Home ›

Wireless

Cedar Falls Utilities Expands Broadband to Unserved Areas

Keywords:
By christopher on August 23, 2010

A community-owned network, infused with broadband stimulus dollars, is bringing broadband to people stuck on long-distance dial-up for Internet access.

Cedar Falls Utilities, which recently announced an upgrade to FTTH from HFC, announced more good news last week: they have received an RUS stimulus grant (PDF, scroll down) to expand their broadband services to nearby unserved areas.

CFU is a public power and telecom utility in Iowa with an electrical footprint that roams outside Cedar Falls muni boundary. For years, CFU has wanted to offer broadband to its whole electrical territory but could not justify the capital expense outside the city because the rural areas would not produce enough revenues to run the network in the black.

With this 50% grant ($873,000) from the Rural Utilities Services, CFU is expanding and will offer broadband to their whole electrical territory. Serving broadband to these areas will be a sustainable enterprise -- the building of broadband is what costs so much money (one of the very good reasons networks should be accountable to the communities -- the "market" will not make the appropriate investment by itself).

Some folks will get fiber services and others will get WiMAX, a welcome change from dial-up (for some, long distance dial-up is the only option to connect to the Internet!).

I asked CFU if people in the area had access to broadband and was told that some had access to satellite services… to which I responded, "So no one has access to broadband?" Satellite is a last ditch option, not a viable competitor to services that deliver actual broadband.

Some also have access to some very slow cellular speeds - again, not really broadband but it is better than dial-up.

We salute Cedar Falls for requesting a 50% grant from the Feds rather than the full 80% they could have gone with. Self-reliance means taking responsibility for the community, not maximizing the "free money" available from the Feds.

Though we at MuniNetworks.org believe in a future with everyone connected with both mobile and reliable wired access, we do not expect it to happen tomorrow. We hope that over time, CFU is able to expand the reach of their fiber to everyone.

Broadband Competition is Pathetic, But Even That is Too Much For Qwest

Keywords:
By christopher on July 23, 2010

A Qwest sales person admits on tape that Qwest is trying to eliminate competition by purging the network of independent ISPs. Listen to the conversation here.

Customer: "Qwest is trying to eliminate competition?"

Customer Service Rep: "In a way."

Undoubtedly, Qwest will (if it has not already) disavow this quote and suggest the CSR just didn't know what she was talking about. But they are clearly trying to remove competition - something we have witnessed in the Twin Cities of Minnesota as the good ISPs (for instance, IP House) are slowly strangled because they are not permitted resell the faster circuits. Additionally, I believe allegations that Qwest deliberately allows more congestion on lines they resell than lines where they are the sole retailer.

Our office uses IP House and we have never had anything but good experiences with them. But we need a faster services, so we can choose between slightly faster options with Qwest or much faster options with Comcast. We have no choice but to take service from a crappy massive company if we want to maintain productivity.

Some would claim that we have additional choices because USIW runs a Wi-Fi network in Minneapolis (subsidized by the City) but the network's speeds cannot compare to Comcast and it is far less reliable than the wired network alternatives (though Qwest's reliability in some areas may actually be worse).

I found this story via the Free UTOPIA blog but it links to the original source on Xmission - a UTOPIA service provider and DSL resellter.

Link: 
Related Older Story from DSL Reports
Link: 
Karl Bode on this Story

Warwick, Massachusetts Builds Community Wireless Network

Keywords:
By christopher on July 1, 2010

While researching the Wired West Network in rural Massachusetts, I learned about another community broadband network. The little town of Warwick built a wireless network for itself; the story behind it gives a glimpse into the ways that the federal approach to broadband really fails small communities.

Miryam Ehrlick Williamson described their motivations and experiences. In 2008, after considering their options, they voted to borrow $40,000 in a town meeting (Warrick has 750 people) to build a simple wireless system that would be far superior to the existing options of dial-up and satellite (neither of which are a service that could properly be termed broadband). State and federal programs ostensibly meant to help towns in this position do little good:

We know about a USDA program meant to bring broadband to rural America. Our information is that most of the money has gone to suburban communities in Texas, and we don’t have a professional grant administrator to chase down any money that might be left.

