Comments on: The state of broadband in the U.S. [infographic]

By: Michael Elling

Michael Elling — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:33:57 +0000

Carolyn, the cost of rural broadband could come down significantly if the carriers amortize demand over indigenous mobile, transient mobile and fixed beyond the 2-4 mile perimeter of most rural community cores. Those are 3 revenue streams that did not exist for 2 or 3G digital. All you can eat wireless voice pricing from the late 1990s/early 2000s killed the prospects for 3G broadband in rural markets. There were was no efficient way to monetize the urban transient traffic. Given the rule of large numbers I estimate that (sub)urban demand nearly doubles the effective revenue in rural markets. Assume 10% rural base and 10% of the urban/suburban base is invariably transiting through or to the rural markets. When data wasn’t that important it didn’t matter for we (sub)urbanites. Now with 4G smartphones it absolutely does. Not sure how long it will take, but with datacaps from AT&T and VZW (albeit very expensive) and some introduction of competitive mid-mile broadband via government stimulus (BTOP) we’ve at least begun the process.

By: Michael Elling

Michael Elling — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 14:56:49 +0000

The vertically integrated monopoly carrier model is failing us. We need to learn from the lessons of the 1980s and 1990s and develop the networks horizontally across infrastructure/access (lower layers), control and settlement (middle), and marketing and application (upper) intranets and exchanges. Google has the best (albeit not perfect) approach via KC fiber (the anvil) and Android (the hammer) to smash the inefficient, vertically integrated carriers. Why is this a given? Because the former has pricing that reflects competitively driven and scaled marginal cost, while the latter’s pricing is driven by average cost. The former amortizes investment and clears rapidly shifting supply and demand, which the latter does not as we are clearly seeing with wired broadband access and inefficient investments in 3 and 4G.

By: Carolyn

Carolyn — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 21:33:46 +0000

This map totally overstates access, There is no wired service whatsoever outside of county seat and it has just about our entire county as served by wired. All there is is line of site wireless. And don’t even get me started on the cost of wireless in rrual regions versus wired in cities.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:19:33 +0000

No one has pointed out the sheer size of the US as it relates to other countries – for example you frequently hear that ‘Europe has better roads’ because they need 1/16 of the infrastructure we need here, so it’s inherently better.

By: Doug Stromberg

Doug Stromberg — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:22:39 +0000

Let’s not forget Chattanooga, the first city with 1Gbps access and with the starter package at 50Mbps. Not everything depends upon Google.

By: ljwitch

ljwitch — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 01:00:32 +0000

Looks like North Dakota is the state to live in for broadband access. Too bad we don’t have decent broadband here like some of those other countries have.

By: jhking

jhking — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 16:44:58 +0000

Reblogged this on @jhk24 and commented: Great post - interesting to consider the similar maps that represent wireless spectrum allocations and investments.

By: Eric Castle

Eric Castle — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 14:22:04 +0000

Reblogged this on Tech Bytes Xpress and commented: A very detailed view into the demographics.

By: saraw1

saraw1 — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 00:35:33 +0000

If anything, the US National Broadband Map overstates access, adoption, and speed while understating cost and price. This is because the research upon which it is based suffers from a methodology both flawed and inconsistent, whose results tend to skew positive when compared to better constructed measures. For this, we can “thank” the same hegemonic government-industry partnership that “achieved” such a mediocre outcome at such expense.