FCC chair Julius Genachowski has very big plans for his bloated agency. In one of the biggest power grabs asserted since  DARPA freed the Internet,  the FCC seeks to spend $25 billion under the pretense of providing service to those who have none and to emergency responders.

The national broadband plan that the Federal Communications Commission submits to Congress later this month is now expected to cost up to $25 billion. But since the nation’s lawmakers are looking for ways to reduce the national debt, the FCC is seeking ways to offset the cost through spectrum auctions and other measures.

To have any chance of meeting its goal of providing broadband service to 100 million Americans, the FCC will need to find support for an estimated $9 billion commitment to cover underserved parts of the country, industry observers say. Moreover, the commission wants Congress to spend $12.5 billion to $16 billion over the next 10 years to provide police, firefighters and other emergency workers with wireless Internet access.

There’s a problem here. The FCC has never been effective at delivering on its  promises. From the horribly mis-managed USF that was already supposed to delivery service where it did not exist to insuring a competitive access market, the agency spends large and fails miserably. Even if the FCC could change its stripes and actually deliver on its promises, bloated bureaucracy insures that only a small fraction of funds raised will actually provide service. Then there’s the funds. Where will they come from? Answer: you and me. Look for an effort to extend what services will have USF fees added and for new spectrum auctions. Big auctions insure that only the deepest pockets of the telcos will control wireless, keeping prices very high. Adding so much new authority to the FCC isn’t just a bad idea. It could end US broadband leadership forever.

Here’s proof that the first world standard for broadband is moving to 1GBPS.The technology is ready and cheap. In markets with actual competition, it’s an upgrade that fits right into the maintenance cycle.

My friend David Isenberg, who organizes the wonderful Freedom 2 Connect (F2C) conference, sent me a link to a story this morning. The gist of the news is that ReggeFiber, in partnership with Dutch incumbent KPN, will make 1 Gbps the standard connection speed for all FTTH customers. The company currently has more than 300,000 customers and is on target to grow to a million subscribers. Zeewolde is the first city that will get the service.

How can Reggefiber do this? The company has seen steep declines in the price of equipment — from modems to central office stuff — which has allowed it to offer this service. (Gigaom)

In light of this news, the FCC’s draft broadband plan becomes even more laughable. What’s not laughable about allowing a duopoly to control US broadband is how this will continue to erode economic opportunity.

The esteemed Congressman (Ed Markey) to the left just applauded a draft FCC broadband plan the sets a 200KBPS standard for broadband. Congratulating the FCC for doing nothing to improve broadband and spinning its incompetence as if it had does not deserve a commendation. Then again, Mr. Markey has been carrying the telco agenda forward for most of his career. I hope the people of Massachusetts have enough common sense to send this career politician packing in November.

We started this blog three years ago to help set a standard of what broadband should be in an open market. Since then, we’ve seen less competition and a less open market evolve. While 4G wireless is ramping up, those who control it are not new entrants to the marketplace. With ownership of the wireless spectrum transferred to the fixed line duopoly for a bought and paid for FCC with the blessing of a bought and paid for Congress, wireless will never compete with fixed line. So with all of the spending and talk of better, more open broadband, we have pretty much the same connection speeds and availability hat we had three years ago at pretty much the same prices. The only change the hope and change folks have provided are some very expensive studies and maps. The other political crowd who tout “letting the market work” have done nothing to actually open the market and let it work.

As Google has announced trials of GB class connections I still  think it’s not likely it will enter the market as an ISP.  Google needs to develop stuff that will leverage the class of broadband that will be appearing in the rest of the world of the next few year’s if it intends to keep its leadership position. Since Gigibit broadband doesn’t exist here, the company is building its own lab. This is also a demonstration of what is possible if a company is interested in doing it. Not a dime of tax dollars involved, and this is what needs to be done to put the US back in the lead. Blanket this country with GB broadband and the economy will boom. Dear Mr. Markey: In view of this, please explain how the FCC is serving us with a 200KBPS plan that protects the telcos and keeps the market closed?

Why do we need GB broadband? Simple. It makes your net connection as fast as a local one.  For one thing, that would make online storage work in a whole new way.  You really could keep your stuff in the cloud and use it from the cloud. A whole new industry of data centers would offer storage as a service, cheap. With good data management practices, that could also end lost data as a result of local drive crashes.  Not cheap enough  you say? Consider this: New entrant Cloud Leverage has modeled a profitable business around 5 cents per Gigabyte with no bandwidth charges. Near instant access via GB broadband would make this an explosive industry with much lower prices.

