Currently, there is a shortage of IP addresses, which are assigned to Internet-enabled devices and a critical component to their connectivity. As a result of this address shortage, the industry is at the early stages of a decades-long evolution from IPv4 to IPv6, the standard on which the Internet is based. Once the transition is complete, IPv6 will enable exponentially more devices to connect to the network.

Each M2M device will produce an incremental amount of data and an accompanying small amount of revenue. As such, mobile operators must create new, compelling business offerings, with accompanying service-level agreements and billing arrangements.

In addition, mobile operators must evolve their core networks to handle a large number of devices, applications and transactions. The operator must create a platform that is capable of provisioning, authenticating, automating, monitoring and managing many, many more devices.

M2M has the potential to result in network congestion. Viswanathan notes that sophisticated traffic management is an important component of an M2M offering. “Each M2M application will be written by a developer who has very little knowledge about how the network functions or how other applications will utilize the network,” he said. “As a result, there is the possibility that M2M apps will cause unwanted consequences such as inadvertently flooding the network with messages. In order to guard against this, operators must develop and deploy an intelligent traffic management platform, which ensures efficient network utilization.”

Viswanathan also notes that traffic management solutions are necessary in order to enforce pricing. “For instance in the utility industry, a pricing scheme might make it more expensive to send network traffic during certain hours versus operating during off-peak hours,” he said. “Operators will need to ensure that the traffic policy is monitored and enforced. “

M2M requires enhanced security. Devices are subject to more security threats as they are often mass-deployed in unattended locations, and generally maintained and supported remotely with little human contact. Further, as noted previously, M2M will produce a large amount of data that will need to be secured and only delivered to the appropriate user(s) of the information.

The Development of Standards

Most M2M devices are not plug-and-play; they are highly customized based upon the specific industry need, the application and the underlying network technology. Currently, there is no internationally recognized blueprint for how an M2M device should be constructed, how it will connect with the network, and how it will relay information to the cloud and the resultant application. As such, M2M development and deployment is a slow, time-consuming process.

The industry is in need of clear, accepted standards and specifications that will provide the foundation for interconnection, interoperability, performance and management of devices, networks and applications. Standardizing the connection from the device to the network and the data flow will enable developers to use a common platform. This will result in economies of scale in regard to developing, manufacturing and deploying M2M solutions.

Vertical standards are under development, wherein different industries are crafting standards for their particular needs. For instance, the smart grid industry is developing standards for smart meters and in-home energy devices. At the same time, the auto industry is working on standards for connected automobiles, which communicate with the user, the insurance company and perhaps the service technician. Although these industry standards will advance the use of M2M communications, real growth will be derived from broad, horizontal standards.

“Today, a numbers of players have to get involved for a successful end-to-end M2M solution,” Viswanathan said. “Operators are not familiar with the needs of verticals. Likewise, verticals do not understand the telecommunications network. Disparate devices and applications leads to a complex value chain. Horizontal platforms and standards which unite the M2M industry will help to minimize this challenge.”

The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) and several other international organizations are working to define horizontal standards. Although this is an important step forward, there is a drawback to this broad-based interest. “There is a danger that this will lead to a fragmented market with operators uniting behind different standards bodies,” Viswanathan said. “The industry needs uniformity and partnerships among standards-setting organizations in order to realize the true potential of M2M technology.”

TIA, which represents manufacturers and suppliers of global information and communications technology networks, announced a landmark step forward in December 2011.  The association released TIA-4940, a Smart Device Communications Reference Architecture[1]. The horizontal standard addresses common requirements and interoperability of smart devices across industries. The specification will work across both wired and wireless networks, and takes advantage of IP-enabled applications utilized by different vertical markets. The standard accounts for security (e.g., data content, authentication, signaling); end-to-end performance and scalability of equipment and networks; and device management (including discovery and identity).

TIA also is working with the International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) Global Standards Collaboration. The ITU established the “M2M Standardization Task Force” to coordinate the efforts of individual standards development organizations, including the developments at ATIS and TIA. The ultimate goal is to develop an internationally accepted, open framework for M2M communications that is industry- and technology-agnostic.

A standardized service layer will act as middleman between the higher-level application, and the lower-level network and physical layers. It will enable application developers to decrease the time and cost to market, and result in a more secure product.

