dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
914

UmmaGumma
join:2011-06-19

UmmaGumma

Member

FCC To Require 10Mbs Service For Rural Buildouts

quote:
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission will require broadband providers getting new federal subsidies to build networks in rural areas to deliver download speeds of at least 10Mbps.

The FCC on Thursday voted to update its rules for the Connect America Fund, the broadband subsidy program funded through fees on telephone service, with a major change being the increase in minimum download speeds from 4Mbps to 10Mbps from fixed broadband providers.

Broadband providers AT&T and Verizon had opposed the speed increase, and one of the FCC’s Republican commissioners questioned whether the new speed requirement could limit deployment.

The new speed requirements could double the cost of deployment to rural areas, but the commission did not also double the time that broadband providers could complete their deployments, Commissioner Ajit Pai said.
»www.pcworld.com/article/ ··· ies.html
Ole Juul
join:2013-04-27
Princeton, BC

Ole Juul

Member

That will certainly make all the rural folks who are currently capped at 1.5 Mbps very happy. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen.

tschmidt
MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
·Hollis Hosting

1 recommendation

tschmidt to UmmaGumma

MVM

to UmmaGumma
Seems to me if you are building out an under served area it is either because the Telco loop is too long for DSL or the area is not served by Cable.

1) If this is the Telco it means installing remote terminals and using fiber backhaul to reduce loop length.
2) If it is the Cable Co it means using fiber to extend the HFC network to bring a new node on line.
3) If it is an over-builder they have no legacy investment to protect so FTTP is the only sensible investment.

Bottom line: 10Mbps seems to be to be a reasonable threshold to accept federal money. May even be a little low for a new build.

/tom
Ole Juul
join:2013-04-27
Princeton, BC

2 recommendations

Ole Juul

Member

said by tschmidt:

Seems to me if you are building out an under served area it is either because the Telco loop is too long for DSL or the area is not served by Cable.

That how I understand it too. But why would a company want to build out to such an area if it is going to mean increased costs for them? It seems to me that in those areas (I'm in one) they will never make back their money, or even a noticeable part of it. This means that the government contribution will be close to 100%. Can they get that much?

Bottom line: 10Mbps seems to be to be a reasonable threshold to accept federal money. May even be a little low for a new build.

I think so too. However, I'm guessing that the cost of that, together with the cost to the ISP buying that much bandwidth, will make the monthly subscriber bill astronomical. IOW, almost nobody would buy it.

tschmidt
MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
·Hollis Hosting

1 recommendation

tschmidt

MVM

said by Ole Juul:

But why would a company want to build out to such an area if it is going to mean increased costs for them?

Here in VT, NH, ME the condition of the sale from Verizon to FairPoint was that FairPoint expand service to un-served areas. I think they have pretty much accomplished that goal over the years. I'm lucky in that even though we are in a small time I'm within a few miles of the CO so after an initial struggle am able to get fairly fast ADSL (6Mbps-ish)

When we talk about profitability what we are reallying talking about is payback. Except in the most rural areas Fiber is profitable, even though Capex is high operating cost are low, much lower then copper. The problem today is Wall Street expects high short term profits and punishes companies that invest for the long term if it affects short profitability. Not sure if Canadian ISPs operate under the same handicap but I assume so.

I keep falling back to depression era rural electrification and telephone expansion. If we could figure out a way to wire rural folks up during the height of the 1930s I think it is unconscionable we cannot provide high speed Internet to everyone today.

/tom
Ole Juul
join:2013-04-27
Princeton, BC

2 edits

2 recommendations

Ole Juul

Member

said by tschmidt:

I keep falling back to depression era rural electrification and telephone expansion. If we could figure out a way to wire rural folks up during the height of the 1930s I think it is unconscionable we cannot provide high speed Internet to everyone today.

Me too. The way I see it though, is that there are (at least) two things which make the situation different now than it was then.

I live about 12 miles from the telco office and there is a remote station across the street from me with battery backup and a switch. It is fed with a cable with 20 some odd pair, one of which is a T1 for our small town of 100 people. This same cable continues on for another 6 miles to a town of about 300. We have had nothing but problems with that old cable, and Telus has been stonewalling for years saying that we are not having outages when our phones don't work.* Earlier this year, after having expended huge amounts of manpower with people and trucks coming out to dig up the cable and fix it every few feet every time it breaks, Telus finally decided to spend some money and replace part of it, as well as putting parts of it on existing power poles. Along with this was a huge amount of government paperwork to put in a couple more poles - not to mention the paperwork to negotiate with the power company for rental of their poles.

I would guess that this last manoeuvre, along with the couple of years of paying a crew with trucks and equipment to come out weekly, has cost more than it would have to put in fibre. Yes, I know there are end point costs as well, but I still think it would likely be cheaper.

