[1st-mile-nm] Insanely ill-informed NYT broadband article

[Steve Ross]

yes

Steven S. Ross
Editor-in-Chief
Broadband Properties
steve at broadbandproperties.com
www.bbpmag.com
SKYPE: editorsteve
+1 781-284-8810
+1 646-216-8030 fax
+1 201-456-5933 mobile

Geoff Daily wrote:
> Steve,
> 
> Can I run this email as a guest post on App-Rising.com with links back 
> to Broadband Properties?
> 
> It's freakin' brilliant and needs to be heard far and wide.
> 
> G
> 
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Steve Ross <editorsteve at gmail.com 
> <mailto:editorsteve at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     The front page of the NYT today leads with a story on broadband in
>     the stimulus bill so utterly, insanely stupid that it could only
>     have been stimulated by spokesmen for incumbent providers -- the big
>     cable and telco interests. In fact, I KNOW it was, because I
>     rejected the same bullshit when these guys and gals started calling
>     almost two weeks ago. Broadband to nowhere? Give me a break. The
>     incumbents' PR teams worked overtime for THAT one.
> 
>     But it seems the bullshit has found a home after all. And the NYT
>     carelessness will now set the tone for all the clueless parrots and
>     stenographers who call themselves reporters out there.
> 
>     Aside from the usual unnamed "sources say," there are several quotes
>     from people whose names simply never come up in the debate on
>     ultrabroadband issues.
> 
>     There are several active public policy listservs on this topic,
>     going full-tilt right now. Craig Settles, who has played a useful
>     role in the debate on municipal wifi (NOT rural broadband -- and the
>     issues are not even close to being the same) and who is the lead
>     quote in the article, is not contributing to either of them.
> 
>     Our magazine follows broadband policy better, I think, than anyone
>     else, and called for $30 billion for ultra-broadband in the stimulus
>     package.
> 
>     The best wowsers in the NYT involve the idea that it would take 15
>     years to do the rural buildout, and that nothing is ready to go in
>     the next 18 months. The implication is also that rural broadband is
>     very expensive.
> 
>     Reality check:
> 
>     1. Except for a bit of point-to-point wireless, rural areas do not
>     do wifi. It doesn't scale to the bandwidths and reliability needed
>     for economic development, telemedicine, distance learning, and so forth.
> 
>     2. Rural broadband can make money, and we track (as a small part of
>     our mission) 400 "tier 3 incumbent local exchange carriers" --
>     mainly small rural telcos -- that make money at it and have
>     installed fiber-optic networks -- often with better technology than
>     Verizon is using in its FiOS build. The trick is not to look at
>     population density, but at homes passed per mile on the roads.
> 
>     A year ago, you needed 8-12 homes passed per mile to make it pay.
>     You now need 6 or 8 thanks to some clever technology improvements
>     announced in early October (our November issue, at www.bbpmag.com
>     <http://www.bbpmag.com> details it in plain English). That's because
>     the "take rate" and average revenue per customer is so much higher
>     in rural areas. This may exclude some rural areas in the flatlands,
>     but they add up to 1-2% of US homes.
> 
>     3. How fast can these things be built? The NYT article says 15
>     years. We know of dozens of good business plans (and, yes, a
>     half-dozen not-good) that could start construction TOMORROW if they
>     could raise the money.
> 
>     We're talking about credit markets so frozen that, for example, a
>     $93 million 22-town build in Vermont, presold to nearly half the
>     residents and with experienced management, can't sell muni lease
>     paper with a coupon rate around 8 percent and an after-tax return of
>     11 percent. We see $1-2 billion of the $9 billion in the federal
>     bill that could be spent TOMORROW.
> 
>     4. Can the industry scale to absorb the $9 billion? Easily. US
>     spending on telecom infrastructure was over $60 billion in 2007 --
>     some 50% greater than spending on roads!!! And the
>     equipment/skillset required for deploying the best technology,
>     fiber-optic cable, is sitting idle now because of the housing
>     construction collapse. Basically, you lash the new broadband cable
>     to existing telephone wires on poles.
> 
>     My magazine (which is more about policy than nitty-gritty technical
>     details, but covers a lot of technology as well) estimated that we
>     could provide the underserved 80 percent of the ENTIRE COUNTRY in
>     five years for $150 billion. Geez, we gave AIG almost that much!
> 
>     Talk about "banker money to nowhere." And THINK ABOUT THE PRODUCTS
>     AND SERVICES PEOPLE ON THIS LIST COULD OFFER if we had the same
>     broadband infrastructure as, say, Japan, Hong Kong, Korea, Sweden....
> 
>     -- 
>     Steven S. Ross
>     Editor-in-Chief
>     Broadband Properties
>     steve at broadbandproperties.com <mailto:steve at broadbandproperties.com>
>     www.bbpmag.com <http://www.bbpmag.com>
>     SKYPE: editorsteve
>     +1 781-284-8810
>     +1 646-216-8030 fax
>     +1 201-456-5933 mobile
> 
>