FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn

Federal Communications Commissioner Mignon Clyburn thinks Time Warner Cable-sponsored legislation to regulate community-owned Internet Service Providers in North Carolina is a barrier to broadband improvement and could create economic harm across the state.

The commissioner, who hails from the Carolinas, today issued a statement expressing serious concerns about H.129, Rep. Marilyn Avila’s (R-Time Warner Cable) bill to hamper community-owned competition for large cable and phone companies in the state.

“I have serious concerns that as the Federal Communications Commission continues to address broadband deployment barriers outlined in the National Broadband Plan, new obstacles are being erected that are directly contrary to the Plan’s recommendations and goals,” Clyburn said.

Clyburn called out the legislation starting with the name of the bill – ‘Level Playing Field/Local Government Competition.’

“[…] Do not let the title fool you. This measure, if enacted, will not only fail to level the playing field; it will discourage municipal governments from addressing deployment in communities where the private sector has failed to meet broadband service needs,” Clyburn said. “In other words, it will be a significant barrier to broadband deployment and may impede local efforts to promote economic development.”

Clyburn noticed such legislation delivers benefits to major telecommunications corporations, but doesn’t deliver any improvement or competition in rural and small sized cities that suffer with low speed DSL, or no broadband service at all.  North Carolina currently ranks 41st out of 50 states in broadband delivery and quality.

Clyburn spent time in North Carolina last year defending community-owned broadband developments, commending them for bringing Internet access to communities either without service, or woefully underserved.

H.129 has passed the House of Representatives in the North Carolina legislature and is now pending in the Senate.

Read the entire statement here.

Each tiny light represents a single strand of optical fiber.

Verizon has achieved speeds of more than 1.5Tbps as part of a joint field trial with NEC Corporation of America.

The two companies conducted the trial across 2,212 miles of fiber in the Dallas area, successfully demonstrating three separate channels of data streams co-existing on just on a single strand of fiber.

“As we look to a future when data rates go beyond 100G, it’s important to begin examining how these technologies perform,” said Glenn Wellbrock, director of optical transport network architecture and design at Verizon. “This trial gives us a good first step toward analyzing the capabilities of future technologies.”

Verizon’s test placed three different high bit-rate data streams on a single strand of fiber.  Each respective “superchannel” ran at different speeds — 100Gbps, 450Gbps, and 1000Gbps — at the same time, with no significant degradation.

To put that in context, Google’s Fiber to the Home project in Kansas City, Kansas will operate at 1Gbps.  It would take more than 1,500 users fully saturating their Google Fiber connection to utilize the same amount of bandwidth Verizon demonstrated on just one fiber strand.  With most fiber projects bundling many strands of fiber into a single cable, near limitless capacity can bring a broadband experience untroubled by high traffic, high bandwidth multimedia applications.

Previously, Verizon had proven its fiber technology for high bit rate applications in a lab environment.  This was the first “in the field” trial over a functioning fiber network concurrently serving customers in Dallas.

Such technology demonstrates that as broadband traffic grows, so does the technology to support it.

Stop the Cap! will have some minor downtime this weekend to install some new software and make a few upgrades.  We would like your input to help us provide the best service to our readers.  Share your thoughts in our comment section, which can be accessed by clicking on the title of the article and scrolling down, or clicking on the Comment link just below the headline.

1. Do you spend time watching or listening to the multimedia content on STC?  Do you find this content useful?  Does it make us stand out from other websites discussing these issues?
2. Should we support HTML5, which allows Apple’s portable devices to directly access multimedia content (we currently use a Flash player Apple does not directly support.)
3. Do you access our content on a home/office computer or portable device?  Would a mobile version of the site be helpful, or is it unnecessary?
4. Is there anything missing on our home page you think should be added, or formatted differently?
5. What makes this site better or worse than others you visit?
6. How often do you visit us?
7. Do you generally skim articles or take time to read them through?  Do you try and at least read a bit of everything, or simply skip content you don’t care about?
8. Are concepts explained well enough for you to understand even if you were not acquainted with the subjects covered, or is it too-jargony or technical, or are things over-explained?
9. If we produced a weekly audio podcast covering some of the topics over the past week, would you find that useful?  If so, would you listen at-home or on the go?

Thank you for sharing your views!

Party time in Kansas City, Kansas

Kansas City, Kansas is creating some jealousy across the river in the much larger Kansas City, Missouri in reaction to Google’s announcement yesterday that it was bringing its 1 gigabit per second fiber to the home network to KCK.

Local bloggers called Google’s announcement “a game changer” for the city’s software developers and health care providers, who represent a large part of the city’s high tech economy. The announcement also thrilled local schools and universities, who will be able to deliver broadband service that rivals world leader South Korea in as little as one year from today.

