ITG Communication

The generational money that is being made available for rural broadband network deployments is the most significant investment in rural America’s network infrastructure since the 1936 Rural Electrification Act helped push electricity and telephone service to the most remote parts of the country. In places where an economic case could not (and still cannot) be made for providing service, the various cost-sharing and subsidy schemes for regulated monopoly-provided service helped connect those who would have been left out otherwise. Considering the ubiquity of power and telephone service, this was a successful use of taxpayer and rate payer dollars and government regulation.

The problem in the 1930’s, 40’s, 50s, etc. was the lack of infrastructure requiring a massive investment in aerial and buried cable placement. We face a similar problem today in the rural broadband network and we require a similar solution; hence the “generational money.” With large sums of taxpayer and rate payer money available, the responsibility of the FCC and State regulatory agencies to make sure that these monies are spent wisely will be challenged by companies trying to stretch their current investment. Some want to make use of existing twisted-pair networks such as those that delivered the now fading Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) for years and deploy DSL. Some will want to use DOCSIS to utilize existing coaxial networks that provide linear television services while customers increasingly “cut the cord” and switch to streaming services. Some will want to deploy wireless technologies, fixed terrestrial and satellite-based, to solve the “digital divide.” All of these are legitimate interim solutions, but we should consider carefully whether the proposed investment should fund stop-gap measures, or real, sustainable long-term solutions.

I recently visited with leaders in the Electric Cooperative space about their entry into the broadband space. The question that I got most often was, “How future-proof is fiber and what will replace it someday?”. I try to avoid the word never, but after 30+ years in the telecommunications industry and as an engineer who tries to think “down the road,” my answer is, “I can’t see anything that will ever do so.” “What about wireless?”, many would ask. Not a chance. Wireless is good for what it’s good for, which is portability and convenience. Why waste taxpayer money on inferior technologies that may soon be outdated? The COVID-19 pandemic taught us that our family bandwidth needs can skyrocket overnight. DSL, coaxial, and, yes, even wireless networks, struggle to sustain the downstream and upstream needs when demand is high. There is nothing wrong with these technologies and the companies that work every day to keep them maintained and get the most from their investment are to be commended.

One thing that DSL, coax and wireless technologies have in common is that they all rely on a fiber optic connection to work. The DSLAM where the twisted copper wires delivering DSL are aggregated, the CATV Head End where the coax terminates, the wireless tower and even the earth station delivering bandwidth to the LEO satellites all require a fiber optic connection back to some internet peering hub. So the question becomes, if we are going to have to place all of this fiber to these points anyway, does it not make sense to spend the incremental money necessary to take fiber to each home?

"In Places where an Economic case could not (And Still Cannot) be made for Providing Service, the Various Cost-Sharing and Subsidy Schemes for Regulated Monopoly-Provided Service helped Connect those who Would have been left out otherwise"

Consider the following benefits of fiber optic networks…

1. They offer a much greater bandwidth capacity, allowing for the simultaneous transmission of vast amounts of data.

2. They have very low latency, which means data can be transmitted quickly, making them ideal for real-time applications.

3. They are not susceptible to electromagnetic interference (EMI) or radio frequency interference (RFI).

4. They are more secure than traditional networks because they transmit data as pulses of light, making it challenging for unauthorized parties to intercept the data.

5. They are highly scalable, allowing for easy upgrades as bandwidth requirements increase.

6. They are more robust and durable than copper cables and resistant to environmental factors like moisture, extreme temperatures, and physical damage.

7. They require less power to transmit data over long distances and therefore produce fewer carbon emissions and require fewer resources than traditional networks.

8. They can carry a variety of services simultaneously, including internet, telephone, television, and more.

9. They can be designed with built-in redundancy, meaning that if one path fails, data can automatically be rerouted along an alternative path.

So, if we can’t afford to deploy fiber networks everywhere today, can we afford to rebuild the network later because money was wasted on inferior technologies?