Viswanathan again notes that an analogy can be drawn to the application ecosystem for smartphones. App developers no longer need to know everything about the underlying cellular network. Often, their work can be used across platforms and devices. When a standardized service layer was created with open application programming interfaces (APIs), the smartphone app ecosystem grew exponentially. Likewise, M2M communications will experience substantial gains through the development of horizontal standards and an accepted device platform.

Stay tuned for part three in the series, which will explore ideas for how rural service providers can monetize M2M.

Related posts:

1. Researchers Demo Full-Duplex Wireless Transmission
2. Industry Event Focuses on Spectrum Shortage
3. Industry Leaders Support Voice Over LTE Standard

You’re surprised that your alarm went off 20 minutes earlier than you expected. That’s because it retrieved weather and traffic information and understood that you needed to leave the house earlier due to a snowstorm. It also communicated with your car to ensure that the electric engine re-charged itself overnight, as planned.

As you finish getting ready, it beeps again to inform you that it’s starting your car to de-ice the windows. It contacts your GPS to send the most updated directions based on road closures and information. As you leave the house to drive away, your car signals your home automation system to lock all doors, change the thermostat to save energy and arm your security system.

This automation is possible thanks in large part to machine-to-machine (M2M) technology. In its most basic form, M2M involves devices that communicate autonomously, without human involvement. M2M indicates that everyday objects are readable, recognizable, locatable, addressable and controllable through the Internet. In fact, M2M is now synonymous with the “Internet of things.”

Harish Viswanathan, CTO advisor for M2M and Devices at Alcatel-Lucent, asserts that M2M encompasses any device with a remote sensor. “Typically M2M implies a single-function device used for monitoring and control, unlike tablets and smartphones that have multiple applications and purposes,” he said. “M2M devices also are not human engineered; in most cases they lack a direct human interface. Rather, data is collected and sent back to a central node, where it can be viewed and analyzed via an application.” This application is often accessible via the cloud.

M2M is not a new idea. Initially, M2M referred to specialized science and engineering devices. However, during the past 10 years, wireless sensors, public networks and computer technologies have improved. At the same time, electronics manufacturers are incorporating Internet connectivity into many new devices. As a result, M2M now connects a variety of objects with a back-end IT infrastructure, communicating data and real-time intelligence.

Industry-Specific Applications

A variety of vertical industries are adopting M2M technology. The healthcare industry is utilizing M2M for remote monitoring of patients. In the hospital, when every piece of equipment from digital thermometers to heart monitors is networked together and associated with a patient ID, health care practitioners have access to a wealth of real-time data on patient health.

M2M technology also can be used to monitor a patient’s vital statistics outside of the medical facility, reporting information back to the health care practitioner. For instance, MedApps produces cellular devices that collect data from medical devices—such as glucose meters, blood pressure monitors, scales and pulse oximeters—and automatically upload it to the patient’s electronic health record in the cloud.

The transportation and manufacturing industry utilizes M2M for asset and fleet management. M2M enables the company to precisely locate and monitor the cargo; modules can transmit weight and other pertinent factors. Wal-Mart pioneered the use of radio-frequency identification (RFID), wireless M2M technology to track and manage its inventory throughout the supply chain.

M2M plays a role in audio and video surveillance. For instance, M2M technology may permit or bar people from entering a restricted area. Caregivers could be alerted if a child strays from his normal school-home track, or if an elderly individual moves from his location without prior notice.

In an agriculture setting, M2M technology can assist with the surveillance of crops and livestock. A Dutch start-up called Sparked is using M2M technology to monitor the health of livestock. The company implants a sensor in a cow’s ear to measure the animal’s vital signs. The data is wirelessly transferred to a central cloud server. It provides information about fluctuations in diet, a cow’s response to environmental factors and herd behavior. Remote M2M sensors also can monitor the health of soil and crops, transmitting information regarding water and fertilization levels.

In 2010, the New Edge published a primer on the smart energy grid, highlighting how smart sensors embedded with M2M technology can remotely monitor the health of the electrical grid and enable real-time energy usage, pricing and analysis.

