A Rationale for Decentralized Broadband Infrastructure

In order to understand what a national decentralized broadband infrastructure is, as opposed to a national centralized broadband infrastructure, the following rationale is offered:

There are those who equate a national broadband infrastructure to previous models of national infrastructure, such as electricity and water. It is expensive to produce and transport electricity and water to the citizens. Facilities are needed, operations require technical expertise, and maintenance is expensive. Some think our telecommunications needs also require a centralized approach in order to build, operate and maintain an infrastructure that is reliable and state-of-the-art. To that end, the models for providing our present and future telecommunications needs might best be a variation on previous models that relied on the private sector, local cooperatives, or municipally owned and operated utilities. On the other hand, there is one other option to consider, and it is unique to the telecommunications industry.

Technology advancements in the area of telecommunications, today, makes it possible to create wireless mesh networks that extend hundreds of feet. In my home, I have purchased a $50 Meraki unit, and plugged it into my wall socket. I can send data and receive data from any device in and around my home. It requires no technical expertise for me to operate and maintain this wireless mesh network I have created. Reasonably priced devices enable computers and related devices to "see" each other across distances that exceed two kilometers. The One Laptop Per Child project produces laptop computers that children can use in Third World countries that enable the children to communicate or "see" all other computers within a range of two kilometers, and connect with them to collaborate on their school studies. In San Francisco, the Meraki project is literally building a decentralized broadband infrastructure that will eventually enable anyone within the city limits to connect to any other computer within the network, and enjoy broadband speeds upwards of 1Mbps. This level of broadband access makes it possible to engage in activities ranging from participating in telemedicine programs to virtual town hall meetings, whether one has a laptop computer, iPhone, or other device that has audio and video capabilities. The San Francisco Meraki project is based on a $50 Meraki unit that establishes a point of entry in the broadband infrastructure, and is owned (purchased by an individual) and plugged into a wall socket.

The broadband infrastructure that is established in San Francisco is comparable to similar centralized broadband infrastructure models being offered by telecommunications companies, but there are distinct advantages to the decentralized model. For starters, the broadband speeds are tenfold greater or more than what is offered by centralized models, which also charge exhorbitant prices for access. Secondly, the decentralized broadband infrastructure does not require middlemen that act as Internet Service Providers, outside of their role of providing Internet access. In other words, if there was no Internet access available, the broadband infrastructure would still permit the citizens to engage in production and broadcast of local live, interactive digital tv talk shows, local live, interactive digital radio shows, town hall meetings, local live concert events, local VoIP communications, a "last mile solution" for schools to allow the students to reach their school network, in order to complete multimedia homework assignments from their homes in evenings and on weekends. With coordination between adjoining communities, the San Francisco broadband infrastructure will eventually participate in a regional broadband infrastructure, thus eventually connecting with communities throughout the state of California and into neighboring states, and with time, across the United States.

There is no owner of a decentralized broadband infrastructure. The simplicity of the decentralized national broadband infrastructure relies on volunteers to monitor, operate and maintain the broadband infrastructure, rather than employees working for an owner. Each community will decide how best to structure their community's broadband infrastructure to best meet its unique needs. One community might decide it is best if there are strategically placed "nodes" that are solar powered, in order to allow for electrical power outages. Another community might decide it is important to maintain local Internet access for its citizens, and put out a RFP to telecommunications providers who will pay the city to gain access to the community decentralized broadband infrastructure and offer value-added Internet services for the citizens. Hospitals will bid to gain access to the community decentralized broadband infrastructure to offer telemedicine programs to the citizens. The monies generated from such contracts will enable the decentralized broadband infrastructure to expand and improve its equipment and range of participation.

Communities, large and small, are able to establish affordable decentralized broadband infrastructures for their communities, without reliance on local technical experts. In Ypsilanti, Michigan, the Meraki units are utilized, and the decentralized broadband infrastructure is monitored, operated and maintained by two volunteers, using their laptops. The first unit was plugged in, the local decentralized broadband infrastructure was established, and from that point forward, with just a $50 investment by someone in the community, the expansion and improvement is being accomplished on a pay-as-you-go basis. When completed, Ypsilanti will also have a 21st century indigenous resource it can use to leverage reasonable wholesale pricing for Internet access for its citizens.

A decentralized broadband infrastructure requires no capital investment by local governments. However, without the support of community leaders, decentralized broadband infrastructure will not happen in today's corporate controlled world. For example, the mayor of Charles City, James Erb, when presented with a local decentralized broadband infrastructure proposal dedicated to a specific need to provide the students of Charles City, Iowa with a "last mile solution" so they could access their school network, rejected the proposal. He decided the kids did not need a shot at a 21st century education, for, as he put it, he talked to Qwest, the regional phone monopoly, and they told him they would not permit the intiative to go forward. The governor of Iowa, Chester Culver, when presented with a local decentralized broadband infrastructure proposal that might serve as a template for all communities in Iowa, sent a similar letter in response, cautioning that he did not want me to do anything illegal.

I suspect there are many local and state officials who continue to be bamboozled by the telecommunications monopolies. There is a cost to such a position of rejecting affordable national decentralized broadband infrastructure proposals. The research institute, Connectednation.org, recently published its first report on the economic impact of not adopting a national broadband infrastructure. Although it was designed to justify the need to adopt a national centralized broadband infrastructure policy, thus enhancing the telecommunications monopolies' chances for moving their profit making strategies forward, the report actually points out how advantageous it would be to consider a national decentralized broadband infrastructure.

