FCC Leaders Say We Need a 'National Mission' To Fix Rural Broadband (cnet.com) 176
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.
Massaging Bad Data Into Good (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus we already paid to roll out nationwide fiber, but the telecom companies just pocketed the cash.
Re:Massaging Bad Data Into Good (Score:5, Informative)
Plus we already paid to roll out nationwide fiber, but the telecom companies just pocketed the cash.
This.
The US already paid $200 billion to the Telcos (some claim $400 billion, it's hard to say exactly how much because it was a tax credit) for nationwide broadband. They didn't deliver.
Re:Massaging Bad Data Into Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure by what methodology that should work any better than the handing out of tax rebates despite the telcos not having delivered the prerequisite services.
Seriously, if you are unable to enforce a deal, making new deals is kinda moot.
Telcos want out of nationawide broadband (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Pai thinks that since we no longer have net neutrality, the Telco's could monetize the rural areas better with exclusive contents services.
FYI for anyone keeping score, this is exactly what has happened before. A city can't get decent Internet, ISP goes in and says "We'll do it but for a monopoly control". Many folks during the NN debate were like, "well if cities didn't allow Comcast sole control..." Well this is why and Pai wants to go back to more of that. These under served areas will only get Internet if they sign 20-30 year contracts that allow Comcast and only Comcast (or whoever else) to serve the area. So if Comcast brings their
Re: (Score:2)
I know three rural households in my state that got broadband very recently. One was this year, another was about 3 years ago,... both from Charter cable. The third guy actually has a choice between Charter and ATT surprisingly enough.
So at least here, Charter seems to be trying to spend the money getting options out to people. Took them long enough though.
Re: (Score:2)
The US already paid $200 billion to the Telcos
That can't be right. An A/C above has claimed that it's the left's fault because the free market has sorted the problem out.
Or something. It made about as much sense as any "free market" argument does when people discuss the US ISP scene.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Massaging Bad Data Into Good (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
There is only one word to describe that statement - bullshit. If you can put in a telephone line you can put in a fibre optic cable. No if's no buts it is perfectly possible and feasible.
18 years (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Every adjustment made since inception has tried to minimize the burden on industry, just like Ajit Shithead prefers.
Yes except the main stream media and the politicians are not really talking about rural broadband much. Its not major issue. If Ajit is really just the industry plant you seem to think he is; well he could easily as head of the FCC just choose not to talk about it either. Here is a crazy thought - maybe because someone differs with you on their views related to net neutrality; which it self is tied up in big untestable economic theory, it does not automatically have to mark them as evil or your sworn enem
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a crazy thought - maybe because someone differs with you on their views related to net neutrality; which it self is tied up in big untestable economic theory, it does not automatically have to mark them as evil or your sworn enemy.
it's not an "economic theory" you blithering idiot. It's demonstrated fact. When ISPs are allowed to be shitheads by Ajit Shithead, they ARE shitheads. We've already seen it happen. This is not some theory. This is not guesswork. This is not wishes and dreams and idealism. This is fucking reality. Anti-neutral networks already exist and are already unfair, and are already distorting the economy compared to the previously de facto neutral reality.
Balance Through Regulation (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
the fact that the technical requirements to offer broadband to rural communities are no different from those required for urban areas.
Whaaaat?
Really please compare wiring up say the Shenandoah valley with Richmond and get back to me on how the technical requirements are no different. When you can't use line of site, when there are no buried conduit just telephone polls along side thin strips of asphalt joining small communities. It gets even harder when you push east out of the valley into the Mountains.
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?
Some economists would actually call that allocation efficacy. See you CAN actually get broadband basically anywhere; it might cost
Re: (Score:2)
Really please compare wiring up say the Shenandoah valley with Richmond and get back to me on how the technical requirements are no different. When you can't use line of site, when there are no buried conduit just telephone polls along side thin strips of asphalt joining small communities. It gets even harder when you push east out of the valley into the Mountains."
We might be discussing this at crossed purposes.
What I am trying to convey here is that running a buried cable across 10km of
Re: (Score:2)
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.
#1 would seem to make sense to me.
If "we" "need" it, then "we" should pay for it, right? (And yes, through general taxation, if "we" decide that enough of the recipients can't.)
Your option #2 seems pointlessly complex, and also seems designed to hide the costs and to pretend that we're making big bad business pay for it out of Uncle Scrooge's money bin.
If "we" want people who can't afford to get fast internet run out to them to get it anyway, then "we" can jolly well pay for that, directly, in taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
The answers might be obvious to you and I (because you can't really have a large farm in the middle of a city - and people who live and work on farms have just as much a right to high speed internet as anyone else), but I thin
Healthcare Insurance marketplace (Score:2)
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.
I'd also like to point out that the problem faced here is also in some ways similar to the problem of providing healthcare insurance coverage.