The smart home will take this one step further, applying M2M to the consumer setting. Through M2M technology, the automated home network may include appliances, smoke alarms, security systems, entertainment gadgets, medical devices, thermostats and any other electronic device that has network connectivity. Devices will be able to communicate and be controlled through one central computer or remotely via a cloud application.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. M2M can be utilized by a variety of industries to improve security and monitoring, automate services, create efficiencies and reduce costs.

nPhase, wholly owned by Verizon, has an established history with M2M devices dating back to 2003. nPhase CEO Steve Pazol tells rural telcos not to confuse the vertical industry with specific M2M applications. For instance, rural electric providers might be looking for the obvious smart meter applications which record and transmit a consumer’s real-time energy usage, but they also could be looking for mobile fleet tracking applications for their service fleets and applications to monitor their transmission infrastructure—three different M2M applications that could be offered by the same company.

A Nascent Market

M2M encompasses a diverse range of devices, from fixed objects that transmit intermittent bursts of data, to mobile machines that continuously send high-bandwidth video. Common devices include sensors, identification tags, handsets, machines and meters.

M2M also utilizes a variety of underlying networking technologies. Wireless technologies such as Bluetooth, near field communications (NFC), RFID, WiFi and Zigbee are used for defined, small distances, while CDMA, GSM, LTE, WiMAX and satellite are used for long-range connections. Wireline connectivity also is utilized for fixed devices or for backhaul purposes.

In a February 2011 report, Ericsson predicted that that there will be 50 billion connected devices by 2020, utilizing fixed and wireless technologies.[1] The GSM Association (GSMA) is slightly more conservative, estimating that the number of connected devices will increase from approximately 9 billion in October 2011, to more than 24 billion in 2020.[2] ABI Research, in a study that narrowly focuses on the mobile M2M market, reports that the segment will grow robustly from 71 million in 2009, to almost 300 million by 2015.[3] Looking at the market from another angle, Cisco reports that M2M traffic is expected to increase 258% between 2010-2015.[4]

Regardless of how you define the ecosystem, M2M is expected to grow exponentially in the coming years. “There is tremendous interest in M2M from a variety of industries and enterprises,” Viswanathan said. “But in regard to market penetration, we are just getting started. Less than 5% of potential connected devices are actually connectable to the IP network today. “

Pazol agrees that M2M will experience a tremendous amount of growth thanks in large part to tier-one service providers. “AT&T and Verizon have dedicated M2M divisions that are out in the field, engaging with verticals and generating demand for this technology and its applications,” Pazol said. “But they won’t win 100% of the business.”

Viswanathan explained that the true value of M2M has yet to be experienced. Connected devices allow for automation and efficiency, but as the market develops, additional value will be gained through collecting and analyzing data from distributed devices.

“Intermediate growth will be gained through more device deployments and applications,” Viswanathan said. “But in the long-term, the second generation of M2M will be more elaborate and intricate, leveraging multiple sensors and correlating info for data analysis—kind of like a search engine for remote devices.” He explained that M2M information will be widely available and accessible to mashup applications, which will unite disparate data sources to create new services.

On the consumer side of the market, M2M will track habits, purchases and behavior. Mining that data will provide information to operators, marketers and ultimately to consumers. For instance, imagine entering a grocery store and a sensor triggers your smartphone to populate a grocery list based upon what’s already in your fridge, your past purchases, your doctor’s recommendations for your individual health status and the sale items in the store. With M2M technology, this service may become a reality.

An analogy can be made to the smartphone application marketplace. Years ago, before the development of an active, third-party application ecosystem, we could not imagine the possibilities for a handheld device. Likewise, with M2M the boundaries for new products, services and applications have yet to be explored.

Stay tuned for part two in the series, which will explore industry challenges and standards.

Related posts:

1. Telemedicine: Remote Patient Monitoring
2. AT&T Launches Ambitious Telehealth Initiative
3. AT&T Partners with Digi on Smart Grid Applications

The technology is particularly useful for serving less densely populated areas, such as rural areas, where most vacant TV channels can be found. The low frequencies used by the white spaces travel well through buildings and varied terrain and can operate in a 50-mile radius with a single access point.

Wilmington is using the unlicensed spectrum to service its entire “Smart City” initiative, including video surveillance, free wireless Internet access in city parks, and water monitoring solutions.

It’s been a long road for white space advocates. The FCC conducted a variety of tests of the technology and industry heavy weights such as Dell, Google and Microsoft championed the effort. In November 2008, the commission first approved the use of white spaces, with a variety of conditions in place to protect for interference with neighboring broadcast TV stations and wireless microphones. In October 2009, Spectrum Bridge launched the first white spaces trial in a rural location. Almost two years later, in August 2011, the IEEE approved the first white spaces standard.

