Slashdot Mirror
FCC Leaders Say We Need a 'National Mission' To Fix Rural Broadband (cnet.com)
Democrats and Republicans in Washington can't agree on much of anything these days. One thing they do agree on: The digital divide undercutting rural America needs to be fixed. But figuring out the details of achieving this goal is where the two sides diverge. From a report: So how are policy makers working to solve this problem? I traveled to Washington last month to talk about this topic with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a Republican, and Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, the only Democrat on the commission. Specifically, I wanted to know what they see as the cause of this divide and how they think it can be bridged. One thing they agreed on: Deploying broadband is expensive in many parts of the country, making it hard for traditional providers to run a business building and operating networks. "In big cities and urban areas where you have dense populations, the cost of deployment is lower," Rosenworcel said. "When you get to rural locations it's harder because financing those networks, deploying them and operating them is just more expensive." She added, "That's not a reason not to do it. We're just going to have to get creative and find ways to connect everyone everywhere."
It might even take what Pai called a "national mission" to get the job done. But before you can really get things going, you have to address one key issue, Rosenworcel said. "Our broadband maps are terrible," she said. "If we're going to solve this nation's broadband problems, then the first thing we have to do is fix those maps. We need to know where broadband is and is not in every corner of this country." You can't solve a problem you can't measure, she added. [...] Pai agrees that the inaccuracies of the FCC's maps are a major problem. And he acknowledges that relying solely on self-reported data from the carriers is an issue. But he blames the previous Democrat-led administration for creating the problem and says his administration has been left to clean up the mess. He said that when he became chairman in January 2017, the FCC had to sift through that self-reported data based on parameters that individual carriers defined, creating a mismatched data set. "So we didn't just have apples and oranges," he said. "We had apples, oranges, bananas and many other fruits." He said his administration has tried to streamline the process so the FCC is at least gathering the same self-reported information from each carrier. But he admits that the process is still flawed. To rectify that, the agency has developed a challenge process. "We've asked the American public, state and local officials, and carriers, consumer groups, farm groups in rural states to challenge those maps and tell us where they're inaccurate," he said.
It might even take what Pai called a "national mission" to get the job done. But before you can really get things going, you have to address one key issue, Rosenworcel said. "Our broadband maps are terrible," she said. "If we're going to solve this nation's broadband problems, then the first thing we have to do is fix those maps. We need to know where broadband is and is not in every corner of this country." You can't solve a problem you can't measure, she added. [...] Pai agrees that the inaccuracies of the FCC's maps are a major problem. And he acknowledges that relying solely on self-reported data from the carriers is an issue. But he blames the previous Democrat-led administration for creating the problem and says his administration has been left to clean up the mess. He said that when he became chairman in January 2017, the FCC had to sift through that self-reported data based on parameters that individual carriers defined, creating a mismatched data set. "So we didn't just have apples and oranges," he said. "We had apples, oranges, bananas and many other fruits." He said his administration has tried to streamline the process so the FCC is at least gathering the same self-reported information from each carrier. But he admits that the process is still flawed. To rectify that, the agency has developed a challenge process. "We've asked the American public, state and local officials, and carriers, consumer groups, farm groups in rural states to challenge those maps and tell us where they're inaccurate," he said.
How about a "national mission" to get bigger yards for city dwellers who already have fast internet?
The problem is political. Republicans believe free market fairy dust is always the answer, when it clearly has not been in this case.
The solution is simple.
1. Make any existing telecom's honour any past commitments, or make them pay for not doing so.
2. Create requirements and get bids with firm fixed price contracts. Make sure in the end taxpayers get a good deal.
The biggest issue is (1). Once you stop assuming free market economics is the solution here, when it hasn't worked for decades, it is simply a normal procurement process you have to make sure doesn't get corrupted.
A lot of problems are like this. Once you stop assuming the solution is what you have been doing for decades without success, you can actually begin to solve a problem.
