I will surely write more on this subject as this groundbreaking yet not totally surprising potential merger progresses, but I wanted to get my initial reaction and predictions out there quickly. A few weeks ago there was buzz about Sprint and T-Mobile possibly merging, my response was "didn't they learn their lesson about merging incompatible wireless technologies with Nextel?" Yet, the failures of history are doomed to be repeated, or so they say--definitely true in telecommunications anyway. So, at least from the technological perspective, AT&T + T-Mobile makes sense. From a market concentration perspective, it is the beginning of the end of any slight resemblance of a competitive wireless market. If the FCC and DOJ approve this merger, it will pave the way for Verizon to go after Sprint-Nextel, which will result in a duopoly by its truest definition--nearly equal market power divided between two behemoths, where no competitors can come close to realizing the same economies of scale or attract customers with the best handsets, plans and prices. What will happen next--AT&T/T-Mobile will merge with Verizon/Sprint-Nextel; then we will relive the 1980s with a subsequent anti-trust suit and divestiture, where the wireless monopoly will be broken into a half dozen or so Regional Wireless Operating Companies, and the cycle of consolidation will start over once again.
It has been clear for awhile now that small rural wireless carriers will not fare well in the future with customer demands for iPhones and the gigabytes of data used per month per customer expected to continue to skyrocket. The regulatory system has not been favorable to rural wireless carriers who want to acquire spectrum, and auctions typically price small carriers out of the running. Difficulties securing roaming arrangements and exclusive handset deals with the Big 4 also push small wireless carriers to the fringes of the market. How can any regional (or smaller) wireless carrier compete with a network that has 100 million customers? The networks with 50 million customers become the small carriers and the carriers with 1 million or less customers are wiped away; swallowed whole; obliterated by an increasingly anti-competitive market.
It isn't all bad news for small wireless carriers though--the rural providers who are lucky enough to still own cellular holdings (RSA's, other partnerships and the rare sole proprietors), are sitting on gold mines in terms of spectrum assets. One of the Big 4 or Big 3 or Big 1 will pay--and pay a lot--to eliminate small carriers for no better reason than to be rid of having to deal with contractual obligations and lack of total control over the airwaves. Since future funding for rural telecom providers is so uncertain, those who own wireless assets can practically be assured that they will be able to reap a sizable amount of money for these assets that can then be funneled into FTTH and other crucial broadband deployment projects and network upgrades.
I will be following this merger process very carefully as it develops, and I cannot wait to hear the response from the FCC and DOJ. Those of you who have read The Master Switch will be able to see the telecom industry cycle's great migration back to a monopoly--which is definitely scary and troubling from the small rural company perspective. However, wireless has been moving in this direction for years now without much significant opposition.
Stay tuned for my commentary about the NTCA Legislative Conference which I am attending this week! There is an amazing selection of speakers at this conference (Genachowski included), which I am very excited about.
Cassandra Heyne
ruraltelecommentary@gmail.com
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Rural Broadband Usage: To Cap or Not To Cap?
...The question is, should rural broadband providers start thinking about implementing monthly consumer data usage caps? Possibly... One thing is for sure, a new pricing model is necessary so that rural providers can increase revenue and return on investment, and possibly even reduce financial reliance on government subsidies (which might be gone soon anyway).
AT&T's big decision this week to start capping wireline broadband at 150 GB for DSL customers and 250 GB for premium U-verse customers is certainly worth a hearty debate between broadband customers and broadband providers. On one hand, customers have grown accustomed to unlimited broadband use from basically all providers, and it has really only been the wireless providers who have made headlines recently for taking away the precious unlimited plans--primarily in response to the explosive growth of smart phones and corresponding strains on network capacity. Wireless broadband is a relatively new technology for many consumers, so the "shock factor" of taking away unlimited plans is not as severe as it is with DSL, cable or fiber-based broadband, where consumers have never even considered anything less than unlimited use. On the other hand, there are no rules saying that broadband providers must provide unlimited broadband capacity to all consumers, and a company that invests millions (or billions) of dollars into state-of-the-art broadband infrastructure for the benefit of consumers has the right to recoup those costs and make a reasonable profit. Unlimited plans were a wonderful way to attract consumers and get people excited about using the Internet, but the business and technology cycle is at a point now where it is not practical or sustainable to continue unlimited plans indefinitely. There are very few practical businesses where customers can consume a product or service on an unlimited basis forever (example: utilities). Increasing broadband capacity is very expensive for providers, and continual capacity increases cannot go on indefinitely every few years without some significant changes in the pricing strategy. The obvious solution is that the more you use, the more you pay (within reasonable limits of course).
One problem is that consumers and content sources are acting as though the transmission pipe in between is not as important as it actually is, and the content industry is going directly for the consumer's dollars and cutting the transmission provider out of the equation. Netflix is the obvious example--rural providers may experience nearly 1/4 of their peak time capacity going to consumers watching Netflix movies; yet the provider is not compensated proportionally by consumers nor content provider. Online video is only going to grow exponentially in the near future, so why can't broadband providers start reaping the benefits considering they enable the transaction between consumer and content to occur in the first place?
Consumers are going to be angry about data caps at first, but in reality caps probably won't even impact most consumers' bills at all. Internet capacity is not proportionally used by all customers; there are usually only a few percent that use a tremendously high volume of capacity on a regular basis. According to a FierceIPTV article, the AT&T caps will probably only impact about 2% of customers and most average customers only use about 18GB per month. Still, the idea of "unlimited" has a certain appeal and provides a sense of security and care-free attitude of entitlement for consumers. Providers may assume that implementing caps will cause churn, but this need not be the case.
There are also some key issues regarding customers' access to information and basic knowledge about broadband capacity and usage. There aren't any labels on websites saying "You are using X megabytes by looking at this website," like calorie and nutritional information on food and beverages. A consumer has to be fairly tech-savvy to even understand data usage and figure out how to monitor their own consumption, and then they have to actually care enough to make the effort to pay attention (also like food labels, you can put it there but ultimately it is up to the customer to read it, process the information, and make a good decision about consumption). I admittedly have a cynical attitude towards the "normal" Internet consumer. I literally would not expect a "normal" consumer to even know what a gigabyte means, or know the difference between DSL and cable Internet. The engineering behind telecommunications is mysterious and confusing even for me sometimes, and I'm supposedly getting a telecommunications engineering master's degree. By this logic, I would not expect the average consumer to have any clue how much data capacity they consume each month. I know my wireless data usage is usually around 150-300 MB per month, and I think I use my wireless data quite a bit. I actually don't know how much DSL data I use each month, but I am going to try to find out soon because I am curious to see if I would fall into the "over 150 GB per month" category. I watch my classes online, so I would bet my usage is high, although I don't think it is 150 GB. As pointed out in a FierceIPTV article, "You'd have to be rolling an HD movie a day, every day of the month, through Netflix to even tickle the 150 GB cap."
