Verizon have started work on heading towards making shared / family data plans available to consumers and small-business owners who buy wireless-broadband service in their markets in the USA. They would appeal to people who run multiple devices that benefit from wireless-broadband service, such as the typical user who runs a smartphone and a tablet like an iPad. They will typically have a larger data allowance which is shared amongst the multiple devices in a similar way that voice-call minutes or text-message units are shared amongst mobile phones that are part of a family plan.
This may be offered as an alternative to tethering a laptop or tablet to a smartphone and may place their business model centred around the “tethering premiums” in jeopardy. But this can still lead to the goal of increased revenue per customer by them offering larger data allowances for the shared plans, especially as most of us buy data allowances in a way to provide some sort of “buffer” for usage peaks. But, for these plans to work well, they need to support sufficiently large allowances and allow a user to connect a maximum of between five to ten devices to the service; or 15-20 for a family / household plan. This can cater for different usage patterns including newer device classes such as cameras or vehicle infotainment systems with integrated wireless-broadband modems; as well as families that are very “switched-on” when it comes to technology.
The same “shared data plan” can be implemented by fixed-broadband Internet providers that implement data allowances in their business models like most of the ISPs serving the Australian market. Here, they could cater for users who maintain two or more Internet services like a service set up at their holiday house, city apartment or business premises as well as the service that is used at their main home. The service providers could then allow for a larger data allowance to be used between the locations with minimal allowance wastage due to underused locations. In some ways, it could allow those service providers who sell fixed and mobile Internet service, like most telcos to run service plans with larger aggregate data allowances that cover fixed and mobile use.
Any telecommunications carrier or Internet service provider who runs or intends to run a data-allowance model should then keep an eye on Verizon’s shared-data-plan model and assess whether to run it with their current business model. Similarly, the carriers could examine ways of taking this further with “virtual LANs” that exist across the devices on the same plan and consistent security / “clean-feed” parental-control parameters across all devices associated with an account.
There was an official launch of a commercial-service-ready Internet-service backbone based on “TV White space” in Wilmington, North Carolina, USA. The network was to use vacant frequencies in the VHF (most likely Band III) and UHF bands that were used by TV broadcasters before they went to digital technology and shut off their analogue signals. It is primarily a fixed-wireless setup but there is the ability to use transportable modems at the customer’s end of the link. One major benefit was the ability for improved “non-line-of-sight” performance which means that forests or built-up areas cannot easily interfere with the signal.
The idea behind the “white-space” network was to make Wilmington a “smart city”, a proving ground and commercial-rollout showcase for the technology. But there were some gaps concerning the rollout and delivery of this technology to customers. For example, could customers use an existing rooftop VHF or UHF TV aerial (antenna) that is still in good working order as the aerial for the “white-space” service’s link; or would they need to install a new aerial on the mast.
As well, the main deployment was to cover Wilmington’s parks and gardens but I would rather that we see a full-scale “TV White Space” rollout that encompasses one or more country towns with associated hamlets or villages. Here, this can be used to assess coverage of sparse living areas like farmland or mountainous area and to assess how a network operator can go about covering particular areas where there is low coverage.
Similarly, I would like to find out whether the service is really costly to provide to the customers and what the real-world bandwidth and service reliability is like in a “White Space” Internet-delivery setup.
I have previously stood for rural access to broadband Internet as an enabler for the rural communities when it comes to commercial or government services. But this latest article underscores my standpoint for rural broadband from the arts and culture perspective and enabling indigenous communities located in rural and remote areas.
This was highlighted by the National Congress Of Australia’s First Peoples who wanted to see increased effort in providing the National Broadband Network to the Indigenous Communities around remote Australia. This is in the form of access to arts and culture for these communities, including integration of urban and rural communities.
The same argument could be iterated in other countries that maintain scattered indigenous-people communities like New Zealand with their Maori people or North American with their Red-Indian communities. Here, they would have their unique cultures enhanced by the technology such as through “large-area” ceremonies or similar activities. Similarly, this argument could be raised for the Gypsy and Traveller communities in Europe when it comes to their access to broadband technologies.
In Australia, the remote communities that are outside the reach of the fibre backhaul would be covered by fixed-wireless or satellite links. But I would also like to see the feasibility of fibre links for community clusters with closely-located households, so as to provide higher-quality service in these communities.
Getting Congress to agree on anything is a challenge. When it comes to spectrum bills there is disagreement on both sides with how the situation should be handled. In some instances it seems that the tech community would benefit from freeing up spectrum for the wireless industry. Yet with some of the limitations proposed, it could all end up in utter disaster.
The spectrum bills are trying to define who will have access to wireless broadband. In essence television broadcasters are being asked to give up at least part of their spectrum for mobile broadband. It seems like most favor this idea, but as is usually the case, the devil is in the details.
