dslreports logo
 story category
FCC Commissioners Haven't Seen Broadband Plan
And Commissioner vote not required when plan is finished...

So far we've only seen nebulous, faint outlines of the FCC's national broadband plan, which is due to be presented to Congress in just 43 days. All we really know so far is that Uncle Sam's first ever (and long overdue) broadband plan failed to impress consumer advocates by seemingly ignoring the industry's lack of competition. We also know the plan doesn't really challenge the status quo or entrenched duopoly power, or you'd be hearing a lot more complaining from powerful ISP lobbyists.

We also know that plan architect Blair Levin doesn't want you to criticize it, and according to Levin, the plan won't try to impose a return to line sharing, nor will it aim particularly high when trying to define broadband service for all Americans. If you're feeling like you're not getting enough information, you're not alone. Republican FCC Commissioner Robert ("what broadband problem?") McDowell has yet to actually see the plan, according to Multichannel News:

quote:
In an interview for C-SPAN's Communicators series, McDowell said the broadband team has given him briefings and that the plan will come down to what the FCC can do to provide fatter, faster, affordable broadband. He said he was looking forward to seeing more, saying he expected to at the FCC's Feb. 11 meeting, when it will be formally presented. He said that could just be the broadband team presenting it to the commission, then sending it to the Hill. He also said that the longer there is no specificity on how it will be presented, the shorter the odds that there will not be a vote.
According to previous comments by Levin, an FCC Commissioner vote won't be required to present the plan to Congress. Dozens of blog entries, plenty of feel good commentary, and countless workshops later -- it seems a little bit curious that nobody really knows what the plan actually entails -- outside of the wholly bland basics (more spectrum, accessibility improvements, basic USF reform). The fact that major ISPs haven't been crying about the plan either indicates that it won't do much to rattle the uncompetive duopoly status quo -- or that Blair and company are doing a stellar job at making everyone feel good about the plan -- without actually revealing any of its more pointed specifics.

We'll know more in 43 days.

view:
topics flat nest 
jdir
join:2001-05-04
Santa Clara, CA

jdir

Member

Make it simple

Make broadband - 10Mbits minimum (cable, dsl, wifi, etc)
Make broadband - affordable at $29.95
Make broadband - available everywhere

Is that so hard ?
SArcanine
join:2009-11-09
New York

SArcanine

Member

Re: Make it simple

said by jdir:

Make broadband - 10Mbits minimum (cable, dsl, wifi, etc)
Make broadband - affordable at $29.95
Make broadband - available everywhere

Is that so hard ?
Yes. Many parts of the US cannot be wired profitably at that rate, which makes it infeasible to do that. You could do it, but it would be a money losing program, much like the US Congress.
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

nasadude

Member

Re: Make it simple

said by SArcanine:

Yes. Many parts of the US cannot be wired profitably at that rate, which makes it infeasible to do that. You could do it, but it would be a money losing program, much like the US Congress.
No, many parts cannot be wired with ENOUGH profit for the incumbents.

with a little govt help with middle mile infrastructure, I'm pretty sure you would find companies coming out of the woodwork to provide service to "unserviceable" communities.

the govt could also provide help to the communities themselves to set up broadband, as many have done all over the country (mostly without govt help).

one of the simplest things that could be done would be for the fed govt to pass a law preventing incumbents from stopping municipal broadband projects just because they don't want competition.

CylonRed
MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County

CylonRed

MVM

Re: Make it simple

Going to be more than a few govt dollars... Lots of dark fiber out there - few ways to get it to houses affordably either by the govt or private companies.

markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

markofmayhem

Premium Member

Re: Make it simple

Do these same houses have electricity? Why was it easier to do 100 years ago?

CylonRed
MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
·Metronet

CylonRed

MVM

Re: Make it simple

said by markofmayhem:

Do these same houses have electricity? Why was it easier to do 100 years ago?
Back then there was the drive - people- and MONEY to do it. This is not the 1950's with the post war boom and a huge economy with fairly low deficits. Different economic times - can't compare 50 year later. Same reason we won't be launching an Apollo type project anytime soon either but we did - money no object in the 60's.

markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

markofmayhem

Premium Member

Re: Make it simple

The electrification project was 100+ years ago, we were a very poor country back then if my knowledge of history is correct (yes?). DRIVE, yes! It surely is missing, isn't it? Shame, really, I doubt the next generation will be less lazy than ours and may in fact be as lazy as the one dying off currently. We hold JFK as a hero replaying the "man on the moon" speech repeatedly, yet bicker and disagree that the highway project of the '50's that enabled the limitless funding of Apollo is an opportunity again, today, with the internet. Commerce, information, and education would grow and flourish. Maybe that's the problem, more education, information and commerce would result in less dependency.

