Monthly Archives: December 2013

City Planners and Broadband Survey

Posted on by
Reply

I’m pleased today to share a guest blog post by Kathleen McMahon, AICP. Kate works for Applied Communications; they consult on land use planning, telecommunication assessments, housing needs assessments, grant writing and strategic planning…

As a follow-up to a recent American Planning Association (APA) report on broadband planning, the authors conducted an on-line survey APA members to determine awareness among planners regarding broadband technologies and the extent that planners are addressing broadband issues in local planning documents such as comprehensive plans.    The broadband planning survey indicates that there is a low level of awareness among planners about this critical infrastructure and that less than 15% of communities are addressing the issues in their comprehensive plans.  Other key findings included:

  • Approximately one-third of planners were familiar with the Broadband Plan but only a dismal 15% had actually viewed or used the broadband maps.
  • Most respondents to the survey indicated that they were familiar with the “last mile” technologies of DSL, cable and 3G or 4G wireless services.   When asked about “middle-mile” networks, however, 84% of the planners didn’t know about the availability of this service in their communities.    Additionally, about 50% of planners were unable to answer if there was fixed wireless service in their planning area.    A significant number of planners were also unaware whether “Fiber-to-the-Home” and free downtown Wi-Fi services were available in their communities.
  • 22% responded that they aware of an existing of a task force in the community while 47% said they didn’t know one way or the other if there was broadband task force in their area.   Of those who were aware of a community or regional task force, 43% of planners indicated that the planning staff was participating in the effort
  • Just 4% of respondents indicated that the community had developed a broadband strategic plan for the community while 28% answered, “Don’t know” to this question.
  • Of those respondents that indicated that the comprehensive plan addressed broadband issues, the most common policy was to promote telecommuting followed by a general goal to work with telecommunications providers to improve networks.   Amending the zoning ordinance to address issues with wireless towers and promoting co-location of wireless facilities were also common policies noted by respondents.      Policies that addressed broadband deployment and digital divide issues were least likely to be included.

City planners should be part of the broadband discussion.  They are involved can represent the public interest and help coordinate broadband planning with other city plans.  As this survey indicates, there is a need for the broadband community to reach out to planners through workshops at planning conferences and by engaging planners on broadband task force groups.   (Note:  For the complete survey results send an e-mail to kate@appcom.net)

Predictions for Broadband in 2014: Wireless, FirstNet, Hackathons

Posted on by
2

I’ve asked a few folks to send broadband predictions for 2014. I’m hoping to post them in the next week or so. (Let me know if you’re interested in sharing your look at the future!) I’ve started with my own – just to offer a model. Because I normally focus on broadband in Minnesota, I’ve tried to look more broadly at broadband.

Wireless

I’ve had a few conversations in the last few months on wireless options and the role wireless will have in ubiquitous broadband. I’ve always figured there is a place for wired (fiber) and wireless options but I figured wireless would be an interim solution for the un/underserved that would remain even once fiber emerged to offer better mobility and offer options for tourists and other short timers.

Well I’m starting to expand that role of wireless and will be watching the pilot project involving libraries and whitespace spectrum in 2014. The idea is to connect branch libraries via white space spectrum – which will help get libraries better broadband. But the spectrum at that level acts more like a point-to-point connection. The spectrum broadband itself does not reach the end user per se in the way 3G or 4G would. However, with the better middle mile access, the library might be able to offer better local wireless access options. (Especially with emergence of stronger Wi-Fi tools.) It would create a mesh network built upon various types of wireless networks. A fiber backbone is still important but suddenly wireless options makes more sense. Especially if the local wireless network can reach a community and provide access without data caps.

That’s a big role for a library to play – but I’ve heard similar innovation happening in the private sector as well.  That mesh of licensed/unlicensed spectrum wireless boosted by Wi-Fi options could be a winner. Or there may be an option to mesh satellite for video and 4G wireless for Internet. They may be finding a provider or provider partnership that is interested. The idea of losing POTS (plain old telephone service) makes me a little nervous but I suspect a national provider would be more interested in looking at rural markets if POTS went away. (I’m not advocating – just predicting.)

Perhaps there are better, homegrown solutions with local providers. I always like to see the local provider do well. Because I think it’s human nature to offer better service to your neighbors than strangers and I think it’s nice to investment in your neighbors. But again I think it will come down to partnerships – perhaps public-private, perhaps private-private.

I still have reservations about wireless – and it comes down to cost, caps and captive audience issues for the end customer.  GigaOm just posted an article on broadband usage per household. I was surprised that there were some households that don’t hit data caps – because I have teens and as the article points out houses with teens blow the caps out of the water. But I don’t think you can sustain a business assuming that your customers will be retired couples or single ladies. And I don’t think you can count on customers who will pay what I pay – which is $345 month for 4 phones and one mobile wireless hotspot. (That cost is separate from our wired broadband plan.) Eventually even I will find time or get sick of that expense and will find a better plan.

Also I have some concerns about filtered access via wireless. Ars Technica just posted a good article on the potential of net neutrality changes…

…we have the guarantee that ISPs can’t place any giant restrictions on what content we can access over the Internet.