Back in 2010, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski coined the term “Super WiFi” to refer to white spaces technology, a term that was later adopted by the industry and tech trade press, and championed by the Wireless Innovation Alliance.

But now that the technology is finally gaining mainstream name recognition and momentum, the Wi-Fi Alliance, which holds the trademark to the term “Wi-Fi,” has issued a clear warning to stop using “super Wi-Fi” to refer to white space service.  The group maintains that the underlying technology is not WiFi, and calling it such will only lead to consumer confusion. The solution? The Wi-Fi Alliance suggests the more accurate description  – “traditional Wi-Fi routers that include white space spectrum.”

On the one hand, I see their point. For instance, let’s take a look at the term “4G.” Major wireless providers have muddied the waters, using 4G to apply to a variety of technologies from mobile WiMax to HSPA+ and LTE.

As a result, it wasn’t really all that surprising when Nielsen reported last year that consumers are confused about what 4G refers to. In fact, just last week, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) approved specifications for the next generation of wireless broadband.

Both LTE Advanced and WiMAX 2 meet the 100 Mbps speed standard, and can provide speeds up to 500x faster than typical 3G connections while using spectrum much more efficiently. The ITU standards setting body calls this 4G but the industry will have to call it something else since they call the previous iterations of WiMAX and LTE their 4G offerings. Talk about consumer confusion.

On the other hand, I’m not really sure it matters how we refer to each generation of wireless technology  — or white spaces vs. Wifi — as long as the industry is consistent and clear about the devices, applications and real-world network speeds.

With white spaces technology, the customer will be outfitted with a special WiFi router that will operate in this new spectrum band. From his perspective, it will be faster than traditional WiFi and receive a stronger signal through walls.

Consumers don’t need to grasp the underlying technology, but they do not to be able to differentiate one service over another and understand the resulting benefits.

Related posts:

1. Nielsen: Consumers Confused by Term ’4G’
2. Vendors Develop DSL Technologies to Boost Speed
3. Multi-Gig Wireless?

Nearly 10 months later, the company has been plagued by right-of-way issues that have slowed down the network build out and service launch. It’s difficult to determine just how much of a delay has occurred since Google won’t publicly admit that its network build out is behind schedule. According to the Kansas City Star, a local paper, the company had planned to enroll customers in late 2011, and launch its service in the first quarter of this year. However, Google has yet to install any cables. It’s now estimating a service launch date later this year.

Just what is the holdup? The paper reports that Google is now engaged in a debate about how it will hang its wires on utility poles and the associated fees and costs.

According to the paper, Google had expected that the overarching government of Wyandotte County – a single entity that governs both Kansas City, KS, and the overarching county – could streamline the permitting process because it also owns the Kansas City Board of Public Utilities. Indeed, when the project was first announced, the original agreement with the city included just 60-words relating to pole attachment issues and provisions.

In short, Google was given two options. The company could string its cable on the poles in the traditional space reserved for telecom and cable providers, at market approved rates, or a second option — the ability to hang its wires in the space ordinarily reserved for power lines. In the later case, the pole attachment fee would be waived in exchange for Google delivering service to 130 anchor locations such as schools, libraries and city buildings.

Unfortunately for Google, it apparently didn’t count on the costs needed to hang the fiber so close to electric wires, or the need for more skilled and costly technicians. It seems the Internet giant expected its brand reputation would provide the company with an advantage, and the clear the way of red tape faced by all other ISPs.

Traditionally, there have been contentious negotiations between the utility provider, the PUC and telecommunications and cable providers in regard to pole attachment rates, timelines for approval and placement of the cables. In April 2011, the FCC announced a landmark order that provided clarity and uniformity, and was designed to streamline the pole attachment process and rates. However, the order still provides for some flexibility for the local utility and governing authorities to make arrangements which favor certain competitors.

The Kansas City Star spoke to local cable provider SureWest who admitted that it too would have liked to have benefited from free access to pole attachments.

But even with this advantage, there are giant hurdles in the way of building any next-gen network. We’ll keep you posted on Google’s network development and the to-be-announced pricing scheme.

