Broadband's Never-ending Tale of Town and Country

Carl Weinschenk

One of the big ongoing areas of concern in telecommunications is the balance (or tension) between access to broadband in rural and non-rural (urban and suburban) areas. The precise nature of the issue shifts over time as wired and wireless capabilities change, but the basic issue remains the same.

Light Reading reports on comments by Tower Cloud CEO and President Ron Mudry at a site event this week. Mudry said that the biggest opportunity for mobile backhaul providers - the companies that bring traffic from cell towers to various concentration points within the network - will be in rural and small markets.

The story describes some of the differences between rural and other types of backhaul. A main takeaway of the piece is that more planets seem to be aligning for rural broadband. Indeed, this is reminiscent of the relationship between service providers and the small- and medium-size business market, which wasn't aggressively addressed until the enterprise market was more or less satiated.

The politicking around these issues shows no sign of abating, however. At the Cable Show last week in Chicago, Federal Communications Commissioner Julius Genachowski called on the industry to continue to eat into the percentage of Americans who aren't broadband customers. Genachowski said that the FCC will create the Broadband Adoption Task Force to help achieve this goal. While nothing in the report said that his comments or the nascent group is specifically aimed at rural users, it is clear that this group represents a sizeable choice of the target.

Another interesting twist is AT&T's proposed acquisition of T-Mobile. IT Business Edge's Wayne Rash - writing in the case at eWeek - claims that support for approval of the merger among non-profits with an interest in rural broadband that is being garnered by a group called the Internet Innovation Alliance (IIA) is not quite on the level.

Rash reported that the new honorary chair of the group, former Democratic Congressman Rick Boucher, is a partner in a law firm, Sidley Austin, which represents AT&T. The telco also is a supporter of the IIA. Rash points out, however, that T-Mobile's assets are largely urban and the approval of the deal won't produce any obvious benefits for rural citizens. Therefore, he suggests, the supporters are being misled. (The IIA, whether it is on the level or not, offers a nice graphic of how broadband can benefit rural residents.)

Such grandstanding will continue, since rural and urban connectivity never will be equalized and the issue will continue to mobilize activists and service providers. Keeping a constant eye on the relationship between the two is important to ensure that the gap is kept as small as possible.

Subscribe to our Newsletters

Sign up now and get the best business technology insights direct to your inbox.


Add Comment      Leave a comment on this blog post
Jul 4, 2011 11:54 AM NYC6666 NYC6666  says:

This is a joke.  The Internet Innovation Alliance (IIA) is not an independent group...in fact A&T is a member.  IIA Honorary Chairman and former Congressman Rick Boucher is an attorney for Sidley Austin which has handled all of the AT&T matters before the DOJ and FCC to obtain approval of more than a dozen significant mergers and acquisitions.  Co- Chairman of the IIA iis top Washington telecom lobbyist Bruce Mehlman.  Jamal Simmons is a political analyst for CNN and playing the Lobby game now as well.  Their Director Tracey Sawiki is a VP at  Sloane & Company, a high priced NYC PR Firm.

Do you see that this alliance was did not exist before this merger was planned an that its members are AT&T, their suppliers and other phony consumer advocacy groups.  If this merger is allowed it will slow development.  I have been in the wireless phone business since it's inception and i can guarantee that this merger will reduce competition, raise the price of calls and will destroy innovation.  T-Mobile and Sprint are needed to keep the Verizons and AT&T's competitive.  Ask yourself... if this is so good for the country, why do they go to such great lengths to fool you as to who is really involved in this supposed advocacy group?  Do you think people who get paid by AT&T and live in NYC and Washington really care about rural coverage?  How would this help?  AT&T have duplication of services in 99% of their area.... how will this roll their network out to rural areas?  AT&T will still need to build cell sites that they can do right now but have resisted for over 25 years.  This is a way to get rid of a competitor.  They have frequencies that they could use right now but choose not to... why?  Because they only purchased them to eliminate a potential competitor.  If you want change in wireless, open the door for Google or Microsoft to buy T-Mobile and we will jump 20 years ahead within 5 years. 

If this is allowed Sprint will get swallowed by Verizon and we will have just two carriers.  Look at the government and how the two party system has served us over the years....right a bloated debt and the same old promises.  It will work the same way in wireless.


Post a comment





(Maximum characters: 1200). You have 1200 characters left.




Subscribe Daily Edge Newsletters

Sign up now and get the best business technology insights direct to your inbox.

Subscribe Daily Edge Newsletters

Sign up now and get the best business technology insights direct to your inbox.