dslreports logo
 story category
Shockingly, Our Timid National Broadband Plan Isn't Working
Plan Architect Acknowledges Systemic Dysfunction

Back when the FCC's broadband plan came out in 2010 I noted that it had serious shortcomings -- particularly when it came to seriously acknowledging this sector's biggest problem: high prices and bad behavior due to limited competition. A recent TechNet study subsequently found that while the plan focused primarily on "broadband adoption," we haven't seen much of an improvement on that front. Worse perhaps, the study found nobody really was coordinating the plan or tracking its impact.

Click for full size
The high point of the plan has to be grants helping rural communities and Native American territories get wired, though even this has been tarnished by the kind of corporate greed, political corruption and oversight issues we saw in West Virginia. In short, most of the plan was a bit of a show pony designed to make us feel good, with even the few quality portions of the plan being implemented poorly.

Three years later and even Blair Levin, the man who designed the plan, is acknowledging that it isn't being implemented particularly well. In an interview with Telecompetitor, Levin lambastes carriers like AT&T and Verizon for freezing their landline broadband deployments, and gives the FCC a tongue lashing for political dysfunction and way too much self-congratulation:

quote:
Like other D.C. political institutions, he said, the commission is "increasingly caught up in a one-note narrative of self-praise rather than focusing on providing the expertise and analytic agility necessary to adjust programs to provide bandwidth abundance to constituencies it is meant to serve." In an interview with Telecompetitor on Friday, Levin directed further criticism at the FCC’s self-praise. "I would never invest in a company that had a CEO who behaved that way," he said.
Levin may be hinting at the self-congratulatory showmanship the FCC has been engaging in when it comes to 1 Gbps deployments. The agency recently instituted a "1 Gbps challenge" intended to bring gigabit connectivity to at least one location in all fifty states by 2015. The problem? Numerous people (including Levin in his new role at Gig U) have been building these networks for years, and don't appreciate the agency coming in after the fact and pretending they helped. Especially given their lack of action when it comes to anti-community broadband efforts that cripple many of these efforts.

Levin isn't exempt from criticism, given he went to almost comedic lengths to avoid even mentioning competition issues when discussing the plan, and if you'll recall insisted such criticism "wasn't productive." Nobody at the FCC was seriously willing to challenge carriers, nobody paid attention to the FCC's own data on embracing open access models, and nobody addressed soaring prices, regulatory capture, and competitive stagnation. Three years later and people, including the man who wrote most of it, now wonder why the plan isn't doing much.

Surely things will get better now that a former cable and wireless lobbyist is taking over the FCC, right?
view:
topics flat nest 
westdc
join:2009-01-25
Amissville, VA

westdc

Member

Looks Like

We Need More Laws!
TechnoGeek
join:2013-01-07

TechnoGeek

Member

Re: Looks Like

With more loopholes...
Cobra11M
join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX

Cobra11M

Member

Re: Looks Like

with more money for those that go threw the loopholes ;0.. lookin at you AT&T
Expand your moderator at work

Infostack
@optonline.net

Infostack to westdc

Anon

to westdc

Re: Looks Like

You mean Moore's law?!? Don't you! Add to that Metcalfe's Law and then you are closing in on Butter's Law. In plain english, Moore's means 30%+ improvements annually and Metcalfe nearly doubles that, while Butter maintains fiber can achieve 50% in 9 mos.

So how do these laws stack up with reality? Well, since we remonopolized the sector starting in the early 2000s, bandwidth pricing has indeed been falling between 12-18% annually, which sounds great and results in a 72-86% decline over that period. But wait, if we had had competition, pricing for equivalent performance would have dropped 35% or more, resulting in a nearly 99% price decline. That means current prices are 20-150x higher than they should be!

It can be said, "we live in the best of times and we live in the worst of times," depending on one's perspective and math.
axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX

axiomatic

Member

Similar?


»/r0/do ··· b200.jpg

Blair Levin looks like an older Daniel Craig?

If only James Bond could force competition in the broadband space. Only then might we see some action.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory

Member

Re: Similar?

I'm sure that he'd take the complement.... LOL

cableties
Premium Member
join:2005-01-27

1 recommendation

cableties to axiomatic

Premium Member

to axiomatic

J.K. Simmons
nah. more resemblance to J.K. Simmons (but with more hair)
brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Tampa, FL

brianiscool

Member

Run Fiber !

You have the governments unlimited spending. Start offering fiber in big cities make a big impact in changing our broadband life style. Don't waste money on rural areas that will hardly bring in any income.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: Run Fiber !

Start offering fiber in rural areas where we grow the nations food and make a big impact on future farming technologies. Don't waste money on urban areas that already have broadband.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: Run Fiber !

