FCC: We're Halfway Done With National Broadband PlanIt could cost between $20 and $350 billion to get job done 06:16PM Tuesday Sep 29 2009 by Karl Bodetags: competition · fcc · coverage · businessTipped by seqrets  With 141 days left until the FCC is scheduled to unveil their national broadband plan before Congress, the agency today issued a statement and a 168 page slide show examining what they've accomplished at the halfway point. According to the FCC, they've conducted 26 workshops and hearings, where 230 different witnesses testified. 41,000 pages of written comments have been filed with the FCC, who also notes they've made 40 whole blog posts (phew!) since the agency started hanging with the kids on Twitter, Facebook and social media. According to agency analysis, expanding broadband into all the country's nooks and crannies could cost carriers and taxpayers between $20 billion for 768 Mbps-3 Mbps service, to $350 billion for 100 Mbps or faster. The agency also says that between three to six million people are unserved by basic broadband (speeds of 768 Kbps or less). The FCC says nearly two-thirds of Americans have adopted broadband, 33% have access but haven't signed up, and 4% have no access (which seems low). The report includes various other interesting tidbits, including the claim that real world ISP broadband speeds are often 50 percent to 80 percent slower than advertised speeds. The agency also notes that 1% of all users drive 20% of traffic and 20% of all users drive 80% of traffic. What next? The agency isn't sure yet, though the FCC concludes that "subsidy mechanisms must also be considered as a means to universal adoption, but current mechanisms, such as Universal Service and stimulus grants, are insufficient to achieve national purposes." The tough decisions have yet to come, like whether the FCC should advocate for a national government-owned broadband network. "I trust that people will respect the content of our Commission meeting update today, but if nothing else, they�ll have to respect our pretty slides," says the FCC in blog post number 41. Related:- USF: Uncle Sam's Blank check
- The FCC Gets Bombarded With Broadband Opinions
- FCC Greenlights Centurytel/Embarq With Wimpy Conditions
- New FCC Boss Talking A Lot, But Saying Little
- 5 Signs Our Broadband Plan May Already Be In Trouble
- Echostar Joins Push For Lower Broadband Definitions
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
- 'Data Driven' FCC Still Using Ancient Data?
|
  mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28 | Hmmm... I can never see the term "nooks and crannies" without thinking "crooks and nannies", and, you know... it just seems so much more appropriate here than usual. | |
|  |  |   tshirt Premium,MVM join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Only 4% have no access? I would guess 4% have no internet access available at all. (including dialup) due to poor phonelines, mountians or other satellite obstructions, and lack or cell or other wireless options. take out satellite, cell and lower speed wireless I think the numbers of people without BROADBAND AVAILABLITY currently must be MUCH higher, let alone economic barriers to universal service. | |
|  |  |   goldy
join:2000-11-14 Augusta, GA
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Only 4% have no access? hmmmmm.......
4% of 200 million equals only 8 million that is a bit low.
or is it households... 2007 estimate: 111,162,259 huseholds in US. 4% would be 4,446,490.36 households still a bit low in my opinion must have got that number from the big carriers like att or version. -- Never chase a dragon with a butterfly net. It annoys the dragon and will probably get you burnt! | |
|  |   Dark Fiber Premium join:2005-01-23 Boise, ID
·Clearwire
| said by mod_wastrel :I can never see the term "nooks and crannies" ...without thinking of a delicious, buttery, toasted Thomas' English Muffin!
I do like your "crooks and nannies" bit, though. | |
|  |   Swallx
@eerprogramming.com | So true | |
|  |  |   rawgerz In Debt we trust Premium join:2004-10-03 Grove City, PA
·Verizon Online DSL
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| Re: Some key slides and my comments Being that you're one of those that believes the govt can't do anything right, I find the irony in you displaying their figures as if factual. --
You can't make all the people happy all of the time. But it should be common sense to shoot for the majority. | |
|  bransby
join:2009-06-09 Onondaga, MI | Note to the FCC... Sattellite does not count as broadband access. Sattellite is terrible. | |
|  Sammer
join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA | 768 Kbps is Not Broadband! Might as well save the $20 Billion if the government continues the lie that broadband is somehow under 1 Mbps. It could be at least another 4 years with no effective national broadband plan. | |
|   Mr Neutron Hopped up on what you mopped up Premium join:2005-05-30 Gorham, ME
| Why are taxpayers... ...(apparently) being forced to fund broadband?
According to agency analysis, expanding broadband into all the country's nooks and crannies could cost carriers and taxpayers between $20 billion for 768 Mbps-3 Mbps service
Shouldn't individuals be paying for their own broadband service? Since when did I become obliged to pay for my neighbor's broadband service (and he for mine)? | |
|  |   TKJunkMail Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Why are taxpayers... said by Mr Neutron :Shouldn't individuals be paying for their own broadband service? Since when did I become obliged to pay for my neighbor's broadband service (and he for mine)? Since the US became a welfare state. And a welfare state that is getting worse and worse. Before next year is out 1/2 the people in the US won't be paying income tax. | |
|  |  Sammer
join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA
| said by Mr Neutron :...(apparently) being forced to fund broadband? For the same reason taxpayers help fund roads and highways, bridges, flood control, electrical service, telephone service, etc. Infrastructure is considered important to the overall economy of a country and is one of those things that separates developed nations from the third world countries. | |
|  |  |   calvoiper
join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Why are taxpayers... Yes, but where do we draw the line?
