[opendtv] Re: FCC to expand rural broadband
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 06:57:58 -0500
On Dec 19, 2017, at 9:31 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
The usual banalities, but the important aspect is, the FCC definition of
broadband has been demoted? Used to be 25/3, now it appears to be 10/1. In
spite of what was recently claimed here:
More reading comprehension problems Bert?
The article says that the FCC is asking a question about this definition, and
whether it is appropriate, or should be adjusted.
Not really sure why this matters? It is a number attached to a name. If you
can’t get 10/1 service, then the 25/3 (or is it 25/4?) is kinda meaningless.
The questions raised in the FCC action yesterday have real economic
implications - how do provide a meaningful service in rural markets, to those
who cannot get even 10/1 service today?
The market today is quite distorted. For Hybrid Fiber/coax and FTTH systems,
25/3 is old news: I just measured my connection: 283 down/10.85 up. My old DSL
service was typically 1-2 Mbps down - achieving 25/3 with DSL means getting
fiber very close to the subscriber, if it is possible at all.
Gigabit is where things are headed...
As new technologies permit. But we’re not there yet.
"In seeking comment on the next reports, Pai proposed considering other
factors in that determination, including asking whether the FCC's definition
of high-speed should be adjusted.
"But fans of the previous reports cried foul, and have been characterizing
the proposal as lowering the definition of high speed as 25 Megabits per
second downstream and 3 Mbps upstream.
"At a congressional hearing and in a letter to Congress, Pai downplayed
concerns about downsizing the high-speed benchmark, saying the letter that
the item 'clearly proposes to maintain the [25 Mbps downstream/4 mbps
Uuuuh, I guess not.
Uhhh... I guess so.
What is it about your ability to understand the printed word?
No determination has been made, yet you choose to believe some yahoos who
PREDICT that the FCC is going to do something the Chairman says is not going to
Either the definition of broadband has changed, or when taxpayers' money is
involved, it changes. I would just say this. If taxpayers are footing the
bill, 10/1 is what you get, minimum. (IMO 10/1 is still reasonably adequate,
if not too many people share the connection. But why the doubletalk?)
Are you saying that no tax dollars should be spent building out a service that
is less capable than 25/3?
The second link states:
The auction seeks to expand service to census blocks unserved by broadband
delivering speeds of 10 Mbps downloads/1 Mbps uploads. The auction's use of
competitive market forces maximizes the value the American people will
receive from the Connect America Fund by balancing deployment of
higher-quality services with cost efficiencies. The auction is set to launch
In this statement it looks like 10/1 is the cut-off for eligibility for the
auction. If no service of at least 10/1 is available the census tract is
eligible. If 10/1 or better is available that census tract is not eligible for
the auction. There is NOTHING in these articles saying what will be expected in
terms of performance from companies that get Connect America funds to deploy
new broadband services.
This raises an important issue. If it is possible to bring 10/1 to an area that
does not have broadband, is that a problem?
If 25/4 is required, how does this impact the number of potential customers
served relative to 10/1?
If you set the bar at 25/3 the cost is significantly higher with today’s
technology. You cannot get there with DSL, even if you run fiber to risers. You
probably can’t get there with 4G/LTE - my AT&T service just measured 13.7/7.
The real issue here is making good use of the USF funds. At the FCC meeting
last week there was an action on rural medicine, which is funded by the USF.
Turns out that the program has not been managed well...
In his statement, Chairman Pai said:
First, the program is oversubscribed. The yearly demand for funding now
exceeds the annual spending cap. And second, there may be substantial waste,
fraud, and abuse in the program. Recent enforcement activity has shown it is
all too easy for unscrupulous companies to manipulate the system for their
own profit at the expense of the American taxpayer and the rural health care
providers that truly need support.
This is the reality of our massive regulatory state. Too often it is too easy
to game the system (or pay a politician to game the system) and we wind up with
a large percentage of the funds not being used for “constructive” purposes.
Other related posts: