WebProNews

Tag: Broadband

  • FCC Report Shows Rural Communities Still Don’t Have Broadband

    FCC Report Shows Rural Communities Still Don’t Have Broadband

    There was a sign of hope earlier this month. A sign that maybe, just maybe, access to fast and affordable Internet was increasing across the country. It’s true that developed areas are getting access to faster and cheaper Internet, but rural communities are still getting screwed over according to a new report from the FCC.

    The FCC recently wrapped up its annual broadband progress report and published the findings today. There’s a bit of good news to be had, but there’s plenty that needs to be worked on according to the report. There is still a lot of people who have no access to broadband Internet.

    Let’s start with the good news first: the FCC found that more people have access to broadband Internet than last year. They found that 7 million more people in the U.S. now have access to what the FCC considers broadband – 4 Mbps or higher.

    With the addition of 7 million people, 94 percent of Americans now have access to the Internet. Most of those people are getting their access through cable or DSL. Unfortunately, super fast Fiber makes up less than 20 percent of American households, but that number should increase by a bit once Google Fiber launches in Kansas City later this year.

    In other good news, the U.S. is now the global leader in 4G wireless coverage. You can thank the wireless wars in the U.S. for that as all the major carriers are competing to outshine the rest in terms of 4G coverage.

    All good things must come to an end, however, and that’s where the bad news begins. Even with a 7 million increase in broadband access, there are still an estimated 19 million Americans who lack access to basic broadband. It’s important to remind you that the FCC is rather generous in defining broadband at 4 Mbps. It’s kind of sad that people in rural areas can’t even get speeds at which other people take for granted.

    What’s worse is that an alarming 40 percent of people who can purchase broadband choose not to. Why would anybody deny themselves the convenience? The cost or a perception that the Internet isn’t useful to their everyday lives. It’s easy to understand the latter reason, especially for folks who didn’t grow up with the Internet, but it’s a shame that cost is still a factor in the proliferation of broadband.

    The cost is always going to be the biggest obstacle to the spread of broadband throughout the country. The worst part is that the cost isn’t just stopping people from upgrading to broadband from DSL or dial-up, but it’s also preventing people from getting faster Internet. The cost of Internet is still abhorrently expensive. Until prices come down, you’re not going to see the FCC’s goal of 100 million homes with 100 Mbps downstream/50 Mbps upstream become a reality.

    You can read the rest of the FCC report here. It’s a long read, but there’s plenty of good stuff in there about the present state of the Internet in the U.S. It also gives some hope that the situation on cost and availability may be improving. We’ll have to wait until next year’s report to find out.

  • The Internet Is Slowly Getting Faster Around The World

    With the advent of Google Fiber in Kansas City, we’re all now wanting a world with faster Internet. The traditional ISPs in the U.S. are slowly expanding their services, but some may think that they’re not moving fast enough. There’s also the issue of consumers in the U.S. paying way too much for much too little.

    While there is little consolation for our Internet woes, there is some hope in the form of a new study from Akamai. The company published “The State of the Internet Report” and the findings are pretty interesting. The study looks at how the Internet has grown in the world, and in the U.S., in the first quarter of 2012.

    In a bit of sad opening news, the U.S. is not even in the top 10 of global average Internet speeds. The average speed in the U.S. is a paltry 6.7 Mbps. South Korea is obviously the winner with an average speed of 15.7 Mbps. The U.S. shouldn’t feel too bad though as our average speed is actually up 29 percent year-over-year. South Korea’s speed is only up 9.4 percent year-over-year, and actually down 1.5 percent quarter-over-quarter.

    The U.S. fairs much better when looking at the peak Internet speeds. The U.S. is in eighth place with a peak speed of 28.7 Mbps. Hong Kong takes the top spot this time with a peak speed of 49.3 Mbps. South Korea is not far behind though with a peak speed of 47.8 Mbps. It’s important to note that the U.S. is once again growing in this area with 35 percent growth year-over-year.

    The best news for the U.S. is the growth of high broadband, which Akimai defines as having a connection of 10 Mbps or higher. Fifteen percent of U.S. citizens are at that high broadband mark which doesn’t seem like much. The growth tells an entirely different story, however, with 95 percent growth year-over-year. Unfortunately, South Korea has to win again with 53 percent of their citizens being at high broadband. Their growth is also higher at 97 percent year-over-year.

    Things get really interesting when you look at the U.S. on a state-by-state basis. Delaware has the fastest average speed in the country with an average of 10.2 Mbps. That’s an increase of 58 percent year-over-year. Washington state brings up the rear with an average speed of 7.9 Mbps.

    Delaware leads the pack again in peak connection speeds of 43.4 Mbps. It’s an increase of 44 percent year-over-year. Unlike the global peak connection speeds, there is no real correlation to the average connection speeds. Much of the peak connection speeds actually come from the Northeast with states like Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Massachusetts making up most of the list.

    The Northeast wins again when it comes to the adoption of high broadband. Delaware is the winner again with 33 percent of its citizens having access to Internet at 10 Mbps or higher. The rest of the list is populated by Northeastern states except for Washington state bringing up the rear with 21 percent adoption.

    As for regular broadband adoption of over 4 Mbps, the Northeast is the winner again. An amazing 92 percent of Delaware residents have Internet over 4 Mbps with the lowest being only 68 percent in the District of Columbia. The growth at this point is slower though with Delaware only seeing growth of 14 percent year-over-year.

    So what does this all mean? The Internet is getting faster around the world. The U.S. is actually increasing its average speed by a lot, but there’s still a lot of work to be done. It’s pretty pitiful that nobody outside of the Northeast, sans Washington state, is represented in the state breakdown.

    Regardless, it’s a good sign that the Internet and speed are both growing throughout the U.S. and the world. It may not be growing as fast as we want it to, but it’s there. If Google brings Fiber outside of Kansas City, the U.S. might be able to better compete with the world. It will at least be interesting to see if Kansas or Missouri shows up on this report once Google Fiber launches. A few thousand homes with 1 Gbps connections might help even the odds.

    If you want to see the report in full with breakdowns of all the major global markets, check out the study on Akimai’s Web site. It should be pointed out that they do require you to register with them to check out the study.

  • Study Finds That You Are Still Paying Too Much For Internet

    It’s a sad fact that Americans pay more for Internet than other developed nations. There are multiple reasons as to why we pay too much for Internet and we went into a few of those reasons over the weekend. A new study from the New America Foundation has confirmed that Americans are indeed paying too much for Internet.

