back

Welcome to BroadbandCensus.com

What Will Broadband Do to the Universal Service Fund?

Officials from Office of Rep. Rick Boucher, CTIA - The Wireless Association, Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, and E9-1-1 Institute at Broadband Breakfast Club on January 13

Press Releases

WASHINGTON, January 6, 2009 – In telecommunications circles, a bevy of experts and lobbyists are energetically discussing the role that broadband will play in the current fiscal stimulus package.

One feature common to many stimulus-related proposals is an effort to change the Universal Service Fund. The USF currently provides funding for rural telephone service, hookups to “lifeline” service, and internet connections for schools and libraries. Change seems destined to come to the USF as its structure is revised to accomodate broadband-related funding.

Experts familiar with broadband and role of the USF will discuss the question of “What Will Broadband Do to the Universal Service Fund” at the next monthly event of the Broadband Breakfast Club on Tuesday, January 13, 2009.

The panelists are Jay Driscoll, director of government affairs for the wireless association CTIA; Gregory Rohde, executive director of the E9-1-1 Institute and E-Copernicus, and formerly head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration; Jennifer Schneider, legislative counsel to Virginia Democrat Rep. Rick Boucher; and Curt Stamp, the president of the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, which represents mid-size and smaller telecommunications carriers.

The discussion will be centered around both past efforts to change the USF — Rep. Boucher was a leading author of attempts to include broadband in the fund — and current stimulus-related proposals that bear on the fund. As with each monthly meeting of the breakfast club, the discussion will take place at the Old Ebbitt Grill, at 675 15th Street NW, in Washington.

The breakfast host and moderator will be Drew Clark, executive director of BroadbandCensus.com, a free information and news service that provides the public with an objective measure of where broadband is available, which carriers offer it, whether their actual speeds match their promised speeds, and how consumers rate their service quality.

Beginning at 8 a.m., an American plus Continental breakfast is available downstairs in the Cabinet Room. This is followed by a discussion, beginning around 8:40 a.m. and ending at 10 a.m. The breakfast club  meets on the second Tuesday of each month until March 2009. The registration page for the event is http://broadbandbreakfast.eventbrite.com.

The November meeting, “Should Government Funding Be Part of a National Broadband Plan?” featured a discussion with Stan Fendley of Corning, Kyle McSlarrow of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and telecommunications consultant John Windhausen, Jr.

The December meeting, “How Applications and Broadband Mapping Harness Demand for High-Speed Internet,” included Geoff Daily, a blogger for App-Rising.com; Susan Fox, a vice president at Walt Disney; Neal Neuberger, executive director of the Institute for e-Health Policy; and Alan Shark, executive director of the Public Technology Institute.

The meeting on Tuesday, February 10, 2009, will be on “The Role of Wireless Frequencies in Widespread Broadband Deployment,” and will include a representative from Clearwire, as well as several other invited guests.

The meeting on Tuesday, March 10, 2009, will be on “Broadband Competition: Do We Have It, and How Do We Get More of It?” and will feature James Baller, president of Baller Herbst Law Group; Art Brodsky, communication director of Public Knowledge; Scott Wallsten, vice president for research and senior fellow, Technology Policy Institute; and others.

Registration for future breakfasts is available at http://broadbandbreakfastclub.eventbrite.com.

Because of the limited size of the venue, seated attendance will be reserved the first 45 individuals to register. There are no restrictions on who may register to attend. With the exception of speakers, there is a $45.00 charge (plus a modest Eventbrite fee) to attend. The events are on the record.

About BroadbandCensus.com

BroadbandCensus.com provides data and reporting about broadband in the states, and about telecommunications policy issues. BroadbandCensus.com uses “crowdsourcing” to allow internet users to share information about their internet experiences. Take the Broadband Census today at http://broadbandcensus.com/census/form.

Broadband Stimulus Package Should Include Funding for State Data, Says Massachusetts

News

By Drew Clark, Editor, BroadbandCensus.com

WASHINGTON, January 2, 2009 – Congress and the incoming administration of President Obama should include broadband-related investment in the pending legislation designed to promote economic stimulus, and the federal government needs to begin with better data about broadband availability, said a top Massachusetts government official.

In particular, Congress should fully fund the Broadband Data Improvement Act, S. 1492, which passed last October without any appropriated or authorized funding levels. Prior to passage, an earlier version of the bill had included language authorizing $40 million for the Commerce Department to allocate to state-led broadband mapping efforts.

“Full funding of the Broadband Data Improvement Act through the economic recovery package would be a wise investment that would quickly jump-start efforts to stimulate broadband availability,” wrote Massachusetts Secretary of Housing and Economic Development Daniel O’Connell, in a letter last week to the chairs of the Obama-Biden Transition Project.

O’Connell also urged flexibility in the way that states structure their individual broadband programs, extending stimulus funds to spur broadband demand among the poor, and recognizing that some forms of communication, like satellite service, are inferior methods of delivering broadband.

Massachusetts is one of the leading states in the drive to promote universal broadband deployment and availability. In August 2008, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, signed legislation authorizing up to $40 million in state funds to ensure that broadband is available to all the state’s citizens.

In addition to his capacity as state secretary of economic development and housing, O’Connell is the chair of the Massachusetts Broadband Institute (MBI), a non-profit entity that will administer the state’s up to $40 million investment in broadband infrastructure. Last week, MBI posted the submissions it had received in its first request for proposals about the ways to expand broadband availability in western Massachusetts.

O’Connell’s letter, which included a five-page memo on the role of broadband investment in the economic recovery, laid out the approaches that various states are taking with regard to broadband infrastructure.

One set of states – including Massachusetts and Vermont – are investing their own funds in publicly-owned infrastructure, he said.

