Faster Broadband is Inevitable, How We Get it is Another Matter

Definitions always matter, and especially so when considering eligibility for government funds to support whatever business a firm happens to operate. Lots of people disagree that the U.S. federal government definition of “broadband” should remain at 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. And, over time, the definition will be changed. The only question is when, and to what minimum level. 

So some advocate a minimum broadband  definition of 100 Mbps/100 Mbps. Support for that definition includes some in the U.S. Senate. As always, there are trade offs and business implications. 

Capital investment requirements; efficient use of scarce capital; user behavior; willingness to pay; current and anticipated usage profiles all are important. Cable networks have an advantage in basically having upgraded virtually all U.S. plant to gigabit speeds downstream. Upstream improvements are much more difficult, costly and time-consuming.

How the upgrades can happen within the feasible limits of today’s business models, for all would-be suppliers, is key. Government subsidies are important at the margin, but most of the upgrade activity has to be undertaken by private suppliers.

And that means there must be a clear understanding of how the upgrades fit the business models. In that respect, the upstream definition will be more challenging than the downstream definition. 

Up to this point, the key element in the broadband definition has been downstream speed, as that remains arguably the most-important single numerical indicator of “quality.” But all observers agree that upstream speeds now are more important. And that is the rub. 

Telcos and independent internet service providers can rip out copper and replace it with optical fiber access at a faster pace, to be sure. But the business model is challenging. Were it not so, they’d already have done so. 

5G, fixed wireless and satellite networks also would be challenged to supply 100 Mbps upstream, though there is a path to incremental downstream upgrades that do not break the business model. 

For the majority of U.S. households and locations served by cable TV networks, the 100/100 standard would be troublesome only in the upstream direction, but still would require reworking of most of the physical plant. 

For telcos the challenge would be far greater, requiring a replacement of copper access facilities. For every fixed network operator save Verizon, the 100/100 definition would require ripping out and replacing a majority of physical plant.

Rural areas of low housing density would be especially troublesome. 

Though cable operators might have a more-graceful upgrade path, telcos generally must rip out the existing legacy network and replace it with entirely-new infrastructure to meet the 100 Mbps minimum upstream standard. 

Estimates vary, but a huge telco capital investment would be required to meet a 100/100 minimum. Customer demand is an issue, but less an issue over time, as most consumers now buy faster services than they used to, and often pay more money than they used to, for broadband service. 

The 100 Mbps downstream goal is more realistic. About 49 percent of U.S. residents buy fixed network service operating between 100 Mbps and 200 Mbps. 

Nearly 32 percent buy services running faster than 200 Mbps. 

But a significant percentage choose to buy services operating at lower speeds. Some 20 percent of all customers purchase services running no faster than 75 Mbps, according to Openvault data.  

We can argue that 80 percent of the market already buys service at speeds as high, or higher than, the proposed 100 Mbps minimum definition. But 20 percent of the market does not do so, possibly because they cannot buy anything else, but many also might choose not to buy service at 100 Mbps. 

source: Openvault

Setting a higher minimum definition will happen. But it matters what the definition entails. Virtually no platforms could meet the 100 Mbps upstream definition quickly. FTTH networks could do so, but only at a cost that stresses the current business model. 

And that matters. If 54 million U.S. homes are served by fiber to premises networks, and there are about 138 million total U.S. homes, then fully 61 percent of telco passings would have to be replaced to meet the 100/100 standard. 

One might argue that fixed wireless, 5G or some other network could meet the 100 Mbps downstream speed. But none of the other networks are engineered to support 100 Mbps in the upstream path. 

More than anything else, it is the impossibility of practical mass market networks hitting the 100 Mbps upstream speed that is the key problem. 

Impact of 25-Mbps "Broadband" Definition

Conspiracy thinkers might see a pattern in recent decisions by the Federal Communications Commission to manipulate statistics on U.S. Internet adoption, even if each single decision has a logic of its own.

Beyond some greater inability to track progress, and some obvious marketing and strategic issues for entire classes of providers, it might be difficult to determine the impact--beyond universal service funding implications.

That might be considered odd, since the presumed reason for changing the definition was to spur faster investment in higher-speed networks.

Consider the decision to define “broadband” as a minimum of 25 Mbps downstream, in January 2015. Since access speeds are increasing, seemingly at a faster pace, it makes sense to periodically review definitions, at least for the purpose of determining performance levels relevant for government universal service purposes.

