dslreports logo
 story category
ISPs Now Have to Offer At Least 10 Mbps If They Want Subsidies
Following through on previous promises, the FCC today voted along partisan lines to improve and modify the Universal Service Fund (USF) -- most notably requiring that ISPs provide speeds of at least 10 Mbps if they want to receive Connect America subsidy funding. According to the announcement, the 10 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up standard is an increase from the 4 Mbps down, 1 Mbps standard set back in 2011. The FCC says they also made several other changes, including providing increased flexibility in build out requirements for program participants "while still ensuring that support recipients are reaching out to Americans that were previously unserved."
view:
topics flat nest 
Kuro
join:2014-10-01

Kuro

Member

Whats the catch?

What is the catch for this? Does it have to be a certain percentage of their footprint can get that speed or do they still get subsidies if only one place can get those speeds. Do they need to provide at least 10 Mbps 24/7 or does the 'up to' marketing lie work?

Apophis
Jaffa Kree
Premium Member
join:2001-12-27
Holmen, WI

1 recommendation

Apophis

Premium Member

Re: Whats the catch?

I was wondering the same thing. CenturyLink thinks it is ok to offer 4mb/512kb for 77.00 a month still...
xthepeoplesx
join:2013-10-21

xthepeoplesx

Member

Re: Whats the catch?

I would love to know the same. I am with Centurylink and they don't even offer 10mbps down or 1mbps up. What does this actually mean for new buildouts and old ones?

w0g
o.O
join:2001-08-30
Springfield, OR

w0g

Member

Re: Whats the catch?

I am with AT&T right now. This house only gets 7Mbps down and like 1Mbps up. My house in Springfield, OR, gets 1.5Mbps down and 1Mbps on CenturyLink - they refuse to upgrade Springfield, OR after waiting 14 years. In 2001, it was limited to 256Kbps, they upgraded that finally in 2004 to 1.5Mbps / 1Mbps. After that, they pretty much refused to do any further upgrades in the area - only the town connected to Springfield, OR, Eugene, OR, has seen any movement - I think a few houses can in fact get slightly fast speeds, but not the one I was staying at in 2012; They offered me 7Mbps / 1 Mbps package, not the 40Mbps / 20Mbps CenturyLink trumpets.
Chubbysumo
join:2009-12-01
Duluth, MN
Ubee E31U2V1
(Software) pfSense
Netgear WNR3500L

Chubbysumo

Member

Re: Whats the catch?

said by w0g:

I think a few houses can in fact get slightly fast speeds, but not the one I was staying at in 2012; They offered me 7Mbps / 1 Mbps package, not the 40Mbps / 20Mbps CenturyLink trumpets.

Because DSL is extremely distance constrained, its very likely that your house was too far to get the 40/20, or anything faster than 7mbps.

anonafish
@98.231.176.x

anonafish to xthepeoplesx

Anon

to xthepeoplesx
dam...Cablevision was offering 10/1 as the standard tier back around late 90s or early aughts

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to Kuro

Member

to Kuro
I would think it would mean that if you get Connect America funds then any thing that money goes to has to do 10/1. So if you got Connect America funding for Ooltewah TN then the users in Ooltewah would have to see 10/1. Users in another market where they did not use Connect America funds would not see this requirement.

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

fg8578 to Kuro

Member

to Kuro
said by Kuro:

What is the catch for this?

The "catch" is pretty simple: if the telcos accept USF / CAF money, then the network they build using that money must support 10mbps broadband. The telcos can build slower networks if they want to, but they can't use USF / CAF money to do it.

W/o seeing the order, I don't know what enforcement penalties the FCC wrote into the rules, so that if a telco accepts CAF money, but the resultant network does not support a minimum of 10mbps, then which penalties will apply is still unclear.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Whats the catch?

said by fg8578:

The "catch" is pretty simple: if the telcos accept USF / CAF money, then the network they build using that money must support 10mbps broadband. The telcos can build slower networks if they want to, but they can't use USF / CAF money to do it.

W/o seeing the order, I don't know what enforcement penalties the FCC wrote into the rules, so that if a telco accepts CAF money, but the resultant network does not support a minimum of 10mbps, then which penalties will apply is still unclear.

How about "Send the bills in for money you already spent, as long as you can document it was needed in order to have COMPLETED your 10/1 + project" ?
ie Repayment (including interest) for completed 10/1 PLUS projects.
No payment for expenses that fail the audit.
Except we already don't like what they charge, so this is just shifting part of YOUR bill to another expensive bureaucracy, and having the true costs hidden from the user creates a further dysfunctional system.
mgamer20o0
join:2003-12-01
Norwalk, CA

mgamer20o0

Member

Re: Whats the catch?

said by tshirt:

said by fg8578:

The "catch" is pretty simple: if the telcos accept USF / CAF money, then the network they build using that money must support 10mbps broadband. The telcos can build slower networks if they want to, but they can't use USF / CAF money to do it.