Agreement
One thing everyone seems to agree on is providing both the spectrum and the funding for public safety entities. This national broadband network would make it possible for people to handle an emergency. In the case of 9-11 the network already set in place failed. There were issues with communication that ended up delaying some of the much needed help. With a national network, information would flow smoothly and at a much faster pace if a disaster did take place. Who wouldn’t feel a sense of safety knowing that the people that take care of major issues and crisis have an open source of communication ensuring that they are more efficient in their duties?
Disagreement
The spectrum bills asks television broadcasters to give up some of their spectrum. As an incentive, they would receive a portion of the auction price for that specific spectrum. Here’s where things get tricky. In some instances, Congress is attempting to take more control of unlicensed wireless. While Wi-Fi and Bluetooth operate in this portion of unlicensed spectrum there is a threat to other potential opportunities for advancement. Ever heard of the Super Wi-Fi (also called White Spaces broadband)? There is no guarantee that these plans or ideas would be allowed to proceed under certain spectrum bills. This may close the door to future Wi-Fi developments.
Licensed bidders like several of the big internet service providers have the ability to bid on this open spectrum. While this does generate funds and gives these companies a larger range of access, it is the everyday person looking to take advantage of the wireless system that could lose out. He or she would have to gather together a large number of individuals and attempt to make a single bid as a collective group. Even with the latest technology, the chances of outbidding larger corporations seem slim.
The final oddity in some of Congress’ spectrum bills is the geographic location issue. It is being suggested that people should bid on available spectrum in certain locations. A company may have access in one state and no access in another. It prevents a national system for everyone to take advantage of. Instead there would be a set of disconnected lines that can only be accessed from one specific location.
Progress seems to walk a fine line. On the one hand everyone wants to see improvement. The problem is that everyone wants that improvement to look different. Some internet service providers may want to make a bid for the spectrum, giving them unlimited access. Individual users have concerns that their own Wi-Fi will be hindered as there are regulations and rules for different entities in different parts of the country.
The tech industry needs an environment that is open to new discoveries. It is here that new technology is developed and offered up as progress and improvement to everyone. At this point there is no one spectrum bill that truly benefits the tech community as a whole.
Author Bio : Sam Kirby is a freelance content writer who develops articles on various topics. Sam’s main interest lies however in developing articles realted to Internet services and internet service providers.
But this one would provide a link between Darwin and Toowoomba in Queensland; and would be part of the National Broadband Network. It would pass Mount Isa, Tennant Creek, Emerald and Longreach, thus “lighting up” these towns for real broadband.
One of the main reasons in enabling Darwin with these fibre-optic broadband backhaul links is to exploit Darwin’s proximity to Asia. This means that Australia-Asia Internet links can be set up between these territories, allowing Australia to benefit from Asia being the newer business hub.
As these backhauls are laid down, it would be a chance to allow smaller communities to benefit from real Internet service. This is more so if there is encouragement for branch links to be extended out to the other communities that the trunks pass.
British Telecom are now touching Scotland and Wales with their fibre-based next-generation-broadband services.
These will use a combination of fibre-to-the-cabinet and fibre-to-the-home deployment setups depending on the location. They wanted to have 34 exchanges in Scotland and 16 exchanges in Wales fibre-ready by 2012 with two thirds of UK premises passed by their fibre-optic network by 2014. This is part of their bid for the latest round of Broadband Delivery UK funding.
How I see it is that the upgrades are happening in the face of various local-focused rural-broadband-enrichment activity that is taking place through various parts of rural UK. In some cases, it could lead to the creation of competitive next-generation broadband like what is occurring in France where providers can compete on an infrastructure level. It may then put BT “on notice” about the pricing and quality of their service as far as consumers and retail Internet providers are concerned due to the availability of this competing Internet infrastructure.
At least these kind of rollouts could then allow for vibrant competition in Internet service delivery in the UK.
Through this last year, there has been an increasing number of incidents where customers of high-profile companies have had their identifying data compromised. One of these incidents that put everyone in the IT world “on notice”, especially those involved in consuner-facing IT like ISPs or online services, was the Sony PlayStation Network / Qriocity break-in by LulzSec / Anonymous.
Close to that, I had attended a presentation and interview concerning the security of public computing services hosted by Alastair MacGibbon and Brahman Thiyagalingham from SAI Global, the report which you can see here.
The BigPond incident
Over the last weekend, Telstra had suffered a security breach that compromised the user details of some of their BigPond Internet-service customer base. This was through a customer-service search Webpage being exposed to the public Internet rather than Telstra’s own customer-service network.
