-effects of their technology. Carlisle also pointed out that the board, while having an impressive title, does not write policy or have any real "power" over executive decision.

What Carlisle didn't include in his appeal (and wisely so, perhaps) is the fact that this "National Executive Committee" consists primarily of private-sector agents representing the interests of businesses who stand to be affected by LightSquared's new technology. Why does that matter? It means that Carlisle and LightSquared cannot be slanted as the only party in this matter with financial motives at heart. The FCC must decide what's just and what's best for the nation's communication infrastructure realizing that both their National Executive Committee and LightSquared's appeals have commercial motives.

The trouble is: whose advice can the FCC trust? The reality is that the best and brightest minds in a capitalist world will be employed in the private sector. So, when the government needs unbiased and highly technical analysis, who will perform it?

I don't envy the FCC's role in making this decision. Whichever direction they decide to go, much criticism will befall them. If the businesses dependent on satellite technology suffer because of the FCC's decision to permit LightSquared to proceed, age-old industries will be at risk. However, the FCC also stands the potential err of protecting established industry at the cost of single-handedly destroying an innovating tech start-up. Quite honestly, that prospect scares me.

The answer, perhaps, lies in the T-Com industry at-large. Competitors, vendors, and allies of LightSquared should consider sending their own suggestions and feedback to FCC regulators. Unbiased and biased alike, if the FCC is to make a just ruling, then more input may be required for a wide range of sources. Fortunately, the FCC has invited you to do just that. Via the website reboot.FCC.gov, you can submit feedback directly to the FCC regarding this and any other matters. So, I encourage you: consider the matter, compose your thoughts, and submit the feedback.

Apps vs. Cloud - Two Tech Buzz Words Oppose Each Other

2011-07-26T11:36:00.000-07:00

You can't watch television without seeing an ad for either an app, the cloud (a la Windows 7), or both. As the tech industry lends itself to fads and quickly-passing trends, the latest of these are apps and the cloud. They're buzz words. Important concepts? Perhaps. But the truth is that an app is just a software program, which we've had for decades, and the cloud is just a highly advanced model of terminal computing -- also in existence for decades.

What I find interesting, however, is not the trendiness of these terms (that's to be expected in the tech sector) but how the two hottest buzz-words in tech today are actually diametrically opposed. Let's look closer.

Apps. As more and more people are carrying high-powered computing devices in their pockets that we foolishly still call "phones", the software world has capitalized on the sudden spike in the shear number of devices capable of computing. And, if it's capable of computing, surely there is something it should compute. Whether it's a personal finance app, a business management app, or just sling-shotting birds at pigs, consumers and businesses alike have bought into the idea that they must use the computing power that's in their pockets.

Cloud. Ironically, cloud computing is quite the opposite. Exactly the opposite, in fact. Cloud computing is more than just storing data in a shared location. It's using the supercomputing power of mega-servers to run applications instead of the computing power of an individual device -- be it a desktop computer or a handheld "phone." Business solutions like hosted word processing, hosted phone systems, and hosted CRM software all offer one simple advantage to the customer: no need for computing on your end.

So who will win? Will we continue to distribute computing needs to client-applications, or will broadband connections serve the computers of the future much like IDE cables have in the past? It's a race: which can grow faster, the computing power of the small device or the bandwidth available to cloud terminals?

Smart Grid Makes for Smarter Consumption in Vermont

2011-07-21T05:48:00.000-07:00

Governor Peter Shumlin and regional electric and telecom utility officials announced an agreement Wednesday that they said would give Vermont residents and businesses more control over energy consumption, expand access to broadband and create jobs. The agreement between Green Mountain Power, Central Vermont Public Service Corp., and Vermont Telephone Company calls for deployment of "smart grid" technology, in which information about electrical usage will be transmitted over a newly expanded broadband Internet system serving the state. Conversely, it also will enable VTel to deploy broadband Internet access to a territory about 20 to 25 percent larger thanks to the new access to utility customers.

So what exactly is "smart grid" and how does it affect your business?

Smart Grid refers to a power grid that actually meters and reports on energy demands in real-time and then, by virtue of it's integration with the telecom grid (that's the smart part), relays that real-time data back to subscribers. In essence, it's having the ability to know how fast that little dial is turning on every meter on your block just by watching the gauge on your computer screen.

But whose going to care? Admittedly, it's not all that entertaining to monitor energy consumption on my block or in my neighborhood like watching the thermometer rise in the morning. But appliances and other technologies might be configured to do so. For example, a server could be configured to run it's nightly back-up, but only when the overall grid demand has dropped below a safe level.

Energy is about to be traded as a commodity with real-time, minute-by-minute price fluctuation depending on the good ole staples of supply and demand. When the smart grid says demand is low, the price for a kWh goes down. When the smart grid says demand is high, the price goes up. And with smart grids come smart applications.