How does this impact rural broadband providers? .
I cannot stress how important it is for rural providers to start "thinking outside the box" for new sources of revenue with the impending threat of USF and access charges being taken away, as well as the inevitable transition away from per-minute voice pricing. It is a scary statistic that some rural providers receive over 50% of their annual revenue from subsidies, and it is a sad fact that some of these companies will not survive if those subsidies are taken away. This just illustrates how important it is to do some planning and experimenting now with new ways to generate income, before it is too late. Will customers like data usage caps? No, they will not. However, rural telecommunications providers have the unique benefit of being intimately involved in the lives of most of their consumers, where managers of rural telephone companies can take the time to sit down face-to-face and explain new pricing models to concerned customers. Rural providers can educate consumers about how they can monitor their broadband data usage, and notify consumers before the limit is reached to avoid those angry visits or phone calls from customers claiming they "didn't know." Due to the tight-knit provider-customer relationship in rural areas, rural customers may be likely to listen and ask questions, rather than just getting angry at a large faceless corporation and fleeing to a competitor. Finally, price differentiation can actually be a winning strategy for many companies who come up with new and creative ways to charge for services, so it is not unreasonable to think that some rural companies could even capitalize on a capped usage pricing strategy somehow and gain a strategic competitive advantage.
For further reading:
FierceIPTV: "AT&T Set to Roll Out Internet Usage Caps in May," Jim O'Neil
The Wall Street Journal: "AT&T Web Customers Face Data Caps," Roger Cheng
Connected Planet: "AT&T Set to Roll with DSL, U-verse Broadband Usage Caps," Dan O'Shea (Interestingly, if you look at the comments on this last article, you will see exactly how customers are reacting to the caps, with comments like "I will promptly cancel my AT&T service," and "If AT&T can't handle the bandwidth, then get out of the business." Unlimited broadband capacity is not a right, it is a priviledge that broadband providers have extended beyond its useful and profitable lifespan--so consumers: get used to changes in broadband pricing!)
Edit: There is a great post on the Innovation Policy Blog sponsored by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) that really clearly explains how a consumer would literally have to watch Netflix online for 7 hours a day every day in order to exceed AT&T's cap, which makes the criticism about this pricing strategy seem really unnecessary and unwarranted. Additionally, I wrote last month about my disdain for digital piracy and the costs it imposes on broadband networks, and I believe that capped usage strategies will not only send a message that digital piracy will not be overlooked by network providers, but that consumers who engage in this behavior will pay for their actions. Since the appeal of digital piracy is free content, it is possible that some people may even abandon large scale digital piracy rather than pay overage charges to ISPs. Here's hoping anyway...
Cassandra Heyne
ruraltelecommentary@gmail.com
AT&T's big decision this week to start capping wireline broadband at 150 GB for DSL customers and 250 GB for premium U-verse customers is certainly worth a hearty debate between broadband customers and broadband providers. On one hand, customers have grown accustomed to unlimited broadband use from basically all providers, and it has really only been the wireless providers who have made headlines recently for taking away the precious unlimited plans--primarily in response to the explosive growth of smart phones and corresponding strains on network capacity. Wireless broadband is a relatively new technology for many consumers, so the "shock factor" of taking away unlimited plans is not as severe as it is with DSL, cable or fiber-based broadband, where consumers have never even considered anything less than unlimited use. On the other hand, there are no rules saying that broadband providers must provide unlimited broadband capacity to all consumers, and a company that invests millions (or billions) of dollars into state-of-the-art broadband infrastructure for the benefit of consumers has the right to recoup those costs and make a reasonable profit. Unlimited plans were a wonderful way to attract consumers and get people excited about using the Internet, but the business and technology cycle is at a point now where it is not practical or sustainable to continue unlimited plans indefinitely. There are very few practical businesses where customers can consume a product or service on an unlimited basis forever (example: utilities). Increasing broadband capacity is very expensive for providers, and continual capacity increases cannot go on indefinitely every few years without some significant changes in the pricing strategy. The obvious solution is that the more you use, the more you pay (within reasonable limits of course).
One problem is that consumers and content sources are acting as though the transmission pipe in between is not as important as it actually is, and the content industry is going directly for the consumer's dollars and cutting the transmission provider out of the equation. Netflix is the obvious example--rural providers may experience nearly 1/4 of their peak time capacity going to consumers watching Netflix movies; yet the provider is not compensated proportionally by consumers nor content provider. Online video is only going to grow exponentially in the near future, so why can't broadband providers start reaping the benefits considering they enable the transaction between consumer and content to occur in the first place?
Consumers are going to be angry about data caps at first, but in reality caps probably won't even impact most consumers' bills at all. Internet capacity is not proportionally used by all customers; there are usually only a few percent that use a tremendously high volume of capacity on a regular basis. According to a FierceIPTV article, the AT&T caps will probably only impact about 2% of customers and most average customers only use about 18GB per month. Still, the idea of "unlimited" has a certain appeal and provides a sense of security and care-free attitude of entitlement for consumers. Providers may assume that implementing caps will cause churn, but this need not be the case.
There are also some key issues regarding customers' access to information and basic knowledge about broadband capacity and usage. There aren't any labels on websites saying "You are using X megabytes by looking at this website," like calorie and nutritional information on food and beverages. A consumer has to be fairly tech-savvy to even understand data usage and figure out how to monitor their own consumption, and then they have to actually care enough to make the effort to pay attention (also like food labels, you can put it there but ultimately it is up to the customer to read it, process the information, and make a good decision about consumption). I admittedly have a cynical attitude towards the "normal" Internet consumer. I literally would not expect a "normal" consumer to even know what a gigabyte means, or know the difference between DSL and cable Internet. The engineering behind telecommunications is mysterious and confusing even for me sometimes, and I'm supposedly getting a telecommunications engineering master's degree. By this logic, I would not expect the average consumer to have any clue how much data capacity they consume each month. I know my wireless data usage is usually around 150-300 MB per month, and I think I use my wireless data quite a bit. I actually don't know how much DSL data I use each month, but I am going to try to find out soon because I am curious to see if I would fall into the "over 150 GB per month" category. I watch my classes online, so I would bet my usage is high, although I don't think it is 150 GB. As pointed out in a FierceIPTV article, "You'd have to be rolling an HD movie a day, every day of the month, through Netflix to even tickle the 150 GB cap."