Oddly, the announcement about the speed redefinition began with the statement that “broadband deployment in the United States--especially in rural areas--is failing to keep pace.” The irony is that the new definitions make the “problem” bigger.

“The 4 Mbps/1 Mbps standard set in 2010 is dated and inadequate for evaluating whether advanced broadband is being deployed to all Americans in a timely way,” the FCC said.

“Using this updated service benchmark, the 2015 report finds that 55 million Americans--17 percent of the population--lack access to advanced broadband,” the FCC said.

Cynics might point out that redefining an issue to increase the number of incidents will logically create a bigger defined problem. Those who argue a higher definition will cause faster investment might argue the new definitions almost immediately will mean recipients of universal service funds will have to build at a minimum 25 Mbps, not 4 Mbps, to receive funds.

The impact on the broader market is unclear, in terms of investment incentives. Many commercial providers, especially those in the fixed networks segment, having long passed the 4 Mbps standard, arguably will not be much affected, however, as the market level of competition comes from the Google Fiber gigabit challenge, not the “minimum” 25 Mbps definition.

So changing the definition likely has little impact on many major commercial providers, in terms of investment incentives. 

But there are some odd implications, with high sector impact. Some Internet service providers have been redefined out of existence. 

That includes most satellite and fixed wireless ISPs, plus many rural telcos. Selling a 15-Mbps access service no longer qualifies as “high speed” or “broadband.”

And some of those service providers cannot increase speeds to 25 Mbps, across the board, for reasons related to lack of spectrum. If speeds higher than 25 Mbps are the future, those contestants face long term issues related to ability to compete.

Some might see other important implications, as well. Even most Long Term Evolution networks do not consistently deliver 25 Mbps, though they easily meet the 4 Mbps definitions. So, by raising the definition of “broadband” to 25 Mbps, the entire U.S. mobile industry was eliminated from contention.

Again, the result is a suddenly “bigger” problem, even if few really believe the actual state of high speed access has gotten significantly worse over the last year.

Also, the new definition meant Comcast, had it acquired Time Warner Cable, would have had at least 57 percent market share of “broadband” connections in the United States. By historical standards, that was far beyond the 30-percent share maximum that has governed antitrust thinking in the communications and video entertainment businesses.

So some might see ulterior motives. Others might see an understandable logic, less sinister but still designed to create problems, not solve them.

Students of organizational “mission creep” or development will note that organizations never declare victory and disband, when the original problem they sought to fix has been vanquished. Instead, they search for new missions.

Cynics might argue something similar was at work: definitional changes that dramatically affected the status and scope of a defined problem, with a bigger implied need for action to solve the problem.

Others might note that the fuzziness about Internet access has grown for some time, though. Classically, “broadband” was defined as any speed at or above 1.5 Mbps. That definition now is archaic, but has been replaced by a subjective notion that “broadband is what we say it is,” in essence.

That is perhaps unavoidable in a market where speed improvements, since the earliest days of dial-up access, have been increasing nearly at the rate Moore’s Law would suggest.

There arguably is no "conspiracy." But real issues are created. Comparing performance or progress over time will be tougher, since the definitions have changed. 

Many ISPs no longer can say they sell high speed access or broadband. In many cases, there are physical limits to progress, such as lack of access to additional spectrum. What policy changes can, or should, flow from that situation are unclear.

FCC Adopts New 25-Mbps Definition for High Speed Access

The Federal Communications Commission has upped the definition of “broadband Internet access” to a minimum of 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream. In one sense, the revision makes sense: high speed access speeds are climbing about as fast as Moore’s Law would suggest.

The definitional change will be reflected in FCC and other policies to spur faster broadband deployment in rural areas. The last revision was made in 2010, when the FCC redefined broadband as 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream.

In other words, in five years, the FCC has boosted the definition of broadband by an order of magnitude. That, the agency says, reflects “advances in technology, market offerings by broadband providers and consumer demand.”

And yet the FCC also maintains that broadband deployment in the United States is failing to

keep pace with today’s advanced, high-quality voice, data, graphics and video offerings.”

Using the updated service benchmark, the FCC argues that 55 million Americans, representing 17 percent of the population, lack access to advanced broadband.

