June 26, 2009
Bret Swanson from Entropy Economics recently published a report that looks at US broadband from 2000 to date. The growth in those years has been amazing. No news there. He give some blame to lack of ready broadband for the Telecom bust in 2000. Developers were there with the vision but the broadband wasn’t there to provide the power to back up those visions. I hadn’t thought about that before but found it interesting. He credits new technology, new business models and relaxed regulation for growth that happened after 2002.
There were a couple of recommendations that I wanted to pull directly from the report
Indeed, bandwidth must grow if we (1) merely want to accommodate the bandwidth-hungry applications already in the pipeline; and, crucially, (2) want new generations of unpredictable innovations in software, services , applications, and devices that all use bandwidth as a key resource.
And
Continued investment on this scale and beyond will be required to: (1) deliver more bandwidth to ever more consumers and to enlarge geographic coverage areas; (2) drive new innovations in crucial sectors like education and health care; and (3) accommodate rapid compound data traffic growth with ever-greater real-time latency and quality-of-service requirements.
There are some more great charts that track broadband in the last 8 years – but I think the focus on investment as shown in the chart above is particularly pertinent as we decide how to invest money to stimulate our economy today. Looking at how we got beyond the telecom bust is helpful as is the look at hard number investment.
Leave a Comment » | 
Policy, Research | 
Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy
June 22, 2009
So after hitting a plateau, it looks like home adoption rates are bumping up again. According to Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, 63% of adult Americans now have broadband internet connections at home, a 15% increases from a year earlier.
The even happier news is that it’s the traditionally offline crowd that’s getting on the broadband bandwagon:
Broadband usage among adults ages 65 or older grew from 19% in May, 2008 to 30% in April, 2009.
Overall, respondents reporting that they live in homes with annual household incomes below $30,000 experienced a 34% growth in home broadband adoption from 2008 to 2009.
On a less positive note, African Americans experienced their second consecutive year of broadband adoption growth that was below average.
Broadband users think it’s really important; 55% of broadband users view a high-speed link at home as “very important”. Still, 7% of Americans are dial-up internet users at home. (That’s about half of the percentage of last year.) They had a range of reasons they didn’t go online at home: it was too expensive. Just not interested, can’t get access, and more.
Leave a Comment » | 
Digital Divide, Research | 
Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy
June 15, 2009
The following headline from Broadband Census caught my eye: Half of Americans Say Broadband Must be Available to All, Government Must Not Regulate.
That’s like me saying yes to the chocolate chip cookie and no to the calories but according to a recent poll from Zogby, that’s what folks want. Here are some of the stats:
Pro Government Involvement
- 44% said that the federal government should guarantee universal Internet access to all Americans
- 20% said they believe Washington should provide personal computers to those who do not have one so they can access the Internet.
- 63% said Washington regulators ought to be able to shut down websites that use possible terrorist themes or that promote child pornography
Anti Government Involvement
- 4% percent said they think Washington should be involved in determining who gets what speed of Internet connection
- 78% agreed that taxing transactions on the Internet would seriously hamper online commerce and violate the spirit of the Internet as a free exchange.
- 12% said the U.S. government should sometimes or always be allowed to determine who can establish a website
While I can’t say that my answers to the questions would be far off the norm, I think the answers don’t take the whole picture into consideration. If we don’t tax the Internet, how are we going to pay the government to oversee potential terrorist or porn sites? If we don’t have the government step in with speed requirements, then what’s their role in guaranteeing universal Internet access? (Does dialup count?)
I’m not advocating one way or another but reminding the policy makers that to make the hard decisions you have to consider the whole picture.
Also I had to share one last fun fact from the poll: Asked if it were possible for them to have the Internet wired directly into their brains, 13% said they would like to do so, while 82% said they would decline such an opportunity.
2 Comments | 
Policy, Research | 
Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy
June 13, 2009
Thanks to Christopher Mitchell for sending a head up on a new site, Muninetworks. They “feature news, reports, and case studies that illustrate how communities can ensure they have a fast broadband network. We encourage local ownership of broadband networks; when network owners come from outside the communities, they tend not to prioritize local needs.”
In it Chris is keeping us up-to-date with everything related to municipal networks. There’s a nice section on reports and a glossary – so I think it will be helpful to community leaders who find themselves interested in broadband as well as those of us with a long-standing interest.
There’s a nice article that highlights best broadband networks in the US, which also serves as a comparison between public and private networks. I don’t want to ruin the surprise for anyone – but public is looking good.
Leave a Comment » | Building Broadband Tools, Community Networks, Research | Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy
June 7, 2009
The We Need Broadband Campaign is gathering info from folks who need broadband and compiling it for a map. So far I see one flag for Minnesota.
I don’t think this is particularly scientific or official but kind of fun. So if you need broadband think about filling it out. It does look like they will make this information available to providers so you might hear from someone who can help you. (Of course if they’re sharing info, you may hear form folks you don’t want to hear from too.)
Leave a Comment » | Research | Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy
June 1, 2009
Here are two opportunities to get involved with the Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force work. I love that they are so transparent and open to feedback; I hope we can rise to the occasion to tell them what we need.