The state of Iowa could have adopted a national decentralized broadband infrastructure policy last year. If it had, over 26,000 new jobs would have been added. Over $1.7 billion dollars would have been generated in the state, with most of that money staying and circulating within the state. Most importantly, over 32 million pounds of CO2 emissions would have been cut. So, but for a measly $50 investment by our state's governor, it cost Iowans a pretty penny not to adopt a decentralized broadband infrastructure policy last year.

But, there's more. Since this is the year the United States prepares to switch all telecommunications from analog transmission to digital transmission. In February of 2009, all television, radio, and phone transmissions will switch to digital file data information, be transmitted across the airwaves we own, and through a variety of devices, switched back to voice or video or audio information. Those communities that have a decentralized broadband infrastructure in place will be able to view or listen to all their telecommunications with a number of device choices. The federal government rejected the idea of the president purchasing a $50 Meraki unit, plugging it into a wall socket at the white house, and announcing a decentralized broadband infrastructure policy that called for every house in America to invest in a Meraki unit and expanding the broadband infrastructure that cost the federal government a measly $50. Instead, the federal government has allocated $450 million to assist households in the purchase of devices they plug into their wall socket that will do nothing more than enable the existing tv to receive digital transmissions from the television networks. This allows the major tv networks to continue control of our televisions, and perpetuates an otherwise obsolete business model. But, I digress.

Those communities that have a decentralized broadband infrastructure in place next February will experience revenue generating opportunities not possible, before. On my kitchen table, I have a low-end PIV PC, loaded with audio and video software from Stanford University's Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics. It is freely available, and all technical support and training support is provided free by thousands of volunteers from around the world. My low-end digital recording studio is a lot slower, and it takes a lot longer, but I can produce the same high quality tv and radio shows as the major broadcast networks and major recording studios can produce. I can create CDs, DVDs, public service announcements, live interactive tv talk shows, live interactive radio talk shows, even full-featured films on it. In other words, I have a fully functional PEG channel studio sitting on my kitchen table. The acronym, PEG, stands for public, educational, government channel. You probably heard about these channels in conjunction with communities negotiating a PEG channel facility in return for giving a cable company an exclusive contract to build their cable infrastructure in the community. In April of 2007, the state of Iowa took that negotiating right away from communities, and with it, the communities can expect their PEG channels to stop being funded in the near future. This is typical of what most states have done, and are doing.

Those PEG channel facilities have some interesting opportunities arising in 2009. As all tv and radio shows will be created as digital files, the ability to distribute their shows will become much more affordable. At the same time, they will be able to significantly broaden their audience by utilizing Internet television. One application already available to the world community, Miro.com offers PEG channels the opportunity to place their shows, or "channels" on the Miro site. Today, you can install Miro on your computer, and enjoy over 3,000 channels. This number will jump, starting next year, if not before. Communities with decentralized broadband infrastructure will be able to enjoy local channels produced and available on the network, even without Internet access. Participants in the community will be able to watch live interactive tv talk shows, participate actively by using their webcams and signing onto the network. Town hall meetings will become virtual town hall meetings, watched and directly participating from residents' homes. But, let's run some numbers. Economists will probably get a laugh from my feeble attempt to measure the economic impact the digital switch will make, but the numbers will give them a starting point to contribute some accurate measurements to help us all understand the significance of what is coming, soon.

Suppose a homeless person walks into the local library, and uses the library's digital recording studio to create a CD, makes 100 copies, and sells them to 100 sympathetic passersby for $10 each:
1CD x $10 per CD x 100 sales to sympathetic passersby = $1,000
Now, suppose a nonprofit organization obtains their own digital recording studio, and creates 5CDs, and sells them to 100 donors for each CD created:
5CDs x $10 per CD x 100 sales to donors = $5,000
Now, suppose there are 20 nonprofits in the community:
20 nonprofits x 5CDs x $10 per CD x 100 sales to donors = $100,000
We haven't looked at singer/songwriters, nonprofit multimedia fundraising campaigns, small business marketing campaigns, special events, clubs, churches, schools, local civic groups, even local governmental agencies, all of which will use digital recording studios to create and produce multimedia products to enhance their revenue-generating capabilities on the local level. But, moving on, suppose there are twelve communities within a county, and each community has 20 nonprofits generating $100,000 each year:
12 communities x $100,000 each year = $1,200,000 in new revenues for each county in the state.

Finally, if we recognize that online sales of products created locally, also can expect to be purchased by some who live outside the community online, as evidenced by such sites as Holy Cross Abbey, the state begins to enjoy literally hundreds of millions of dollars in newly created revenues it didn't have last year.

The cost to establish a decentralized broadband infrastructure can be as low as one $50 donation from someone within a community, preferrably its mayor. This signals to the citizens that they're doing the right thing. Once the broadband infrastructure is in place, the community can enjoy telemedicine services, town hall meetings, enhanced police, fire and rescue services, significant savings in city government services, significant opportunities for enhanced health and well-being of the citizens who live in the community, and enhanced attraction for those who might not otherwise consider relocating to the community, not to mention the ability of the community to offer opportunities to their children who might otherwise leave the community and the state when they enter the labor market.