A second group of states, including California and Maine, have adapted their instate Universal Service Funds to support broadband deployment, generally through a surcharge of telephone service. Those funds are made available to companies, non-profits and public bringing broadband to unserved areas, said O’Connell.

Although Massachusetts chose “a public-private partnership approach in authorizing the use of state bond funds for investment in selected long-lived components of broadband infrastructure, such as conduit, fiber and wireless towers,” O’Connell said that the federal government should “build as much flexibility as possible into federal funding approaches.”

On the issue of broadband demand, O’Connell urged that stimulus funds go toward targeting services at “key demographic segments, such as older or less educated Americans.”

With regard to a Kentucky-based non-profit organization focused on broadband, he said that “Connected Nation has received quite a bit of attention for its user education activities intended to stimulate and aggregate broadband demand.” He also noted that “while the Connected Nation model is sometimes portrayed as a universal broadband strategy, the model does not actually involve any public investment in infrastructure deployment.”

Finally, O’Connell criticized the fact that broadband grant and loan program of the Agriculture Department’s Rural Utility Service “does not include any indication of broadband quality as part of their evaluation criteria. This policy is inconsistent with the Obama-Biden’s administration’s goal of restoring U.S. leadership in broadband.”

Separately, this week New York Gov. David Paterson, a Democrat, also wrote to President-elect Obama, urging him to include broadband in the stimulus package. In a December 29 letter, he wrote:

“In New York, we have 17 broadband projects, totaling $88.6 million, which will help New York reach its long-term goal of ensuring every New Yorker has access to affordable high-speed broadband. Of these projects, nine, totaling $8.5 million, can be completed in 180 days. These include projects to light up dark fiber across the State and county-level private/public partnership projects.”

Editor’s Note:

BroadbandCensus.com has been surveying the state of broadband, and of broadband data, within each of the United States and its territories. The articles about the 17 states profiled so far can be found at http://broadbandcensus.com/blog/?p=713

Broadband Breakfast Club

January Meeting: What Will Broadband Do to the Universal Service Fund?

BroadbandCensus.com presents the January meeting of the Broadband Breakfast Club at Old Ebbitt Grill on Tuesday, January 13, 2009, at 8 a.m.

  • Jay Driscoll, Director, Government Affairs, CTIA – The Wireless Association
  • Gregory Rohde, Executive Director, E-Copernicus/E9-1-1 Institute
  • Jennifer Schneider, Legislative Counsel, Office of Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va.
  • Curt Stamp, President, Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance

Gates Foundation Grants $7 Million to Connected Nation and American Library Association

News

By Drew Clark, Editor, BroadbandCensus.com

WASHINGTON, December 19 – Connected Nation and the American Library Association will receive a $7 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in a broadband initiative designed to improve internet connections in public libraries, the foundation said Thursday.

The goal is to ensure that all public libraries within seven states – Arkansas, California, Kansas, Massachusetts, New York, Texas and Virginia – have broadband connectivity of at least 1.5 Megabits per second (Mbps). Connected Nation will convene broadband summits within each of these “pilot” states.

The states were chosen because they have large populations with individuals living below the poverty line, said Jill Nishi, deputy director of U.S. Libraries at the Gates Foundation.

Despite overwhelming demand for technology services, up to one-third of all public libraries have internet connections too slow to meet the every needs of patrons, according to a recent report compiled by the American Library Association.

In an interview, Nishi said that the 1.5 Mbps speed goal is a minimum, and that the foundation will strive to ensure higher speeds in the seven states. In June, the Federal Communications Commission raised its definition of broadband from internet connections of at least 200 kilobits per second (Kbps) to 768 Kbps, or about half the speed that Nishi described as a “floor.”

“We believe that all people in this country should have access to high speed internet and that public libraries are a key institution in delivering this internet access,” said Nishi.

With the deepening recession, librarians are reporting that online services are in high demand for job-seekers.

With home broadband adoption rates leveling off, and with less workers in jobs and able to access the Internet at the office, the library becomes a crucial “third place” for connecting online, she said.

Among public libraries, 73 percent are the only source of free, public internet access in their communities, according to the ALA report, which was also funded by the Gates Foundation.

Nishi and the American Library Association described the grant’s focus on libraries as a key to subsequently enhancing the quality and availability of broadband within the surrounding communities.

“Public libraries can and should provide access to the ever-expanding universe of knowledge, tools, services and resources available on the Internet,” ALA President Jim Rettig said in a statement. “They also act as catalysts for improving internet services for entire communities.”

Similarly, Nishi said that by allowing for “a broader emphasis in ubiquitous deployment, a public library can expose [patrons to] what broadband can afford. In some cases, they can be a demand center” for individuals who may not have considered subscribing to broadband.

Connected Nation, the Kentucky-based non-profit organization that is funded by Bell and cable companies and by state appropriations, has emphasized the importance of “demand creation” in stimulating broadband adoption in Kentucky and in other states. It also provides maps of broadband availability within several states.

“Libraries are often the best point of internet access for people who otherwise could not afford access,” Brian Mefford, CEO of Connected Nation, said in a statement. State and local leaders must “recognize this important community service and commit to supporting local library efforts to ensure access to quality broadband.”

Under the $6,959,771 Gates foundation grant, $6,107,882 will go to Connected Nation and $851,889 will go to the ALA. Nishi said that 85 percent of the $6.1 million for Connected Nation will fund travel expenses for officials to attend the summits.

ALA’s $850,000 will go toward research and expertise in aiding the library agencies in the seven states to develop implementation strategies for faster library broadband connections.

The goal of the summits and of the implementation strategies is to find ways to financially support faster connections through means besides the Gates Foundation.

Hence the summits are designed to collect librarians within the state, state government officials that oversee the libraries, state and local politicians, and local broadband providers.