The bigger ROE for fiber would be in the urban centers. 4G/LTE should be built in rural areas. Most rural areas already have fiber run through them, just need the ILECs and cable co's to get off their asses and use it. They don't because they have no reason to do so. This is a situation where rural America is just f'd
Cobra11M
join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX

Cobra11M

Member

Re: Run Fiber !

Agreed, 4G/LTE/Advanced should be used for rural areas.. its more cost effective and could offer more for customers in rural.. now if only are 2 major carriers where not so up tight on caps for those customers...
VentShop
join:2009-08-21
Oklahoma City, OK
ARRIS CM8200
(Software) OPNsense
Netgear R8000

VentShop

Member

Re: Run Fiber !

4G LTE, I am sure Verizon and AT&T will love that. Lets see $15 Per GB over your cap with 4GB costing around 70.00. They will have you burn through that in a few days and then forget to send a warning until you have burnt through another 10GB so they can make an extra $150. And then you still have to have use so you keep using but no youtube or netflix for a bit so they make even more money.
TCS
join:2013-03-26

TCS to ArrayList

Member

to ArrayList
Except it's FAR cheaper to run fiber to rural areas where you aren't digging up major thorough fairs to lay it.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: Run Fiber !

no it isn't. you would probably have hundreds of thousands of miles of extra fiber to run for rural areas.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: Run Fiber !

If you have utility power, you should have fiber. Poles are already there. A crew can hang a couple miles a day of fiber. 2 trucks. 1 spool truck, 1 cherry picker. The ride down the street with pick up. Fiber goes through a pully at the bucket, at every pole, tech drills a hole into the post, then screws in a bolt and anchor for the fiber (25 seconds), and the bucket truck slowly drives away to the next pole.

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: Run Fiber !

for every mile of rural area there are far fewer customers than urban areas.

wanttogetsom
@sbc.com

wanttogetsom to brianiscool

Anon

to brianiscool
said by brianiscool:

You have the governments unlimited spending. Start offering fiber in big cities make a big impact in changing our broadband life style. Don't waste money on rural areas that will hardly bring in any income.

Do you mind if I start telling you how and on what to spend your money? If not, I can think of several things that would definately benifit me and not you in any way. Will be nice to have access to a new flow of cash that I don't have to answer for. Don't forget to send me your account number.
Cobra11M
join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX

Cobra11M

Member

Re: Run Fiber !

.... buildin out fiber on the stimulus bill would of been a better use of the governments money than what they did... 50-500 bill would seriously change our nation as far as fiber goes, but are cable companies promises that they can achieve those speeds.. (but not symmetrical) cable is flawed from the ground up, we can keep using it for the next 10 years but where gonna hit a limit in major urban areas..

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578

Member

Hypocrite

Just like those Southern Baptists who vote the county dry then move out, it is very easy for Levin to criticize the FCC and his former boss, Julius Genachowski, after Levin has left the FCC and is no longer responsible for implementing the National Broadband Plan he wrote. He's nothing more than a Monday Morning Quarterback, and a hypocrite to boot.

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

David

Premium Member

personally myself...

I think we need to fix the 18 trillion dollar problem first. (eyes washinton, dc. currently).

ArrayList
DevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ

ArrayList

Premium Member

Re: personally myself...

Nobody cares. This the United States of Apathy.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer to David

Member

to David
The only thing that will solve that problem is economic growth. Watching our nation's broadband infrastructure fall further behind won't do anything to increase economic growth.

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

David

Premium Member

Re: personally myself...

said by Sammer:

The only thing that will solve that problem is economic growth. Watching our nation's broadband infrastructure fall further behind won't do anything to increase economic growth.

yea but bullets, bombs, and guns won't fix it either. At 1/2 trillion a year I think they could use a downgrade in the price dept.
bobny1
join:2004-09-10
Bronx, NY

1 edit

bobny1

Member

Same all!

We all knew three years ago that this wasn't gonna work! Why! Because it is an orchestrated lie to spend tax dollars to favor the big monopolies " Telcos". Who spend millions of dollars in political kick back. if you want results, let the free market run. Its the old formula that our centralized Government keeps tweaking in the name of the future.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz

MVM

"plans" without action are useless

Nothing is going to get done unless you:

1) Build the infrastructure yourself
2) Pay somebody to build the infrastructure for you
3) Require (force) somebody to build the infrastructure
4) Substantially incent somebody to build the infrastructure, such that they only get money after actually accomplishing the goal

Does the FCC's broadband plan do any of those things on a large scale? Did the FCC found a government-owned company to build the infrastructure, like Australia did with the NBN Co.? For all of the NBN's issues and controversies, at least their government is actually DOING something and putting their money where their mouth is.
mlcarson
join:2001-09-20
Santa Maria, CA

mlcarson

Member

Re: "plans" without action are useless

Telco's would rather build the infrastructure in large urban areas over and over and over again. That money needs to go to fiber installs in areas that haven't been built out once rather than to all of the places that already have a decent infrastructure.

