Recommendations to Commission's Rural Broadband Strategy

March 25, 2009

Via Electronic Mail

Marlene H. Dortch
Office of the Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Re: Rural Broadband Strategy (GN Docket No. 09-29)

Dear Ms. Dortch:

The New America Foundation (NAF) submits these brief ex parte comments in response to the Commission's public notice seeking comment on Congress's directive in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) that the Chairman of the Commission develop, in consultation with the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, a comprehensive rural broadband strategy.  We are pleased to see the Commission is moving forward with this important work.  Broadband is the highway of the 21^st century for small towns and rural communities; the vital connection to the broader nation and increasingly the global economy.  It is essential to promoting economic growth in rural communities and providing residents with access to quality education and healthcare through telehealth and distance learning services.

As the Commission is well aware, rural communities across the country continue to have little or no access to high speed broadband, with many residents and businesses still relying upon dial-up modems as their primary connection to the Internet.  Deploying broadband in rural areas remains a substantial challenge. Build-out costs are often substantially higher and rural networks remain less profitable than their urban and suburban counterparts. Adding to these challenges, cost-effective wireless deployment by local and smaller broadband providers (and potential providers) is limited by often overly-expensive access to public spectrum and both wired and wireless rural providers are increasingly burdened with escalating costs for middle-mile access and backbone transport.  Given these challenges, it is critical for the Commission to develop policy solutions that focus both on lowering build-out costs for rural deployments and reducing operational costs for these networks.  To that end, NAF recommends the Commission consider the following policy proposals to encourage greater rural deployment of broadband and sustainable rural networks.    

I.          Encourage Greater Wireless Broadband Deployment through Increased Access to Spectrum

Section 6112(a)(1)(C) of the 2008 Farm Act requires the Commission to "address both short- and long-term needs assessments and solutions for rapid build-out of rural broadband solutions."[1]  Wireless remains the most cost-effective and rapid means to bring broadband access to rural residents.  Already, thousands of locally-grown Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs), Rural ILECs, public utilities, NGO's and local governments are utilizing wireless technology and unlicensed spectrum to bring wireless broadband to un-served and underserved rural areas across the country.  A substantial obstacle for these small and local providers to expand and scale-up their networks is access to additional spectrum.  

Spectrum is the building block for wireless broadband.  While rural provider access to licensed spectrum is scarce, unused spectrum capacity in rural areas is abundant.  At any given time and location, the vast majority of our nation's radio frequency spectrum is unused or substantially underutilized, particularly in rural areas.  Recent spectrum occupancy studies by the Shared Spectrum Company and funded by the National Science Foundation, have demonstrated in a mix of urban, suburban and rural areas that large swaths of valuable spectrum are vacant or unused for the majority of the time.[2]  For example, the average spectrum use in rural Limestone, Maine was just 1.7 percent.[3] The highest occupancy rate on the prime beachfront spectrum below 3 GHz was just 13 percent in New York City, while the average across locations studied was just 6 percent.  Across the country, this underutilized spectrum represents enormous untapped capacity for rural broadband.   

The Commission has taken several important steps to expand access to spectrum for wireless broadband and to encourage more efficient and intensive use through spectrum sharing  - including its most recent decision to approve unlicensed "smart radio" access to vacant channels in the TV band, as well as the "licensing lite" approach in 3.65 GHz and unlicensed access in 2.4 and 5 GHz, which have been essential to spurring wireless broadband deployment in rural areas by small WISPs, local governments and non-profit operators.  Given the success of these open and publicly available spectrum bands, NAF encourages the Commission to continue to look for opportunities to lower barriers to spectrum access by increasing the amount of publicly available spectrum and encouraging greater dynamic spectrum sharing.  

Broadband Mapping Should Include a Mapping of Public Spectrum Capability

As part of this effort, NAF recommends the Commission perform an Inventory of the Airwaves that maps how our public spectrum resource is being utilized or underutilized in various bands.  The Commission could draw upon funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, allocated for developing and maintaining "a comprehensive nationwide inventory map of existing broadband service capability [italics added]."[4]  Spectrum is at the core of wireless broadband service capability and we believe it would be in the public interest to have a clear and transparent mapping of those capabilities. 

The Commission and the public need to have a more complete, comprehensive inventory of what frequencies are actually in use, for what purpose, with what technology, at what locations, frequencies and times.  Both government and private sector assignments and uses should be included in the map, with NTIA and the entire administration an active partner in this effort.  With ARRA or other funding, actual spectrum use measurements in a large and regionally-diverse sampling of markets should be part of the Commission's broadband mapping exercise.

Spectrum mapping would help facilitate expanded access to rural broadband providers in at least three ways: 

• First, more complete and transparent frequency-by-location data online will improve the functioning of secondary markets for spectrum license transfers and leasing.

• Second, it will provide information on what will be required to clear some heavily underutilized bands, so that they can be reassigned for commercial use. 

