Alberta Rural Broadband

Rural Broadband Business Models

2009-01-18T19:08:00.000-08:00

There have been many discussions and presentations about which access technology will provide a rural community the most efficient broadband services. But there has been relatively few discussions about which rural broadband business model is appropriate for a rural community. Prior to the deployment of a rural broadband network the rural community should have a complete understanding of the different rural broadband business models. The model selected will ensure the network is economically feasible over the long term. There are four business models that a rural community can adopt to fund a rural broadband network:

1. Non-Ownership Model
Using this model the rural municipality has no direct ownership of the rural broadband network. The municipality releases a Request For Proposal (RFP)giving precedence to one to three Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to provide broadband services to the community. The municipality may partially fund one or all of the Internet Service Providers. The advantage is that the municipality takes on no financial risk for the deployment of the network. The disadvantages are that the rural community has limited coverage (high density areas only) and no guarantees of service.

2. 100% Ownership Model
A municipality decides to implement, manage, and upgrade the rural network. The municipality establishes two departments:
a. Network Infrastructure
b. Internet Service Provider (ISP)
The municipality effectively becomes a communication provider very similar to either TELUS or Bell Canada. This model has a high financial risk because most municipalities underestimate the cost to operate and manage a rural broadband network. The disadvantages are that the rural subscribers can only use a single provider and the municipality must hire component personnel, to design, operate and maintain the network.

3. Single Partnership Model
The municipality uses the Request For Proposal process to select a single service provider. Their role to provide to the Internet Service Provider adequate funding to provide a specified coverage throughout the community. Public funds may also be used to fund all or part of the project. Using this model the municipality uses public funds to give a single ISP a significant advantage over other ISPs serving the community. Public funds should be directed to the creation of true public infrastructure that may be used by all rather than the provision of commercial/retail services that are best left to the competitive application services sector.

4. Open Access Model
An open access broadband network provides supports structural separation between the backbone provider and the retail suppliers. Such an approach ensures no conflict in the value chain and provides the best competition, choice and prices for the end customer. Traditionally it has been shown that public interest is best served when the same company that owns and manages the backbone does not also control the retail access market. Open access in a rural area means affordability, availability, and accessibility. Implementing a open access network will maintain competition in high density areas, ensure that medium to low density areas receive adequate service, will give residences and businesses a choice in broadband services, and will ensure that broadband access services are able to meet the community's coverage and capacity requirements. The advantages of the open access model are:
Public funds are spread throughout the community.
Municipality maintains control of backbone infrastructure

Market forces are maintained in the local access market

Local ISPs are able to compete equally based on cost and services.

In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)
Prior to implementing a rural broadband network rural muniplaities should closely examine which of the four models meets their financial requirements.

Last/First Mile 2008 Problems

2008-12-22T07:03:00.000-08:00

A blog reader from Foremost Alberta sent me this e-mail this week asking why he can not get good quality broadband access when he lives only two blocks from a TELUS CO and four blocks from the SuperNet POP?

He asked: "Shouldn't I be be able to get broadband access from the Provider of Last Resort"?

This question illustrates that the last/first mile problems are not "Technical" but are either "Economical or Political".

Here is my list of last/first mile problems that must be resolved in 2009.

1. The GOA built a network that does not support rural broadband. The GOA should be actively looking at ways of funding the last mile. Other provinces have already made commitments. Why not Alberta?

2. Axia's business model is to compete with TELUS and Bell in the Enterprise connectivity market and clearly does not have a mandate to support rural broadband. By giving Axia an exclusive contract to manage the SuperNet the GOA effectively used tax money to fund the creation of a competitor to TELUS and BELL.

3. Bell used the Provider of Last Resort as a means to secure the SuperNet contract but had no intentions have supporting it after the network was complete. Information on POLR can be located at:
http://www.albertasupernet.ca/the+project/the+network/network+access+.htm

4. TELUS should review its social responsibility to the citizens of Alberta and start actively looking for funding and partnership opportunties to build the provider copper-based access in rural communities.

Questions:

"Can we as a rural broadband community work "Cooperatively" to resolve these and other problems in 2009?"

"In January of 2010 will we still be facing the same problems?"

Have a Happy Xmas and New Year!

Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)

2008-12-15T17:17:00.000-08:00

The traditional business case to provide broadband breaks down in rural communities where the population densities are lower and the broadband costs exceed subscription revenues. To provide affordable broadband service in rural communities, it is necessary to develop a sustainable economic model that proves the business case for a three, five and ten year period.

Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is used to measure the total costs of a project over a period of time. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) can be used to determine the expected costs of a future broadband network over a period of time. The benefit of TCO is in providing an understanding of future broadband network costs that may not be apparent when first evaluating the implementation of a network. The lifecycle cost typically include direct costs such as amortized capital investment in hardware and software, implementation labor and services, training, support and maintenance contracts and facilities.

The sustainability of broadband in rural communities is based upon market forces and the potential need for government assistance.

For this reason, each county should develop a policy framework for broadband that determines:
1. Which areas can be, or are, served by market forces;
2. Which areas will need assistance with initial investment to become self-sustaining; and,
3. Which areas cannot become self-sustaining and will require ongoing funding.

Each area of the rural community may have different economic requirements. The requirement for government funding will be dependent upon lifecycle costs and market forces in each area.

In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)
Rural Communities begin the implementation of a wireless access network in areas within the county that have high population densities supporting a reasonable return. But areas with low population densities have a different economic models which may result in a signficant loss. Some low density areas will never be self sufficient and a service provider should expect to use revenues from high density areas to subsiduze low density areas.