CylonRed
MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County

CylonRed

MVM

Re: Make it simple

Poor country but able to get the money somehow - try and raise the taxes to cover the cost now and see what happens.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: Make it simple

said by CylonRed:

Poor country but able to get the money somehow - try and raise the taxes to cover the cost now and see what happens.
We have by far the largest economy in the world. We have spent a trillion dollars on two wars. We already spent $200 billion per the 1996 Telecom Act on fiber to every house in the country. It just happened to be swindled away. I think we can afford to guarantee our future with infrastructure investment.

CylonRed
MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
·Metronet

1 edit

CylonRed

MVM

Re: Make it simple

We spend a few trillion we DO NOT HAVE - it was borrowed and it either will be paid or the country will go bust - your choice. I would prefer not to add into the deficit until we get lawmakers who have a clue about fiscal responsibility.

BTW - there are only 2 guarantees - death and taxes - otherwise no guarantee of anything with or without govt creating the infrastructure.

rawgerz
The hell was that?
Premium Member
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA

rawgerz to jdir

Premium Member

to jdir
But "everywhere" is STUPID, why spend $250,000 to reach one home 13 miles in the middle of nowhere Idaho?
If a community wants broadband they should be able to sign a contract and have a law makes the appropriate ILEC provide it within a certain time limit. Or the option of getting a grant to do it themselves.
Not everyone has or can even use a computer, especially older people with no money or a desire to own one.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: Make it simple

If it has mains power or POTS, it should have wireline broadband. Period.

rawgerz
The hell was that?
Premium Member
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA

rawgerz

Premium Member

Re: Make it simple

said by patcat88:

If it has mains power or POTS, it should have wireline broadband. Period.
Sorry, DSL only reaches a few miles. Running fiber lines at $20,000 per mile to a DSLAM to serve one home out in nowhere is stupid. If Napoleon Dynamite's grandmother wants BB, wireless is more cost effective.

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

tschmidt

MVM

Re: Make it simple

said by rawgerz:

DSL only reaches a few miles. Running fiber lines at $20,000 per mile to a DSLAM to serve one home out in nowhere is stupid.
I think you miss the point patcat88 See Profile was making. If it was economically feasible to deliver power and telephone to a rural customer 20, 30, 50, 80 years ago then it is feasible to deliver high speed data today.

The big hurdle is the capital cost to build out a modern fiber network. DSL is a dead end, clever engineering to extend the life of legacy telephone copper circuits. There are versions of GPON capable of 60km (37 miles). Installation cost for fiber is at near parity with copper cable, sometimes even lower. Maintenance costs are much lower yielding long term savings. But it takes a long term view to pull it off, the same way we built out the electric and telephone network years ago. That seems to be sadly lacking today.

/tom

markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

1 recommendation

markofmayhem

Premium Member

Re: Make it simple

^agree, fully

It is SADLY lacking today.

A national build out of an infrastructure is no longer wanted, even when the benefits are so great they can't be calculated. Electrification, Eisenhower's Interstate, telephone... all projects this country painfully did that led us to the highest GDP, highest educated in the world for decades and decades. We're now an outdated crumbling infrastructure. The internet provides information (is there anything more powerful than this in a democratic electorate constitutional republic??), commerce, and education. We as a people should be demanding the infrastructure exists.

rawgerz
The hell was that?
Premium Member
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA

rawgerz to tschmidt

Premium Member

to tschmidt
There's one big difference from power and phone 40 years ago from today, they were given taxpayer monies to do it. The poor south didn't even have power till what, 1960's, 70s?
Utilities were made a right to have back then and without, probably even today parts of the deep south wouldn't even have power.
I don't know what his point was, I guess he assumed back then there was profit to be made on every home, but the truth is without subsidy money they wouldn't have it. I'm not saying that wasn't a good move, but those are necessities now.
If fiber cost 1/10th per mile I could sway the other way for someone that chose to live 15 miles away in BFE 40 years ago, but for whatever reasons, it just doesn't.
And who's to say they'd even want/use it? I told a neighbor about DSL when we could get it, but when the old Scot heard it was $20 a month, he thought it was too much!
Besides, I think we'd all really hate to see even more tax money go to incumbents just to wind up being billed by the byte.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

Skippy25

Member

Re: Make it simple

You mean like the subsidies they have already received for decades through higher prices through a lack of competition and other "incentives"?