The privacy compromise was discovered on Friday 9 December 2011 (AEDT) and mentioned on the Whirlpool forum site. It was in the form of an in-house “bundles” search page exposed to the Web with the database containing usernames, passwords and fully-qualified email addresses of a large number of the customer base at risk.
Telstra’s response
But Telstra had responded very quickly by locking down the BigPond customer email servers and Web-based self-service front-ends while they investigated the security compromise. The customers whose data was exposed had their passwords reset with them being required to call the BigPond telephone support hotline as part of the process.
As I do maintain an email account through this service for a long time, I had taken steps to change the password on this account. This was even though I wasn’t one of the customers that was subject to the aforementioned mandatory password reset.
Telstra also maintained a live channel of communication to its customers through their own Web sites, through updates to the main media channels and through an always-running Twitter feed. Once the email system was open for business, a follow-up email broadcast was sent to all BigPond customers about what happened.
My comments on how this was handled
Like the Sony PlayStation incident, this incident was one that affected a high-profile long-established brand which, like other incumbent telecommunications-service providers, was in a position where the brand has a bittersweet connotation. Here the brand is associated with a portfolio of highly-established high-quality stable telecommunications services but has had negative associations with poor customer service and expensive telecommunications services.
What I saw of this was that after the Sony incident and similar incidents against other key brands, the IT divisions for Telstra haven’t taken any chances with the data representing their customer base. They had quickly locked down the affected services and forced the necessary password-reset procedures in order to reduce further risks to the customers; as well as keeping customers and the public in the loop through their media, Web and Social-Web channels.
The Telstra incident also emphasised the fact that the risks can come from within an affected organisation, whether through acts of carelessness or, at worst, deliberate treacherous behaviour by staff. As I have said in the previously-mentioned interview and conference article, there needs to be data protection legislation and procedures in place in Australia so that a proper response can occur when these kinds of incidents occur.
After I had reviewed this article about the apparent increase in fibre-to-the-home next-generation Internet subscribers, I had noticed a few key facts.
The areas where there was the FTTH activity taking place were France’s major cities, but where there has been local initiative taking place concerning real-broadband or next-generation Internet, there has been the activity.
A good question to ask is whether there is immediate takeup of FTTH next-generation Internet as soon as customers know that the service is passing their door? For the apartment buildings and other multi-tenancy buildings, there may be issues concerning the rollout within the buildings as agreements are struck with landlords and building-management associations (body corporates).
I would also find that the competitive-service measures such as “multifibre” (each provider maintaining fibre infrastructure to the customer” and “monofibre” (infrastructure shared by multiple providers) allows more customers to choose value for money for their triple-play Internet needs.
I have previous covered the arrival of fibre-to-the-home broadband at Hambleton, a village in Rutland in the United Kingdom courtesy of Gigaclear and Rutland Telecom.
This included doing a Skype-based telephone interview on this network. Now I have seen and provided this video which exemplifies the benefit of this real broadband Internet service to this village.
An example of this was the Finch’s Arms pub which had experienced a different from of trade that a “local” wouldn’t experience. They had installed a Wi-Fi hotspot and there has been more through the till for them due to this broadband service. They also acquired more of the business traffic again due to the high-speed Internet traffic,
Of course, there was a change of life brought about buy the provision of this fibre-optic network with the city-style Internet service being exposed to these residents. Some were even achieving reliable Skype videoconferencing sessions with distant relatives while others were making telecommuting more feasible.
From what I have seen, this is an example of what can be done to enable a village or small country town with real Internet.
There has been a lot of discussion about the Net Neutrality idea where there is to be equal treatment for data that flows over the Internet compared with a commercial desire to prioritise data that favours an ISP’s or partner’s interests or limit or throttle data that goes against those interests.
In Europe, various national and regional governments are endorsing or mandating the concept of Net Neutrality with the provision of Internet service. For example, the Berlin city-state’s regional government have recently endorsed this concept and Luxembourg have, from 17 November, moved a motion that Net Neutrality is part of that country’s national law and to be promoted through the European Union. It has already been adopted in France who have a lively competitive Internet-service environment as well as the Netherlands. As well, the European Parliament have moved motions to stand behind an open and neutral Internet.
But the mobile operators are seen to be against the Net Neutrality concept due to their investment in their cellular telephony services.
This issue is very much about permitting competitive service providers to exist in the IP-based broadcasting / content-delivery and communications space; but is also about free speech and a free press. It would also ring true with environments that push the competitive-trade issues like France and the UK; and could encompass the issue of whether mobile operators should charge extra for tethering or not.
I stand for Net Neutrality because it permits a competitive environment for providing Internet-hosted communications or content delivery services as well as permitting a free press and freedom of speech. The ISPs should really be seen as common carriage-service providers like telephone companies or public utilities.
Print This Post
Loading ...