On some of the message groups I monitor, the noise level is deafening. The FCC’s recent inquiry on USF reform has generated a broad spectrum of reactions by my friends who are Internet Service Providers. From don’t tax the Internet, to lets form our own version of the National Exchange Carrier Association [NECA] that will reject government funds and run our own deployment strategy.

Like I said my life is orthogonal, so it’s perfect for this generation of technology and discussion.

In the latest inquiry the discussion about the digital divide is focused on the rural areas. The focus is on a general discussion of the need for broadband. The debate about the digital divide is often too focused on a static idea of service. Today I want to point out a way to think “outside the box” and get “in the field.”

“If you build it they will come,” should be if they need it, they will pay the price. At our last M2M conference the discussion turned to M2M for agriculture. Lew Roth (News - Alert) spoke of an implementation they have facilitated with the company ClimateMinder. 

ClimateMinder (News - Alert) uses sensors that track weather, water, pests, soil, sun, etc. The sensors are linked together in a box that is networked to other boxes and a gateway to a backend system that allows the farmer to evaluate his field. Would a pun about the fact that this is a continuous feedback system allow me to call it a field of streams?

The application can be monitored at a computer but the solution also appears as an application on the customers smartphone. Indeed there is an App for that.

Lew gave us the value proposition of the cost of water rights and added costs of pesticides and weather monitoring. For the customers with berry crops (i.e., strawberries, raspberries, etc.) the increased yield of 5% was enough to give a payback in the first year. 

I do not want you to think that the USF should include farming in the mix of schools and libraries (associated with the E-rate program). What I do want to suggest is the following.

1)       This system pays for itself on the farm and would justify some funding from RUS and the Department of Agriculture independent of BTOP and USF.

2)      Alternative Wireless strategies need to be encouraged. This solution should not be used to justify a traditional carrier’s role. It should be used to support local solutions like WISPs and cooperatives.

3)      The last mile arguments about voice services are being misapplied to the Internet of things and we should refrain from migrating the old rules to the new opportunities.

I am sure that the ends can justify the means. I would love to hear of other such solutions. I am sure there are a lot more dreams of fields to be dicussed.