FCC voted to subsidize rural broadband through the Connect America Fund

[MagickMan]

How did you know my house was phat?

 

[drebo]

It's all well and good for the people who "make the rules" to declare things, but the fact of the matter is that the FCC has not made it possible for rural broadband to exist. They need to deregulate more of the wireless spectrum. As it is, there simply isn't enough bandwidth available in the usable wireless spectrums to offer broadband Internet everywhere.

I run a WISP. I know how it is. The cost of putting up a repeater tower or a microcell to cover a small community is pretty low (<$2000 depending on the size of the community) and with that I could offer 3mb Internet access for less than $100/mo.

One big problem is that a lot of these small communities have things like CC&Rs that prohibit externally mounted antennas of any kind. Well, the only types of wireless spectrum available for these types of services don't do well with obstructions and rely on line-of-sight. Kind of makes it tough to provide wireless broadband to these places when we're not allowed to.

The FCC could have given WISPs a HUGE leg up by not auctioning off the old, unused analog TV frequencies, but they didn't. They instead sold it to Verizon, who in turn has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with it. 700mhz spectrum would have been prime for offering non-line-of-sight wireless broadband. No, it wouldn't ahve been hugely fast, but it would have worked very well. As it is, the FCC is expanding upward...they've recently oppened some 10ghz frequencies. Well, 10ghz is even more sensitive to obstruction than 5.8ghz is. The 3.65ghz spectrum is a great idea (with some poor implementation), but, again, there just isn't enough spectrum available. In fact, depending on the equipment used, the requirements are so stupid that there's only enough bandwidth for one provider to use 3.65ghz in any area.

You can whine and scream that rural areas don't have broadband, but the fact of the matter is that broadband is not a requirement or a right. Internet access is available for a few dollars per month from any number of dialup companies, and dialup is plenty to do school research or check email. No, you can't watch netflix or youtube or play online games anymore...but those aren't rights either. The government needs to make up its mind, and consumers need to get realistic.

Infrastructure is incredibly expensive. "Extending DSL a half mile" is not a cheap proposition. It requires one of two things: repeaters (shitty service record) or running fiber and an IP DSLAM at the remote terminal. The former is not an acceptable solution, and most DSL providers have gotten rid of them. The latter is exceedingly expensive. To lay fiber, you're looking at $15k per mile, plus the cost of the equipment (another $100k+), plus the cost of the enclosure ($10k), plus the cost of electricity in the enclosure, etc, etc. It's not a wise business decision for a company to outlay a quarter of a million dollars to supply 50 homes with $30/mo internet access. Your ROI is just way too low, bordering on non-existent. REACH DSL is one option, but it's very slow and has a 15000 foot range limitation, and likely would require some existing DSLAM line cards to be replaced, which is another huge investment.

There are technical and very good reasons why these places don't have broadband, and they're not because the evil telcos want to spite the people who live there. A lot of it is community created and government created regulation that prevents broadband propagation. It's not as easy as you might think.

 

[Texashiker]

Infrastructure is incredibly expensive. "Extending DSL a half mile" is not a cheap proposition.

The same thing can be said about our state highway and interstate highway system. I am pretty sure bridges, asphalt, machinery and labor is expensive.

Maybe the government needs to step in, build the rural areas for highspeed internet, and then rent those networks out to local co-ops? Because that is how a lot of rural places got electricity in the 1950s.

My dad did not get electricity until he was around 6 years old, that would have been around 1954. The only reason power was brought into rural areas was because the government stepped in. I am pretty sure clearing trees, setting poles, and the wire was expensive back then, just like fiberoptic is today.

If the federal government stepped in during the 1950s to get electricity to rural areas, why cant we do the same thing with internet?

The US ranks low on the internet scale when compared to other developed nations. Something has to be done about that, because the free enterprise market is not going to do anything.

 

[PingSpike]

Dial up really isn't enough to do research anymore. I know because I had it until this year. Websites are designed with fast internet in mind and even with images off, adblock, flashblock (for-fucking-get browsing without this) and download resume tools a large amount of websites are basically unusable due to being bandwidth hogs. Even things like driver downloads are essentially impossible, half the time you have to fight through a giant flash website to get anything. I had to do a massive amount of sneakernet shuttling from work to even do offline stuff at home. A process made all the more worse by many programs and updates having no offline installers readily available.

In the 90s dial up was still slow but websites were designed for it, now you're just fucked. I couldn't even keep my virus scanners and operating systems up to date because the files had ballooned to such larger sizes it would take hours.