Copper May be Buried But Ain't Dead (Part 2)

2008-11-30T09:18:00.000-08:00

Who is the CRTC?
The CRTC is an independent, public authority that regulates and supervises broadcasting and telecommunications in Canada. The CRTC regulates two types of telecommunication services: Retail and Wholesale. As an example, wholesale services are divided into six categories: interconnection, public good, essential, conditional essential,conditional mandated non-essential, and non-essential subject to phase-out.

What is a Tariff?
An incumbent service provider is required to file a tariff with the CRTC for each of their regulated services. A tariff defines the service and the cost of the service, but does not necessarily define the underlaying access technology. A service may be provided using a variety of access technologies such as copper, fibre and wireless. Tariffs are periodically updated by the CRTC to meet the needs of the Canadian citizens.

In order to withdraw a tariffed service an incumbent must do the following: (1). Define the service proposed to be destandardized and/or withdrawn; (2). Proposed date for destandardization; (3). Proposed date for ultimate withdrawal of service; (4). Type of destandardization; (5). Rationale for the application; (6). Availability of a substitute, with rationale as to why it was reasonable in terms of equivalent functionality, availability in the same geographical area, and cost (including the initial outlay and ongoing costs to the customer); (7). Provide a transition plan; (8). Provide relevant information concerning existing customers, such as the number of customers affected; (9). Send a copy of the notice to affected customers; and (10). Provide any other information the applicant believed was relevant.

Local Loop Unbundling (LLU)
Local loop unbundling was introduced by the CRTC in 1997. Unbundling the local loop, as a policy, is built on the recognition that incumbent carriers have a dominant position in the provision of local access by virtue of their control over the local loop which can not be economically replicated by alternative providers. This position of dominance has resulted from many years during which incumbents had a monopoly in the provision of voice services in rural Alberta. The requirement of unbundling loops in lower cost areas, such as large urban areas, was put in place for a period of five years starting from May 1997. A decision was made in 2001 subjecting local loops in rural areas to unbundling requirements on an indefinite basis.

Local loop unbundling can be classified into two types: 1. Full unbundling. The copper pairs are leased by the new provider. The new provider takes complete control over the copper pair and can provide subscribers with services including voice and broadband. The incumbent owns and maintains the copper pair. 2. Line sharing. Line sharing allows the incumbent to maintain control of the copper pair and continue to provide some services to the subscriber such as voice services. The new provider leases part of the pair and provides broadband services. The CRTC has not mandated line sharing.

Collocation
In order to interconnect the copper pair to the new provider’s equipment the incumbent must provide access to a collocation facility. There are two ways to provide collocation: 1. Caged Collocation. A physically separate space from the rest of the incumbents exchange by a wire mesh or partition. 2. Co-Mingling. Cageless collocation where the new provider’s equipment is placed together with that of the incumbent.

Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8

Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8 requires that essentail facilities, functions, and services in the local loop be unbundled. The local loop must meet three criteria: (1) it is monopoly controlled; (2) a CLEC requires it as an input to provide services; and (3) a CLEC cannot duplicate it economically or technically. Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8 is available at: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/eng/Decisions/1997/DT97-8.htm

TELUS's Application
The CRTC received an application from TELUS dated September 30, 2004 called: "Amalgamation of Analogue private line service". This application algamated many former general items. TELUS stated that the tariff would align and clarify the terms and conditions pertaining to the provision of analogue private line service in Alberta and British Columbia (B.C.). A brief is available at: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Orders/2004/o2004-329.htm

The CRTC considered that TELUS's proposal would simplify the application of the tariffs for Analog private lines service in Alberta and BC. The demand for analog private line services that TELUS proposed to grandfather had declined, alternatives to these services are available, and that it received no comments from TELUS's existing customers.

TELUS is positioning its Wholesale DSL service is an alternative. TELUS offers a full end-to-end solution to service providers as well as making available to competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), Internet service providers (ISPs) and DSL service providers (DSLSPs) individual components of the service architecture. This service is intended for ISPs such as The Internet Centre that want to offer higher speed connections between the end-user device and their point of service. There are a couple of issues with this service: (1) The service is not universally available in Alberta and British Columbia, (2) TELUS is able to control and filter the traffic between the ISPs point-of-precense and the customer's premises.

The Internet Centre's Filing
The Internet Centre states that TELUS's wholesale services are NOT available in rural communities and is not a replacement for the analog private line service. In addition, they state that in its Analogue Private Line Services TELUS masked, under the objective of simplification, a restructuring of local channel services with the intent to prohibit any uses of local channels beyond voice-grade services.

In order for the The Internet Centre to collocate in a TELUS central office, they are required to carry a $68 million dollar insurance policy for each central office. This is not economically feasible when providing services to a rural small community. The Internet Centre is requesting that that their equipment (DSLAM) be located in the SuperNet POP vs the TELUS central office.

What this all mean to a rural community?
(1) TELUS's retail or wholesale ADSL service is probably not available in the rural community becuase the network has not been upgraded.

(2) TELUS is currently installing voice coils on the analogue private line service prohibiting the provisioning of broadband services such as ADSL, ADSL2+, SDSL, and VDSL.

(3) Collocation in a TELUS central office may not be economically feasible.

Current Status
On December 3rd the CRTC sent a letter to TELUS containing an number of interrogatories for TELUS to answer. TELUS has until December 17th to reply back to the CRTC. The Internet Centre will then have until January 6th to comment to TELUS's response. Then TELUS will have to respond by January 16th.

TELUS has submitted that the Internet Centre proposed use of unloaded copper would cause interference and crosstalk that "…can affect other copper facilities adjacent to the one used for xDSL service."

The CRTC wants TELUS to describe in detail the incidence of this interference and crosstalk and the impact it has on adjacent facilities. They want to be provided with specific incidences of such interferences and crosstalk and a description of how they were resolved.

The Commission is asking TELUS to provide details of its own use of unloaded copper and what services they provide now and how they resolve the matter of spectral interferences of crosstalk in those internal situations.

