Why “Wired” West?

After careful research, and input from local, state and national broadband experts, Wired West is putting a plan in place to build a municipally-owned, open-access, fiber-to-the-home network to every Western Massachusetts home, business, and institution that wants service and is located in towns unserved or partially served by existing high-speed internet providers. We have come to this decision for two fundamental reasons: first, experts around the world have clearly acknowledged that fiber optic technology is the only solution that will bring 21st century communications services to our towns now and far into the future; second, conventional wisdom holds that the cost of fully wiring our communities — upgrading the copper infrastructure for DSL or adding fiber optic or coaxial cable (“cable TV”) — is just too expensive for private enterprise. WiredWest is working to build a community-owned fiber optic network because we don’t need to return a handsome profit to shareholders, we just need to competently manage the construction and operation of the network to be self-sustaining, recognizing that a handsome profit is returned instead to our community in terms of economic growth, improved services, and better quality of life.

Still, there’s no denying that a fiber optic network will be expensive. So why not consider a wireless broadband solution instead? Compared to the cost and logistics of pulling cable along utility poles, wireless has very low installation costs, especially if no transmission towers need to be built. Let’s take a look at wireless in greater depth to understand why it’s a reasonable short- term solution but is not the right long-term answer to our broadband needs.

Wireless offers fairly respectable performance. So-called “fixed wireless” involves equipment attached to your house or office with a directional antenna that transmits and receives over many miles to transmission towers. Currently fixed wireless delivers download speeds similar to satellite internet service (1.5Mbps), but it is superior to satellite allowing for applications such as online gaming or video conferencing and it is more reliable because it is not susceptible to frequent outages and slowdowns due to inclement weather.

Towns such as Warwick have already built their own local wireless broadband networks. A local vendor in the southern Berkshires already offers service in several towns. Another company is providing service in Florida and Rowe. And recently the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) agreed to give the Massachusetts Broadband Institute (MBI) access to its fire towers — at some of the highest elevations in the region — that will allow wireless internet service providers to expand their service ranges.

For those of us without broadband, fixed wireless has the potential to offer performance similar to low-end DSL, which is a welcome alternative to dial-up or satellite.

But there are significant technical limitations to wireless that practically affect its accessibility, performance and scalability — especially in rural areas. Foremost, our hilly and forested terrain makes high quality line of sight transmission impossible for many. At the frequencies that fixed wireless usually operates, foliage also causes significant signal degradation. Furthermore, typical fixed wireless is deployed using “unlicensed spectrum”, which refers to radio frequencies that are shared by multiple kinds of devices. As a result, network interference can significantly reduce performance, but identifying and eliminating the interference is extremely difficult.

It is also important to recognize that bandwidth drops as the distance to the transmitter increases, which is a fundamental property of radio technology. Practically speaking, fixed wireless operates at distances of 3 to 15 miles; as the distance between transmitter and receiver increases, the maximum bandwidth decreases. The problems are similar to cell phone coverage and data transmission over the cellular network: your neighbor may get a good signal, but around the corner you have no service. If you do get a signal, but it is weak, then you quickly discover that although you can make calls, access to the Internet on the cellular network is far slower than you found when using the full strength signal in a nearby city. Thus, terrain and distance can result in inconsistent and poor quality service.

A fundamental goal of WiredWest is to provide universal broadband coverage – that is, equal, quality access to everyone who wants it. As a joint municipal organization, this is the just and proper way to address the needs in our disenfranchised towns. But practically speaking a wireless network is never designed to achieve universal coverage, but to profitably reach the largest number of subscribers. Still, a wireless network that reached a large majority of town residents with DSL quality service would almost certainly require the installation of transmitters/receivers on numerous towers or other structures located close to residences. Any new tower construction would also be subject to the regulations and whims of local town government. Thus, deploying a fixed wireless network in western Massachusetts would include substantially more cost and time compared to an idealized location with flat terrain and unobstructed line of sight. (This is not meant to diminish the fact that a fiber optic network would also face comparable challenges including the cost of running cable along every road and the delays faced when obtaining access to utility poles, for example.)

While the cost and complexity of building a wireless network would probably be less than a universal access fiber optic network, the network would not be a particularly long-lasting asset. Demand for bandwidth is doubling every couple years, so the capacity of a wireless network will soon be insufficient. Consider, for example, that a single high-definition TV channel requires about 8Mbps — far more bandwidth than available to wireless, but easily handled by a fiber optic network with typical bandwidth of 50-100Mbs today. Now further consider that a wireless network provides bandwidth in aggregate over multiple subscribers. Thus, as subscribers and data needs increase, available bandwidth is squeezed. A wireless network suffers from popularity, whereas a fiber optic network easily scales to meet increased demand.

Wireless technology is sure to improve and new spectrum will become available that may offer further improvements. But upgrading a wireless network invariably requires replacing all the electronics in the field — essentially rebuilding the network from scratch. By contrast, a fiber optic network already has capacity for substantial growth, but upgrading and maintaining the network, once in place, is relatively simple and low cost because the fiber optic cable itself is robust and never requires replacement.

Fiber has tremendous capacity for growth and longevity. Fiber is a long-term investment, often referred to as “future proof”, which is the sort of technology that is appropriate for a community-owned network. Wireless is a good near-term solution to the lack of broadband connectivity in western Massachusetts and will be an important complement to a wired network into the foreseeable future. But a fiber optic network is the high quality, high capacity, highly scalable network that western Massachusetts deserves.