Speculation about why Google chose the Kansas-based suburb of Kansas City has been rampant.  Among the biggest theories is that the local utilities, with whom Google must negotiate for space to accommodate its fiber cables, are owned by the local municipality, not private corporations.  With local government officials eager to cut red tape and avoid political or economic minefields which could delay the project, having public utilities as a partner may have made a decisive difference in the final decision.

The 'Kansas City' in the smaller type represents the Kansas suburb of the much larger Kansas City, Mo.

Demographics experts suggest Google might have chosen KCK because it represents classic middle-America with a growing digital economy — a perfect laboratory to watch what comes from ultra high speed Internet access.

The presentation by Google rivaled a glowing Hollywood production, one TV news team remarked.  Live-streamed on the web to a global audience, company officials vaguely promised the choice of KCK was the beginning of a potentially broader fiber network not just limited to a single Kansas city, although company officials seemed to restrain themselves out in the parking after the event, suggesting the network could be expanded regionally, saying nothing about other cities further afield.

Local newscasts told the Google story to Kansas City viewers in varying degrees of intensity, often relegated to pointless outdoor live stand up shots scattered around the city.  There isn’t much to show for a network that exists only in the form of a website.

A Silicon Valley expert echoed the sentiment that faster broadband can bring dramatic development to the communities that have it, sometimes in surprising ways.  It’s less about what one can do with 1Gbps service today and more about the possibilities for tomorrow.  But CNBC’s Jon Fortt added some applications may have only limited national appeal if the rest of the country lives with slower broadband service than cannot support the latest online innovations.

Still, excitement is easy to find among the journalists, local politicians, and other community members across the range of local news coverage.

It brings to mind just how ironic it is that a city like KCK will soon have some of the fastest broadband connections in the country while states like North Carolina are on the cusp of enacting legislation that will guarantee they will never be a part of the transformative broadband revolution — at least those who don’t live in Wilson or Salisbury.  Every member of the legislature in that state should watch and learn.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KSHB Kansas City Google to KCK 3-30-11.flv[/flv]

KSHB-TV Kansas City’s NBC station devoted the most time to Google’s arrival, including a special interview by satellite with CNBC reporter Jon Fortt, discussing the implications of 1Gbps broadband for KCK.  (11 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCTV Kansas City Google to KCK 3-30-11.flv[/flv]

KCTV-TV Kansas City’s CBS affiliate spent more than five minutes in their newscast covering Google’s gigabit network, including interviews with a local blogger and health care expert.  (7 minutes)

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WDAF Kansas City Google to KCK 3-30-11.flv[/flv]

WDAF-TV, the Fox station for Kansas City, emphasized what Google will do for area students in bringing faster, more reliable broadband to the region.  (7 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KMBC Kansas City Google to KCK 3-30-11.flv[/flv]

KMBC-TV, Kansas City’s ABC station, tries to explain what 1Gbps broadband represents with a water faucet.  The station’s coverage continues with the impact fiber broadband will have on local health care.  (4 minutes)

J.P. Morgan Chase’s enthusiasm to participate in AT&T’s acquisition deal with T-Mobile, as the sole lender of $20 billion in financing, could prove a risky strategy not only for AT&T and Chase, but for other segments of the credit industry, according to Bloomberg News.

AT&T needs the $20 billion bridge loan to help finance the takeover of T-Mobile, and J.P. Morgan will earn a cool $20 million minimum from brokering the 12 month deal.  By the end of the first year, Chase hopes to “syndicate” the loan, which is to say repackage and resell pieces of it to other banks interested in carrying part of the balance. When it comes to moorcroft group in terms of repaying your loan, contact experts to get advice or let companies like iva check on your situation and help you write off your debts.

Moody’s Investor Service was alarmed by the prospect of Chase handing over 17 percent of the New York-based bank’s equity for a single loan, and warned it was risky for all concerned.  In fact, the willingness of Chase to take on riskier loans has been deemed “credit negative” by Moody’s because it makes the bank’s loan portfolio look more exposed to a potential credit nightmare should AT&T renege.

For AT&T, regulator conditions could reduce the value of the acquisition or disallow it altogether.  AT&T could also lose standing if customers switch to other providers for telecommunications services.  Chase may not be too concerned because it will earn even more in fees if AT&T’s credit rating gets downgraded.  The biggest risk for Chase is it gets stuck holding the loan because other bankers refuse to purchase pieces of it.  That could result in Chase having to make up any losses among its other divisions, which include small business/consumer loans and credit cards.

And just when you thought the credit crisis was starting to ease.

But some on Wall Street believe Chase’s willingness to extend such a large amount of credit to a single company opens the door to other similar deals among large corporate clients — deals rejected as “too risky” over the past 24 months.

AT&T’s proposed takeover of T-Mobile is the world’s largest, rivaled only by a failed bid by an Australian conglomerate to takeover Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan last August for $40 billion.  The world’s largest mining company could not withstand scrutiny by Canadian regulators who rejected the deal as not in the best interests of anyone, except executives and shareholders of the two companies involved.