We’re aware that the Massachusetts governor just signed a $40 million act establishing the Massachusetts Broadband Institute, to figure out how to bring broadband to unserved and underserved towns. We’re also aware that the money will go to vendors to develop regional systems and we don’t have the patience to wait the two or three years it will take for anyone to get around to thinking about maybe serving us.

Ultimately, the City was able to lend itself the money:

As it has turned out, we didn’t need to borrow — town financial officers found the funds without going to the bank for them. We got the necessary permits from the owners of two towers here, bought the equipment, got a couple of people trained to install the equipment, and turned on our first customers in March, 2009.

Between a local mountain and available cell tower, the topology apparently fits a fixed-wireless approach (at least for a significant part of the population). Nonetheless, they were well aware that the system would not have the reliability of robust wired networks - but occasional interference was vastly preferable to the status quo.

The plan expected to break even with as few as 15 households, but they have since achieved far more than that -- some 70 households as of February 2010. Aside from an upfront receiver cost of $400-$500 (which can be shared among close neighbors), the costs are $50/month. They are running backhaul on two T-1 lines, for which they pay $600/month -- a reminder of just how much people in rural areas have to overpay for basic connectivity.

They expect to break even in 2012. However, they may push that back depending on expansions decisions:

There are still families in town eager to subscribe, but we’re running out of places our wireless signal can reach. Expanding the system is possible, but there’s a lot to figure out.
If we spend subscriber fees to buy the needed equipment, that delays the day when we’ve paid off our debt to the town, and we’re aware that not all taxpayers benefit equally from having lent us the $40,000.

Not to harp on the whole failure of state and federal policy thing, but:

We may be able to obtain a state grant to buy what we need, but that means a ton of paperwork and all three members of the broadband committee (of which I’m one) are self-employed, and if we don’t work we don’t earn.

That leaves the proposal writing to the town’s part-time administrative coordinator, and he’s as busy as a one-armed paperhanger with the hives. We’ll figure it out, but there’s another consideration.

Too often, federal and state attempts to help just complicate the matter. The first thing a state should do to expand community broadband is to remove barriers to it, not set up complicated grants and such that are too complicated to help the smaller towns with even smaller staffs.

Finally, the blog post that alerted me to all this also updated me on the Wired West Initiative:

Three of the 49 towns decided they had sufficient broadband Internet coverage not to bother. So far, 39 of the remaining 46 towns have voted to join WiredWest, all but one by unanimous vote. Six towns will have their ATMs [Annual Town Meetings] during the rest of the month, and in one the select board will vote (almost certainly favorably.)

Photo of Warwick City Hall used under Creative Commons license, courtesy of John Phelan

Local Network Cookbook

Keywords:
Publication Date: 
June 2, 2009
Author(s): 
Wally Bowen

A Recipe for Starting a Local Broadband Wireless Network via Federal Stimulus Funding

Wally Bowen has created a "cookbook" with step-by-step instructions for creating a community wireless network. This is a solid introduction to wireless networks.

Federal broadband stimulus funding is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for local nonprofit organizations -- especially community media centers -- to become Internet service providers (ISP) and begin developing new revenue streams. It's also an historic opportunity for advocates of Internet Freedom. Creating community-based broadband networks would be a huge step toward creating the critical "third pipe" alternative to the cable/telco duopoly. The proliferation of these community-based networks would generate market pressure to force the major carriers to restore “net neutrality” protections for broadband users.

In short, this broadband stimulus opportunity opens the door to the possibility of a new “Jeffersonian Internet” comprised of a “network-of-grassroots-networks” where civil liberties and quality journalism are valued over Wall Street business models.

"Local Network Cookbook: A Recipe for Launching a Local Broadband Wireless Network" is aimed at helping nonprofit organizations -- especially those already using digital technologies -- move quickly to plan and submit a broadband stimulus funding proposal for one of the three application windows.

Report
Local Network Cookbook

Updated List of Cities with Wi-Fi Networks

Keywords:
By christopher on June 13, 2010

MuniWireless.com has updated their list of cities that have large scale Wi-Fi networks. The list combines communities that own the network with cities that have networks owned and controlled by private companies, but it is a useful starting point for anyone looking to find cities that have explored this wireless technology.

Fiber Down Under: Australia Plans Publicly Owned Open Access Network

Keywords:
By christopher on May 12, 2010

Australia is planning to build a nationwide open access network that will be owned by the public. Ars Technica recently covered their progress - Australia has released a consultant report on the proposed network.

If the major incumbent, Telstra, works with the government on the network, the costs will be lower. But Australia will not let Telstra dictate the terms of their relationship:

But it's clear that the new network won't be held hostage to Telstra's demands. The consultants conclude that, in the absence of an agreement, [the fiber network] should proceed to build both its access network and its backhaul unilaterally." [src: Ars Technica]

Between the original plan and a revised plan suggested by the referenced study (bullet points here), over 90% of Australians will have a real choice in providers over a FTTH connection whereas the rest will have a combination of wireless and satellite options. The prices are expected to be affordable, and will probably be well below what we pay here in America.

The Implementation Study has some words about ownership of the National Broadband Network (NBN):

Government should retain full ownership of the NBN until the roll out is complete to ensure that its policy objectives are met – including its competition objectives

On technology, they reiterate what we have been saying for years:

Fibre to the premise is widely accepted as the optimal future proof technology with wireless broadband a complementary rather than a substitute technology;

Have no fear though, we will undoubtedly hear from many apologists for the private telecom companies that Australiai's NBN has "failed" because it is losing money. Estimates on the break even are many years out:

BN Co can build a strong and financially viable business case with the Study estimating it will be earnings positive by year six and able to pay significant distributions on its equity following completion of the rollout;

Brace yourself for a slew of reports noting the operating losses in the early years as "proof" the government should never have built this broadband infrastructure. These are the tried and true tactics of the companies that want to continue monopolizing communications infrastructure.

Link: 
Read the 500+ Page Report or Sections Here

Breaking the Broadband Monopoly

Keywords:
Publication Date: 
May 3, 2010
Author(s): 
Christopher Mitchell - Institute for Local Self-Reliance

The Institute for Local Self-Reliance is pleased to release this comprehensive report on the practices and philosophy of publicly owned networks. Breaking the Broadband Monopoly explains how public ownership of networks differs from private, evaluates existing publicly owned networks, details the obstacles to public ownership, offers lesson learned, and wrestles with the appeal and difficulty of the open access approach.

Download Breaking the Broadband Monopoly [pdf]

Executive Summary

Across the country, hundreds of local governments, public power utilities, non-profits, and cooperatives have built successful and sometimes pioneering telecommunication networks that put community needs first.

These communities are following in the footsteps of the publicly owned power networks put in place a century before. We watch history repeating itself as these new networks are built for the same reasons: Incumbents refusing to provide service or charging high rates for poor service.

Cities like Lafayette, Louisiana, and Monticello, Minnesota, offer the fastest speeds at the lowest rates in the entire country. Kutztown’s network in Pennsylvania has saved the community millions of dollars. Oklahoma City’s massive wireless mesh has helped modernize its municipal agencies. Cities in Utah have created a true broadband market with many independent service providers competing for subscribers. From DC to Santa Monica, communities have connected schools and municipal facilities, radically increasing broadband capacity without increasing telecom budgets.

These pioneering cities have had to struggle against many obstacles, often created by incumbents seeking to prevent the only real threat of competition they face. Eighteen states have passed laws that discourage publicly owned networks. When lawsuits by entrenched incumbents don’t thwart a publicly owned system, they cross-subsidize from non-competitive markets to temporarily reduce rates in an attempt to starve the infant public network of subscribers.

Despite these obstacles, more and more cities are building these networks and learning how to operate in the challenging new era in which all media is online and a high speed tele-communications network is as much a part of the essential infrastructure of a modern economy as electricity was 100 years ago.