Some might say this is a “moving of the goalposts” scenario, however reasonable the change of definition might be. Oddly, 10 Mbps Ethernet access now does not qualify as “broadband,” either, which sort of complicates analysis.

Laudable though boosting the minimum targets and definitions, some might say a necessary consequence is that the government might keep claiming no progress is being made, because it keeps redefining the definitions to create the very “gap” the government then decries.

That is true even if one agrees that 25 Mbps is not a bad lower limit, in some respects, as speeds keep increasing. The new definitions will have to scale as the top bandwidths start to routinely be offered at 100 Mbps to 1 Gbps, some might argue.

The issue, though, is that there no longer is any fixed definition of speed, only relative definitions. Some might say it is nonsense to effectively redefine 10 Mbps Ethernet as narrowband.

The revisions also mean a longitudinal comparison of progress is complicated, since the definitions keep changing.

Also, using the new definition, a Comcast that had acquired Time Warner Cable would have perhaps 50 percent market share of high speed access connections in the United States, a number so high it would trigger antitrust concerns.

In 2012, for example, the FCC reported that 19 million U.S. residents, about six percent of the population, lacked broadband access.

The latest report, using the new definition, suggests that 55 million U.S. residents, or 17 percent of the population, lack broadband access.

But the 2012 report also indicated that 27  percent of U.S. residents already had access to networks providing 100 Mbps service.

In fact, the 2012 report indicated that 89 percent of U.S. residents could buy service at 10 Mbps. Some 64 percent of U.S. residents could buy service at 25 Mbps and 55 percent already could buy service at 50 Mbps.

The new definition suggests high speed access has gone backwards. It clearly has not, though we will not have the FCC’s own analysis of how much faster speeds have gotten, until the full report is released.

Broadband Definitions Always Change

Everyone expects that the working definition of broadband will continue to change over time. In the U.S. market, for example, the official national government definition is a minimum of 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream, with proposals to boost that minimum to 100 Mbps.

The real pushback has been against an immediate shift to symmetrical 100-Mbps speeds, which would imperil most ISPs in the upstream direction.

Of course, most people use internet access operating vastly faster than the current minimums. 

If 98 percent of U.S. homes can buy internet access at the defined minimum from a cabled terrestrial network, that still leaves two percent that cannot, of course. Satellite and fixed wireless services reach virtually al lthe rest of the locations with service at the required minimums.

Changing the definition of “broadband” will likely increase the percentage of homes unable to purchase “broadband.” And that might boost the percentage of U.S. customers unable to purchase broadband access to as much as 16 percent or so of locations. 

Of course, supply and demand are always changing. 

About half of U.S. internet access customers buy services running between 200 Mbps and 400 Mbps as of June 2022.  That is a shift. Until recently, about half of the customers purchased services running between 100 Mbps and 200 Mbps. 

Roughly 70 percent of fixed network broadband customers purchase service at speeds of 200 Mbps or higher. Customers who buy gigabit or faster service have reached 13 percent, while customers of services operating between 500 Mbps and 900 Mbps are six percent of total. 

source: Openvault 

The definition change largely will affect any ISPs who currently sell service that will not match the 100-Mbps definition, especially some satellite and telco ISPs who use copper access networks. Adjusting the definitions might mean some providers, at some locations, do not qualify for broadband subsidies. 

In the U.S. market, for all the complaints we hear, gigabit speeds now are available to more than 88 percent of all U.S. homes, according to the Federal Communications Commission. Even if one disagrees with that estimate, most consumers in the U.S. market actually buy services operating far faster than the minimum. 

Other estimates peg the percentage of homes with cable high-speed access at 90 percent. And reported uptake of gigabit speeds in rural areas is far higher than what most likely believe. 

Consider rural telco networks. “Respondents to this year’s survey report an average of 4,467 residential and 469 business fixed broadband connections in service,” NTCA says, with an  average of 7,581 serviceable locations. 

“On average, three-quarters (75 percent) of serviceable locations are served by fiber to the home (FTTH) in 2021; this is an increase of 5.1 percentage points from the prior year’s survey, the latest Broadband/Internet Availability report issued by NTCA says. 

The point is that “broadband” definitions have been changing for decades. 50 years ago, broadband was defined as any data rate of 1.5 Mbps or faster. 30 years ago the working definition had moved up to perhaps 10 Mbps. The current Federal Communications Commission definition is 25 Mbps. 

But very few customers buy services operating that slow.