That’s because of the Federal Communication Commission’s 2010 Open Internet Order, a set of network neutrality rules that forbid ISPs from blocking services or charging content providers for access to their networks.

If the law were overturned, ISPs could more easily steer customers to their own services and away from those of their rivals. They could charge companies like Netflix for the right to have their videos prioritized over other types of Internet traffic, perhaps indirectly raising the price consumers pay for streaming video and making it more difficult for startups to compete against established players who can afford the “Internet fast lane” fees.

That’s what Verizon wants, as its lawsuit to overturn the network neutrality law went to court in September. A ruling is likely to come in early 2014 from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Perhaps these issues will not be an issue if a local provider steps in and offers different packaging to current national providers.

FirstNet

I think FirstNet (the public safety broadband network) will become a player soon too. It’s got to get built, it’s a tough business case, it’s an opportunity to reach the hinterlands. Combined with some of the mesh wireless network I describe above it could be a real option. The downside for using FirstNet is that public safety needs to take top priority in time of emergencies. The upside, is that time of emergency is the anomaly.

I think the Internet of Things will become a bigger and bigger deal and I think it will reach people who thought the Internet had nothing for them. I think we’ll see applications in healthcare, education and local government that will really push the desire to get people to adopt. I often think of the folks from Eindhoven who spoke at the 2009 Blandin Broadband conference. They brought everyone online because in the end they knew it would be cheaper to offer services via network than in person. That was their bottom line business plan. My hope is that Minnesota will find a niche as a player in the Internet of Things.

Hackathons

Finally I think events such as civic minded hackathons will breed greater civic engagement. They will push the envelope in what people expect from their local governments in terms of transparency and access to information. But they will also push the expectation for better broadband to access and use information. We have the tools to help citizens turn data into information and actionable knowledge – we just need to spread the word. Once that happens I think we’ll see increased engagement (people adopting a hydrant) and maybe some entirely new ways to do things.

 

There’s my two cents for broadband in 2014.

Rural spending on broadband is an investment: despite recent report

Posted on by
2

Over my Christmas holiday I decided to read Gregory Rosston and Scott Wallsten’s report: The Broadband Stimulus: A Rural Boondoggle and Missed Opportunity. I had been warned that it wasn’t the most rural-friendly document out there. I remember Wallsten’s presentation to the original Minnesota Ultra High Speed Broadband Task Force in 2008. There he declared that there was no broadband crisis. That while compared internationally, the US wasn’t the best in broadband, we weren’t the worst either. And we had plenty of time to develop good policies. His big issues then were lack of good data and an emphasis on cost-benefit analysis on any proposal. His “inconvenient recommendations” included the following:

  • Remove entry barriers
    • Make more spectrum available
    • Streamline rights of way
  • If you want to increase broadband adoption
    • Focus more on low-income people than rural areas
  • If you want to increase broadband investment
    • Do not subsidize all new investment
    • Consider innovative approaches, such as West Virginia’s reverse auction

After reading the latest report, I can say that Wallsten remains consistent. The report starts with three assertions…

In this paper, we focus on three problems with the rural subsidy programs managed by NTIA. First, there is little economic rationale for subsidizing rural areas. Second, even recognizing that political realities might trump economic rationale and cause the political desire to subsidize rural areas, NTIA’s mechanism for selecting projects appears to have been largely incoherent. Third, the short-term infrastructure grants and loans could well lead to pressure for long-term operating subsidies from the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”).

I’m going to start with the middle problem – because I can best understand that complaint. The stimulus awards often seemed capricious. The process was muddled and lacked transparency and that I think led to questions about how the awards were made. At one point states were asked to weigh in on proposals – some did some didn’t. And the NTIA and RUS didn’t always seem in synch with states. The path to success was unclear and that led to frustrations for applicants and likely applicants. Then as you may recall the stimulus funds were awarded before the National Broadband Plan was published, which didn’t help. I remember it felt like providers and proponents were asked to row – but not given a direction. So I can see some of the points that Rosston and Wallsten make. Ironically, the NTIA was looking for “shovel-ready” projects but they weren’t very shove-ready themselves.

I’m not is such agreement with their other points…

First – the idea that there is little economic rationale for subsidizing rural areas. A 2011 Minnesota Rural Partners report demonstrated that an investment in rural areas (at least Minnesota) reaps returns in both rural and urban areas. For example (from the report)…

If rural Minnesota’s manufacturing cluster experiences a 6 percent growth in output ($1 billion), the urban area picks up 16 percent of all the jobs gained and 38 percent of all additional output.

And as Jane Leonard from MN Rural Partners points out – the investment goes beyond economic…

There are three essential elements for life 1) food, 2) water and 3) energy. Cities are reliant on their urban counterparts for these elements. We need to be good stewards of these elements to safeguard our future; we ignore them at our own peril. Part of good stewardship is ensuring that rural areas have the infrastructure they need to thrive.

