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.
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.
In rural France, a département at a time for real Internet
Previously I have mentioned about Gironde being the location of a département-wide fibre-optic backbone rollout with an intention to reduce the digital divide that existed in that area. Now the rollout is underway with positive results coming through in that goal.
What is happening in Gironde
The fibre-optic trunks will allow more ADSL equipment to be in place thus enabling 7600 households who couldn’t to have Internet and 35000 more dial-up-modem or low-broadband households to have real proper broadband speeds.
There is public money involved with a public-private partnership with Orange. But the Gironde local government will persist on the project making sure real Internet service passes more households.
Delay with Bordeaux
But it is not all rosy at the moment. Bordeaux, the main economy in that area is being put back while the rest of the département is being covered with fibre-optic. Part of this is a presumption that there is full ADSL coverage in that city, but Bordeaux could benefit from next-gen broadband as much as anywhere else.
A main limitations is the competence of the bureaucracy concerning Bordeaux’s Internet rollout and this exposes the city to a two-tier risk as far as Internet service is concerned. This can be demonstrable with outer-urban growth corridors or resort spots that exist around the town. It can also extend to areas that may house lower socioeconomic classes But they hope to have Bordeaux covered with fibre-optic next-generation Internet by 2013.
Conclusion
In some countries, it may take a local-government area or a regional-government area to focus on Internet-enabling that area and it may have to be a public effort.
There is a common requirement to improve Internet access in many communities. This may be in the form of extending high-speed broadband out to rural areas or implementing next-generation broadband service around a nation or state. It may also include providing a community of financially-disadvantaged users, such as residents of a public housing estate with computer hardware, Internet access and training.
In most of these improvements, there is the involvement of government in facilitating the rollouts and the funds are derived from the money pools that the government has access to courtesy of the taxes that it raises.
Examples of the projects typically range from a local council implementing a Wi-Fi hotzone in its towns or a regional government funding a fibre-optic rollout in its area of responsibility to a national government subsidising Internet rollout projects across the country.
I have covered instances where action concerning Internet-accessibility improvement has been assisted with public money of some sort, such as improvements in Gironde and Vaucluse in France; and many other rural-broadband improvements in the UK.
Here, the question that is often raised is whether such operations should be funded by this public money and assisted by these government entities. This is typically raised by conservative organisations who prefer that little public money be spent on this kind of service delivery and would prefer that this is the responsibility of a private free market.
The free-market argument
The free-market argument underscores the fact that the public money is the “property of the taxpayer” and that government shouldn’t waste their money on these Internet-improvement projects. Instead they would rather that market forces determine the kind of Internet service that is provided.
Similarly the free-market no-public-money argument also underscores a rationale that the money to assist Internet deployment in underserved areas could be better spent on other services like health or road / rail infrastructure. There is also the fear that taxes will be increased in the area so as to cover the Internet-deployment project.
Limitations
This may be OK if there is a vibrant competitive Internet-service market in every part of the country. But where there is a monopoly or cartel managing the Internet service for an area, there can be problems with a totally free-market approach.
For example, it is easier to fail to serve communities based on perceived lack of short-term profitability. This can be aided by various personal prejudices like fear of serving neighbourhoods dominated by minorities. With this, there is less of a likelihood of catering to a changing customer mix in a community. This is more so if the change involves establishing infrastructure in a community where there could be new perceived demand, such as a neighbourhood that has been gentrified or has acquired a new employer.
Infact some of the incumbent monopoly operators in the US have been known to cry foul and organise PR and legal campaigns against municipal hotzone efforts. This is because they fear that the Internet service offered by the hotzone is to provide a competing service and undermine their monopoly over their operating area.
Why use public money
The use of public money to provide proper Internet service to underserved communities is effectively a “leg-up” for private Internet providers to provide the service to these communities. This is especially where they wouldn’t find this kind of operation profitable especially in the short-term.
Common public-money sources for Internet-service provision
Local government
I also find that the local government is in a better position to underpin local projects because they know what the local needs are. They are infact more representative of the local community and are dependent on a primary income base – the council rates or taxes — that is sensitive to local area value. Here a high-quality Internet service can attract a high-value employer which will raise the area’s effective value and income base.
