CCG Consulting

Internet usage has continued to grow, and at the end of 2022, there were 5.54 billion Internet users, meaning that 69% of people worldwide have Internet access. Here are some facts:

I am often asked by cities about the option of building a municipal fixed wireless broadband network. My response has been that it’s possible but that the resulting network is probably not going to satisfy the performance goals most cities have in mind. There are several limitations of fixed wireless technology in an urban that must be considered:

Data from industry analyst Cowen that shows that some of the largest fiber builders in the country have already trimmed back their construction plans for 2023. Do these cuts mean that fiber competition won’t materialize as planned? There have been big external changes affecting the entire industry. Fiber material costs are up, as evidenced by the recent price hike announced by Corning. Prices of fiber components are up across the board for everything from conduit, handholes, drop wires, etc.

Infrastructure discrimination is where lower-income neighborhoods tend not to have the same quality of technology as more affluent neighborhoods. Price discrimination is where cable companies have started to price broadband differently by neighborhood based on demographics. But a more basic element of price discrimination also needs to be recognized.

T-Mobile is claiming that the price for its fixed-wireless access (FWA) is locked-in and will never be raised. In the pricing world, that kind of offer is referred to as a price-for-life, although T-Mobile didn’t use that term. This is the kind of idea that comes from marketing folks because it’s a gimmick that makes it easier to sell.

I want to take on the phrase ‘technology-neutral’. This phrase is being used to justify building technologies that are clearly not as good as fiber. The phrase was used a lot to justify allowing Starlink into the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) reverse auction.

One of the most interesting aspects of the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grants is that the funding is intended to make sure that everybody gets broadband. There is one section of the grant rules that talk about how the funding can be used to serve areas as small as a single home:

The Federal Communications Commission recently opened a docket, at the prompting of federal legislation, that asks for examples of digital discrimination. The big cable companies and telecoms are all going to swear they don’t discriminate against anybody for any reason, and every argument they make will be pure bosh. If people decide to respond to this FCC docket, we’ll see more evidence of discrimination based on income. We might even get some smoking gun evidence that some of the discrimination comes from corporate bias based on race and other factors.

A lot of smaller broadband providers are currently expanding their service footprints. They are often using grant funding to add more service areas and customers, while others are expanding using the more traditional route of borrowing to build new networks. But not all small providers are expanding, or are only expanding in small increments. The reasons why they aren't expanding:

• Fear of Being Able to Compete
• Fear of New Debt
• Staff Can’t Handle Change
• Reluctance to Change Habits
• Lack of Creativity/Innovation

Around the country, there are now elaborate alert systems in areas subject to tornados and other dangerous weather events.