How does this impact rural broadband providers? .
I cannot stress how important it is for rural providers to start "thinking outside the box" for new sources of revenue with the impending threat of USF and access charges being taken away, as well as the inevitable transition away from per-minute voice pricing. It is a scary statistic that some rural providers receive over 50% of their annual revenue from subsidies, and it is a sad fact that some of these companies will not survive if those subsidies are taken away. This just illustrates how important it is to do some planning and experimenting now with new ways to generate income, before it is too late. Will customers like data usage caps? No, they will not. However, rural telecommunications providers have the unique benefit of being intimately involved in the lives of most of their consumers, where managers of rural telephone companies can take the time to sit down face-to-face and explain new pricing models to concerned customers. Rural providers can educate consumers about how they can monitor their broadband data usage, and notify consumers before the limit is reached to avoid those angry visits or phone calls from customers claiming they "didn't know." Due to the tight-knit provider-customer relationship in rural areas, rural customers may be likely to listen and ask questions, rather than just getting angry at a large faceless corporation and fleeing to a competitor. Finally, price differentiation can actually be a winning strategy for many companies who come up with new and creative ways to charge for services, so it is not unreasonable to think that some rural companies could even capitalize on a capped usage pricing strategy somehow and gain a strategic competitive advantage.
For further reading:
FierceIPTV: "AT&T Set to Roll Out Internet Usage Caps in May," Jim O'Neil
The Wall Street Journal: "AT&T Web Customers Face Data Caps," Roger Cheng
Connected Planet: "AT&T Set to Roll with DSL, U-verse Broadband Usage Caps," Dan O'Shea (Interestingly, if you look at the comments on this last article, you will see exactly how customers are reacting to the caps, with comments like "I will promptly cancel my AT&T service," and "If AT&T can't handle the bandwidth, then get out of the business." Unlimited broadband capacity is not a right, it is a priviledge that broadband providers have extended beyond its useful and profitable lifespan--so consumers: get used to changes in broadband pricing!)
Edit: There is a great post on the Innovation Policy Blog sponsored by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) that really clearly explains how a consumer would literally have to watch Netflix online for 7 hours a day every day in order to exceed AT&T's cap, which makes the criticism about this pricing strategy seem really unnecessary and unwarranted. Additionally, I wrote last month about my disdain for digital piracy and the costs it imposes on broadband networks, and I believe that capped usage strategies will not only send a message that digital piracy will not be overlooked by network providers, but that consumers who engage in this behavior will pay for their actions. Since the appeal of digital piracy is free content, it is possible that some people may even abandon large scale digital piracy rather than pay overage charges to ISPs. Here's hoping anyway...
Cassandra Heyne
ruraltelecommentary@gmail.com
Friday, March 11, 2011
Rural TeleCommentary Goes Public with Exciting Results!
When I sent out e-mails to the rural telecommunications industry yesterday announcing Rural TeleCommentary, I had no idea that within 24 hours a major telecom news website would be writing about my blog and my post about the National Broadband Map in particular!!! Needless to say, I nearly screamed with delight when I was scrolling through Facebook on my Blackberry earlier and came across a headline from Connected Planet that sounded vaguely familiar:
Newly Minted Law School Grad Questions Accuracy of National Broadband Map, by Joan Engebretson
When I saw my name in the article, I think I really did scream with excitement! Engebretson is an independent telecom writer on Connected Planet who I respect greatly. I follow her articles and blog posts on Connected Planet and I always look forward to what she has to say about the rural telecom industry. She also writes about how FCC decisions and other events impact the rural telecom industry specifically, and we all know that the rural voice is often not heard at all on major news outlets--making her voice quite valuable to me and many others. I am extremely grateful and excited about being featured on one of the best and most reliable news sources for the telecommunications industry! I feel very honored and I hope that this publicity will help attract even more readers to Rural TeleCommentary!
Thank you to everyone else who has e-mailed me and visited Rural TeleCommentary since yesterday! I am really excited about having a larger audience and it will definitely motivate me to keep writing about important issues in the rural telecommunications industry! I will be attended the NTCA Legislative Conference next week, which I am really looking forward to. I have not attended this conference in 7 or 8 years (OK, now I feel old), and I am excited about going back with the additional knowledge and insight I have gained about the telecom industry in the last few years. It is sure to be a valuable experience that will hopefully make an impact on some of the upcoming and troubling government decisions in the industry.
Welcome to all my new readers, and thank you for the great feedback!
Cassandra Heyne
ruraltelecommentary@gmail.com
Newly Minted Law School Grad Questions Accuracy of National Broadband Map, by Joan Engebretson
When I saw my name in the article, I think I really did scream with excitement! Engebretson is an independent telecom writer on Connected Planet who I respect greatly. I follow her articles and blog posts on Connected Planet and I always look forward to what she has to say about the rural telecom industry. She also writes about how FCC decisions and other events impact the rural telecom industry specifically, and we all know that the rural voice is often not heard at all on major news outlets--making her voice quite valuable to me and many others. I am extremely grateful and excited about being featured on one of the best and most reliable news sources for the telecommunications industry! I feel very honored and I hope that this publicity will help attract even more readers to Rural TeleCommentary!
Thank you to everyone else who has e-mailed me and visited Rural TeleCommentary since yesterday! I am really excited about having a larger audience and it will definitely motivate me to keep writing about important issues in the rural telecommunications industry! I will be attended the NTCA Legislative Conference next week, which I am really looking forward to. I have not attended this conference in 7 or 8 years (OK, now I feel old), and I am excited about going back with the additional knowledge and insight I have gained about the telecom industry in the last few years. It is sure to be a valuable experience that will hopefully make an impact on some of the upcoming and troubling government decisions in the industry.
Welcome to all my new readers, and thank you for the great feedback!
Cassandra Heyne
ruraltelecommentary@gmail.com
Thursday, March 10, 2011
New Reader? Welcome to Rural Telecommentary!
Time for Rural TeleCommentary to go public!
