Should Stimulus Dollars Fund 3G Deployment?

In reading through some more of the stimulus application database, a question keeps popping into my head: should we be considering funding deployments of 3G wireless?

The biggest reason I ask this is because isn't 4G and LTE deployment just around the corner? Unless incumbents are lying about their intent, we should be seeing large scale 4G/LTE deployment starting as early as next year.

Given that the amount of stimulus dollars we have is limited and may be a one-time thing, I can't help but wonder if we can afford to invest in lagging edge technology, in networks that may be duplicative, or in networks that may not be financially self-sustaining.

Calling 3G a "lagging edge technology" might be a little extreme as it is providing true value today and should continue to do so for another couple of years, but even still it's hard to get excited about investing taxpayer dollars in technology that's going to arguably be outdated not long after it's deployed.

I know we shouldn't hold back deployment on the possibility that incumbents might upgrade their networks soon, especially in rural areas, which are likely to be upgraded last, but we can't ignore that nothing would be sillier than subsidizing a 3G network buildout in an area that's soon to get 4G/LTE capabilities.

Which brings us to my final point, that 3G networks have suspect financial sustainability, both because of their limited capacity and the potential for competition coming in equipped with new technology that will eat their lunch. The last thing I'd think we'd want is to dump a bunch of money into 3G networks that don't just deliver inadequate capacity but that also end up out of business in the not too distant future.

Let me now say that I'm not necessarily suggesting that all applications that use 3G technology are bad. I just want to make sure we're not getting caught up in thinking about this broadband stimulus only in terms of access. I think it's vitally important that we look at the networks we subsidize as infrastructure. With this mindset the emphasis should be on networks that will be relevant in the long term, and I don't think that throwing up a bunch of 3G radios qualifies as that.

Even more egregious are that some of these 3G projects don't mention any form of fiber deployment. I'm hoping this doesn't mean that they're seriously considering relying on T1s for backhaul. Quite frankly: 3G + T1s does not equal infrastructure.

Unfortunately, simply saying that stimulus dollars should focus on 4G and LTE when it comes to wireless technologies isn't necessarily the best answer either. Just look at the middling to poor reviews Clearwire's been receiving for the 4G networks they're deploying. And they're not even dealing with rural areas.

The point of all this isn't to say that all wireless is bad and not worth investing in, but rather to suggest that if we worry more about access than infrastructure we're likely to get burned in the long run. If we focus too much on what technologies can connect the most people at the lowest cost then we're going to end up with the cheapest broadband. If we emphasize getting people online at any speed with any technology than we're going to be sacrificing the long-term big-picture for short-term gains.

I do recognize and respect the need to get the unserved online in any way at any speed as quickly as possible, but I also think we need to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars, and that putting a lot of money into technology that's about to be last generation, that provides access but not infrastructure, seems like a big mistake.

That's why if I was running NTIA or RUS, I'd be taking a long, hard look at any application that focuses most of its attention on deploying 3G to make sure that we're investing in networks that can be considered infrastructure and that will be relevant and financially sustainable for the foreseeable future.