Background
CIT Broadband Mapping Initiative:
In 2008 the Commonwealth, as recommended by the Commonwealth’s Broadband Roundtable, recognized the need for statewide broadband mapping and completed its first mapping initiative. The first-generation map, created by CIT and partners, Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN) and Virginia Tech’s Center for Geospatial Information Technology (CGIT), and a myriad of private sector partners was the only state map in the U.S. to be based on “address-level” data, and developed at no cost to the citizens. This initiative placed Virginia amongst the national broadband mapping leaders, and provided the basis for current broadband initiatives.
As a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), in 2010 the National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA) awarded Virginia’s designated broadband entity, CIT and partners, VGIN and Virginia Tech, a State Broadband Initiative (SBI) grant which provided just under $4 million for broadband mapping. The purpose of this funding was to build on the initial 2008 map, provide additional verification and validation, and align Virginia data with requirements for inclusion in the National Broadband Map.
In 2011, the Commonwealth released a second edition of its broadband availability map, which in addition to including more providers’ data, this map, unlike the previous version of the map, allowed users to search by address and view a list of providers available in that particular location. Over the following years, the Virginia broadband team, CIT, VGIN and Virginia Tech, worked tirelessly to update the map to reflect the state’s ever-changing broadband footprint, increase broadband provider participation, and constantly work to improve the map’s accuracy.
The SBI program ended in February 2015, however, the General Assembly, for the first time, allocated funding to maintain the state broadband program viewing it as critical to the resolution of the digital divide in Virginia. Through this state funding, CIT continues its broadband access data collection and mapping on a biannual basis.
Technologies
Summary of Broadband Technologies
CIT in mapping of broadband service in Virginia tracked the seven key technologies in use today: Cable, Digital Subscriber Line (DSL), Copper, Fixed Wireless, Mobile Wireless, 4G/LTE Wireless, and Satellite (https://broadband.cgit.vt.edu/IntegratedToolbox/). The below summary highlights the capabilities, costs, and applicability of each technology.
Cable: Delivery is usually over a coaxial connection with download speeds up to several 100 mbps, upload speeds typically less. For example, COX Communications offers 200 mbps download, 20 mbps upload for about $90 a month (https://www.cox.com/residential/pricing.html).
DSL: Is typically used by the phone company and the technology leverages the existing copper into a home. The technology is distance sensitive, so the farther away a home is from the phone company’s Central Office, the less bandwidth available. Outside of a certain mile radius, traditional DSL does not work. Speeds can be up to 25 mbps or more, but upload speeds are relatively low at only a few mbps usually. CenturyLink, for example, advertises DSL at around $35 per month.
Copper: Here this is in reference to plain old telephone service (POTS) which is available in just about every home in America. Recently newer homes that have fiber as an option are not being built with any copper infrastructure. Verizon also has been reducing and reclaiming its copper footprint where it can offer its fiber service to consumers called FiOS. POTS can support dial up internet, and speeds are maxed out at a mere 56 kbps. In some rural areas, it is the only option and at best provides for some basic email and web functionality.
Fixed Wireless: Provides broadband over small home mounted antennas back to a base station. This technology typically needs a clear line of sight to work well and is distance sensitive. Speeds can be similar to DSL and costs can vary depending on provider and speed. These networks are more likely to be used in rural areas as they would struggle to compete with Cable/Fiber in suburban/urban environments.
Mobile Wireless: Some level of wireless service is available in every corner of Virginia per the CIT mapping exercise; however, there are a high volume of ”dead zones” in many rural areas. This can be due to limited cell towers and often only a single provider. Basic cellular service (2g/3G) is best for voice and SMS only, with some broadband data ability. Most wireless providers offer voice and data plans ranging from $30 to $200 or more. An individual’s location will determine if they can access the providers network sufficiently enough to use broadband. Many plans cap data usage. Newer uncapped plans are often associated with cellular networks in densely populated areas and therefore don’t solve the rural broadband issue for now.
LTE Wireless: Cellular providers today have largely deployed upgrades to their networks to handle the growing demand for mobile broadband. This technology heavily depends on 4G or LTE technology. Part of this upgrade is often dependent on bringing fiber to cell towers. For this reason, rural areas are more likely to not have the proliferation of LTE as would be seen in more suburban/urban areas. LTE mobile broadband can suffice as a broadband connection in some homes given the higher speeds. As cellular companies look to upgrade to even faster 5G networks, mobile broadband might be able to serve as a primary broadband connection for homes in the future.