Imagine a laptop that intelligently switches to battery power during hours of high-demand and then back to AC input for a recharge once demand has dropped. That's just one computer. Now imagine a power system for entire offices with the similar concept in place for dozens of computers. Energy costs for large offices could be trimmed significantly.

How would you use smart grid information if it were available in your area?

The Benefits of Pay-Per-Byte

2011-07-12T09:11:00.000-07:00

It's been threatened and squawked about for some time now, but pay-per-byte broadband services have been largely stayed by consumer uprising. And rightly so. The demand of the marketplace is what should guide product development and pricing. But, for a moment, lets consider the benefits to broadband consumers of pay-per-byte programs.

It could save you money. That's right! It is entirely possible that, if priced fairly, some mobile broadband users would find that they use far less than the fair usage of their plan. Of course, those who are opposed to this pricing model are not likely in this category, so let's move on.
It would drive demand for WiFi once again. With a more bandwidth-conscious consumer, there will be again a demand for WiFi meshes and hotspots. The development of these projects have stalled recently due to the ubiquitous coverage of wireless broadband, but if consumers were asked to pay for their usage, they would quickly look for more cost-effective solutions, demanding WiFi infrastructure once again.
It would speed up the Internet. No seriously! If there is a cost to download senseless data, random videos, huge apps, and music then traffic would shrink -- at least, the clutter would shrink. It's kind of like toll roads. Their generally faster to travel because fewer people get on them. Only those who are serious about transit will pay for the access to the freeway.
It would make broadband efficiency a central topic. When oil reserves seemed limitless, we built cars that required a gallon of gasoline to travel just 7 or 10 miles. As petroleum has become more precious, it's forced car designers to become more efficient. Software today is designed with the premise that bandwidth is limitless, and thus patches, updates, frequent API calls, back-and-forth syncing, etc. are used without any discretion -- resulting in a slower user experience.

In the end, the key is determining a fair price. Proposals for the per-byte costs have been met with resistance because they don't seem to fairly equate the value of the byte with the dollars asked. But, if the supply and demand can meet at a reasonable price, then maybe (juuuuust maybe) pay-per-byte could have positive impacts on the technology industry.

Adaptrum's White Space "Super Wi-Fi" Tests Positively in Cambridge

2011-07-05T11:22:00.000-07:00

My Google Reader on the keyword "broadband" was flooded today with headlines about one story: Adaptrum's white space technology was unveiled in the UK and... drum roll please... IT WORKED! Great. So what does that mean?

First of all, what is White Space spectrum?
Imagine that TV channels are like those people who inherently shout every time they're on a cell phone as though they were still using one of the giant gray bricks from back in the 80's. In a large room, if 5 or 6 of these people are all trying to have a conversation at one time, they will need to spread out. One loud mouth can't chat on his cell phone right next to another. And when they spread out, they leave unfilled space between them. Then, in walks you: the super-cool guy wearing your bluetooth headset and talking at a normal volume. You can walk freely in and among these other loudmouths without disturbing their conversation, nor them disturbing yours. You're walking in the white space.

When the FCC licenses channels, such as TV channels, they don't abut them one after another. This is why I grew up watching a TV that utterly confused a young kid trying to learn to count. We started at 4, then 6, then 8, then 13, 18, 23, 40, and 59. What's up with that? The FCC has to leave un-used white space between these loud channels so as to avoid interference.

What is so revolutionary?
That's great, but this spectrum has been here for decades. What has Adatprum done that's so new? For starters, they have made a solution that navigates the dynamic nature of white space. Transmitters are typically provisioned for one specific spectrum. Adaptrum scans the local channels (just like your TV would when you first plug it in) and finds the safe white spaces where it can transmit.

More than that, though, it has gotten the FCC's approval to use these white spaces without licensing. Among the unseen costs of your wireless broadband are the fees that carriers have to pay to the FCC for the rights to exclusively own their spectrum. Because Adaptrum is programmed to "play nice" with existing broadcasters, they've finagled a way to not have to pay those fees to use a given frequency.

Where can it be used?
There's lots of talk about this becoming the next generation of wireless broadband spectrum. But, to be honest, we are years if not decades from that reality. The major providers have a lot of testing, integrating, and provisioning to do before white spaces could be added to the till for wireless spectrum on a national level.

Where this technology may see commercialization (Adaptrum is, after-all, a venture-funded startup) in the near future is in local Wi-Fi meshes in communities, neighborhoods, or on campuses like universities or corporate campuses spanning multiple buildings.

