Tag: Internet access cost

Article

thinkbroadband :: Making broadband switching easier

My Comments

The reason I am pleased about this article that provides information for British consumers about switching their fixed-line telephone or broadband Internet service provider is helping them understand what can be involved with any of these changeovers in a hilghly-competitive market.

For example, it stresses the importance of satisfying contractural obligations like seeing out any fixed-term plans or making sure that the last bills with the prior service provider are “squared off” completely.

As well, they mentioned about procedures that may be in place with you and your provider in order to protect you from being switched to different communications providers against your will, a practice known as “slamming”. This may involve a letter of confirmation that you sign and return or a passcode that you give to the customer representative of your previous and/ or new provider to authorise you change.

They covered different changeover scenarios such as moving between two retail providers using the same wholesale provider or different wholesale providers. This also included situations where the different wholesale providers use different backend “exchange-to-exchange” infrastructure. There is even the case of a setup where the handover involves totally different infrastructure like heading to a cable or fibre-based provider from an ADSL provider.

But some people do change their telephone or broadband provider when they change their home or business locations; and this usually is a simpler practice of “winding up” business with the previous provider and starting afresh with the current provider. If the move is within the same town and you retain your current phone number, it may be similar to changing service providers at your current address.

People in other countries that are heading towards highly-competitive telephone and broadband markets should have a look at the ThinkBroadband article so they can be aware of what happens when users are shifted between different providers.

There is a common requirement to improve Internet access in many communities. This may be in the form of extending high-speed broadband out to rural areas or implementing next-generation broadband service around a nation or state. It may also include providing a community of financially-disadvantaged users, such as residents of a public housing estate with computer hardware, Internet access and training.

In most of these improvements, there is the involvement of government in facilitating the rollouts and the funds are derived from the money pools that the government has access to courtesy of the taxes that it raises.

Examples of the projects typically range from a local council implementing a Wi-Fi hotzone in its towns or a regional government funding a fibre-optic rollout in its area of responsibility to a national government subsidising Internet rollout projects across the country.

I have covered instances where action concerning Internet-accessibility improvement has been assisted with public money of some sort, such as improvements in Gironde and Vaucluse in France; and many other rural-broadband improvements in the UK.

Here, the question that is often raised is whether such operations should be funded by this public money and assisted by these government entities. This is typically raised by conservative organisations who prefer that little public money be spent on this kind of service delivery and would prefer that this is the responsibility of a private free market.

The free-market argument

The free-market argument underscores the fact that the public money is the “property of the taxpayer” and that government shouldn’t waste their money on these Internet-improvement projects. Instead they would rather that market forces determine the kind of Internet service that is provided.

Similarly the free-market no-public-money argument also underscores a rationale that the money to assist Internet deployment in underserved areas could be better spent on other services like health or road / rail infrastructure. There is also the fear that taxes will be increased in the area so as to cover the Internet-deployment project.

Limitations

This may be OK if there is a vibrant competitive Internet-service market in every part of the country. But where there is a monopoly or cartel managing the Internet service for an area, there can be problems with a totally free-market approach.

For example, it is easier to fail to serve communities based on perceived lack of short-term profitability. This can be aided by various personal prejudices like fear of serving neighbourhoods dominated by minorities. With this, there is less of a likelihood of catering to a changing customer mix in a community. This is more so if the change involves establishing infrastructure in a community where there could be new perceived demand, such as a neighbourhood that has been gentrified or has acquired a new employer.

Infact some of the incumbent monopoly operators in the US have been known to cry foul and organise PR and legal campaigns against municipal hotzone efforts. This is because they fear that the Internet service offered by the hotzone is to provide a competing service and undermine their monopoly over their operating area.

Why use public money

The use of public money to provide proper Internet service to underserved communities is effectively a “leg-up” for private Internet providers to provide the service to these communities.  This is especially where they wouldn’t find this kind of operation profitable especially in the short-term.

