Tagged: wireless

Fiber Optic is the Best Option in Meeting Princeton’s Broadband Needs

In an op-ed piece entitled “Better options for wireless than ‘faster horses” published in the July 17 Landmark, the writer, a concerned Princeton resident, makes the analogy that deploying a fiber optic network in town is like getting a faster horse and that a ‘wireless white space’ solution is like the innovation of Henry Ford’s first automobile. It should come as no news that the question of ‘wireless’ vs. ‘wired’ has been tried before in Princeton and the ‘wireless’ path has proven to have significant issues in both the performance and costs.

Using ‘white space’ is not the solution

Newly available ‘white space’ radio spectrum that has been relinquished by TV broadcasters, does not significantly address the bandwidth, geographical or political challenges that doomed our existing wireless network launched a few ago known by the municipal light department. The FCC estimates that there are between 12 and 32 ‘white space’ channels freed up in our region, each of which could provide up to 20Mbps of bandwidth. All of these channels are shared with our neighbors in Holden, Sterling and elsewhere. Assuming the unlikely case that we could abscond with all of these ‘white space’ channels, that would allow all 1250 premises in town a bit less than 2Mbps, which still does not mean the definition of high-speed broadband, and an increase of only 1Mbps over the existing wireless network. It means we will once again have a wireless network that is great for sending and receiving emails and little else.

Additionally, the FCC announced it plans to auction ‘white space’ wireless spectrum to existing cellular providers, indicating this spectrum would not at all be available for Princeton’s use.

An advantage of white space design is that it is not strictly line of sight wireless. There is some refraction over geological obstacles, but the severe hills and valleys in Princeton would require multiple sources to assure connectivity for all, a configuration not unlike that of those tall poles we see around town. Connecting each of these poles to a source sufficient to use the wireless bandwidth would require infrastructure of significant cost, probably fiber optic cable. And although Carlson Wireless, the company cited by the author of the letter, has an interesting and innovative product, it does not seem to solve the central problem Princeton is facing, and, according to its own website, is currently working on devices that “are far, far from ready” for prime time.

Why a single bidder?

The writer mentions that there is only one bidder in the plan to bring ‘wired’ Internet to Princeton. He is correct, there is only one corporate entity that came to the town unrequested with a proposal backed by $3.7 million of their corporate money to build a lease-to-own network. Yes, Matrix/Millenium will put up $3.7 million of material, engineering and labor in exchange for a construction royalty of $25/subscriber for 20 years. Subscribers will pay for the network over time as part of their monthly bill and the town will own it at the end of that term. The fixes to the town’s poles and licensing right of way will still need to be paid for by taxpayers, as would have been the case in the suggested white space deployment but to a lesser extent.

Concerned citizens who attend the 2014 town meeting will recall there was a discussion regarding the new municipal light plant (MLP) and its first order of business to better understand the state’s legal requirements particularly as they require a more formal bid selection process. Town Manager John Lebeaux addressed that issue by saying if the law requires a public bidding processes then the MLP will be legally required to solicit more bids.

The price quoted by Matrix/Millenium is certainly in line with similar projects that are ongoing elsewhere in the Commonwealth, particularly in the western region. Given the strong resistance in town to any increase in taxes, requesting a bond for the town of over $4 million has a non-zero probability of failing. If there was a better deal to be had, the town is not in a position fiscally or politically to take advantage of it.

Impact on real estate sales misunderstood

The writer incorrectly suggests that a ‘wired’ network is simply too expensive and will burden the town for generations and make our homes unsellable. The PBC, with input from area realtors, has always claimed that our homes are becoming less sellable by the year without the Internet connection people in our region need and expect. Moreover, ‘wiring’ the town with fiber could provide the town and Matrix/Millenium opportunities for revenue to help pay for the network from other than the subscribers. Sometimes the cost of doing nothing or of staying the course is much more expensive than acting, especially in a 21st century town that has no cable service and is ‘unserved’ for internet completely surrounded by towns that do. Let us not look a gift horse in the mouth, especially the one that is also the fastest.

Fiber is built for generations to come

According to the FCC’s technical paper entitled The Broadband Availability Gap, “As broadband needs continue to grow, fiber emerges as the only last-mile technology capable of meeting ultra high-speed needs. So, any solution that brings fiber closer to the home by pushing it deeper into the network puts into place an infrastructure that has long-term strategic benefits.”

Fiber optic in residential broadband applications is established and ubiquitous; running 90 percent of the entire Internet, including the technology that lets cable companies provide those blazing fast CATV services over their coaxial network. Bandwidth over fiber has improved continuously over time and researchers pushing the limits still see about one million times more data bandwidth capability than is currently being used.

The Princeton Broadband Committee welcomes all comments and suggestions relating to this issue, which we will address via this website.


Wireless Technology Not the Answer for Princeton

From the Speak Out section of the Landmark

In response to Edwin Carlson’s July 17 Speak Out about wireless and “faster horses,’’ sometimes engineers over think the solution and end up with a product that really doesn’t solve a problem.

Carlson refers to a quote attributed to Henry Ford implying that using fiber optic technology to deliver Internet service to Princeton is relying too much on the same old-style technology rather than embracing the newest fad technology.

If Henry Ford had really thought too hard, he might have designed a vehicle that ran underground (like a mole car) rather than on surface roads because the shortest route between two places is to tunnel through the ground instead of over the curvature of the Earth.

In 1984, Princeton embraced new, green technology and installed windmills to generate electricity. Maybe that was a good idea, maybe not. I wasn’t living here then. Then we replaced those windmills with much more expensive windmills. Maybe that was a really bad idea because the business model for wind is still not profitable (or in our case doesn’t even break even.)

In 2006, the Princeton Municipal Light Department installed a new-style wireless based Internet system. It never worked well. Many houses in town were too remote or out of the line of sight of the towers and the entire system was overloaded from the beginning. The system Carlson pins his hopes on has engineering specifications inferior even to the existing PMLD net system.

Wouldn’t it be nice to use a technology that is completely proven to be reliable and able to handle almost any future need rather than try another fad that is a bad fit for our needs?

A wireless solution is great for an area like a city where lots of different people are moving around, going between bars and restaurants and public transportation. Most of these people are walking around with tiny phone screens checking email or getting directions. That doesn’t require much bandwidth.

This is not Princeton. People are in their houses for the most part. In the house, the need for bandwidth is much greater. While

I work remotely, connected to the office computers, my wife could video chat with a cousin, kids connect with their friends over a gaming console or research and submit a school report using the greatest information repository ever available to humanity. Then when work is done, stream one, two or four movies, keeping everyone happy.

For the few open gathering spaces in town (i.e. Krashes field, the town common and the school ballfield) a small, reliable WiFi system installed at each location and connected to the town Internet would be a perfect, costeffective solution.

Fiber optic technology is the single most successful communication technology in the past 50 years. The same physical fibers have been in use for decades and researchers are still striving to find the limit of its capability. Verizon FIOS serves more than five million people. Other fiber optic systems service thousands of businesses, including large parts of the cable and phone systems. And fiber is how cell towers and other wireless systems are connected.

Someday electricity will be beamed into our houses too (Nikola Tesla even demonstrated it more than 100 years ago) but for now we still need wires for electricity and we need wires (or fiber) for the Internet. Please don’t make the same mistake again and hope that some newfangled solution will work. We’ve made that mistake too many times.

Finally, Mr. Carlson mentions there is only one bidder in the plan to bring wired Internet to Princeton. He is correct, there is only one proposal, but one that is backed by $4 million dollars of corporate money, relieving a significant taxpayer burden. Other proposals may indeed be forthcoming as the newly formed MLP works through the legal requirements regarding the bidding procedure.

Light up Princeton now.

“Strict Data Rationing”: Why LTE Wireless Is Not a Broadband Alternative

The obvious problem with the LTE-fixed replacement approach is the use case…The highest data package available from both operators is 30GB per month, which is already below the mean average level of fixed broadband usage in the USA…Analysys Mason argues that LTE in developed economies can play only a very limited role in the supply of fixed broadband – confined to particularly hard-to-reach areas and even then with strict data rationing.

LTE not a fixed broadband replacement: analyst, Mybroadband.com