VoIP As a Solution To Rural Broadband

boyko.at.netqos recommends his article up at Network Performance Daily, which notes the recent reports that up to 30% of households do not have a landline telephone, preferring a VoIP or cell-phone based solution. What to do with the miles of last-mile phone line infrastructure already in place in almost all the homes across the country? Maybe there's a solution to rural broadband by using the high-reliability frequencies reserved for voice purely for data — and using VoIP to make phone calls. From the article: "Repurposing the broadband of 0-25kHz would result in... speeds of around 14.4 kBytes/s (or 115.9 kbits/s) upload and 28.8 kBytes/s (231.3 kbits/s) download. That's not much of a speed boost. Still, if you've been plodding along on a '56.6k' modem, at speeds of 7.2kBytes/s, this would be like an oasis in the desert. And what about those phone calls? Well, if you make the same phone calls with VoIP that you were with the standard 0-4kHz landline, it would only take about 20.8kbits/s using the G.723.1 codec — that still leaves you with 80% of your broadband capacity when on the phone — and 100% of your broadband when you're off it." Only the US FCC calls 231K "broadband," but as noted it does beat dialup.

Comments

Re:Sounds cheaper

[flyingsquid]

I think it depends on what your goal is. If your goal is just to make it slightly easier for people in the boonies to surf the web and use the phone, then OK, this is probably a fine solution. But I think it's kind of a half-assed solution if your goal is to bring next-generation infrastructure to the United States, and if you think that high-speed internet is one of those things, like telephones, mail, water, and electricity, that we ought to make a serious effort to bring to everyone in the United States. Personally, I think we should be trying to do that, for several reasons.

(1) It's just the right thing to do. Like roads and electricity, high speed internet is rapidly becoming a necessity of modern life, not a luxury, and the government has an obligation to help provide it to people, or at least provide incentives for corporations to provide it.

(2) It will be good for the economy in the short term. With an increasing number of transactions taking place online, and services offered online- iTunes, Netflix, Amazon.com, eBay, Craigslist, online banking, WoW, Xbox Live- building this infrastructure will help more people take part in this economy, and result in transactions that otherwise wouldn't be taking place. Particularly when we're facing a recession, investing in high speed would be a good idea.

(3)It will be good for the economy in the long term. Our economy is changing rapidly, and high speed online communications are increasingly going to be a part of that. Whether it's being able to telecommute from rural Idaho, having a videoconference with a businessman in Wyoming, or families downloading movies on demand in backwoods Alabama, high-speed is going to be an important part of the economy 20 years from now. If we want the U.S. to remain competitive for the next 20 years, this would be a good way to help make that happen.