Common public-money sources for Internet-service provision

Local government

I also find that the local government is in a better position to underpin local projects because they know what the local needs are. They are infact more representative of the local community and are dependent on a primary income base – the council rates or taxes — that is sensitive to local area value. Here a high-quality Internet service can attract a high-value employer which will raise the area’s effective value and income base.

Universal-service funds

Another public money source that is relevant to Internet-service improvement are universal-service funds. These are funds that are provided to communications companies and utilities to offset the cost of difficult service rollouts in order to provide a baseline level of service to all communities.

These funds may be resourced from a standard levy charged to all customers for the provision of their service, another tax base like the TV licence fee in the UK or a line of spending in a government’s budget. But these service funds would be specifically allocated for providing the communications service to the community. They are typically underscored by laws that define a minimum standard for Internet service through the nation in a similar manner to what is implemented for the telephone.

But there are other sources such as baseline federal assistance for communications and technology enrichment projects as well as international funding from multi-nation groups like the European Commission.

Public-Private Partnerships

The projects would be typically rolled out in a public-private partnership where the telco or ISP finance some of the project’s costs while the public funds finance the rest of the project’s costs.

They are exemplified through entities who represent the government and the private operatiors and are responsible for managing the project and tendering out the work that is necessary for it to go ahead. What is important about them is that the projects are subject to value-for-money tests yet have exposure to the benefits of free-market competition and the public money goes a long way towards the project with less drain on the public budget.

Conclusion

What i value is that public money can be used to assist in improving Internet access for disadvantaged communities or establishing a newer Internet technology with minimal private risk.

Article

Telstra super-fast 4G wireless sparks debate over NBN

My comments

As many countries agressively build out fibre-optic-based “Next Generation Broadband”, there is also the reality that companies involved in wireless broadband will deploy LTE or WiMAX “4G” technologies for this service.

This issue has been raised recently as Telstra, Australia’s incumbent telephone and mobile carrier announced its intention to deploy LTE-based 4G wireless broadband. This is even though the Australian Federal Government were rolling out the National Broadband Network, which is the next-generation broadband service based primarily on “fibre-to-the-premises” technology.

A key issue that have been raised include the “all-wireless” household or small business, which doesn’t have a landline telephone or ADSL/cable-based broadband Internet for their telecommunications. This may be implemented by students and similar households where each user wants control over their communications costs as well as assuring proper service privacy.

Issues of comparison

Value of service as a primary Internet service

A common disadvantage with this kind of setup is that the bandwidth available to the user from a wireless broadband service is less than that for a wireline broadband service like ADSL, cable or fibre-optic. As well, the wireline service is typically able to offer better value service than the wireless service. This disadvantage may be eroded if the 4G wireless broadband services are priced aggressively against the Next-Generation-Broadband wireline services.

Reliability and Stability

Even so, the 4G wireless broadband setups won’t yield the same bandwidth as a next-generation broadband setup; and these systems are based on radio technology which can be affected by many factors such as  the environment surrounding the radio equipment, the aerial (antenna) that is used as part of the equipment and the calibre of the equipment itself.

Examples of this include wireless-broadband modems used in double-brick / cinder-block buildings; equipment like USB modem sticks designed to be compact therefore not having adequate aerial systems; and simple weather conditions that affect wireless performance.

Here, this could lead to inconsistent performance for 4G wireless-broadband setups, with results like stuttering during VoIP telephony or multimedia playback.

Multiple device setups

No-one has yet raised the issue of a person operating multiple devices that connect to wireless broadband Internet. This is a common reality as people buy smartphones, tablets and netbooks that have integrated wireless-broadband connectivity. Here, these devices are operated on their own services and it requires users to keep track of the many accounts and bandwidth allowances that each device has.

As well, the wireless-broadband technologies discourage the idea of establishing local-area networks which could permit bandwidth sharing / pooling or sharing of resources like printers or file directories. Here, the users would end up not creating a local area network at all, and may just end up using technologies

Political issues peculiar to the Australian scenario

I also see certain political issues in the “next-generation-broadband vs 4G wireless broadhand” issue more so in Australia. Here, the Australian Labour Party see the National Broadband Network as a tool for nationalising or “claiming back” the wireline telephony infrastructure that they relinquished when Telstra was privatised. Here, Telstra, like British Telecom was originally part of the government-owned “Posts, Telegraphs, Telephones” department and became its own telephony entity as this department was separated.