So, what do I think is different now from in the 30's? Well, for one thing there is the difficulty of acquiring rights. Rights to existing poles is costly but routine, and land rights to put in new poles is very difficult to get - especially on public land. For another, the economics of the telco business does not allow for amortization. They simply do not consider the future as being part of their business plan. And the third thing - they do not want us to have good internet. That would involve the scary thought of changing their business model, and I actually think that it would mean less revenue for them. Modern internet is not going to happen here. I would be surprised if all the rural areas in the US who, just like here are currently getting 1.5 mbps, are not going to be in the same boat.

* I will illustrate with a story of the reverse. A scientist is studying fleas. He has trained a number of them to dance when he gives the word. "Dance" he says, and they dance. He then proceeds to the next part of the experiment. He picks off all their legs. Now, he says "dance"! ... they don't dance. His conclusion is that, when you pick off their legs, they become deaf.

This, is the thinking of Telus explained in reverse. When the telephone cable to the whole town is cut, nobody phones them to say they don't have any service. Therefor no refunds are given. This practice, by the way, is condoned by the the overseeing government body. We are doomed.

UmmaGumma
join:2011-06-19

2 recommendations

UmmaGumma to tschmidt

Member

to tschmidt
said by tschmidt:

1) If this is the Telco it means installing remote terminals and using fiber backhaul to reduce loop length.

That's what's happening here. The CO is about 7-8 miles away from me. The existing older DSLAM is about 3-4 miles and fed in and out by copper. I think the tech told me that have 2 or 3 T-1s feeding it. I get 3Mbs and am at just about the end of the loop limit. People another mile down the road from me can't get it at all. Due to over capacity, they can't add new customers or increase speeds.

They've already added about 20 - 30 new remotes that have been powered up and are fed by Fiber, but haven't cut me over to it yet. The closest one is about a mile and a half from me. They say I'll be able to get 6Mbs, but probably not much more.

This is about expanding coverage. Much of the county has no access at all now. Many of them still won't be able to get over 3Mbs even with the new system. But the Telco will be able to add hundreds of households.

FCC wants everyone to have access, just like power and basic telephone, even if they don't have a water utility system.

Remember, much of the government is going to on-line access to accounts like Social Security and IRS, so expanding access benefits them as much as the TelCos.

Rhaas
Premium Member
join:2005-12-19
Bernie, MO

2 recommendations

Rhaas to tschmidt

Premium Member

to tschmidt
said by tschmidt:

Seems to me if you are building out an under served area it is either because the Telco loop is too long for DSL or the area is not served by Cable.

1) If this is the Telco it means installing remote terminals and using fiber backhaul to reduce loop length.

This is the stance we've taken as much of our territory is rural. We've deployed 20+ E3-12C this year which leaves no customers greater than 9kft from a DSLAM. Majority of our customers are 5kft or less.

tschmidt
MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
·Hollis Hosting

tschmidt

MVM

said by Rhaas:

no customers greater than 9kft from a DSLAM. Majority of our customers are 5kft or less.

Want to buy FairPoint and do that here in New England.

To their credit FP is rolling out RTs to meet their purchase requirement to expand DSL footprint. I'm about 14kft using a CLEC. It is unlikely FP will ever deploy RTs in our town and Cable is not an option. Currently getting very stable 6Mbps but faster is better. Can't help but lusting after more speed.

/tom
IanLee
join:2014-11-24
Woodland, WA

1 recommendation

IanLee

Member

Right.

Been stuck on an aging DSL line since early 2008. No upgrades, no future plans, no refunds for dial-up speeds when I'm paying for 3 MBs. I have not once received 3 MBPS. My ISP just takes the money me and many others give them every month and pockets it.

The problem is nobody cares. In a number of rural communities I've been to many of the inhabitants are older citizens whom have little to concern with the internet and more to be concerned about retirement plans and being free from a hostile work environment. I've met so many senior citizens who think 25k dial-up is good internet when it fact it's probably the worst service you can get next to satellite.

Wouldn't surprise me the least if most remote COs have 15-20+ year old equipment barely keeping up with the amount of internet traffic that comes through every day. What with the internet becoming increasingly data intensive, and it becomes clear that your tired old 1.5 MB DSL connection isn't enough.

It is completely backwards. Since fiber is an expensive operation in more distant and rural communities, the least these ISPs can do is offer a little more reliability since I have to depend on a solid connection to get schoolwork done and see more effective job searching.

It's going to take a long time to get this mess sorted out. If the FCC truly stands by their statement they are going to be fighting an uphill battle. ISPs all over are already trying to fight Net Neutrality because they claim it hurts their business of "data throttling" so that we pay several dollars more per month for reaching a certain usage cap.

Because I'm rural and only have DSL as a real option, they are free to throttle my connection and put in a low bandwidth cap, after which my speeds are reduced to dial-up until the next billing cycle happens.