• Third, it will reveal the far greater number of frequency bands that could be made available for opportunistic access in discrete geographic areas, at certain times of day or year, or at certain altitudes or directions of arrival (azimuth, elevation). 

We believe that rural areas will be the most likely beneficiaries of a mapping of the U.S. spectrum capabilities.  It will quickly become clear that particular frequency bands are either completely unused or grossly underutilized in particular rural markets.  This could provide the Commission or Congress with the information it needs to reallocate or at least to open these frequencies for non-interfering use by rural broadband providers.  One promising mechanism for this will be the TV Bands Database, which the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology will certify as reliable as a geo-location lookup service allowing devices on the vacant TV channels to do real-time checks of channel availability in discrete geographic locations.  Additional frequency bands could be added over time to the database, enriching the spectrum infrastructure for rural broadband providers and consumers alike.

TV White Space Rules Should Allow Variable Power for Rural Broadband

NAF also believes it is vital for the Commission to continue to refine, improve, and expand upon its rules for spectrum sharing and cognitive or "smart radio" technology that promise to increase broadband access and to encourage continued wireless innovation.  The Commission's Second Report & Order adopted last November 4, (Docket 04-186) granting unlicensed access to vacant spectrum ("white spaces") in the TV band was a tremendous step forward.  However, in its effort to address the objections of those opposed to any use of the broadcast white spaces, the Commission adopted overly conservative rules that may limit the potential of TV band devices (TVBDs) to increase broadband in rural areas. 

The Commission placed a unitary power limit of fixed and mobile TVBDs to protect incumbent broadcasters, even in rural areas where the vast majority of TV band is currently unused.  As the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition (PISC) noted in its Petition for Reconsideration in the Commission's white spaces proceeding, "[t]his limitation is clearly contrary to the clear Congressional and public interest in promoting more affordable wireless broad deployment in rural areas where commercial and non-commercial Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) could use this fallow white space spectrum to operate at power levels substantially above 4 watts EIRP - and do so without any risk of harmful interference to TV reception in areas where there are four, five, six or even more consecutive unassigned and available TV white space channels."[5] 

In the media market surrounding Pierre, South Dakota, there are no licensed TV stations above channel 39.   A rural WISP could potentially operate a high-capacity and higher-power broadband service while maintaining a buffer of three or four empty channels (18-24 MHz guard band) between its service and any licensed incumbent service.  As the Commission's Order acknowledged "there are advantages, such as reduced infrastructure costs and increased range, to operation of unlicensed TVBDs at even higher power levels."  Yet, although recognizing the advantages of variable power limits, the Commission declined at this time to permit fixed TVBDs to operate at power levels greater than 4 watts EIRP regardless of proximity to incumbent services - and instead opted to "further explore in a separate Notice of Inquiry whether higher powered unlicensed operation might be accommodated in the TV white spaces in rural areas."[6]  While the Commission must guard against reasonable risks of harmful interference, it should strike a proper balance that furthers the goal of encouraging broadband deployment.

The Commission has determined that the TV bands database will be a reliable means of identifying and operating in a channel immediately adjacent to a television station, or at even higher power with a one channel separation (n+1). The same database can therefore reliably report that a TVBD can operate with a n+2, or n+4, or even greater separation from a licensed service in certain geographic locations - and hence can operate at a higher power level without any increased risk of harmful interference.   For the same reason, the Commission should also permit mobile devices to operate at higher and variable power when separation distances permit. 

The Commission should continue to look for additional opportunities to expand "smart radio" devices, such as those authorized in white spaces proceeding, to operate in other underutilized spectrum bands.  This type of technology will continue to promote innovation in spectrum use and efficiency, while also leading to more reliable and faster wireless networks. Research is ongoing to develop wireless devices that can dynamically select available frequencies that will provide for the greatest throughput - allowing wireless devices and networks to adjust to the unique RF environment of an area.[7]  The key to the continued development of this advanced wireless technology and other related technologies are access to a variety of spectrum bands.  By focusing on increasing spectrum sharing and smart radio technology the Commission can help to expand wireless broadband access while also promoting the U.S. as a global leader in wireless technology and innovation.

II.             Increase Access to High-Speed Open Access and Wholesale Middle-Mile Fiber Infrastructures in Rural Areas to Promote Sustainable and Scalable Networks

A great deal of the discussion on improving rural broadband access in the U.S. has focused on last-mile issues, connecting the residences and businesses in a local community.  While this remains a difficult challenge, another key obstacle to universal high-speed broadband access is the connection of those last-mile networks to the Internet backbone.  No community or network is an island; and increasingly access to the high-speed middle-mile links that carry Internet traffic to the backbone, and the escalating costs associated with transporting traffic among networks, have become fundamental barriers to spreading connectivity, promoting broadband competition, improving speeds and lowering prices.