This month the task force is working on setting some suggested broadband speeds for the state and they have explicitly asked for our help. I’ll paste the request/opportunity below.
The Speed Team sub-group met today and is making good progress.
However, we need help from all Task Force members to really do justice to our assignment. We’ve agreed that we need to go out to subject- matter experts (both on and off the Task Force) and get their help in updating the application-speed-requirements listed in the recent California broadband study. Here are the questions we need help on.
Please review the California Application-Speed Matrix
http://www.urbanusers.com/wiki/index.php?title=California_Application-Speed_Matrix
1 – In your area of expertise (education, government, business, consumer-use, etc.) do you feel that these are still accurate for present-day applications?
2 – What would you project these speed-requirements will be in 2015, and what is the basis for your projection?
3 – Are there applications that are missing from this list, and if so what speeds would they require both today and in 2015?
We would like to have your answers by Friday, June 5th so that we can incorporate your work into ours.
Thanks in advance,
The Speed Team — Tom Garrison, Jack Geller, JoAnne Johnson, Mike O’Connor, Dick Sjoberg, John Stanoch and Chris Swanson
In April, the task force members were asked to write 5 paragraphs to build a draft recommendations document for the legislature. I am super excited to share these paragraphs here.
If you read the paragraphs you’ll see that they are a work in progress. Some paragraphs are completely contrary to others – but you can get a read for where there is agreement and what the contentious issues are. (There may not be agreement in some of these areas but there were no paragraphs to contradict the view.) I think this is also a golden opportunity to chime in on what you like and what you don’t like. Remember they invite comments from the public at their monthly sessions and you can post comments on their forum or via form online.
Issues of Agreement
- Everyone seems to value broadband and there were some nice paragraphs detailing need by sector.
- Everyone seemed to think that building broadband demand through training and improved access to computer was a good idea.
- Most everyone liked the idea of mapping. The broadband providers seemed to be happiest with Connected Nation’s work; some were not happy with their work; others wanted to ask CN to the maps to the next level of gauging citizen’s relationship to broadband.
- Everyone seemed to agree that affordability was a good idea – so long as cost to providers was a factor too.
- Everyone seemed to like te idea of an ongoing state effort to focus on broaband – often through the creation of a entity to oversee the effort.
- It seems as if everyone was interested in secure, reliable, redundant connections with improved interconnectivity – including a focus by some for better peering within the state to improve local access.
Issues of Disagreement
- Some people seemed to think of broadband as a necessity or utility: Jack Geller, Peg Werner, Vijay Sethi, Mike O’Connor, Barbara Gervais, while others were more interested in meeting market demand only.
- Most supported government intervention (even municipal networks) in areas where private companies are not interested in going. Some seemed to think of this as a plan of last resort: Rick King, John Gibbs, Peg Werner
- Others were supportive of government providing service: Chris Swanson, Vijay Sethi, Robyn West, Tom Garrison
Interesting notes
- Mike O’Connor stressed the importance of considering mobile broadband and mobile devices for folks who don’t have a computer
- They allude to a few Minnesota broadband reports (pages 16-19), both historical and kind of recent. I was surpised that more reports and statistics weren’t used. Although the following folks did mention reports: Dick Sjoberg (S. Walsten, “Understanding International Broadband Comparisons“); John Gibbs (Crandall & Jackson) and actually John cited quite a few on page 23), Mike O’Connor cites reports for projected market bandwidth (page 28), Kim Ross (SETDA
- Some folks mentioned speed – but those were all over the board. One said T1 – others seemed to start at 5mbps or higher. The speed offered seemed to coincide with whether someone thought the current market demand should set price or we should strive for world class access. (Some folks, such as Steve Crawley jumped in with a minimum speed of 100mbps – Go Steve!))
- Jack Reis and Gopal Khanna did a nice piece on government as a broadband consumer and increased need for connected citizenry as the government provides more services online. Kim Ross did a similar write up with the education focus and MaryEllen Wells for healthcare.
- OK clearly I have to point out that Blandin was mention on page 19 in a nice historical look back at what has been done in the state regarding broadband.
The paragraphs are long. I’ve done my best to distill them. I think there are some interesting comments on Net Neutrality, the role of a Better Business Bureau type model to service broadband customers, possibility of federal funding – but I didn’t yet see consensus on those topics so I’m only mnetioning them briefly.
1 Comment | Blandin Foundation, Community Networks, Digital Divide, MN, Policy, Research, Rural, Vendors | Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy
May 19, 2009
Telecompetitor ran an interesting article last week on the new rural super carriers. Telecompetitor contends that the big guys aren’t interested in rural markets. Recent news that Frontier is buying Verizons lines (mostly rural) for $5.3 billion would help back up Telecompetitor’s assertion. The super providers they list include CenturyTel, Embarq, Windstream, FairPoint, Frontier, TDS, and maybe Qwest.
Cor Wilson sent me a great article last week (25 Year Analysis of Key Financial Indictors for the Bell Companies) and I’m trying to use it to decide what I think about the top guys shifting their role away from rural and the buildup of these super rural providers.
