Doug Dawson

Nielsen recently published some statistics about the way that we watch video that shows a continuing trend of migration from traditional video to watching video online. One of the most striking statistics is the total volume of online video. December 2021 saw an aggregate of 183 billion minutes of online video viewing, and even that number is likely small since there are many uses of video on the web that are not likely counted in the total.

Most people have heard of latency, which is a measure of the average delay of data packets on a network. There is another important measure of network quality that is rarely talked about. Jitter is the variance in the delays of signals being delivered through a broadband network connection. Jitter occurs when the latency increases or decreases over time. We have a tendency in the industry to oversimplify technical issues; we take a speed test and assume the answer that pops out is our speed.

I’ve been thinking about the implications of having a new definition of broadband at 100/20 Mbps. That’s the threshold that has been set in several giant federal grants that allow grant funding to areas that have broadband slower than 100/20 Mbps. This is also the number that has been bandied about the industry as the likely new definition of broadband when the Federal Communications Commission seats a fifth Commissioner. The best thing about a higher definition of broadband is that it finally puts the DSL controversy to bed.

One of the most interesting aspects of the upcoming Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program grants is that the money is going to flow through the states. In many of the states I’ve been following, it looks like the money will be distributed by passing the money through existing state broadband grant programs. Yet since the federal legislation that created the BEAD grants rules is so specific, there will be numerous ways that the BEAD grant will differ from a state grant program. The obvious solution is for states to adopt the federal rules.

When we ask people why they don’t have home broadband, the primary response in every survey is the cost of broadband. So prices be part of the definition of broadband? There is a huge difference between a 100/20 Mbps connection that costs $55 and one that costs $85. As far as the public is concerned, these are not the same product—but we pretend that they are. Of course, there is nothing that scares the big cable companies more than talking about regulating broadband prices.

Hopefully by now, most communities with poor broadband will have heard about the gigantic federal grants on the way to provide broadband solutions. The largest is the $42.5 Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program that will be administered by states, with the funding and the rules established by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The federal grants give priority to locations that are unserved (broadband speeds under 25/3 Mbps) and can also be used to fund underserved locations (speeds between 25/3 and 100/20 Mbps).

Federal Communications Commissioner Brandon Carr released an extraordinary statement worth reading. Carr is taking exception to the final rules from the Treasury Department concerning how communities can use the $350 billion in funding from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). The commissioner is asking states to somehow intervene in the way that cities, counties, and towns elect to use these funds.

One of the most annoying aspects of the current federal broadband grants is the ability of incumbent internet service providers (ISPs) to challenge the validity of grant requests. In the typical challenge, the incumbents claim that they are offering fast broadband and that an applicant should not be able to overbuild them. The challenges put a burden on anybody filing for a grant since they must somehow prove that incumbent broadband speeds are slower than 25/3 Mbps.

As a cautionary tale to any city that provides broadband, incumbent internet service providers (ISPs) are always going to push back on city initiatives. In 2021, the city of Tucson (AZ) launched a free wireless network to bring broadband to students in homes without broadband. Tucson recognized the need for the network when it got requests for over 7,000 wireless access points from students during the pandemic. The city then decided that the best long-term solution to the large numbers of unserved students was to create a private network using CBRS spectrum.

Many rural residents and businesses are furious that they can’t get fiber broadband even though there is fiber close to their home or business. They can’t understand why the uncaring company that owns the fiber can’t make the tiny investment needed to connect them to fiber that’s already tantalizingly close to them. The fiber that runs close to the home and business is likely middle-mile fiber. These middle-mile routes are often seen as too valuable by telecom companies to serve last-mile customers.