Well, Rural TeleCommentary has been moving right along in the cyber world for about two months now, and so far I am quite pleased with it. I have finally decided that it is time to start expanding my readership beyond a very small group of family and past co-workers (thank you all so much for your support so far, your suggestions have been very helpful and I really appreciate when people leave comments on my posts too!). However, the time has come to bring in more readers from the rural telecom industry. For the last few weeks I've been working on compiling a list of names of people from rural telecom associations, law firms, consulting firms, and state associations--all of whom I respect greatly for the work that they do to preserve and advocate the rural telecom industry. So, I will be sending e-mails to these select individuals (if you are a new reader and reading this post right now, then you are probably a recipient of this email). So, for my new readers, I have prepared some information that you may find useful to understand the meaning of this project.
"So, what is Rural TeleCommentary anyway?"
Rural TeleCommentary is a project I started back in January where I write about interesting and important current events in the telecommunications industry, and I analyze how the event (such as an NPRM or a new technology) will impact rural telecommunications providers. I am also hoping to do a series of comment summaries on the USF Reform proceeding, and I just started writing a series about business opportunities for rural utility co-ops and rural telecom providers to collaborate to reach smart grid and broadband deployment goals. These are just a few examples, but if you scroll down you will see articles on a variety of other topics including Federal funding for broadband, digital piracy, the National Broadband Map, and a book review of a truly outstanding book on the telecommunications industry. Some of my topics will be extensions from classes I am taking, and others are reviews of conferences I attend. If you would like to read my first official post, you can learn more about me, my credentials, and my goals for Rural TeleCommentary. You can jump there right now!
"I like it! Do I need to do anything other than just check in and read it every so often?"
You can read and enjoy this blog in any way that works best for you, but I may offer a few suggestions regarding reader participation. Of course, you are in no way obligated to participate but increased participation will certainly make it more interesting and beneficial for everyone!
The fastest way for you to find out when I post new articles is to get on my e-mail list. I send an e-mail alert as soon as I post an article. If you want to be on my e-mail list, just send me an e-mail with your preferred e-mail address and you will be added to the list. I do not want to unintentionally spam anyone, so this is why I am requesting an opt-in e-mail list option. I write articles approximately once per week, so you will not be bombarded with e-mails, I promise!
Alternatively, I've been posting links to new articles on my Facebook. You are more than welcome to "friend" me on Facebook and then you will be informed when a new article is posted.
Otherwise, you can just bookmark the website and check in whenever you want.Or not. It is totally up to you!
"I like it but... I have a few suggestions for how you could improve the site."
Great!! All feedback is really appreciated. This is a learning experience for me, so feedback is really a necessary part of the process. I am also open to taking suggestions for things to write about.
I think that about covers the basics. I invite you to scroll through my articles and I hope you enjoy Rural TeleCommentary!
Cassandra Heyne
ruraltelecommentary@gmail.com
Well, Rural TeleCommentary has been moving right along in the cyber world for about two months now, and so far I am quite pleased with it. I have finally decided that it is time to start expanding my readership beyond a very small group of family and past co-workers (thank you all so much for your support so far, your suggestions have been very helpful and I really appreciate when people leave comments on my posts too!). However, the time has come to bring in more readers from the rural telecom industry. For the last few weeks I've been working on compiling a list of names of people from rural telecom associations, law firms, consulting firms, and state associations--all of whom I respect greatly for the work that they do to preserve and advocate the rural telecom industry. So, I will be sending e-mails to these select individuals (if you are a new reader and reading this post right now, then you are probably a recipient of this email). So, for my new readers, I have prepared some information that you may find useful to understand the meaning of this project.
"So, what is Rural TeleCommentary anyway?"
Rural TeleCommentary is a project I started back in January where I write about interesting and important current events in the telecommunications industry, and I analyze how the event (such as an NPRM or a new technology) will impact rural telecommunications providers. I am also hoping to do a series of comment summaries on the USF Reform proceeding, and I just started writing a series about business opportunities for rural utility co-ops and rural telecom providers to collaborate to reach smart grid and broadband deployment goals. These are just a few examples, but if you scroll down you will see articles on a variety of other topics including Federal funding for broadband, digital piracy, the National Broadband Map, and a book review of a truly outstanding book on the telecommunications industry. Some of my topics will be extensions from classes I am taking, and others are reviews of conferences I attend. If you would like to read my first official post, you can learn more about me, my credentials, and my goals for Rural TeleCommentary. You can jump there right now!
"I like it! Do I need to do anything other than just check in and read it every so often?"
You can read and enjoy this blog in any way that works best for you, but I may offer a few suggestions regarding reader participation. Of course, you are in no way obligated to participate but increased participation will certainly make it more interesting and beneficial for everyone!
- I would love for new readers to introduce themselves in the comments section of this post so I can get a better idea of who my audience is, which will help me pick topics that might be particularly interesting to my readers.
- Do you have a Google account? Gmail? Already a blogger yourself? If you have a Google account, you can click on the "follow" icon on the right side of the screen below my profile and archive. My feelings won't be hurt if you don't--I'm pretty sure the "follow" feature is just a popularity contest anyway. If you have a Google blog too, there is presumably some way we can link to each others blogs.
- I really, really encourage you to leave comments on my posts. One of my goals for this project is to engage in lively debates and intellectual conversations on the topics I write about. If you are an expert in a topic I have written about, please share your knowledge with us as well.
The fastest way for you to find out when I post new articles is to get on my e-mail list. I send an e-mail alert as soon as I post an article. If you want to be on my e-mail list, just send me an e-mail with your preferred e-mail address and you will be added to the list. I do not want to unintentionally spam anyone, so this is why I am requesting an opt-in e-mail list option. I write articles approximately once per week, so you will not be bombarded with e-mails, I promise!
Alternatively, I've been posting links to new articles on my Facebook. You are more than welcome to "friend" me on Facebook and then you will be informed when a new article is posted.
Otherwise, you can just bookmark the website and check in whenever you want.Or not. It is totally up to you!
"I like it but... I have a few suggestions for how you could improve the site."
Great!! All feedback is really appreciated. This is a learning experience for me, so feedback is really a necessary part of the process. I am also open to taking suggestions for things to write about.
I think that about covers the basics. I invite you to scroll through my articles and I hope you enjoy Rural TeleCommentary!