What else would Gigibit broadband enable? The thread is open. Please share your ideas.

If you are a major carrier that wants maximum distance between towers and total control of a national network based on old technology, maybe. When it comes to wireless, I think we have been and continue to take the wrong approach. We are currently supporting a big government / wireless cartel solution. There could be a better way. After all, the airwaves belong to all of us, not the FCC and a few corporations.

In a speech last year, Michael Calabrese proposed an alternative worthy of consideration.

Michael Calabrese argues that the FCC’s depicted apportioning of the airwave spectrum gives a false impression of scarcity, especially as it fails to consider the real use of each frequency assignment and the full capabilities of digital transmitters and receivers today. The government can do more to assure the wireless future offers pervasive, ubiquitous, and affordable connectivity.

By considering the two general concepts of underlay (increasing use of a particular frequency, such as in a time-sharing condition) and overlay (filling unoccupied frequencies), he means to show how much more can be done with the airwave spectrum, taking into account possibilities for frequency sharing and the adjacencies now possible without interference. He gives an example of “cognitive radio,” which operates at low power and searches out the most appropriate frequency in a given condition. (IT Conversations)

Audio link follows:

 

 IT Conversations [21:54m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

It’s a really bad time to be out of work, especially if you’re a fixed line service worker at Verizon. Good paying jobs with great benes are few and far between and the demand  for your skills is in free fall. Those still employed in the switched network trade are well advised to update their skills for a career change that will certainly come to more each year.

It’s been quite a while since I departed the world of telecom, so I think I can be objective in describing the underlying problem. The industry is so disfunctional that it more closely resembles the federal government than free enterprise. Switched service should have been ended decades ago, but that would require rule changes at the FCC and telco investment. The investment required to equip every switched customer with VoIP service is so small that the cost could easily be recovered in the first few months and that cost is falling. Changing regulations could end the guaranteed return on local fixed line service the telcos currently enjoy and could possible reopen discussion on line sharing with competitors. The last thing Verizon wants is more competition. So, no matter how compelling it would be to retrain a few of its workers and go all digital, there is no will to do so in a business unit that can’t see past the 1970’s. So, switched service continues its irrational slow march in inevitable death. My bet is the number dismissed by Verizon will be much larger in 12 months, and that fixed line service with be with us for at least another decade. What a waste.

Verizon Communications Inc., coping with subscriber losses at its fixed-line phone business, plans to cut about 13,000 jobs at the division this year after posting fourth-quarter revenue that missed analysts’ estimates. (Bloomberg)

If I were writing the FCC’s extension request it would go something like this:

Dear Congress, we need another 30 days to put a better clown suit on the duopoly’s wish list so we can spin it to the public  as a broadband plan. We’re also going to need a little extra time to get all of your individual earmarks carefully spun as a benefit for all Americans, even if they have nothing to do with broadband. If you would like to see the offiicial document instead of my speculative interpretation, go here.

What will the final plan include? The buzz coming out of the industry, FCC hints and from Congress all points to a continued duopoly lock on last mile access and a new reallocation of spectrum. I predict we’ll be sold on the idea of putting new spectrum on the auction block that will be largely consumed by the current duopoly and wireless cartel. Will be get a better pipes? Maybe a little better mobile one. Reality is if the wireless cartel can lay its hand on more spectrum it can deliver more bandwidth from fewer towers. If the spectrum is auctioned, only players with deep pockets will have a chance of winning. That means no new competition, and no real innovation. It also means a new invisible tax as the cost of auctioned spectrum will be passed to the consumer through higher charges.

If this predictable path is followed,  we’ll have very much the same broadband as we have now, controlled by very much the same people who have been satisfied with putting the United States in a race to last place when it comes to average end user bandwidth at the highest prices in the developed world.

Sick of it? You can write your representative and the President and tell them you will vote them out if something does not change. I’m doing that every few days and you should too. Remind them we need less “help” from Washington and a lot more competition.