New Definition of "Broadband" Could Have Big Consequences

The Federal Communications Commission decision to redefine "broadband" might have consequences. Where the FCC had used a 4 Mbps definition, it now defines “broadband” as a minimum of 25 Mbps downstream.

With the new definition, about, 12 million U.S. households that previously qualified as having a broadband connection no longer have it.

All satellite broadband and most fixed wireless Internet service providers now sell “Internet access,” not “high speed” or “broadband” access. Many fixed network telcos likewise now do not sell “broadband.”

Paradoxically, 10 Mbps Ethernet no longer is “broadband,” either. The new definitions will mean a revising--downward--of U.S. “broadband” access connections.

Some think the new definition could derail the proposed Comcast bid to buy Time Warner Cable, as well.

Up to this point, Comcast has been careful to point out it would sell off three million video accounts, to keep total video accounts below the 30 percent market share level that the Federal Communications Commission historically has used as a limit for market share in linear video, mobility or fixed network communications.

The problem is is that some do not believe “video” is the key market where share is crucial.

With the new definition in place, Comcast’s share of broadband will  be 56.8 percent, up from 30.6 percent using the older definition.

That will be a problem.

Verizon Exec Says "We Don't Want to Upgrade" Charges are "Absurd"

Some policy advocates are taking shots at Verizon Communications for taking the position that a workable minimum definition of "broadband," for purposes of setting national broadband policy, is 768 kbps downstream and 200 kbps upstream.

"There seems to be some confusion around Verizon’s filing suggesting that the FCC keep a baseline definition for broadband as

768 kbps down and 200 kbps up," says David Young, Verizon VP. "The implication here is that we want to keep the speed set low so we won’t have to upgrade our networks."

"This is clearly absurd," he says. Indeed, in its filing Verizon itself suggests a goal of 50 Mbps for fixed broadband and 5 Mbps for mobile broadband.

But Verizon suggests that for reporting, tracking and measurement purposes, the FCC should maintain the current definition used in

the FCC broadband data reporting program (Form 477) for a basline, while continuing to track multiple higher “speed tiers” to get

a full view of what’s happening in the broadband marketplace.

This threshold definition also has the benefit of being the same one used by NTIA and RUS for the broadband stimulus program, Young argues.

There are lots of good reasons for being consistent about national data collection, the most obivious being that it is impossible to track progress over time if we keep changing the definitions. Many important changes that happen in national communications take 10 years or more, and it can make a huge difference if, along the way, the definitions of what we are tracking have changed frequently.

The other reason is that the definitions will cover networks of very type physical properties. Satellite, fixed wireless wireless, mobile and fixed networks all have different cost and capability profiles.

Beyond that, if what we are after is the fastest possible broadband availability, from the widest array of suppliers, with the most-robust growth in speeds and quality of service, at the lowest cost to consumers, the different speeds and investment profiles have to be harmonized.

Every communications engineer realizes there is a trade-off between capability and cost whenever a network is designed. Every engineer knows a network can be optimized--both in terms of performance and deployment cost--if a single application is supported. But multi-purpose networks inherently are tougher to design because there are more trade-offs.

Broadband networks generally are more expensive than narrowband networks, and networks featuring higher bandwidth generally cost more than networks of lower bandwidth.

If definitions are too stringent in the near term, it is possible some potential users, especially users in thinly-settled areas, will find that few, if any, providers can provide them service at any price those consumers would be willing to pay.

Finally, it would strike many as odd to accuse Verizon, which has been the most-aggressive tier one U.S. provider, of not being willing to invest heavily in broadband. Its FiOS fiber-to-home network is the most aggressive program in North America, and Verizon already is ready to start building a 4G wireless network even as it upgrades its 3G wireless network.

Floors are different from ceilings, and floors for some networks are ceilings for others. Customers, for example, cannot buy satellite broadband operating at more than 5 Mbps downstream, for any amount of money. And satellite is, by anybody's estimation, the absolute most affordable way to provide broadband to isolated locations. Fixed and mobile broadband are somewhat more expensive, but can support higher bandwidth.

In an isolated area, optical fiber or even digital subscriber line or cable modem service offers the most bandwidth, but at the highest cost. Cost and bandwidth, in other words, represent a standard engineering trade-off. The highest bandwidth also comes at the highest cost.

To the extent that retail prices are to be kept relatively low, the network investment must be matched to the anticipated revenue. It might, in some cases, be necessary to trade off some capability to keep costs low.

It would be a mistake to confuse that problem, and the other need to maintain comparable statistics to measure progress, with provider unwillingness to keep pace with growing market demands for broadband speed.

Providers that fail to keep pace will lose customer share. They know that. But unreasonable near-term definitions will not help potential customers get service, or even help existing customers get faster speeds, more quickly.

http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/661/title.aspx

Broadband "Over-supply" Problem

Cox Communications is doubling the download speed of its most popular residential Internet service (Preferred) in Northern Virginia and increasing the speed of its Premier service by thirty-three percent.

PowerBoost, which supplies temporary "burst" bandwidth for uploads, also has been added to the Preferred and Premier packages. PowerBoost for downloads has been available since 2007. This is the fifth consecutive year that Cox has enhanced the speed of its Internet services in northern Virginia (credit Verizon's FiOS service for that).

Verizon has boosted FiOS downstream speeds to 50 Mbps, with 20 Mbps upstream, for its top package, available everywhere FiOS is sold.

Cox customers will get the speed increases automatically in July, without need for a call or technician visit.

The PowerBoost feature means uses of the Preferred package will experience speeds up to 12.5 Mbps down/2.5 Mbps up. Premier customers can achieve 25 Mbps down/3.5 Mbps up.

Policy advocates often complain about the U.S. "broadband problem." Sometimes they mean it isn't available, isn't fast enough or costs too much. The evidence suggests availability isn't a problem. Whether a service is "fast enough" is a matter of interpretation, but I don't see evidence of anything but increasing speeds, often for the same cost. "Price" likewise is an issue.

With the exception of Japan and South Korea, though, cost per Mbps in the United States is quite comparable to nearly all other leading nations.

Complaining about broadband is a bit like similar observations we could easily have made about wireless penetration or use of text messaging, where U.S. users lagged way behind European users for quite some time. That "problem" doesn't exist anymore.

Neither will the "broadband" problem. Have there been issues with availability and speed? Yes. Are those problems in the process of resolution? Yes. Pointing to the existence of problems is fine. Ignoring clear evidence that problems rapidly are being fixed is either misinformed, intellectually dishonest or sloppy.

Some people like to say the definition of broadband is a problem, pointing to data collection that defines "broadband"--at minimum--as 200 kbps. That is wrong, also. The FCC recently changed its minimum definition to 768 kbps. A couple of points.

The only definition the global telecom industry ever has formally set was way back when ISDN was created. Broadband still formally is defined as any bit rate over "voice" rates of 64 kbps. So 128 kbps "traditionally" has been considered "broadband."

Market have moving definitions. But you can hardly fault the FCC for initially setting a minimum standard that is in fact above the recognized global nomenclature. In recent practice, industry executives might have considered broadband to be 1.544 Mbps or above, while anything between 64 kbps and 1.544 Mbps is "wideband."

All that is meaningless. It will be even more meaningless when cable operators start branding some broadband speeds as "wideband," to suggest it is more bandwidth than "broadband." Markets may like that. But it doesn't change the only formal definition the global engineering community ever has embraced.

Also, "minimum" is one thing. "Maximum" or "mean" are other things. Megabit access now is the norm. Targets will continue to shift higher over time. Call it the broadband version of grade inflation. The minimum "passing" grade might be a "D." That doesn't mean people expect that to be the norm.

The United States once had a major "broadband" availability problem. It no longer has. There are places where "access" by wire remains a problem. Most of those places have satellite alternatives, though. And many places have fixed wireless access as well.

Honestly, most potential users have one or two wired networks to choose from, two satellite providers and two or three mobile providers. Many consumers soon will be able to choose from as many as five mobile broadband providers.

Under-supply won't be an issue for most, much longer. Over-supply is the looming problem.

Why the Broadband "Problem" Cannot be Permanently "Solved"

 So long as we keep changing the definition of “broadband,” we are likely “never” to see “improvement” in the number or percentage of homes or people able to buy the product, no matter how much investment is made in facilities. 

When we change definitions of minimum speed, for example, we automatically increase the number or percentage of locations or people that cannot buy the product. Colloquially, that is known as “moving the goalposts.” Put another way, our understanding of “broadband” changes over time. 

