• On TV.com: BATTLESTAR Galactica Maxim Photoshoot
April 1, 2009 8:22 PM PDT

Verizon promises 4G wireless for rural America

by Marguerite Reardon

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.

Recent posts from CTIA show
Jabra Halo makes its debut
Wi-Ex shows new cell phone signal boosters
On Call: Lessons from CTIA
CTIA 2009 wrap-up
Brief look at the LG Wine
Samsung to launch two Android devices in U.S.
LG Banter also available from U.S. Cellular
BlueAnt announces the BlueAnt S1
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (20 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by iamrta April 1, 2009 8:51 PM PDT
I live in the DC metro area. I would be happy JUST TO HAVE SERVICE at our home. Can't wait 'till our contract ends this July. I want a G1.
Reply to this comment
by TuxedoBond April 1, 2009 10:04 PM PDT
If you're going to use it with T-Mobile, which you'll have to if you want full speed potential, then make sure you have coverage in the areas you need. T-Mobile doesn't have great coverage
by gerrrg April 2, 2009 3:22 AM PDT
Just so that you know, T-Mo's G1 operates on 3G, and it's not super high speed...most 3G really isn't. It's slower than if you were to connect to an open wifi, which is why I run the wifi instead of 3G, when I'm at a free hotspot.

By contrast, my 3 Mbps Clearwire WiMax service is exceedingly faster. I can run 720p (Hulu HD gallery) on my Clearwire connection without hiccups.
by sting7k April 2, 2009 8:22 AM PDT
I had TMo for 7 years in the DC area, they are worse than Verizon. Especially when you get off the I270 corridor and further out from the city.
by dctechguy April 2, 2009 8:50 AM PDT
I have had T-Mobile for 7 years now in the DC area. Within the major metro area, the coverage beats the other carriers. Other than in the rural, mountainous zones between DC and PA/OH, T-Mobile has roaming agreements with the regional carrier and coverage has become quite good.
by Tom Andersen April 2, 2009 6:32 AM PDT
Won't the adhoc network of companies steadily deploying wifi, wimax and 900 Mhz equipment on low budgets have covered basically everything by then? I get 6Mb down, 5Mb up here in rural Ontario, and there are 4 providers in competition. I am on my third upgraded radio in 4 years. Next steps with WiMax will allow people to roam. I don't see a reason that large companies will take over in this space. There is a lot of bandwidth out there unused, as mathematical and technological advances in wireless all result in bandwidth gains. I would not put any money in any company that has capital tied up in a lot of wires in the ground.
Reply to this comment
by twentysixacres April 2, 2009 7:04 AM PDT
I live thirty miles from downtown Louisville, KY in an area surrounded by farms. Until a year ago the best internet connection I could get was 28.8k dialup on a landline. No cable, no DSL available. Consequently we almost never used the internet at home. About a year ago I was able to get Verizon wireless "broadband". I now average about 600-800kbs download speeds and 400kbs upload. Good enough to actually use the Internet, but not good enough for HD video downloads or streams. It is also expensive at $60 a month for that one service.

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.
by Coda2 April 2, 2009 7:40 AM PDT
No it will not have. There are many areas that are within an hour of a major metropolitan area that have no options other than dial-up, not even DSL. AT&T promised it would roll out broadband if they were allowed to get the BellSouth subscriber areas. But no one in those areas has heard a peep.
by fgoldstein April 2, 2009 6:59 AM PDT
He didn't say it would "blanket the entire US". The licenses do, but they already hav e licenses over unserved areas. He said they would add coverage Coverage at 700 MHz will generally be wider than at higher frequencies, especially the 1900 MHz PCS band. But it's simply unrealistic for any wireless network to cover the entire land mass, especially the "nooks and crannies" in the mountains. And why bother to cover places where there aren't any people or even paved roads?
Reply to this comment
by Coda2 April 2, 2009 7:38 AM PDT
"the new 4G network that the company is building will blanket the entire continental United States, including the far corners of rural America."

Direct quote from article.
by Coda2 April 2, 2009 7:37 AM PDT
I have family in rural southeast Louisiana. They not only have no access to anything other than old-style dial up, but the main newspapers in the state no longer deliver to their area. So they are completely without a connection to the news in the larger world. And this is a place that is only 1.25 hours from New Orleans!

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!
Reply to this comment
by dctechguy April 2, 2009 8:48 AM PDT
Considering the lack of fiber back haul for all wireless data services, this sounds more like "vapor-ware" than a true technology road map for deployment. I am wondering who is going to lay all the rural fiber to back haul the data traffic to major Internet peering points. Even with the increased distance that the 700MHz frequency will provide, the data still needs to get from the cell tower to some fiber access point.
Reply to this comment
by racer11x April 6, 2009 3:27 PM PDT
Microwave:)
by chicagonettech April 2, 2009 9:19 AM PDT
There are more questions raised by this than potential answers provided by the Verizon announcement.

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.
Reply to this comment
by coopermf April 2, 2009 10:45 AM PDT
A couple of points:
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.
by chicagonettech April 2, 2009 11:29 AM PDT
Your points are well taken, Coopermf, but we are all paying for universal access in the "federally mandated universal access charge" on our phone bills so let's enforce the use of that money in the areas which are currently underserved.

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.
by martin_c_e April 2, 2009 3:23 PM PDT
Much of the discussion misses U.S. poiitics. The 1996 Telecom Act totally de-regulated the cable tv industry. It regulated the Baby Bells and treated dsl as POTS (plain ole telephone service) until the courts struck down that portion in 2003. The Bells do use Alcatel's pairgain technology but they were playing catch-up with the cable companies. The Bells now are focused only on 2 areas: TV, AT&T's U-verse & Verizon's FIOS , and wireless data. Landline pots is a money loser especially when the phone service is regulated by the local PUC while the competition is not. This point is borne out by the loss of the Bells' landline customers going to cable tv bundles and cell phone only.
4G technology (LTE or WiMax) may be the only cost effective technology to keep the phone companies competitive.
Reply to this comment
by Holly Klug April 2, 2009 7:01 PM PDT
I gave up on Verizon when they dropped analog. That made it impossible to get a signal at our cabin, even with the Yagi antenna on the roof. I doubt if 700MHz LTE has the range that 800MHz analog did. Luckily CellOne/AT&T has many more towers in the area. And we get EDGE, which is way better than analog.
Reply to this comment
by voyaginpapa April 19, 2009 8:27 AM PDT
Ok all you techies who have posted so informatively on this subject - can you tell me if this lower frequency 700MHz band that can 'pass through obstacles' is safe? Less towers because they are more powerful sounds scary? Is there any science out there on the subject?
Reply to this comment
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)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

About CTIA show

The CTIA show highlights the latest in hot cell phones, accessories, and services. CNET brings you the top wireless news from the conference.

Add this feed to your online news reader

CTIA show topics