Verizon promises 4G wireless for rural America
LAS VEGAS--The new 4G wireless broadband network that Verizon Wireless plans to launch in 2010 could be rural America's answer to its broadband access prayers. But extending the network to every nook and cranny in the U.S. will likely take years.
Tony Melone, senior vice president and chief technology officer for Verizon Wireless, said during an interview at the CTIA Wireless 2009 tradeshow here Wednesday that the new 4G network that the company is building will blanket the entire continental United States, including the far corners of rural America.
"The licenses we bought in the 700MHz auction cover the whole U.S.," Melone said. "And we plan to roll out LTE throughout the entire country, including places where we don't offer our CDMA cell phone service today."
If Verizon makes good on this promise, it will be helping to bridge a widening gap between broadband haves and have-nots in this country. While Verizon Wireless' parent company Verizon Communications and other broadband providers have concentrated on building wireline broadband infrastructure in densely populated areas, such as cities and sprawling suburbs, they have not done a good job of extending that infrastructure to rural America.
The problem has been that building infrastructure for land-based broadband networks is expensive. And companies, such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast say they can't make profits by offering service in sparsely populated regions because the cost to build these networks is too high and the number of potential customers is too few. And even though the federal government has provided some $1.2 billion in loans aimed at helping operators in the private sector build broadband networks in remote areas, the money hasn't been stretched to reach every community.
While broadband penetration has increased in rural areas over recent years, it's still not nearly at the same level as more densely populated regions. Only about 38 percent of rural American households have access to high-speed Internet connections, according to a study published by Pew Internet & American Life Project in July. This compares with about 57 percent of city dwellers who have access to broadband and 60 percent of people living in suburbs.
The result has been small towns and communities throughout the country that still have no access to high-speed Internet services. These communities have been stuck in dial-up limbo, waiting for the 21st century technology revolution to reach them. It's made it harder for businesses to grow and compete in the increasingly connected and tech savvy market. It's meant that workers have had a harder time finding jobs. And it's left an entire population less connected to important news and information that is increasingly found online.
Melone said that the spectrum Verizon acquired in last year's Federal Communications Commission's auction is ideally suited to help solve this problem. The spectrum that is being used to build the new network is in the 700 MHz band. Up until now, it has been used to broadcast analog TV.
Because the spectrum is in a lower frequency, it can transmit signals over longer distances and penetrate through obstacles. And because the signals travel longer distances, Verizon can deploy fewer cell towers than if it used spectrum from a higher frequency band, which means it can provide coverage at a lower cost.
Even though Verizon is primarily building the 4G wireless network to provide faster service for mobile devices, Melone said the network could also be used to provide fixed broadband access to rural homes.
"I can't pre-announce any products or services," he said. "But I can envision offering devices that are geared toward putting wireless broadband in the home. And then people could use Wi-Fi to share the connection with multiple devices like they do today with router connected to their DSL or cable modem service."
President Obama's administration is well aware of the high-speed Internet divide that exists today, and he has vowed to do something about it. As part of the overall economic stimulus package passed by Congress, the government is allocating $7.2 billion for projects that bring broadband Internet access to rural towns and communities.
Melone said it's too early to say if Verizon will request money from the government as part of the package to fund building its network in rural communities. But he said that with or without government money, Verizon is committed to providing service in rural areas via its 4G network.
"At this point we haven't made any attempt to get stimulus money for the LTE build-out," he said. "But it's still early in that process and there's not enough clarity around the stimulus package. We don't know what strings will be attached to that money. Regardless, we plan to blanket the country over a period of time with 4G. We bought the licenses to cover the entire continental U.S., and we plan on building the network where ever we have a license."
Still, rural Americans may have to wait years before Verizon's 4G network comes to them. Dick Lynch, CTO for Verizon Communications, said in February during an interview that the 4G network deployment would likely follow the plan used to build Verizon's 3G network. Under that plan, Verizon started with large metropolitan areas and filled out coverage from there. Verizon has said it plans to reach 20 to 30 markets by the end of 2010. And it will continue to add more coverage steadily after that, Melone said.
Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie.


By contrast, my 3 Mbps Clearwire WiMax service is exceedingly faster. I can run 720p (Hulu HD gallery) on my Clearwire connection without hiccups.
I keep hearing about wimax and wireless deployment being the answer, but the one company attempting it in my area said they had no plans to put a repeater where I can get a strong enough signal to use their network. They've come out and tried twice and said I was in the wrong location. Lotta help there.
I can see two cell towers from my house, but the wireless folks are using barns and silos for repeaters and their main tower has a ridge between it and my home. So if there is a ridge or too many trees between you and their equipment, it is useless to you. For that reason, I am hoping Verizon 4G gets here by the end of 2010, but from this article I take it that it is not likely. Also, the local wireless folks tried 900Mhz and had to go back their old frequency because there was too much noise interrupting their network.
Direct quote from article.
Companies have been promising broadband access in rural areas for years and nothing has come of it. I don't understand why it would take years to roll out everywhere - there are plenty of people who need jobs and would take the retooling to get things set up. The increasing frustration of people who live in rural areas - and I don't just mean consumers, but the kids who go to school there - is completely understandable. Children who live there are going to be way out of whack with the pace of learning and not develop the skills to do online research like their peers in more metropolitan areas.
Go Verizon! Get cracking!
First, what are we all paying for in our phone bills when we pay the "universal access fees" that are burried, sometimes multiple times, in those bills?
Second, why did none of the US companies ever adopt the model deployed in France by Alcatel? Alcatel had DSL repeater equipment available during the 1990s which would allow DSL sub-stations to be placed into rural areas and give companies the ability to deploy DSL to those areas no matter the distance from the central office.
We live in Chicago now, but are getting ready to retire to a small rural town in Michigan, about 25 miles from Holland, and out in the middle of no where. My only high-speed availability in that area will be HughesNet or another one of the satellite providers. While we will be able to receive up to 5 Mbps download speed, even though we will be paying $389.00 per month, we will still be limited to only 300 Kbps for our upload speeds.
At almost $400.00 per month, that's not acceptable.
While I wish Verizon, who has a significant provider presence in the area of Michigan into which we will be retiring, all the luck in their deployment of high-speed services to rural areas, I will not hold my breath in anticipation.
DCTechGuy brings up another valid issue: backhaul - the ability to tie into the high-speed fiber backbone to provide the high-speed services to the subscribers. Fortunately there are some excellent private-channel, point-to-point solutions for line-of-sight communications between the cellular towers and they have been effectively deployed by some carriers to avoid the extremely high pricing levied by the land-line carriers for hi-cap services.
While I am retiring, it's an early retirement and I am already being asked to participate in support of both local businesses in the area into which we are moving and by my existing customers. The inability to access high-speed internet access, common in almost all areas of France, Germany, Spain, England and the rest of the EU, leaves both US residences and businesses in a less than favorable position when it comes to competition.
Memo to ALL backbone providers - GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER and quit trying to rape the American public! The FCC once mandated that rural telephone services be provided in all areas as the same cost as those same services were being provided in areas of high-density population. Perhaps we need to extend that same mandate to you, the service providers, with regard to high-speed data services.
When I can go to France and get 8 Gig to the door for less than 30 Euros per month, in a rural area, there is no reason that same kind of service cannot be provided to US subscribers, whether they live in a big city or the most desolate rural area, at comparable pricing.
They will NOT voluntarily cover areas which are not economically viable for them to cover. Period. Mr. Melone is simply protecting Verizon from backlash of publicly admitting they have no intention of covering those rural areas. In addition, if he admitted he was not intending to cover some part of his license, the FCC could conceivably decide to reappropriate those frequencies to other in that area.
There is a difference in the European countries (I lived in France for 5 years and work for a European company). There was a push by the governments to make high speed internet available everywhere there. In addition, the rural parts of European countries do not tend to be as disconnected as the US. Even in the rural areas, most homes are clustered at villages which makes the problem more tractable.
I think we DO need to make some form of high speed internet available to rural areas for people who have been living there for some time. I wouldn't be too happy, however, to see my tax dollars going to subsidize the high speed internet access of people who willingly decided to retire early to somewhere they knew to be (and presumably chose it because) off the grid.
It's plain and simple, if you're going to levy the fee the install the services for which the fee is levied. If they provide DSL as part of telephone service, then let them provide DSL to everyone, not just to those for whom they find it convenient to do so.
Both the technology and the capability are around, and have been around, for more than 20 years. They have chosen to ignore that fact because they can make a larger profit by not providing the services. This is the same situation we had with telephone service in the early 20th century. Until the telecom service providers were forced to provide the same services to the rural areas as they provided to the cities with the larger population bases, they simply didn't do so.
We have the opportunity to do so at this time, and, in fact, I believe we ought to force the service providers to do so simply because they have been charging the additional fees to do so for so many years.
4G technology (LTE or WiMax) may be the only cost effective technology to keep the phone companies competitive.
-
by DDLab
June 3, 2009 7:14 PM PDT
- Let's hope that Verizon does not keep doing business with 4G. I would highly recommend that no one patronize 4G wireless in Las Vegas. They lack integrity in their business dealings. My nephew went into the store on Eastern with his broken phone. He requested a courtesy replacement phone for $50.00 since our account is up for renewal. The store manager charged him $60.00 for repairs? for a loaner phone? Who knows his story kept changing. It had to be paid in cash and no receipt. And, he had to get the loaner phone from home. I went in the next day to get a recipt and to find out what kind of business dealing this is and to get a copy of the stores loaner policy only to find what looked like a drugged store manager. He typed up a make shift receipt, tried to justify it with even more lies and refused to give me the name and contact number for anyone above him. How would you like him working for you doing side sales or jobs and pocketing the money? Also, my account is password protected and I was supposed to be contacted prior to any deals being made and that never happened. If he had looked at my account he would have seen that I have 5 phones up for renewal with Verizon and I probably would have considered doing business with him, however since that didn'
-
Reply to this comment
-
(20 Comments)