Happy Birthday World Wide Web

I just finished listening to a fun radio program (on RTE 1) on the birthday of the WWW. I think they (and now I) were a day late but I thought I’d celebrate the day regardless.

On April 30, 1993, Cern put the web in the public domain, which put everyone on the same page for sharing a protocol rather than having the Internet host multiple proprietary protocols. (Here’s a fun article on the birthday: The World Wide Web Turns 15 (again).)

I’m tempted to write about how the WWW has changed the world – but I think we can all come up with our own ways. What I think is interesting is the move to put the WWW in the public domain. I think that moved really changed today’s business model – information is still valuable – but made more valuable when it’s shared then kept secret.

The Internet would not be as useful without the WWW, the WWW would not be as useful without Google, and Google has opened their code to others to create tools to make Google more useful.

The businesses that succeed today are the ones build upon the new model, they build upon innovations of others and they don’t protect their Intellectual Property in the same way. I think they retain market share and market placement through value added service (be it better technology, better service, better promotion.)

There may be an opportunity for Internet and broadband providers to buy into this new model. It seems as if providers who will do well in the long run will find a way to take on the new business model and work with others to create a better plan for providing broadband. Maybe that new plan with be an Open Network plan – maybe it will be something completely new.

So that’s a long way of saying – happy birthday world wide web!

PacketFront on Open Access

I had an opportunity to see Tim Scott of PacketFront talk about open access FTTH networks at the Digital City Expo in January. I thought his presentation was interesting and asked if he would follow up with more information for the blog. PacketFront was gracious enough to send us their responses and I am happy to post them below. I want to thank them for their time and consideration…

PacketFront is a very strong and vocal advocate for the open access model in municipal broadband. Open access is the only community network model that offers true freedom of choice and competition for consumers. In the right setting, open access networks bring down retail prices and increase service innovation, thus stirring economic growth and enhancing quality of life.

That being said, open access isn’t a viable option for every community network. In fact, we don’t believe open access is really feasible for networks of less than 3,000 homes. Further, to be really successful, open access networks need to start with 30,000 homes and businesses and go from there.

But how then can small and rural communities hope to reap the benefits of an open access network? To answer this question, it is probably useful to define the options available for service provider access to networks.

Closed: Networks that have one exclusive service provider. This single service provider may provide a variety of services on the network (voice, video, different levels of data service, etc.). This scenario is often seen in networks that are actually owned by the service provider as well (good examples of this are the Verizon FiOS networks, cable company networks, etc.). Closed networks are also found in smaller communities that, due to the low number of potential subscribers, cannot offer enough incentive for more than one service provider. Sometimes, a municipality that builds and owns its network will also choose to offer retail services on that network as the only service provider.

Limited Access: Networks that limit access to a capped number of service providers—more than one but fewer than five. This is a newer model which may suit some rural networks, especially in their earlier phases. Typically, the suite of service providers in this scenario would include at least one major triple-play provider, as well as one or two additional voice/data providers, and perhaps one or two niche providers.

Limited access networks allow smaller networks (less than 30,000 addresses) some of the same benefits of a completely open network while still allowing a solid revenue proposition for the service providers. In other words, by limiting the number of providers on the network, there is more revenue to share.

Open Access: Networks that are open for any qualified service provider to use. Sometimes these are owned by municipalities that offer the use of the network to service providers for a wholesale rate. The service providers then sign up subscribers and charge a retail rate; their profit comes from the difference between the retail rate they charge their subscribers, and the combination of their operating costs and the wholesale rate (or revenue share) they pay to the network owner. In a completely open network with a large enough subscriber base (typically more than 30,000), many service providers will join the network, offering major voice/video/data products, along with niche products that fulfill specific needs (i.e, distance education, telemedicine, security, gaming, visual communications, etc.).

No matter what option works best for a network at its outset, bear in mind that it is much easier to accommodate future growth on a network if it is initially built as an open access network. Why? Technologically, it is much easier to move from a limited access network to an open access network than it is to move from a closed network to an open- or limited access network. This is because the decisions made early in the design and build of the network (open, closed, limited) will dictate many of the decisions regarding governance, financing, marketing, electronics, and operating systems.

