Tuesday, November 10, 2009
There's been plenty of talk on Capital Hill and all throughout the blogosphere about the economy, the stimulus, and broadband. But a recent survey coming from the UK revealed a totally different side to this debate than I had ever seen before. Could you imagine real estate sales being affected by broadband infrastructure? I can.

According to a survey from ISPreview.co.uk, broadband speeds could help or hinder home sales. According to the article, "from 721 respondents to our latest monthly survey reveal that 75% of readers would not buy a house, even a lovely one, if the best broadband ISP speed it could achieve was just 1Mbps." This presents a not-so-obvious connection among seemingly unrelated economic trends.

Now, although these are largely UK respondents, a sampling of US buyers would likely show similar trends. Working from that assumption, there are a few alarming insights to be gained. First, the simple fact that this trait of a home is not something the seller can fix. Thanks to HGTV and the like, we're all becoming familiar with concepts like home-staging, flipping, fix-ups, etc. But if you're in a rural area with no broadband access, or even an urban area with poor access, your options for making your house more marketable are slim in this area.

Second, and perhaps more alarming, is the standards which we in the U.S. hold. Note that 75% of readers in the UK would NOT buy the house with 1 Mbps. That's nearly 250 Kbps faster than our current "standard" for broadband in the U.S. But, to the UK consumer, that is an unacceptable downstream speed. Now, there are a lot of factors to consider in setting the bar for what constitutes broadband speed, but the fact remains, other nations have set the bar considerably higher than the U.S. How far away are we from catching up?

As we consider the future of broadband infrastructure in the U.S., we have to think of the ripple effects that a lack of broadband can have on a community. Businesses cannot compete. Education is hindered. And, homes can't sell. And, without question the technology that can most quickly deliver broadband to rural communities is fixed wireless.

Labels: "Internet infrastructure", Broadband Speed, Economy, Fixed Wireless Broadband, Rural Broadband, Stimulus

posted by Nick Carter at 7:27 AM Link to this Article  1 Comments

Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) asked for input last month on what actually should constitute "broadband" connection speeds. The government sets a standard for what is technically considered broadband and what is not. The motivation, at least originally, was simply that we could not allow dubious tech companies to slap a road-runner emblem on a 56K modem and try to advertise it as broadband.

But the current definition was recently opened to debate by the FCC, eliciting a range of responses from those affected by any modifications. A public interest group called Free Press, urged the FCC to dramatically ramp up requirements to 5 mbps for both upstream and downstream. For a sense of perspective, that would be over 8x the current definition for downstream speed, and 25x the current upstream speed. But companies directly affected by any decision, such as Verizon Communications Inc., urged the FCC to be more conservative.

Appeals to the FCC cited competing nations' who have set the bar for broadband far higher than the U.S. However, it's important to note that the nations cited in Reuters report (France and Japan) are in fact 1/18th 1/26th the size of the U.S. respectively. The challenge of Rural Broadband presents a uniquely different landscape for technology and business in the U.S. than in most other nations on the globe.

Where do you think the bar for broadband should be set? If higher, how shall we ever get there? If the same, what will motivate carriers to improve?

Labels: Broadband, Broadband Speed, FCC, Rural Broadband, Verizon

posted by Nick Carter at 9:31 AM Link to this Article  2 Comments