Related posts:

1. Google Picks Kansas City for FTTH Network
2. Google Begins Fiber Network Trials at Stanford
3. Google Plans to Build FTTH Network

Related posts:

1. VOTW: Local Company, Local Priorities
2. DigitalBridge Partners with Media Company
3. Russian Company Rolls Out Android STB

This is the first marketing promotion under the new landmark partnership which was announced last month, whereby Verizon Wireless agreed to pay $3.6 billion to a consortium of cable providers for 122 advanced wireless services (AWS) spectrum licenses covering approximately 259 million people, or more than 85% of the U.S. population. Additionally, the cable companies and Verizon Wireless entered into a joint re-sale, marketing and technology development agreement. Separately, just a few days later, Verizon Wireless entered into an similar agreement with Cox Communications to purchase 20 MHz of AWS spectrum licenses covering 28 million POPs for $315 million.

Under the trial promotion launched in the Northwest, customers who sign up for a two-year contract with Verizon Wireless and Comcast will be eligible to receive a prepaid Visa card, varying in value from $100 to $300 depending on which Comcast bundle is selected and the length of service contract. The prepaid Visa card is intended to be used toward the purchase of a smartphone or tablet.

To qualify, customers must purchase the Comcast and Verizon services within 14 days of each other, and must activate a new smartphone or tablet device. The initial joint offer is scheduled to end May 8, 2012.

In addition to this online offering, Comcast will promote Verizon Wireless services through its call centers and in its retail stores. For its part, 8 Verizon Wireless stores in the Seattle area will be staffed with Comcast reps for the initial retail launch.

The AWS spectrum sale and related agreements have not yet been approved by the FCC or the Department of Justice, the later of which announced back in December that it is investigating the proposed transactions.Verizon Wireless maintains that the marketing agreements are not subject to regulatory approval. For its part, the DOJ’s antitrust division maintains that it has the flexibility to look into all related aspects of a proposed transaction to determine if they will result in anticompetitive market dynamics.

Last week, at the request of FCC officials, Verizon Wireless and the cable companies — Comcast Corp., Time Warner Cable, Inc., and Bright House Networks LLC as part of SpectrumCo, and separately Cox Communications, Inc., — voluntarily submitted new information about the marketing agreements in order to avoid undue delay in the commission’s review of the spectrum transaction. However, the companies made it clear that they still believe the deals are not relevant to the spectrum transactions as they are not contingent upon one another. They also said that the FCC doesn’t have the authority to review them.

In a letter submitted last week to the commission, nine companies and public interest groups asked the FCC to require Verizon Wireless and the cable companies to publicly provide all of the documents related to joint marketing agreements so the market impact of the agreements can be reviewed. Entities signing onto the letter included C Spire Wireless, Directv LLC, Ntelos Holdings Corp., Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, New America Foundation, Public Knowledge, Consumer Federation of America and Media Access Project.

Although they did not sign onto the joint letter, Fairpoint Communications and Frontier Communications are clearly impacted by Verizon Wireless’ partnership agreements. The two landline companies each acquired wireline network assets and customers from Verizon. Now they face competition from Verizon as it returns to these markets with LTE service offered through its new cable partner companies.

Petitions to deny the spectrum transactions must be filed with the FCC by Feb. 21, oppositions to the petitions are due March 2 and replies are due March 12 in WT docket 12-4.

Related posts:

1. Verizon to Acquire Large Chunk of AWS Spectrum via Cable Companies
2. Verizon Wireless Adds Cox to its Cable Partners
3. Fall Out from the SpectrumCo./Verizon Wireless Deal

Two new congressional bills, SOPA and PIPA, have received widespread attention from tech trade outlets and mainstream media sources, many of which have issued a battle cry that the Internet will be unjustly censored. Yesterday, thousands of websites joined the protest, committing to “digital darkness” for 24 hours as a means to draw attention to the proposed anti-piracy legislation.

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA, HR 3261) was introduced on October 26, 2011, by House Judiciary Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-Texas), along with 12 co-sponsors. In the Senate, its closely related cousin is the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (PROTECT IP Act, or PIPA, S 968) which was introduced on May 12, 2011, by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and 11 bipartisan co-sponsors.

In short, the draft legislation aims to protect U.S. based content providers by restricting end user access to infringing, foreign websites. Since the website is located offshore, a lawsuit against the website owners in a U.S. court would be futile.

