Broadband Availability By County Type

Patchwork Nation, an effort at characterizing the diversity of American communities by creating a general typology of counties, has turned its lens toward broadband availability, in collaboration with Connected Nation,: Leaving close scrutiny of the typology itself for another day (and the characterization of counties as "Minority Central," "Immigration Nation," and "Evangelical Epicenters"), the map provides a good first cut at assessing socio-demogaphic correlates of broadband availability. As Patchwork Nation's Dante Chinni describes:

So if you were to sit down with a mathematician and try to figure out a formula for connectivity - admittedly a very difficult challenge - it might look something like population density, plus education, plus income, plus civic engagement equals better access to broadband.

Well, having sat down with broadband data at many levels, yup, that predictive model is just about spot on. That said, as presented, I'm not quite sure what to make of the "community engagement" part of the equation. Since that is at the heart of my own work, I have some ideas of what might be meant by it, though.

Policy Innovation

So the Obama FCC is certainly working diligently to find room for expanding spectrum at the margins:

The core of the plan would ask, though not require, local TV stations to give up a chunk of the broadcast spectrum assigned to them by the Federal Communications Commission. The chunks would then be auctioned off to wireless companies with the donating broadcaster getting a piece of the of proceeds. In effect, it’s an effort to get the most out of our broadband spectrum, which is a limited quantity.

The big questions remain unanswered. How many local broadcasters will play along? Will the $30 billion that auctions of available spectrum are projected to generate over the next decade actually materialize? Regardless, the administration is rolling out an impressive national strategy for broadband development based on leveraging existing policies and institutions (viz., the rejiggered Universal Service Fund) and exploring tweaks such as this latest announcement.

With next week's release of the National Broadband Map, it's heady days in the broadband world.

Crowdsourcing and the Broadband Map

Drew Clark of BroadbandCensus.com has a great idea:

One of the things that BroadbandCensus.com has been doing since our launch, in January 2008, is to provide a crowdsourced, public and transparent collection of data about local broadband Speeds, Prices, Availability, Reliability and Competition. We call this the Broadband ‘SPARC.’

The basic idea is to get as much information from as many sources as possible to create sort of a collage, a national broadband map extrapolated from an enormous set of data points, ideally from lots and lots of individuals. There's a lot to be said for such a bottom-up approach, setting aside the initial challenge of getting folks to participate. The main challenge is that the starting point is a blank slate.

The question, really, is when and how such a crowdsourced resource should inform planning and decision making.

Clark has been outspoken in his criticism of Connected Nation's approach to broadband mapping, offering crowdsourcing as an alternative.

Yet, it seems there's less light between Connected Nation's approach and BroadbandCensus.com's. Indeed, Connected Nation has placed public verification of their mapping results at the forefront. Though they've not referred to the effort as crowdsourcing, I suppose they could.

Connected Nation brokers arrangements with multiple providers offering to protect what those providers believe is proprietary data. In other words, Connected Nation works with providers, accepting the data that they are given. The basic map begins, then, as the map that providers would have us see.

There are multiple reasons to be skeptical of this base map as an outcome. But it is only the first step.

Some providers dramatically overstate their coverage, though it's not always who you might think. Many suspect that Verizon and Comcast claim availability where it is not to make it appear that the broadband challenge is smaller than it may appear. But, according to my conversations with Connected Nation's mapping team, many small providers claim universal access in their service areas. Anyone who claims to be lacking service can get it simply by asking. Whether the data come from large or small providers, there's no way to challenge the assertions providers make other than through address by address verification.

So without attributing motives, we can stipulate one simple fact: for numerous reasons (reticence of providers to cough up accurate data as well as evolutionary nature of their networks) no national broadband map can be accurate.

And given these manifold flaws, the best verifier of any map is the public itself. Hence the importance of some sort of crowdsourcing effort as a corrective to any national map (whether prepared by Connected Nation, some other private sector entity, the providers themselves, or the FCC). In fact, Connected Nation realizes the importance of verification and has, as it happens, probably gotten more inputs from its own rather quiet crowdsourcing efforts than BroadbandCensus.com.

Henchmen?

So don't know if you've seen it, but techdirt has an illuminating piece by Paul Masnick, who is largely sympathetic with Art Brodsky's (valedictory?!) rant aginst Connected Nation.

Masnick first makes this overwrought claim about Connected Nation:

First, it's just a "mapping" organization and it's run by the telcos themselves, allowing them to continue to fudge the data to make markets look a lot more competitive than they really are. And, yet, thanks to all the political love that goes out to Connected Nation, it looks like they're about to get hundreds of millions of dollars in broadband stimulus money.

Of course, it's disappointing that Connected Nation continues to be seen by its critics as merely a front for the telcos. But the larger disappointment is, without belaboring the point, this characterization of Connected Nation's work completely fails to acknowledge that Connected Nation believes mapping to be only the first step in improving broadband. In states like Tennessee, Ohio, and Kentucky the map has only been stage one run in tandem with statewide, county-by-county planning efforts that foster local empowerment and decision-making focused both on improving demand and channeling that demand toward feasible, meaningful, local improvements in supply.

After swallowing the bromide against Connected Nation hook, line, and sinker without critically engaging the organization's actual work or its results, Masnick then ends with this little bit of confusion:

I certainly agree that better data is important, but I have to admit I'm still somewhat confused as to what real problem we end up solving with mapping alone? Yes, it will give us more data to figure out just what the current situation is when it comes to broadband deployment, but that's got little to do with actually improving our broadband infrastructure.

Ahem, welcome to the party.

And if you'd look beyond your suspicion and prejudicial rage against Connected Nation, then you'd seen the organization's actual focus lies beyond the maps, too. The map is merely the first step in improving conditions on the ground. And those conditions will be vastly improved by enlisting the support and efforts of local leaders and residents and leveraging any and all willing assets, broadband platforms, and potential solutions. Not by throwing out the baby with the bathwater as Connected Nation's critics so often seem willing to do.

On the Utility of the Urban-Rural Distinction

We note without being prompted that we are in or out of and urban setting. Leveling the distinction between city and country is not normally a controversial thing. That said, as the distinction plays itself out as a matter of policy, the point at which one gives way to the other is crucial. At the margin, what defines a place as one or the other? I would argue that among other sine qua nons of urbanity or rurality is connection to infrastructure. Elsewhere in this blog I have argued that retaining the distinction for the purposes of allocating federal stimulus dollars makes a certain sense. At the same time, channeling funding for broadband through the Rural Utilities Service both prejudices the definition of the broadband challenge and biases our approach to resolving it. Yes, the present approaches to providing access where it doesn't exist and improving service and adoption where it does exist suggest a new understanding and definition of urban and rural. Namely, the service areas for high-speed wired broadband service can be taken as the outer fringe of what is urban and what will be urban in the near future. Areas where wired services don't exist (i.e., in those areas where wireless broadband is the only solution on the horizon) can properly be understood as rural. Of course, there are shades of gray. Places where wired services exist along transportation corridors, but where service is spotty away from highways and pockets of population density are likely to already be considered sub- and exurban. So for those of us who are wasting time with labels, perhaps existing infrastructure can be our defining characteristic (since it likely correlates strongly with other attributes.

Martin Interview

An interesting interview with Kevin Martin, former FCC Chair.

Are the Bigs Taking the Cash?

So Ryan Singel has an interesting perspective on recent speculation as to whether or not AT&T and Verizon's will apply for broadband stimulus cash.

What's really at stake here are definitions: what kind of service will the government define as 'broadband,' what counts as an 'open' network, and what areas are 'underserved' or 'unserved.'

I couldn't agree more.

Yes, defining and operationalizing these terms is precisely what is at stake in coming to the table (or not) for the Bigs. And as I've argued, they are precisely the matters that are unresolved in the present NTIA/RUS/FCC plan for investing the $7.2 billion of stimulus cash. What will happen? I'm still waiting to see.

Girding for the Last War

One Last Comment on the 3/10 Hearing:

We're using the army that fought the last war. In many respects, the last time the federal government was used to stimulate demand for a networked infrastructure was 70 years ago, during the Great Depression, with the creation of the Rural Electrification Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority. In other words, the federal agencies that are taking the lead on broadband deployment policy are themselves artifacts of political and policy dynamics with long pedigrees.

At a public hearing regarding the broadband infrastructure allocations occasioned by the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) on 10 March 2009, officials played their cards quite close to their chests. The three agencies involved in distributing over $7 billion toward increasing broadband access and adoption, themselves haunted by the ghosts of funding cycles past were reticent to overindulge specifics. Rather, they called eagerly upon "traditional and non-traditional stakeholders" in an effort "to ignore no sector of our national life".