Finally I have seen others point out that Rosston and Wallsten’s report forgets Metcalfe’s Law – the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system. I think this is especially true from a government perspective. Building the infrastructure to provide healthcare, public safety and educational services online will reduce costs to serving rural areas

Finally Rosston and Wallsten claim that the short-term infrastructure grants and loans could well lead to pressure for long-term operating subsidies from the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). Yes that may be true. If it weren’t true it might indicate that there is a business case to be made to serve these areas and then I think commercial providers would be more likely to step up to the plate and provide service. This is a tricky point because it relates more to personal ideology on government spending than simply broadband. But I think – especially given the points made above – that the government is going to have to step in to support the most remote last mile service. At the Connect Minnesota broadband summit a few weeks ago, I heard the providers themselves say that government intervention is required to build broadband to reach everyone. Perhaps once the infrastructure is built and adoption is optimized, a business case can be made for a business to provide services but until then, it might take continued government subsidy. The question then I think becomes, can that expense be offset by reduced spending in other areas. For example, can broadband reduce plowing costs?

In terms of spending on rural broadband adoption programs, the Blandin Foundation that spending there is an investment too…

Over the 18 months under comparison, all of the DCs [Blandin MIRC demonstration communities] grew their rate of broadband adoption at an average rate of 12%, compared with a rural Minnesota statewide average of 10.3% for the same period. In both 2010 and 2012, all of the DCs scored well in broadband compared with national rates of adoption in comparable rural areas. Average penetration in the DCs in 2012 was 67.1%, however, which was still 5% below the rural statewide average of 70.6%.

A couple of other assertions in the paper that concerned me. Rosston and Wallsten seem to think this is only about reducing costs…

As a result, the subsidy may have reduced the nominal price of the broadband service, but not the cost of living in the rural area and subscribing to broadband.

The truth is there are areas (Sibley and Renville Counties come to mind) where costs isn’t the issue – access is. That’s not to say cost isn’t an issue in many rural areas, but before you can look at cost you have to look at access and if we’re talking about the most remote last mile – access is an issue.

Also Rosston and Wallsten seem to think all rural areas are alike.

Our proposal for BTOP competitive bidding would base support on the cost (as measured by its bid for subsidy) of the marginal supplier and use competition to increase efficiency. So, for example, even though only a single entity might be willing to serve a rural area in Texas, that firm would have to compete with firms that were willing to provide service in rural North Carolina and rural Montana.

Construction is not my long suit – but just as I’d rather ski in Grand Marias and farm in Le Sueur – I recognize that not all rural areas are the same. Also there are economies of scale – does the company in Texas already have staff there? Is there head end equipment in place? Or is there another business case to be made fairly unrelated to the cost of building broadband. (Such as the case with Google networks – providing broadband is really B Side of to their online advertising services.)

There’s my two cents on the report for all it’s worth!

Broadband listening tour with Senator Schmit in rural MN in January 2014

Posted on by
Reply

senator matt schmitSenator Matt Schmit toured the state in November talking to rural communities about broadband. It went so well, he’s doing it again in January.

Here’s the original description of the series…

To help move Minnesota forward to reach its broadband goal, Sen. Matt Schmit of Red Wing is hosting a series of conversations on broadband in Minnesota. The public is invited to help set this legislative agenda by joining in on the broadband discussion at one of several scheduled meetings with Senator Schmit. The public is also urged to contact their own legislators to attend the local meetings and become more informed on this important rural Minnesota issue.

Schmit will address local leadership perspective and give background on local broadband initiatives. He will also address how broadband and the lack thereof is affecting health care providers, educators, local government and business. Here are dates and details (as I have them) for upcoming meetings. I will post more info here if/when I get it.

  • Jan 6 at 3:00 p.m. hosted by Chisago County HRA
    North Branch Regional Library
    6355  379th St.
    North Branch, MN  55056

Please note meeting change Jan 6 due to cold: Chisago County HRA/EDA, 38871 7th Avenue, North Branch, MN, still at 3 p.m.

  • Jan 7 at 8:00 a.m. hosted by City of Chatfield
    Chatfield City Hall—Council chambers
    21 Second St. SE
    Chatfield, MN  55923
  • Jan 7 at 2:00 p.m. hosted by Arrowhead Regional Development Commission
    ARDC Building
    221 W. First St.
    Duluth, MN  55802
  • Jan 8 at 9:30 a.m. hosted by Hubbard County Regional Economic Development Commission
    Northwoods Bank community room
    1200 First Street E.
    Park Rapids, MN  56470
  • Jan 8 at 12:00 p.m. hosted by Park Rapids Rotary
    St. Joseph’s Area Health Services basement meeting room
    600 Pleasant Ave.
    Park Rapids, MN  56470
  • Jan 8 at 3:00 p.m. hosted by Todd County Fiberband Committee
    Todd County Courthouse boardroom (3rd floor)
    212 Second Ave. S.
    Long Prairie, MN 56347
  • Jan 9 at 8:30 a.m. hosted by Aitkin county
    Aitkin Courthouse boardroom
    217 Second St. NW
    Aitkin, MN  56431
  • Jan 9 at 4:00 p.m. hosted by City of Annandale
    Annandale City Hall community room
    30 Cedar St. E.
    Annandale, MN 
  • Jan 10 at 9:00 a.m. hosted by City of Ortonville
    Ortonville Public Library media center
    412 Second St. NW
    Ortonville, MN  56278
  • Jan 10 at 1:30 p.m. hosted by Southwest Minnesota Regional Economic Development Commission
    SWRDC Building
    2401 Broadway Ave., Suite 100
    Slayton, MN  56172

Next Broadband Task Force meeting – January 9, 2014

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t have the agenda yet, but I needed this for my own calendar and thought others would appreciate knowing too Here is info on the next Minnesota Broadband Task Force meeting…

It could be pretty interesting. Danna MacKenzie starts her job as Director of the Office of Broadband January 6; the statutory deadline for the Office of Broadband Development report is January 15. Portions of the Task Force have been meeting via phone to discuss topics that came up in the December meeting about the Task Force reports.