Cassandra Heyne
ruraltelecommentary@gmail.com
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Business Opportunities Beyond Traditional Telecom Services: The Smart Grid
The Smart Grid is a hot topic right now, and I'm planning to write several articles about smart grid opportunities for rural telecom providers in the near future, focusing on different aspects of this idea. I have personally been interested in the Smart Grid for a year or so, and then I had the pleasure of doing several smart-grid related projects for my previous job and in the Wireless Communications engineering class I took last semester. My focus has primarily been on using wireless networks for smart grid components, and which type of wireless networks are most appropriate for different utility operations--from smart meters to SCADA to critical infrastructure communications (smart meters in particular). Naturally, I was very excited when a new class was added to the University of Colorado Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program this semester: Energy Communications Networks, focusing on all different communications aspects of the Smart Grid. I did not actually need to take this class for the credit hours or as a requirement, but that did not stop me from registering anyway because I am so interested in the topic. I would actually like to become somewhat of an expert in Smart Grid communications, for reasons I will explain momentarily. So far the class has been very interesting and I have been gaining some valuable knowledge about utility systems in general, a topic that is relatively new to me. There are just so many interesting aspects of utility communications, and the convergence of digital data communications with something as "old fashioned" and entrenched as the utility grid promises literally unlimited possibilities for utility providers and consumers, and new business opportunities rural telecommunications providers.
Yes, and telecommunications providers. Traditionally, the utility industry has not been very trustworthy of commercial telecommunications network providers. Utility providers want communications networks that promise the highest levels of reliability, security and resiliency, and this usually means building their own private networks specifically tailored to specifications and strict requirements in these areas. Utility providers want to have priority use of the network if "something bad happens," and utility providers also need network coverage in the deepest, darkest, most rural corner of their service territory--places that even the best telecom network providers may not reach easily or profitably with broadband. Although not every type of commercial telecommunications network is an attractive option for utility providers, I do believe that rural telephone companies and rural utility cooperatives should break down some of the traditional barriers between these two critical industries. Rural telecom providers are the most likely type of commercial telecom company to have broadband service that reaches far and wide in rural areas that are not considered profitable for larger telecom providers. It is a well known fact among the rural telecom advocates that rural companies provide far better broadband service in rural areas than their larger competitors, which has been an issue of contention in may recent FCC proceedings and will surely be brought up again in the CAF/USF Reform comments coming out next month. I suspect, and would like to further investigate, that many rural utility cooperatives and rural telephone companies and cooperatives have very similar service areas, where some real exciting business opportunities could exist for network sharing and shared investment in broadband facilities.
It is also a well known fact in the rural telecom industry that rural companies need to start looking at ancillary businesses and considering new ways to utilize existing infrastructure to increase profitability. With USF funding and access charges facing a dark and uncertain future, there is going to be a "survival of the fittest" situation in the rural telecom industry. The "fittest" are going to be the ones who jump on new business opportunities, possibly outside the scope of normal telecom services. Applications and content, particularly in video and social networking, are two obvious choices for expanded business models in hot current markets, but may not be practical or ideal for small rural companies. There is considerable pressure for utility companies to upgrade to smart grid capability--afterall, a frightening percentage of technology in the utility grid is already years past its expected useful lifespan of 30-40 years. Similarly, there is a huge push for telecom providers to upgrade to 4G, FTTH, and other broadband-capable technologies. See where I am going here? Utilities need to upgrade communications networks to broadband + Telecom providers cannot survive unless they upgrade to broadband = Business Opportunity for both parties.
There are many challenges facing any type of collaboration between rural utility and rural telecom providers. The lack of trust that utilities harbor towards telecom is clearly an issue, but I think there would be more potential for mutual agreement in a rural area, where the manager of the rural utility co-op and the manager of the rural telecom operator are probably neighbors, have kids on the same football team, or at least run into each other on a regular basis. This is one of the benefits of keeping rural services (be it telecom, utility, or grocery stores) owned and operated by members of the community. The business culture itself is more appropriate for collaboration across lines that are traditionally not crossed in corporate America, and each provider has a significant stake in the future of the community as members of the community themselves. The other major challenge is technology. Utility providers are implementing any and all types of communications networks in the migration to the Smart Grid, and often there are different communications technologies used by one utility provider for different segments of the grid. In general, wireless seems to be one of the best options. In the project I did for my wireless class last semester, I looked at the benefits and drawbacks of using public vs. private and licensed vs. unlicensed wireless networks. In a "perfect world" scenario, utility providers would probably want private licensed spectrum for most Smart Grid applications, but in a realistic world, there are actually many possibilities for using commercial and/or unlicensed wireless in areas of the grid that require lower bandwidth, less security, and low priority data transmission. Smart meters (or Advanced Metering Infrastructure-AMI) are an attractive candidate for using commercial spectrum because of these factors (low bandwidth, etc.). One possibility for a rural utility-rural telco partnership is in wireless broadband. A rural telco who already has (or is planning to deploy) a local wireless network like WiFi or WiMax could work with a rural utility co-op on network planning and capacity requirements, and could possibly even share the capital cost of the investment. Collaboration on network planning could be very beneficial to both sides, and it could ultimately allow the telecom provider to reach more customers with wireless broadband.
Basically, rural telecom providers need to start looking for new business opportunities in the face of adversity and a harsh regulatory regime. In an industry where the actual service providers are being shadowed by devices, applications and content, rural telecom providers need to be getting the most out of their infrastructure investments or risk an unprofitable future in terms of reduced long distance revenue and customer migration coupled with USF uncertainty. There may still be many challenges to overcome before commercial telecom providers and utility providers are best friends on a crusade to increase broadband availability in rural areas in a mutually beneficial way, but I think the time has come for these two industries to look into convergence possibilities wherever possible. I am planning to do more research on this topic soon and will add more information and ideas about smart grid business opportunities for rural telecom providers.
Edit 3/8/2011: I was so excited to see this article today in Connected Planet: NRTC Lands Two New Smart Grid Product Offerings, about some new technologies that will provide infrastructure synergies for rural utility cooperatives and rural telecommunications providers. I am planning to investigate the technologies mentioned in the article from Sensus and Efacec as well as the potential for rural utility-telecom collaboration for a project in my Energy Communications class. The article also mentions that one rural utlity and telco have merged some operations to achieve Smart Grid goals, and I am very curious to learn more about this partnership-- Who is it? Have they been successful? What challenges have they overcome?