You mean like the $2 billion that one state gave them to get wired and yet never received a single thing in return?

Maybe it is me and my definition of subsidy is different than yours?

rawgerz
The hell was that?
Premium Member
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA

rawgerz

Premium Member

Re: Make it simple

My state supposedly allowed them to collect about 4 billion in taxes, like NY and possibly NJ in the 90's. I'm fairly sure without that money, I would not have DSL today, even through it took them till the end of 2008 to provide it. So instead of our revolutionary fiber optic network that cost more than they collected, especially in the 90's, most of the state actually is getting DSL service. Sad thing is, myself and possibly 200-300 homes within distance of the CO had no broadband option till then, and that was the cheapest investment, at the CO.
I don't like it no, but probably without it, myself and neighbors would still have no service unless we could possibly convince a cable co to come out. But they are in no way required to build out if they don't want.

In the end, I think the only way bill by the byte and excessive fees can be avoided is by building a publicly funded, fiber optic network that is state owned and operated which allows any person to sign up with any provider connected to it. But that idea can still be plagued by excessive state taxes, privacy issues, and of course, there's no money to do it.

Pingmeister
@embarqhsd.net

-1 recommendation

Pingmeister to tschmidt

Anon

to tschmidt
said by tschmidt:

said by rawgerz:

DSL only reaches a few miles. Running fiber lines at $20,000 per mile to a DSLAM to serve one home out in nowhere is stupid.
I think you miss the point patcat88 See Profile was making. If it was economically feasible to deliver power and telephone to a rural customer 20, 30, 50, 80 years ago then it is feasible to deliver high speed data today.

The big hurdle is the capital cost to build out a modern fiber network. DSL is a dead end, clever engineering to extend the life of legacy telephone copper circuits. There are versions of GPON capable of 60km (37 miles). Installation cost for fiber is at near parity with copper cable, sometimes even lower. Maintenance costs are much lower yielding long term savings. But it takes a long term view to pull it off, the same way we built out the electric and telephone network years ago. That seems to be sadly lacking today.

/tom
But it happened anyway.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ru ··· tion_Act

"In the 1930s, the provision of power to remote areas was not thought to be economically feasible."

It couldn't happen today. It would be ridiculed to death, just like the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 would be attacked. I would contend that these two acts were among the most pragmatic and important ideas the US has had in modern days.

It was only possible because, at the time, people thought at a higher level, and with less selfishness. Practical, realistic visionaries have somehow been relabeled as socialist commie pinko fags who hate their country and everyone in it. Bean counters and lobbyists (via our government) have taken over the country, and convinced the very people that they're milking, that an extra few pennies of profit per head are beneficial and ethical, whatever the cost to the population on the whole. Our political and social climate doesn't lend itself to this kind of thinking anymore.

Maybe if we're lucky, the pendulum will swing closer to the center again.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin to rawgerz

Member

to rawgerz
said by rawgerz:

said by patcat88:

If it has mains power or POTS, it should have wireline broadband. Period.
Sorry, DSL only reaches a few miles. Running fiber lines at $20,000 per mile to a DSLAM to serve one home out in nowhere is stupid. If Napoleon Dynamite's grandmother wants BB, wireless is more cost effective.
You`re mistaken about the cost of running fiber to rural homes. You should take note of the costs cited by rural fiber ISPs. They`re quite similar to Verizon`s metro area costs.

rawgerz
The hell was that?
Premium Member
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA

rawgerz

Premium Member

Re: Make it simple

I get my information directly from a local cable co's VP of internet operations. If a company has to string aerials 1 mile, to reach 1 home, it costs 20K. If there's 9 homes along the way, that's 2K per home. If I'm wrong, show me your source.
What the cost breakdown is, I have no idea, and can't seem to find it.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: Make it simple

said by rawgerz:

I get my information directly from a local cable co's VP of internet operations. If a company has to string aerials 1 mile, to reach 1 home, it costs 20K. If there's 9 homes along the way, that's 2K per home. If I'm wrong, show me your source.
What the cost breakdown is, I have no idea, and can't seem to find it.
The 20K per mile includes the cable co's profit margin on custom construction. The speculation construction cost would be cheaper, not sure how much. If I recall correctly, Verizon charges $90 per hour per man for custom construction, $120 per hour for an engineering man. Now think about those prices, they include healthcare, pension, salary, the truck, AND the profit margin/dividends.

