For long-time readers, you know that I've been working on the 3650-3700 MHz FCC proceedings for a few years nowthe FCC created a rather unique quasi-(un)licensing rule for the band, allowing community networkers, WISPs, and other interested parties to access this resource. By 2007 we began to see the widespread availability of 3650-3700 MHz equipment.

I've begun to collect data on real-world use of 3650-3700 MHz equipment (yes, it's already being implemented in networks across the country):

WISPs have been leading the charge and people are reporting 15km non-line-of-sight (NLOS) connectivity with 3650-3700 MHz (operating at 10W) -- which is a huge boost over 802.11. Meanwhile, capacity seems to be hovering around 15 Mb per 7.5 MHz (or 20Mb per 10MHz) -- so 100Mb connections over 15km without line of sight are quite feasible using this band. All in all, that's pretty impressive for first-generation equipment. The equipment vendor Aperto is claiming that their new equipment will get 20Mb per 7MHz (so you can see the development curve is already fairly steep).

To give you a feel for the real-world implications, folks testing things out reported, "6mb/s indoor at 2 miles NLOS. The base station was a 1 sector install using diversity at approximately 50ft up on tower using 120 degree sectors" -- try to get that with an 802.11 access point.

Sooner or later metro wireless folks will figure it out (at which point they're deploy like crazy before realizing the capacity limits given population/user density). Meanwhile, I think it's fairly clear vindication as to the import and utility of the band. Hopefully, municipal networkers will check with objective experts before jumping onto what is sure to be a 3650-3700 MHz bandwagon, but all in all, this is great news for wireless networkers everywhere.

The COMMONS Project seeks:

to simultaneously solve three acute and growing problems facing the Internet: a self-reported financial crisis in the Internet infrastructure provider industry; a data acquisition crisis which has severely stunted the field of network science; and a struggle for survival within emerging community and municipal networks, who are in an ideal position to address the first two problems but often lack resources and experience to make informed operational decisions, and are also continually threatened by incumbent-driven legislation.

This week, three dozen visionaries and thought leaders are meeting in San Diego to plot out how to build the COMMONS. Information on the Workshop is available here. I'll going to look into getting permission to post the participants list (it's really an incredible group of people).

Sharon Gillett takes an in-depth look at municipal broadband and takes apart detractors' rhetoric. Gillett finds:

the real public policy issue raised by municipal wireless is not
whether cities should be involved in broadband wireless deployments. There are many legitimate reasons why they should, and strong economic drivers that ensure they will continue to be. The real question that needs to be addressed in this debate is how to ensure that city authority does not get subverted to create artificial limits on future wireless competition.

Here's more:

The review of municipal wireless activity in this Article highlights its
ability to complement four traditional functions of local government:

(1) Efficiently delivering city services. Broadband wireless enables
cities to apply e-government techniques that let them maximize the value of the taxpayer’s dollar. By deploying their own networks, cities can make police more productive, schools more cost-effective, and maintenance workers more responsive. In this regard, cities are following a trend toward customer ownership of communications networks that is evident in corporations and nonprofits, such as hospitals and universities, as well.

(2) Ensuring equity among local residents. Even in communities
where commercial wireless broadband services are available, such services are rarely equitably distributed geographically. By leveraging local government facilities, such as libraries and schools that are geographically distributed within their communities, cities can supplement private sector offerings to ensure equitable access in traditionally underserved parts of town.

(3) Promoting local economic development. This concern has been manifested in two distinct forms of municipal involvement in wireless broadband. First, cities have experimented with the sponsorship of hotzones intended to draw shoppers and tourists. High churn among the cities involved in such efforts reinforces the experimental nature of these efforts. Second, cities have taken steps to lower barriers to WISP entry, to ensure the availability of broadband services that have become essential to many forms of economic activity.

(4) Managing public rights of way. This function takes a somewhat different form with wireless infrastructure, which imposes a physical requirement for the placement and powering of radios (boxes that can transmit and receive wireless signals), rather than street cuts. Many different types of city facilities can be helpful or necessary in this regard, ranging from water towers (typically used for longer-range, line-of-sight technologies) to traffic signal poles (used for dense mesh architectures).

Gillett points out the current tensions whereby telecom incumbents are attempting to stifle competition and innovation, concluding that "creative destruction" is sorely needed:

While it may be economically rational for existing communications providers to use the legislative process to slow down the adoption of new technical and organizational paradigms that threaten their existing revenue base, the nation’s economic well-being is clearly better served when legislators allow “creative destruction” to proceed apace. Given that it is also politically rational for legislators to respond to the pressures placed on them, political compromises should be considered — for example, providing financial support to the incumbent industries and workers actually dislocated by the advent of municipally supported wireless broadband — rather than completely blocking experimentation and its potential ensuing benefits.

Sharon Gillett takes an in-depth look at municipal broadband and takes apart detractors' rhetoric. Gillett concludes:

the real public policy issue raised by municipal wireless is not
whether cities should be involved in broadband wireless deployments. There are many legitimate reasons why they should, and strong economic drivers that ensure they will continue to be. The real question that needs to be addressed in this debate is how to ensure that city authority does not get subverted to create artificial limits on future wireless competition.