So if any type of an open network is anticipated or desired in order to achieve the long-term objectives of the network, PacketFront would recommend that the network be initially built to accommodate an open access model, even if it will be operated, at first, as a closed or limited access network. Doing so will enable a far easier and less expensive transition as the network grows and evolves.

The idea here to be able to easily add more service providers to a network as it matures, (even if the network starts with just one provider) in order to provide the freedom of choice and service innovation that is the promise of open access.

A community fiber network will encourage innovations beyond the standard services typically provided on a closed network to include telemedicine, distance education, local community outreach, social services, e-government services, spiritual services, and in-network communications. Competition drives innovation and product development. Traditional phone and cable providers are not on the leading edge of new application development—because they operate in a closed environment and do not invite true innovation.

For example, if a local health care clinic wants to run a consultation service (a live “Ask a Nurse” service that uses remote visual communications) on the network, do you think the local cable company would consider allowing the clinic to host their service on the cable network (even assuming it had sufficient bandwidth)? No, but the clinic could easily offer this service on the community-owned network. Likewise with any other local service provider—a community network creates opportunities within the community to foster innovation, creativity and competition.

This sense of community growth through a community-owned network has been extremely successful in many European communities. Though the concept is still emerging in the United States, it is gaining mindshare and being implemented in communities this year.

Peter Drucker said that there are only two things that really matter in business—Innovation and Marketing, everything else is an expense. The success of a community-owned open access fiber-to-the-home network will happen when these two things come together. Remember—when communities began installing electrical grids, the only thing we really knew to use electricity for was to power light bulbs. Think of all the applications we’ve since discovered and expect from electricity!

To address the specific questions posed by Blandin, PacketFront’s responses are below each question:

A Vote for an Open Network

I just ran across a nice article promoting open networks in Telephony Online (What’s wrong with one damn-good open network?).

The author quotes former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt:

His thought is to stop “nickel and diming” local telephone companies and fund broadband construction, with one important caveat: The network has to be open. “Going back to universal service, instead of seeing us reduce the amount of money we give to phone companies in Montana, I’d rather see us provide really high-speed access, even if it was just one company, provided they were open,” Hundt said. “Open,” by his definition, doesn’t mean giving away service – it does allow for the service provider to charge a reasonable fee per bit, but not to discriminate in its sales.

It’s an interesting check and balance on the Connect Kentucky model that has been so popular these days.

Digital City Expo - Wed afternoon

Here in Phoenix and the Digital City Expo, there is a growing debate about the proper model for municipal fiber networks.  Advocates of the open access network model believe that open access will stimulate economic development and that that an abundance of service providers will stimulate economic development.  Yet, some of the most successful municipal networks are operated as municipal utilities with a sole provider operating the network and offering service in competition with the incumbent cable and telephone companies.

Only time will tell…..

MN Municipal Fiber Network Updates

Christopher Mitchell (from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance) just had a nice article in the Pioneer Press. (Thanks Christopher for sending it to me.)

Christopher is an advocate of municipally fiber networks. He does a good job of pointing out the need for fiber for broadband and the market reasons that municipal networks make sense. “Cities must treat fiber networks - the roads of the digital age - as essential infrastructure. Publicly owned common-carrier networks create a competitive environment the cable and phone companies fear.”

As her points out the current providers are not jumping to the occasion to provide fiber – partially I assume because it’s a huge infrastructure investment and the return on investment is too slow for more stockholders patience.

Christopher does a nice job of bringing the point home by mentioning some local publicly-focused broadband project:

Minneapolis Wireless – increases competition, but the speeds are no faster than existing options
Monticello – is working on a fiber network (I blogged about the overwhelming support for fiber in the last election)
Cedar Falls, Iowa – invested in fast network and businesses has been locking to them
St Paul – is working ona plan where the city would serve government and schools but provide access to homes through an open access network model (allow other providers to use the fiber the city owns)

Broadband Conference 2007: Tobey Johnson

Track III: Considering the Business: Considering Governance, Partnerships, Financing and Operations: A View from Sweden by Tobey Johnson; Manager of Collaborative Solutions, PacketFront - The who, what and how of financing and operating a new competitive telecommunications network in Sweden.