“One of the messages we want to impart [in the summits] is the role of broadband access, the information and the opportunities [through broadband], and that it is critical for every community to have this access,” said Nishi.

Nishi also said that more libraries need to take advantage of the e-Rate, which is part of a federal universal service fund subsidizing telecommunications services in schools and libraries.

Also as part of its work in preparing for the $6.9 million grant, the Gates Foundation is conducting a census-style survey of the speeds, prices and providers of internet access to all 16,000 public libraries in the country, Nishi said.

Nishi said that the speeds, prices and names of providers will be publicly released. Although major telecommunications carriers have objected in the past to the public disclosure of the ZIP codes in which they offer broadband, Nishi said that providers do not object to making this information public.

“We think that the providers will find this information helpful in terms of seeing this as demand creation,” she said.

The census-style survey is under contract to the Lieberman Research Worldwide, and is expected to be completed by the spring of 2009, said Nishi.

Broadband Breakfast Club:

January Meeting: What Will Broadband Do to the Universal Service Fund?

BroadbandCensus.com presents the January meeting of the Broadband Breakfast Club at Old Ebbitt Grill on Tuesday, January 13, 2009, at 8 a.m.

  • Jay Driscoll, Director, Government Affairs, CTIA – The Wireless Association
  • Gregory Rohde, Executive Director, E-Copernicus/E9-1-1 Institute
  • Curt Stamp, President, Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance

Free Consumer Guide to WiMax Now Available at Sidecut Reports

Blog Entries

By Drew Clark, Editor, BroadbandCensus.com

WASHINGTON, December 8 - No one has been covering the aggressive roll-out of WiMax by the “new” Clearwire (a merger of the old Clearwire and Sprint-Nextel) better than my colleague and friend Paul Kapustka, over at Sidecut Reports. Best of all, Kapustka, who specializes in the long-form, no-loss-for-detail research and analysis, has just made his “Consumer Guide to WiMax” Available online for free. (Normally, his research reports retail for $299.)

What Drives Broadband Adoption? An Aspen Institute Working Paper

Reports

Drew Clark, Editor, BroadbandCensus.com

Editor’s Note: Attendees of the Broadband Breakfast Club on Tuesday, December 9, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. - “How Broadband Applications and Mapping Harness Demand for High-Speed Internet” - may find this paper useful background material. To register for the event, visit http://broadbandbreakfast.eventbrite.com.

This working paper was originally written for the Aspen Institute’s Communications and Society Program’s August 2007 forum in Aspen, Colorado, in which the author participated. At the time, the author was Senior Fellow and Project Manager at the Center for Public Integrity. The paper was included in “A Framework for a National Broadband Policy” (PDF). Republished with permission of the Aspen Institute.

What do broadband users want? The ability to connect online through some form of access, obviously. Service that doesn’t cost a fortune, clearly. Fundamentally and personally, however, what do broadband users want by going online? Why do 47 percent of adult Americans subscribe to broadband? Conversely, why do a little more than half not subscribe? Why do subscribers keep paying their monthly bills? In considering a framework for a national broadband policy, what can we learn from considering broadband adoption trends, both quantitatively and qualitatively?

In this paper, two specific questions about broadband adoption are addressed. Both are framed in the context of also considering the availability of broadband access and the affordability of available choices; those topics are explored in other papers. For this paper, consider:
• What other factors, such as equipment subsidies and consumer education, are necessary for encouraging adoption?
• What applications—such as telemedicine, e-government, or online education—are likely to increase demand for highspeed broadband access?

Both questions are viewed from the lens of the individual broadband user to determine why individuals subscribe, or fail to subscribe, to broadband. In the first section, some of the quantitative and qualitative research about broadband adoption are surveyed. In the second section, I offer my own set of questions and personal answers about the combination of applications, education, experience, and other motivations that lead an individual to subscribe. The next section offers tentative conclusions about the broadband applications on the “supply side.” And, the fourth and final section, offers tentative conclusions about some aspects of directed “education” and “subsidies” that could potentially stimulate demand.

What Do Researchers Say about Who Subscribes to Broadband?

Research on broadband adoption shows that Americans are adopting broadband. Put aside, for the moment, the debate about whether the United States is adopting broadband as fast as other developed nations— or developing nations. The Pew Internet and American Life Project’s annual and semiannual surveys about broadband adoption show a consistent pattern of increase. Figure 1, from the June 2007 Home Broadband Adoption report, by John Horrigan, Associate Director for Research, and Aaron Smith, Research Specialist, shows the breakdown of broadband adoption across various demographic categories.

Figure 1: Trends in Broadband Adoption Across Population Subgroups (see PDF above for figures and tables)

Pew’s 2005 report argued that broadband adoption at home in the U.S. was “growing but slowing.” The 2005 report created the following model of broadband adoption:

• People do more things online the longer they’ve been online.
• Dial-up users are more likely to want broadband the longer they’ve been online.
• Not everyone wants broadband—and the people who do not want broadband typically have less online experience and are processing fewer bits.
• High-speed users switch to broadband to processmore bits, less so because of price.

Under this model, the decision to get broadband depends on the “intensity of Internet use,” which in turn is a function of time online and connection speed.69 Considering this model, Horrigan concluded in 2005 that although “years of online experience” may have driven broadband adoption in 2002, early in the growth phase, that was no longer the case in 2005.

On the one hand, this is not too surprising—early adopters, the “low hanging fruit,” have been picked. But it is important to recognize that there could be very different migratory patterns toward broadband. Internet use, rather than tapering off in recent years, could have continued its late ’90’s-early 00’s upward climb. Broadband prices could have been on the decline or network speeds might have improved substantially. That or other forces might have meant more switching from dial-up to high-speed and more adoption “de novo” of high-speed by new users.