The Commission wants details of any and all unloaded copper access to private line services to any retail or wholesale customers and details on those services are provided.

Stay Tuned
Copper May be Buried but Ain't Dead posting #3 will be posted in either January or Feburary 2009.

Copper May be Buried But Ain't Dead (Part 1)

2008-11-29T12:23:00.000-08:00

The Internet Centre (www.incentre.net) has a filed a complaint with the CRTC stating that TELUS is not complying with the local loop unbundling regulations. TELUS has refused to comply, and the Internet Centre states that this is a contravention of CRTC Tariff 522.2.

The complete filing can be reviewed at :http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2008/8622/t114_200809403.htm

The CRTC is expected to make a decision on this before December 31, 2008. This decision will impact the availablity of copper based broadband services in all rural communities.

My objective for this post is not to take a position, but rather educate the rural community on the impact this decision will have on their communities.

In order to understand the CRTC's decision, it will be necessary for the reader to understand the following:
1. Technical Issues
2. CRTC's Mandate
3. Requlatory Issues

For this reason, I have separated this post in three parts:
Part 1: Technical Issues (November 30, 2008)
Part 2: CRTC Mandate and Requlatory Issues (December 8, 2008)
Part 3: The CRTC's Decision (December 31, 2008)

Part 1: Technical Issues
The Telecommunication industry originally installed copper access to support Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS). A separate copper pair was installed between the service provider's central office and each residence or business.
Ideally the service provider would build a central office in each area of the city or rural community. The central office would be strategically placed to ensure that all of the subscriber premises were within 18,000ft or 5.5Km from the central office. As example, Edmonton Telephones placed central offices in Norwood, Lendrum, Oliver, Millwoods, Westmount, Jasper Place, Strathcona, Londonderry, and downtown. So at one time the local access network was comprised of a single copper pair going from the central office to the premises. This access architecture has been evolving due to a couple of restraints: Developers were building subdivisions outside the 5.5Km distance limitation and businesses wanted to have more than one phone line. So the service providers began to install Digital Loop Carriers (DLCs). The DLC was strategically placed in an area or neighbourhood and the copper wire was installed between the DLC and the premises. The service provider then backhauled the voice traffic to the central office. This resolved a couple of issues: Voice services could now be provided to subscribers outside the 5.5Km limitation and the service provider no longer needed to run a separate copper pair to each premises.

The DLCs have since been replaced with DSLAMs (Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer). The DSLAMs are strategically placed no greater than 3Km from the subscriber's premises. DSLAMs allow a service provider to provision different DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) services from the DSLAM to the premises. Broadband services such as ADSL, ADSL2+, SDSL, and VDSL. The traffic from each of the premises is then aggregated at the DSLAM and backhauled to the central office using fiber.

The Internet Centre filing implies that there is a single copper pair going from the central office to the premises. This is generally not the case in major metropolitan areas such as Edmonton and Calgary. But in most Alberta rural communities a central office was strategically placed so that all the subscribers were within the original 5.5Km distance limitation. There may or may not be either DLC or DSLAMs installed in some rural communities.

What are Voice Coils?
If a subscriber is outside the 5.5Km distance limitation then the service provider could extend the distance by installing voice coils. These coils allowed the service provider to support voice services up to 10Km from the central office to rural farms and communities. Voice coils are completely incompatible with the higher frequencies required for DSL services. The Internet Centre claims that TELUS is installing these loading coils even if the subscriber is less than 5.5Km prohibiting them from providing DSL services to the community.

Conditions That Must be Met
For the Internet Centre to provide DSL services to rural communities the following conditions must be met:

1. A dry copper pair must exist between the customer's premises and the central office.

2. The Internet Centre must co-locate their DSL equipment in one of TELUS's central offices.

3. No voice coils between the central office and premises.

4. Customer premises no greater than 3Km in distance from a TELUS central office.

Stay Tuned
CRTC's Mandate and Regulatory Issues will be posted on December 8, 2008.

Rural Broadband Funding

2008-11-19T11:32:00.000-08:00

Over the past couple of months I have had the opportunity to visit several counties and municipalities in the province. At each of the meetings the subject of a government supported rural broadband funding is discussed.

In the past there has been two funds available for rural broadband capital projects: CSIF & CAMRIF.

There are two new funds that are currently available to assist Alberta's counties/municipalities to build the last mile infrastructure.

Here is a brief description of each of the funds:

1. Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund (CSIF)
http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/ip-pi/csif-fcis/csif-fcis-eng.html

The Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund (CSIF) was designed to support large-scale projects of major federal and regional significance in areas that are vital to sustaining economic growth and enhancing the quality of life of Canadians. The CSIF supported broadband infrastructure projects.

A map showing the broadband projects is available at: http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/ip-pi/csif-fcis/cartes-maps/band-bande-eng.html

2. Canada-Alberta Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (CAMRIF)
http://www.camrif.ca/en/

The federal and provincial governments each contributed $88 million to the Canada-Alberta Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (CAMRIF). Eighty per cent of CAMRIF investments were directed to projects that benefit municipalities with populations of less than 250,000, with the remaining 20 per cent earmarked for Calgary and Edmonton projects.

Eligible projects under the CAMRIF include water and sewage treatment, solid waste management, public transit and energy improvements to municipal buildings. The fund also supports better roads and bridges, cultural, recreational and tourism projects and improved broadband Internet access.

Projects were selected on a competitive basis from applications received from Alberta communities. A list of selected CAMRIF projects is available at: http://www.camrif.ca/en/news-events/

3. Building Canada Fund (BCF)
http://www.buildingcanada-chantierscanada.gc.ca/funprog-progfin/target-viser/bcf-fcc/bcf-fcc-eng.html

The Building Canada Fund (BCF) is the Government of Canada's new flagship infrastructure program. Funding will be allocated for projects in the provinces and territories based on their population and all major projects will be selected through federal-provincial/territorial negotiations.