The classic definition of broadband was that it was any service running at speeds of 1.5 Mbps. In the U.S. market the official definition of “broadband” is 25 Mbps. But most consumers buy service at speeds an order of magnitude higher than the minimum definition. Yesterday’s power user is today’s light user. 

source: Openvault

And though new platforms might help, a continuing evolution of our definitions to support an increase in minimum speeds will continue to be a challenge for any market or country with lots of rural or thinly-populated areas. In the United States, six percent of the land mass is where most of the people live. 

How we define the market also affects our analysis of the amount of competition in the consumer broadband market. The common observation in the U.S. market, for example, is that minimum service at 25 Mbps is unavailable to “millions” of people. 

Of course, that finding requires a big assumption, namely that all satellite and mobile services are excluded from the analysis. Two U.S. satellite suppliers sell broadband access across virtually the entire continental land mass, while mobile speeds already exceeded the minimum threshold in 2019 and early 2020. 

If any and all services supplying 25 Mbps or faster speeds are considered, it might be very difficult to find any U.S. locations unserved by at least two providers. 

The point is that definitions and assumptions matter. By continually increasing the speed used as the definition of “broadband,” we will almost arbitrarily keep moving the goal line on who has it, where it is available and how many competitors can sell it. 

Ignore for the moment consumer choice, which has shown that most consumers buy services in the middle of the range: not the most costly or least costly; not the fastest or slowest offerings. 

Because “typical, average or median speeds” will keep getting higher, so will our definitions be adjusted. But at a time when satellite and mobile minimum and average speeds often already exceed the minimum definitions, and where most fixed network consumers buy services an order of magnitude above the “minimum” threshold, it is hard to “close the digital divide.”

There likely will always be some statistical gaps. Where there is a serious “problem” actually is--or will be--more debatable.

Broadband Stimulus Won't Change Much, Firm Says

Some observers seem to have believed the "broadband stimulus" program, as helpful as it will be for some organizations and service providers, would somehow "fix" a "broadband" adoption problem in the rural and some other "underserved" areas of the country. It appears reality is setting in.

"The bottom line is that the stimulus money is going to change any of the access issues," says Robert Rosenberg, Insight Research Corp. president. "It is far to few dollars to make any impact."

But "access" is only part of the "problem." In fact, Insight Research says, there are four different kinds of households that must be considered when looking at broadband "adoption" and "availability," which are quite different issues.

There are households "unable to buy" broadband service, at least from a terrestrial provider (most analysts seem to forget that there are two national providers of satellite broadband). There are households that can buy broadband, but choose to buy dial-up service.

There are households that do not own computers and households that own computers but do not use the Internet.

"I don't want to over-play the 'I can't buy it' issue, says Rosenberge. "Yes there is some of that, but it is also the issue of 'no computers' or 'dial up is fine for me,'" he says.

Insight says 60 million U.S. homes buy broadband access service, while 12.6 million homes buy dial-up access, for a total of 72.6 milliion Internet access buyers.

Insight Research says that if one adds up the households without any broadband service at all, plus dial-up households, perhaps 58 million households, or 49 percent of all U.S. households, potentially are candidates for broadband service and have not yet bought it.

Insight Research estimates that at least 12 million rural and non-urban market households do not have access to any broadband service (terrestrial) due to the lack of supporting terrestrial infrastructure. Given a minimum cost of $1,500 per household, it is easy to see that the price tag for expanding broadband access to 12 million new households could exceed $18 billion.

By definition, the funding available under the broadband stimulus program is just a bit over $7 billion, and that includes funding for middle-mile projects, computing centers and other projects that do not directly add new broadband access capability. In fact, only a theoretical $6.4 billion actually is available for infrastructure.

Insight Research projects that non-governmental funding will provide the majority of the
growth in broadband penetration for the next five years.

With an estimated 40 million households still lacking broadband access by year-end 2014, the $6.4
billion in government funding would allow for an investment of $164 per household to provide broadband access to these non-broadband households.

The availability of such a small investment amount per household casts serious doubt that any significant expansion of broadband access will result from this government action, Insight Research says.

At the current estimate of $1,500 per household, at least $60 billion would be needed to deploy universal broadband access across the United States for 40 million households.

The broadband stimulus will not change much, it appears.

Is Rural Broadband Penetration Close to 100 Percent?

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.