    The report, “The Cost of Connectivity,” compared high-speed Internet offerings in 22 cities around the world by price, download and upload speed, and bundled services. The most important finding in the report is how much $35 gets a consumer in these cities. The results may surprise you.

    Consumers in Paris, France can get a bundle that includes 100 Mbps Internet, television and phone for about $35. In Lafayette, LA, which the study bills as a “top American city,” the cheapest Internet package available costs $65 and only includes a 6 Mbps connection. That’s a bundle, however, and much of the cost probably comes from the bundled in television service.

    When we go into just Internet, it gets really sad. Hong Kong residents can get symmetrical download and upload speeds of 500 Mbps for $37 a month. For the same price, Washington D.C. and New York residents get speeds that are a fraction of what our friends in China get (25 Mbps download/2Mbps upload).

    Speaking to Ars Technica, a member of the New America Foundation, Benjamin Lennett, says that one of the problems is a “really flawed assumption that telephone companies and cable companies are going to compete with each other.” He says that these companies are actually working under a “negotiated truce” that sees them respecting each other’s territory while setting up monopolies in cities.

    As for solutions, Lennett points to what the city of Longmont is doing – buying up fiber and selling residents Internet. The introduction of Google as an ISP should also have the same effect of driving prices down with competition.

    In its defense, Verizon argued that it’s unfair to compare Internet speeds of American cities to foreign cities. In a response to Ars Technica, a company spokesperson said that the study is flawed because it only looks at cities. The speeds in countries like China dramatically drop once one leaves the cities.

    Of course, for that argument, we only have to look at states with large rural populations. The city gets fast Internet for a decent price whereas consumers out in the rural parts of the state are stuck with slow Internet for higher prices. It’s the same situation around the world with the cities getting the better deal while those in rural communities are left high and dry. Even then, it’s still surprising to see cities in foreign countries getting a better deal than their U.S. counterparts.

  • $200 Million Raised for Gigabit-Per-Second Broadband Initiative

    $200 Million Raised for Gigabit-Per-Second Broadband Initiative

    A startup in Ohio called Gigabit Squared has raised roughly $200 million to fund a gigabit-per-second broadband initiative involving six universities across the U.S.

    Gigabit Squared has called upon the the University Community Next Generation Innovation Project (Gig.U), which consists of 30 universities, to tap the 6 communities to develop the ultra-fast broadband networks. Blair Levin, executive director of Gig.U, commenting on the ample funding, “yes, America needs an upgrade, and that, yes, there are investors and innovators willing to step up to get it done.” The project will be known as The Gigabit Neighborhood Gateway Program, and will be the first multi-community broadband gigabit deployment in the U.S.

    Each Gigabit Neighborhood Gateway Program project will consist of:

    – The use of underutilized network assets and capacity and local investment to drive services and unlock long-term value and sustainability,
    – A framework to create new capacity and spur development, including community service applications that promote better health, education and community services,
    – Previously unavailable speed and bandwidth,
    – Digital economic development strategies to aggregate revenues and lower the overall costs of scaling gigabit-broadband, and
    – A future-state network that will serve as a platform for innovation, next generation application development, workforce development and job creation.

    Mark Ansboury, president of Gigabit Squared, states, “The Stimulus Funding was a great jumpstart to get broadband initiatives on track in the U.S. But it is just a starting point – In order to realize true economic revitalization, we’re urging our national and community leaders to think and act in more creative ways. And we’re backing those efforts with significant investment of our.”

    In related news, the National Association of Broadcasters has recently given the FCC and Google the go-ahead in moving forward with white spaces, which are unused television bands that can be used for ultra-fast wifi connections.

  • FCC Chairman Supports Usage-Based Broadband Pricing

    FCC Chairman Supports Usage-Based Broadband Pricing

    You probably remember the early days of the internet’s growth and popularity in the 1990s, when more and more people were getting computers with dial-up modems and people were still figuring out the etiquette of email. Back then, a lot of us had limited internet plans. You paid a fee per month for a certain amount of internet time. Just as with cell phone plans nowadays, people with such plans worried about going over their internet minutes and being charged extra for it. Within a few years, though, unlimited plans were all the rage. Now you could spend as much time as you wanted on the internet without worrying about going over your minutes.

    Then came broadband, and since unlimited dial-up plans were so popular, the service providers kept them in place as broadband proliferated. Now not only could we spend as much time as we wanted on the internet, we could do all the stuff we wanted a whole lot faster. In recent years, though, the advent of streaming video has made internet service providers wonder whether unlimited internet for all is really the best way to go. Companies like Comcast and Time Warner have recently begun experimenting with usage-based pricing and data caps. While such moves allow the providers to squeeze more revenue out of their broadband internet offerings, they are immensely unpopular with subscribers, who have gotten too accustomed to the all-you-can-eat internet buffet to be happy about having caps put on how much they can consume.

    Now, though, it looks like usage-based pricing has a new ally. Speaking at the annual meeting of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association – “The Cable Show,” as the conference is called – FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski voiced support for usage-based internet pricing. Such a model, he said, would “help drive efficiency in the networks” while also promoting competition among providers and being more fair to users.

    While Genachowski may be right about usage-based pricing and its potential to be fairer to users and drive competition, the adoption of limited internet plans raises potential issues for so-called cord cutters. People who have scaled back or eliminated their traditional cable television plans in favor of using services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Instand Video to get the bulk of their television content. Cord cutters rely on their internet connection for entertainment more than most. With the cable companies (and other content providers) wary of cord cutters and what they represent, there is a very real possibility that the cable companies could use usage-based pricing as a means of squeezing extra money out of customers who have abandoned the companies’ traditional cable offerings.

  • NAB Backs Off on TV Broadband Objections

    NAB Backs Off on TV Broadband Objections

    Back in 2010, it was reported that the FCC and Google had been working with moving forward with white spaces, which are unused television bands that can be used for ultra-fast wifi connections. The National Association of Broadcasters had objected to this, citing that using prime spectrum white spaces for broadband internet connectivity might interfere with existing television broadcasts. Now the NAB has withdrawn its legal objection, further clearing the way for a white spaces rollout.

    In 2009, the NAB sued the FCC over white spaces, stating that the program “will have a direct adverse impact on NAB’s members because it will allow harmful interference with reception of their broadcast signals.” The white spaces have been historically used as a buffer to prevent interfering signals. But then on Thursday, NAB withdrew its own lawsuit, citing that the FCC had adjusted to the interference concerns. The Wireless Innovation Alliance calls the legal green light a “major step forward,” and states that the “NAB should be congratulated for withdrawing its court challenge to the FCC’s white space order.”

    The remaining white spaces hurdles are primarily technical – a method of tracking where and when white spaces are available for internet use is being put together, on a market by market basis. Databases are presently being built to coordinate the locations.

    I’d recently reported on a new patent that was secured by Google, surrounding the ability to auction wireless network services. Perhaps the new patent pertains to the white spaces network, to where broadband signals would fluctuate in availability in regards to time and place.

  • South Korea Has (Much) Faster Internet Than You

    South Korea Has (Much) Faster Internet Than You

    Soon after Google ranked South Korea as having the second-fastest desktop internet and the fastest mobile internet in the world, a new study has been released that corroborates those accolades.

    Akamai, a cloud platform enterprise that keeps a close eye on these things, released its Fourth Quarter, 2011 State of the Internet report today, announcing that South Korea has both the highest average connection speed and highest average peak connection speed. In fact, even if you don’t mind to settle for an internet speed slightly slower than the best, 69 of the top 100 fastest internet cities are in the Asia Pacific – and 61 one of them are in Japan (!!!). As you can see in the table from Akamai’s interact data map illustrating the findings from the report, South Korea is topping out at over 17Mbps.

    South Korea Fastest Internet

    Part of the reason that South Korea’s internet is dusting the rest of the world is because it’s also the highest ranked country in high broadband adoption, with 83% of the country’s internet connections above 5Mbps. Just for larfs, here’s a comparison of South Korea with the country I live, the United States.

    South Korea Fastest Internet

    The United States, as it were, has a 43% adoption rate to high broadband connections. Given I don’t really feel like I have to wait around all that long to load a webpage or even stream a movie from Netflix over my DSL line, I can only imagine how corpse-fast South Koreans would think the internet here is in my neck of the woods.

    Given that South Korea’s internet is so much faster, one imagines that they spend a lot less time waiting for pages to load (or download files in general), so therefore they should have a lot more extra time. Anybody wanna speculate on what they must do with all that extra time? (I’m wagering that they just use more internet with that time.)

    [Via CNET.)

  • Verizon-Cable Deal Raises Major Concerns, According to Public Knowledge

    The dispute over Verizon Wireless’s bid to buy spectrum from several cable companies is still going strong even after last week’s hearing that attempted to answer some of the questions about it. As WebProNews previously reported, Verizon Wireless, in December, announced a deal to purchase unused airwaves from Comcast, Time Warner, Bright House Communications, and Cox Communications for nearly $3.6 billion dollars.

    Opposition over the deal, however, appears to be growing. Public Knowledge and a number of other public interest groups as well as wireless carriers including Sprint and T-Mobile, have been very vocal in their concerns over the agreement. In February, they even filed a petition to deny the transfer and its additional agreements.

    In the petition, the groups wrote:

    “It does not take the celebratory plaudits of Wall Street analysts to recognize that these proposed transactions would fundamentally alter the nature of the telecommunications world in a manner utterly contrary to that intended by the 1996 Telecommunications Act. In the first place, Applicants have agreed to transfer more spectrum to the largest wireless operator, aggravating existing anticompetitive problems with spectrum aggregation. In addition, Applicants have agreed to three critical side agreements bearing on each other’s businesses that give rise to serious concern that not only will these providers decline to compete further with one another, they will actively collude with one another.”

    Art Brodsky, Communications Director at Public Knowledge These groups fear the deal would give Verizon too much power and thus harm competition and consumers. In a recent interview with Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge, he told us that, during the debate surrounding AT&T’s bid to buy T-Mobile, which, of course, didn’t happen, Verizon had said it didn’t need anymore spectrum for the foreseeable future. Now, the company’s view seems to have changed since it has argued that the deal should go through to avoid a “spectrum crunch.”

    “What you have in this deal is some really prime spectrum going to the largest carrier, which already has more than anybody else,” said Brodsky.

    Last week’s hearing from the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee tried to determine if the consortium of cable companies had reached out to other carriers before Verizon. But, Brodsky told us that the topic was left unanswered.

    “The bigger is getting bigger, and the smaller is fading away because they’re not able to have access to the raw material of wireless, which is spectrum,” he said.

    In addition to the spectrum aspect, the deal would also include a joint-marketing agreement that, according to Brodsky would have “all sorts of implications for competition, none of which are good.” Specifically, this area would enable Verizon to sell cable’s high-speed Web product, while also allowing the cable companies to sell Verizon’s product.

    At last week’s hearing, Senator Herb Kohl, who is the chair of the antitrust subcommittee, asked Verizon and the cable companies if they were calling a “truce” and standing down as rivals. He expressed concern that the deal would undo the progress that had been made in regards to competition over the past several years.

    “There’s absolutely no incentive for Verizon, the cable company, to build out or improve its data product because its affiliate is gonna be selling Comcast or Bright House or Time Warner,” said Brodsky.

    He went on to say that it would also decrease competition via FiOS. Also, since most places don’t have FiOS, he said that the majority of consumers would either have very slow copper-based DSL or cable options, since Verizon doesn’t plan on further build-out of the platform.

    Another point of contention with the deal is the “Joint Operating Agreement,” which has been nicknamed “JOE.” According to Verizon and the cable companies, the agreement is a research project. Those in opposition, however, believe that it could lead to anti-competitive measures.

    As Brodsky explained, JOE would allow the companies to create new technology and thus control this new innovation. He, and others, believes that JOE could also give Verizon and the cable companies the power to determine whether or not other players could integrate or adopt them.

    “They could keep it to themselves, they could license it at exorbitant fees, [and] they could act in all sorts of anti-competitive ways,” he said.

    Since the deal has received a large outcry of opposition, the FCC and the Department of Justice are still investigating the agreements. Brodsky told us that, while he is hopeful that it won’t be approved, he is pessimistic about it given antitrust cases of late.

    Incidentally, Rick Rule, who was the lead attorney for Microsoft in the DOJ’s antitrust case against it, testified at last week’s hearing and predicted that it would be approved.

    “A transaction that takes assets that are producing zero and is going to put the assets in hands of a company that is going to generate some output from those assets is by definition not a violation of the antitrust laws,” he said.

    Do you think the deal will be approved? Could you see it impacting consumers positively or negatively? Let us know.

  • NetZero to Offer Free Wireless Broadband Service

    United Online Inc. will offer wireless broadband service under its brand NetZero. They’re the ones who first offered free dial-up in the late nineties, only this plan won’t come with a lot of advertisements to balance the price tag.