Somewhat unexpectedly, the Pew 2006 report found home broadband adoption growing 40 percent from March 2005 to March 2006— twice the growth rate of the preceding year. Horrigan writes, “A significant part of the increase is tied to Internet newcomers who have bypassed dial-up connections and gone straight to high-speed connections. This is a striking change from the previous pattern of broadband adoption.” Among the factors, many of them new for that year, Horrigan identified:

• There was strong growth in broadband adoption by African Americans and by people with low levels of education.
• Digital subscriber line (DSL) market share increased, driven by aggressive price-cutting by DSL providers.
• About 48 million Internet users were posting online content, the majority of whom are home broadband users.
• Awareness about Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) increased 86 percent between February 2004 and December 2005.

Jump forward one more year, to the June 2007 report, and the adoption growth rate is down again. Figure 2 is Pew’s chart of year-to-year growth grates in home broadband adoption.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Pew data from 2003 to 2007 show similar trends year-to-year growth grates in home broadband adoption. The number of “high-speed lines” (200 kbps in either direction) grew 32 percent, from 32.5 million on June 30, 2004, to 42.9 million on June 30, 2005. The number of such lines grew 52 percent, to 64.6 million, by June 30, 2006.

Figure 2:Year-to-year growth rates in home broadband adoption

Of those 64.6million lines (themost recent total fromthe FCC), 50.3 million served primarily residential end users. Of those residential broadband connections, the FCC reported that 55.2 percent of subscriptions were cable modem connections, 40.1 percent were asymmetric DSL connections, 0.2 percent were symmetric DSL or traditional wireline connections, 0.9 percent were fiber connections, and 3.7 percent were other types of technologies, including satellite, terrestrial fixed or mobile wireless (licensed or unlicensed), and electric power lines. The FCC says that broadband is available via DSL to 79 percent of local telephone company subscribers and via cable modem to 93 percent of cable television subscribers.

It is increasingly clear that there are two major groups of people who have not yet subscribed to broadband: dial-up users and non-Internet users.Dial-up usersmay be “happy dial-up users” because they get what they want out of their slower Internet experience. Alternatively, they may be frustrated dial-up users because of price or, more likely, availability constraints on broadband.

Non-Internet users have rejected the Internet experience, for whatever reason. Occasionally, as is evident in the spike of broadband adoption from March 2005 to March 2006, they can be lured directly to broadband subscriber status. Many, however, simply wish to avoid aspects of the Internet, such as pornography and the threat of various forms of identity theft.

Pew also has survey results on some of the reasons that individuals choose to take broadband, based on three separate surveys—January 2002, February 2004, and December 2005 (Table 1).

Table 1: Reasons for choosing high-speed Internet connection at home

The leading response to the survey: “Faster access/Greater speed” in January 2002 and December 2005 and “Previous connection was too slow/frustrating” in February 2004. The latter response may be effectively identical to the former. Indeed, at the spring 2007 meeting of the Aspen Institute Roundtable on Spectrum Policy, Andrew McLaughlin of Google gave a great definition of broadband: when a user isn’t constantly frustrated with the Internet experience.

If the goal is to get more people to subscribe to broadband, exclusive of considerations of availability and price, then happy dial-up users and non-Internet users are key groups to be targeted.

What Do Individuals Say aboutWhy They Subscribe to Broadband?

Understanding the demographics of broadband subscription begins to put some substance behind our key inquiry: How can individuals be motivated to subscribe to broadband?

The following model may be useful for thinking about this question:

1. Think of yourself: When did you subscribe to broadband in your home, and what led you to subscribe?
2. Think of other Americans, particularly the “happy dial-up users” and the “Internet rejecters.” How would a pitch to subscribe to broadband be targeted at them?
3. Think about individuals facing the prospect of adopting broadband in other parts of the world, such as China. It may be more exciting to consider a “fresher” market than the United States, with its more mature stage of broadband adoption.

Some questions to ask include:

• How long did you use the Internet before subscribing to broadband at home?
• How frequently did you experience the broadband Internet (i.e., at university, in the workplace) before subscribing at home?
• What companies were offering service to your home, what type of service were they offering, and at what price?
• What applications tipped the balance in favor of your subscribing to broadband at home?
• Were any other factors involved in your decision to subscribe to broadband at home?

Here are my own answers:

• I used a primitive form of Internet access, via an America Online dial-up connection, through a creaky Apple MacIntosh in February 1995. I first saw the high-speed Internet at Columbia University in August 1995. I finally subscribed to broadband on March 14, 2004—making nine years of Internet use before subscribing to broadband.
• I used broadband constantly at school, and then at work, in the years since 1995. My extensive use of broadband and work probably was a major factor in delaying my personal broadband adoption.
• I did not inquire about broadband availability in the homes and apartments I moved into in 1996 and 1997.When I moved to a home in 1999, I didmake an inquiry about DSL broadband availability (it was available), but I did not subscribe. When I decided to subscribe, I tried DSL, but the service did not work; I then subscribed to cablemodemservice. (I believe the price of DSL was $40,when included with traditional phone service; the price of cable modem service was $40, when included with basic cable television.)
• Saving money by subscribing to Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service was the primary deciding factor in my decision to subscribe to broadband. I cancelled local telephone service and Internet service. A second motivating factor was the ability to get basic cable television programming—that is, assembling an ad-hoc “bundle.”
• A final factor motivating adoption was simple embarrassment: How could I be a decent technology journalist and not subscribe to broadband at home?

My responses offer one personal window on broadband adoption. I have asked the same questions of friends, neighbors, colleagues, and sources. I’d like to see and participate in ways to publish more of these responses. This kind of qualitative, even anecdote-driven, research also is instrumental in helping us better understand broadband deployment. Indeed, when I interviewed John Horrigan about this subject, I asked the same questions of him. He told me that he made the transition from dial-up to broadband in 2003 and that one of the factors influencing the decision was that his employer agreed to pay for a home broadband subscription. Cisco Systems is another company that pays the home broadband subscription costs as an employee benefit.