Cassandra Heyne
ruraltelecommentary@gmail.com
Yes, and telecommunications providers. Traditionally, the utility industry has not been very trustworthy of commercial telecommunications network providers. Utility providers want communications networks that promise the highest levels of reliability, security and resiliency, and this usually means building their own private networks specifically tailored to specifications and strict requirements in these areas. Utility providers want to have priority use of the network if "something bad happens," and utility providers also need network coverage in the deepest, darkest, most rural corner of their service territory--places that even the best telecom network providers may not reach easily or profitably with broadband. Although not every type of commercial telecommunications network is an attractive option for utility providers, I do believe that rural telephone companies and rural utility cooperatives should break down some of the traditional barriers between these two critical industries. Rural telecom providers are the most likely type of commercial telecom company to have broadband service that reaches far and wide in rural areas that are not considered profitable for larger telecom providers. It is a well known fact among the rural telecom advocates that rural companies provide far better broadband service in rural areas than their larger competitors, which has been an issue of contention in may recent FCC proceedings and will surely be brought up again in the CAF/USF Reform comments coming out next month. I suspect, and would like to further investigate, that many rural utility cooperatives and rural telephone companies and cooperatives have very similar service areas, where some real exciting business opportunities could exist for network sharing and shared investment in broadband facilities.
It is also a well known fact in the rural telecom industry that rural companies need to start looking at ancillary businesses and considering new ways to utilize existing infrastructure to increase profitability. With USF funding and access charges facing a dark and uncertain future, there is going to be a "survival of the fittest" situation in the rural telecom industry. The "fittest" are going to be the ones who jump on new business opportunities, possibly outside the scope of normal telecom services. Applications and content, particularly in video and social networking, are two obvious choices for expanded business models in hot current markets, but may not be practical or ideal for small rural companies. There is considerable pressure for utility companies to upgrade to smart grid capability--afterall, a frightening percentage of technology in the utility grid is already years past its expected useful lifespan of 30-40 years. Similarly, there is a huge push for telecom providers to upgrade to 4G, FTTH, and other broadband-capable technologies. See where I am going here? Utilities need to upgrade communications networks to broadband + Telecom providers cannot survive unless they upgrade to broadband = Business Opportunity for both parties.
There are many challenges facing any type of collaboration between rural utility and rural telecom providers. The lack of trust that utilities harbor towards telecom is clearly an issue, but I think there would be more potential for mutual agreement in a rural area, where the manager of the rural utility co-op and the manager of the rural telecom operator are probably neighbors, have kids on the same football team, or at least run into each other on a regular basis. This is one of the benefits of keeping rural services (be it telecom, utility, or grocery stores) owned and operated by members of the community. The business culture itself is more appropriate for collaboration across lines that are traditionally not crossed in corporate America, and each provider has a significant stake in the future of the community as members of the community themselves. The other major challenge is technology. Utility providers are implementing any and all types of communications networks in the migration to the Smart Grid, and often there are different communications technologies used by one utility provider for different segments of the grid. In general, wireless seems to be one of the best options. In the project I did for my wireless class last semester, I looked at the benefits and drawbacks of using public vs. private and licensed vs. unlicensed wireless networks. In a "perfect world" scenario, utility providers would probably want private licensed spectrum for most Smart Grid applications, but in a realistic world, there are actually many possibilities for using commercial and/or unlicensed wireless in areas of the grid that require lower bandwidth, less security, and low priority data transmission. Smart meters (or Advanced Metering Infrastructure-AMI) are an attractive candidate for using commercial spectrum because of these factors (low bandwidth, etc.). One possibility for a rural utility-rural telco partnership is in wireless broadband. A rural telco who already has (or is planning to deploy) a local wireless network like WiFi or WiMax could work with a rural utility co-op on network planning and capacity requirements, and could possibly even share the capital cost of the investment. Collaboration on network planning could be very beneficial to both sides, and it could ultimately allow the telecom provider to reach more customers with wireless broadband.
Basically, rural telecom providers need to start looking for new business opportunities in the face of adversity and a harsh regulatory regime. In an industry where the actual service providers are being shadowed by devices, applications and content, rural telecom providers need to be getting the most out of their infrastructure investments or risk an unprofitable future in terms of reduced long distance revenue and customer migration coupled with USF uncertainty. There may still be many challenges to overcome before commercial telecom providers and utility providers are best friends on a crusade to increase broadband availability in rural areas in a mutually beneficial way, but I think the time has come for these two industries to look into convergence possibilities wherever possible. I am planning to do more research on this topic soon and will add more information and ideas about smart grid business opportunities for rural telecom providers.
Edit 3/8/2011: I was so excited to see this article today in Connected Planet: NRTC Lands Two New Smart Grid Product Offerings, about some new technologies that will provide infrastructure synergies for rural utility cooperatives and rural telecommunications providers. I am planning to investigate the technologies mentioned in the article from Sensus and Efacec as well as the potential for rural utility-telecom collaboration for a project in my Energy Communications class. The article also mentions that one rural utlity and telco have merged some operations to achieve Smart Grid goals, and I am very curious to learn more about this partnership-- Who is it? Have they been successful? What challenges have they overcome?
Cassandra Heyne
ruraltelecommentary@gmail.com
Friday, February 18, 2011
The National Broadband Map: For $200M, Why Can't They Get It Right?
The National Broadband Map should be called "The National Airport Map." The government clearly put in a lot more work identifying airports than broadband service providers and accurate broadband speeds.
Last summer, I got really angry about the Iowa Broadband Map because it was pretty inaccurate by my observations. However, the mapping tools were actually kind of cool and easy to use, and highly detailed when you zoomed in close. I had really low expectations for the National Broadband Map that is costing this country over $200 million. By contrast, the proposed Mobility Fund is planning to spend $100-300 million to build extensive wireless broadband infrastructure. This is a really, really expensive map.
It is also strange, hard to use, and inaccurate. I like the Iowa map because they at least use different colors for different broadband technologies, but the National map just uses one color which kind of defeats the whole purpose if you care about finding a wireless vs. wired connection. With the Iowa map, you could layer the different broadband technologies and see where they overlap and where gaps exist, but this map just looks like a blue blob when you layer the technologies. Not to brag, but I am an extremely good map reader, so I feel sorry for the less map-inclined individuals who are trying to figure this thing out. It takes a long time to load the data (even though it says my connection is 3-6 Mbps), and the whole application is just clumsy and frustrating. For $200 million, I would expect this map to pay my bills and give me compliments, but it doesn't do anything special.
Second, the data is wrong. I'm not saying it is wrong everywhere, but it is wrong for a large chunk of land in Iowa, covering 7 small communities. Walnut Telephone Company is not listed as a service provider in Walnut, Iowa, or in 5 of the 7 communities that it provides broadband service. Interestingly, a rural provider from a town about 25 miles away from Walnut is listed as the primary broadband provider in Walnut, which is completely wrong. This company has invested significant amounts of money in FTTH, which is not recognized by this map at all. In fact, there is basically no FTTH at all in the whole country which I find highly suspicious--I know it is not the dominant technology, but there has to be more than what is shown on the map. It would also be nice for the map to identify FTTH networks under development, but I realize this is a lot to ask for with $200 M. I plan to spend more time on this map and see what other inaccuracies that I can find, but if anyone knows of any more I would like to hear about it.
Third, I have concluded that Verizon Wireless is in cahoots with the broadband map makers. Verizon somehow has 3-6 Mbps service everywhere. Many people do not understand that coverage and service are not the same, and if these maps are supposed to help people make decisions about broadband service providers then some people may be sorely disappointed when their "3-6 Mbps" Verizon service can barely get one bar of mobile voice service in a rural area.
Finally, and most entertaining, the National Broadband Map should really be called the National Airport Map. I think someone got confused when they were developing the map, because there was clearly a lot more effort put into naming nonexistent airports than finding out actual broadband speeds and getting the right service providers assigned to the right zip codes. The map does not list the names of towns or counties, but rather the names of airports until you zoom in really far on a specific location. Why would they list the names of airports that probably consist of a garage, a crop duster and a driveway in a field, but not the names of towns? Why would someone literally spend time finding these unused airports but not get the broadband data correct? So many questions... So few answers.
I tried to copy some screen grabs of the map to post here, but of course that wasn't possible. Please take a few minutes to explore the map here: http://www.broadbandmap.gov/. If the broadband data (service provider, speeds, coverage geography, etc.) in your area is inaccurate, contact the FCC or NTIA. There is a link to leave feedback on the main page of the map. If you found inaccurate data for your service area, I would like to hear about it as well!
Happy mapping!
Cassandra Heyne
ruraltelecommentary@gmail.com
Update: I tried to leave feedback but when I submitted my comments, they were either deleted or rejected somehow. Thanks, FCC and NTIA! I'm so happy that my feedback is important to you! So important that I can't even submit it!
Last summer, I got really angry about the Iowa Broadband Map because it was pretty inaccurate by my observations. However, the mapping tools were actually kind of cool and easy to use, and highly detailed when you zoomed in close. I had really low expectations for the National Broadband Map that is costing this country over $200 million. By contrast, the proposed Mobility Fund is planning to spend $100-300 million to build extensive wireless broadband infrastructure. This is a really, really expensive map.
It is also strange, hard to use, and inaccurate. I like the Iowa map because they at least use different colors for different broadband technologies, but the National map just uses one color which kind of defeats the whole purpose if you care about finding a wireless vs. wired connection. With the Iowa map, you could layer the different broadband technologies and see where they overlap and where gaps exist, but this map just looks like a blue blob when you layer the technologies. Not to brag, but I am an extremely good map reader, so I feel sorry for the less map-inclined individuals who are trying to figure this thing out. It takes a long time to load the data (even though it says my connection is 3-6 Mbps), and the whole application is just clumsy and frustrating. For $200 million, I would expect this map to pay my bills and give me compliments, but it doesn't do anything special.
Second, the data is wrong. I'm not saying it is wrong everywhere, but it is wrong for a large chunk of land in Iowa, covering 7 small communities. Walnut Telephone Company is not listed as a service provider in Walnut, Iowa, or in 5 of the 7 communities that it provides broadband service. Interestingly, a rural provider from a town about 25 miles away from Walnut is listed as the primary broadband provider in Walnut, which is completely wrong. This company has invested significant amounts of money in FTTH, which is not recognized by this map at all. In fact, there is basically no FTTH at all in the whole country which I find highly suspicious--I know it is not the dominant technology, but there has to be more than what is shown on the map. It would also be nice for the map to identify FTTH networks under development, but I realize this is a lot to ask for with $200 M. I plan to spend more time on this map and see what other inaccuracies that I can find, but if anyone knows of any more I would like to hear about it.
Third, I have concluded that Verizon Wireless is in cahoots with the broadband map makers. Verizon somehow has 3-6 Mbps service everywhere. Many people do not understand that coverage and service are not the same, and if these maps are supposed to help people make decisions about broadband service providers then some people may be sorely disappointed when their "3-6 Mbps" Verizon service can barely get one bar of mobile voice service in a rural area.
Finally, and most entertaining, the National Broadband Map should really be called the National Airport Map. I think someone got confused when they were developing the map, because there was clearly a lot more effort put into naming nonexistent airports than finding out actual broadband speeds and getting the right service providers assigned to the right zip codes. The map does not list the names of towns or counties, but rather the names of airports until you zoom in really far on a specific location. Why would they list the names of airports that probably consist of a garage, a crop duster and a driveway in a field, but not the names of towns? Why would someone literally spend time finding these unused airports but not get the broadband data correct? So many questions... So few answers.
I tried to copy some screen grabs of the map to post here, but of course that wasn't possible. Please take a few minutes to explore the map here: http://www.broadbandmap.gov/. If the broadband data (service provider, speeds, coverage geography, etc.) in your area is inaccurate, contact the FCC or NTIA. There is a link to leave feedback on the main page of the map. If you found inaccurate data for your service area, I would like to hear about it as well!
Happy mapping!
Cassandra Heyne
ruraltelecommentary@gmail.com
Update: I tried to leave feedback but when I submitted my comments, they were either deleted or rejected somehow. Thanks, FCC and NTIA! I'm so happy that my feedback is important to you! So important that I can't even submit it!
Thursday, February 17, 2011
A Crazy Week for The Telecom Industry: NTCA vs. Blair Levin, Net Neutrality Challenged, World Mobile Congress, and More!
Wow, another big week for the telecom industry! So many exciting things have happened, adding to an already pretty exciting month. There was a nearly hostile showdown the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA) annual meeting with Blair Levin; exciting smart phones and tablets were revealed at the World Mobile Congress in Barcelona, Spain; the Republicans dished out some harsh criticism about the Net Neutrality Rules, and the competition between Google and Apple heated up over published content distribution (also Apple is being targeted for antitrust violations—oh how fun!). What else? Well, the NBP national broadband maps are finally online, and I have already found one glaring error for Iowa within the first 10 seconds of looking at it (not surprising, considering the mess that some of the statewide maps have been). Wisconsin gave back its broadband stimulus grants, and there was some drama in Minnesota over the CenturyLink-Qwest merger. With all these exciting events, it should not come as a shock that I still haven’t finished reading that USF NPRM to do a proper analysis, although I have gotten a pretty good start and covered most of the main points. Oh, there was also a Federal-State Joint Board Universal Service Workshop today which I hope to watch sometime soon, maybe this weekend if this wonderful faux-spring weather goes away. Other news… a computer beat some really smart humans at Jeopardy which has a lot of people wondering if AI technology really is a force to be reckoned with. Along these lines, I just finished reading The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, by Nicholas Carr, which has lead me to vow to read more entire books and articles and not to rely so much on Google to answer every single question that pops into my mind every day. A little hard research never killed anyone, and I certainly have the skills and determination to look further than the first page of search results to really learn about something. I would love to provide some details on all of these interesting events from the week, but The Shallows taught me that most people do not pay attention to long articles online anyway, so I will try to be brief with highlighting a few of my favorite things from the telecom industry this week.
Blair Levin vs. NTCA: My inside source at the NTCA annual meeting in Dallas informed me early Monday morning that the Blair Levin (National Broadband Plan author and enemy of rural telecom providers) would be engaging in a debate with some rural telecom managers (my “inside source” is my dad, Bruce Heyne, President and GM of Walnut Communications). He said that the audience was instructed not to yell or ask questions, and there was a stage divider installed to separate the rural guys from their nemesis, Mr. Levin. These precautions were apparently necessary as the debate became fairly hostile. I really wished I would have been there! I have been following the Blair Levin vs. Rural Telecom for awhile now, and it never ceases to amaze me how Mr. Levin will boldly walk into the proverbial lion’s den and taunt the lions repeatedly. A few months ago, he insulted rural telecom providers in the Des Moines Register (Iowa has the most rural telecom providers of any state), and now he goes into one of the biggest events in the rural telecom industry with guns blazing. Anyway, Levin debated Delbert Wilson of Hill Country Telephone Cooperative (TX) and Randy Houdek of Venture Communications Cooperative (SD) on some pretty heavy issues. The rural participants argued that the National Broadband Plan implications will be harmful to consumers and the rural industry, and the plan is a great source of uncertainty, “with Houdek noting that if Levin’s assumptions [in the NBP] are wrong, there is a risk an entire infrastructure will be destroyed” (NTCA). Levin is a big advocate of the dreaded 4/1 Mbps speed limit for USF support, which was thankfully attacked by the rural participants. Additionally, there have been many accusations lately about abusive and wasteful use of USF support, where rural telecom providers allegedly receive thousands of dollars per month, per line in some cases. For some reason, I feel like many FCC staff members who are unfamiliar with the rural telecom industry honestly believe that all rural telecom providers do this. This point was argued in the debate, with the rural telco managers explaining that most rural providers see more like a couple hundred dollars per year per line. This is a fact that needs to be echoed until the FCC realizes that not all rural telecom providers are wasting money on "frivolous" things like FTTH that costs the government $2,000 per month for one customer (FTTH is certainly not frivolous). Apparently, Levin argued that rural telecom providers need to look at other business opportunities to remain sustainable, and on this point I completely agree—but this is a topic that I will explore in more detail on another day. Click here to read more about this heated debate on the NTCA website.
GOP Challenges Net Neutrality Rules: I’ve been very pleased to see how many valid and reasonable arguments have popped up lately with regards to those onerous and utterly pointless Net Neutrality Rules. We are definitely headed for a lengthy battle to get these rules reversed, and Republicans are gearing up to for a fight to the death. I personally don’t think they will be dead and buried until we have a Republican president and FCC majority, but I will be watching every move until then. Anyway, House Republicans attacked the Rules “as unnecessary and overly burdensome on industry,” in a hearing on Wednesday, Feb. 16. Although rural telecom providers might not face the scrutiny that companies like Comcast and Verizon will face under these rules, everyone is going to have to deal with hassles like compliance forms and all of the other fun stuff that costs precious time and money to prevent getting slapped with some sort of vague Net Neutrality violation. The Net Neutrality Rules address a problem that does not exist, and their entire logic is based on “what if” scenarios and not solid truths. I do not think that the FCC has the authority to regulate something as great and far-reaching as the Internet, and hopefully Congress and the Courts will make this conclusion as well. The Republicans are trying to derail the rules through “various legislative avenues,” such as cutting the FCC’s funding for implementing the rules and overturning the rules under the Congressional Review Act (Wall Street Journal). Good luck GOP! I am rooting for you guys and I really hope that your efforts are fruitful and that you choose your strategic maneuvers wisely because Obama and Genachowski will not back down easily. Click here for an article in the Wall Street Journal about Wednesday’s hearing.
Wisconsin Gives Back Broadband Stimulus Money: I found this story to be really entertaining, but also a huge cautionary warning for the FCC as the government moves towards implementing new mechanisms to distribute federal funding for broadband (i.e. the unproven reverse auctions). Basically, there were too many strings attached to the government funding for broadband and the state of Wisconsin did not want to burden taxpayers with a $23 million liability if the hefty requirements were not met to the government’s liking. According to a FierceTelecom article, “this is simply not an acceptable risk,” for the state of Wisconsin, even if the money would have been very important for improving broadband infrastructure in rural areas and for schools, hospitals, and emergency responders. Apparently, the government stipulated a 20 year network commitment in exchange for the $23 million, but the state of Wisconsin does not even own the network infrastructure that would benefit—AT&T owns it! I think it was pretty noble for Wisconsin to give back that money—a less admirable recipient could have just kept it and then burdened taxpayers or customers with the negative consequences of failing to meet requirements. I really hope that the government considers this little incident when they are writing the rules for future monetary distributions for broadband—in the Mobility Fund and the new USF system especially. Too many requirements will scare away potential participants—such as rural telecom providers—who may be the perfect company to receive funding for broadband expansion. I know that this is a reason why some rural telecom providers did not bother participating in the BTOP and BIP programs. I am already really worried about low participation by rural providers in future reverse auctions, and including a ton of overwhelming requirements is definitely not the way to increase participation by small businesses. Click here for an article from FierceTelecom about Wisconsin returning broadband stimulus funds.
It has definitely been an exciting week!! Stay tuned for my upcoming analysis of the USF NPRM. I am going to be doing my Master's Thesis on USF reform (exact topic is still not determined), so I definitely need to read every page of this document in the near future.
Cassandra Heyne
ruraltelecommentary@gmail.com
It has definitely been an exciting week!! Stay tuned for my upcoming analysis of the USF NPRM. I am going to be doing my Master's Thesis on USF reform (exact topic is still not determined), so I definitely need to read every page of this document in the near future.
Cassandra Heyne
ruraltelecommentary@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)