Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications United States

In $16 Billion Push To Expand Broadband, America Is Flying Through a Fog (wsj.com) 65

Posted by msmash from the up-next dept.
Spurred by the coronavirus pandemic, federal policy makers are pushing to spend billions of dollars to close gaps in America's high-speed internet network. From a report: There is one big obstacle: Government officials say they don't have a clear picture of where service gaps exist, meaning parts of the country will be left out when it is time to distribute the funds. While the Federal Communications Commission estimates more than 94% of Americans -- or about 309 million people -- have access to high-speed internet services, it acknowledges that number is based on flawed data from internet-service providers. The FCC requires these companies to report that they serve a census block if they can reach even a single home or business there. That means if one of your neighbors has a broadband connection, the FCC might count your house as having broadband, too -- even if the local internet-service provider can't reach you.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In $16 Billion Push To Expand Broadband, America Is Flying Through a Fog More

In $16 Billion Push To Expand Broadband, America Is Flying Through a Fog

Comments Filter:

  • That's because it isn't about broadband (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AmazingRuss ( 555076 ) on Monday May 25, 2020 @02:32PM (#60103112)
    It's about positioning government cash for convenient looting.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Cylix ( 55374 )

      Yeah, Telcos typically lie, cheat, steal and kill their way to these government funds. Traditionally, they have been able to take the money and run. Hi Verizon!

      Anyone know if there is anything different in this round of funding?

  • America is Flying Through a Fog... (Score:3)

    by Known Nutter ( 988758 ) on Monday May 25, 2020 @02:32PM (#60103118)
    Naturally. It's what we do best.

  • Title II the bastards already (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Monday May 25, 2020 @02:40PM (#60103182)

    After the last 60 days it should be plainly obvious if it wasn't already that internet is communication and communication should be considered a utility. Just like your power, your water and your sewage, it's just something that is provided for the public good. We treated telephones as a utility and for good reason.

    ISP's are gonna have to face the facts, they are "dumb pipes".

    • I agree if we say the last mile (or 5 miles, or whatever makes sense for your area). The infrastructure to your residence should be managed as a utility. It used to work much better when CLECs used to have to allow third party ISPs onto their infrastructure. But then 5G is going to solve the last mile problem for everyone, at least that's what they keep telling me.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by King_TJ ( 85913 )

      The reason I think Internet service wasn't treated as a public utility was the idea that public utilities get designated as such due to the space the infrastructure takes up. For example, you have to run a whole system of water pipes underground from a water treatment facility, and add water towers in some places to keep water pressure up, just for ONE provider to offer it to people. It wasn't technically possible to run multiple sets of pipes for competing water companies in a given area. (You only have

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 )
        No. If that were true, then Ma Bell and the later Telcos would not have basically been treated like utilities.

        Make no mistake: cable, hard-line telephone, and mobile phone companies ALL use up a lot of public resources, in the form of communications lines, both on utility poles and underground.

        The argument for "space" also doesn't hold water when competing services are required to share the same infrastructure (wires, fiber, etc.).

        Community-based internet, in which municipalities supply the last-mi
        • The reason I say this is because in highly populated areas, there is plenty of real competition for things like ISP services.

          But in about 80% of the land area of the U.S., there hasn't been.

          In my area, for example, the ONLY practical way to get affordable high speed internet, for years, was via cable.

          And there was only one cable company. (Again, that is true in most of the U.S.)

          Things like DSL came around, eventually, but they were not cheap, and though they were symmetric, they were relatively

          • The solution to government mismanagement is even more government management?

            • No, the solution to unregulated greed and anticompetitive behavior is *effective* government regulation.

              I don't hear anyone doing the piss and moan about utility regulations for water, sewer, natural gas, or electricity; why should network availability be any different than these other basic services that society has chosen to regulate access to?

            • If you knew much about me, you'd know how much I hate government regulation in general.

              Though of course there are exceptions like Flint, Michigan, public utilities regulated mostly by their own local governments have worked pretty well.

              Community-based last-mile ISP services are among the things that have worked. I'd even rather spend a little more on one of those than sending even more money to one of the ever-expanding cable monopolies.
        • Back in the 90s telcos and various startups laid zillions of miles of fiber optic cabling to existing lines. Most of it is still dark. When ISPs talk about âoelimited capacityâ they are full of shit.

      • That wireless link still has to hit wires at some point. Those wires are in underground vaults and on overhead poles just the same as telephone service.

        What was your point again?

      • There is limited spectrum for wireless services. See: the multi-billion dollar spectrum auctions the FCC holds.

        How is this not an analog for the situations you mention?