Broadband Applications on the “Supply Side”

Although speed frequently is identified as the reason for broadband subscription, my personal experience suggests that usually some particular application (or combination of applications) causes an individual to reach the tipping point. In my case, it was VoIP. Almost immediately thereafter, I installed a WiFi router, enabling broadband access anywhere in the house. That technology, in turn, facilitates a host of additional applications, any one of which could be the tipping point for others to subscribe to broadband.

Other heavily used high-bandwidth broadband applications in the Clark home include the following:

• Google Earth (Three-year-olds and seven-year-olds love it!)
• Educational videos and games
• Blogging
• Smugmug photo-sharing
• Video and audio streaming, including Internet radio
• Google Calendar for sharing schedules
• “Presence,” in the formof G-mail/instantmessage integration, etc.
• Online classes.

An application such as VoIP can prove successful in motivating a broadband purchase because it takes broadband off the desktop/laptop and into another device—such as a telephone—that is frequently used. I have been disappointed that equipment manufacturers and webcasters have not taken better advantage of opportunities to embed Internet radio applications into dedicated, IP-centric devices. Of course, the TV-PC convergence remains, after all these years, very much a work in progress. When I was watching an important cablecast that began to experience technical difficulties, I fired up my laptop and watched the webcast version of the program. Viewing on the larger TV screen was not possible, however.

In addition to IP-centric capabilities taking over telephones, radios, and televisions, such capabilities integrated into refrigerators, freestanding Webcams (whether for security or other purposes), or other household devices may reach those “happy dial-up users” and even some Internet rejecters. It is better to think about such applications in specific rather than general terms. In other words, diabetes patients or prospective diabetes patients may be motivated to subscribe to broadband to participate in a specific experimental trial but not to take advantage of “telemedicine” in general. The ability to enroll in a specific class may motivate a broadband purchase. The ability to do a job from home and avoid a commute is likely to be another key motivator in nudging broadband subscriptions upward.

Educating and Subsidizing for Broadband Demand

What forms of subsidization and education are necessary to stimulate demand for broadband? In the case of subsidization, consider various potential subsidizers: governments, employers, access providers, educators, and advertisers.

Subsidization of Internet services by the government or a business partner interested in advertising is central to many municipal wireless build-outs, including services to be offered by Earthlink in Philadelphia. In San Francisco, Google will subsidize a slower, ad-sponsored version of the wireless service. Other nationwide proposals, including that of M2Z Networks, contemplate free nationwide wireless Internet access through a 20 megahertz block of radio frequencies. As discussed above, employers play an important role—possibly a crucial role—in subsidizing their employees’ broadband use to facilitate work from home. According to a study by RVA Market Research for the Fiber to the Home Council, 13 percent of home fiber optic users work from home more often—a monthly average of 7.3 more workdays at home instead of the office. In most of these cases, having a fiber-optic connectionmade their employers’ attitude toward teleworkmore favorable.

Nevertheless, most discussions about subsidization deal with the Universal Service Fund’s (USF) system of cross-subsidization to broadband services offered by carriers, not subsidization of services or goods purchased by a consumer.

Equipment subsidies have received even less discussion. Here the question must be:What device to subsidize? Among the choices are the following:

• WiFi or other wireless-enabled laptops
• WiFi routers
• Wireless access devices (for non-WiFi fixed wireless services, such as a satellite dish in a rural area)
• Other standalone health- or home security-related IP devices.

Ironically, Congress has not chosen to subsidize any IP device at all. Instead, it has chosen to offer a $40 subsidy for a converter box that allows an analog device to receive digital television broadcasts. Aside from television, subsidies for equipment seem like a stretch for the government and for employers, for the simple reasons that prices are always dropping and government always seems to have more pressing priorities for its funds. Finally, worth noting is the fact that access providers routinely subsidize equipment (e.g., cable modems and wireless access devices) as part of a package of paid Internet service.

A final point for consideration is what kind of education consumers need to understand their broadband options. “Education” can include basics such as computer and Internet literacy. In most cases, this basic education is a prerequisite for home broadband use. Education also can include broader information about the true availability of broadband services in one’s area—as well as information about actual offers of service. The Center for Public Integrity’s Well Connected Project is engaged in one aspect of this effort: seeking to publicly display the names of each company that provides broadband within a particular ZIP code. If this effort is successful, it could enable consumers to see a complete list of all companies that offer broadband within their geographic area. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also intends to monitor the information that telecommunications and cable companies provide about high-speed Internet service in the service plans they offer to customers.

Broadband Breakfast Club:

Editor’s Note: Join the next Broadband Breakfast Club on Tuesday, December 9, 2008, on how broadband applications – including telemedicine – can harness demand for high-speed internet services. Register at http://broadbandbreakfast.eventbrite.com

Why BroadbandCensus.com Supports the National Broadband Strategy Statement

Blog Entries

By Drew Clark, Editor, BroadbandCensus.com

Editor’s Note: This blog entry was originally posted as a response to a post on the Open Infrastructure Alliance listserv, about the National Broadband Strategy effort that Jim Baller, of Baller Herbst Law Group, has been shepherding.

WASHINGTON, December 5 - I founded BroadbandCensus.com in January 2008 after my experience of trying to use the Freedom of Information Act to obtain some very basic broadband information: the names of the carriers operating in each ZIP code. We have not yet succeeded in this task.

We don’t pretend that this data is in itself crucial or even important broadband information. Rather, it is a simple building block upon which citizen-users are empowered to build, through crowdsourcing, new layers of public information about speed, price, availability, reliability and competition.

The fight to get data is still important, and it shouldn’t be abandoned. Indeed, the possibility of getting this kind of data is the very reason that I am optimistic about the momentum that Jim Baller has been building behind this national broadband strategy. This is one key reason that BroadbandCensus.com is a proud signatory of the strategy statement.

At the event on Tuesday, I stood up and asked Larry Cohen, head of the Communications Workers of America and its speedmatters.org web site, whether he would be willing to also include carrier-specific information (i.e. whether a particular speed tester is using Comcast, Verizon Communications, or someone else). He said yes. (CWA has been very involved in Jim’s coalition-building.)

In other words, once CWA implements what Cohen said it would - on speedmatters.org or elsewhere - the public would then know not only which areas of the country have the fastest and slowest speeds. It would also know which carriers, in all different parts of the country, have the fastest and slowest speeds. Additionally, as more carriers begin to implement bandwidth tiers and caps, the need for a variety of services to monitor the carriers’ behavior becomes all the more necessary.

There are so many players that could be involved in these efforts. Besides speedmatters.org, which does have an impressive collection of data, there is, of course, DSL Reports. And - dare I mention it - there is Connected Nation. For all the criticism that Connected Nation has been subject to, it is worth noting that they have assembled an impressive amount of location- and infrastructure-specific broadband information. All that needs to happen, now, is for that data to be linked back up to the carriers that provided it — so that citizen-consumers can take the data and make good use of it. The same holds true for data collected by states, like Massachusetts, California, North Carolina and Nebraska. Think of what the users of Google Earth add on top of a simple, physical map - whether that map is generated based upon resources of the federal government, state and local governments, or private sector actors.

Being involved in creating this kind of a public mashup of carrier-, government- and citizen-data is the very purpose of BroadbandCensus.com. And if CWA and others are willing to share and open up their information (for example, all of the content on BroadbandCensus.com is published under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License), there will be much better results than if any individual data aggregator was acting alone.

Jim Baller has been able to get all the key parties together. And as everyone has acknowledged that there needs to be some kind of a strategy, everyone has also acknowledged that there needs to be some kind of metrics, or ways of measuring true performance toward broadband objectives. I see the broadband mashup that I’ve outlined above as a crucial guardian of carrier accountability.

There will undoubted be many questions about where and how to undertake deployment decisions. Such decisions will not be made by a single actor, e.g. the federal government. They will instead be made by thousands of entities and individuals, including the feds, the state broadband and telco bodies, regional development officials, community broadband activists, owners of homes and apartments “with tails,” and, of course, individual carriers and customers. Many of these decisions - i.e. universal service fund deployment - cannot be made on an economically rational basis without this data.

However this all takes shape, the broadband marketplace will be better served by transparency about what is happening in the market - with speeds, with prices, with granularity measures of availability, with consumer ratings on reliability and quality, and, of course, with as complete information as possible on _who_ those competitors are.

This is why BroadbandCensus.com supports the national broadband strategy effort that Jim Baller has been piecing together, and why we are very encouraged by everyone talking about it together.

Broadband Breakfast Club:

Editor’s Note: Join the next Broadband Breakfast Club on Tuesday, December 9, on how broadband applications – including telemedicine – can harness demand for high-speed internet services. Register at http://broadbandbreakfast.eventbrite.com

What Role Does Entertainment, E-government, and Telemedicine Play in Driving Broadband?

Officials from Walt Disney, Public Technology Institute, Institute for e-Health Policy, App-Rising.com and BroadbandCensus.com at Broadband Breakfast Club on December 9

Press Releases

WASHINGTON, December 2, 2008 – Officials representing the users of high-speed internet services – particularly in the fields of entertainment, e-government, and telemedicine – will appear at the next monthly event of the Broadband Breakfast Club on Tuesday, December 9.

The panelists are Susan Fox, vice president of government relations for Walt Disney; Neal Neuberger, executive director of the Institute for e-Health Policy; Alan Shark, executive director of the Public Technology Institute; and Geoff Daily, a telecom blogger at App-Rising.com.

The discussion will be centered around the theme of “How Applications and Broadband Mapping Harness Demand for High-Speed Internet.” As with each monthly meeting of the breakfast club, the discussion will take place at the Old Ebbitt Grill, at 675 15th Street NW, in Washington.

Breakfast host and moderator Drew Clark, executive director of BroadbandCensus.com, will join in the discussion and offer his perspective on how broadband mapping can help aggregate demand for high-speed services.

Adoption of broadband is widely regarded as one of at least three core components of a national broadband strategy that also includes access (broadband is universally available) and affordability (prices for broadband are falling, as with other information-economy goods).

The Broadband Breakfast Club discussion on December 9 aims to energetically dive into the issue of broadband adoption. What applications are necessary to drive demand? What can policy-makers do to promote broadband demand? What role can information about availability and affordability – such as the free data on BroadbandCensus.com – play in harnessing this demand into new high-speed subscribers?

Beginning at 8 a.m., an American plus Continental breakfast is available downstairs in the Cabinet Room. This is followed by a discussion, beginning around 8:40 a.m. and ending at 10 a.m. The breakfast club  meets on the second Tuesday of each month until March 2009. The registration page for the event is http://broadbandbreakfast.eventbrite.com.

The November meeting, “Should Government Funding Be Part of a National Broadband Plan?” featured a discussion with Stan Fendley of Corning, Kyle McSlarrow of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and telecommunications consultant John Windhausen, Jr.

The meeting on Tuesday, January 13, 2009, will be on “What Will Broadband Do to the Universal Service Fund?” It will feature Gregory Rohde, Executive Director, E-Copernicus/E9-1-1 Institute, and other panelists.

The meeting on Tuesday, February 10, 2009, will be on “The Role of Wireless Frequencies in Widespread Broadband Deployment.”