Redefining "Broadband" is Only One of Several Big Challenges Service Providers Now Face

Among other potential changes in U.S. policy pertaining to high speed access is the question of what numerical value should be set to define what “broadband” actually is.

At the moment, the Federal Communications Commission uses a functional definition of a minimum of 4 Mbps in the downstream direction, and 1 Mbps upstream.

The definition matters because universal service support and other data collection efforts hinge on use of the definition.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says 25 Mbps is “table stakes,” while universal service should be based on a definition of at least 10 Mbps for Universal Service Fund activities. In other words, the FCC chairman thinks classic “Ethernet” speeds of 10 Mbps should now be the minimum any Internet service provider must provide, in a rural area, to qualify for universal service support.

That has clear financial implications for at least some rural ISPs, and also creates a sort of “speed umbrella” for all competitors in rural areas. In other words, in many markets, ISPs will have to contend with a speed floor at 10 Mbps, or whatever speed the FCC might mandate as the minimum for getting universal service funds.

To be sure, floors are not ceilings. Some service providers might already be selling services at speeds of 25 Mbps or much higher.

The new definition might, or might not affect mobile service providers as well. In some cases, mobile “broadband” might suddenly become less widespread, if the definitions used for fixed and mobile networks are the same.

Even Long Term Evolution networks might not meet a 25 Mbps standard immediately. On the ohter hand, some providers, such as T-Mobile US, might welcome a chance to upstage its major competitors, as T-Mobile US already is operating LTE networks operating as fast as 100 Mbps.

The other important non-financial angle is that resetting minimum definitions from 4 Mbps up to 10 Mbps or 25 Mbps will likely have implications for the integrity of record keeping, creating a statistical anomaly in the year the new and different definition is used.

It is possible that the percentage of U.S. “broadband users” will decrease when the change is made.

Over the long term, such periodic revisions will make sense for government regulators. When large numbers of U.S. consumers are able to buy service ranging from 100 Mbps to 1 Gbps, keeping a 4-Mbps definition is silly.

On the other hand, some service providers--satellite and fixed wireless come to mind--will be quite challenged as overall speeds climb. For satellite providers, network architecture is the limit. For fixed wireless providers, available spectrum is the limitation.

In a market where 1-Gbps or 300 Mbps access is common, 15 Mbps services will seem like dial-up access.

FCC to Study New Definitions for "Broadband"

The FCC now is preparing to consider a wide range of standards and definitions for broadband that likely will change the "speed" definitions, perhaps adding quality and pricing metrics for the first time, as well as standards for mobile and satellite broadband.

There is little question that the U.S. broadband situation is “rapidly evolving,” as the Federal Communications Commission notes. Also, the 2010 National Broadband Plan recommended that the Commission “review and reset” its benchmarks every few years. 

In 2010, the Commission raised the minimum speed threshold for broadband to a 4 Mbps downstream, 1 Mbps upstream service. And it appears likely the FCC will do so again by the time of its next report in 2013.

The FCC now wants to consider raising the speeds used to define the minimum levels for “broadband,” adding latency and usage cap benchmarks, at least for fixed terrestrial broadband service.

But the Commission also logically now wants input on whether to add specific benchmarks for satellite and mobile broadband, which have become more important, for purposes of analysis, over time.

The FCC also might assess bandwidth based on the number of users in a household, the number of devices or apps expected to be used in homes.

Where streaming high definition TV, video conferencing, or online gaming, 6 to 15 Mbps could be required as a minimum, the Commission seems to suggest.

The 2010 National Broadband Plan recommended that the Commission set a goal of 100
million U.S. homes having affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 Mbps and actual upload speeds of at least 50 Mbps by 2020. The FCC wants imput on whether the Commission should identify multiple speed tiers  to assess the country’s progress.

The FCC might also consider whether “affordability” goals should be added, as well, including such criteria as service prices.

In the technical realm, the Commission is looking at whether latency should be considered as an additional threshold for broadband, possibly adopting a 100-millisecond latency threshold for fixed services.

If mobile broadband data is collected, the FCC also will have to decide what speed benchmarks make sense, as well as setting latency requirements for mobile broadband.

The FCC even wants to include Wi-Fi hotspots in its analysis, including private in-home or in-building networks as well as public hotspots, in assessing mobile broadband deployment and availability. All of the changes, if adopted, would create a more complete and nuanced view of the actual status of broadband deployment, if arguably a bit more subjective as well.