    But there are plenty of catches. Customers will be required to purchase a $50 antenna or a $100 mobile hotspot to plug into their laptop. The free accounts are limited to 200 MB per month, not much in this day and age. It’s fine if you only plan to read e-mails and surf the web, just don’t plan on watching too many videos. And the service only lasts a year.

    When the monthly data allotment or the one year time limit is exhausted, customers have the option of continuing for a modest price hike of $9.95… Now it’s starting to make sense.

    NetZero is planning to use the free service to draw people into their paid program, and the kicker is once you opt into the paid version there is no going back.

    The $9.95 plan gives you 300 more megabytes, or you can go for broke with the $50 plan, giving you 4 gigabytes. Similar programs are offer by Verizon and AT&T. Verizon charges about $50 for 1 gigabyte.

    Though there is a catch with this as well. United Online doesn’t have its own wireless broadband service. They have to piggyback on Clearwire Corp.’s network. You may know them as the providers of “Sprint 4G” service.

    And there’s more. Clearwire’s broadband technology has been bypassed by the industry at large, making device compatibility an issue. The reason is that the frequency it uses has difficulty traveling through buildings. Sprint bypasses this by using a fallback option when signal strength is low. NetZero doesn’t have that option. What’s more, Clearwire is no longer expanding this service, choosing to invest its money in 4G LTE.

    So if you don’t mind using an already outdated service, never using your computer inside, purchasing $50 worth of equipment for a “free” service, and only having enough data to read e-mails, this service is for you. I will be paying a little extra for full service.

  • AT&T Threatens Man Who Won Small Claims Lawsuit

    AT&T Threatens Man Who Won Small Claims Lawsuit

    Late last month we brought you the story of Matt Spaccarelli, the iPhone user who sued AT&T in small claims court for throttling his “unlimited” data connection after around 2GB of data use (which, for the record, is less data than those who pay for AT&T’s top-level limited data plan). A California judge ordered AT&T to pay Spaccarelli $850 for failing to deliver on their claim that they are the fastest 3G network and that Spaccarelli’s plan was unlimited.

    Thanks to a Supreme Court ruling last year upholding a clause in AT&T’s customer contract, customers are not allowed to take AT&T to jury trials or bring class action lawsuits. Arbitration and small claims court are the only options left to disgruntled customers. Knowing that, Spaccarelli published a guide via PublikDemand, a consumer advocacy site, showing other throttled AT&T users how to duplicate his small claims victory.

    This, as you might expect, does not appear to be sitting well with AT&T. Last week the company sent Spaccarelli a letter in which they reminded him that they had the right to terminate his service completely (he admitted to tethering his iPhone without a tethering plan, which violates AT&T’s customer agreement). They stressed, however, that they are “interested in hearing any concerns you would like to raise about AT&T,” and that they wanted to “reach a mutually agreeable resolution of these issues.” A key feature of that mutually agreeable solution, however, is an agreement that “the conversations will be kept private and confidential.” In other words, AT&T wants Spaccarelli to enter into a non-disclosure agreement, whereby (no doubt) he will be required to stop telling other AT&T customers how to beat the company in small claims court. The full letter can be read in PDF form here.

    I sent AT&T a request for comment about this situation. I asked whether they had appealed the decision or paid Spaccarelli the $850 awarded by the courts (or planned to do either), whether his plan was still being throttled, and whether the request for a non-disclosure agreement really had more to do with wanting to make sure he didn’t tell other customers how to beat AT&T in small claims court. As yet there has not been a response.

    What do you think? Is AT&T really interested in a settlement, or are they just trying to shut Spaccarelli up? How would you respond in a situation like this? Let us know in the comments.

  • New Light Tech Could Speed Computing, Phones 1000X

    Communication technologies including smartphones and laptops could now be 1,000 times faster.

    A University of Pittsburgh team has generated a frequency comb with more than a 100 terahertz bandwidth as a means to process communications data at a remarkably rapid speed.

    Many of the communication tools of today rely on the function of light or, more specifically, on applying information to a light wave. Up until now, studies on electronic and optical devices with materials that are the foundations of modern electronics—such as radio, TV, and computers—have generally relied on nonlinear optical effects, producing devices whose bandwidth has been limited to the gigahertz (GHz) frequency region. Thanks to research performed at the University of Pittsburgh, a physical basis for terahertz bandwidth—the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum between infrared and microwave light—has now been demonstrated.

    In a paper published March 4 in Nature Photonics, Hrvoje Petek, a professor of physics and chemistry in Pitt’s Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences, and his colleague Muneaki Hase, a professor of applied physics at the University of Tsukuba in Japan and a visiting scientist in Petek’s lab, detail their success in generating a frequency comb—dividing a single color of light into a series of evenly spaced spectral lines for a variety of uses—that spans a more than 100 terahertz bandwidth by exciting a coherent collective of atomic motions in a semiconductor silicon crystal.

    “The ability to modulate light with such a bandwidth could increase the amount of information carried by more than 1,000 times when compared to the volume carried with today’s technologies,” says Petek. “Needless to say, this has been a long-awaited discovery in the field.”

    To investigate the optical properties of a silicon crystal, Petek and his team investigated the change in reflectivity after excitation with an intense laser pulse. Following the excitation, the team observed that the amount of reflected light oscillates at 15.6 THz, the highest mechanical frequency of atoms within a silicon lattice. This oscillation caused additional change in the absorption and reflection of light, multiplying the fundamental oscillation frequency by up to seven times to generate the comb of frequencies extending beyond 100 THz. Petek and his team were able to observe the production of such a comb of frequencies from a crystalline solid for the first time.

    “Although we expected to see the oscillation at 15.6 THz, we did not realize that its excitation could change the properties of silicon in such dramatic fashion,” says Petek. “The discovery was both the result of developing unique instrumentation and incisive analysis by the team members.”

    Petek notes the team’s achievements are the result of developing experimental and theoretical tools to better understand how electrons and atoms interact in solids under intense optical excitation and of the invested interest by Pitt’s Dietrich School in advanced instrumentation and laboratory infrastructure.

    The team is currently investigating the coherent oscillation of electrons, which could further extend the ability of harnessing light-matter interactions from the terahertz- to the petahertz-frequency range. Petahertz is a unit of measure for very fast frequencies (1 quadrillion hertz).

    This research was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation.

    For more information on Petek’s research, visit www.ultrafast.phyast.pitt.edu/Home.html.