That said I don't really disagree that broadband isn't a right and that the telcos aren't the only reason it isn't ubiquitous. drebo mentioned the local communities complaining about towers, which I know for a fact resulted in the roll out in my neighborhood being delayed for a year and half. Without a concerted effort on multiple levels that includes removing artificial barriers not much progress is going to be made here.

 

[sunzt]

In these days and times, broadband internet is/has turning/turned into basic infrastructure. Federal funding for rural areas to hook them up with broadband should be done, unless we're talking about 1 house per 10 acre rural. It will help improve the the local economy similar to how roads did (but with less effect).

This is one of the reasons why broadband providers should NOT be allowed to be content providers.

BTW its interesting to see some staunch conservatives in the forum asking for federal intervention now....

 

[Texashiker]

BTW its interesting to see some staunch conservatives in the forum asking for federal intervention now....

The free market will not work in bringing internet to rural areas. There are not enough people per square mile to justify the cost.

I am pretty sure the same argument was used with bringing electricity to rural areas in the 1950s.

"Something" has to be done, and since business is not going to do it, the only option is the government.

 

[chucky2]

It's not I'm begging for federal intervention, but the FCC already has funds it is already collecting, and is already playing auctioner of wireless spectrum. So not only does it have the money to fund rural broadband, but it has the power to force the major players to spend some of their own coin on implementing rural broadband.

Get it done with a long term mindset and lets move on to something else. Don't care that it's expensive to do, once...once it's done, it's largely done and if done right, not very costly to maintain.

If the FCC wasn't already collecting fees and didn't have this power, then I'd say to people who want to live in the sticks, Oh well, you want to live there that's your choice. FCC needs to either do what it's supposed to be there for, or, GTFO of the way and stop costing us more $$$.

Chuck

 

[xBiffx]

GTFO of the way and stop costing us more $$$.

I'll take what's behind door number two.

 

[drebo]

The same thing can be said about our state highway and interstate highway system. I am pretty sure bridges, asphalt, machinery and labor is expensive.

Maybe the government needs to step in, build the rural areas for highspeed internet, and then rent those networks out to local co-ops? Because that is how a lot of rural places got electricity in the 1950s.

My dad did not get electricity until he was around 6 years old, that would have been around 1954. The only reason power was brought into rural areas was because the government stepped in. I am pretty sure clearing trees, setting poles, and the wire was expensive back then, just like fiberoptic is today.

If the federal government stepped in during the 1950s to get electricity to rural areas, why cant we do the same thing with internet?

The US ranks low on the internet scale when compared to other developed nations. Something has to be done about that, because the free enterprise market is not going to do anything.

The difference is that highways and streets are municipally owned (as are power lines, to some extent). Telco infrastructure is not, to any extent.

This is the way the government wanted it when they drafted the Telco Act of 1996. They had the opportunity to change it, but never did. You cannot lay that blame at the feet of the telcos. In fact, most telcos would love it if that Act were abolished and rewritten.

 

[CPA]

As someone who lives in Rural area, I can say there is absolutely no option for me to have a decent high speed internet.

Is that my fault? Sure it is...
Am I willing to pay a premium for decent internet? Sure I am... So would anybody else in my area.

The problem is this:

In Rural areas, the housing density is so low that phone companies will never recoup the costs of basic infrastrucutre and operations. Basic infrastructure like 3g internet is available, but cell towers are expensive, and if there are only 100 households servicing that cell tower, its never going to be worth building and maintaining the tower.

The end result: People in Rural areas will never have a decent high speed internet.

I've been looking for years. I have no issues paying $80 a month for 1mb downloads with a consistent <100ms ping. It will never be available in my area. I've been to county meetings, I've talked to every provider in my area. All of them have said if I want decent internet, I just need to move.

What really bothers me out of all of it... On my phone bill I have a fraction of my bill paying for poor inner city citizens (and probably non citizens) to get free phones/internet service, yet I am willing to pay a premium for the service, and I can't even get it... As they say life is not fair, and I think its time for people in the city to help out some rural folks. Or atleast allow a portion of what I pay to the poor inner city to be used around my place. TYVM.

HughesNet?

 

[drebo]

It's not I'm begging for federal intervention, but the FCC already has funds it is already collecting, and is already playing auctioner of wireless spectrum. So not only does it have the money to fund rural broadband, but it has the power to force the major players to spend some of their own coin on implementing rural broadband.

