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.
You can't massage fundamentally flawed data (1 serviced residence in zip code = served area) and turn it into precise useful data. You need to toss it and start over using fixed parameters that all data sources must adhere to.
Furthermore, the FCC already has the 'Connect America Fund' (part of the Universal Service Fund) program to increase rural broadband availability/speeds, $Billions are spent on that annually.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
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/...
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.
The self reporting has been happening since the first form 477 was filled out... in 2000. Every adjustment made since inception has tried to minimize the burden on industry, just like Ajit Shithead prefers.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
The excerpt quoted in the original post hints at but doesn't state the one glaringly obvious point: the fact that the technical requirements to offer broadband to rural communities are no different from those required for urban areas. The only variable is the perceived "return on investment" that the providers might receive in return for their capital outlay.
In a nutshell, this encapsulates the key weakness of competitive markets and capitalism - it breaks down when something we need is not economically viable to those able to provide it - without an economic incentive, why would they bother?
Whilst the political aspects of this debate could keep us in debate for hours, I think the potential solutions boil down to just two:-
1. Have rural municipalities provide the service, funded out of general taxation.
2. Write the contracts offered to providers in the urban areas so that the grant of each "urban area license" *also* requires the provider to offer their services to a rural area, such that the sum total of all urban contracts at the national level also includes a requirement to provide rural services so that the whole country is covered.
Want the contract for cable in Manhattan? Great - but you get to do the *whole* of New York State, including all rural areas, or you pay penalties.
Now, if those contracts were written such that in return for the award, the companies were accepting a legal liability for non-performance such that if they failed to provide services to the rural areas, they would have to pay fines and penalties, then they will be incentivized to provide a complete service. Then, all we'd need would be an independent (i.e. government operated) monitoring function (say the FCC) with a clear, documented and unambiguous set of tests that will be covered. Live in rural New York State and can't get broadband? Report your issue with the monitoring function and encourage your neighbours to do the same, and the NY State provider (or county provider, or whatever) has to pay fines until they fix the issue.
It's really important to make this model one in which the incumbent is hit with financial penalties if they fail to meet the agreed targets, or they would simply walk away from the contract.
Let's be honest, many of these companies have dedicated internet cables across the Atlantic which run at Gigabit+ speeds. Over thousands of miles. Any they claim they can't offer say 200Mb/s to every address in the country? Come on, who are they trying to kid.
The issue here is economic, plain and simple. The providers want all of the most lucrative areas [where densities are maximized and their profits will be fat] and they're not interested in locations with poor likely return. So the ONLY ways to address this are to either cover those locations with a national non-profit (i.e. government funded) provider, paid for out of federal taxes, or to write the contracts for existing commercial operators to give them a legal obligation to provide full, national coverage.
Will that hurt their profits? Yes. But nobody is sticking a gun to their heads and telling them that they *have* to bid for the lucrative franchises.
Oh, and write the franchises so that they run for fixed terms, with explicitly documented investment requirements and objective measures [i.e. so much fiber laid, so many homes connected, fix times at measurable values, etc. If the company doesn't meet their contract, they are out after 5 years.
We tried this once in the 90's.
400 BILLION was given to the ISP's to upgrade the US to fiber to the house. That money should have gone a lot further in the 90's than 400 billion would now, but the ISP's did basically nothing with it. They used loopholes to declare that because there was a fiber connection somewhere on the line, the plan for all houses to be fiber to the home was complete.
The telecoms pocketed all that money and declared it as quarterly profits. If this idea goes anywhere, Ajit Pai will laugh as another half trillion dollars goes up in smoke as government money goes up to the same companies and is just declared profits again when they declare "oops, we already completed the goal before the first check was ever cashed, but thanks for the money!"
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
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
You are correct in your assessment, I've lived mostly in rural areas in my life. The way I connect my desktop to the 'net is by tettering off the smartphone, it's cheaper than having a landline to the desktop and a smartphone. The speeds I get with the smartphone is alot faster than what I could possible get using the landline living approx 12 miles from the privately-owned local phone company but I'm on a data plan so there is a limit on how much high-speed data I get granted over time the amount does increase the longer you stay with the company.