Re: (Score:2)
"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?"
Some people would consider that a key STRENGTH of capitalism: if a product/project is not self-sustaining economically, it's automatically de-prioritized by the actors in the market. It's a fundamental economic principle that "wants" are infinite; resources are not. Any investment in bringing high-spee
Re: (Score:2)
I do not pretend to know whether high-speed internet access is a "luxury" at one extreme or a "basic human right" at the other (I have seen both arguments made - but here I'm doing my best to duck that question). Having said that, I woul
Re: (Score:2)
40 megs is pretty good in a rural area, try being on dial up.
It's worse than that (Score:2)
If we want national rural broadband the government's going to have to do it. No private business will. They'll take your money and run.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, the model you describe is fine in an area where there is no risk of network saturation. At first glance, this seems like a non-issue - after all, aren't rural areas light on traffic by default? The problem comes when the amount of traffic carried by a common wireless network has to scale. There is only so much network frequency allocated to (for example) 4G. By contrast,
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in rural Canada and have a LTE connection. It's not too bad. Streaming works fine along as you don't expect really high resolution. I get about 10-15/1-3 for speed and 250 GB cap. In a severe weather scenario, the power and phone can be down for a couple of days, I doubt the cell service will be worse though the tower has only been there for a year so it hasn't been really tested yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Who needs cable when I can walk into yard or fish by the lake and get high speed data, then when I walk back into the house and connect it to the desktop I'm still getting high speed data all while I live in a rural area now, it's called "wifi".
Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11) is a local area network technology and thus cannot provide Internet access unless the access point is connected to the Internet. How is your access point connected to the Internet?
This is all lies to get another chunk of money (Score:5, Informative)
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!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I could see long run fiber optics being more expensive than other cables though, not just in the cost of the cabling itself but also the cost of signal repeaters.
The fix for this is already in the works. (Score:1)
Telephone Companies managed to solve this problem (Score:1)
Why? (Score:2)
Too Expensive (Score:2)
Why must we coddle monopolies such as Comcast, ATT&T, and Google in this country?
small rural isp here (Score:3)
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.
I'll believe it when I see it. (Score:2)
You have corporate welfare interests pitted against right wing political interests. If you give them internet access, rural voters may run into information counter to the disinformation they get from their preachers and AM radio.
Maybe the internet providers can strike a compromise and only provide portion of the internet that the GOP, preachers, and NRA approve of.
Huh? (Score:2)
It isn't like they'll be able to report the results Waze style. Participation rates in this sort of thing are notoriously low, in urban environments that is fine because low participation is still a lot of people. That isn't true in Blood, IL population 500.
If the reporting metrics and types are inconsistent across providers then come up with a co
We've paid to do it. Multiple times. (Score:2)
The government grants to improve rural broadband have been dumped into the mobile divisions of said companies, and into executive bonuses.
It's time to de-regulate instead.
Re: (Score:2)
The government grants to improve rural broadband have been dumped into the mobile divisions of said companies, and into executive bonuses.
Yeah, that sounds like a problem that could have been solved through regulation. Require that the money be spent usefully with reasonable requirements.
It's time to de-regulate instead.
What? It's time to break up the telcos again, and to put the infrastructure under direct government control. Less regulation never kept a monopoly in line, and only a useful idiot argues otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is preventing competition from entering the markets?
It's not the big players directly. It's the big players bribing government and begging for regulation. Regulation is something the big players can bear, but is much of a burden for little guys.
Begging for MORE government makes you a useful idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is preventing competition from entering the markets?
It's not the big players directly. It's the big players bribing government and begging for regulation.
It's both, obviously. Big players' ability to manipulate markets is why we have laws against anticompetitive behavior. Too bad we don't enforce them.
Re: (Score:2)
So:
You've just admitted laws don't work.
Your solution?
Another law.
Eisenhower Interstate Project - for the internet (Score:1)
Rural Areas Get Rural Tech (Score:1)
Just to be clear (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"Do Not Ask What Good We Do" by Robert Draper is a terrific, well-sourced account of how the R's in the 112th Congress specifically targeted anything proposed by the Obama and the D's.
A good, if scary, read.
GOP trying to undermine sats (Score:2)
How 'bout we fix broadband in general (Score:2)
Maybe he's right (Score:2)
We should make it a national mission to find out where the billions the telcos got to do this went.
I live in rural and will not buy cable broadband (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How about a "national mission" to get bigger yards for city dwellers who already have fast internet?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
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
The firm fixed price is $10,000 / house (Score:2)
You can call up an ISP today and get a firm fixed price.
They know how much it cost them to install fiber per mile in a given area. The problem is, in some areas a mile of fiber will serve 5,000 households, in some areas it'll serve one.
In the areas we're talking about, that price is $10,000 / house or more because installing fiber is expensive.
Wireless is a half solution (probably the best we have) because of a fundamental physics problem. High frequency signals don't penetrate walls (or rain or fog), low
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 incr
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in Canada, somewhat rural, and that is what is happening here, rural LTE plans for internet. For about a hundred a month, I get 250 GBs of data at LTE (10-15/1-3 here) speeds. Seems to work well and while somewhat expensive, a lot better then the 10 GBs that the same price would buy in town.
Internet and Cell are expensive in Canada.
Re: (Score:3)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
is there a reason they can't run the line underground?
Cost. It's orders of magnitude more expensive. I heard an interview with the CEO of Sonic [sonic.com], which is rolling out symmetric gigabit fiber to the home out in California for like $40 or $50 per month. I don't remember the amount per mile it cost for pole-based installation versus buried, but it was a HUGE difference. Orders of magnitude. So right now they are ONLY rolling it out to places where they can use poles.
Re: The firm fixed price is $10,000 / house (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> You are OK with people eating pulled pork twinkie sandwiches until they have to be rushed to the hospital--
No.
> passing the costs on to you
No.
Next question?
Re: (Score:2)
Septic tanks? (Score:2)
Septic tanks?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Septic tanks aren't public.
In the city, it's efficient to run a pipe to each apartment or house, leading to a city water treatment plant.
In the country, that would be cost prohibitive, so each house has their own septic tank.
Have you never so much as visited anyone outside city limits?
I highly recommend spending some time time outside the city.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to nicely divert discussion, which was about legitimacy of public services not differences between rural and urban areas. So I asked a question about sewers in particular (public sanitation in general).
Not to keep this discussion going forever I will lay out my opinion. Public services are important for society to provide vital services for those who cannot afford them, and regardless of moral/political believes there is utilitarian aspect of it, which is well described by the issue with sewers, w
Re: (Score:2)
> So I asked a question about sewers in particular
No, you actually didn't. You said one word, "sewers?"
Did you have a question?
The discussion was about the cost of deploying fiber in rural areas vs city. Therefore w you said nothing but the word "sewers", I figured you were pointing out an analogous issue - sewers are cost effective in the city, not in the country, so people who decide to live in rural areas use a different method. That's what I was guessing your point might be. Anyway, you said you hav
SpaceX Starlink will fix this. (Score:2)
SpaceX Starlink [digitaltrends.com]
Satellite internet sucks, because physics (Score:2)
We've had satellite internet for quite a while now.
Satellite internet sucks because of the physics involved. The physics doesn't care if you have a great salesman or not. No matter how charismatic Musk is, radio waves do what they do.
SpaceX plans to use Ku band communications, because that's the frequency range that can give you high bandwidth at satellite distances. Unfortunately, it's also the peak absorbtion range for water - clouds and rain are opaque at that Ku wavelengths. Ask any satellite internet u
Physics also doesn't care about your bruised ego. (Score:2)
We've had satellite internet for quite a while now.
We haven't had LEO satellite internet. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
SpaceX plans to use Ku band communications
Actually they're planning to use Ka and Ku, which stand for 'above' and 'under' the center 'K' band--which is the one where the peak
Just call them. Also the other half of the costs (Score:2)
I don't disagree too much with your analysis of the cost of laying the fiber.
There are other costs other than the initially laying the fiber, course. There's maintenance. There's transit / backhaul. There's per-customer costs such as customer service and billing. Marketing. Administration (a building full of employees isn't free), etc.
At very roughly $50-$70/month recurring costs, plus $70 ish for amortizing laying the fiber, total monthly costs might be around $150/month in a lot of areas. Plus as you said
what about if an ISP site has your adderss has it (Score:2)
what about if an ISP site has your address has it but it turns that it really does then the ISP must pay the cost to built it out.
https://www.theverge.com/2014/... [theverge.com]
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
https://consumerist.com/2015/0... [consumerist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Pull an Africa (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)
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/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rural areas already have high-speed data by means of wifi which is already installed and being used (and they are putting in 5g right now), the problem is the phone companies putting restrictions on the speeds in relation to the data the customer uses, for a two week period I saw my phone company (AT&T) removes ALL restrictions on high speed data due to a recent hurricane. The speed was at the rate of a renewed account, yes a few times it wavered a little but not much. This showed me they can give unlimited high speed data to everybody and this will make the problem go away as far as rural areas having access to high speed broadband.
I don't doubt your experience with the incident in which AT&T removed restrictions on high-speed cellular data service, but you have some of the aspects of the technology wrong. The technology for which the short-hand description is "Wi-Fi" (short for Wireless Fidelity) is the IEEE 802.11 series of standards related to wireless Local Area Networks (LANs) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi [wikipedia.org]. This tech is limited to a very small geographical area and is not suitable for providing rural data service.
Wi
Re: (Score:2)
Once again. You have the wrong binary UID.
I live in a rural area. I'm not the other guy.
See also:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:why? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 $$$ to build a rural network.
They didn't deliver last time around, what's changed?
Re:why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Many, starting with rural kids having a powerful tool to educate themselves. When you are, for example, trying to understand how a sorting algorithm works one you tube video showing the algorithm at work can save you hours of pouring over books and mathematical formulas. In this regard there are nothing but benefits, even for adults (...and yes, there is also porn since somebody is bound to point that out). It promotes tourism and industry in remote areas to have a proper internet connection since it makes device addicted wealthy urbainites more likely to go there, it enables farmers to process their produce into food products they can sell directly to the consumer, ... the list goes on. Internet connecting rural populations has all kinds of positive effects on rural areas.
Nobody's debating that.
The problem is that the telcos were already handed hundreds of billions of $$$ 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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are going to pass out subsidies to anyone, why not the various LEO satellite internet projects going on? Starlink's network is estimated to cost $10 billion to build out fully, and would be able to cover every rural area.
Precisely, let towns, cities, counties in rural areas set up the fibre using local contractors, subsidise that along with whatever satellite up-link equipment s necessary and once there are several LEO satellite providers you have basically killed off the regional monopolies. The best way to improve services is always to break up or destroy monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we need someone to build something now, not invest money in someones dream that may or may not bear fruit in possibly niche areas maybe 20 years hence. We have the technology required now. The government says it has money. It is still a question of why no-one will do the work.
There are at least two LEO constellations in the works as we speak, probably more. This is not future music it has potential to upend the telco market and the US telco market is in severe need of being upended..
Re: (Score:2)
Because we need someone to build something now, not invest money in someones dream that may or may not bear fruit in possibly niche areas maybe 20 years hence. We have the technology required now. The government says it has money. It is still a question of why no-one will do the work.
There are at least two LEO constellations in the works as we speak, probably more. This is not future music it has potential to upend the telco market and the US telco market is in severe need of being upended..
Those balloon constellations will require FAA approval in the USA regardless of where they are located or what they are for.
Why?
They are a potential hazard to aviation due to their elevation in the sky and their mooring cable(s).
The FAA has the power to regulate antennas that may intrude upon controlled airspace, especially if they can be considered a hazard to aviation. So those balloons had better be painted orange & white, just like any other antenna, or else.
[true story follows, I was there at the time] I know the FAA had to review the permit for a microwave reflector that was part of a County government telecommunications network. That reflector was placed flush against the 5th or 6th story of a building (flat roofline level) used for State business; the building was that high and located on a hill about 30 feet above a major interstate.
The FAA said the building had to be painted orange & white, just like any other antenna, because it was being used as a mast for an antenna. I know, it sounds crazy, but the story is true.
This particular County happened to be where the state capital was located, so the County government people had "friends in high places" at the State, and the State people had no problems with the County people placing a reflector on the side of their building at the flat roofline level.
The County people reminded the FAA people that the building in question was a State building. The FAA people were not moved to change their mind by that comment.
The County people told the FAA that the building in question was the State's Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) headquarters. That got the attention of the FAA people.
The County people suggested to the FAA people that the FAA ought to rethink it's "paint the building" requirement. The FAA people reconsidered their suggestion and then withdrew their "paint the building" requirement.
Nobody messes around with the DMV in any State in the USA and gets away with it.
They are not balloons they are satellites, LEO == Low Earth Orbit. The last time I looked the FCC had already approved two of these satellite constellations one from Space X and the other one operated by OneWeb.
Re: (Score:3)
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).
Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I live in the rural Mountain West, and currently pay $450 per month for my Internet service (dedicated point to point microwave link with an enterprise SLA). I stand to benefit enormously from government subsidies to bring fiber to homes like mine... but I'm not sure it really makes sense. The government initiatives for rural electrification and telephone made sense, because they brought important services to locations that otherwise wouldn't be served at all. But rural areas already do have Internet ser
Lots of people don't _want_ rural education (Score:2)
Remember how before the printing press only the priesthood could read the bible? Internet is like that times 100.
Re: (Score:2)
My backstory is pretty much identical, but I've come to the opposite conclusion. I'd much rather see my small hometown get decent Internet access.
My hometown has a pretty wide income gap. Most of the kids in my high school class were setting their sights high to work in the nearby "big city" of 10K people. Most didn't go to college or any trade school, so they're almost entirely dependent on the local tourism income... which went well until around 2008, when the recession hit and tourism dropped. The only r
Re: I'll tell you why I don't care if they ever ge (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
who needs it? and why?
I know. We don't need farmers or other rural weirdos. Everyone should just move into the city. Seriously food comes in shops. What does rural America even contribute? Let them rot!
Re: (Score:2)