  • iPhone User Wins Throttling Suit Against AT&T

    iPhone User Wins Throttling Suit Against AT&T

    Earlier this month we reported that AT&T was throttling the data connections of customers who still had the old unlimited data plan and used more than 2 gigabytes of data per month. The practice struck many as unfair, since users who were paying for unlimited data were not only getting their connection throttled, but were actually getting less data usage than those who were paying less money per month for AT&T’s 3GB data plan.

    Earlier this week, we reported that some users were seeing their throttled data connections return to normal. Discussion forum posts suggested that AT&T might be relaxing its chokehold on the data connections of the top 5% of data users who it apparently saw as a threat to the company’s network. As part of that article I sent an email to AT&T requesting comment. Though AT&T had not replied by the time the story ran, a representative did get back to me later that evening. His response, however, was to decline to comment.

    Now it seems that there may have been something behind the relaxation of data throttling. It seems a court in California has just ruled against AT&T. When Matt Spaccarelli found that his unlimited data connection was being throttled after 1.5-2GB of data traffic, he took AT&T to small claims court. The Ventura Superior Court found that AT&T had wronged Spaccarelli by selling him an “unlimited” data plan and then not delivering. The court awarded him $850.

    There is no word on what AT&T’s response to this ruling will be. I sent AT&T another request for comment and asked whether AT&T would continue to throttle data connections for users paying for unlimited plans. As of now there has been no response.

  • Google Gets Into the TV Business

    Back in March of 2011, Google announced that it was getting into the broadband business:

    As part of our overall goal to make the web better for users, last year we announced a new project: to provide a community with Internet access more than 100 times faster than what most Americans have today. The response was overwhelming—nearly 1,100 cities felt the need for speed—and we were thrilled by the enthusiasm we saw across the country for better and faster web connections. Thank you to every community and individual that submitted a response, joined a rally, starred in a YouTube video or otherwise participated.

    After a careful review, today we’re very happy to announce that we will build our ultra high-speed network in Kansas City, Kansas. We’ve signed a development agreement with the city, and we’ll be working closely with local organizations, businesses and universities to bring a next-generation web experience to the community.

    Pending approval from the city’s Board of Commissioners, we plan to offer service beginning in 2012. We’ll also be looking closely at ways to bring ultra high-speed Internet to other cities across the country.

    Over the past decade, the jump from dial-up to broadband has led to streaming online video, digital music sales, video conferencing over the web and countless other innovations that have transformed communication and commerce. We can’t wait to see what new products and services will emerge as Kansas City moves from traditional broadband to ultra high-speed fiber optic connections.

    Now, that aforementioned 2012 is here. And Kansas City is not only getting broadband, they’re getting Google TV, if the state approves their application. According to a report in The Wall Street Journal:

    “Google could launch its TV service as soon as a month or two from now, according to a media executive currently involved in negotiations to license channels to the service. The service would offer subscribers live TV, as well as on-demand and online access to TV channels, similar to services from major cable operators, this person said.

    While the plan for now is restricted to Kansas City, this person said Google had discussed expanding it to other markets that Verizon Communications Inc. hasn’t entered with its FiOS fiber-optic TV service. It remains unclear whether Google intends to do so, but it would have that right under at least some of the deals it is currently negotiating with TV channels, this person said.

    Earlier this month Google said it had begun laying fiber-optic cables in Kansas City, Mo., and neighboring Kansas City, Kan., that would provide Internet service at competitive rates to local residents but at speeds more than 100 times as fast as what is available today.”

  • AT&T Lightening Up On Data Throttling?

    AT&T Lightening Up On Data Throttling?

    Earlier this month we brought you news that AT&T had started throttling the data streams of certain smartphone users. Those who had managed to hang onto AT&T’s now-defunct unlimited data plans were reportedly having their connections throttled after 2.1 gigabytes of data usage per month. This practice raised quite a few eyebrows, since those who still have the unlimited data plan actually pay more per month than those who have the company’s more recent 3 GB data plan. Thanks to the throttling, unlimited users were paying more per month for less data than those who have the 3 GB plan.

    Now it looks as though AT&T may have relaxed the throttling a bit. According to recent posts in a discussion forum thread on data throttling, several users with previously throttled connections were reporting that their data speeds had returned to normal. One reported that streaming video and music services were now working as they should, and several posted images from the Speedtest.net app that showed decent 3G connection speeds.

    It is unclear whether this apparent relaxation is network wide, only in certain markets, or only with certain users. I sent a message to AT&T asking for clarification, but have not yet received a response.

    Throttled data users, have you seen any improvement in your data speeds? Does AT&T have any business throttling the connections of customers who pay for unlimited plans in the first place? Sound off in the comments.

  • Payroll Tax Cut Bill Comes With Spectrum Auction Funding

    Payroll Tax Cut Bill Comes With Spectrum Auction Funding

    Today, Washington passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, extending the Payroll Tax Cut and unemployment benefits. Part of this was the authorization of the FCC to auction off wireless spectrum, which was proposed in the National Broadband Plan, introduced in 2010.

    Essentially, broadcasters with spectrum to spare forfeit the extra, and get some of the money the auctions generate.

    CTIA – The Wireless Association President and CEO Steve Largent issued the following statement:

    “For more than three years, CTIA and its members have been advocating for more spectrum so America’s wireless industry can remain the world’s leader in the deployment of advanced wireless services. Today’s bipartisan vote to pass the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, which includes provisions to make a substantial swath of spectrum available for commercial use, represents an important step toward meeting the industry’s spectrum needs.

    “We are grateful to Representatives Upton, Walden, Waxman and Eshoo and Senators Rockefeller and Hutchison for their leadership throughout this process. Their dedication and focus were paramount to securing the bipartisan and bicameral support necessary to enact spectrum reform. We also appreciate FCC Chairman Genachowski and the FCC commissioners for their contribution to this effort.

    “Ultimately, today’s vote was a resounding victory for consumers and the American economy. Making spectrum available will make it possible for America’s wireless carriers to offer consumers better, faster, more ubiquitous wireless broadband service. The release of additional spectrum also will spur the investment and job creation that our economy needs.”

    Additionally, CNET shares statements from AT&T and Sprint:

    “This provides procedural safeguards, and also an opportunity for a court challenge,” said Jim Cicconi, head of legislative affairs for AT&T, said in a statement. “We take the FCC Chairman at his word when he says there is no intent to have closed auctions that deny AT&T and other carriers the ability to fairly and fully participate, but we also feel it important that Congress has now made its views clear as well.”