I plan to attend and to take notes.

Merry Xmas from Paul Bunyan: Better broadband for MN service areas

Posted on by
1

Fun news for the folks that are getting better broadband…

 (Bemidji, MN) (December 13, 2013) – Paul Bunyan Communications has increased Broadband Internet speeds to members, doubling the current speeds of service offered with no increase to the monthly service rate.  In addition, higher speeds up to 150 Mbps are also now available, the cooperative announced today.

Standard Internet speed for Paul Bunyan high-speed customers starts now with up to 20 megabits per second (Mbps) for both uploads and downloads with higher speeds available.

“Broadband Internet in rural areas is certainly a hot political topic right now at the state and national level,” said Gary Johnson, Paul Bunyan Communications CEO/General Manager, “the areas served by our cooperative have had access to high speed Internet as early as 1998 and as we continue to improve on the region’s largest all fiber optic network we’ve been able to increase the level of service to our members.  Just four years ago we increased Internet speeds for customers with no rate increase and now we’re doing it again.  It reflects our cooperative’s commitment to bring the latest in technology to our service areas as soon as we possibly can.  We know it’s important to keep our communities competitive in the local, state, national, and global marketplace.”

“There are not many places in the United States where speeds up to 150 Mbps are available.  We are very proud to continue to put our members and communities at the forefront in getting the most advanced Broadband Internet speeds available” said Brian Bissonette, Paul Bunyan Communications Marketing Supervisor.

Since the late 1990s, Paul Bunyan Communications has been installing fiber optics that makes it feasible to deliver higher speed broadband Internet along with advanced television services including high-definition, whole-home DVR, PBTV Everywhere and Video on Demand.  In that process, over $100 million has been invested in the cooperative’s service area through upgrades and expansion.

“We are a local cooperative and are committed to providing the very best communication services to our members, regardless of their location” said Steve Howard, Paul Bunyan Communications Data Service Manager, “The State of Minnesota has set the goal to have Broadband Internet speeds of at least 10 Mbps downloads and 5 Mbps uploads by 2015.  Not only have we reached this level of service two years in advance, but the speeds we are now providing are two to four times faster than the goals set.  There is no digital divide in our area, the services we provide meet and in most cases exceed those of the biggest cities in the country.”

“Paul Bunyan Communications recognized early on the importance of having Broadband high speed Internet access.  We were the first high speed Internet provider in nearly all of the areas we serve and continue to upgrade the service to provide even higher Internet speeds,” added Johnson.

Paul Bunyan Communications Cooperative has been offering the latest in communication services to Northern Minnesota since 1952. The service area currently spans over 4,500 square miles throughout most of Beltrami County and portions of Cass, Hubbard, Itasca, Koochiching, and St. Louis County.  Paul Bunyan Communications services include local and long distance phone service, Internet services, television services, and more.  Service availability depends upon location, some restrictions may apply.

Broadband for better snow plows? Fingers crossed.

Posted on by
Reply

I live in St Paul, which is arguably one of the worst plowed cities in the world. Certainly one of the worst cities that should know better! So I’m excited about the prospect of intelligent snow plows. The Times Herald reports…

Sensors are going on snowplows in an effort to continually measure road and weather conditions.

Called the Pikalert Enhanced Maintenance Decision Support System, it’s being deployed on highways across Michigan, Minnesota and Nevada, as well as on Long Island, N.Y. If EMDSS passes certain tests, the technology will be transferred to private vendors and become available to additional states in time for next winter.

The system, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation and built by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, combines the sensor measurements with satellite and radar observations and computer weather models.

The idea is to give officials a near-real time picture of road conditions.

It’s such a good idea. I suspect the hard part is that it can’t predict a season’s worth of weather so budgeting is still a wildcard, although with pinpoint instructions perhaps there’s cost saving in precision!

A report from the Gigabit Highway Conference in Austin TX hosted by the FTTH Council…

Posted on by
Reply

Bill_ColemanSome very interesting presentations at this conference earlier this week.  Here are some highlights…

Federal news

  • The FCC USF fund rules are still in development.  With the new chairman, previous decision and priorities may change, including the rules for competitive bidding.  Speaker Tom Cohen suggests that communities and providers need to be ready to jump if the incumbent ILECs reject the funding as offered, though these same companies can compete in the bidding process as well.
  • Mary Campanola of the RUS Telecom program talked about the increased flexibility of the Community Connect fund – you can now draw the lines to the service area.  Currently, you are ineligible if you receive 3 Mb broadband which the feds come out to verify.  The new service must be at least 5 Mb with the current rules.  15% cash match is required.