Wireless here Wireless there…

I just ran into a fun blog that seems to be tracking the progress of “Minneapolis Unwired”. The article that caught my eye was a mention of a report from MN Daily (the University of Minnesota newspaper) about the University building its own WiFi network. Wha?

It seems as if US Internet would like to talk to the U about providing student discounts to the Minneapolis Network – but according to the blog nothing is in motion. This doesn’t make much sense to me. It seems as if one of the very big advantages of a municipal network is the opportunity to work with government agencies (and schools) to share costs and infrastructure.

I know the U is in ST Paul too. I assume that access to the U of M network (library, student files et al) is a completely different issue. I know there are issues with the Minneapolis Wireless network – but certainly the U doesn’t have to spend time and money to reinvent this wheel.

It seems like a job for an open access network model!

St Paul is Thinking Fiber

Thanks to Christopher Mitchell (of ILSR) for sending me the heads up on the recent FTTH meeting in St Paul.

According to an article in the Pioneer Press (St. Paul wants its Net built for speed), “On Wednesday [Sep 26], the City Council unanimously approved an advisory committee’s proposal to seek partners for a publicly owned fiber-optic cable network for high-speed Internet access that could carry everything from e-mail to video to phone calls.”

So from the article I read some good news – it looks as if the plan is to build an open network, which opens the door to a choice of providers down the road.

And I read some not-so-good news – it isn’t clear how this would be financed, which isn’t always a great sign.

But it looks like the plan is to get the St Paul Schools and the Ramsey and state government to join in before it moves head. I think getting those guys on board will definitely help. First they will wire the government offices then branch off into residential and commercial customers.

The cost has been estimated at $150-200 million.

Currently big providers in the area (Qwest and Comcast) are understandably negative about the idea citing 2 typical reasons: 1) government shouldn’t get involved in an existing market and 2) it’s a big risk for a government to make.

You can see the Report on the Future of Broadband [in St Paul] online.

If you’re interested in more information – Andrea, Director of Technology and Communication for the City of St. Paul is talking at the Rondo Community Outreach Library from 5-7pm on October 9th. (Learn more on the MN COGI web site.)

(Sadly the commute to St Paul is too much for me. I have someone who was going to try to make the meeting for me and take notes – but if any readers out there want to stop back with notes of their own from the meeting that would be great!!)

Open Networks Australian Style

OK I know Australia is a long ways away – but this article (Internet economy ‘needs open networks’) from Australia caught my eye today. Apparently Buddecomm, which touts itself as the “world’s largest telecommunications research site, just released a report that “warns that large telecommunication companies must be made to let go of their traditional business models if the rollout of new next generation networks (NGNs) is to be successful.”

Sometimes I think it’s easier to look clearly at someone else’s problem/situation. This article states pretty point blank that Australia needs an Open Network to get and sustain the technology they need and that the telecommunications monopolies aren’t going to buy in without government intervention.

The article suggests that Australia look at Optus Elders’ (OPEL) Network as a model. OPEL is a joint venture between Optus and Elders. They secured $958 million in funding from the Australian Government to deliver affordable broadband services to rural and regional Australians at metro comparable prices.

OPEL will create a competitive wholesale market that will reform the regional telecommunications market enabling retail competition to flourish, empowering consumers and businesses to choose broadband services that suit their particular needs.

It looks as if they just secured funding in June (2007) and the goal is to have the network built by 30 June 2009.

OPEL has a “comments from Industry page” that I think is fun to peruse.

I’ll have to keep my eye on Australia. Actually my husband’s brother lives there and we will be seeing him in about a month so I’ll ask him about access to broadband.

Open Network Feasibility Fund 2 Grants Awarded

The Blandin Foundation recently awarded grants to two communities through their Open Network Feasibility Fund. The goal of the fund is to provide grants to communities to study the feasibility of an open network in their community.

(Quick note: feasibility funding is still available.)

The two recent recipients are Lakefield and Northfield. I want to thank Mark Erickson from Lakefield and Melissa Reeder from Northfield for sending me updates on their project plans: