random rants and references

Last Saturday, I posted on Wireless Philadelphia - Reality & Model? . I noted that the clever blending of technology and business approaches could be a good model for other deployments. Fortunately, I also used a "?" and noted that : "if states pass laws that restrict municipal broadband deployments, cities will not even be able to use their creativity to come up with innovative models such as the one devised by Philadelpia.
Unfortunately, I think Pennsylvannia has passed HB30 which seems to have just that chilling effect on the ability of the rest of the state to get as creative as Philly, which got an exemption for this project. Doesn't seem fair does it? "

Well this Monday, eWeek published an article, Philadelphia: Muni Wi-Fi's Worst-Case Scenario , that argues Philadelphia sold out the rest of the state, especially the rural areas that really need new broadband services, by dropping its opposition to HB30. The author makes two interesting points : first, that the City has extensive broadband (except for areas where people had no computers); and that the city's plans may be so ambitious and high profile, that failure will make it easier for opponents to forestall other municipal efforts to serve their citizens in other states as well as in Pennslyvania . The article correctly states that: " it's the smaller communities and rural environments in Pennsylvania—where there either is no service or where a single provider with no competition extorts prohibitive fees for service—where muni Wi-Fi makes the most sense."

The same author cites Kutztown,PA, as a better example of how a small community can be creative and leverage a lot of competition to the benefit of its residents in this article on Municipal Wireless . Unfortunately, this effort may be shut out by PA law, HB30. Kutztown is close enough that our county could learn some first hand lessons from their experiences; especially about how to partner with and get concessions from existing telecommunications companies.

HB30 puts a lot of leverage in the hands of the local Telco (Verizon or CTCO); but it also requires them to provide broadband on an accelerated schedule. That latter requirement can be a strong inducement to partner creatively with a wireless company to solve a municipal or county need, with the local government acting as a facilitator to the partnering. As an example, new wireless mesh network technology, combined with WiMax and metro-scale WiFi, provides an incumbent local exchange carrier( e.g. CTCO) a new way to extend its current network to distant clusters of users. Depending on the topography and demographics, this approach could provide broadband service at less investment cost than upgrading existing lines and switches for DSL service.

I hear that Cisco is going to produce mesh network gear; that may be a good sign that the "mesh" market is about to heat up. "Mesh" nets basically string a series of radios out from a single very high bandwidth wired (or fiber) entry point; the radios are much cheaper than the entry point (or DSL switch upgrade) gear. This technique lets a broadband signal bounce from radio to radio over long distances, potentially at much lower cost than a DSL upgrade. That's good for users in low population rural areas; and for the Telco that needs to satisfy its HB30 obligations.

One company, Tropos Networks , has been deploying metro-scale mesh networks and is now working on participating in the Philadelphia effort. While their business model favors clusters, they may find it attractive to flex it to our rural envirinment if they get more engaged in PA. Among the municipal models they have worked with, according to this Municipal Broadband article, are:

Munis using the mesh strictly as a private network for police, fire, emergency and other city services. This model is currently in use in Framingham, Mass.; Milpitas and San Mateo, Calif.; and Franklin, Tenn. Munis acting as an ISP for their residents, a model followed in Chaska, Minn. Munis owning the network for use with city services but selling excess capacity to ISPs, which, in turn, offer services to residents. Munis engaging in a cable TV franchise-style model, making rights of way available to a private operator in exchange for some sort of consideration. Madison, Wis., and Tucson and Tempe, Ariz., currently use this model.

That last method is close to a model that might be viable for rural Pennsylvania, even under HB30; Perhaps by brokering the use of right of ways and facititating the partnering of a local Telco and a wireless company.

I don't know that any of these approaches will work out soon for us rural folks. But I do think we can increase the liklihood of getting more broadband sooner if we look at these developments as opportunities and look for others willing to help us take advantage of them. That gives us a chance to create our own rural wireless broadband model and make it a reality.