It depends if you think the Rural Electrification Act had a net positive or negative on industry and commerce in the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
who needs it?
Rural people.
and why?
They'd like to be internet connected.
and if they really need it, why are they not paying full cost?
Because bringing internet to rural locations is not massively profitable and disproportionately expensive which often leads to for-profit private enterprise passing them over and giving them piss poor service. This does not, however, mean that these communities would not benefit from better internet connectivity and that they would not increase their contribution to society at large if society bit the bullet and built them an internet access even if it is a bit more expensive. This basically boil down to what people in 'flyover country' are complaining about: 'nobody gives a shit about us' ... and they have a point.
why should rest of people subsidize them?
Why should we subsidise Oil companies? Coal companies? Arms companies? The Nuclear industry? Given the choice I'd rather subsidise farmers getting internet.
if there are benefits to the society at large from such subsidization, what are they?
Many, starting with rural kids having a powerful tool to educate themselves. When you are, for example, trying to understand how a sorting algorithm works one you tube video showing the algorithm at work can save you hours of pouring over books and mathematical formulas. In this regard there are nothing but benefits, even for adults (...and yes, there is also porn since somebody is bound to point that out). It promotes tourism and industry in remote areas to have a proper internet connection since it makes device addicted wealthy urbainites more likely to go there, it enables farmers to process their produce into food products they can sell directly to the consumer, ... the list goes on. Internet connecting rural populations has all kinds of positive effects on rural areas.
has such benefits manifested themselves in areas, like urban areas, where they already have this? are there costs and bad results from this? are they perhaps larger than benefits?
Yes, many examples from Europe and the US, a popular one to point out is, once again, tourism. In Scandinavia, Germany for example this has led to farmers and people in small villages begin able to rent out their empty rooms, apartments and houses to tourists on booking.com, airbnb.com, etc... which lowered accommodation prices which in turn led to something of an explosion in tourism and jobs growth in places nobody used to visit. In some places this has led to depopulation being halted or even reversed.
or are the real beneficiaries not rural folk but tech corps? why should society at large subsidize them?
does anyone expect out of touch, corp beholden, corrupt elitist bureaucrats to raise, weigh, and answer, these kinds of questions honestly?
Again, why should society pay for interstate highways when there are millions of people who hardly ever use interstate highways? Why should society pay for harbours when most people hardly ever travel by sea? Why should society pay for rail networks when millions of people never travel by rail? Why should society pay for airports when millions of Americans have never taken a commercial flight in their life? The answer is that your questions simplifies the issue far too much, you can't just reduce this to a subsidy and then rage against it. Even if you don't do any of the above things you still benefit indirectly from funding interstate highways, harbours, a rail network and airports. Then there is also that nice warm glow you get when you do like the Christians and their commandments would have you do, i.e. give a damn about somebody other than yourself, like the people in flyover country
Claw back the money, with interest, for every single house that doesn't have broadband.
Then maybe, just maybe, hand the money to somebody else? Like ... I dunno, local startup companies and then pass some tough laws that kept the big boys from gouging and stepping on the little guys? Then maybe break down the existing regional Telco monopolies into smaller units. That's what they did in 'socialist' Europe.
Small guys getting bigger isn't on the US agenda.
I'm getting a kick out of this article because I live in a second-world country and I pay 30 Eurobucks/month for an individual fiber all the way to my PC, 600Mbit up/down speed (symmetrical).
(It actually delivers, too. I've never done a speedtest and got less than the full rate, usually I get a little bit more).
Yes, and there in lies the problem. Small guys getting a foot in the door is what the US is supposed to be about. Instead what the US has come to be about is the big monopolists who own congress stepping on everybody who even remotely looks like they might some day become a threat to their monopoly.
It depends if you think the Rural Electrification Act had a net positive or negative on industry and commerce in the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
0100010001010011 is still an asshole I see. On behalf of everyone who has ever lived in a rural area, go fuck yourself with a rusty spike.