Communities that have invested in these networks have seen tremendous benefits. Even small communities have generated millions of dollars in cumulative savings from reduced rates – caused by competition. Major employers have cited broadband networks as a deciding factor in choosing a new site and existing businesses have prospered in a more competitive environment.

Residents who subscribe to the network see the benefits of a network that puts service first; they talk to a neighbor when something goes wrong, not an offshore call center. At the municipal fiber network in Wilson, North Carolina, they talk of the “strangle effect.” If you have problems with their network, you can find someone locally to strangle. Because public entities are directly accountable to citizens, they have a stronger interest in providing good services, upgrading infrastructure, etc., than private companies who are structured to maximize profits, not community benefits. Residents who remain with private providers still get the benefits of competition, including reduced rates and increased incumbent investment.

Some publicly owned networks have decided to greatly increase competition by adopting an “open access” approach where independent service providers can use the network on equal terms. Public ownership and open access give residents and businesses the option of choosing among many providers, forcing providers to compete on the basis of service quality and price rather than simply on a historic monopoly boundary.

Perhaps the greatest benefit communities have gained from owning their telecommunications networks is self-determination. Recent court rulings enable private network owners to set their own rules, including increased charges for accessing some sites – much like a cable bill charges more for some programming. The rules are made far from where the customer resides and the criteria used to design such rules maximizes benefit to the private firm, not the community.

There is no one model for community broadband. Communities vary greatly in their needs, assets, desires, and culture, not to mention a regulatory environment that varies from state to state. This report presents case studies, evaluates existing networks, offers lessons learned, and highlights the most important issues facing both communities and policy makers at all levels. Public ownership offers the best prospect for building the networks we need to succeed in the 21st century.

Read more »

Update on Salisbury Fiber Network

Keywords:
By christopher on April 26, 2010

After focusing on the North Carolina battle at the Legislature (regarding whether cities should be allowed to choose to build their own broadband networks or if they should solely have to beg the private sector for investment), I wanted to check in on Salisbury, which is building a FTTH network.

Salisbury has persevered through many obstacles, including finding financing for the project in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Depression. They will begin serving customers this August.

After choosing the name "Fibrant" as the name of the network, they have established a slick web presence at fibrant.com. The site has a a blog, but is rarely updated currently.

Earlier in the month, the local paper discussed the ways in which the fiber network will aid public safety. The short answer is video, video, video.

Video can be used for security cameras (both in public places and in private homes) as well as to give officers better situational awareness when they arrive on a scene. But wireless video access is often the key - both so officers can stream video in the cruiser and because wireless video cameras are easier to place (no pesky wires to run) and move around.

Though wireless video is helpful, it creates of a lot of data that is best moved across fast, reliable, wired networks. This is why fiber-optic networks and wireless are better understood as complements than substitutes. A robust fiber architecture greatly eases the problems incurred by creating a wireless network because the wireless nodes will be more efficient if all are tied into a fiber network. Rather than streaming data across the entire city to send a single feed to a cruiser, a local access point will stream it across a smaller footprint.

"They are potentially looking at helmet cams," Doug Paris said, assistant to the city manager. "Those who are sitting outside (the structure) will be able to see what's going on inside."

It would make little sense for the fireman to have wires coming out of their helmets. But that wireless signal from the helmet probably won't propagate to the fire hall or police station. Instead, a wireless access point near the fire can grab the signal and make it available to anyone who needs access to it.

One reason public safety departments may not want to rely on privately owned wireless networks is because they may have dead areas. Consider that wireless carriers may focus investment in the areas that generate the highest revenues -- they may see little reason to ensure their services are reliable in rural areas or warehouse districts, for example. Police officers need access to all their tools everywhere in the community, not just where it is convenient for some company to offer it. Ownership of both the wired and wireless components make a lot of sense to local government.

And finally, just because we cannot get away from it, Salisbury has been involved in fighting back Time Warner's Monopoly Protection Act at the state capital - Raleigh. Both local officials and a private business owner traveled across the state to oppose a bill to prevent communities from building networks.

