Blogs
Aug 12

Written by:
8/12/2010 10:21 AM  RssIcon


There are ways to take broadband nationwide without a hammer. The less aggressive approach could also make it available faster to more unserved communities than the current National Broadband Plan. The 2009 Congressional directive to the Federal Communications Commission was to “ensure every American has access to broadband capability.” That’s achievable without reassigning massive swaths of radio-frequency spectrum, as the Plan now proposes.

First off, areas that lack broadband service have been identified. There are 1,024 counties or “county equivalents” lacking broadband, according to the FCC’s Sixth Broadband Deployment Report. They comprise 24 million people in 8.9 million households that are generally poorer and more rural than the national average. The same areas very likely were outliers as the nation adopted electricity. Lights are on in Custer County, Nebraska tonight because of the Rural Electrification Act.

U.S. farmsteads were still dark coming out of World War II, while Europe’s countryside was incandescent. Private utilities here balked at running lines into the country. Small-town residents were charged more than city folk. Rather than competing with private enterprise, the REA created a loan guarantee program for community cooperatives. Within a decade, rural electrification went from 10 percent of homes to 90 percent.

The odds are minimal that the 1,024 unserved areas will have broadband in 10 years under the current plan. It proposes to free 500 MHz of spectrum in that pe-riod of time. There’s a concomitant goal of getting 100 Mbps service to 100 million homes. That will leave roughly 30 million to go. Guess which ones.

The only way those unserved areas will have reliable broadband service within a decade is through community-based initiatives. These could be funded through the current $7.2 billion rural broadband grant program, which now appears to be supporting upgrades and metropolitan projects. Instead of reliev-ing every U.S. television market of 20 channels, the FCC should focus on organizing community-based projects that involve broadcasters. The models are Claudeville, Va., population 900; and the much larger city of Wilmington, N.C. Both launched broadband networks using broadcast TV white spaces. The two communities are test beds, but well on their way to homegrown broadband provision. Another 21 municipalities and state governments are work-ing on an interoperable public-safety network.

Deploying broadband one municipality at a time may not provide nationwide access on one set of frequencies, but network search technologies are extant. If the true intention of the National Broadband Plan is to “ensure every American has access to broadband capability,” it should focus first on unserved areas, and not a battle with broadcasting.

Tags:
Categories:

2 comment(s) so far...


Gravatar

National Broadband Plan B

This is absolutely spot on. REA (from the 1930s until sometime in the late 50s) should be the model for this. It worked for rural electrification and many of those REA sponsored co-ops are still delivering reliable, customer owned service. Thanks

By on   8/17/2010 10:26 AM
Gravatar

National Broadband Plan B

I agree with Deborah McAdams' National Broadband Plan B proposal 100%. This is much more involved than simply relieving 120 MHz of spectrum from the TV broadcast band. The market dictates the monetary value of spectrum which will always be higher in major market cities and may be next to non-existent in the very rural areas that the NBP is supposedly intended to benefit. And if the last auctions proved anything, it is that the actual monetary value of spectrum is considerably less than projected. Under the present plan, there is no financial incentives for broadcasters in rural areas to trade in their spectrum, in fact, they would realize a better financial return running a multichannel television service that serves the community over their licensed 6 MHz spectrum. And the FCC still has failed to explain how losing twenty channels in a major city on either coast will realize broadband for farmers in middle America. It just doesn't make sense. Thank you for your commentary, Ms. McAdams.

By on   9/20/2010 10:31 PM

Your name:
Gravatar Preview
Your email:
(Optional) Email used only to show Gravatar.
Your website:
Title:
Comment:
Add Comment   Cancel 




Thursday 10:05 AM
NAB Requests Expedited Review of Spectrum Auction Lawsuit
“Broadcasters assigned to new channels following the auction could be forced to accept reductions in their coverage area and population served, with no practical remedy.” ~NAB

Sue Sillitoe, White Noise PR /   Thursday 09:10 AM
Fairlight Unveils the Next Generation of Audio Post Production
Wall Street Communications /   Thursday 01:00 PM
NUGEN Audio AES Product Preview

 
Featured Articles
Discover TV Technology