Converged Broadband
Infrastructure™ (CBI)
The Broadband Problem
Rural America suffers from the digital divide. As a country, the United States is significantly behind the rest of the
developed world. To compete effectively in the global economy, the United States must invest in broadband infrastructure.
Current broadband implementations are uniquely suited for highly populated areas. A traditional implementation requires a
service provider to make the capital investment in an area, own the infrastructure, and make their money over time by being
the sole provider of content on that infrastructure. This model will not work in most of the United States. Unless we do
something fundamentally different, we will continue to bring up the rear in economic development.
The Converged Broadband Infrastructure™ (CBI) Solution
CBI™ can put the United States into leading the pack of the race that is already well underway in Japan, Korea and
Scandinavia; and at-pace with those now entering the race driven by enormous government investment including Australia,
New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
The CBI™ uses patent pending technology (U.S. Patent Application 61/439,022) to
allow five voice service providers, five data service providers, and five video service providers along with community
required services on a specially designed fiber to the premise infrastructure. At each premise an Optical Demarc
(O-Demarc™) or network interface device will include RJ45, RJ11, and coaxial cable interfaces to the all-optical
infrastructure. This allows standard connections to standard devices inside the home that are delivered over a standard
1Gbps connection. The infrastructure also includes a direct optical connect wireless overlay to have contiguous WiMax
coverage and selected 802.11X hotspots within the covered area.
This innovative concept allows the user to choose from
multiple service providers for multiple services. This higher choice will drive higher utilization from the community, a
distributed capital cost for the service providers and a revenue generator for the community and A-PLUS. The best analogy
to use to explain the model is that of an overnight package delivery company (a service provider) and our road and highway
system (the infrastructure). How expensive would it be if FedEx and UPS had to pave their own highways? The model wouldn't
work in rural America because it would be too far between premises to make sense. Instead, they pay taxes and tolls to use
publicly owned roads and highways. In a similar fashion the service providers will pay a toll to run their digital traffic
on the community owned broadband infrastructure.
Competitive Alternatives to the Converged Broadband Infrastructure
Existing rural implementations include cable, satellite, and DSL:
• All have inferior data rates and lack the ability to bring a choice of service providers to the users.
• The existing cable or copper infrastructure could attempt to bring multiple service providers to the users, but lack
the ability to provide clear separation of service provider traffic with proper security over the existing network.
• They also lack the ability to integrate proprietary hardware into an existing network not designed to do so.
A new optical network deployed in the same geographical market:
• It is too expensive for a single service provider to deploy an optical infrastructure to rural America. The investment
doesn't make financial sense.
• Once the CBI™ network is in place, the numbers will never make sense without another revolutionary change in the
business model or technology.
|