The total amount of funding available in Alberta will be $840.73 million over seven years, between 2007-08 and 2013-14. Additional information on the federal and Alberta agreement is available at: http://www.buildingcanada-chantierscanada.gc.ca/plandocs/agreements-ententes/ifa-eci-ab-eng.html

The BCF program will operate through two components:

1. The Major Infrastructure Component (MIC) will target larger, strategic projects of national and regional significance such as: Water Infrastructure, Waste water Infrastructure, Public Transit Infrastructure, Core National Highway System Infrastructure and Green Energy Infrastructure.

2. The Communities Component (CC) will focus on projects in communities with populations of less than 100,000. Projects such as: Disaster Mitigation Infrastructure, Solid Waste Management Infrastructure, Brownfield Redevelopment Infrastructure, Cultural Infrastructure, Sports Infrastructure, Connectivity and Broadband Infrastructure, Local Road Infrastructure, Short-line Rail Infrastructure, Short Sea Shipping Infrastructure, Tourism Infrastructure, and Regional and Local Airport Infrastructure.

The following are eligible recipients for the purposes of the Communities Component:

1. A local or regional government, established by or under provincial statute;

2. A provincial entity that provides municipal-type services to communities, as defined by provincial statute;

3. A public sector body that is established by or under provincial statute or by regulation or is wholly owned by Alberta or a municipality which provides municipal sector services in a given area; and,

4. A private sector body, whose application is supported by a municipal or regional government referred to above.

All projects under the Communities Component will be selected jointly by the Parties through a "competitive", application-based process.

4. Community Broadband Infrastructure Pilot Program
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/csi12085

The Rural Connections: Community Broadband Infrastructure Pilot Program consists of a $9 million initiative to fund targeted rural communities for projects that enable access to reasonable high-speed service. This funding is part of the Government of Alberta Community Adaptation and Transition Initiative to help ecnomically vulnerable rural communities adapt by investing in investing in economic development and diversification initiatives.

In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)

Initial capital funding is required to provide broadband to underserved areas. All counties will require initial government funding to provide broadband services to high-cost areas.

I recommend that counties and muncipalities create partnerships with adjoining counties/muncipalities and local Hamlets/Villages when applying for these funds.

In addition, I predict that the Alberta Government will be creating and providing additional funding options in 2009.

Alberta Government's Social Responsibilities

2008-11-17T03:52:00.000-08:00

The traditional business case to provide broadband breaks down in underserved areas where the population densities are lower and the broadband costs exceed subscription revenues. To provide affordable broadband service in rural communities, it is necessary to develop a sustainable economic model that proves the business case for a three, five and ten year period. If underserved areas do not have enablers such as local champions or public/private partnerships the digital divide will continue to exist until these economic gaps can be overcome.

The sustainability of broadband in an underserved area is based upon market forces and the potential need for government assistance. For this reason, the GOA must develop a policy framework for broadband that determines:

- Which areas can be, or are, served by market forces;

- Which areas will need assistance with initial investment to become self- sustaining; and,

- Which areas cannot become self-sustaining and will require ongoing funding.

Additionally, some or all of the initial capital investment may need to be funded until a sufficient ongoing revenue stream is created. In other cases ongoing funding is needed even with an initial investment for capital.

There are mutually reinforcing benefits between social and economic impacts from broadband. From a social services perspective, more and more government services, such as health, education, and governance, are being provided online.

If all citizens have rights to equal access to government services, then it is important to understand where market forces cannot be relied upon to provide affordable access to broadband services. In such cases there is not just an economic argument for government intervention, but also a social equity argument.

In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)
Why does the GOA not understand that they have to take an active role in funding underserved areas?

The GOA is actively funding projects that are migrating traditional government services such as Healthcare to online services and yet they are taking a "hands-off" approach to the economic problem in Alberta's underserved areas.

Their answer:
"We will allow colocation on the AFRRCS towers".
Let's be honest. Access to the AFRRCS towers will be dependent upon who wins the contract. This is not going to happen!

The GOA has identified five priorities. These can be reviewed at:
http://priorities.alberta.ca/

Shouldn't one of the priorities be to ensure that all citizens of Alberta have equal access to services such as Healthcare?

Other provincial governments such as Ontario and BC have a taken a leadership role in ensuring that all citizens have equal access to government services.

Instead the GOA funded the Alberta SuperNet which created another competitive backbone provider (Axia) in Alberta, which has effectively eliminated open competition for backbone connectivity in the Enterprise marketplace.

The 2009 Smart 21 Communities

2008-11-10T04:39:00.000-08:00

The Intelligent Community Forum annouced the Smart 21 communities in October. There are three Canadian communities on the list including: Edmonton AB.,Kenora Ont., and Federicton NB.

A complete listing of all 21 communities can be reviewed at:http://www.intelligentcommunity.org/index.php?src=gendocs&ref=Smart21_2009&category=Events

Many people assume that the Intelligent Community awards are only given to large metropolitan communities. That is not correct. Kenora Ontario has a poulation of only 17,000 and initiated a web portal project allowing vistors and residents to access town information, apply for permits, and learn what is going on in town.

For more information on the Intelligent Community Indicators visit:
http://www.intelligentcommunity.org/index.php?submenu=Research&src=gendocs&ref=Research_Intelligent_Community_Indicators&category=Research

In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)
All Alberta counties and muncipalities should review the Intelligent Community Indicators and decide how and when they will begin the migration to becoming an Intelligent Community.

