Before I begin, I want to remind you that most of the numbers used for the subject for this week's blog come from the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), National Telecommunications Infrastructure Administration (NTIA), Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA). I am also using numbers from Insight, Belcher and ChannelVision Magazine. As this is not a college dissertation, and I do not plan to gain economically, I will not be labeling all of the usage going forward. Okay, the disclaimer is out of the way. Let's see what is really going on in the world of broadband in the US.

Generally, it is agreed that the US has 120 million households, of which, 58 million (48%) do not have broadband access and 45 million (37%) have no access to the Internet. We can be forgiven for assuming that the lack of broadband access is due to geographical considerations, however, that would be wrong. Only 12 million households in this number are considered rural, or stated another way, only ten percent of households are without Internet access due to infrastructure cost considerations. But, how can that be? The primary reason given for the $7.2 billion of telecom stimulus spending is to expand access to broadband in rural areas. However, two things have to be noted, if that were true, it would do little to address our level of broadband penetration compared to the other G7 nations. It would also leave the majority of those, currently without any form of internet access, still without any Internet access. Therefore, it is worth noting that the second reason for the stimulus spending was to address "underserved" markets.

Again, a most notable objective but something is still missing. Using ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs) to measure broadband availability and the number of broadband providers (i.e. competition), we find that the percentage of ZCTAs with broadband access across the US is 99.6% with an average of seven providers. Wow! How can there be any deficiency in broadband access or penetration with such high percentages? The definition of broadband is fairly low (200 kbps) considering the world stage, where the US ranks an abysmal 18^th, and among the G7 nations is trailed only by Canada (a far more rural country). However, it is clear that "if we build it, they will come" may not apply to solving our penetration efforts.

Among the top two reasons given for not having Internet access are "they do not have a computer". Imagine that, in this day and age, fully 25% of respondents state that they do not have a computer and therefore do not need Internet access. The second and number one reason is also a bit of a shocker. In a world where, we say that everyone has or wants an iPhone and cannot live without an iPod, we learn that 32% say, "There is no need for the Internet". Expanding access to the Internet for 57% of respondents will do little to nothing to change their level of adoption. Therefore, we need to address this lack of use and interest in the Internet by increasing knowledge, awareness and communicating the value proposition of "being on line". In a study done by Stanford the two most important factors facilitating or inhibiting Internet access are education and age, and not income, nor race/ethnicity, or gender. Bottom line, if the US is serious about increasing the level of penetration for broadband usage then we must address these two factors, and spending money to simply build infrastructure will not solve the problem.

Expanding the adoption rate of level of penetration for broadband usage will in turn expand the revenue potential for ISPs, ITSPs like Broadvox, VoIP and SIP Trunking providers and the application developers and service providers. The IP ecosystem in the US will enable us to remain competitive globally.

See you on Friday...

The last blog noted that the infrastructure required for IP Communications uses far fewer resources than similarly sized TDM networks. A Broadvox data center requires less power, construction materials, air conditioning and space than a Verizon central office switching center. Therefore, transitioning to VoIP/SIP Trunking is a key step in being a good steward of the earth.

The most common defense for the IP ecosystem being green has been that it allows for more telecommuters and provides more features and benefits to those workers. Two years ago, the Consumer Electronics Association commissioned a study that identified 3.9 million American workers telecommuted.  At that time, it was estimated those workers saved 840 million gallons of gas per year, resulting in the prevention of 14 million tons of CO2 emissions. Obviously, all of those numbers have changed since the publication of the study in September of 2007. Moreover, the technology supported by IP communications has expanded as well.

The successful deployment of telepresence conferencing should increase the number of telecommuters and decrease the number people flying to various meetings. Moreover, the obvious savings is fuel consumption but there are several additional positive impacts on the environment as well:

·         Telecommuters use less paper than their office counterparts

·         Telecommuters require less business office space reducing the amount of construction materials, land and heating and air conditioning

·         Telecommuters tend to drive less in general than workers that commute. This is thought to be a result of not having to leave the home to conduct work every morning

·         Telecommuters tend to leverage their personal equipment in the performance of their jobs requiring fewer computers, printers and fax machines

·         Telecommuters contribute to reducing traffic congestion, thereby improving commuting times and reducing fuel consumption for everyone

It is very clear that the increase in market penetration of IP communications will help the environment and reduce green house gases. Being a green technology feels pretty good.

See you on Monday with another new recipe. Have a great weekend!

When I first began to study whether SIP Trunking was part of improving the ecosystem, I encountered a rather well written article stating that VoIP was not a green technology. I accepted this position until recently when I realized the logic was flawed. The initial point revolved around the components of the technology. It is true that VoIP/SIP Trunking requires an array of servers and sophisticated electronics. Data centers are rooms built with raised floors, dual AC feeds, battery plants and diesel powered generators. None of these things evokes green technologies. Moreover, the disposal of computers and electronic components can be difficult and often ignored. Improper disposal can contaminate our environment with mercury, cadmium, flame-retardants and lead from CRTs and TVs. All of this reflects badly on VoIP/SIP Trunking...right?

That was where I was wrong. Consider this. We believe that a hybrid automobile is green or greener than a non-hybrid. We accept this belief because we compare the hybrid that may still use gasoline, processed plastics, rubber wheels, potentially environment contaminating electronics with the automobile that has no elements of green technology. The electric motors or solar charged batteries of the hybrid make it greener than the non-hybrid.

Using the same reasoning, SIP Trunking is greener than the existing TDM technologies. The servers used to operate an IP network use less energy, require less cooling and are less massive than the central offices and tandem routers they are replacing. The carbon footprint of a traditional central office complex is much greater than that of a similarly sized (traffic capacity) Broadvox data center. A comparison of the equipment and technologies is quite surprising. The cost and materials to build a TDM switching center exceed those of a data center by more than 2:1. The reduction in energy use for power and cooling can be up to 40%. The improvement is so significant that IP communications should immediately claim the position of green communications services.

Therefore, in addition to potential savings of up to 70% on telecom cost, a business concerned about its impact on the environment should consider transitioning to SIP Trunking to demonstrate their good earth citizenship status. Companies with green initiatives should be a target of our VARs and agents. This is clearly a market IP communications can service proudly.

Additional reasons as to why the IP ecosystem is green on Friday. See you then.