Satellite: Likely the most uniform, broadband capability available. The main requirement is that a home has a clear line of sight to the southern sky. Exceptions occur for homes that may be on one side of a steep mountain, or in a heavily forested area. If satellite TV works at the residence, satellite internet should also. Speeds and costs today are similar to DSL, but there are two catches with satellite. First most providers will cap the aggregate usage, similar to some cellular data plans. So, while the speeds seem OK, the caps prevent a typical family of four, each with a streaming device from operating in an unhindered fashion. The satellite itself cannot cost effectively managed unlimited service. Additionally, satellite has a built-in latency or delay. This is not too noticeable for general internet usage, but becomes problematic for any fast applications such as stock trades, real time video games or similar services, and any applications that are time sensitive requiring communications to happen in half a second or less with not operate normally or time out.
The technologies measured above by CIT are applicable to residential users, but depending on the nature of the business or institution, some of these technologies will not meet their needs. Typically, these high bandwidth users will require cable or fiber to operate at a minimum, with some opting for fixed wireless. Additionally, these technologies are largely related to last mile connectivity vs middle mile connectivity. Last mile referring to the connection into a home or business back to a larger centralized location. Connections between larger locations and towns within a region are referred to as middle mile connections. Connections cross long distances, such as from one end of the state to another or between states is referred to as long haul connectivity.
Challenges
Geographic and Socioeconomic Disparities:
Broadband connectivity is correlated to two key elements: population density and ability to pay. Urban and suburban environments rarely have issues with access to broadband. Issues in these environments are largely related to ability to pay, such as some poorer inner city sections. Providers typically can justify connecting homes and businesses in these areas, but will refrain unless there are paying customers. Pre-connecting homes and businesses is done much less frequently.
Even in Reston, for example, a brand-new state of the art apartment tower will only partially be connected. Multiple providers will bring fiber into the basement of the building. The construction of the building allows the provider to pull fiber to each unit when that resident orders service. This is more cost effective for the provider vs pre-wiring all units. The same approach applies to commercial buildings typically.
Regardless of locality, broadband represents a recurring monthly expense to families and adoption rates are lower for those on more fixed budgets. This is particularly applicable to seniors who are more likely to not desire connectivity, in addition to possible fixed income restrictions.
Broadband access is the first issue, followed by addressing ability to pay. Many providers have a low income offering for residents that can provide broadband internet access at reduced rates. Often these programs are tied to federal income assistance programs from a validation standpoint, not necessarily as part of a federal program.
Regulatory Environment
Virginia has a relatively open regulatory environment for the building of broadband networks. Most regulatory matters for the building of telecommunication networks are structured by the FCC. Lack of deployment of broadband to all corners of Virginia is predominately a private sector ROI matter. The lack of a perceived strong ROI for providers has created the growth of municipal networks, whereby counties, towns, and/or cities are undertaking to build their own networks with local funds. Multiple issues have arisen from the growth of municipal networks, particularly in Virginia causing industry and government to clash.
In Roanoke, the building of a municipal network faced strong industry push back due to part of the network being built where commercial fiber and capability already existed. This created a classic government competing with industry situation.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/local/roanoke/mile-fiber-network-in-roanoke-valley-installed/article_29d74874-d694-5c3f-a40c-d47e963b1bdd.html
However localities (i.e. Virginia Beach) building networks to government buildings is nothing new and does not typically cause competition arguments from larger Internet and cable companies.
http://pilotonline.com/news/government/local/virginia-beach-expanding-high-speed-internet-in-the-city/article_cc21c438-05ea-54c8-8b50-144fa5db81d4.html
Roanoke is a good example of a locality at odds with industry on spending tax dollars for broadband.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/local/roanoke_county/roanoke-county-supervisors-ask-last-minute-broadband-questions/article_577a15a3-9e5e-58a2-b9fc-2a2f76e8ccfa.html
More rural communities in Virginia are looking to solve the broadband issue themselves.
https://muninetworks.org/content/virginia%E2%80%99s-fauquier-county-hires-broadband-consultant
Middle Mile expansion is needed for rural networks, but this issue is not as prevalent in Virginia as in other states. Virginia has more of a last mile issue, but middle mile still needs addressed.
http://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/middle-mile-dark-fiber-networks-are-needed-to-drive-more-rural-broadband
CIT has a guide/whitepaper to help localities determine the best path in addressing broadband development in their town or county. The current administration, nor the General Assembly, have advanced an overarching broadband plan aimed at expanding connectivity. Work has been primarily at mapping and studying. No state funds are currently set aside for broadband development.
https://www.wired.virginia.gov/sites/default/files/Improving%20Broadband%20Access%20and%20Utilization%20in%20Virginia%20White%20Paper.pdf
Localities recently lost their key policy advocate, the FCC, when the courts ruled the FCC had no ability to block state laws restricting municipalities on building fiber networks. This recent article summaries the mix of issues at the local, state, and industry level.
http://www.govtech.com/network/Despite-State-Barriers-Cities-Push-to-Expand-High-Speed-Internet.html
Other Republican governors are looking to put up state matching funds for rural broadband, including Gov Walker of Wisconsin.
http://fox6now.com/2016/12/01/gov-scott-walker-pushes-for-expanded-rural-broadband/
Virginia is 1 of 20+ states with regulations that limit the ability of municipalities to develop broadband (see law summary in attached).
http://www.ecs.org/ec-content/uploads/Inhibiting-Connection_State-policy-impacting-expansion-of-municipal-broadband-networks.pdf
Virginia currently restricts who can provide telecommunication service. This is largely enforced by the State Corporation Commission. One key rural provider that would welcome a lifting of these restrictions, are the rural electric coops. Given their right of ways and power into each rural home, they could be a very effective conduit to connecting homes that providers currently have no desire to connect. This is occurring in other states and by lifting restrictions, other coops in other states have been able to access federal dollars to help with build out.
Broadband is largely seen as an infrastructure issue today. Recently the Cable lobby is trying to make it more difficult for municipalities in Virginia to operate their own broadband network. The approach is largely unpopular even with Republicans.
Yet More Limits on Local Government: Proposed Legislation By the Virginia Cable Industry
Tobacco Commission
The only state financial support for broadband development has been via the Tobacco Commission, with those grant dollars being used to develop middle mile networks in southern Virginia. However, this is not technically state treasury dollars. This effort is executed by MBC and has been key in bringing some, not many, notable large bandwidth customers to southern Virginia, notably the Microsoft data center. MBC recognizes the need to focus more/additionally on last mile connectivity, after years of middle mile development efforts.
Franchising
Within Virginia and most states, local connectivity outside of the phone company is done via county appointed franchisees. This model is largely still used today, but only relates to cable company competition and is traditionally only applicable at the residential level. Franchisee rules call for the cable company to connect homes within a certain density. Home densities under a certain level do not have the requirement to connect. This is where you will get rural parts of counties with no connectivity, expect for the POTS capability provided by the telephone company. TV and Internet are either unavailable, or supplied via phone company (DSL if possible), satellite, or cellular. Franchise rules are set at the local level, but generate friction between county authorities and the cable provider as the demand for connectivity skyrockets. In some cases the cable company meets that demand as they can justify the ROI, but predominately without a mandate to connect, they do not.
E-rate
The Schools and Libraries program, also known as the E-rate program, makes telecommunications and information services more affordable for schools and libraries in America. Mandated by Congress in 1996 and implemented by the FCC in 1997, the E-rate provides discounted telecommunications, Internet access, and internal connections to eligible schools and libraries, funded by the Universal Service Fund.
Innovative digital learning technologies and the growing importance of the Internet in connecting students, teachers, and consumers to jobs, life-long learning, and information, are creating increasing demand for bandwidth in schools and libraries. In 2014, the FCC adopted the E-rate Modernization Order and the Second E-rate Modernization Order as part of a comprehensive review to modernize the program. To learn more about efforts to modernize the E-rate program, go to www.fcc.gov/e-rate-update.
Recently, MBC and Microsoft jointly filed with the FCC to use E-rate funding at the student level. This was met with objection by CenturyLink, who also provides telephone services in some parts of Virginia.
http://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/centurylink-says-e-rate-funding-should-not-be-used-to-fund-residential-broadband
E-rate funds are allocated from the USF to allow school districts to connect to the Internet. The petition by Microsoft and MBC seeks to alter how those funds are used so that they can be used to connect homes, which have students in them. This potentially opens up the USF to a wider audience and thus could drain funds rapidly, leaving other USF obligations unmet is one of CenturyLink’s arguments. For clarification, this was discussed with Tad Deriso, MBC President, by myself and Generra in December. My point to Tad was if a home already has access to broadband, but the home for cost reasons is not leveraging broadband … then that home should be made aware of the low income offerings form the current provider to get online vs using E-rate funding. Tad agreed that there is likely a win-win solution here, but it is predominately a federal issue at the moment.
McAuliffe Broadband Actions
Regulation relaxed on standards for fiber/cable installation.
http://loudounnow.com/2016/05/24/gov-mcauliffe-signs-bill-aimed-at-boosting-rural-broadband/
etc
etc
etc