    “Sprint agrees with the Federal Communications Commission that all wireless carriers–small, regional and large–should have a meaningful chance to participate in wireless spectrum auctions,” Vonya B. McCann, senior vice president of Government Affairs for Sprint, said in a statement. “While we didn’t see the need to amend the statute, the compromise language approved by the conferees preserves the FCC’s ability to promote competition as it conducts future wireless spectrum auctions.”

    WebProNews recently interviewed Bruce Mehlman, former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Tech Policy & Co-Chair of the Internet Innovation Alliance. Here’s what he had to say about the auctions:

  • Interview: FCC Lifeline Program – Will the Revamp Solve the Fraud?

    Interview: FCC Lifeline Program – Will the Revamp Solve the Fraud?

    On January 31, the FCC announced a complete overhaul of its Lifeline program. The program has been around for 25 years and is part of the Universal Service Fund. Its purpose was to help low-income families and those that live in rural areas have access to telephone service.

    It began with providing landline telephones but then added cell phones in more recent years. The funding for it comes from a “tax” that’s included in everyone’s monthly phone bill.

    (image) Through the program’s rapid growth over the years, an overhaul was greatly needed, as Larry Downes, a Senior Adjunct Fellow at TechFreedom tells us.

    “There’s general consensus among everyone, including all the commissioners at the FCC, that the Lifeline program has gotten very much out of control and very much sort of veered away from its intended goal,” he said.

    He explained to us that the problems started because there was no cap included. As a result, everyone that was eligible applied, which meant that funds quickly ran out. To fix this, the FCC would simply raise the “tax” on ordinary users.

    “The more people who apply, the more money that everyone else winds up paying on their phone bill every month to subsidize the plan,” said Downes.

    An even greater problem, however, is the fact that the FCC didn’t have any checks and balances in place to monitor fraud or abuse. What this means is many people were getting multiple lifeline subsidies for both landline phones and wireless devices.

    Downes explains that an entire industry was essentially built inside the program, in which groups of people would have the single job of signing up users. Since they didn’t have any equipment and had roaming arrangements with carriers, they were able to make a small profit.

    “Some of the unscrupulous providers of the service were just signing up people multiple times or they were signing them up in multiple different programs and clearly violating the rules and, indeed, violating the law,” he said.

    Downes believes that the FCC is rightly to blame for a lot of this fraud and abuse.

    “It has never been particularly professional in the way it goes about its administration of this and other funds, including… [the] Internet fund for libraries called E-Rate fund as well as other universal service programs,” he points out.

    In fact, an ongoing Department of Justice investigation into the E-Rate program recently sentenced 2 people to prison. Up to this point, the investigation has led to 7 companies and 24 people either pleading guilty, being convicted, or entering into civil settlements.

    FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski released this statement on the news:

    “The E-Rate program brings enormous benefits to students everywhere. I applaud today’s action by DOJ. This successful prosecution reflects the collaborative efforts of the DOJ and FCC to protect E-rate from waste, fraud, and abuse, and to deter future misconduct.”

    “It’s pretty much, I think, inexcusable that the FCC just failed completely to introduce the kind of basic oversights – the kind of basic management techniques – to make sure that this kind of waste and fraud wasn’t escalating as it clearly was,” said Downes.

    With the reform, the FCC now says it is putting in controls and expects to save an estimated $3 billion. With this money, it plans to begin a pilot program that would also grant high-speed Internet access to eligible participants.

    Downes has a problem with this because he doesn’t think the Commission has the legal authority to implement such a program without Congressional consent. According to him, the FCC repeatedly uses Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to expand its authority even when it isn’t relevant.

    While this is definitely a concern, he thinks an even greater issue is the fact that the agency is starting the broadband program now before it has had a chance to implement its checks and balances.

    “If it turns out that they don’t actually save $3 billion over the next two years, they’re gonna have spent some of that money anyway on this pilot program,” said Downes.

    He went on to say that a better plan would be to implement the audits and check them in six months. If they were working, then they would know the broadband plan was executable.

    The FCC released its order late last week, which means that groups are likely reviewing it to see if they need to take legal action to get it reversed.

    Do you think the FCC’s Lifeline program overhaul will solve the issues of fraud? Let us know in the comments.

  • Interview: Here’s Why Open Auctions for 2G Spectrum Are the Best Option

    Interview: Here’s Why Open Auctions for 2G Spectrum Are the Best Option

    The war in Washington over wireless spectrum is really beginning to heat up as policymakers and the FCC aren’t seeing eye to eye. The issue is commonly referred to as the “spectrum crunch” since wireless networks are quickly becoming overloaded.

    The CTIA found that the number of wireless subscriber connections has surpassed the number of people in the U.S. and its territories. It also found a 111 percent increase in wireless data traffic.

    While the situation is by all means challenging, the massive eruption of content that sparked it is both encouraging and exciting.

    (image) “We’re in this exciting arms race where the creation of content is happening so fast it’s exceeding even these amazing improvements in computing power, these amazing improvements in storage capacity, and particularly, these amazing improvements in connectivity,” said Bruce Mehlman, the former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Tech Policy and the Co-Chair of the Internet Innovation Alliance.

    To help solve this problem of congestion, Congress is currently examining legislation that would free up more spectrum from broadcast radio and television companies. While everyone agrees that more spectrum is needed, the dispute is over how it would be distributed and, specifically, the FCC’s role in this process.

    In the past, the FCC has had a very active position in managing the auctions. In other words, it has had the power to place restrictions on auctions or conditions on spectrum based on the bidders’ market dominance and spectrum holdings.

    However, the bill that’s currently in the House would remove this power from the FCC, which is a move that is sparking a lot of debate. Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt recently called the proposed bill “the single worst telecom bill” he’d ever seen.

    The House argues that previous government allocations are the reason that the current “spectrum crunch” is happening. It also believes that limitations in auctions would result in less revenue to help reduce the federal deficit.

    As Mehlman explained to us, Congress is remembering what happened in the controversial 2008 spectrum auctions as well as the recent failed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile. He sides with policymakers on this issue because he believes the previous restrictions are to blame for the current problems.

    In a post on the Internet Innovation Alliance, Mehlman wrote:

    Many in Congress fear FCC micromanagement and seek open auction rules free from FCC interference. The FCC, of course, objects to Congressional micromanagement of their micromanagement, seeking maximum flexibility to set auction rules.

    The irony here is that these auctions are needed because the last time this spectrum was assigned, policy makers limited its potential use and transfer. Thus much of the spectrum is under-utilized and our economy suffers for it.