FCC Approves White Spaces Unlicensed Spectrum

2008-11-06T08:44:00.001-08:00

Last week the FCC voted to open new unlicensed spectrum known as white space. This spectrum is currently in use by over-the-air broadcasters. Canadian broadcasters such as CBC and CTV currently use this spectrum to broadcast analog TV content across Canada. This spectrum in the U.S. will become vacant when the U.S. broadcasters move to digital TV April 2009.

Broadcasters such as NBC abd CBS are opposed to opening up the spectrum, stating that there will be interference issues with broadcasts and wireless equipment such as handheld microphones. One of the principal considerations in the white space proceeding is how to reliably determine the availability of unused frequencies in local areas.

Both Microsoft and Google stated that the interference issue could be solved by implementing a protocol that would detect if a specific channel was being used with an area." The FCC performed two rounds of testing and determined that the spectrum could be used without causing harful interference. All whitespace devices will be required to be registered at the FCC. The report is available at:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2243A3.pdf

This decision will allow the marketplace to create new devices and applications. Google refers to this as "WiFI 2.0".

IMHO (In My Humble Opinion)
Unlicensed Whitespace spectrum will enable the deployment of low cost wireless broadband services in rural areas and eliminate the interference issues.

Industry Canada, which is responsible for managing spectrum, has not yet addressed the issue of whether access to whitespaces could be opened in Canada.

After August 31 2011, all analog TVs will require a converter box in order to receive over- the- air broadcasts using an antenna. At that time all over-the-air broadcasts will be in a digital format.

I believe that Industry Canada will follow the FCC after August 2011 and open up the whitespace spectrum in Canada. This decision will have a major impact on all Alberta rural communties.

Communities Without Boundaries Conference

2008-11-02T05:05:00.000-08:00

The first Communities Without Boundaries video conference was held on Friday October 31, 2008. The video conference was accessed by over 20 Alberta communities.

Doug Griffiths MLA (Battle River - Wainwright Constituency) opened the conference. A summary of Doug's presentation can be read at: http://www.douggriffiths.ca/archive/posted-2008103154.php

The conference program was comprised of five panel sessions: Education, Healthcare, Economic Development, Quality-of-Life, and First/Last Mile.

An unedited copy of the conference can be viewed at: http://tcs.nait.ca/tcs/
Select: Communities Without Boundaries - Oct 31, 2008
Select: Either 256k or 512k
Fast Forward: To the 28:50 time mark for the start of the conference.

For those that do not have the time to review the entire conference (7hrs 34min) here is a brief summary of each of the panel sessions.

A. Education
This session provided an overview of four educational projects:

1. Alberta Rural Development Network (ARDN) ARDN is a partnership between 21 post-secondary institutions across Alberta. Virtual network access will streamline collaboration on shared projects and is expected to increase project collaboration opportunities. Contact: Rick Neidig rick.neidig@northernlakescolleges.ca

2. Bell e-Learning Centre The Bell e-Learning Centre will enable Olds College and the Chinook's Edge School Division to better support educational needs of rural communities. The facility will focus on research and innovation and on developing solutions that enable distributed learning for students in the region. (http://www.communitylearningcampus.ca/) Contact: Vickie Derksen vderksen@oldscollege.ca

3. VCAlberta VCAlberta is a portal that provides information on Alberta -based video conferencing resources, information and contacts. (http://www.vcalberta.ca/) Contact: Dave Hinger (University of Lethbridge)

4. Grande Yellowhead Regional Division Grande Yellowhead Regional Division No. 35 (GYRD) is the public school board that stretches from Jasper National Park, east to Evansburg,and north to Grande Cache. GYRD operates schools in Edson, Hinton, Grande Cache, Jasper as well as rural schools in the area. (www.gyrd.ab.ca/) Gord Booth provided a presentation on e-learning development and distribution that is currently being done in the school division. They currently are providing 40 e-learning courses from K1 to 12.

B. Healthcare
This panel session provided an overview of five healthcare projects:

1. Telehealth in Alberta First Nations Dr. Chris Sarin gave a presentation on First Nations Telehealth challenges and activities. He provided an overview of telehealth projects including:
- Siksika First Nation and Calgary Health Region
- Nursing Virtual Clinic for Diabetes
- Forensic Phychiatry (Eden Valley)
Contact: Chris Sarin (chris_sarin@hc-sc.gc.ca

2. Aspen Regional Health Aspen Regional Health is located in the heart of Alberta and is the governing body of healthcare centres, continuing care centres and community health services offices. The Region serves more than 184,000 residents in 118 communities. Aspen's regional boundaries span a large geographic area in excess of 110,000 square kilometres from Jasper to Cold Lake and up north to Peerless Lake. Due to lack of resources Aspen Regional Health must access services from other providers including Capital Health, Children's Services, Child and Adolescent Services, Alberta Mental Health Board, and Education using the Alberta SuperNet.
Contact: Anita Puddicombe apuddico@aspenrha.ab.ca

3. Radiology Reporting in Rural Alberta AltaPACS, (http://www.altapacs.com/) is located in Calgary Alberta and is a systems integration company specializing in the dynamic healthcare sectors which leverage diagnostic imaging. Their goal is to provide clients with robust and sophisticated technological and clinical solutions, enabling a high performance clinical environment for optimum patient care. Joe Moreau provided a presentation on the impact of new services in rural communities.
Contact: Joe Moreau jmoreau@altapacs.com

4. Netcare: Patient Health Portals Alberta Netcare EHR Portal (http://www.albertanetcare.ca/ is a tool for physicians, pharmacists and other health service providers in Alberta, It improves patient care by providing up-to-date available information immediately at the point of care. Making basic patient information available to health service providers supports better care decisions and improves patient safety. Alberta Netcare EHR Portal provides access to available information at the point of care.
Contact: Gregor McWalter and Susan Anderson

5. Telestroke Project A real life story was told by Sandra MacLay from Killiam Alberta on how she survived a stroke in part due to the ability of sharing information between health centers. She has started a project called the Telestroke Project. The project raising the awareness of telemedicine and stroke victims. As part of this awareness campaign she is providing to stroke victims a blue hat. Contact: Sandra MacLay Killiam Alberta

C. Rural Economic Activity
This panel provided four rural economic activity sessions:

1. Rural Broadband Video A video was shown that highlighted three rural Alberta companies that use rural broadband. The companies were:
- Prairie House Kitchens (Mary Anne Barnett)
- Kuhn Environmental Ltd. (Roger Didychuk)
- Farmer (Rosana Ramos)
This video will be available at a later date on YouTube.