The lack of middle-mile infrastructure is a considerable problem for existing rural ISPs and a formidable obstacle to building sustainable rural broadband networks.  The typical rural ISP is 91 miles from its primary backbone Internet connection and faces considerable costs to transport traffic to and from the backbone.[8]  Although prices per megabit have come down in some instances, total capacity costs are increasing much faster than the razor thin profit margins of many rural ILECs and WISPs. As network usage increases, small rural broadband providers are buying more and more capacity to handle the increased traffic.  A National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) report found that this "increased IP traffic will exacerbate, rather than ameliorate" the difficulties of these networks since "existing revenue shortfalls are multiplied as the scale of operations increases."  NECA's sobering conclusion underscores the necessity for an intervention: "high-speed Internet service may not be sustainable in many rural areas based on pure economics."[9]

Without a substantial investment to bring adequate middle-mile fiber connectivity to rural communities, an increase in the number of interconnection points and routes, and improved competition in the middle-mile and backbone, rural networks will hit a wall in terms of speed and pricing as the capacity costs associated with increased traffic to the backbone will grow faster than profits.  New America released a paper in January to directly address this problem with a proposal to leverage future federally-funded surface transportation spending to build-out high-speed middle-mile fiber infrastructures in rural communities across the country.[10]  The plan called for funding and mandating the installation of high-capacity, dark fiber bundles along all federally-subsidized and direct federal highway projects.  The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) estimates that 90 percent of the cost of deploying fiber in public rights of way along roadways is associated with digging up and repairing the road to install the buried fiber.[11]  Thus, it is both expedient and significantly cheaper to install conduit and fiber while a roadway is already being substantially repaired, reconstructed or built.  This "fiber to the community" approach would provide the essential wholesale fiber links necessary to facilitate high-speed broadband deployment by incumbents as well as new broadband providers and substantially benefit both wired and wireless networks. 

In addition, rural broadband deployment, competition and affordability would also benefit enormously from a mapping of the public sector fiber networks used by federal, state and local public agencies nationwide.  Dark fiber and/or excess capacity in public sector fiber networks is broadband capability that is owned by the public and should be mapped for potential use along as provided in ARRA.  Dark fiber and/or excess capacity on the public sector's own fiber line infrastructure, opened for wholesale access to any provider - commercial or non-commercial - including non-vertically-integrated cell phone carriers, WISPs, Rural LECs and muni- or community WiFi networks, could help to substantially increase middle-mile options.

These may be among many solutions to improve middle-mile access in rural areas. We strongly encourage the Commission to address the middle-mile and backbone transport challenges for rural networks in developing a  rural broadband strategy. Affordable and non-discriminatory access to high-speed middle-mile infrastructures and backbone transport is absolutely critical to promoting sustainable rural networks and allowing for these networks to scale-up in terms of speeds and services.

NAF appreciates the opportunity to submit the above policy recommendations to the Commission in its effort to develop a rural broadband strategy.  We believe they represent essential building blocks for expanding high-speed broadband to rural communities; benefiting a wide variety of providers, business models, and broadband solutions, while also promoting further innovation, competition, and increased speeds and lower prices.

Respectfully
Submitted,
\s\
Michael Calabrese
Director, Wireless Future Program
New America Foundation
calabrese@newamerica.net

\s\
Benjamin Lennett
Policy Analyst, Wireless Future Program
New America Foundation
lennett@newamerica.net

To read the complete flling, please download the attached PDF below. 

[1] Pub. L. 110-246, 122 Stat. 1651 (Jun. 18, 2008) (June 18, 2008 Bill).

[2] See Spectrum Occupancy Measurements, Shared Spectrum Company, available at. http://www.sharedspectrum.com/measurements/.

[3] See Tugba Erpek, Mark Lofquist, and Ken Patton, "Spectrum Occupancy Measurements Loring Commerce Centre, Limestone, Maine September 18-20, 2007" Shared Spectrum Company (2006), available at http://www.sharedspectrum.com/measurements/download/Loring_Spectrum_Occupancy_Measurements_v2_3.pdf

[4] See Sec. 6001, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009) (Recovery Act) .

[5] See Petition for Reconsideration, Public Interest Spectrum Coalition, FCC 04-186, March 19, 2009 at 11.

[6] See Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 04-186, adopted Nov. 4, 2008 at ¶ 106.

[7] For example, see Tamer Nadeem, "Mobility Control for Throughput Maximization in Ad Hoc Networks," Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, available at http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research_people.nsf/pages/sri.pubs.html/$FILE/wcmc.pdf.

[8] See "Encouraging Broadband Deployment," National Telecommunication Cooperative Association, http://www.ntca.org/images/stories/Documents/Advocacy/PositionPapers/encouragingbroadbanddeployment_ntca2008.pdf.

[9] Ibid.

[10] See Attachment.  Also see Benjamin Lennett and Sascha Meinrath, "Building a 21^st Century Broadband Superhighway," New America Foundation, January 2009, available at http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/building_21st_century_broadband_superhighway.

[11] See "Telecommunications Handbook for Transportation Professionals," U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, September 2004, p. 41, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/telecomm_handbook/telecomm_handbook.pdf.