Tag: "verizon"

Posted February 18, 2011 by christopher

An unfortunately common argument used against community fiber networks is that everything will be wireless in the future. This was used frequently last year in North Carolina by defenders of the pro-TWC legislation to create new barriers against community fiber networks.

The technical among us may want to get into the math theory with the Shannon-Hartley theorem to explain why wired is more reliable than wireless and therefore capable of much higher capacity.

Others might point that wireless will have less capacity because a wireless connection is really a wired connection to a tower somewhere that is then shared among hundreds or thousands of other users. Empirically, there is no wireless connection that beats fiber-optics.

But if you are looking for an entity that is intimately familiar with both wired and wireless, you might ask Verizon. Verizon is rolling out its LTE wireless network (arguably the best large scale wireless network in the country) and has millions of customers on its fiber-optic FiOS wired network. Verizon says the future needs fiber-optics to the home and wireless in the air:

"If you get underneath what's driving the fiber in the metropolitan markets it has been the need for increased video, increased reliability and security for customers," Seidenberg said. "The way we think about it is even though we have this great 4G mobile network, you still need to have fiber to the premises because we think your home will utilize a Gigabit of bandwidth."

...

"The way we look at it is we want to get fiber to as many business premises and cover as much as the footprint as we can and we believe everyone else going to do the same thing in other parts of the country," Seidenberg said. "If the incumbents or the MSOs don't do it then these little companies will do it and be the entrance facilities to homes and businesses."

As folks in North Carolina consider this year's proposal to limit competition with last-generation cable and DSL networks, they should think seriously about the communities around them served by FiOS -- with much faster...

Read more
Posted February 5, 2011 by christopher

As you observe (or hopefully, participate in), the debates around network neutrality or universal service fund reform, remember that many of the loudest voices in support of industry positions are likely to be astroturf front groups.  Between extremely well-financed astroturf organizations and industry-captured regulatory agencies, creating good policy that benefits the public is hard work.  It helps to study how industry has gamed the FCC in the past -- as documented by David Rosen and Bruce Kushnick in a recent Alternet article.

At the risk of being sarcastic, we can thank the FCC for working with the industry to make our phone bills to easy to read - an example is available here.

Posted January 29, 2011 by christopher

Another excellent video from Susan Crawford, this one from Summer 2010.  

Posted January 27, 2011 by christopher

For years, I have heard Graham Richards, former mayor of Fort Wayne Indiana, brag about this "beg, borrow, buy, build" [pdf] philosophy as Mayor.  I am not insulting him -- his brash style is quite likable, but it is bragging.  He was somewhat of a celebrity among the broadband folks because he both understood the importance of broadband and had convinced Verizon to roll out FiOS in Fort Wayne when they had no plans to.  His philosophy is to first beg, then borrow, then buy, and finally build the network if necessary -- a similar approach of many local governments.  This is also often the path of least resistance (which, Utah Phillips reminds us, is what makes the river crooked).  

Graham is a terrific guy and a great evangelist for broadband (though he never jumped into a frozen Lake Superior) -- but we have long argued that his priorities were wrong in the long term.  Not owning the network means the network is unlikely to care about what the community needs.  Unfortunately, our philosophy has proven prescient.

When we last discussed Frontier's radical price increases for the FiOS subscribers they bought from Verizon, we failed to note that Fort Wayne was one of the transferred communities.  They begged for the network and they have no voice in how it is run.  So when Frontier jacks up its FiOS prices and glibly encourages people to drop their high quality FiOS cable for lesser quality DirectTV (with a long contract), the folks in Fort Wayne have little choice but to shrug their shoulders.

Serfs may occasion upon a good Lord of the Manor, but mostly they didn't.  Ownership of essential infrastructure offers long term benefits.

Photo used under Creative Commons, courtesy of Jenn Raynes

Posted January 21, 2011 by Mitch Shapiro

 

In late 2007 I wrote an essay [pdf] for FTTH Prism arguing that it makes increasing sense for municipalities and incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to cooperate in bringing open-access fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) service to America’s small towns and rural areas.

As readers of this web site well know, such a cooperative model stands in sharp contrast to the typical reality faced by poorly-served communities wanting to connect their businesses and households to a community-owned fiber network. In virtually all such cases, the ILEC, though refusing to deploy its own FTTH network--or even provide high-speed DSL service to the entire community—will fight tooth and nail to stop construction of a community-owned fiber network.

In my essay I acknowledged that ILECs had yet to show any signs of shifting from their “kill all muni-nets” attitude to one that views open-access municipal FTTH networks as a means to better compete with cable without taking on the substantial capital investment associated with a FTTH upgrade. But I added that:

“it remains to be seen whether these [anti-muni-net] attitudes will withstand the mounting competitive pressures facing ILECs in the large number of markets in which they are not planning to deploy fiber-rich, video-capable networks. In these markets, the combination of cable VoIP and triple-play bundles, wireless replacement, and low-cost web-based services will increasingly turn what were once “high-margin” copper customers into either low-margin copper customers, or negative-margin non-customers.”

Among the trends I cited as pushing ILECs to reconsider their staunch resistance to muni-nets was the fact that, in markets where they don’t deploy their own FTTH networks, they will fall farther and farther behind in terms of broadband speeds, especially as cable operators ramp up their deployment of next-generation DOCSIS 3.0 technology.

In the face of this increasingly threatening competitive trend, I suggested that ILECs seriously consider leveraging their existing customer base and expertise to become retail providers on state-of-the-art muni FTTH networks, which can deliver much faster (and more symmetrical) speeds and better service quality than cable—even after the latter deploys DOCSIS 3....

Read more
Posted January 6, 2011 by christopher

Frontier has been bitten by the same disadvantage many communities face when building their own networks -- little market power means having to overpay for everything. When Frontier bought millions of Verizon rural lines, it bought a few FiOS connections as well. But not enough to gain any bargaining power with channel owners. So Frontier had to raise the costs of its video services up for 46%. Lest anyone feel too sorry for Frontier, they are doing just fine. It is their customers who suffer. But it is a reminder that the issue of scale and market power are barriers to all competition, not just community networks. If we want to have real competition in this country, the Congress and the FCC need to stop ignoring the problems caused by massive players distorting the market. This unregulated market is an invitation for big players to join together and screw everyone else.

Posted December 30, 2010 by christopher

Excellent lecture.

Posted December 7, 2010 by christopher

The AP says Burlington Telecom may be a cautionary tale for cities around the the country that contemplate building their own networks.

It is fascinating that this article appears now, as we wait for the audit of Burlington to be published, where we hope to finally discover exactly what went wrong in the network. The Mayor used to allege that Tim Nulty (General Manager who built it) left it in ruin when he resigned.

However, it looked good (not great, but good) at that point. And after the transition, the Mayor's Administration ceased Nulty's policies of transparency, so we would have to take their word for it rather than any proof. For instance, BT ceased to work with citizen oversight committees. This is the same Administration that hid supposed transfers to the network from the City Council and the people.

The very fact that such secrecy was possible is troubling. These networks are intended to behave somewhat transparently and should be independently audited to ensure problems (which may be corrected when found) are not hidden for political reasons. Burlington had a unique structure that allowed the Mayor too much opaque control over the network - something rarely found in the structure of most community networks. (Some things, such as prices paid for content, should remain secret for competitive reasons, but that should not allow the Mayor to hide key metrics regarding the health of the network.)

There are reasons to believe the Mayor improperly accounted money to BT, which is why we await an audit from the state that we hope will clear up exactly how Burlington Telecom went from being a good example to the worst example of public ownership (something paid shills from telco and cableco groups critics love to point out).

Author Dave Gram has an odd passage regarding this situation:

In September 2009, BT notified the Vermont Public Service Board that it had used $17 million in city funds in violation of its state license. State officials have been mum about the details of their investigation, and an FBI spokesman, through an assistant, would not confirm or deny a Burlington Free Press report that that agency had stepped in. It's widely believed that apparent license...

Read more
Posted November 26, 2010 by christopher

Remember our post that privately owned broadband networks tend toward consolidation? A Wall Street Journal article notes that Verizon CEO Seidenbuerg agrees:

Mr. Seidenberg also had some words for his smaller competitors like Sprint Nextel Corp. and T-Mobile USA, which claim to have their own 4G networks up and running already. He thinks the companies, along with other smaller wireless operators, should join forces. "There are too many players in the industry," he said. "I think it would be healthy if there's more consolidation."

So while most of want more competition (which is to say, actual competition rather than essentially the same limited choices from a few providers), they are working to eliminate the few choices we have.

The same story also peeks into the super fast world of the 4G networks that some would have us believe will obviate the need for a faster, more reliable FTTH connection:

Mr. Shammo said Verizon's 4G network, which is based on technology called Long-Term Evolution, can deliver between 1 and 12 megabits per second of data, allowing for tiered pricing structure similar to home wired Internet service.

Call me crazy, but 4G seems like a step backward for most of us who care about fast broadband.

Posted November 25, 2010 by christopher

The abstract immediately captured my attention:

Policymakers often tell us that the Internet succeeded because of a lack of government regulation. For instance, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell recently noted that the “evolution away from government intervention has been the most important ingredient in the Internet’s success.” These views, while widely shared, happen to be inaccurate. In reality, a diverse range of federal regulations, subsidies, and nondiscrimination protections sustained the Internet’s historic growth.

But what if, as many inaccurately assume, these regulations had never existed? What would today’s Internet look like in such a world? In this essay, I provide a fictional alternate history - in form of a satirical book review - to illustrate how differently the Internet might have developed in a truly privatized world. Although the essay below (beginning after this abstract) is fictional, it draws heavily upon both the regulatory history of the Internet and the policy arguments at issue in today’s leading regulatory proceedings.

This article covers decisions like Carterfone, the FCC's Computer Inquires, giving control over TCP/IP to the National Science Foundation rather than AT&T, and the intentions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. It also includes a reminder of the difference between open systems and closed systems:

One important way that open policies achieve this goal is by reducing various types of transaction costs. In open networks, new market entrants can completely avoid negotiating with companies who have “gateway control” over the network. The aspiring entrants do not have to pay—nor seek permission from—the network owners for access. Accordingly, these policies encourage vastly more experimentation and amateur “tinkering.” Closed networks, by contrast, produce relatively less innovation because they rely on centralized network owners to introduce—or at least approve—innovation before it becomes available.

This is a fantastic read (really riveting telecom reading -- how often do you get that?) and a good history lesson for people who were not there to see it firsthand over the years.

Pages

Subscribe to verizon