    In our recent interview, he expressed concern that the same issues would continue if the FCC were permitted to keep its authority.

    “The biggest challenge is if the FCC gets its way and follows through with what many in the House fear they might do, which is limit who’s allowed to compete, I think the very spectrum crunch these very auctions are expected to alleviate doesn’t get alleviated… then problems continue,” pointed out Mehlman.

    “I think most people would concede the reason there’s inefficient use of spectrum is because of old government decisions on who could and could not use spectrum,” he continued. “Logically, you want less government constraints in the future.”

    Some mobile companies are perfectly happy with the FCC’s authority over the auctions as a group of them led by Sprint and T-Mobile sent a letter to lawmakers asking that the Commission’s position remain the same. AT&T and Verizon are not part of this support since they believe the FCC would favor the smaller carriers.

    (image) Incidentally, not everyone agrees that auctions would solve the issue. Rick Whitt, Google’s Washington Managing Counsel, recently indicated that auctions would not completely eliminate the spectrum crunch saying, “Auctions will fall short of meeting that gap.”

    Mehlman told us that he agrees with Whitt in that content will likely be created faster than bandwidth can be apportioned. But, he believes that this provides an even greater urgency to get policy in place that would encourage an open marketplace.

    “Having everybody eligible to acquire the spectrum and to subsequently sell the spectrum to a higher and better user is letting the market allocate the spectrum,” he said. “If we had done that the first time, we would have less congestion, we’d have more high speed wireless, and, I think, we’d have the same amount of competition.”

    “We don’t have a problem with lack of competition, we have a problem with a lack of investment, [and] we have a problem with a lack of spectrum aggregation to meet the marketplace needs,” he added.

    (image) Even though Sinclair Broadcast Group CEO David Smith said it was doubtful that Republicans and Democrats would be able to agree on legislation for a broadcast television auction this year, Mehlman thinks it is a possibility. As he explained, this legislation is part of larger jobs bill that both sides want to see pass.

    Should auctions be open, or should the FCC have a say? What do you think? We’d love to hear your thoughts.

  • CES 2012: DISH announces new Broadband and DVR services

    CES 2012: DISH announces new Broadband and DVR services

    Somebody is finally taking on the righteous task of bringing faster internet to those in rural areas and that somebody is DISH Network.

    DISH Network announced a partnership with ViaSat Inc. at CES today to bring next-generation satellite broadband to homes across America bundled with their satellite television service. The company also announced a new DVR system that will bring impressive storage and recording abilities to their service.

    The new satellite broadband service, called DISH Broadband, is the most appealing new option just because it’s the fastest satellite offered yet in the United States and it’s squarely aimed at rural Americans who can’t get access to broadband Internet.

    “This is one more example of DISH meeting the needs of consumers,” DISH CEO Joe Clayton said. “The market potential for this new Internet service is substantial given the nearly eight million to 10 million mostly rural American households that are unserved and millions more left with slower broadband alternatives.”

    The service will cost $79.98 per month with an installation starting at $99. ViaSat will handle the satellite delivery services while DISH will handle the billing and tech support.

    During the same conference, DISH also took out time to announce their new set-top boxes Hopper and Joey. The Kangaroo names are intentional as that is the mascot for their new devices.

    The Hopper is the main unit DVR that features three satellite TV tuners, a 2TB hard drive that can store up to 2,000 hours of video content, bluetooth for linking to devices like wireless headphones and picture-in-picture for watching any two channels at the same time.

    The Joey is the smaller set-top box that connects to the Hopper unit. This allows for the most interesting feature of the new set-top box in that it can deliver up to four different on-demand or recorded shows to four rooms in the house. This essentially allows every member of the family to watch something different any time they please.

    The other big feature of Hopper is PrimeTime Anytime which records every PrimeTime television show on every major network. This also means that the Hopper DVR can record up to six shows at once.

    The Hopper will also offer the usual plethora of TV apps like Facebook, Twitter, Pandora, photo sharing and games.

    While the new Internet service is definitely appealing, especially to those in rural communities, it’s the new DVR and set-top boxes that create the most excitement. It’s hard not to be in love with a system that can record and play back that many programs simultaneously throughout a household.

  • Skype Co-Founder Wants Free Broadband For All Americans

    Operating under the mission statement of “the Internet is a right, not a privilege,” Niklas Zennstrom, one of the co-founders of Skype, has introduced an idea of bringing free broadband services to the United States, one that would be powered LightSquared, a wholesale wireless broadband network carrier.

    Zennstrom is now part of FreedomPop, the group partnering with LightSquared to bring this huge undertaking to life. Apparently, the services will be offered by the FreedomPop company and the infrastructure necessary to support such a massive service will be provided by LightSquared’s existing wireless network. Currently, LightSquared is in the process of rolling out a 4G-LTE network, and it’s expected to be available later in 2012.

    While the infrastructure and the other details concerning a nationwide broadband network are still in the gestation stage, the technical details are not the driving force behind this service. The goals of the partnership is. Simply put, FreedomPop thinks all Americans should have access to high-speed Internet connections, and instead of talking about it, they are working to make such a dream a reality. Some press release quotes from both companies indicate as much:

    “The Internet is a right, not a privilege,” said Matt Ingrid, COO of FreedomPop. “With the economic efficiencies delivered by LightSquared’s wholesale business model, we can achieve our objective to deliver flexible high-speed wireless access to anyone at a fraction of the cost and inconvenience seen in today’s market.”

    And:

    “FreedomPop represents the kind of disruptive service model that LightSquared is enabling, and shares our belief that broadband access is a right for everyone,” said Sanjiv Ahuja, chairman and chief executive officer of LightSquared. “Our nationwide network will allow FreedomPop to make a profound impact by delivering affordable high-speed wireless access to underserved communities across the country.”

    The question is, would the traditional powers-that-be in the Internet service provision industry allow such a service to operate? Would AT&T/Verizon/Comcast/Time-Warner be open to a competitor that offers a free version of a service the previous companies charge a premium for? Comcast wasn’t too pleased when Google discussed bringing its free fiber optic network to Ann Arbor, Michigan, so it’s doubtful they would welcome the LightSquared/FreedomPop partnership with open arms, either.

    Is a broadband connection to the Internet a human right or a privilege? What about running water and electricity? While it may be a stretch to compare these services, some clearly believe a high speed Internet connection is as much a human right as clean water.