Choosing to live in the sticks has advantages and disadvantages. Parking costs less (often zero), homes cost less, piano delivery costs more, basic necessities often cost more because of no nearby Target or Walmart.
I should subsidize your rural broadband when you subsidize my urban parking--both are necessary to commerce.
(Instead, the FCC should foster small providers serving rural areas--essentially getting the heck out of the way. Particular encouragement should be provided to wireless providers in rural areas, including pre-empting NIMBY restrictions on wireless antennae.)
calvoiper -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|  |  |   Mr Neutron Hopped up on what you mopped up Premium join:2005-05-30 Gorham, ME
| said by Sammer :said by Mr Neutron :...(apparently) being forced to fund broadband? For the same reason taxpayers help fund roads and highways, bridges, flood control, electrical service, telephone service, etc. Infrastructure is considered important to the overall economy of a country and is one of those things that separates developed nations from the third world countries. I'm not convinced that some guy out in the sticks being unable to get broadband is going to render the US a Third World country. 
As far as those other services you mentioned, I think you'll find that people would be perfectly willing to pay for them of their own volition, assuming that they were needed.
But I'm not convinced that creating a big pool of money to pay for infrastructure does anything but result in a great deal of waste. Broadband is not different than any other service insofar as if a market exists, providers will find a way to meet the demand. Assuming, of course, that consumers are willing to pay enough to cover the costs involved in bringing the service to them.
But I find myself regarding country folks (of which I am one) who think they should be getting their broadband service at the same price point as city folks with some amusement. If the service means so much to them, then they should be willing to pay more, as it does not cost the same to provide broadband to someone 30 miles out in the sticks as it does to provide to someone in the middle of a city.
It's high time people started bearing their own costs for the goods and services they want, including broadband. -- Damascus, Aurens.
Aurens, not this. Go round.
Damascus, Aurens - Damascus!
| |
|  |  |  brisonic
join:2001-08-05 San Diego, CA | here comes the govt again Can they doing anything without wealth redistributing subsidies? | |
|  WhatNow Premium join:2009-05-06 Charlotte, NC
| Tidbits The report includes various other interesting tidbits, including the claim that real world ISP broadband speeds are often 50 percent to 80 percent slower than advertised speeds. The agency also notes that 1% of all users drive 20% of traffic and 20% of all users drive 80% of traffic. Above quoted from article.
It would be nice to see what percentage these groups pay for the total broadband cost. I have no data but just a wild guess that this group pays less then 20% of the total revenues from broadband traffic. If 20% of users drive 80% traffic I can see caps and metered billing if net neutrality and other rulings force ISPs to become dumb pipes.
I have no problem with upgrading broadband in the semi rural but I would draw the line on access at the same point the power companies do. If you are not on the power grid then you should not be counted. Should broadband funds from government or private sources be counted if the potential customer out in the boondocks does not have the income to pay for service. I wonder what percentage of the 33% that have some kind of access but have not signed up can not afford any level of service. There needs to be a density formula where the money is spent to bring the most people up to at least the 1 or 1.5Mbps level. This formula would need to be different for the coast states and the farm states in the middle of the country. I would hate to see the money spent on just one or two customers that live miles from anyone when an equal amount of money might upgrade everyone in a rural county where the density and income is greater. To be realistic the only way to reach most of the people that would pay for service is FTTP. Copper will not work when you drop below a certain density. Wireless or Wimax can be a stop gap measure because it is cheaper to feed one point with fiber then every home. I use a laptop in the field in rural areas all the time and I would not try to stream a video most web sites that are not really busy work fine. It is better then nothing. | |
|  SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17 Laramie, WY
| Failure to address real issues Unfortunately, while the FCC's slides were indeed pretty, they failed to address the issue of "special access." What's more, when they talked about spectrum, they completely ignored the issue of spectrum for anyone but cellular carriers. (WISPs were never mentioned). So, key problems are not being addressed. | |
|   Me and you
@qwest.net | Free internet for all ???? Any idea how we are getting the internet ????
Cable ???? DSL ???? Satellite ( using satellite dish like WildBlue and Hughes Net...)???? Wireless ????
Its free ????? | |
|  bobb4jesus
join:2008-12-09
·HughesNet Satellit..
| Broadband black hole? We do need to make sure that broadband is available to everyone. It is vital to the economic growth of this country. That being said, a grant program to small carriers and requirements of the telcos and cablecos to expand their access with the money they are granted. My family and I live four miles from DSL access (which is very doable to bring it to us with some more DSLAMs on the lines) 3.9 from Cable (we were told it would cost TW $72,000+ to bring it out here) and approx. five miles from Fiber. We are surrounded by small to medium sized towns with Fiber, Cable, DSL and Mobile Broadband service, yet we are left out because of a decision to live here 20+ years ago.
And I am the first to admit that someone should pay for their own internet access. We indeed do, paying $80 a month for adequate HughesNet with an unbelievably low FAP and high lag times. But the buildout of Fiber, Cable or other broadband tech would help everyone overall, and compared to the trillion dollar bailouts and stimuli, would actually benefit everyone. | |
|  | |  |
|
|