I argue that this focus on soliciting public input is a helpful thing. After all, who are the agencies involved? First there is the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) within the US Department of Commerce. NTIA didn't come into being until 1991, when Commerce's Office of Telecommunications absorbed the White House Office of Telecommunications Policy. Probably streamlining made sense, but this does give one a sense of the newness of the program. Now NTIA is taking on a big task, dispensing the largest chunk of the broadband dollars to establish the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), an agency that has yet to be created to dispense grant dollars and loans based on criteria that are yet to be determined in pursuing goals that are, in many respects, still under development (but we're hoping for jobs, right?).

The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), within the US Department of Agriculture, will dispense over $2 to provide grants and loans with similarly unspecified criteria is itself a legacy of the Depression. RUS got its start as the Rural Electrification Administration.

So we are being led out of the present malaise by an antique and in many ways obsolete federal structure. RUS is in a strong position to administer funds, of course: it has been funding rural projects for decades. There are many reasons why it makes sense to funnel money through a proven conduit.

But then again what we see at play in the broadband portion of the recovery package is the effect of last year's army. By dent of attempting to address the broadband challenge as one with a rural and an urban component, RUS is enacting what my good buddy Cory Knobel calls "ontic occlusion". The existing bureaucratic structures, since they are overdetermined by the past, are overdetermining what will happen next. It is ever thus, of course, but we may be watching it in action.

That said, one legacy of REA that is being reawakened is its focus on grassroots planning and implementation. More on that later...

Broadband Hearing a Dissapointment?

So Business Week was less than thrilled with yesterday's hearing, I hear:

At the first public discussion of the Obama Administration's much heralded broadband plan, government officials offered virtually no hard answers to the hundreds of people who gathered in person and the 2,500 more who participated via live Web video. For almost every substantive question about how the billions will be allocated, officials said they're looking for guidance from the public. Bernadette McGuire-Rivera, NTIA associate administrator, said the government is seeking input on "nearly every facet of the program."

I'd agree that the officials assembled provided very little specific guidance (or even guidelines), but I was hardly surprised. The event went like this:

Gov't Official: We've got money. Here's our timeline for disbursing it. Tell us how we should do that.

Earnest-looking Would-be Applicant: Do you have a preference for multi-juridictional applications?

GO: You tell us. We're looking for input on that. And however many applicants you put together, consider asking for $$ from more than one agency; that's what we're looking for: collaborative grant awarding.

Another EWA: How about platforms? Is there a preference for wifi? Fiber? Fibre? DSL?

GO: Yes, tell us about your preferences.

Another nuther EWA: What about this urban-rural thing? What do suburban providers like me do?

NTIA GO: Let's let the USDA handle that one.

USDA GO: Yes, we handle rural stuff. But urban agriculture is all the rage these days, so game on! Tell us where to draw the line.

And so on.

I'm not surprised in the least that Business Week saw it as a disappointment. But the first step is figuring out how to change the federal approach to this problem. The funding and oversight mechanisms that exist are probably not suited to the task, so the first step is that those agencies learn how to work across their stovepipes. And they communicated an interest in doing just that. I found it encouraging...

My summary

I often am asked by urban planners why I'm looking at a rural phenomenon (rural infrastructuration). I'm not, really, of course. I'm interested in how communities (irrespective of space and/or place) plan for broadband expansion. For the most part, the funding mechanisms for these sorts of public planning projects have addressed the rural aspects of the broadband challenge, because RUS has gotten most of the $$.

Without question, what I'm hearing from the interlocutors in today's meeting is a genuine interest in redefining how the broadband challenge is taken on by the federal government. A big funding mechanism is pointed at rural America, but the need is by all means not exclusively a rural one.

More Broadband Stimulus Live Blogging

Great questions from participants, focusing on redefining and allocating spectrum, allowing for in-kind contributions from local and state governments, platform neutrality.

Most of the questions are geared toward criteria. The answers are typically skirting specifics, stressing comments regarding suggestions for criteria. I.e., no one has nailed anything down yet, it appears, at all.

How will we determine effectiveness? Everyone is soliciting input regarding developing metrics. For example, a stated goal is "innovativeness". But how do we measure that, as Seiffert quipped, "Are you three times more innovative than me?"

Question focusing squarely on urban-rural. Fellow from right here in MontCo asked what a suburban wireless provider should do. A disproportionate amount of the broadband $$ are going to rural areas. Deutchman uses this as a plug for FCC's mapping project. In future, funding allocations will be geared toward definitions of underserved vs. unserved (aha, more contested terrain).

More on the Broadband Stimulus

All the interlocutors in the discussion portion are stressing the ways in which the governmental structures that will be at work in implementing the broadband portions of the stimulus.