    • Wrong reason to make something a utility (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Monday May 25, 2020 @08:06PM (#60104080)

      After the last 60 days it should be plainly obvious if it wasn't already that internet is communication and communication should be considered a utility. Just like your power, your water and your sewage, it's just something that is provided for the public good.

      The poor state of Internet in the U.S. is because the government is treating it like a utility, not because it's not. Local governments insist on awarding cable TV/Internet service as a monopoly, but then don't do enough regulating it so the company doesn't abuse that monopoly to fleece its customers. If the government isn't going to bother keeping the monopolies it grants in check, it shouldn't be granting the monopolies in the first place. Allow companies to compete so The People can choose which one is providing the best service.

      You don't award a utility because it's "for the public good." You award a utility because it's redundant to have multiple providers. For electricity, it's because you don't want everyone stringing up their own power lines on every telephone pole [pinimg.com]. Same for telephone and cable TV service. For gas and water, it's because you don't want dozens of companies burying criss-crossing pipes underground. Only one set of wires or pipes is needed to go to each house, so what you do is hire one company to string up or bury that single set of wires or pipes - a utility.

      But then what you're supposed to do is prohibit that company from offering service through those wires or pipes. Instead they have to sell access to the wire or pipe to other companies at a fixed rate. So the gas company owns, builds, and maintains the gas lines. But the gas itself is provided by dozens of other companies, and the people are free to pick which company they buy gas from. Each of these companies pays the utility a transport fee for sending that gas over the pipes. That's also how electricity and long-distance phone service works in most places.

      But what local governments have done with cable and DSL Internet (provided by the local phone company, not long distance) is grant a monopoly on implementing the pipes, but then allowed the company which owns the pipes to provide the service. That's not a utility, that's just a monopoly. And since it's a government-granted monopoly, nobody else is allowed to string up new lines to try to break the monopoly. It's a problem caused by poor government regulation, and your proposed solution is more government regulation.

      • To do what are you proposing (which I totally agree with and you really was my point. I did not suggest federalizing all internet) requires the FCC using Title II of the Communications Act and declare broadband common carrier and implement local loop un-bundling. That's not more regulation, just different regulation and in my opinion far better. Less regulation certainly isn't going to fix the problem. Not using that regulation and declaring it "Information Services" which the cable companies absolutely

  • Define slow speed as lack of competition. Any zip code 3 independently owned ISPs providing at least 1000 Mbs averaged to individual accounts is considered an area of service gap. Factor that by +2 for each ISP less than 3. Than apply the following: 1. Give all ISPs 60 days to unload any content ownership else all IP becomes public domain and and they are fined $1 million per viewer until it is sold. 2. Allow any ISP that wants to enter a market 120 days access to any wire that lays on land purchased with

  • Just give the $16bn to SpaceX (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Monday May 25, 2020 @03:42PM (#60103446)

    Just give that to SpaceX. Small ISPs might be competent, but extending the last mile is just not cost effective for anyone. Giving that to terrestrial ISPs is a waste of money. Just look how successfully they've expanded rural broadband so far.

  • It may be true in cities, but it's definitely not true in rural or semi-rural areas. Not even close

  • Incompetence, FCC could ask a CDN (Score:4)

    by laughingskeptic ( 1004414 ) on Monday May 25, 2020 @04:16PM (#60103534)
    Akamai and every other CDN knows the performance of every net block and they have a pretty good idea of where all of these IPs are physically situated. For instance old summarized data can be found here: https://www.akamai.com/us/en/m... [akamai.com] . The fact that they haven't done this obvious research probably means they like the fog.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • What if we had a system where the people who control all the infrastructure and propose to build more could perhaps ASK their adoring populates: "Do you have access to Broadband?" There could be some kind of system with wires and switches which, if you push a button, pure knowledge files away but also stays with you. They could build some kind of... aerial-view type drawing of a terrain, simplified to show only the relevant details. Guys, guys... do you need a new president by any chance?

    • Because a lot of consumers wouldn't have the slightest clue whether they could get broadband on their lot unless a provider tells them. They don't know where the cables run or how to spot the access points. The providers, OTOH, know exactly which lots they can serve just from looking at the maps of where they ran their cable and where they put their access points, so they're in the ideal position to accurately report coverage. Except for the small fact that it's not in their financial best interests to repo

  • Yup. Three Megabits per second. That's almost 6 56K modems! And I pay $120/mo for landline + internet. Such a deal! And I'm in a not particularly remote part of Boulder County and that's the best that CenturyLink can provide me for any price. I can't wait for StarLink, even if Elon smokes pot and eats Christian babies for a snack. Yes, I'm whining, and these are first-world problems.

    • Have you looked at smaller wireless ISPs?

      • Sprint used to have an awesome wireless service originating in Boulder some years ago. The antenna needed line of sight with some antenna over there, and it reached some areas in Denver, where I lived. It wasn't blazing fast by current cable standards, but it did everything I needed, was faster than DSL by a lot. I was sad when they shut it down, eventually having to settle with Comcrap.

        I'm not surprised the other guy has gripes about internet in Boulder. That place, despite its "progressive" pretenses, is

        • The line of sight part is a problem in the hollow I now live in. I've used some real wonderful ISPs who have set up repeater/relays, but they lose interest after a few years. I love the cat lady comment. FWIW, Longmont has municipal internet and as standard service, they offer 100Mbps up and down.
      • Great thought. My geography in the mountains precludes wireless internet and phones. However, you got me thinking, and I'll look into Hughes Satellite system, which cost $100/mo. Thank you!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fred911 ( 83970 )

      StarLink will not provide sufficient bandwidth in dense areas. If your block has [a yet unknown amount] excessive users, that dog don't hunt. RTT has to back off exponentially when multiple hidden transceivers who can't hear each other pass off channel control to the extraterrestrial server/host.
      The extraterrestrial server hears all transmitters and the terrestrial transceivers are unable to properly and efficiently use the channels without the bird's control.

      So it sounds wonderful, but I wouldn't hold my

    • Three Megabits per second. That's almost 6 56K modems!

      Off by a factor of 10.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

      Yup. Three Megabits per second.
      That's almost 60 56K modems!

      FTFY. If you're going to go off on a sarcastic rant, you might want to avoid having your numbers be off by an order of magnitude.

    • 6 56K modems would be ~300 Kbps, not 3000.

  • Why did we rely on companies self-reporting rather than having the government check on this? Why did we, when we found out about them lying, not punish them? I smell the upward-pointing magic finger of the market around here someplace.

  • A better method of reporting would be to report the percentage of area of a census block that has broadband available, with area measured by two methods: total area of block divided by total area of lots with broadband available on them, and fraction of lots in the block which have broadband available on them. The results of both calculations must be reported. The providers can easily calculate both numbers, because they know exactly which lots they ran cable past and which lots they installed access points

  • there was great cable TV internet service, reasonably priced and good download speed & thoughtput, i move 20 miles away to a nearby smaller town, no more cable TV internet service, the only internet is either satellite that also requires a phone line (landline) or AT&T DSL and i dont want either one of those because service is poor and prices are high, so i am using my smartphone as a hotspot when i want to go online, its not bad until i want to watch a video or download a Linux iso which is painful
  • You understand the cost to provide broadband, out in the plains area? Hell, I remember driving across South Dakota almost 17 years ago and you'd see mile after mile of NOTHING, scattered by a farm here and there. The cost to run fiber would be cost prohibitive. Satellite or some sort of wireless would be a less expensive option I think.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      And yet these areas have copper phone lines, electrical supply, roads and running water... So someone went to all the cost and effort to lay those services.

      Laying cables through miles and miles of nothing isn't that hard as you have very few obstacles. Run some fibre alongside the roads where the power and water is probably running already.
      It becomes much harder when you have to cross private land owned by many different individuals.

      The problem with any form of wireless communication is that spectrum is fin

  • Reasonable speed for wired internet (15 - 25 mbits/sec) may be available, but for folks earning minimum wage or somewhat more may too costly. The same for cell phone use, even for the cheapest service.

  • as actual coverage, not some BS "Fox counting the chickens scam" allowed to dictate the distribution of these funds.

    They are allowed to pinky swear that they cover areas. It would be better if a private company with an impartial eye make that appraisal.

    Is it a coincidence that the companies expanding their cell phone networks at the same time crying for money to expand wired service to outlying areas.
    And that would not bother me so much except that same company punishes me for using my phone as a hot spot w

    • I'm not sure why you believe a private company would be less likely to be suborned by the big players than the government. If anything, they're even more likely to suck up to them.

  • I know that the federal government in the US loves to insert itself into everything, but...seriously? Why is this even on the federal radar? Surely Internet access is a matter for States and local governments?

    Oh, they're handing out money. It's an election year. I suppose that explains everything...

    • It serves its purpose: to increase donations legal and not.

      The problem around here is people think this is a bug of business rather than a bug of government.

    • The "inter" part makes part of it interstate commerce, definitely their area. Last mile is not in itself, per se, but the USF was established long ago for telephone.

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close