That is pulling the plug on POTS. You know that little jingly thing your mother and grandmother still use at lifeline rates? Yes its still out there but dwindling by the day. So what happens? –

In response to a Notice of Inquiry released by the FCC to explore how to transition to a purely IP-based communications network, AT&T has declared that it’s time to cut the cord. AT&T told the FCC that the death of landlines is a matter of when , not if, and asked that a firm deadline be set for pulling the plug.

AT&T tells the FCC that supporting traditional POTS landlines is impeding investment in broadband, VoIP, and wireless services.AT&T said in its response to the FCC that “with each passing day, more and more communications services migrate to broadband and IP-based services, leaving the public switched telephone network (”PSTN”) and plain-old telephone service (”POTS”) as relics of a by-gone era.”

It also stated “It makes no sense to require service providers to operate and maintain two distinct networks when technology and consumer preferences have made one of them increasingly obsolete.”

Is AT&T right? Yes. The fact is Central Office based systems have long lead times and nearly as long tax treatment. Most of the majors were using 19/20yr MACRS or ACRS depreciation on the capital investment as that was agreed to by both the industry and the IRS as appropriate, circa 1950’s. Little has changed on that front ever since. But that poses a problem for say Version who just put a new CO remote in 5 years ago. (Rare as that is.) So how would that install be treated? Under the current rules an accelerated recapture would take place for junking the equipment. That’s a major hit when you consider that even today CO investments are in the billions. So the Telcos would push for tax relief if devaluation ever happened.

My gut says not so fast. Even though what AT&T says is true I have the tingly feeling in the back of my head that it won’t work out that way. AT&T would take the revised recapture relief to the bank, not do any more R&D/advanced services/VOIP/network upgrades, then cry poor mouth all the way into the CEO’s pocket. I am not against AT&T, its just how these guys have operated for years. I have been in the belly of this beast to know better.

There of course is another fly in the ointment to a devaluation of CO networks. I call it the other 1200. That is approximately how many phone companies there are in this country. Most are small operators, functioning as COOPs in rural territory that none of the majors even want to touch. At a minimum there would have to be some sort of relief offered to these companies. At a minimum most would require a DSLAM to get their customers on to VOIP. Most likely SBA enhanced funding would have to be offered at 0% interest to these companies. To date I have not heard of any plans to do so.

Devaluing the POTS network has to happen. We need to realize that as soon as possible. We also need to make sure that in the switch serious profit taking does not occur. Compensation where needed, support where required, but in the end it should be a net-net wash.

Linky.

There is an old Texas saying that goes “its getting deep in here”. Our government has spent an unprecedented amount of money to create jobs, build infrastructure, and  improve the Internet as justification. As most of you know by now, the only thing that is shovel ready is that we all need shovels to clear away the pile of BS  about “jobs created or saved” we have been getting from the our leaders in Washington DC. For the 11th month in a row, this policy has only produced more shuttered businesses and more jobs lost. Few if any have any better faster or cheaper Internet.

They haven’t spent all of the “broadband stimulus” money on maps yet, so there’s still a little hope if they change course.  If the money must be  spent, there are positive ways to do it. It doesn’t even take a person who has any tech experience beyond thumbing his Blackberry. For example, former hedge fund manager Andy Kessler has a couple of great suggestions.

• Climb poles for wireless. Every street light in the country can be fitted with a wireless access point. Lots of companies, including Google, have tried to roll this out. But dealing with thousands of state and local governments to get access to poles and power is a nightmare. A stroke of the pen can create the Local Wireless Corps, with unfettered access to street lamps, telephone poles and utility sheds to create a massive wireless network to deliver Internet access—10 megabit, even 50 megabit speeds—to both homes and next generation mobile phones. AT&T and Verizon will complain about the competition, but so what—they’re hardly hiring.

• Dig fiber ditches. Even faster wireless is too slow. If, as the Federal Communications Commission states, broadband is a priority, let’s open up the right of way to a Local Fiber Corps to lay fiber-optic strands to every one of the 120 million U.S. residences (even the 10 million empty ones). The goal is gigabit speeds. It’s attainable now. New applications like YouTube are bandwidth hogs. It’s hard even to imagine the types of applications possible in a 100 meg or gigabit per second speed world. The only one way to find out? Build it. Then sell the fiber along with the wireless lamp posts to the highest bidders. More than one in each town will keep competition alive. And with so much bandwidth, arguments over things like network neutrality will magically disappear.  (Wall Street Journal)

I personally know DOZENS of qualified professional folks who would be very happy to climb telephone poles and dig ditches for a lot less than they were making a year ago. They’ll do it because they are unemployed. Of course, these folks are network and IT professionals, not map makers. Then again, if the government would stop borrowing it might make more credit available to small businesses again. Then, these businesses might hire a these unemployed professionals.