None of it should go to wireless solutions unless there's a caveat which requires it be sold at a fixed dollar amount for unlimited usage at a similar rate that wired infrastructures are. The carriers have no problem at all building these systems on their own if they're going with a usage based model since they're extremely profitable.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: "plans" without action are useless

said by mlcarson:

That money needs to go to fiber installs in areas that haven't been built out once rather than to all of the places that already have a decent infrastructure.

Until that investment earns a sufficient return, it won't happen willingly. It will require subsidies and regulation, plain and simple. Otherwise, rural areas that don't make financial sense for investors, will see wireless as their future.
said by mlcarson:

None of it should go to wireless solutions unless there's a caveat which requires it be sold at a fixed dollar amount for unlimited usage at a similar rate that wired infrastructures are.

So we're going to mandate rates and services? Fine, then will guarantee profits for carriers too in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, and favors as a regulated monopoly.
mlcarson
join:2001-09-20
Santa Maria, CA

mlcarson

Member

mlcarson

The context here was government money in which there are always strings. Why should it go to places the company would be investing anyway. It's pretty obvious now that these carriers are going to put next to nothing into rural infrastructure on their own but have no problems at all pouring money into urban areas where there is competition or in highly profitable items like 4G wireless. They don't need government money for these activities.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: mlcarson

said by mlcarson:

Why should it go to places the company would be investing anyway.

Why do you think money is spent? It's spent as an investment; for financial gain and/or the betterment of society.
said by mlcarson:

It's pretty obvious now that these carriers are going to put next to nothing into rural infrastructure on their own but have no problems at all pouring money into urban areas where there is competition or in highly profitable items like 4G wireless.

That would be the financial gain part of my previous statement. If you want the betterment of society with upgraded infrastructure in rural environments, it'll take tax breaks, subsidies, and/or political favors to get it done. Spending billions of dollars across huge swaths of rural America does not make for wise financial investments for many of those areas.

linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium Member
join:2002-12-03
United State

linicx

Premium Member

No kidding?

FCC can babble all they want. Bad behavior and high prices are the norm. The guys are not going in to rural America and they are not going to share their territories. They didn't do in the 90s when it mandated; they are not going to do it 25-years later either.

FCC is a toothless lion in the DC Beltway Zoo that makes a lot of noise to entertain the kiddies when it isn't sleeping.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: No kidding?

said by linicx:

They didn't do in the 90s when it mandated; they are not going to do it 25-years later either.

They did. The problem is that the CLECs didn't do what they were supposed to be with the aid of the ILECs sharing their infrastructure.
said by linicx:

FCC is a toothless lion in the DC Beltway

Ironically, the FCC has mostly done the neutering to itself.
bigboy
join:2000-12-04
Palo Alto, CA

bigboy

Member

Ah, the joys of central planning

Worked well for China and the Soviet Union, I see.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: Ah, the joys of central planning

Without central planning, Palo Alto (or any city in the USA) would be a shanty town with open ditch sewers, ruts in roads deep enough to swallow a Mini Cooper, and no power or gas.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA

Premium Member

Use it or lose it

The incumbent wireline carriers in rural areas should have to get X speed out to every customer or else lose their network. It would force them to get off their butts and start laying some fiber, whether it's FTTN or FTTH or whatever. Even RDSLAMs with ADSL2+ would be a huge improvement over what many areas have now.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578

Member

Re: Use it or lose it

said by BiggA:

The incumbent wireline carriers in rural areas should have to get X speed out to every customer or else lose their network. It would force them to get off their butts and start laying some fiber, whether it's FTTN or FTTH or whatever. Even RDSLAMs with ADSL2+ would be a huge improvement over what many areas have now.

1. Broadband is not a regulated utility service, so universal service obligations don't apply.
2. Why is that people always wanna slap this requirement on the telco but never on the cable company?
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA

Premium Member

Re: Use it or lose it

We should do the same on the cable company. And we should regulate broadband as universal service. It's a heck of a lot more important than a service that no one users anymore, that's for sure.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Maybe we shouldn't have a national plan

Whenever Washington gets involved in local affairs, the cost goes up and the outcome fizzles.

Why not let us keep our hard-earned money and decide for ourselves what best to spend it on?