The legislation is aimed at ISPs that enable access to the infringing content, and online payment providers and ad services that do business with the websites. For instance, if Warner Bros. maintains that a website located in China is distributing a copy of the movie The Dark Knight, the studio could demand that Google remove the website from its search results, PayPal no longer accept payments to/from that site, ad services pull all ads and finances from it, and ISPs take actions to restrict consumer access to the content.

The proposed legislation will enable the U.S. attorney general to seek a court order against the targeted offshore website that would then be served on U.S.-based ISPs. Section 102 of SOPA says that, after being served with a removal order:

A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order…Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within five days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.

The most vocal proponents of SOPA And PIPA include the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Opponents of the bill counter that it can be unjustly used to censor the free flow of information on the Internet. They maintain that the proposed legislation will create an Internet blacklist whereby content owners could order an ISP to block an entire website due to an allegation that a portion of the site contains infringing content. This, of course, has significant implications for websites with user-generated content such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Wikipedia.

Further, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EEF) calls our attention to Section 104 of SOPA, which would allow an ISP to pro-actively (i.e. without a court order) restrict access to websites that it determines are infringing. The EFF is concerned that this will give service providers broad authority to restrict access to competitive content (think Comcast restricting access to alternative video content).

So what does this all mean for rural ISPs? There is some confusion about what measures ISPs will have to take. In its draft form, SOPA infers that DNS blocking would be satisfactory. If this is the case, presumably the end user could get around the restriction by simply typing in the IP address for the site they are trying to visit, or by manually setting up offshore DNS to handle his website requests.

That being said, tech media reports have surfaced that imply that the language in the bills – in their current form or after content providers further lobby Congress – can be more broadly interpreted to require ISPs to monitor customers’ traffic and block IP addresses.

One of the interesting items about this legislation is that it assumes the network is a static technology. However, the Internet was built to be resilient and dynamic.  It’s likely that any technical legislation that is put into place will be bypassed quickly.

The good news for ISPs is that there are provisions in the legislation that limit your liability if you take reasonable actions to comply with any court-ordered content restrictions. However, conceivable you’d be on the hook for the administrative and technical time it takes to modify your network to comply with the court-ordered requests and respond to the notices.

Yesterday Chairman Smith reaffirmed his support and his confidence in SOPA. However, on heels of yesterday’s media blackout, of the 40 sponsors of PIPA before the protest began, six have dropped out: Sens. Marco Rubio, Roy Blunt, John Boozman, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley and David Vitter. (Jerry Moran dropped off last June.) In the House, Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith also may have lost two SOPA co-sponsors – Reps. Lee Terry and Ben Quayle – along with other supporters of the bill.

With this much media attention and a surging grassroots opposition, one has to wonder if the legislation is on life support.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has scheduled a vote Jan. 24 on whether to invoke cloture on a motion to take up the PIPA legislation. A cloture vote determines whether the Senate will cut off debate and proceed to a final passage vote. However, it is unlikely that supporters can reach the 60-vote threshold necessary to invoke cloture (meaning there is no telling when a final passage vote would come up).

Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee began marking up SOPA in December and is slated to continue the process in February. The measure appears to have enough support to advance through the committee.

The video post below offers a great explanation of the many intricacies of SOPA and the opposition’s arguments.

;

For more:
CNet has a refreshingly unbiased and unassuming explanation of SOPA and PIPA.
Gizmodo has a more inflated – although clearly worded — view of the legislation.
See the full text of SOPA and PIPA.

Related posts:

1. ISPs Add Rural Broadband Customers at Double-digit Pace
2. ISPs Plan for IPv6 Transition
3. Shareholders File Complaint to Stop Occam-Calix Merger

Sponsored by Broadband Breakfast — a Washington-DC based news organization — the panel also consisted of the FCC’s Rick Kaplan; Fred B. Campbell, Jr., President and CEO, Wireless Communications Association International (WCAI); Walter B. McCormick, Jr., President and CEO, USTelecom; Grant Seiffert, President, Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA); Gary Shapiro, President and CEO, Consumer Electronics Association (CEA); and moderator Drew Clark, Chairman and Publisher, BroadbandBreakfast.com.

Fresh off the heels of last week’s 2012 International Consumer Electronics Show (CES), Shapiro highlighted the depth and breadth of devices that were showcased, including Internet-connected TVs, the connected automobile and health/wellness devices. The next-generation of electronics will rely upon new technologies such as cloud storage, machine-to-machine communication (M2M) and location-based services (LBS).