If 20K per mile were the real cost, cable wouldn't have ever been built. I'm sure the 20K per mile includes retail prices for materials (hardline, taps, fittings), not the volume price the cable co pays. Its like a contractor, he collects on the material, and he collects his labor charges.

rawgerz
The hell was that?
Premium Member
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA

rawgerz

Premium Member

Re: Make it simple

I don't know if you've ever watched the VZ crews work but they are anything but slow. If everything goes smoothly they seem to be able to do 3 miles by lunchtime. Even though it takes a few crews to complete a project (data gathering, right of way, conduit, fiber, splicing crew, dslm subs), I still don't believe the majority of the cost in going to labor as you have suggested. Materials and/or pole rights sound more logical.
Maybe comparing cable to ILECs is like comparing apples to oranges, all I know is that it's expensive.

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

tschmidt to patcat88

MVM

to patcat88
said by patcat88:

[The 20K per mile includes the cable co's profit margin on custom construction.
I believe aerial construction costs are around $40-50k per mile, much higher for underground. The more fiber strands the higher the cost but only marginally. Fiber Ribbon cable has drastically deduced splicing costs. At 5,280 feet per mile if cable costs $5 a foot cable alone is $25k per mile.

The impediment is not the cost per mile so much, installing copper, coax or fiber have surprising similarity costs, within a factor of 2 or so. It is how many customers are served per mile.

/tom
jp10558
Premium Member
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY

jp10558 to rawgerz

Premium Member

to rawgerz
My biggest problem is the way (and I just don't see how this is legal) that the big carriers somehow won't run broadband in a town, and then somehow sue and legally block the city, town or other vendor from coming in and serving the demand.

It's one thing if a company doesn't find it profitable, but they shouldn't be able to block someone else, whether it's local govt or a co-op or another company from trying to make a go of it.

If they are going to be able to monopolize areas, then they should be FORCED to provide service like telephone was...

markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

markofmayhem

Premium Member

Re: Make it simple

Bingo!!!!

Here's a start to broadband reform:
All area's contractually obligated to a single entity must forfeit said contract unless broadband exists with capacity at least 10mbps down/2 up by end of 2011.
zipjay
join:2003-03-11
South Williamson, KY

zipjay to jdir

Member

to jdir
*agree*

weeksben1
Premium Member
join:2004-02-26
Clarkston, MI

weeksben1

Premium Member

Re: Make it simple

*agree* x2
gorehound
join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME

gorehound to jdir

Member

to jdir
big business will win in the end and we all get screwed as usual.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Typical FCC - Chairman ignoring other commissioners

It seems like nothing has chgd from Martin's tenure as FCC chairman. The staff take their orders from Genachowski and the other commissioners are cut out of the process. They won't even get to see or vote on the plan or contribute to it before it is pkgd for delivery to Congress.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Typical FCC - Chairman ignoring other commissioners

I'd wonder if the Democratic Commissioners have seen any better insight. I wonder if there really isn't just all that much to show -- aside from the meeting minutes of 148 different "roundtables" designed to make everybody feel good...

I'll be VERY surprised if the plan does anything that could even vaguely be considered progressive. Or innovative for that matter.

LightS
Premium Member
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX

LightS

Premium Member

Re: Typical FCC - Chairman ignoring other commissioners

I agree, even though a plan will be presented, hopefully approved, I honestly think it will take too long to really make any noticeable improvements in the ever-nearer future. Innovation is the key to TRUE progression, and without innovative solutions being seriously considered I don't think we will ever progress as we should.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Typical FCC - Chairman ignoring other commissioners

By the time any real, consumer-friendly approach could be fully implemented, the parties will change, and we'll be back to the faux free market idea that allowing corporations free reign results in telecom utopia.

Innovation, competition. Lots of lip service paid to these ideas by both parties, but ultimately it always winds up with the wealthiest companies crafting rules that protect what's theirs....

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

FCC asking Congress for 1 month delay in Broadband Plan:

»news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2010 ··· roadband
The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is asking for a one-month extension on the national broadband plan the agency is required to submit to Congress.

The plan, mandated by last year's economic stimulus bill, is due to lawmakers by Feb. 17. It will lay out a policy road map for ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable high-speed Internet service.