Local business owner Brad Walser was surprised how much opposition there is to publicly owned FTTH networks:

"I'm a firm believe that fiber optics will open the door to innovation and current high bandwidth applications, such as telemedicine, remote training in education, hoteling and telecommuting," Walser said. "It opened my eyes to how hard the city is having to fight to ensure they can install this fiber network."

He recognized that the unwillingness of incumbent providers to invest in modern networks hurts communities:

"Certain areas within the city limits cannot receive reliable bandwidth. We host websites, e-mails, off-site data storage, and for them to get that data to us, they need a good connection to the Internet."

Around the country, many of us are watching these events in North Carolina, hoping Time Warner and its legion of lobbyists cannot pass a bill to lock communities into their shoddy service.

Cable Cos, Wi-Fi, and Limiting Competition

Keywords:
By christopher on April 23, 2010

David Pogue, a NY Times Tech columnist, recently wrote about a partnership between cable companies to share Wi-Fi access points:

I, a Cablevision customer, can now use all of Time Warner’s and Comcast’s hot spots in these three states. If you have Time Warner’s Road Runner service at home, you’re now welcome to hop onto Cablevision’s Optimum hot spots wherever you find them, or Comcast’s Xfinity hot spots. And so on. It’s as though all three companies have merged for the purpose of accommodating your Wi-Fi gadget, hugely multiplying the number of hot spots that are available to you.

The companies call this kind of partnership “the first of many.”

Now, I think this development is fantastic. It hits me where I live. It’s free. It’s fast and reliable. I love it.

He goes on to ask, what's in it for them? Apparently, David Pogue has little understanding of how dominant firms work together to cement their power and limit competition.

He then put up a post with an answer from an insider:

“David, widely available WiFi makes our service better, and more useful and valuable,” he wrote. “And we don’t compete directly with TWC or Comcast for high-speed Internet customers; we compete with phone companies that offer a wide array of services, including data plans over increasingly over-burdened and sluggish cellular networks for an extra $60 per month."

Bingo. Big cable companies do not compete with each other - one suspects these companies have tacitly divided the national cable market with an understanding that they will not overbuild each other. The barriers to entering the cable/broadband market are already substantial: any new network requires a massive upfront capital expenditure. This Wi-Fi partnership with cable incumbents makes that barrier even larger.

Let's imagine that a city wants to build a publicly owned network that will compete with one of these companies. Customers of the private incumbent have Wi-Fi access all over the place, across three states - and probably more to come. The incumbent gets the benefit of investments from other cable cos in the partnership.

Any guesses on whether the publicly owned network will be invited to join that partnership?

A new network is at a disadvantage because it now has pressure to compete against not just one massive carrier with all the advantages of any incumbent that can cross-subsidize from (overpriced) non-competitive markets, but the combined wireless resources of several colluding carriers. Consumers who want roaming wireless access will want to stick with the massive cable incumbents and their partnerships.

These partnerships are great for consumers in the short run - by increasing the available Wi-Fi services - but do harm by creating larger barriers to entry for new competitors. And because the existing barriers are already so high, it seems that the public sector is just about the only entity interested in building competitive networks. Now these massive cable companies have yet another advantage that will limit competition.

Pulaski Muni FTTH Network Creates Energy Savings

Keywords:
Publication Date: 
February 1, 2010
Author(s): 
Masha Zager
Publication Title: 
Broadband Properties

Pulaski's public power provider is building a FTTH network and already seeing efficiency gains on the electrical side of their operations. Pulaski has 15,000 electric customers and 5,000 have been passed by fiber, with 1600 taking telecom services. Like Chattanooga, they are using a combination of wireless and fiber for smart-grid applications. Those who take telecom services are used to aggregate the wireless signals from neighbors who do not have a fiber line to their home. This is a great article to read for those curious about the benefits of smart-grids and how wireless can be successfully combined with fiber backhaul (as well as why wireless alone is insufficient).

Article
Pulaski Electric System Leverages FTTH Network for Energy Savings
Pulaski Receives Award for Utility
Syndicate content