Here's more:

The review of municipal wireless activity in this Article highlights its
ability to complement four traditional functions of local government:

(1) Efficiently delivering city services. Broadband wireless enables
cities to apply e-government techniques that let them maximize the value of the taxpayer’s dollar. By deploying their own networks, cities can make police more productive, schools more cost-effective, and maintenance workers more responsive. In this regard, cities are following a trend toward customer ownership of communications networks that is evident in corporations and nonprofits, such as hospitals and universities, as well.

(2) Ensuring equity among local residents. Even in communities
where commercial wireless broadband services are available, such services are rarely equitably distributed geographically. By leveraging local government facilities, such as libraries and schools that are geographically distributed within their communities, cities can supplement private sector offerings to ensure equitable access in traditionally underserved parts of town.

(3) Promoting local economic development. This concern has been manifested in two distinct forms of municipal involvement in wireless broadband. First, cities have experimented with the sponsorship of hotzones intended to draw shoppers and tourists. High churn among the cities involved in such efforts reinforces the experimental nature of these efforts. Second, cities have taken steps to lower barriers to WISP entry, to ensure the availability of broadband services that have become essential to many forms of economic activity.

(4) Managing public rights of way. This function takes a somewhat different form with wireless infrastructure, which imposes a physical requirement for the placement and powering of radios (boxes that can transmit and receive wireless signals), rather than street cuts. Many different types of city facilities can be helpful or necessary in this regard, ranging from water towers (typically used for longer-range, line-of-sight technologies) to traffic signal poles (used for dense mesh architectures).

Gillett points out the current tensions whereby telecom incumbents are attempting to stifle competition and innovation, concluding that "creative destruction" is sorely needed:

While it may be economically rational for existing communications providers to use the legislative process to slow down the adoption of new technical and organizational paradigms that threaten their existing revenue base, the nation’s economic well-being is clearly better served when legislators allow “creative destruction” to proceed apace. Given that it is also politically rational for legislators to respond to the pressures placed on them, political compromises should be considered — for example, providing financial support to the incumbent industries and workers actually dislocated by the advent of municipally supported wireless broadband — rather than completely blocking experimentation and its potential ensuing benefits.

Roycroft Consulting has just released a study of the detrimental economic impacts of not maintaining Network Neutrality. Documenting myriad areas where consumers will lose if network owners are allowed to discriminate at will, the report includes real-world examples of network discrimination:

...in 2005 Vonage, a provider of Internet telephone service over broadband access facilities, complained to the FCC that Madison
River Telephone Company had blocked ports used for VoIP applications, effectively disabling consumers’ ability to utilize VoIP. On March 3, 2005, the FCC approved a settlement agreement in which Madison River agreed to pay the U.S. Treasury a fine of $15,000, and to no longer block VoIP ports. Sabotaging non-cooperative competitors by excluding them from the “fast lane,” or extorting rents, while favored affiliates and partners are given advantages, are consequences which must be anticipated from telephone and cable companies who demand the right to discriminate and exclude. [Report Page 7]

as well as warnings about the impact this type of discrimination would have on innovation and the freedom to utilize broadband access as we see fit. As Roycroft quotes from Verizon Wireless' Acceptible Use Policy:

Unlimited NationalAccess/BroadbandAccess services cannot be used (1) for uploading, downloading or streaming of movies, music or games, (2) with server devices or with host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, Voice over IP (VoIP), automated machine-tomachine connections, or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, or (3) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections. NationalAccess/BroadbandAccess is for individual use only and is not for resale. We reserve right to limit throughput or amount of data transferred, deny or terminate service, without notice, to anyone we believe is using NationalAccess or BroadbandAccess in any manner prohibited above or whose usage adversely impacts our network or service levels. Verizon Wireless reserves the right to protect its network from harm, which may impact legitimate data flows. [Report Page 7-8]

The real-world impacts, were this type of Acceptible Use Policy extended to the Internet more broadly (instead of just 3G services) are fairly clear-cut. As Roycroft explains:

The fact that Verizon’s 3G wireless broadband service has usage restrictions associated with uploading, streaming, VoIP, or peer-to-peer will hinder innovation in these areas. If these types of restrictions were placed more broadly on network users, due to the rise of “differentiated” last-mile networks, the impact on innovation would be pronounced. If, for example, end-users have limited upload capabilities or cannot use a service for streaming, then the incentive and ability to innovate in these areas is greatly reduced. Similar restrictions have been introduced on an intermittent basis whenever the principle of network neutrality has been relaxed. The threat that network operators may introduce such restrictions on an intermittent basis also pollutes the open environment for innovation on the Internet. [Report Page 8]

Roycroft also points out the dangers of "vertical integration" to diversity of content -- and issue we have seen ad nauseum during the media conglomerization processes of the last 25 years:

With vertical integration the owners of last-mile broadband
facilities could acquire providers of Internet content, services, and applications, and sell consumers bundles of e-mail services, search engine capability, and e-commerce—similar to the bundling strategies pursued by telephone and cable companies with voice and video services that they currently offer. Such a transformation would rob consumers of their ability to choose, and diminish the benefits of competition which are currently available to users of Internet content, services, and applications.

