Some of the stimulus broadband money specifically targets mapping broadband access but apparently there’s a push to hold onto the rest of the stimulus funding until the mapping is complete. (Thanks to Coralie Wilson for sending me a great article – Policy questions may affect broadband payouts.)
Is waiting for mapping the right thing to do?
The advantage of mapping first is that mapping tells you which areas are un-served and under-served. So you can then target the funds to deploy broadband in those areas.
The advantage assumes that the maps are good and quick. It also assumes (I think) that the info is used immediately or the maps are maintained. To be most useful, I think those maps have to include information on broadband use as well as availability. All providers have to submit all data and the info they submit has to be verified somehow. In Minnesota, Connect Minnesota uses Ookla speed tests provided by residents (you can take the test here) to balance the provide info. The accuracy of those tests has been debated. But overshadowing the accuracy issue is the barrier of getting enough folks to take the test. (OK – that can be a chicken-egg debate, the tests aren’t accurate so why take them versus, let’s take them and see how accurate we think they are in the aggregate.)
So while in theory I like the idea of getting a picture of what’s out there – in practice I think we need to balance the time and cost associated with it. But is but don’t stop the presses for it.
The disadvantage of waiting on maps is – as I just said – the time and costs. To do them right is expensive and their shelf life is pretty short – unless you bear the cost of maintenance. But I think the biggest issue is the time. The primary goal of the stimulus funding is jobs – local jobs. I heard on the news that we have the highest unemployment rate (8.1 percent) since 1949!
So maybe we can take a look at what areas need the jobs. What are our poorest communities? Where is unemployment highest? I’m going to go out on a limb and say those are the areas that are un-served and under-served. Those are the markets that broadband providers have decided not to enter.
How can we get those local people working on broadband – by that I mean – how can we get them jobs that build the infrastructure or demand? Is there a provider that wants to go into that area? Is there a provider that could enhance services in that area? Great – but maybe there ought to be referendum sort of vote to let people show their confidence in that company. (OK – that’s not practical, but it might weed out the deadbeats.) There are some local providers that are amazing and with the stimulus funding they can be more amazing – hopefully in new areas. If the municipality wants to provide service, that’s great too.
So maybe some communities get their first broadband provider – and that great. Maybe some get competition – that’s great too.
The area is already served? Well, maybe they need some training to help local folks use the broadband. One cure for unemployment is entrepreneurship – access to broadband opens up a huge set of new applications and audiences.
I know that the RUS has been criticized for how they have doled out money in the past. Their definition of rural has sounded pretty suburban at times. I don’t know that a map is going to satisfy their critics. And then the NTIA money has been broadened to include “under-served and advanced networks” so that un-served isn’t a priority.
A national policy would help direct some of the money, more importantly I think that would help get more money dedicated to broadband but I think that’s something we need to strive for before Phase II funding.
“Is waiting for mapping the right thing to do?”
No. Broadband infrastructure deployment is far too varied and granular. As I’ve noted on my blog, the biggest search term that brings visitors to it goes something like “My neighbors can get broadband but I can’t.” If a map were produced, it would look like a crazy quilt and wouldn’t produce useful information.
We don’t need maps to tell us millions of Americans — in urban, suburban, exurban and rural areas — remain stuck with early 1990s era dial up and substandard, costly satellite Internet access.
I’m curious. How would everyone here classify a community as “underserved”? This will certainly be a point of contention if/when stimulus dollars are being proposed to be used in any underserved markets ahead of ANY community that is unserved.
Also, to say “We don’t need a map to tell us…” is rather short sighted. I can’t even tell you the total extent of my own company’s network without referring to a map. It seems that a few posters and readers here don’t see that as useful in determining how to effectively spend government money – which is, after all, your money and my money. How that thought process doesn’t scare the daylights out of taxpayers is downright baffling.
“I can’t even tell you the total extent of my own company’s network without referring to a map.”
That map would likely reflect neighborhoods and even roads and streets bisected between those having access to advanced IP-based services and those that do not. That’s why the Communications Workers of America has termed broadband deployment in the U.S. a messy “hodge podge.” Cable deployment is similarly arbitrary. One premises will have access to service while someone just down the road will not.
If broadband deployment was a regional issue with for example entire towns and counties lacking infrastructure, then I think it would be possible to produce useful deployment maps.
The standard we should aim for is fiber deployment to nearly all premises. That would cover all but those limited areas where fiber to the premises now exists.