Congress Uses Budget to Undermine FCC Approval of LightSquared Wireless Broadband

2011-06-28T09:52:00.000-07:00

Money talks. The FCC needs it, and the congressional appropriations committee isn't giving it. At least, not to help the controversial LightSquared Wireless Broadband initiative get off the ground.

The surprisingly powerful U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee voted June 23 to insert special language into a spending bill that would effectively block the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from spending any money on LightSquared’s plan to launch a controversial LTE broadband system until concerns about interference with GPS signals are resolved.

The prohibition on expending any federal money means that the FCC is effectively barred from any further consideration of LightSquared’s plan. How? It's simple: even meeting to discuss the plan spends federal funds through employee salaries. In short, until LightSquared comes up with a new plan that completely protects all existing GPS navigation devices from any interference, the company cannot operate its satellite-based broadband service. As I commented in a previous post, this puts the impetus for protecting existing GPS solutions on LightSquared, not the GPS manufacturers themselves.

Not suprisingly, the hearings were marked by strong opposition from agencies such as the FAA testifying that the LightSquared plan would prevent the use of GPS in critical applications. According to the testimony, the U.S. Coast Guard would be unable to perform search and rescue operations, airlines would be unable to use GPS in landings at airports and other services would have their defense missions compromised.

Industry groups were even more strongly opposed to the LightSquared plan, suggesting that the use of an adjacent band by powerful transmitters would never be made to work without GPS interference. While representatives from LightSquared said that the problem could be solved by adding filters to affected GPS receivers, representatives of the GPS industry said that such filters don’t exist and that it would be impossible to retrofit all existing GPS devices.

Are lawmakers protecting out-dated technology by preventing advancements that would force manufacturers to update? It appears that way. The cost to implement LightSquared's technology has now been amped to paralyzing levels not with development to its own product, but with research and development to improve other technologies.

What's next: will GE be required to fund filters for all cordless phones so that their blenders and microwaves don't interfere?

Why the World Went Wired

2011-06-21T06:20:00.000-07:00

If you're a global thinker or a world traveler, you have already taken objection to the title. Just like our World Series of baseball, the World Champions of the Superbowl, and all our other national titles that we over-inflate as world titles, the same is true for this title. The world didn't go wired. America did. In fact, other parts of the world totally skipped the wired revolution. So, why then did America go wired?

In parts of the world where the communication boom came post-wireless revolution, nobody even thought to go through the trouble of laying cable or fiber. Why even waste the time. Just build transmitters and antennas. But in the U.S., arguably the more advanced and faster-growing technology markets on the planet, we exist today in a state of dependency on wired local connections.

Local connections -- key point here, we all know that wires support wireless. But what I'm calling into question is our dependence on wires for local loop. From the hub to the handheld. From dbox to d-link router. Why?

My theory: it started with consumer, not business, demand. Namely, telephone and television. In the 60's and 70's, as such luxuries were becoming more necessity than nicety, the efficiencies of airwaves was still quite low. Digital broadcast was only developed in the last decade and mandated just last year. Analog signal on the spectrum simply couldn't deliver the hundreds of channels and multiple phone lines that we were all demanding.

The result: by the 80's copper cable traversed most of the developed areas. As cellular and other wireless technology matured in the 90's there existed a sense in which the cable was there, why not use it. Aside from that, 3G and 4G speeds still hadn't arrived yet and wires still severely out-performed wireless.

So, why this history lesson now? Why think about it today? Two reasons: (1) wireless is catching up, and (2) wires aren't everywhere that people are anymore.

Development has out-paced the grid. Neighborhoods pop up in corn fields every day, and with neighborhoods come stores. More and more, new development (both commercial and residential) is realizing the costs to keep the grid up with the demand.

Meanwhile, the alternative local loop, wireless signal, is catching up. The wireless "pipe" is getting bigger through optimization of signal (i.e. digital) and the release of more spectrum (a la FCC auctions).

Will TV antennas once again be a regular scene on the rooftops? Will T-Com super-giants like Time Warner Cable change with the times and begin delivering on the air once again? Or, will we (unlike the rest of the world) keep up the illusion that every terminal, house, c-store, and business needs to be tethered with copper strands no matter the cost?

Wireless Broadband Threat on GPS Confirmed

2011-06-14T05:30:00.000-07:00

Since we first introduced the topic of LightSquared and their controversial encroachment on the GPS spectrum, it seems that the coalition to save GPS, the U.S. government, several private companies like John Deere, and even LightSquared themselves have been very busy testing the real impact of their technology on GPS. The prognosis: it's a mortal blow.

Two government agencies, the National Space-Based PNT (Positioning Navigation and Timing) National Executive Committee and the Federal Aviation Administration, tested LightSquared's technology. In May, they confirmed that the interference was significant.