Get it done with a long term mindset and lets move on to something else. Don't care that it's expensive to do, once...once it's done, it's largely done and if done right, not very costly to maintain.

If the FCC wasn't already collecting fees and didn't have this power, then I'd say to people who want to live in the sticks, Oh well, you want to live there that's your choice. FCC needs to either do what it's supposed to be there for, or, GTFO of the way and stop costing us more $$$.

Chuck

The problem is that it's not financially possible at this point to provide "99% of americans with broadband" precisely because of a lot of the decisions that the FCC has made.

If we had a sizable slice of 700mhz spectrum to use as WISPs, deployment would be simple and fast. Unfortunately, when you have to run cable and mount external antennas at every single customer's site, propagation speed is pretty low.

As it is, there just isn't enough spectrum available, and that was the FCC's decision.

You're living in a dream world if you believe that the only thing stopping rural broadband is cost.

 

[CPA]

The free market will not work in bringing internet to rural areas. There are not enough people per square mile to justify the cost.

I am pretty sure the same argument was used with bringing electricity to rural areas in the 1950s.

"Something" has to be done, and since business is not going to do it, the only option is the government.

Which is part of the "cons" of living in a very rural area. Many areas in North Dakota, Montana and Wisconsin don't get mail everyday of the week either. Should we further subsidize USPS to do so?

 

[Texashiker]

The difference is that highways and streets are municipally owned (as are power lines, to some extent). Telco infrastructure is not, to any extent.

Maybe you should read a little history.

We are faced with the same situation today that we faced in the 1930s. Companies do not want to invest money, nor do those companies want the government to get involved.

In part of his New Deal, President Franklin Roosevelt got the ball rolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Utilities_Service

RUS traces its roots to the Rural Electrification Administration (REA), one of the New Deal agencies created under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The REA was created on May 11, 1935, with the primary goal of promoting rural electrification. In the 1930s, the U.S. lagged significantly behind Europe in providing electricity to rural areas due to the unwillingness of power companies to serve farmsteads.

Private electric utilities argued that the government had no right to compete with or regulate private enterprise, despite many of these utilities' having refused to extend their lines to rural areas, claiming lack of profitability.

Private power companies set rural rates four times as high as city rates. Under the REA there was no direct government competition to private enterprise. Instead, REA made loans available to local electrification cooperatives, which operated lines and distributed electricity.

And today we have the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

http://www.nreca.coop/

Which is part of the "cons" of living in a very rural area. Many areas in North Dakota, Montana and Wisconsin don't get mail everyday of the week either. Should we further subsidize USPS to do so?

In case you did not know, the post office supports itself, it is not "subsidized" in anyway, shape, or fashion.

The financial problem with the post office comes from the federal government taking the profits of the post office. If the post office could be a "for profit" organization, it would not have any money problems.

 

[CPA]

There were probably people opposed to the highway system, but we see how that turned out.


1950s - Silly people living outside major cities, why do they need paved roads?

2010s - Silly people living outside major cities, why do they need internet?

Do you have a US Highway close to you? How close? Should it be closer?

 

[rudder]

There were probably people opposed to the highway system, but we see how that turned out.


1950s - Silly people living outside major cities, why do they need paved roads?

2010s - Silly people living outside major cities, why do they need internet?

People who use roads pay for them via the road tax. There are still many roads near where I live that are gravel. Plus I can benefit from a farm being able to bring farming products to market. I don't really benefit from Joe Bob surfing for lesbian midget dominatrix porn.

 

[Texashiker]

Do you have a US Highway close to you? How close? Should it be closer?

Highway 96 (north and south) runs through the middle of Jasper, Texas.

Interstate 10 is about 75 - 90 miles south.

Highway 190 goes from Louisiana, through jasper, all the way to Huntsville,

I think its fine the way it is.

 

[chucky2]

Drebo, I'm not talking about getting the majority of rural on wireless broadband, I'm talking about getting them on high speed wired broadband.

If the prem is wired for electricity and inhabitable, then it'd have wired broadband run to it.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Don't hate city people. I know you guys loathe having to pull up to your own houses but it's not my fault. You guys get to see some gangbangers underwear as they stroll by your house throwing gang signs. Yesterday I was watching a woodpecker peck away at huge oak tree in my yard.

 

[drebo]

Drebo, I'm not talking about getting the majority of rural on wireless broadband, I'm talking about getting them on high speed wired broadband.

