Slashdot Mirror
White House, FCC Unveil 5G Push and $20B Fund For Rural Broadband (cnet.com)
The White House on Friday will unveil a new 5G push to position the US ahead of global rivals in the race to deploy the next-generation wireless technology. President Donald Trump and Federal Communications Chairman Ajit Pai will announce new airwaves auctions and plans to spend $20.4 billion over 10 years on rural broadband. From a report: The FCC will auction off three segments of millimeter-wave spectrum -- which can offer insane data speeds but has limited range -- for commercial use. The auction is scheduled for December, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said on a conference call with reporters ahead of the White House event. He said the FCC plans to auction off 3,400 MHz of spectrum in three different high-frequency bands. "This will be the largest spectrum auction in American history," he said. Pai went onto say that this auction, along with others planned for the future, are putting the US on a good path. "The US is well-positioned to take a lead in 5G," he said.
The FCC is also announcing the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. The agency plans to reallocate $20.4 billion from its Universal Service Fund over the next 10 years to subsidize eligible companies to build out broadband infrastructure in underserved areas. The money will be allocated to internet service providers that can provide a minimum of 25 megabit per second downloads in areas that are currently in need of connectivity, Pai said. He added that the new infrastructure will also help bring 5G to these rural areas. "There are a number of startups that are working on millimeter wave technology to bring 5G to rural America," he said on the call.
The FCC is also announcing the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. The agency plans to reallocate $20.4 billion from its Universal Service Fund over the next 10 years to subsidize eligible companies to build out broadband infrastructure in underserved areas. The money will be allocated to internet service providers that can provide a minimum of 25 megabit per second downloads in areas that are currently in need of connectivity, Pai said. He added that the new infrastructure will also help bring 5G to these rural areas. "There are a number of startups that are working on millimeter wave technology to bring 5G to rural America," he said on the call.
It's much more expensive to do that in underserved / rural areas, and that's exactly what the Universal Service Fund was designed to help with.
While I'm no supporter of a lot of Republican policies, I'm actually with them on this one. According to the original article, they're planning on reallocating those funds from the Universal Service Fund - and this sort of thing (getting telecom services to underserved / rural areas) is exactly what the USF was intended to help with.
I think that Trump/GOP are subsidizing this to compete against 1-web, starlink, etc.
Sadly, they are great with subsidies when it helps their favorite businesses who fund them.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
yes, but not needed.
4G is already there, and sats are coming with decent speeds/times. So, better to use 4G for phones and let the sats(or the phone companies) compete for rural broadband.
What I find interesting is that the feds can happily subsidize RBOCS, etc to compete against true free enterprise, and oppose local govs from doing fiber as utility.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The fact is, that the USF already exists, and unless the laws change, it's not going away. So why not use it for its intended purpose?
As far as market forces doing it better and cheaper, they haven't. The very fact that even Republicans at this point are advocating use of the fund for helping with some of the costs bears that out.
This is a giveaway, pushed for by some lobby. And it will not be for "poor, rural folks".
I just love watching the Republicans rage on about the looming dangers of "SOCIALISM!!!" and then turn around and do something as classically "SOCIALIST!!!" as subsidising broadband installations. Mind you half the money in that fund will probably end up in the pockets of telco executives as bonuses for using the other half of the money to get people in rural areas 3rd rate broadband for which they will then have to pay 1st rate broadband prices.
worse--
The telecom industries were paid handsomely in the 90s to roll out a next generation fiber optic backbone infrastructure.
They laid a very small amount of fiber, and pocketed the rest of the money, then shrugged when asked where the money went.
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
I see this all over again. Especially with Pai at the helm of the FCC.
It certainly is, but I would look very closely at the agreement before signing off on it.
I remember the 90s, and the 200bn that got wasted because the telecoms wanted a handout on government dimes.
Poaching the USF with promises of what it is supposed to be used for, without actually delivering, is the actual track record here.
I would only support this kind of deal if there were strong liabilities for failure to deliver. I am talking board and CEO jail time levels of liability here.
I'd like to see that link, too.
Let's look at some basic electronics and physics:
According to Wikipedia, "Low Earth orbit (LEO): geocentric orbits with altitudes below 2,000 km (100–1,240 miles)"
Let's look at the minimum of that range: 100 miles.
Electromagnetic waves travel at approximately 1 foot / nanosecond.
Meaning 5.28 microseconds per mile.
So, 528 microseconds for 100 miles.
1056 microseconds for the round-trip to the satellite.
That's 1 ms right there, just for the electromagnetic waves to travel up to the satellite, and the response to travel back down.
Double that, because here's what has to happen:
Ping goes from user to satellite (~0.5ms).
Ping goes from satellite to ground station (~0.5ms).
Ping goes from ground station through terrestrial infrastructure (no faster than with wired broadband).
