Is it possible that rural broadband penetration actually is pretty close to the penetration of Internet users? In other words, is it possible that use of broadband in rural areas now is close to 100 percent of Internet users?
New data from comScore suggests that might be closer to the truth than many believe. The latest estimates are that, in rural areas, broadband penetration is at 75 percent. If one assumes some rural users still use dial-up, that suggests perhaps 85 percent of rural households now use the Internet.
In 2007 the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service estimated that 63 percent of all rural households had at least one member access the Internet.
If rural broadband penetration now is up to 75 percent, as comScore indicates, that would imply that Internet usage is at least that high, in other words.
That would seem to have implications both for setting of national broadband policy and policy in rural areas. For starters, the new data suggest that rural broadband is growing robustly, without any additional government activity.
Some might argue that broadband usage remains lower in rural areas than in metro areas, and that remains true. Metro broadband penetration is at 89 percent. But virtually every study has shown that Internet usage also is lower in rural areas. The point? Lower Internet usage obviously means lower broadband access penetration.
One has to be careful with statistics, though. By definition, a household with no ability to access the Internet would not be an Internet-using household. So a better way to describe comScore’s findings are that, when wired facilities are available, rural households are buying broadband at rates not dissimilar to urban users.
That isn’t to say adoption is equal to urban rates, but that the gap is closing awfully fast.
Broadband penetration in U.S. rural areas increased 16 percent from 2007 to 2009, while metro area broadband penetration grew 11 percent, according to comScore.
In part, that is because rural markets have more room to grow. The analogy is wireless voice growth, which is highest in places such as India, China and Africa, where penetration is lowest.
“With low-speed DSL priced at about the same level as dial-up in many areas, there is little incentive for households to remain on dial-up,” says Brian Urutka, comScore VP.
Rural markets with a population less than 10,000 grew broadband penetration by 16 percentage points. Areas with population between 10,000-50,000 grew penetration 14 percentage points while metropolitan areas with populations of 50,000 or more grew penetration by 11 percentage points.
Critics sometimes say that even if access is not a problem, access speeds are, and that is an argument that makes sense. The issue there, though, quite often is the “middle mile” trunking between major points of presence and the actual rural communities.
Basically, the problem is not the Internet backbones, and not even so much the local access networks, as it is the trunking network to backhaul traffic to the Internet PoPs. Many rural ISPs find, for example, that they have access to a T1 or two T1s in the middle mile. That makes it tough to deliver faster broadband access to customers on the local access networks, for obvious reasons.
The Internet backbone is a firehouse. So are the access networks, for the most part. But the middle mile is a straw.
Solve the middle-mile problem and broadband access probably ceases to be an issue in many communities. Yonder Media CEO Craig Vallarino estimates that half the cost of building fixed wireless networks in rural areas is in the core network and middle mile.
The radio infrastructure represents about 20 percent of cost while customer premises investment represents about 30 percent of cost. In other words, it isn’t the access infrastructure which is the main investment barrier: the middle mile is.
That said, there still will be some locations so isolated that only a satellite connection really will ever make sense.
In 2007 the U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service estimated that 63 percent of all rural households had at least one member access the Internet.
If rural broadband penetration now is up to 75 percent, as comScore indicates, that would imply that Internet usage is at least that high, in other words.
That would seem to have implications both for setting of national broadband policy and policy in rural areas. For starters, the new data suggest that rural broadband is growing robustly, without any additional government activity.
Some might argue that broadband usage remains lower in rural areas than in metro areas, and that remains true. Metro broadband penetration is at 89 percent. But virtually every study has shown that Internet usage also is lower in rural areas. The point? Lower Internet usage obviously means lower broadband access penetration.
One has to be careful with statistics, though. By definition, a household with no ability to access the Internet would not be an Internet-using household. So a better way to describe comScore’s findings are that, when wired facilities are available, rural households are buying broadband at rates not dissimilar to urban users.
That isn’t to say adoption is equal to urban rates, but that the gap is closing awfully fast.
Broadband penetration in U.S. rural areas increased 16 percent from 2007 to 2009, while metro area broadband penetration grew 11 percent, according to comScore.
In part, that is because rural markets have more room to grow. The analogy is wireless voice growth, which is highest in places such as India, China and Africa, where penetration is lowest.
“With low-speed DSL priced at about the same level as dial-up in many areas, there is little incentive for households to remain on dial-up,” says Brian Urutka, comScore VP.
Rural markets with a population less than 10,000 grew broadband penetration by 16 percentage points. Areas with population between 10,000-50,000 grew penetration 14 percentage points while metropolitan areas with populations of 50,000 or more grew penetration by 11 percentage points.
Critics sometimes say that even if access is not a problem, access speeds are, and that is an argument that makes sense. The issue there, though, quite often is the “middle mile” trunking between major points of presence and the actual rural communities.
Basically, the problem is not the Internet backbones, and not even so much the local access networks, as it is the trunking network to backhaul traffic to the Internet PoPs. Many rural ISPs find, for example, that they have access to a T1 or two T1s in the middle mile. That makes it tough to deliver faster broadband access to customers on the local access networks, for obvious reasons.
The Internet backbone is a firehouse. So are the access networks, for the most part. But the middle mile is a straw.
Solve the middle-mile problem and broadband access probably ceases to be an issue in many communities. Yonder Media CEO Craig Vallarino estimates that half the cost of building fixed wireless networks in rural areas is in the core network and middle mile.
The radio infrastructure represents about 20 percent of cost while customer premises investment represents about 30 percent of cost. In other words, it isn’t the access infrastructure which is the main investment barrier: the middle mile is.
That said, there still will be some locations so isolated that only a satellite connection really will ever make sense.
1 comment:
Maybe your definition of "rural" is different than mine. Telcos really don't give a darn about wired rural service, they'd prefer it to go away. "Last mile" or two or three quality of landline is poor, we dropped our landline because half the time there was so much static that you couldn't carry on a conversation. (19.2K was the max speed I could get on a good day.) DSL? Surely you jest! We've reported trees down on lines, holding the mainlines down in the creek and AT&T said "that's not our responsibility"!!!
We use satellite service, which is NOT "broadband". Better than dialup, but very limited in speed and bandwidth (I can't even get system updates for my Mac without exceeding the download limit and getting penalized for 24 hours.
Best hope is for some sort of wireless broadband, but that's unlikely and certainly won't cover the people living down in the valleys.
Post a Comment