We have a new FCC on board that is busy meddling in every sector of the communications market, save one. That one item is the choke hold of the duopoly and is the single largest growth limited in the US economy after the taxes and federal debt. Yes,  I’m about to rant on the virtues of a strongly enforced unbundlind of the local loop again.

While the rest of the world is preparing for 4G mobile wireless to augument its fatter fixed line access, in many major American cites, 4G will meet or surpass the fixed line capacity. The reason is the lack of investment from a telco /cable duopoly that has no real competition.

In France, the last mile is open to any competitor and no matter what you hear fromthe duopoly suits and thoer fed lap dogs, all of the players in that competitive market are making money. The real eye openier is how much the average French househould gets for far less than we spend here:

French broadband providers like Free.fr, Numericable, and SFR have just one offer. It costs €30/$45, and for that you get everything:

• Cable and DSL internet at 20-30Mbps (and DOCSIS3 or fiber at 100Mbps in some towns)
• Free telephony to 100 nations (mostly to fixed lines; calling mobiles costs more)
• HDTV with a HD-DVR

(Some ISPs like Numericable and France Telecom/Orange have offers for €20 for Internet + telephony, or Internet + TV, but the majority of customers choose a €30 pack.)

This isn’t all you get. More is included, like free access to WiFi hotspots, music jukeboxes, computer games, your own personal television channel for live TV, etc. We’ll touch upon these innovations in more depth below.

The pioneer of this business model was Free.fr. Led by its maverick CEO Xavier Niel, it introduced the plus simple model in 2002 into what was then considered a lagging broadband market. Now Free is the second largest ISP in the country, it is profitable (with 4 million subscribers), and it boasts extremely low churn rates below 0.01 percent a month. One could almost say that Free’s subscribers only give up their subscription upon death or moving outside of the service area. (Ars Technica)

If the new FCC chair really wants to make a difference in broadband, he’ll work to reinstate local loop unbundling in the United States.  No stimulus pork, broadband maps or net neutrality laws needed. In a truly competitive market, the bad business practices of the duopoly will change instantly. Of course that also require  less central planning and control in Washington DC. No one really believes the FCC or our current Congress and President is interested in that. Far easier to draw very expensive maps and put a shiny new “net neutrality” clown suit on the inadequate system we already have.

It what has to be a positive move the FCC has released a query for suppliers for a database platform and service that will be part of the whole infrastructure. —

On November 4, 2008, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order (Second Report and Order) in ET Docket 04-186 that established rules to allow new, sophisticated, unlicensed wireless devices to operate in broadcast television spectrum at locations where that spectrum is unused by licensed services.1 This unused TV spectrum is commonly referred to as television “white spaces.” The rules will allow for the use of unlicensed TV band devices in the unused spectrum to provide broadband data and other services for consumers and businesses.

To prevent interference to authorized users of the TV bands, TV band devices must include a geo-location capability and the capability to access a database that identifies incumbent users entitled to interference protection, including, for example, full power and low power TV stations, broadcast auxiliary point-to-point facilities, PLMRS/CMRS operations on channels 14-20, and the Offshore Radiotelephone Service. 2 The database will tell a TV band device which TV channels are vacant and can be used at its location. 3 The database also will be used to register the locations of fixed TV band devices and protected locations and channels of incumbent services that are not recorded in Commission databases.4 The Commission decided in the Second Report and Order to designate one or more database administrators from the private sector to create and operate TV band database(s), which will be a privately owned and operated service. Database administrators may charge fees to register fixed TV band devices and temporary broadcast auxiliary fixed links and to provide lists of available channels to TV band devices.

Why a database is needed for a broadband low power spread spectrum channel? Well multiuse. The band(s) in some cases will have public service users in some areas. So any smart device must be able to discern that they reside in the same locale with say a fire dept siting on the open band between formerly CH 10-11. With that knowledge a smart device can map around and use other channels.

Its good news though. It means that finally the FCC is looking to see that white space systems are brought online. Personally I hope the Hams get in the act. We could see some wonderfully weird devices using the airwaves that might show commercial usage.

Linky.