To put the increasing demand for spectrum in perspective, Shapiro noted that a smartphone uses 25 times the data stream of a traditional phone, and tablets use 120 times the capacity of a phone. Of the 20,000 new products that were showcased at CES last week, he estimated that about half assume that there will be sufficient spectrum in the future to provide for the device connectivity, an assumption that he said is flawed given the spectrum crisis facing the industry.

As the National Broadband Plan foretold, the nation is facing a shortage of more than 500 MHz in spectrum over the next 5-10 years. Kaplan focused his comments on the need for adequate spectrum polices to drive efficient use of this asset. As part of the solution to address the spectrum shortage, policymakers are focused on re-allocating more than 120 MHz from TV stations to broadband providers and network operators. The commission wants to hold incentive auctions whereby a portion of the proceeds gained through the auction will be directed back into the hands of original, incumbent licensees. However, Congress will need to approve the use of this new auction design before the commission can put incentive auctions into practice.

As part of deficit reduction talks, there are two separate bills making their way through Congress (S 911 and HR 3630) which may set the parameters for the newest spectrum auction. As the panel noted, the harsh, clinical reality is that Congress considers spectrum auctions as simply a way to earn new revenue. However, the industry has several other goals associated with spectrum auctions, including the ability to ensure competition in the marketplace and to drive new technological breakthroughs.

Kaplan said that the FCC supports a bipartisan Senate bill (S 911), which preserves the FCC’s ability to maintain some spectrum for unlicensed use. The panel agreed that historically the use of unlicensed spectrum has led to innovation, with the biggest success story in the creation of WiFi networks, devices and applications.

The FCC also wants the ability to set up auction parameters that ensure competition in the marketplace. Kaplan said that all carriers – from the tier one operators to the smallest rural providers – should be able to gain access to spectrum through this auction.

Kaplan acknowledged that incentive auctions are only part of the commission’s initial plan to acquire new spectrum assets. He said that the commission needs to identify and lock up the few quick, lasting spectrum wins that are still available, including reviewing the current parameters for the 1755-1850 MHz block; investigating the use of 2 gigahertz MSS (mobile satellite service) spectrum for terrestrial use; and evaluating new models for shared spectrum use between commercial and government operations.

As part of the larger discussion concerning the need for additional spectrum for broadband networks, McCormick pointed out the symbiotic, dependent relationship between wireless and wired infrastructure, and the necessity for fiber. He said that there will never be enough fiber capacity to the home; rather broadband providers will need to continue to invest and upgrade infrastructure.

In the past year, McCormick said that USTelecom’s members have invested $65 billion in broadband technology. In comparison, at the height of the development of the interstate highway system, the United States invested $30 billion in the creation of roads (adjusted for today’s dollars), and the government invested $10 billion (also adjusted), in the space program also during the height of its development. Clearly investment in broadband dwarfs other major infrastructure projects. McCormick suggested that the FCC restructure its operations to include a Broadband Investment Bureau, an idea that was seconded by other members of the panel.

Related posts:

1. Congress at Odds Over Provisions in Payroll Tax Extenders Bill for Spectrum Auctions
2. Spectrum Debate Over?
3. Spectrum for Medical Micropower Networks

Related posts:

1. VOTW: The Analysts’ Views of CES 2011
2. VOTW: United in Technology for Aging
3. VOTW: The Future of the Remote Control

ViaSat said that the Exede service also includes “advanced web acceleration technology” to provide an Internet web browsing experience with “feels like fiber” performance. 

“With our new Exede broadband service, customers across the United States will have a way to get exceptional speed whether they live in a city, suburbs or a more rural area,” said Tom Moore, senior VP of ViaSat. “Our new Exede service speeds make us very competitive with wireless home broadband service, as well as legacy DSL and many cable services.”

In addition to residential service, the new ViaSat high-capacity satellite system will provide business and mobile offerings. ViaSat also is working with JetBlue to create an in-flight broadband service for commercial aviation, with a planned launch date by the end of 2012.

For more, see this release.

Related posts:

1. ViaSat’s Exede: This is Not What They Promised
2. ViaSat-1 Launch Successful
3. Govt Releases Deadline and Details on Stimulus Funds