The meeting on Tuesday, March 10, 2009, will be on “Broadband Competition: Do We Have It, and How Do We Get More of It?” and will feature James Baller, president of Baller Herbst Law Group; Art Brodsky, communication director of Public Knowledge; Scott Wallsten, vice president for research and senior fellow, Technology Policy Institute; and others.

Registration for future breakfasts is available at http://broadbandbreakfastclub.eventbrite.com.

Because of the limited size of the venue, seated attendance will be reserved the first 45 individuals to register. There are no restrictions on who may register to attend. With the exception of speakers, there is a $45.00 charge (plus a modest Eventbrite fee) to attend. The events are on the record.

About BroadbandCensus.com

BroadbandCensus.com is a free information and news service, launched in January 2008, that provides the public with an objective measure of where broadband is available, which carriers offer it, whether their actual speeds match their promised speeds, and how consumers rate their service quality.

BroadbandCensus.com provides data and reporting about broadband in the states, and about telecommunications policy issues. BroadbandCensus.com uses “crowdsourcing” to allow internet users to share information about their internet experiences. Take the Broadband Census today at http://broadbandcensus.com/census/form.

National Broadband Strategy Week Begins Today, 10 a.m., in Dirksen Senate Building

News

By Drew Clark, Editor, BroadbandCensus.com

WASHINGTON, December 2 – A total of 55 companies and non-profit organizations, including major corporate entities such as AT&T, Cisco Systems, Google, Intel and Verizon Communications, have signed on to a “call to action for a national broadband strategy.”

The document has been crafted by a wide range of parties over the past year under the stewardship of James Baller, senior principal of the Baller Herbst Law Group, and the final version was released late Monday.

Verizon was a last-minute addition to the group of signatories, having joined the list in between the first and the second public versions e-mailed by Baller.

Among the major trade groups that signed on to the “call to action” were the wireless association CTIA, the Telecommunications Industry Association, and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, the Utilities Telecom Council, and the Wireless Communications Associations International

Among the major non-profit groups include American Library Association, Communications Workers of America, EDUCAUSE, Free Press, OneEconomy, Connected Nation, Internet2, Media Access Project, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, the New America Foundation and Public Knowledge.

BroadbandCensus.com is also a signatory to the “call to action.”

Baller released the final version in anticipation of a 10 a.m. press conference in room G-50 of the Dirkson Senate Office Building.

“What’s most remarkable about this initiative is that so large and diverse a group of organizations agreed not only on the terms of our call to action statement, but also to continue to work together to build consensus on the substance of a national broadband strategy,” Baller said in a statement.

He also said that the call to action commits its signatories “to continue to work together to address key issues and priorities and to hold an event to present more specific recommendations to President Obama, Congress and the American people.”

The “call to action” includes general principles about the need for advanced communications capabilities, highlights the fact that “too many Americans still do not have access to affordable broadband,” and sets five goals for a comprehensive government strategy that would promote broadband.

The five goals are that (a) every American home and institution should have access to broadband, (b) access to the Internet should be open to all users and content providers, (c) network operators “must have the right to manage their networks responsibly, pursuant to clear and workable guidelines and standards,” (d) the broadband marketplace “should be” competitive; and (e) U.S. broadband networks should have the performance and capacity necessary to allow this country to be competitive in the global marketplace.

The document then outlines policies to stimulate investment, policies to stimulate adoption and use, and measures for “a system for regular and timely collection and publication of data” on broadband deployment, adoption and use.

The meeting of the call to action for a national broadband strategy isn’t the only major broadband-related event being held in the coming week. On Thursday, the Massachusetts Broadband Institute is presenting a “Call for Solutions” in Northampton, Mass., on ways to enable broadband throughout western Massachusetts.  And on Saturday, the Internet for Everyone group, coordinated by Free Press and supported by Google, is hosting a “Town Hall Meeting” in Los Angeles designed to “kick-start the movement to make an internet connection a right of every American.”

And on Tuesday, December 9, BroadbandCensus.com is hosting the second of its five-part series, the Broadband Breakfast Club, on “How Broadband Applications and Mapping Harness Demand for High-Speed Internet” in Washington. The event will take place at the Old Ebbitt Grill from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m., and will feature speakers from App-Rising, the Public Technology Institute and Walt Disney.

Broadband Breakfast Club:

Editor’s Note: Join the next Broadband Breakfast Club on Tuesday, December 9, on how broadband applications – including telemedicine – can harness demand for high-speed internet services. Register at http://broadbandbreakfast.eventbrite.com

Support the Broadband Census!

Will You Support BroadbandCensus?
Name on web site (Anonymous? Leave Blank)

Broadband Census Articles and Documents of Interest:

States Seeking Better Broadband Nationwide Turn and Make a Local Focus

News

By Drew Clark, Editor, BroadbandCensus.com

November 11 – State telecommunications officials concerned about the universal deployment and use of high-speed internet services joined together at a San Jose conference on Thursday to compare notes, plot strategy and encourage programs and activities that will lead to better broadband nationwide.

The states represented at the conference, the broadband summit of the Federal Communications Commission and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, were from Alaska, California, Iowa, Indiana, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Tennessee.

The FCC-NARUC joint summit meeting was the first in three years – or the first since the last sputtering of the legal battles precipitated by the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Those fights concerned whether state regulators should have a say in setting competition rules for telephone services.

By the end of 2004, federal courts had sided with Bell companies in urging federal regulation of telecommunications, cutting state regulators out of interstate communications. Internet services have generally also fallen in that category, often hamstringing the efforts of state regulators to act on broadband access within their states.

This focus on federal telecommunications policy is one reason why it is the notion of a national broadband strategy that has been the talk of Washington policy circles in the lead-up to the presidential election.

Many want and expect the administration of president-elect Barack Obama to take significant action in improving the nation’s broadband infrastructure.