There hadn’t been any mentions of intent to nationalise the Telstra-owned wireless infrastructure used for reselling their mobile telephony and wireless-broadband service. As well, Telstra were wanting to set up the aforementioned 4G LTE wireless-broadband technology on this infrastructure as a retail service and the Australian Labour Party were seeing this wireless-broadband service as a broadband service that competes with their National Broadband Network.

How I would see this argument is a way of seeking legal authority to require Telstra to do a “BT-style” sell-off of its mobile-telephony and wireless-broadband business. This is where they would be forced to divest themselves of the infrastructure and retail mobile-telephony / wireless-broadband business to another service

Conclusion

How I see the role of any wireless-broadband technology is that it is a complementary technology to a wireline technology rather than a competing technology. It exists primarily for mobile, portable and temporary computing applications.

PS. If I am appearing to write this article in a manner that supports Telstra, I have no pecuniary interests in this telecommunications company other than to be a regular customer of its telephony services.

News Articles

BBC News – £98 PCs target UK digital divide

Race Online 2012 to bring sub-£100 PC’s to market | ThnikBroadband.com (UK)

Web site

http://raceonline2012.org

My comments

Some parts of Britain are now providing disadvantaged people with access to subsidised computer equipment for GBP98 and are providing wireless-broadhand Internet access facilitated by Three Broadband, at GBP9 per month or GBP18 for three months; as part of a 12-month “IT-enablement” trial.

The idea behind this subsidised IT program, which is run by the “Race Online 2012” action group, is to allow access to online skills for study and work. In some cases, the study may be online only such as through distance-learning options like Open University or may require a significant amount of time spent online for the course.

One benefit will be that the program will be working with computer-education facilities around the UK and also provide telephone-based support for the users. This, in my opinion, would also need to respect the needs of people who most likely wouldn’t be computer-literate.

Usually, this class of user will end up with, at best, a “hand-me-down” computer which is very slow at best. They may not get any sort of Internet or may be lucky to get an ADSL broadband service for their Internet connection.

As far as I know, the computers will typically be refurbished units, most likely desktops. But I often wonder what condition they will be refurbished to especially that an ATX-standard “mini-tower” desktop system could be renewed with modest but new hardware at a cost-effective price. The systems will typically come with a flatscreen monitor, keyboard and mouse and come with Linux and other open-source software. The previously-mentioned Internet connection will be provided with a USB-connected wireless-broadhand modem. This solution may cater for the “prepaid-mobile-only” households that wouldn’t be deemed acceptable to run a landline phone service with ADSL Internet due to poor credit standings.

Remploy, who are a supported-workshop program for assisting young people with employment skills and who are behind this program, have a goal to sell 8000 machines in 12 months

Issues that may be raised

Security

It may be so easy to think that Linux may be hard to hack, being a UNIX-derived operating system and not-so-popular, but there would have to be someone like AVG working on a free “household-grade” desktop security package, This is because hackers can turn their attention to any operating system even though it may not be popularly deployed and, as I know in the days when MS-DOS started to become the popular operating environment, other desktop operating environments were still as vulnerable and I always hold that belief.

3G wireless broadband the answer for Internet service?

Some of us may find that the 3G wireless-broadband technology may not be enough for Internet service to this community as the only broadband technology. This is because some neighbourhoods may provide very low or non-existent coverage, especially if the device is a 3G “stick” modem.

There have been other ways of providing cost-effective “always-on” broadband Internet. For example, I reported previously (older article, article after SFR takeover) in 2008 on this site about some public-housing developments in Paris, France have been set up with “Triple-Play Social” with 512kbps Internet, regular broadcast TV and inbound telephone use for 1 euro per month courtesy of SFR / Neuf Cegetel. This bandwidth could provide enough bandwidth for most Internet activities.  Some of these activities could be observed especially as there is an increased rollout of next-generation broadband Internet service in most countries.