Patricia Shorter of federal EDA in Commerce and her colleague talked about how EDA can fund fiber infrastructure development and pointed to the Economic Development Districts (MN RDC’s plus the West Central Initiative) as the gateway to those funds – job creation and retention are important in these projects.  They have funds for strategy development and implementation.  Depending on demographic and economic indicators, grant funds range from 50% to 80%.  It seems like these dollars might be used for funding lateral fiber runs off of middle mile networks.  Key phrases – Collaborative Regional Innovation, public-private partnerships, global competitiveness, economic distress and underserved communities.

A panel that included US Ignite, CISCO and a game developer has very interesting conversation around the sustainable business model for broadband development.  The US Ignite speaker talked about why health and education are such important drivers of broadband – a limited number of experts to whom many people want to connect.  The question on this was whether this would drive revenue to the providers adequate to fund network development.  The CISCO speaker talked about video and mobile as two drivers of innovation and that residential style applications are now driving development of business applications, gaming as an example.  With the game developer, the elimination of latency was noted as equal or more important than bandwidth availability.  High quality applications will drive them from niche to mainstream.  In justifying Gigabit networks, they will now do the same things, but faster.  In the future, there will be new things.

There was also a panel of expanding Gb providers.  One provider in Mississippi, C Spire, was planning to expand their business and wanted to check community interest so they published an RFP.  52 communities submitted responses with nine finalists selected.  They noted that their expected payback for business networks was two- three years, with longer paybacks on residential investments.  While residential ARPU (average revenue per unit) is $105 for residential, the business ARPU was two – three times that.

I facilitated a panel with Sharon Strover of the University of Texas-Austin, Doug Sicker of University of Colorado-Boulder and John Horrigan, a noted broadband researcher.

Sharon talked about the her research which points to increased broadband adoption as a driver of economic activity.  There is a clear difference between similar counties that are either above 60% adoption versus below 40% adoption.  The higher adoption counties had greater economic growth as measured in income and employment and attracted more “creative class” residents.

Doug Sicker supervised graduate student research that shows that a fiber connection adds between $3,000 and $7,000 in value to a home using three communities in New York as a study area.  He suggested that communities get their realtors to start listing fiber optics as an asset on the MLS listing page.

John Horrigan talked about digital readiness, which is a more flexible indicator the digital literacy as it can be used to measure a more complete range of knowledge rather than just being able to log on to a computer, send and email and surf the web.    His studies show that only 20% are making full use of technology.

It was a fun conference.  An entertaining highlight was watching representatives of Google and ATT engage in word play over their soon to be competing services in Austin, deployment plans, pole attachment battles, marketing plans, etc.

Finally, I want to say that you can see that the boom in knowledge work is on in Austin.  Similar to Minneapolis, there was lots of construction, live music, restaurants and bicycles.  While waiting for my coffee at a local shop, the server acknowledged my Surly Beer shirt and said that he had just moved from Minneapolis within the past 90 days.  The next customer in line had just moved from New York City.  Both looked to be in their 20’s.  My Minneapolis friend moved there just to see what was happening there; the New Yorker had moved for a job in the tech industry. There is definite competition for the talent of the future.  I also met an entrepreneur who is planning to open three to four new, for-profit engineering schools in what he sees as tech hubs.  Palo Alto, Austin, Brooklyn and Columbus.  We have our work cut out here in MN!

Commercial purpose for Google Hangout via Best Buy

Posted on by
Reply

I have a friend in Scotland who has been trying to get me deeper into Google+. I have dabbled. I have attended online concerts on Google Hangout. I have joined a few circles. My Google Glass arrived earlier this week and I think I’m going go need to dive into Google+ circles to find some useful Google Glass apps. (I’ll write more about that once I wrestle them out of the hands of my 9 year old!)

Best Buy has created a Hangout that is of interest to me…

Best Buy is experimenting with Google’s new Google Plus-enabled ads with a shoppable Hangout for those seeking last-minute holiday gifts.

The Hangout, which is scheduled for 8:00 p.m. ET Tuesday, will be hosted by Carolyn McCarthy and feature Austin Evans, Marques Brownlee, Soldier Knows Best and Machinima, tech pundits with relatively large YouTube followings. During the course of the Hangout, a menu will appear on the right-hand side of the page. If the four discuss certain laptop models, for instance, a link will appear where viewers can click to buy the item.

First – I appreciate any business that recognizes that last minute is next Tuesday. (Not last week.) Second – I’m pretty last minute. Third – I think this is a great idea and unusual in that it’s technology to solve a problem, not technology for technology’s sake.

Midcontinent offers reduced rates to low income households

Posted on by
2

Bill_ColemanMidcontinent Communications operates triple play networks in a number of Minnesota communities.  I talked with Midcontinent’s Tom Simmons, SVP of Public Policy, at the recent Connect Minnesota Broadband Summit.  He told me about a new digital inclusion program that they are rolling out across their system that will provide a low-cost option for low-income households.

For $9.95, households that meet the federal Lifeline program requirements can subscribe to a 5 Mb/1 Mb broadband service.  This service includes free installation and a free modem with wi-fi capabilities.

This is a real opportunity for community broadband leaders in Midcontinent communities to let key stakeholders know about this program – school administrators, social service agencies and other organizations that work directly with people with low-incomes.

I also see that Midcontinent also has a grant-giving foundation with an online application form.  That looks like an opportunity to help bring additional funding to your community initiatives!

I’d love to hear from other Minnesota providers who are offering reduced rates. We have mentioned Comcast, CenturyLink, Sjoberg Cable, Connect2Compete, and special cases in Itasca County – there may be more out there and we’d like to know about them.

Akamai broadband report: Minnesota doesn’t rank, US doesn’t rank well

Posted on by
Reply

The last time I looked at the Akamai report (they rank international broadband standings) was the Q4 2012 report. Here is how the US stood then:

  • Average Measured Connection Speed by Country/Region – US is #8
  • Average peak connection speed – US is #13.
  • Adoption of high broadband (defined as 10 Mbps down) the US is #8

Here is the ranking in the most recent report (Q2 2013):

  • Average Measured Connection Speed by Country/Region – US is still #8
  • Average peak connection speed – the US isn’t listed, which means below #10 (US average peak connection is 36.3 Mbps – the #10 peak average is 39.5 in Taiwan)
  • Adoption of high broadband (defined as 10 Mbps down) the US dropped to #10

The report also looks at top rankings for US states. But Akamai only reports on the Top Ten of each listing. Minnesota isn’t in the Top Ten of any metric.

At the Minnesota Connect summit earlier this month there was a lot of discussion about the broadband speed goals defined in by Statute – the goal is 5-10 Mbps upstream and 10-20 Mbps downstream. Some people claimed this was too slow. Some people claimed the upload speeds were artificially high since 3 Mbps is more practical and easier to get to. BUT folks seemed to forget that the other less finite was goal to be a broadband leader.  We’re not there. We’re not at a point of ubiquitous access to 5-10 Mbps upstream and 10-20 Mbps downstream. We’re not making the US Top Ten lists. And the US is often not making or barely making the Top Ten International lists. We’re not leaders.

I also make a point of spelling out the full goals because re-watching the Connect Minnesota conference I noted that one of the panelists (Andrew Sackreiter from AT&T Mobile) tried to correct Brent Christensen (from MN Telecom Alliance). Brent has referred to the speeds goals (5-10 Mbps and 10-20 Mbps) and Andrew tried to rein it back to 5 Mbps and 10 Mbps. But the speed goals really do include the high and low range. Brent was on the original Task Force that set the goal. Interestingly enough the difference had also come up at the last Minnesota Broadband Task Force monthly meeting.

That being said, and having attended the original Task Force meeting where speeds were discussed along with the goal to have world class access, I don’t think the numbers matter as much as the fact that we’re not comparing favorably to the competition – down the street or across the world.

On a high level the most noteworthy trend came from the mobile connectivity corner…

In the second quarter of 2013, average connection speeds on surveyed mobile network providers ranged from a high of 9.7 Mbps down to a low of 0.5 Mbps. Average peak connection speeds ranged from 54.9 Mbps down to 2.2 Mbps. Based on traffic data collected by Ericsson, the volume of mobile data traffic almost doubled from the second quarter of 2012 to the second quarter of 2013, and grew 14% between the first and second quarters of 2013, while mobile voice traffic increased 5% from the second quarter of 2012 to the second quarter of 2013.

Two cents on community hotspots for folks who might be setting them up

Posted on by
Reply

Last week the Blandin Broadband communities met up to talk about how things are going in their separate and combined efforts to promote digital adoption. It was an opporutnity to learn about some fun projects and ideas as well as hear about some shared concerns and obstacles. One obstacle/opportunity that came up was a plan for public hotspots.

Understanding WiFi Options

Part of the problem is understanding the options for WiFi – and funny enough CCG Consulting happened to write a nice article that outlines WiFI options last week – just when we needed it. They wrote about:

  • History of WiFi
  • Profileration of Commercial Hotspots
  • Settop Boxes (plug-and-play wireless networks such as you might get from your cable connection)
  • City-wide WiFI Networks
  • The Internet of Things

Commercial vs Private Hotspots

One of the things that I think doesn’t get discussed often enough is the difference between public and private hotspots. PC World ran an article last March that talks about the technical differences between public and private hotspots from the perspective of a business that might want to open up an existing wireless network to customers. They do a good job of outlining the options, such as

  • Private networks made more public-friendly by including a guest access feature to an existing wireless router
  • Business class routers that offer multiple SSID and virtual LAN (VLAN) features
  • Wireless hardware specifically designed for offering Wi-Fi (includes an option for users to agree to terms of service)
  • Fonera Simpl router for simultaneous private and public Wi-Fi signals
  • Open Mesh that allows for a larger areas

The other aspect of commercial vs private hotspots is the legal issue. I think about this more because while in the US it seems that the coffee shop (or other business) takes the initiative to set up wireless for their customers. Generally they don’t charge for it. It’s just an added service to the customers. In Ireland, it seems that providers take the initiative to set up wireless in coffee shops. So there’s generally a fee – unless you are already a customer of the provider who has set up that wireless network. Some providers (Boingo) offer wireless access in the US. I do see that more providers (such as Comcast) are offering Business WiFi options; I know some private WiFi contracts specifically say not to use the private network for public access. If your contract does allow for sharing, Life Hacker has an article that may help you get up as safely as possible.

Content Filtering

A final topic is content filtering. Do you want to limit the sites that your users can access. I remember this issue coming up in the library. Librarians are pretty hesitant to block access to information BUT they are also pretty hesitant to want to make patrons uncomfortable by letting the few who want to access adult sites expose the rest of the library to their taste. So one answer is to turn the computer screens to the walk, another was to admit that maybe filtering isn’t such a bad thing. Turns out lots of business don’t filter their public access but it’s pretty easy to set up content filtering.

Minnesota libraries are connected – but at very different rates!

Posted on by
Reply

mn library mapPew Research Center recently published a report on How Americans Value Public Libraries in Their Communities. Spoiler alert: People love their libraries. Here are a few highlights…

  • 95% of Americans ages 16 and older agree that the materials and resources available at public libraries play an important role in giving everyone a chance to succeed;
  • 95% say that public libraries are important because they promote literacy and a love of reading;
  • 94% say that having a public library improves the quality of life in a community;
  • 81% say that public libraries provide many services people would have a hard time finding elsewhere.

And here are a few technology related highlights…

  • 56% of internet users without home access say public libraries’ basic technological resources (such as computers, internet, and printers) are “very important” to them and their family, compared with 33% of all respondents.
  • 42% of those who are currently looking for a job say using the internet, computers, or printers at a public library is “very important” to them and their families, and 68% of job-seekers say it is either important or very important overall.
  • 43% of those living with a disability say using the internet, computers, or printers at a public library  is “very important” (67% say it is important overall), as well as 48% of those with a health problem that makes reading difficult (69% say it is important to them and their families overall).
  • 56% of internet users without home access say using the internet, computers, or printers at a public library  is “very important” to them and their family, and 77% say it is important overall.

As a librarian I love to see this. As a broadband proponent, I like to know how the libraries are serving folks, how equitable the coverage is and is it funded. (Libraries are the bastion of unfunded mandates.)

Libraries get federal support to pay for broadband from E-Rate funds. I recently had an opportunity to look at what sort of connectivity libraries had and at what price. I was very surprised! To put it into perspective, when I worked at MRNet 16 years ago, the goal was to get T1 (1.5 Mbps) to each library system, which might mean a T1 to the main library and 56K to branch libraries. Now the state goal is 10-20 Mbps upstream and 5-10 Mbps downstream for residents. Here is how some of the Minnesota libraries stand:

  • Some rural libraries are in slow shape
    • Pioneerland Library System libraries have T1 connections (with the exception of Willmar). Annual cost per library is about $15,600.
    • Plum Creek Library System libraries are in better shape with 7-10 Mbps down and 1 Mbps down. Annual cost range between $800-1200 per library.
  • Metro libraries were in better shape.
    • Washington libraries are consistent with 16 Mbps bandwidth – annual costs ranged greatly from $671 to $18,000.
    • Ramsey County is in good shape with connectivity ranging from 30 Mbps to 1 Gbps. A few of the libraries had no costs; the others ranged from $4,000 for a Gig in Mounds View to $13,000 for 30 Mbps in Maplewood.
  • There are a few rural systems in pretty good shape.
    • Great River Regional is predominately 10 Mbps with a few libraries enjoying  100 Mbps – but the annual average cost per library hovers over $10,000.
    • East Central libraries are predominately 100 Mbps – with one library enjoy a Gig and two at 10 Mbps. Costs range from $5,000 to $14,000 – just to note the high cost does not cover the high bandwidth.

As you can see, it’s inconsistent at best. That is part of the reason I suspect the ALA (American Library Association) is asking the FCC to do more with E-Rate…

The ALA calls for new E-rate funding to jumpstart and sustain high-capacity and high-speed Internet connections that support digital learning and economic development through libraries and schools. The current funding cap on the program consistently falls far short of meeting basic demand for Internet-enabled education and learning services, and technology trends clearly show needs and future capabilities only are growing. To address this, ALA supports a two-pronged approach: 1) New temporary funding is needed to support the build-out of high-capacity broadband networks and especially provide increased support for libraries with the lowest levels of broadband connectivity. 2) A permanent increase in funding is not only justified but is a sound investment for the country.

“Current funding does not reflect the economic reality faced by libraries and schools as they try to upgrade their broadband services,” said Emily Sheketoff, director of the ALA Washington Office. “This FCC proceeding provides an important opportunity to add more funding to the program and increase the value of the program to libraries, schools and our communities.”