Response comes through terrestrial infrastructure to ground station (no faster than with wired broadband).
Response goes from ground station to satellite (~0.5ms)
Response goes from satellite to original ping initiator (~0.5ms).
As an electrical engineer with an extensive physics background, I'd be pretty impressed if they could get that all done in 20ms or less.
20ms to a satellite? You've been lied to, son.
Mind you half the money in that fund will probably end up in the pockets of telco executives as bonuses
That's not socialism, though.
What I'm saying is that by going to a satellite, you're adding those delays - an absolute minimum of adding 2ms, and that 2ms is only if you're directly underneath one of the satellites - onto whatever time it will take for the ping to travel through the terrestrial infrastructure (note where I said "Ping goes from ground station through terrestrial infrastructure (no faster than with wired broadband)" and "Response comes through terrestrial infrastructure to ground station (no faster than with wired broadband)"). Unless you've found a way for those electromagnetic waves to travel faster than our current understanding of physics allows them to.
I'm saying an absolute theoretical minimum of 2ms added, and that's only if you're directly underneath one of the satellites, otherwise the travel path is longer, and therefore so is the added delay from the propagation of the electromagnetic waves.
That's not taking into account any delay introduced by the electronics in the satellite itself, or the ground stations.
I'm not saying that usable satellite internet is impossible, but I am saying that it's probably not as easy or as close to rollout as some might think.
Well, if we're being fair here, we'd have to say that it's either OK in both cases, or in neither case.
And the outlawing of community-based providers? To me, outlawing them is an abomination. Let community-based players try, just like anyone else.
>I would only support this kind of deal if there were strong liabilities for failure to deliver. I am talking board and CEO jail time levels of liability here.
I would only support it if the big ISPs -- Comcast, ATT, etc. -- agree to stop suing municipalities who attempt to lay municipal fiber. Either you're capable of rolling our broadband, or you're not. You shouldn't be able to sue a government because you want a monopoly in an area and complain about unfair competition, and then turn around and ask for help in other, less profitable areas.
I'm tired, as a tax payer, of subsidizing your profits.
At the moment, all of this is projections of performance and cost. Until we see it working, it's all just projections. If they can pull it off, my hat's off to them! But I don't think we should say things like "about to come on-line" - that makes it sound like it's gonna happen next week.
Something like this was provided in my home state. Fraud allegations are flying. Smart business or poor management of funds? you decide.
A local phone/internet provider VTEL received $116 million in state money to provide Wireless Internet to all the undeserved (aka the last mile). They built the Wireless towers but only 1200 people have service. Why? Just because there's a tower doesn't mean the signal reaches a house. The home may be 'round the edge of a mountain ridge or in a forest. Of those 1200 with service, many report okay quality until it rains or snows which causes quality to be more like dial-up.
A federal program to do the same will line the pockets of the smart corps. The incentive needs to be paid for each customer signed up. In the VTEL case they were awarded money to build the infrastructure, and around here $116 million is a lot of $$ per person. There's just barely 600k people in the whole state and this corner of state in question has very very low population. I can see needing investment money to build the infrastructure because it is expensive. However, the goal of the program is to get people online. And I think that needs to be a large part of the stick/carrot.
https://www.vnews.com/Money-Is...
I remember the 90s, and the 200bn that got wasted because the telecoms wanted a handout on government dimes.
Never forget this anytime you see big telecos complaining about infrastructure costs, or smothering co-ops and municipal ventures which need to make use of utility poles and easements.
The Book of Broken Promises: $400 Billion Broadband Scandal (or a summary from the author) should be required reading for any lawmakers involved with the USF or FCC.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Back when Bill Clinton was president, the U.S. government provided ISPs with billions of taxpayer dollars to build out the internet infrastructure in this country. ISPs promised that within a decade, consumers would have 45/45 Mbps network speeds for a low price (can't remember the figure).
Almost three decades later, the vast majority of people either can't get 45Mbps (download only), let alone 45 up, or the cost is not low.
Now we're being told if we hand over more billions of our dollars, private industry will do what they said they would do those three decades ago.
I wouldn't hold my breath.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The telecom industries were paid handsomely in the 90s to roll out a next generation fiber optic backbone infrastructure. They laid a very small amount of fiber, and pocketed the rest of the money, then shrugged when asked where the money went.
No, they laid the fiber. They laid ass loads of fiber in rural area. I used to live in bumfuck Alabama, the only internet I could get was satellite or dialup. AT&T came through dug up the whole county, and laid shitloads of fiber. They even ran it down the side of an abandon logging road. There was a fiber trunk 100 feet from my house.
The agreement was they would lay the fiber but there where no provisions to actually use it. They laid the fiber, like they where supposed, they just never set up the fucking infrastructure to make it useful.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.