If the prem is wired for electricity and inhabitable, then it'd have wired broadband run to it.

That's even more unlikely.

Do you understand how wired broadband works and its range limitations?

I didn't think so.

Wireless is the only cost effective way to get to these people and that's so mired in useless FCC regulations that's it's just not feasible.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

http://www.fcc.gov/blog/connect-america-fund-putting-consumers-map

Full map

Why can't these rural folk just move to an area where broadband is available or do without???

Probably because we don't want to move around a bunch of rude a-holes. Lived in a city for 8 years. Never again. I'm entitled to high speed Internet just as much as you are.

 

[chucky2]

I don't have the range limitations memorized nor know every wired broadband solution, No. I do know that in 2020, which is how long if we said Go right now it'd take to get wired broadband to Everyone done, it's going to be nationally important to have reliable, fast, broadband for anyone of working age...and that need will get more and more important as the years go by.

If wireless is going to be able to reliably fullfill that need over the coming decades, so be it. All I see are wireless costs going up. I don't see it being near as reliable as wired, at least not enough to support VPN solutions, video streaming, etc.

If wireless can get to 40MB/s or so down rate per customer, reliably, with costs inline with what wired broadband would be for the same rate, I'm all for it. I don't see that happening for a long while.

Chuck

 

[brandonb]

HughesNet?

It's been about 2 years since I've looked into it, but when I called them in the past, they said their ping times are horrible, about 1000ms, and you're not able to game off it. And I believe they capped your download to 200 megs a day. Which doesn't give you much.

 

[SparkyJJO]

How about you go ahead and try to explain how broadband isn't needed for individuals and businesses from here on going forward? You got by without, congrats, but businesses and students aren't going to thrive without broadband in today's world.

Maybe, just maybe, don't put your business out in the middle of nowhere

If you NEED broadband, then MOVE. (I did.) It is not the governments job to provide (or force someone to provide) you with broadband out in your cornfield because you want to be there and still have all the amenities of being closer to town. Infrastructure to support broadband costs money, and lots of it. You can't fault a company for not wanting to put out huge expenditures of money where there won't be a return.

 

[drebo]

I don't have the range limitations memorized nor know every wired broadband solution, No. I do know that in 2020, which is how long if we said Go right now it'd take to get wired broadband to Everyone done, it's going to be nationally important to have reliable, fast, broadband for anyone of working age...and that need will get more and more important as the years go by.

If wireless is going to be able to reliably fullfill that need over the coming decades, so be it. All I see are wireless costs going up. I don't see it being near as reliable as wired, at least not enough to support VPN solutions, video streaming, etc.

If wireless can get to 40MB/s or so down rate per customer, reliably, with costs inline with what wired broadband would be for the same rate, I'm all for it. I don't see that happening for a long while.

Chuck

You want 400 megabits per subscriber to call them adequately covered? What are you smoking and where can I get some?

When I say "wireless", I'm not talking about cellular wireless. That's old news and isn't appropriate for a fixed-configuration subscriber model. Wireless costs for equipment are going way down. Like I said, I can put up a microcell for about $300 and a full-blown sectored site for about $2000 (less the cost of tower space). That's pretty damn cheap.

Contrast that with $15k PER MILE to extend wireline services (fiber). Yes, it'd be great if we could hit everyone with fiber, but the costs would be absolutely astronomical. PON is a great standard and works extremely well for densely populated areas and suburbs. Not so great, though, for rural. Distance between houses is too much to make sense. DSL is fine, but ADSL has a feasible range limitation of about 12000 feet, and REACH DSL (which tops out at about 1.5mbps) has a usable distance of about 15000-20000 feet depending on vendor.

CTMS is pretty much just as limited, although repeaters don't affect it as much and the signal strength that can be pushed is higher than DSL.

No, the only reasonable solution is fixed wireless. But it isn't going to be 100s of megabits in speed. It's just not feasible. Wireline technologies are progressing, with tech like VDSL, to get reliably to 100mbps, but it's very short range (<10k feet). Rural just isn't going to get there. It's (currently) not physically possible to push broadband over the existing copper and it's not financially possible to run fiber to every home.

It's a great "want" but it's just not viable. PON is probably the closest we'll see to super high speeds being readily available, but it'll never be a rural technology. Rural will never see it, though...especially not unless the gubbment gets rid of the Telco Act of 1996.

 

[IronWing]

People in rural areas don't have access to the subway either. Want urban amenities? Move to the city, pay city taxes, and vote for them.