Believe it or not, all FTTP networks are not ubiquitous. Redlining exists in FTTP deployments as well. Just look at how Verizon.
Any physical network expansion of coverage is bound to the same terrestrial hurdles, regardless of network medium. You can’t change the footage required to provide 1 home serviced per mile of plant. All you could argue is that the costs to do so varies with the physical network of choice; copper, fiber, or a combination of both. However, that cost will still be extremely high if the area is rural. You can’t manipulate that cost unless you add more subscribers per mile, or worse – subsidize it with additional fees. To argue ubiquitous coverage would mean wireless is the only economically viable solution, but you’re not arguing that.
Also, as it pertains to our regional rural broadband deployment issues I would pose again: How would everyone here classify a community as “underserved”?
See this April 2008 post from my blog:
“It is precisely in this vein that Nulty argues fiber to the premises can pencil out in broadband black holes. First, Nulty, told the Broadband Properties Summit this week, there is by definition a lack of competition in such locales, making a strong business case for a potential fiber-based provider since it would have the market to itself. Second, having the fiber market to itself in what was once a digital dead spot would translate into a higher take rate that would generate more revenues to cover the cost of installing fiber to the premises, also reducing uncertainty and building a stronger business case.
http://eldotelecom.blogspot.com/2008/04/fiber-infrastructure-can-pay-off-in.html
As for wireless broadband, I believe it does have an important interim role to play until fixed premises fiber infrastructure can be fully built out and over the longer term as a platform for mobile broadband.
I’m very familiar with Dr. Nulty’s work. A model – built loosely on the Burlington model – was proposed in my own back yard.
Getting back to this thread, why is it a good idea to fund projects if we don’t know if the project is truly needed, or if that project funding – however limited – might be of better use elsewhere?
If I was to propose a multi-million dollar network expansion to my boss, you’d better believe I would go with a market analysis in hand.
“What is un-served?” is a good question. For the Minnesota mapping they defined broadband as 768Mbps download. So presumably anyone who can’t get that is un-served. (By FCC definition.)
This is a question with which I see the Minnesota Broadband Task Force wrestle. They seem to hesitate to put a number on defining broadband – and seem to lean towards a definition based on application – something like “broadband will let you do videoconferencing.” Or creating a hybrid definition.
Sometimes I think there’s a “we’ll know it when we see it” feel about broadband and un-served.
For me the difficult aspect is that it’s a moving target – as are the broadband maps. It seems as soon as a definition is updated or a map created – it’s out of date.
So I guess that’s why I lean towards looking at which areas are in the greatest trouble (with their economy and employment rate) and think about how to serve those areas. Maybe they’ll need broadband infrastructure – maybe they’ll need training in how to use broadband.
If this were a business case I might feel differently – but this is a job/economic stimulus package.
“For me the difficult aspect is that it’s a moving target – as are the broadband maps. It seems as soon as a definition is updated or a map created – it’s out of date.”
Exactly. We don’t need maps nor definitions of unserved areas to know that there are way too many Americans who must rely on obsolete dialup and substandard satellite Internet connections. Both of these activities are likely to divert time and resources away from the task at hand: getting broadband infrastructure on the ground and up and running ASAP.
It many areas, it was needed not only yesterday but five years ago. And contrary to mainstream media accounts, it’s not just a rural issue due to the very limited range of DSL over copper — which itself is increasingly obsolete — and cable deployments based on plans drawn up decades ago that are no longer relevant.
Connect Minnesota aka Connected Nation is a sham devised to make pols feel good about the state’s access to the internet.
Connected Nation is the spawn of Connect Kentucky which came up with the stat that KY access to the web grew from 65% TO 95% in a few short years. Which is of course totally bogus.
IF mapping is desirable it should NOT be put in the hands of Connected Nation.
Here is the best take on Connected Nation: http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1998
Mapping access to the web would be like asking if mapping for electricity access should have been done.
Do rural areas need electricity/web access?
This is all very disturbing. I’m simply questioning why, when considering we’re talking billions here, would you argue against research before funding projects?
There are ISPs out there licking their chops to take advantage of NTIA/RUS releasing funds to go WAY beyond what they are intended to be used for. By not arguing against abuse of these programs, you’re arguing in favor of it.
The administration has very publicly said it will be auditing the use of the stimulus funding to identify misuse of the funding and hold abusers accountable. No alleged “map” can do that.