ALA’s comments also encourage the FCC to:

  • Provide additional E-rate discounts for remote rural libraries that often confront  the greatest broadband costs;

  • Streamline the E-rate’s application review process to incent consortium purchasing and replace E-rate program procurement rules with those of the applicable locality or state;

  • Lower barriers to deployment of dark and lit fiber and ownership of wide area networks when they are the most cost-effective ways to deliver high-capacity broadband to libraries and schools;

  • Work in cooperation with the library and schools communities to develop scalable bandwidth targets and benchmarks for measuring progress against these targets; and

  • Eliminate the Form 470 and allow applicants to file an “evergreen” Form 471 for multi-year contracts.

What aren’t you online? There are some common reasons

Posted on by
Reply

This weekend I am doing basic computer and Internet Introduction training on the Fond du Lac reservation. Many class attendees qualify for a free computer through PCs for People. It’s a nice one-two punch at the digital divide – get people who aren’t online a computer and some training and as a bonus, they meet other people in the community who are in the same learning curve so that they can help each other.

It’s been a long time since I have done basic computer training. It’s something that everyone who touches broadband policy ought to do at least once a year. Because there are smart people who don’t know how to turn on a computer – because they’ve never learned how. You say click on the start button and they touch the image on the screen with their finger – because that’s a lot more intuitive than using a mouse. And here’s the funny thing, touching the start button on my touch screen laptop would work, but my laptop is a little spendy! So eventually the technology will catch up with people – but until then there are barriers.

Pew Internet recently posted a list of “lesser known facts” on people who aren’t online. Here’s their list…

  • Many of them are “secondary internet users”: 44% of offline adults have asked a friend or family member to look something up or complete a task on the internet for them.
  • Notable numbers of them live in homes with internet connections: 23% of offline adults live in a household where someone else uses the internet at home, a proportion that has remained relatively steady for over a decade.
  • A share of them used to be online, but have since dropped off: 14% of offline adults say that they once used to use the internet, but have since stopped for some reason.
  • Age is one of the strongest factors related to non-internet use, followed by education and income. Over half of seniors who did not attend college or live in households earning less than $50,000 per year are offline.
  • A share of non-internet users live in cities: among urban residents, 14% are offline.
  • A rising share of them cite “usability” issues as their main barrier: 32% now say they don’t use the internet because they say it is not easy for them to use. These non-users say it is difficult or frustrating to go online, they are physically unable, or they are worried about other issues such as spam, spyware and hackers. This figure is considerably higher than in earlier surveys. In 2009 when we asked that same question, only 12% of offline Americans cited usability issues as a reason for not being online.
  • Most of them say they would need help going online: 63% of offline Americans say they would need someone to help them go online if they choose to use the internet in the future.

I have to say the list coincides with what I’ve seen in the classes. People have kids or grandkids at home who get online with a smartphone or device. They come to classes at night and at weekends to get computers to look for work, help their kids with school or a week before Christmas they may be thinking about gifting the computer to kids.

Most folks have an email address – often through work or because a kid (or grandkid) has set them up. Some use a computer at work – but it reminds me of when I cooked a t a restaurant. I was great so long as I had “#2 sauce” and someone did all of the prep. Understanding how to do some tasks online doesn’t give you over all knowledge of how to use the computer to accomplish other tasks. Most people are a little nervous about making purchases online or about what their kids are doing online.

For some folks, generally older folks, learning motor skills, such as typing and using a mouse, is a barrier.

Some attendees live next to libraries, schools or coffee shops with hotspots – so they have ways to get online once they get their computers. They are pretty well versed in wireless options but they could also use some support getting online. Again, lots of people would rely on their kids. And relying on kids for mousing skills or to get setup on Facebook makes sense. But sometimes relying on kids, who may or may not understand budgets, to choose an ISP makes less sense.

The people who were most interested in getting online had a specific goal in mind – talking to grandkids, tracking kids at school, getting a job or transferring thousands of CDs to MP3s for the gym. The actual reason didn’t seem to matter – but the motivation of having a reason was key to getting people to engage in the class.

Technology is changing the way people farm

Posted on by
Reply

For years Jack Geller did surveys of broadband adoption in Minnesota. I remember the first time he noted that broadband had made a significant shift in everyday life. Broadband always saved time. You could do more faster but starting in about 2006, people were not only doing things faster, they were doing things differently. Broadband was changing how we were doing things.

The Daily Yonder published an article this week that takes take a look at technology and farming. It reminded me of Jack’s assessment because the article outlines how technology is really changing how people farm and really how farmers live…

They know the weather…

Then I got DTN. Back then, DTN stood for Data Transmission Network, and it came to my farm wirelessly via an FM signal. For the first time ever I could look at up-to-date forecasts and weather radar any time of the day or night. I could check grain and livestock markets too. And there was farm news. Everything on those early DTN screens was an amber, mono color with intensity of storm clouds portrayed as numbers on an outline map – 1 was sprinkles, 5 meant head for the hills.

They keep in touch…

These days email isn’t just something that happens late evening or early mornings at home on my computer. I can talk to friends or business contacts from my tractor cab, the grain truck or my favorite recliner. I can check grain and livestock markets or the stock market anytime. Or look at weather radar via DTN Mobile.

The lines blur between the workday and home life – much like they have for everyone – but in a job where the hours are long and the location remote, keeping connected has changed opportunities.