The agency is asking for an extra month to finish digging through the massive volume of public comments that it has received over the past 11 months as it has gathered input on how to make universal broadband a reality. The team preparing the plan also wants more time to brief the FCC's five commissioners and members of Congress.

The request for an extension needs to be approved by the Senate and House Commerce Committees, which have jurisdiction over the FCC.

Robert McDowell, one of two Republicans on the five-member commission, said in a statement late Wednesday that he is "disappointed that the FCC's broadband team is unable to deliver a national broadband plan to Congress by the statutorily mandated deadline."

LightS
Premium Member
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX

LightS

Premium Member

Simplicity

Is good, and we need a basic outline of everything, I would like to think.

Such as a base definition of the term broadband -- I would say roughly 6mbps should be the minimum, although the most I could receive is 3mbps, it should promote expansion and improvements across the networks.

Also, competition definitely needs to be revitalized -- There is PLENTY of competition in large cities such as NYC, Atlanta, WDC, Seattle, etc. but what about the rest of the US? I understand that it costs money to expand... but I think they should just go ahead, spend the money, as long as they invest wisely and do their best to make the network robust and easily expandable.

This is definitely needed, I don't think it will be much longer until the Internet is considered a utility.

•••

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

gatorkram

Premium Member

Forced wholesale line shareing

What we need, is forced wholesale prices, line sharing for both DSL and Cable.

I think it almost worked before, for DSL, but something about fair prices or access, or something screwed it all up.

Cable has been able to totally avoid forced line sharing.

Might be a good start.

As it stands now, for a new company to try and come into any market, is pretty much impossible, no matter how much money they tried to toss at it.

•••

jlivingood
Premium Member
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA

jlivingood

Premium Member

Upcoming FCC Workshops

In Boston on 1/13/2010 and in D.C. on 1/19/2010.

Anyone can register to attend (in person or online).

»www.openinternet.gov/workshops/

Homebrew19947
Betzwood Basement Brewery
join:2001-11-15
King Of Prussia, PA

1 recommendation

Homebrew19947

Member

Surprised that we havnt seen it?

Let's see, Congress didn't read the Wall Street bail out plan, the first Stimulus package or the Healthcare plan and they passed all those.

Why would anyone be surprised that no one has seen the Broadband plan?

FreedomBuild
Well done is better than well said
Premium Member
join:2004-10-08
Rockford, IL

FreedomBuild

Premium Member

Re: Surprised that we havnt seen it?

said by Homebrew19947:

Let's see, Congress didn't read the Wall Street bail out plan, the first Stimulus package or the Healthcare plan and they passed all those.

Why would anyone be surprised that no one has seen the Broadband plan?
Too many lobbyist with their nose up their backsides wining & dining them...plus the 'regular' life, vacations, personal time, PR and raising re-election funds...wonder they have the time to even read the comics...
33358088 (banned)
join:2008-09-23

33358088 (banned)

Member

ohhhh canada ...

we have to line share and have no plan
OHHHHHH CANADA
.......WE JUST SUCK
cptmiles2
Premium Member
join:2004-04-22
Swayzee, IN

cptmiles2

Premium Member

USF or NECA

Here is how you get good broadband penetration in the rural areas. Include "all" telephone service (to include cable and cellular) and all Internet including wireless into the pool. It worked for telephone service in the early days. All companies will contribute and the only ones who will receive funding are those providing a minimum of 10M for $29.95 stand alone.

The city people won't like it, but that is the only way to get ubiquitous service in the U.S. The Vonages and MagicJacks of the world have had their free run.

This will essentially dictate that 10Mbps is a right/utility like power and telephone.

markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA

markofmayhem

Premium Member

Re: USF or NECA

Changing 10Mbps broadband to a utility can be done through simpler and more efficient means than a "corporate" tax to all companies involved who will raise their rates to consumer x2 the amount they pay in. The electrification of America can start as a base. I just doubt this country, it's inhabitants, it's corporations, it's leaders, and it's electorate will sit idly by while we try to string a fiber line to everywhere a power line exists and then lease the service inside of it to payback the investment and afford maintenance. There's profit in that their light beam! Corruption, greed, and vanity will not allow us to partake in the "internetification" of America. We paid to link every major marketplace in this country by high-way and wound up with the highest GDP in the world as a result. The "internet" (information, commerce, and education) should be treated equally, to allow the next economic revolution to occur. Unfortunately, a "public" fiber system where you have to choose and buy a carrier to use it, has billions of dollars sitting in escrow from multiple companies just waiting to run an all out blitz campaign to stop.