Universal-service funds
Another public money source that is relevant to Internet-service improvement are universal-service funds. These are funds that are provided to communications companies and utilities to offset the cost of difficult service rollouts in order to provide a baseline level of service to all communities.
These funds may be resourced from a standard levy charged to all customers for the provision of their service, another tax base like the TV licence fee in the UK or a line of spending in a government’s budget. But these service funds would be specifically allocated for providing the communications service to the community. They are typically underscored by laws that define a minimum standard for Internet service through the nation in a similar manner to what is implemented for the telephone.
But there are other sources such as baseline federal assistance for communications and technology enrichment projects as well as international funding from multi-nation groups like the European Commission.
Public-Private Partnerships
The projects would be typically rolled out in a public-private partnership where the telco or ISP finance some of the project’s costs while the public funds finance the rest of the project’s costs.
They are exemplified through entities who represent the government and the private operatiors and are responsible for managing the project and tendering out the work that is necessary for it to go ahead. What is important about them is that the projects are subject to value-for-money tests yet have exposure to the benefits of free-market competition and the public money goes a long way towards the project with less drain on the public budget.
Conclusion
What i value is that public money can be used to assist in improving Internet access for disadvantaged communities or establishing a newer Internet technology with minimal private risk.
In Australia, Darwin has benefited from the expansion of competing backhaul networks through the country. Previously, this city only had access to a single Internet backhaul line provided through Telstra, which led to higher prices and poor service quality due to an oversubscribed data pipeline. This didn’t provide for a competitive environment where the end-users could benefit through lower service prices and higher Internet throughput.
Here, the second backhaul that is passing Darwin allows competing operators to use an independent data path and wholesale service. This has lead to Internode being able to establish a point-of-presence in this town, thus offering an unbundled local loop Internet service to customers in that area; which would be feasible by early 2012 when this backhaul between Adelaide and Brisbane is enabled.
What I would see out of this is that Darwin is able to benefit economically whether through one or more larger employers setting up shop there or the development of research facilities in that town.
The FCC have taken further steps to bring the reality of proper broadband service to rural areas closer to America.
Here, they have passed an Order to reform the Universal Service Fund and intercarrier compensation schemes in order to cut out wast and extend the scope of this universal-service-obligation mechanism to broadband data and cellular wireless service. This scheme has also been renamed the “Connect America Fund” due to this new remit.
They see it as a job-creating economy stimulus because of the concept of extending real broadband Internet to the rural areas. This could be true due to the ability for larger employers who value broadband like research-driven industries to set up shop in small towns where the land is cheaper. Other established small businesses like Main-Street shops or “Motel-6”-style motels are in a position to benefit in many ways.
This fund also has established a “Mobility Fund” which helps cellular-telephony / wireless-broadband carriers to extend their wireless footprint into the rural areas, including the Tribal areas.
The FCC have placed requirements for proper accountability regarding service provision. Here, it must be proven that the carriers are actually deploying the broadband services to the rural areas in question and that the services are real modern networks.
But there is a gap concerning the definition of the broadband services in this press release. Here, there isn’t a determined headline speed for the data services and the FCC haven’t qualified the point of measurement for a rural broadband service. This can lead to installation of DSLAMs in an exchange yet link these modems to the customers via decrepit telephone infrastructure. As I have observed, this environment leads to reduced DSL service reliability and bandwidth.
There is also another gap concerning the improvement of broadband coverage in peri-urban areas which were standalone rural towns. As I have said before, these areas may be servicing a farming industry or an area of outstanding beauty but they could be working with decrepit communications infrastructure. These areas should be worked on when it comes to building out telecommunications coverage.
They have also modernised the intercarrier compensation funding regime to encompass VoIP services. This is especially as more American households and businesses head towards VoIP telephony setups, whether to reduce call costs or take advantage of features in these setups.
From this, I have seen some positive steps to cover the rural parts of the US with real broadband and I hope that the FCC doesn’t become a toothless tiger in this respect.
Print This Post
Loading ...