2. Alberta Livestock and Meat Strategy Dr. Sandra Honour provided a presentation on the Alberta Livestock and Meat Strategy. The strategy outlines eight priority initiatives developed to achieve significant change in the industry. These changes will redirect resources to key priorities, revitalize the livestock industry, enhance the value chain and refocus efforts to achieve a sustainable and competitive livestock industry. Areas in the strategy supported by better access to technology:
- Information Availability
- Communication and Engagement
- Industry Leadership
Additional information on the strategy is available at: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/com12203
Contact: Dr. Sandra Honour

3. Alberta Agriculture Study Paul Gervais spoke about an Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development project to map broadband applications in rural Alberta. Enabling a Rural Information Society is about how broadband can be used to improve the quality of life in rural communities, provide economic opportunities, and help rural communities develop and maintain competitive advantages in a connected economy. Contact: Paul Gervais Paul.Gervais@gov.ab.ca

4. Interactive Municipal Websites David Lust (Econolution) provided a presentation on their TownLife Product. Econolution focuses on supporting, strengthening and building relationships within communities using their TownLife product. The TownLife Community Network consists of a series of portals that connect businesses, organizations, and residents in communities. An example is St. Paul Alberta: http://www.townlife.com/world/Canada/Alberta/St.%20Paul
Contact: David Lust (www.econolution.com/)

D. Rural Quality-of-Life
This panel provided four rural quality-of-life sessions:

1. ClicSite Project The ClicSite project is a joint venture of the Town of Three Hills, the Hanna Learning Centre, and the Three Hills Library Board. These centres provide the residents in east-central Alberta better access to and expanded value of the Alberta's SuperNet. A number of new programs will be implemented and evaluated during the next three years including a business incubator, web portal and community e-index, videoconferencing, on-line learning using a multi-college model, a P3 partnership providing wireless Internet and other services to small towns and villages, and innovative new models for rural library operations and multi-organizational cooperation. (www.clicthreehills.com/).
Contact: Kevin Edwards (Mayor: Three Hills)

2. Vulcan Functioning Projects Leslie Warren provided an overview of projects that are enabled using rural broadband. Those projects include:
- Vulcan Business Development Society
- Hiring of a Technology Expert to Assist Businesses and Residents
- Youth Programs (Youths mentor the older generation)
- Provide students access to post secondary education (Lethbrige College)
Contact: Leslie Warren

3. Innovating Communities Connecting and Networking (ICAN) The ICAN project is implementing 180 video conference endpoints that will be used for:
- Professional Development
- Knowledge Sharing
- Learning Literacy and Collaboration
- Leadership and Public Speaking
- Global and Cultural Connections
The objective of this project is to provide support to the communities that have barriers to learning.
Contact: Cathy King

4. Alberta's Libraries Libraries are key access points in a rural community. Using broadband to provide services such as:
- Distance Learning
- Foreign Language Education
- Specilized services for the disabled and First Nations
Alberta libraries are working with communities. They have project called RISE in southern Alberta that will connect 89 communities with video conferencing.
Contact: Punch Jackson (punch.jackson@gov.ab.ca)

5. Community Development - the world's at our borders." We live in a world today where Internet is "busting borders" on all fronts - offering rich information and extending our global reach at the speed of light. Innovation and justice are no longer the preserve of the most wealthy or the "best situated." Our young people know it, and if they are to inherit the future, we need to appreciate what their communities need to survive. But many are being left behind - where market forces are inadequate to extend SuperNet to remote areas or link rural businesses.
People and their families are the social fabric that contribute to the social sustainability of our communities. And so we are celebrating the arrival of SuperNet supporting health, education and municipal services for sustaining our population and families. But without business and enterprise, without innovation or connectivity - communities will fail. Youth will leave for more meaningful oopportunities. Enterprise will shrink too - with the carbon industries locating elsewhere.
The Alberta Council of Technologies www.ABCtech.ca is supporting the completion of SuperNet in Alberta, enabling rural communities and counties, entrepreneurs and their businesses in remote areas to join the rest of the province. Where railroads and highways were once enough. They are no longer today. Where telegraphs, post offices and telephones were essential for commerce and social intercourse, today we need more. Welcome the Internet. Contact: Perry Kinkaide (pkinkaide@shaw.ca)

E. First/Last Mile
This panel session provided seven first/last mile sessions:

1. Parkland Broadband Study Parkland County contacted ViTel Consulting Inc. in June of 2008 to conduct a broadband study. The study had two primary objectives:
a. Expansion of access of High Speed Wireless Internet Access to All Parkland County's Residents and Businesses.
b. Improve the Quality of Access in Already Served Areas of Parkland County
The lessons learned from the study are:
1. One Size Does Not Fit All
2. WiFI (802.11) Unlicensed Spectrum will not meet the Future Requirements 3. No Viable Economic Model for Underserved Areas
4. Counties have Little or No Understanding of the Problem.
Contact: Allan Bly (allanbly@vitel.ca)

2. Perspective from AAMDC Stephanie Betts provided an overview of the AAMDC and a brief overview of the AAMDC's Rural Broadband report. The report is expected to be released to the public at the upcoming AAMDC annual meeting. Contact: Stephanie Betts (stephanie@aamdc.com)

3. BCC Hardware Ben Heide provided a presentation on the first/last mile from a business perspective. He stated that the ISPs serving rural Alberta must provide low latency connections and be increase the bandwidth to meet the new demand. The rural businesses need: 1. Faster Access, 2. Secure Access, and 3. Fair Access Contact: Ben Heide

4. TELUS Jeremy Chorney (Director Government Relations) discussed the Dry Copper debate that TELUS is currently having with the Internet Centre. He stated that this conference was not a forum for TELUS and the Internet Centre to debate the issues regarding Dry Copper. TELUS has a commitment to their shareholders to ensure that they are using their access resources to remain profitable. TELUS provided a whitepaper describing the their recommendation to rural access in rural communities. Contact: Jeremy Chorney (jeremy.chorney@telus.com)

5. Bell Canada Michael Hocken provided a commentary on broadband access. He asked the question: "What problem are we trying to solve? There are two problems: 1. Broadband Connectivity and 2. Broadband Quality. Each of these problems has different solutions and economics. If we are trying to solve the broadband connectivity problem, then the problem is solved by using Satellite services. Satellite is available everywhere in rural Alberta. But satellitee access has a 250ms delay inherent in the path. So if we trying to solve the broadband quality problem, then we may have to use alternative access technologies such as WiFI, WiMAX, Copper or Fibre access. Contact: Michael Hocken

6. The Internet Centre Graham Fletcher provided a presentation on their position and TELUS's position on Dry copper. The Internet Centre has filed a Part VII submission on July 11th, 2008. The filing is available at: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/end/2008/8622/t114_200809403.htm The CRTC will make a decision probably before XMAS. The Alberta Rural Broadband Blog will be doing a separate post on this debate in the near future. Contact: Graham Fletcher (gfletcher@incentre.net)

7. Paragon Computer Solutions/Netago Wireless Terry Ducherer provided a brief presentation on the first mile access from a Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISP) perspective. He stated that the key to success in providing rural broadband is partnerships. The further you get from major municipal areas the more critical the partnerships. Types of partnerships could be" 1. Partnerships with Counties and Munipalities, 2. Partnerships with Health Regions, and 3. Partnerships with other ISPs. Contact: Terry Duscherer

Alberta First Responders Radio Communications System (AFFRCS)

2008-10-22T03:12:00.000-07:00

The Alberta First Responders Radio Communications System RFP was released on October 15, 2008. The Government of Alberta (GOA) is seeking a Vendor to design, construct, implement, operate and maintain for an interim period, a province-wide First Responders two-way radio communications system. The network will replace both the GOA's MDMRS two-way radio system (MDMRS) and the RCMP's current two-way radio system (PACS). It will be based on Project 25 (P25) standards using the 700MHz spectrum.

The network will be completed by 2012 and provide the following coverage:

95% Mobile Coverage on all Alberta Primary Roads, Secondary Roads, Roadways, and railroads.

95% Portable Coverage on Alberta’s Primary Roads, Secondary Roads and Roadways, within Communities.

95% Mobile and Portable Coverage in Specific Locations.

How Does This Impact the Deployment Rural Broadband?
The RFP specifies three types of requirements: Mandatory (M), Desireable (D), and Information (I). If the requirement is not marked as either mandatory or desireable then no action is required by the vendor. Section 3.3.7 provides a network architecture model. The intent of the model is to guide the design of AFRRCS through key guiding principles within the context of the mandatory and desirable requirements. If a conflict exists between the model and the requirements, the mandatory and desirable requirements will take precedence using the following key guiding principles:

1. Existing towers should be utilized where practical.
The AFFRCS network will be constructed using existing and new towers. The new towers will be built and owned by the GOA. The GOA will retain the rights to the new towers for future use.

2. Co-habitation with non-First Responder infrastructure components can physically co-exist if security is maintained by distinct functional separation.
Allows Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISP) radio equipment to be installed on the towers.

3. Co-mingling with non-First Responder electronic data packets over any media can co-exist if security and reliability is maintained by distinct functional separation.
Allows for the sharing of spectrum with Non-First Responders traffic.

In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)

The implementation of the AFRRCS network will have a significant impact on all rural areas if the Alberta government ensures the following:

The vendor is required to support open access on both the government and non-government towers.
Co-Habitation and Co-Mingling is managed by an independent forum or company.
The vendor provides 95% coverage in all areas.
Recognize that the counties and municipalities are major stakeholders.

Which Wireless Access Technology Will Support the Future Broadband Requirements of a Rural Community?

2008-10-19T06:53:00.000-07:00

Rural broadband requirements are changing. Both residential and businesses are migrating from using asymmetrical applications such as E-Mail and Web to symmetrical applications including Voice Over IP (VoIP) and Video.

There are three wireless access technolgies: 802.11 (WiFi), 802.16e (WiMAX), and Long Term Evolution (LTE). In order to provide the level of service that users will need in the next two to four years, these technologies will have to meet specific requirements including:

Support Asymmetrical Applications (E-Mail, Web)
Support Symmetrical Applications (VoIP, Video)
High Availablity (99.999%)
Quality of Service (QoS)
Low Monthly Costs

A. 802.11 (WiFI)
The 802.11 (WiFi) standard operates in the unlicensed spectrum band of 900MHz, 2.4GHz, and 5.8Ghz. It specifies the physical and MAC (Media Access Control) layer of wireless communication technology designed to provide high bandwidth wireless data communications between computers in an indoor environment.

The standard defines a single channel between the Access Point (AP) located on the tower, and the customer premises equipment (CPE). The channel is used for both transmit and receive traffic. The original 802.11 standards could not guarantee QoS, because no mechanisms were adopted to give real-time traffic such as voice and video a higher priority access to the channel. The recently adopted 802.11e and WMM (WiFi Multimedia) standards were designed to enable QoS provisioning by using access enhancements such as Enhanced Distributed Control Access (EDCA) and Hybrid Controlled Channel Access (HCCA).

Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) have adopted 802.11 (WiFI) to provide rural broadband access for two reasons:

1. Low Cost of Entry
Many people attribute the success of 802.11 to the low cost and availability of 802.11 wireless interfaces in laptop computers. A WISP can setup a broadband access service a comparatively low cost versus other wireless access technologies.

2. Availability of Unlicensed Spectrum
Industry Canada manages both the licensed and unlicensed spectrum in Canada. Unlicensed spectrum was initially established for indoor voice and data applications. Licensed spectrum is typically auctioned to the highest bidder. Most WISPs use unlicensed spectrum in rural areas.

B. 802.16e (WiMAX)
802.16e (WiMAX) was designed from the bottom up to support both asymmetrical and symmetrical voice and data applications. WiMAX uses licensed spectrum in the 2.3GHz, 2.5Ghz and 3.5Ghz bands. The WiMAX standard includes profiles to provide fixed, nomadic, and mobile services. WiMAX can provide multiple types of services to the same user with different QoS levels. For example, it is possible to install a single WiMAX transceiver in an office building and provide real time telephone services and best effort Internet browsing services on the same WiMAX connection. To do this, WiMAX was designed to mix contention based (competitive access) and contention free (polled access) to provide services which have different quality of service (QoS) levels.

Many companies are starting to mass produce inexpensive WiMAX chips. It is expected that a typical WiMAX interface on a Laptop will cost between $60.00 to $80.00. Intel predicts that cheap WiMAX chips will be embedded in all kinds of devices including parking meters, home energy meters, and vending machines. This mass production of chip sets will eventually drive the cost of using WiMAX to provide rural broadband access.

Rogers Communications and Bell Canada have announced an agreement to jointly build and manage a Canada-wide WiMAX network. Inukshuk Internet Inc. will build and operate the network. Inukshuk will be owned and controlled equally by Rogers and Bell. Both companies have launched WiMAX services: Bell Canada (Sympatico High Speed Unplugged) and Rogers Communicatins (Portable Internet)

C. Long Term Evolution (LTE)
Long Term Evolution (LTE) is the wireless technology that will replace the existing mobility networks. Rogers, Bell, and TELUS have announced plans to migrate to LTE in the near future. LTE is a new paradigm is access incorporating a new modulation technique called OFDM (Orthogonal Frequence Division Multiplexing) and an antenna platform called MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output).

LTE networks will also provide the capacity to support an explosion in demand for connectivity from a new generation of consumer devices designed for new "Mobile" applications. If you are interested Nortel has provided a LTE drive demo at YouTube (www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTX4ixta17E).

Rural Users Should Have a Choice
In the next three years these three competing technologies will be available to rural users. The rural users should be able to chose the technology based on cost, availability, and their applications. As in urban centers, there will be a mix of users in rural communities. Some may only require basic access, while others may need more bandwidth or a higher level of service, and some users may want the ability to be more mobile.

IMHO (In My Humble Opinion)
All three wireless technologies will coexist in rural communities. Counties and municipalities should not focus solely on a single provider and technology, but provide the venue and opportunity for their community to have access to all three, providing the ability for their constituents to have a choice.

"Having a choice will be an enabler for rural economic development."

"One Size Does Not Fit All"

2008-10-12T07:18:00.000-07:00

Prior to the Parkland Rural Broadband study, I incorrectly assumed that the broadband requirements for all the county's residents, businesses, and industrial parks were the same: "Provide Basic Connectivity".

A rural broadband network that is designed solely on today’s requirements may not address those of the future. Network design is ongoing process because requirements change, expectations of subscriber’s change, and new needs have to be addressed by the applications, and these in turn affect how all the various network elements tie up together, which means there is a change in the network infrastructure.

The 802.11 (WiFi) wireless access networks currently being implemented in Alberta's rural communities are designed to provide limited connectivity. The network will eventually become "Capacity Limited" where it will no longer be able support the application requirements of the subscribers.

At this time, the wireless provider will have three choices: Implement more towers/access points, implement traffic aggregation limiting the bandwidth for each subscriber, or upgrade to an alternative technology. These alternatives may not be economically feasible, forcing the sale or shutting down of their network.

In addition, there are different areas or markets within a county such as:

Residential Areas
Businesses Areas
Industrial Parks

Each of these markets has different broadband requirements today and in the future. Alternative technologies such as copper and fiber based network architectures should be reviewed and considered prior to determing that a single wireless architecture will support these specific and unique requirements.

It is important that access providers should be ensuring that their network will scale to meet the needs of the future in terms of load and applications for all markets within a county or muncipality.

Parkland Rural Broadband Study

2008-10-05T09:21:00.000-07:00

The Parkland Rural Broadband Study was conducted from June to September 2008.
The report is available at:
Parkland Rural Broadband Study
This is the first comprehensive rural broadband study completed in Alberta. This study will provide the framework for all future rural broadband studies.
Lessons learned:
1. Broadband is an Economic Enabler.
2. There are different broadband markets within a county and each have different broadband requirements. These include:
- Residential Requirements
- Business Requirements
- Industrial Park Requirements
- County Specific Requirements
3. There is no economic model that supports broadband in low density areas.
4. Rural communities will require long term government assistance in building the last mile in low density areas.
5. Rural communities will migrate from a connectivity limited market to a capacity limited market within 3 years. This will have a major economic impact on the WiFI networks currently being implemented.
6. WiMAX 802.16e using licensed spectrum will future proof the network and be able to support the future capacity limited networks.
7. The Alberta government has not fulfilled their promise to provide broadband to rural communities.