Deere & Company, makers of John Deere agriculture equipment, independently tested their GPS units and confirmed that LightSquared's broadband transmitters create a dead-zone for their equipment up to a 22-mile radius.

First, how does this happen? Well, simply put, LightSquared is transmitting from earth's surface whereas GPS transmits from space. The intensity of the signal is overwhelmingly larger (40,000 times, to be exact). And, while LightSquared is not using the same spectrum that GPS uses (the FCC sees to it that doesn't occur) their spectrum is adjacent to the GPS spectrum. So, while devices used for GPS were tuned to listen very carefully to a weak signal, their magnifying technology also leaves them susceptible to interference when such a strong signal exists just a few wave-lengths away.

Second, however, is the question: what do we do about it? LightSquared has agreed not to deploy their network until a solution can be found. Awfully gracious of them considering it's not really their problem to begin with. And, mind you, they haven't asserted that they themselves must find (and fund) that solution. To date, filters and amplifiers have been suggested, but LightSquared has not (nor should not, in my opinion) bear the financial burden of deploying that fix. Their goal is to determine that a viable solution to the technological hurdle exists, however theoretical, at which point they can move forward with their plans knowing that their peers in the GPS industry have a recourse.

What's really at stake? Rest assured, plains will not fall from the sky and tractors will not go on an unguided rampage through neighborhoods--although that's more or less what the GPS industry would have you to believe. The risks are far more subtle than that. If/when LightSquared is able to demonstrate that a viable filtering option is available, there will be great costs to deploying. This could mean huge burdens for local municipalities and emergency response already working on tight budgets. Private farmers, agricutlural industries, and utility companies will have some costly upgrades to swallow in order to keep their GPS equipment in working order. All of this will mean either a higher tax burden or a higher cost of food and goods that depend on GPS, or both. Meanwhile, LightBound's continued mission is to deliver rural broadband in the interest of -- you guessed it -- economic development.

Is it all worth it? You tell me.

Is Broadband a National Issue?

2011-06-07T08:37:00.000-07:00

The United Nations reported this week on a topic that many of us already take for granted: broadband is a catalyst for economic growth. "Broadband telecommunications have the potential to spur rapid economic growth and facilitate job creation" according to the UN's position and official findings. So naturally, they offer some advice -- nay, an imperative -- to developing nations: invest in broadband. The UN's position is that every nation ought to have a Broadband Plan.

Sounds great, right? You want your economy to grow, so give it the infrastructure that it needs. Lay the cables, build the towers, and deliver both terrestrial as well as fixed wireless broadband. But I have a philosophical question. Is broadband a state-supplied utility? Is it a national issue? Is it an imperative that states can act upon as the UN would encourage?

Perhaps it is. I'm no history expert, but I dare say that the first telecommunication networks in the U.S. were government funded, if not even government controlled. Telegraph cables traversed the country along railways and served largely to facilitate state activities such as military. The first commercialization of these services were done via leasing the use of these lines from the government by private companies.

But if developing nations are to use the already-developed nations as a model, I would say that the good old invisible hand (thank you Adam Smith) built the great broadband infrastructures that we see today in Europe and America. Cables were not laid and cell towers built in order to create commerce, but rather they were demanded by those who understood that they could.

So, to challenge the UN's findings that broadband leads to economic development and job creation, let me challenge this: isn't it quite the opposite? Doesn't economic development lead to broadband by virtue of demand. And if so, then one must ask, what really does create economic development?

When Wires Aren't an Option

2011-05-31T14:08:00.000-07:00

The first thing that anyone might think of when they think of wiring a building for broadband is copper, fiber, or perhaps twisted pair. But first, you have to think of access. Will they hang overhead, or be buried deep below? Both have their pros and cons, but what some retailers find is that sometimes nether will suit. Whether it's the complications of zoning or the shear cost of access, sometimes wires aren't a viable option.

For example, as commercial real estate becomes scarce, many new edifices can be found corners of what used to be parking lots for major shopping centers. Will you trench through the asphalt? Not likely. And, simple as it may sound, with the popularity of buried fiber, piggy-backing your broadband connection on the poles overhead still begs the question: how do we go from underground to overhead?

Bud Morgan, Director of Technology for Romulus, Inc. is a 20-year veteran of the IT industry keeping the company's ever-expanding IHOP franchise base (now up to 35 locations across 3 states) connected and online. In February 2007, however, he found himself navigating such a "concrete jungle" as he called it. When wires weren't an option, he considered satellite. But, thankfully he discovered fixed wireless broadband and Accel Networks' solutions. Today, Bud trusts Accel more and more because of their ease-of-deployment, uptime, and PCI compliance.

When your company plots to build in a concrete jungle, you don't have to worry about the cost to connect. Consider Accel Networks' fixed wireless broadband and compare the costs. You might be surprised.