The report is pretty damning; it indicates that the big 3 providers (AT&T, Verizon & Qwest) saw a revenue increase of 220% from 1984 to 2008. Here’s what they said about broadband:
Broadband
• By 2010, virtually ALL of the US households, accounting for 117 million homes, should have been rewired with a fiber-based service. Today, there is virtually no broadband service in the US that meets the standards of 45mbps in both directions set in 1991.
• America is 15th in broadband because AT&T and Verizon failed to deploy and pocketed an estimated $300 billion dollars by 2009 and counting.
• Combined, Verizon and AT&T’s FiOS or U-Verse had approximately 3 million upgraded TV homes as of 2008. These networks do not match the previous commitments as they are not open to competition, not ubiquitous, and do deliver 45mbps in both directions.
• Harm to the Economy. According to Bell-funded reports, $500 billion annually would be added to the GNP of the US if broadband was fully deployed. Thus, America lost $6.5 trillion dollars because of a lack of high-speed broadband.
Quick aside: Here’s a bit about what I could find on the authors (New Networks Institute) form their own web site: “Since 1992, in the public’s interest, [Bruce] Kushnick and his associates have helped to establish class action suits, filed complaints with the FCC, and various public service commissions, requested investigations by the IRS, and has help to create of the Broadband Bill of Rights, a proposed piece of legislation.)
Back to the rural super providers, I think the report indicates that a larger list of super rural provider would be better than 3 national providers; except that I don’t know that a larger list of medium sized providers is going to buy us more competition- because they cover different areas. I think some of the super providers are good and are invested in the communities they serve. I think some are invested in getting their own piece of that 220% increase in profit. I don’t think that’s unique to the telecommunications industry.
I suspect that the rural super providers will be lining up for federal stimulus dollars. It seemed early on as if the big guys were going to leave that money alone because of the potential of strings attached. Maybe the NTIA and RUS will be wise about those strings and I hope they read the 25 Year Analysis. It seems to me that if you get federal money to play that you play by federal rules. The 25 Year report doesn’t just indicate, is accuses the big providers of not doing that.
Another recent article outlines the risk of certain strings: How “Buy American” Could Ruin Broadband Stimulus Plans. It’s tough but there’s got to be a smart way to balance a goal of stimulating the American economy with American capitalism/profitability and more, better broadband. I’m afraid that in the of those three, broadband speeds are going to suffer.
Leave a Comment » | Policy, Research, Rural, Vendors | Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy
April 23, 2009
Earlier this week the Mayo Clinic unveiled the Mayo Clinic Health Manager – an online tool where patients can story medical records. They have partnered with Microsoft on the product. It looks like a great tool; it reminds me of Google Health.
A Pew Internet & American Life report (Aug 2008) indicates that here is a market out there; they found that 78% of home broadband users look online for health information (even 70% of home dial-up users looked online for health info). The broadband users were twice as likely as dialup users to look up health info on a typical day (12% vs. 6%).
It seems as if all of the folks posting health care info online (Mayo & Microsoft, Google Health, UnitedHealth Group). I wonder if this fits in with the work that Governor Pawlenty spoke about last summer when he announced that every state employee would have online access to their personal health portfolio by 2009.
Also I wonder how these various tools can help support the broadband that will make their tools more successful. I have to think the potential of doubling your daily visits is worth something – and the Pew report indicates that might be possible with broadband. (OK, doubling is generous – but I think we could say substantially increase without debate.)
Leave a Comment » | Healthcare, MN, Research | Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy
March 23, 2009
Public Knowledge, Common Cause, The Media and Democracy Coalition, Reclaim the Media and Main Street Project released a report today that outlines the reasons that Connected Nation is a bad choice for public funding to do mapping.
There is $350 million available in the federal stimulus funding for mapping. Connected Nation is currently working with several states, including Minnesota.
The report states that, “In order to be effective, a national broadband data-collection and mapping exercise should be conducted by a government agency, on behalf of the public, with as granular a degree of information as possible and be totally transparent so that underlying information can be evaluated.”
And as the report points out, Connected Nation is none of those things.
I have to say, it would be nice to have maps where the raw data was available to everyone – especially if we’ve paid for it. It would also be nice to have data other than vendor-provided info as a check and balance. I know Connected Nation uses the speed tests but that puts the onus on the general population to take the tests.
The report includes tons of useful info on CN, such as their board of directors and a non-disclosure contract that they use with providers when they are gathering info for their maps. It’s an interesting report.
1 Comment | Funding, Policy, Research | Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy
March 18, 2009
Christopher Mitchell just posted a great article on Peter Fleck’s PF Hyper blog. Sounds like the start of a soap opera. Here are the details…
Peter has been following closely the wireless situation in Minneapolis. He blogs about other things too – but to me, he’s the place to go on the latest for Minneapolis wireless info. Christopher works for the Institute for Local Self Reliance. I think it was at the Task Force meeting last month where someone seemed to imply that a household with an older computer wouldn’t be able to make use of a broadband connection. That was news to me and Chris. So he wrote a good article that details why that isn’t true and why looking at only the computer in a household is pretty short-sighted.
Leave a Comment » | Digital Divide, MN, Research | Permalink
Posted by Ann Treacy
