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...

An important lesson learned in my youth was if I use the right tool to repair something then brute force would seldom be necessary. In fact, most of the time using brute force resulted in additional damage. This begat a more deliberate process of studying the problem, developing various alternative solutions examining my tools, and ultimately making the right choice. Immediately, after the FCC lost its net neutrality case with Comcast, one of the alternative fixes under discussion was to alter the manner in which ISPs and ITSPs are regulated. The proposal would have these companies, which includes Broadvox, moved from being regulated by Title 1 of the Communications Act, to Title 2. The difference between the two classifications is startling and the ramifications completely unknown.

Title I states that the FCC "helps to outline the general duties of the telecommunication carriers as well as the obligations of all Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) and the additional obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs)."

Title II: Broadcast Services however gives the FCC a clear and direct mandate. The FCC "Outlines the granting and licensing of broadcast spectrum by the government, including a provision to issue licenses to current television stations to commence digital television broadcasting, the use of the revenues generated by such licensing, the terms of broadcast licenses, the process of renewing broadcast licenses, direct broadcast satellite services, automated ship distress and safety systems, and restrictions on over-the-air reception devices."

While the major carriers with ISP operations are opposed to this change, imagine the potential impact on the smaller competitors like Broadvox and other ITSPs. We could see the erosion of our pricing differential through either the increase in costs or the decrease in allowed pricing. There would be considerable caution displayed by the reduction in expansion plans, new service offerings, investment groups and network upgrades until it is known how the FCC would wield this new power. And that will take some time to discover as the carriers and broadband providers would fight this for years in court. Furthermore, the entire Yin/Yang effect of changing political parties and political camps would be exponentially increased by this expansion of regulatory capability.

Thinking of Title II as the answer is to utilize brute force to repair a problem. The potential collateral damage could affect telecommunications and our global competitive capabilities for decades. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has not indicated his preference as to how to respond to the court ruling. I do hope that he will use the right tool with finesse.

See you on Monday...

The plan for the weekend was to use apple wood to smoke two turkeys (for an office party), wieners, andouille sausage, brats, fresh kielbasa, cheese, chicken wings and bacon. All of this fit on the smoker with room to spare and the flavors were awesome. While finding a slab of bacon is not easy and sliced bacon is now cheaper, the result was nothing short of fantastic. I will smoke more of this in the very near future. That leaves the turkeys as the centerpiece for this blog. I know most of you are not going to smoke a turkey for Thanksgiving, but if you have the tools, you should seriously consider doing so.

Normally, I smoke turkey using either hickory or mesquite, but this year, I choose apple wood. Between the three woods, hickory and apple are my favorites. However, in order to have a great turkey, smoked, deep-fried or roasted, you must brine the bird for at least 24 hours and up to 72 hours. The brine should consist of these ratios: 1-quart water, 4 teaspoons salt and 4 teaspoons lemon juice. If you like a little sweetness, add 2 teaspoons sugar. It will take several quarts of water to cover your turkey. Either use a large roasting bag, trash bag or, in my case, a medium sized cooler. I begin the process while the turkey is still partially frozen, and use ice to replace the last quart or so of water. I then add ice every morning and evening to keep the bird cold, removing excess water as necessary. Cook with whatever method pleases you and enjoy a great bird on Thanksgiving!

Healthcare...

As congress moves forward on this gargantuan healthcare bill, I feel a bit of regret. When the topic of healthcare reform became a priority for this congress and the Obama administration, I felt a bit of hope for the many laid telecommunications workers out there that cannot afford their COBRA payments. For those of you fortunate enough not to know what COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) is; it provides an ex-employee the option of continuing their health care coverage until they find other employment or purchase private insurance. However, a laid off worker has no income and budgeting as much as $1500 a month for family coverage can be daunting. Moreover, when facing an extended period where employment is slowed as telecom did in 2002 and now, it is money needed for basic food and housing. It is unclear how the current bill would address these laid off telecom workers.

Next most ISPs and ITSPs are SMBs and providing healthcare to their work force is an ever growing expense. Premiums continue to go up faster than inflation and annual adjustments to employee contributions become necessary. This is not a sustainable model.

The current debate focuses on hot button political issues like abortion, taxing the rich, illegal immigration, etc. The thousands of workers in our industry and other SMBs like Broadvox need legislation that will ease the concerns of the unemployed and stabilize the cost of providing healthcare insurance. At present, I do not believe either of the above will be properly addressed. As usual, I continue to see overreach and partisan positioning. This should be disconcerting to all of us.

Last year I asked you to think of Brianna Sharp as she fought an inoperable brain cancer. Regrettably, she died in July of this year. However, those that knew her celebrated her life and the way she faced her cancer. On Thursday, we should look again at our families and friends and be thankful.

See you next Monday!

While we were educated with the understanding of four tastes (sweet, sour, salty and bitter), umami has been recently added as a fifth basic taste. The word is Japanese and in English we sometimes refer to umami as being savory. Foods that deliver umami include meats, broths, cheese and mushrooms (dried have more than fresh). The recipe for today includes a flavor that I also consider umami, smoke. The apple wood smoke cheese used in the Macaroni and Cheese was made in my new smoker. Smoked foods are clearly not in the basic four taste groups and the savoriness of something smoky certainly pushes it towards umami. If you do not have smoked cheese you can use other cheeses. I will also add things like bacon, chopped tomatoes, shallots and cheese mixtures to this recipe. The basic recipe supports all kinds of baked dishes. So make take and look and enjoy umami with this Smoky Macaroni and Cheese recipe.

Umami in Telecom

As the sides begin to square off on net neutrality and access charges, it comes to my mind that we need more than two opinions. The left vs. right, Republican vs. Democrat answer to these issues is too simplistic and off base. As the FCC considers the best way to address Net Neutrality, the large carriers and cable companies, need to be viewed differently from the smaller ITSPs, like Broadvox and ISPs. Moreover, the FCC should take note of how the product was sold and what features or services were identified with the offering. It is not right that Verizon can decide to give priority to applications sold under its FIOS offering over those a user adds. If I want VoIP to have a higher priority than video, it should be my choice. If I want a gaming application to have a higher priority that again should be my choice. As for managing the packets to maintain network performance, I would approach this argument with caution.  Carriers are over stating the risk to performance in delivering the services consumers have either ordered or subscribed.

The Internet in the 90s was often described as having the rules of the "wild west". I believe in both an open Internet and one with reasonable guidelines. The current rules as proposed by the FCC should concern any and all facilities based IP communications carriers. The FCC should be looking at multiple factors prior to advocating government involvement in how networks are to be deployed, operated and managed. I am not one who believes that everything the government touches fails. However, there are too many examples of where failure was caused by over-reaching or over legislating. The IP community or ecosystem has many players with varying priorities. Let us hope that as net neutrality and other contentious issues are addressed, the FCC can find umami or another point of view that is better than the suggested yin and yang.

See you on Wednesday...