The state officials convening at the broadband summit were clearly going local.

They were largely focused on getting their own houses in order – by ensuring that state and local officials had the proper data and tools to understand specifics about local broadband availability, adoption, speeds, prices and performance.

“While great progress has been made in the deployment of new technologies…, it is important for us to create strategies to address both aspects of our technology: speed and availability,” said Mark Johnson, a regulatory commissioner from Alaska.

“Broadband at 768 kilobits per second (kbps) is just the beginning,” Johnson said, referring to the FCC’s March decision changing the definition of broadband from 200 kbps to 768 kbps.

Johnson wants “to consider policies that permit the delivery of data at 2.5 [megabits per second] (Mbps), 10 Mbps and higher, and ensure that these services are extended to Americans throughout the country,” including the most remote parts of Alaska.

California Public Utility Commissioner Rachelle Chong praised California’s Broadband Task Force for its aggressive efforts to map out broadband within the state, and encouraged the federal government to follow California’s “granular” approach to mapping, as well as its high goals for speeds: 50 Mbps by 2015.

In June, the FCC released an order that would collect broadband statistics on the census tract level, or an area that is slightly smaller than the 5-digit ZIP codes in which it currently collects data.

And in October, Congress passed a law, the Broadband Data Improvement Act, requiring that FCC to report annually to Congress on broadband data, and to create a framework for state governments to collect additional broadband data.

Chong also encouraged “federal or state models for permitting standards and encouraging collaboration among providers. For example, in California, CalTrans provides notice to interested telecommunications providers of highway projects, so that fiber conduit can be laid while the roads already are opened up for repair, or are being built.”

BroadbandCensus.com also presented at the conference, as did officials from Google, the Pacific Research Institute, the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies, and grant recipients from a fund created by the California Broadband Task Force.

The joint summit was presided over by Deborah Taylor Tate, a Republican member of the Federal Communications Commission whose term expires when the next Congress begins its work, and Larry Landis, Indiana Utility Regulatory Commissioner.

Tate heralded the summit as “historic” and said that existing local, state and regional broadband initiatives “will have a positive and lasting impact on the future of broadband deployment.”

Tate stated that “[b]roadband is vital to this nation’s information revolution,” and brings exponential benefits to rural communities, from better access to healthcare, to connecting America’s most isolated citizens.  Regarding collaboration at all levels of government, Tate said, “With our combined expertise, we are assured of fulfilling our mission to deploy broadband to every corner of America.”

Landis, a Republican, praised outgoing FCC Chairman Kevin Martin for his focus on improving broadband deployment, and said that Martin “he has been tenacious in his advocacy of this goal.”

Landis also said that Betty Ann Kane of the District of Columbia Public Service Commission would soon produce a template upon which states can provide “best practices” information about their broadband strategies.

Broadband Breakfast Club:

Editor’s Note: Join the next Broadband Breakfast Club on Tuesday, December 9, on how broadband applications – including telemedicine – can harness demand for high-speed internet services. Register at http://broadbandbreakfast.eventbrite.com

Support the Broadband Census!

Will You Support BroadbandCensus?
Name on web site (Anonymous? Leave Blank)

Articles and Documents Reference by this Article:

Net Neutrality Advocates: Wireless Carriers’ Network Management Must be ‘Reasonable’

News

By Drew Clark, Editor, BroadbandCensus.com

SAN JOSE, November 7 – Emboldened by their summertime victory against Comcast, advocates of network neutrality said Thursday that the next front in battle for the principle would be against wireless carriers who make “unreasonable” network management decisions.

In a panel discussion on managing wireless networks at the Wireless Communications Association conference here, Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott and Google Telecom Counsel Richard Whitt said that the FCC’s Net neutrality principles would bar discrimination over wireless networks – while conceding that the networks are, for the time being, more bandwidth-constrained than wired-based network.

Wireless networks “are not different,” said Scott. “We made this mistake in the 1996 Telecom Act, and regulated different technologies under different rules, and we are paying the price.”

Wireless networks are only different to the extent that bandwidth constraints might make it harder for the FCC to prove that a particular network-management technology was “unreasonable,” said Scott.

The top lobbyist for AT&T and a vice president of the wireless industry association CTIA appeared to accept the new reality: that their wireless services will be closely scrutinized for signs of Net neutrality violations.

Net neutrality refers the principle that carriers should be barred from blocking or throttling particular applications, from prioritizing or de-prioritizing certain applications (as with Comcast’s restrictions on peer-to-peer file sharing using BitTorrent), or from promising expedited delivery of internet traffic to favored content providers.

“It is fair to say that wireless is different,” said Christopher Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA.

“We absolutely do prioritize things affected by latency, like voice,” said Guttman-McCabe. Such prioritization on the network – even though it might run afoul of the FCC’s Net neutrality rules if on a wired network – was absolutely required to ensure quality telephone calls for consumers, he said.

AT&T’s “biggest concern is [that] the wireless network is built in a granularly shared network, cell-by-cell,” said Jim Cicconi, senior vice president of external and legislative affairs for AT&T. “You can overwhelm a cell by having too many people in the same cell, [as when] everyone is trying to call home [in traffic] at the same time.”

Throttling wireless movie downloads clearly trumps voice conversations in such an environment, said Cicconi.

“Our customers expect to have a certain level of quality in their usage. It is one of the reasons that we have to prioritize traffic in the cell. We are not trying to balance them for the company’s advantage, except insofar as customers will leave us” if they have bad service, he said.

Whitt agreed that such conduct was acceptable “as long as the activities taking place are designed for a completely neutral way of applications or traffic, and they are not tilting one way or the other for competitive advantage.”

“There is some concession to the point that at least for now, maybe only temporarily, there are some limits in terms of what can be done with those networks,” Whitt said.

Older Content »