Roycroft also points out that this conglomerization both far from done and is quite likely to hit the wireless market particularly hard (something I pointed out back in 2004 in my chapter in the book, "The Future of Media"):

Due to the FCC’s elimination of restrictions on the amount of spectrum that can be controlled by a firm in a specific market area, major mergers of wireless firms have occurred. AT&T (the long distance provider and CLEC) spun off its wireless operations in 2001. AT&T wireless was then acquired by Cingular Wireless (jointly owned by the SBC and BellSouth, [who are now also merging]) in 2004. Voicestream wireless merged with Omnipoint Communications and Aerial Communications in 2000. Voicestream was later acquired by Deutsche Telecom and now operates under the T-Mobile name. In 2005 Sprint combined its wireless operations with the wireless operations of Nextel. Also in 2005, Western Wireless was acquired by the wireless and local exchange operator Alltel. Based on the evaluation of wireless markets in 2006, some industry observers indicate that the wireless market may still be “too crowded,” and point to the likelihood of further consolidation.27 The consolidation in the wireless industry points to an emerging oligopoly market in wireless, with the two largest wireless firms (Cingular and Verizon Wireless) being owned by two of the three remaining RBOCs. [Report Page 12]

And with fiber, this phenomenon may be even worse -- since a home only needs a single fiber line, whichever company builds a Fiber-to-the-Home system will have a straglehold on that local market, thus allowing a company to determine pricing and service quality without much fear of competition. One of my favorite offerings from the report is the fact that network discrimination has already been tried (and failed spectacularly) previously:

It is notable that network differentiation has already been tried by consumers in the narrow-band dial-up world, and consumers overwhelmingly rejected that approach to the provision of electronic information and communication services once the open-access Internet, built on a foundation of policies that promoted network neutrality, became available. At one time firms like America Online, GEnie, Delphi, Prodigy, and Compuserve offered consumers proprietary data processing and data communication services over incompatible and noninterconnected networks. This approach to selling data services ultimately faded as the public Internet became available. Most of the firms that pursued the network differentiation business model no longer exist, and those that do survive have combined Internet access with their proprietary offerings.

Consumers have already voted with their feet away from the proprietary data network model, once given the opportunity to consume electronic data and communication services in an open-access environment. The reason for this exhibited consumer sentiment is the same in the broadband world as it was in the dial-up world—consumers place a high value on services based on policies which encourage protocol standardization, interoperability, and network effects. It is only now, because of telecommunications policy reversals that enable the owners of last-mile broadband facilities to leverage market power in last-mile broadband markets, that the inferior market offering of restricted access to Internet services could be forced on the consuming public. [Report Pages 14-15]

What is important to remember is that network discrimination all but necessitates the creation of proprietary (rather than open) networking protocols. And these protocols will inevitably fail to create the innovative open environment we take for granted on the Internet today. If Network Neutrality isn't protected, we all but guarantee that households across the United States will receive worse services for higher prices.

Right before the new year I posted "A Broadband Services & Pricing Reality Check" which presented a quick survey of Broadband Service Pricing in the US versus Japan. As it turns out, the Japanese services surveyed averaged about $41/month for a 100Mbps/85Mbps line.

I received a number of comments, both via e-mail and over at MuniWireless.com claiming that US Broadband pricing was higher because of the lower population density and geographic expanse. But along comes the Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) to demonstrate conclusively that multi-megabit symmetric lines are both entirely possible and can be delivered for roughly $40/month.

Read more...

Continue reading »

Two quick graphs on international broadband penetration rates. According to the ITU, in June 2004 the US was in 16th place, in December 2004, the US was in 15th place. With less than a year left to achieve George Bush's goal of universal, affordable broadband connectivity by 2007, the numbers show that we have yet to see any meaningful movement.

Here's the grim reality:

Read more...

Continue reading »

Several extremely interesting reports were released in the Fall of 2005 that deserve fresh attention, including The Residential and Commercial Benefits of Rural Broadband: Evidence from Central Appalachia, and Measuring Broadband’s Economic Impact (let me know if you'd like a copy of the full report). Together they lay out an empirical basis for both which variables correlate with broadband deployment (e.g., education levels), and some of the economic impacts associated with these broadband deployments (including higher housing prices, and lower unemployment rates).

Overall, they make a strong case for intelligent communities building networks (either in partnership with private interests or on their own). Folks like Dr. Robert Gleeson, researcher with the Northern Illinois University's Regional Development Institute, are already making the case that, ""High-speed connectivity is essential to global trade... those regions that are not connected will be left out of that growth"; yet comprehensive initiatives to rapidly expand broadband penetration continue to lag.

Read more...

Continue reading »

I recently came across an e-mail sent to one of the lists I'm on with information on Japanese VDSL services. It provides a sobering reminder of just how unbelievably slow (and, at the same time, expensive) broadband services are in the US and many other countries. Here's a brief list:

Read more...

Continue reading »