Yes at certain times the signal does wavers due to weather and I have noticed in the early mornings for a couple minutes I lose all connections as the sun is coming up, granted where I'm at is a little out there as far as wifi signals go some will not even work at all.
It's not the government's or anyone else's responsibility to get high-speed broadband to rural areas since they already have it, the phone companies need to remove the limits they have placed but they will not since that is how they "gouge" customers for more money.
But all in all due to the cost of fiber optic cable getting installed everywhere in rural areas and the dangers to the cables (repair cost and down time) from being laid in rural areas wifi is the only means feasible at this time.
Here is 1 thing I noticed about the equipment used by AT&T and the load it will handle, during a 2 week period during the Hurricane that hit my area free high-speed data was given to all it's customers even if you had already used your data limit on your cellphone. I went on a massive down load of old tv-shows and movies (140gig) I liked and the speed was at the same level as it was when my account was renewed. This showed me they can give everybody unlimited high-speed data just fine and remove all data limits in their plans.
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.
Nobody's debating that.
The problem is that the telcos were already handed hundreds of billions of $$$ to build a rural network.
They didn't deliver last time around, what's changed?
No sig today...
Many, starting with rural kids having a powerful tool to educate themselves. When you are, for example, trying to understand how a sorting algorithm works one you tube video showing the algorithm at work can save you hours of pouring over books and mathematical formulas. In this regard there are nothing but benefits, even for adults (...and yes, there is also porn since somebody is bound to point that out). It promotes tourism and industry in remote areas to have a proper internet connection since it makes device addicted wealthy urbainites more likely to go there, it enables farmers to process their produce into food products they can sell directly to the consumer, ... the list goes on. Internet connecting rural populations has all kinds of positive effects on rural areas.
Nobody's debating that.
The problem is that the telcos were already handed hundreds of billions of $$$ to build a rural network.
They didn't deliver last time around, what's changed?
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.
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).
No sig today...
We're a subdivision in a rural (as identified by the county) area. Currently I'm on High Speed WiFi (about 20/10 speeds) and the ISP would love to run fiber out to us however they cannot use the existing power poles because they are too short. The power company is good with with the ISP running the line but it has to be a couple of feet below the power lines which puts it too low and susceptible to damage by passing vehicles.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
Nobody talks about subsadies. It is like how they removed roamingh costs in Europe. "You are not allowed to charge roamning costs and are not allowed to increase prices because you lost romaing costs and the max price for a SMS is X amount." so somthing like "You MUST bring high speed Internet to everybody who is connedcted to the electrical grid, otherwise you lose your licence to do business" is not such a bad idea. Not saying that it should be exacly like that. It could be even "Everybody home or business".
And when that is done, you go to the rest as well as increase the minimal speed.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The problem is that they make it hard to get the money. USDA handled the last round of lets fix rural broadband. The first thing they asked for was first lien. The problem with that is we already had loans with local bank who were not going to give that up. We hired someone who had worked with USDA and even he couldn't cut through all the red tape. They made it so difficult to get the money to improve our infrastructure that we just passed on it. The problem with using the USDA for this kind of rural development is that they really don't have the experience in dealing with this type of problem.
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.
Basically there's two things here
1. Telcos got credits and contracts in return for promise to supply net neutral services to rural areas
2. Amit Pai thinks that since we no longer have net neutrality, the Telco's could monetize the rural areas better with exclusive contents services.
Lipstick on a pig.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Just to be clear, it isn't possible to agree on things when one side is specifically and explicitly going out of their way to be dicks.
I know that at least once, the Republican party had standing orders to vote against *anything* the Democrats wanted, no matter how good an idea it was.
How do you work with people who have standing orders to go against whatever you stand for, no matter what?
I'm trying to find a link to an article where the above was admitted, but I'm having trouble finding it cause this Kavanaugh nonsense is flooding the results.
Tell us all about the free market failing under state-enforced monopolies?
But the answer to bad data is simple - if they claim service to an address they install it on their dime within 60 days or the CEO faces a purgury trial.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)