That is to say, Seiffert keeps stressing that the nature of the collaboration among FCC, the USDA's Rural Utility Service (RUS), and the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) are up for grabs. That is to say, part of the infrastructuring that is occurring centers on the presently inadequate federal structures. Right now, RUS, FCC and NTIA have been funding mechanisms whose missions were suited for the times in which they originated. Broadband is rendering certain hypostasized and often obsolete structures of these previous epochs in stark relief.

It'll be interesting, in other words, to watch and see what, if anything, changes about the governance of broadband. Right now, I'd say follow the money. The NTIA got the biggest piece of the pie. They're steering most of the stimulus dollars (that makes it a hopeful signal that Seiffert is stressing the need for collaborative grants).

But is USDA really where broadband should be driven in the 21st Century?

What I Think of the Broadband Stimulus So Far

Here's what I think makes a lot of sense:

a) NTIA and RUS are obvious funding mechanisms for the investments being made. While the majority of the funds being released are heading to rural American infrastructure development RUS (more on that in a moment), there seems to be some reason for this. RUS has been developing actual, physical networks (power, phones, now broadband) for quite some time. They have institutional capacity.

b) Seiffert makes interesting point: As the ARRA stipulates, the NTIA's mandate is to address questions of "underserved and unserved", while RUS's is to deal with "urban and rural, focusing on the rural". How these distinctions are negotiated (if not politicked) will, in my estimation, be the crux of the success (or otherwise) of this broadband program.

Live Blogging the Public Mtg on BBand Initiatives

You can watch, too!

Meeting will be (or was) webcast.

The presentation began with a welcome from Anna Gomez, acting Administrator of NTIA.

Next Tom Vilsack, Sec of Ag: private sector, all levels of government should work together to find new models for implemention. "It's fair to say that we are not as far along as we need to be."

Key stakes: competitiveness. Creating platform to make the US competitive. "Very important technology that every American needs to have access to".

Next Michael Copps, acting head of the FCC: "at long last a proactive broadband buildup for our country"

Obama feels extending broadband to four corners of this country is key to country's future. For past seven years, FCC has received reassurances regarding pace of telecommunications development. But as recently as last week, US has received news that it continues to fall behind.

"Years of broadband drift and growing digital divides are coming to an end"
"Broadband is the central infrastructure challenge of our time" Then an excursus on previous epochs "eras of private enterprise supported by progressive public policy".
"We lost precious time."

FCC has important role to play. "On April 8, FCC will kick off an open, participatory, public process" to deliver a national broadband strategy within the next year. "Will seek out a range of traditional and non-traditional stakeholders to be heard."

And then, Rick Wade, Senior Advisor to NTIA:

Goals a) Extend broadband across US: spread "pipes" closer to need, allow private sector to serve public via these.
b) Jobs
c) Connect community anchor institutions (libraries, schools, health care centers, etc)
d) Stimulate demand

Develop proposals for funding across sectors, regions, and communities. "Are working to ensure that broadband capacities and needs of local communities are known"

Broadband Internet technology will create jobs both in the near and long term.

Next, programmatic stuff.

a) Dr. Bernadette McGuire-Rivera, Associate Administrator, NTIA Up to $350 million on broadband mapping and planning
Up to $200 million on demand ("sustainable broadband planning")
Just about anyone who meets the criteria can apply (i.e., all levels of gov't, private sector, non-profits, etc).

b) David Villano, Assistant Administrator for Telecommunication Programs
RUS has got over $2 billion in budget authority, meaning it can be deployed as grants or loans. Will thus attempt to use large portion to leverage additional funds.
Purpose of RUS throughout its history has been to spur economic activity and development.
Focuses on rural populations.
RUS is well-equipped and experienced for this sort of budget allocation. USDA Rural Development

c) Scott M. Deutchman, Acting Senior Legal Advisor to Acting Chairman Copps, FCC

d) Mark Seifert, Senior Advisor to NTIA lead roundtable. Made an appeal for rapid efforts to define what should determine what "best" proposals are, should focus on, etc. Moreover, he asked for recommendations regarding making the collaboration among FCC, NTIA and RUS work.

QUESTIONS:

a) Are multi-jurisdictions or groups of organizations going to receive priority? Answer, no preference, but multiple applicants are encouraged. Then, Villano suggested that grants across agencies are specifically encouraged.

b) Will number of towers and/or wired buildings information be included in the mapping? Answer from Deutchman: not ready to explain specifics, but goal will be granularity. Seiffert then suggested that suggestions for how best to leverage mapping technologies would be encouraged (hmmm. grant idea).