    Another point to consider is how would the traditional ISPs react if FreedomPop’s vision become reality? What if they actually build the infrastructure capable of supporting such a potentially huge amount of users? Would that mean companies like the aforementioned ISPs be willing to match FreedomPop’s offer, or at least improve upon their “last mile” infrastructure so they can offer increased speeds that people would consider paying for?

  • AT&T, T-Mobile Deal Is Necessary for U.S. Economy & Obama’s Broadband Plan, Says Former Congressman

    As the hearing date for the AT&T/T-Mobile merger draws closer, it seems the controversies surrounding it are only getting more complex. From the initial announcement back in March, consumer groups have spoken out against the deal. But the opposition has gotten much more intense recently with both the U.S. Department of Justice and Sprint filing lawsuits to block AT&T’s $39 billion planned takeover of T-Mobile.

    AT&T, however, is standing its own ground and fighting for its acquisition to get approved. It filed a formal response to the DOJ lawsuit, in which it said the complaint “fails to come to grips with the significant efficiencies this transaction will generate.”

    Are you for or against AT&T buying T-Mobile? Let us know.

    The telecom giant, who would become the largest U.S. wireless operator if the deal goes through, is also receiving its fair share of support. Early on, the Heartland Institute, an organization that promotes free market initiatives, expressed their support for the merger and called it a “natural” business acquisition.

     

    Large organizations including Microsoft and Facebook have also endorsed the proposed merger as well as numerous governors across the country. Most recently, 15 House Democrats wrote to President Obama yesterday encouraging his administration to settle the DOJ lawsuit in order for the deal to go forward.

    The Internet Innovation Alliance (IIA) has additionally been very outspoken in its support of the merger, especially its Honorary Chairman, former Congressman Rick Boucher. He originated the House Internet Caucus and has a history of being active in Internet-related issues. He spoke with WebProNews specifically about AT&T’s bid to buy T-Mobile and told us that, while the opposition was loud, the support was actually larger.

    “The level of support for this merger greatly exceeds the level of opposition,” he said.

    The primary goal of the Internet Innovation Alliance is to promote broadband deployment. Through this merger, the IIA and Boucher believe that innovation would increase and that jobs would be created. In turn, both of these areas would result in an improved economy.

    “We [IIA] think there are very few steps that could be taken that could do more to help the American economy today than deploying broadband to everyone nationwide,” said Congressman Boucher.

    Earlier this year, President Obama laid out a broadband plan in which he said 98 percent of U.S. residents would have access to high-speed mobile broadband service over the next several years. According to AT&T, their merger would bring this access to 97 percent of Americans throughout the country.

    “The President’s goal is almost entirely fulfilled simply by allowing this merger to go forward,” pointed out Congressman Boucher. “I, frankly, don’t see a way that the President’s goals of having 98 percent deployment within the near term can be met in the absence of this merger.”

    He also pointed out that, through the merger, this initiative that would practically meet the President’s goal would be funded privately. In other words, it would not cost taxpayers anything, whereas other broadband endeavors would.

    Congressman Boucher told us that the AT&T/T-Mobile deal would be especially beneficial for rural areas as well. Up to this point, the deployment of broadband to these areas has been largely prohibited due to the high cost it takes to string wires over mountainous regions. However, he explains that AT&T plans to deploy 4G wireless technology, which not only reduces the costs associated with wires, but also has speed that is said to rival the fastest broadband connections today.

    In regards to the opposition over competition, Congressman Boucher told us that there were plenty of alternatives for consumers.

    “Yes, this merger takes 1 competitor out of the space, but in the most densely populated, largest markets across the country, in 18 out of 20 of those, you would still have a choice of 5 or more providers of wireless service,” he said.

    Price increases have also been a big concern for consumers. But, as he explained, when other wireless companies have merged in the past, prices have actually gone down instead of up.

    Congressman Boucher told us that he did, in fact, believe that the deal would be approved. One reason he thinks it will is because Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile’s parent company, clearly wants to exit the American mobile market. The company has stopped investing in T-Mobile USA and is not making plans to integrate 4G. For these reasons, it will eventually lose its subscribers unless someone buys it.

    Some reports have speculated that Sprint should purchase it, but the Congressman said that Sprint has had trouble integrating previous acquisitions due to compatibility issues. He believes that a T-Mobile acquisition would turn out the same way.

    While he does think that AT&T will be able to go forward with its purchase of T-Mobile, he did say that the terms of the deal would likely be negotiated. Congressman Boucher also told us that these terms are what the public should be focusing on instead of questions regarding whether or not the deal should go through.

    “The discussion about the blanket ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – should the merger be approved- should be answered in the affirmative,” he said. “The real conversation needs to be about the conditions under which this merger will be approved.”

    The status hearing for the merger is set to take place on September 21, and the presiding judge has stated that all parties should be prepared to discuss settlement options.

    If the deal goes through, what terms would you like to see included?

  • Google Fiber Expands to Kansas City, MO

    Google Fiber Expands to Kansas City, MO

    In 2010, Google kicked off a contest to find a city to test its experimental, ultra-high-speed fiber network.  The ambitious network will boast 1 gigabit per second fiber-to-the-home connectivity, a speed nearly 100 times faster than most Americans have currently.

    After many applications to be the first city to host Google’s venture, in March of this year they selected Kansas City, Kansas as their first stop.

    Today, Google announced on their new “Google Fiber Blog” that the second city that will be receiving the ultra-high-speed network is Kansas City. Wait – what? Oh, I meant Kansas City, Missouri.

    That’s right, Google has decided to provide its services for all the residents of all Kansas Cities in the United States before moving on to other cities. I actually made that part up. This announcement makes sense considering the two cities are just a hop, skip and a jump across a river from each other.

    From the fiber blog:

    Google took on this project because we’re committed to moving the web forward. Just as the move from dial-up to broadband led to new and unpredictable innovations, we believe ultra high-speed bandwidth will push the web to even greater heights – and we couldn’t imagine a better place to start than the Kansas City region. With or without Google Fiber, this area is a hub for technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship, with a diverse population that represents the rest of the country.

    Going forward, we’ll continue to talk to other cities about the possibility of us bringing Google Fiber to their communities. For now, we can’t wait to see how the Kansas City region comes together to benefit from this kind of connectivity.

    Speaking of the fiber blog, Google just introduced it yesterday, and today’s announcement is it’s first post (besides some back posts aggregated from other Google blogs). Maybe the creation of the fiber blog is a sign that more fiber announcements will be coming in the near future? Who knows? Depending on how their experiment goes in the Kansas City region, we might see Google developing super-high-speed networks in many American cities.

    The networks are supposed to be up and running sometime in 2012.