W/o seeing the order, I don't know what enforcement penalties the FCC wrote into the rules, so that if a telco accepts CAF money, but the resultant network does not support a minimum of 10mbps, then which penalties will apply is still unclear.

How about "Send the bills in for money you already spent, as long as you can document it was needed in order to have COMPLETED your 10/1 + project" ?
ie Repayment (including interest) for completed 10/1 PLUS projects.
No payment for expenses that fail the audit.
Except we already don't like what they charge, so this is just shifting part of YOUR bill to another expensive bureaucracy, and having the true costs hidden from the user creates a further dysfunctional system.

i completely agree. they should spot fronting the money and getting no results.

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

fg8578

Member

Re: Whats the catch?

said by mgamer20o0:

i completely agree. they should spot fronting the money and getting no results.

Lack of transparency and lack of accountability have been problems with the USF program since it was written in the 1996 Telecom Act. I fear the 2011 USF / CAF rulemaking did not do enough to fix those problems.

TSWYO
Premium Member
join:2003-05-03
Cheyenne, WY

TSWYO to tshirt

Premium Member

to tshirt
I know on the e-rate side of things they are looking into this.

Captian
@75.151.50.x

Captian to fg8578

Anon

to fg8578
The question of if only a percentage has to reach that speed or if they can use the up to lie is still unanswered. I'm sure it would be a slap on the wrist if they fail to meet it. It always is.

w0g
o.O
join:2001-08-30
Springfield, OR

4 edits

w0g

Member

10Mbps/1Mbps is sure slow..

IMO, they should increase it again, to 1Gbps/500Mbps. I recall back in 2001, first getting cable, it was 5Mbps/128Kbps. Since then, not a lot of improvement has happened as we made baby steps over a decade to getting 12Mbps and finally 20Mbps and now recently 50Mbps and 100Mbps but still having really pathetic upload caps at 2Mbps or maybe if we're lucky 10Mbps.. Back in 2001, here on this site we were talking about how Optimum Online had the best Internet in America at 10Mbps/1Mbps, in 2001, and how Japan had the best internet overall because you could get 100Mbps connections for $10-$20 bucks, and basically.. What America was calling broadband, was 10-20 times slower than what Japan was pushing back then. Now the world has fiber, cheap fiber.

Now, 13 years after, American broadband is still putsy.. And they're still investing in ass slow, 10Mbps/1Mbps service.

The money from the Universal Service Fund absolutely should not be wasted on anything that isn't fiber to the home these days, which is why I say set the standard at 1Gbps/500Mbps, because this basically makes DSL impossible to qualify as any sort of broadband anymore, and cable is just barely making the cut at that point if DOCSIS 3.1 can make it but they should be transitioning that system over to fiber really fast because I don't think it can keep up. Lets ditch legacy systems and force companies to invest in a system that we actually want - 1Gbps/500Mbps is broadband, 20Mbps/1Mbps is not. nor is 10Mbps/1Mbps. And ideally, 10Gbps/10Gbps or higher would be the aim, offerable only with a dedicated fiber strand to each home (because it's fiber, it could even handle 40Gbps/40Gbps, or even 100Gbps/100Gbps, or even 1Tbps/1Tbps with ease, basically undoing the pussy limits set by cable and DSL's copper infrastructure, removing the snails pace).

The reason we don't have fiber today, and have been stuck at snails pace, is because of the FCC enabling lack of investment in the infustructure, in the name of profits. For example, that $50 dollars a month you pay today for internet, is 97% profit, only $1.23 goes to actually operate a cable connection per household. The FCC, is allowing this money, to be wasted, to go into the hands of a rich douche bag and his crony' rather than in investment into the system and service, which if a mandate ever happened it should be to tie the cost of service to the actual cost running the service and mandating that fiber be deployed with the money. Right now, it doesn't fund nothing, but the mansions and corporate vacations these bastards are taking, and we are also funding them to world dominate us into oblivion.

Packeteers
Premium Member
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY

Packeteers

Premium Member

Re: 10Mbps/1Mbps is sure slow..

10/1 is enough for 720p 30fps streams and all online games as long as latency is good.
it's only when multiple family members are online simultaneously that 10/1 will be painful.

w0g
o.O
join:2001-08-30
Springfield, OR

1 edit

w0g

Member

Re: 10Mbps/1Mbps is sure slow..

We could replace hard drives .. We could broadcast mega def video channels from home. We could host our own servers from home. We could use the internet like a PCI bus. Transfers would be instant, no longer waiting, latency would drop and internet slow down of any kind would disappear for ever, if these legacy copper lines were replaced.

bockbock
@207.156.4.x

1 recommendation

bockbock

Anon

Re: 10Mbps/1Mbps is sure slow..

said by w0g:

We could replace hard drives .. We could broadcast mega def video channels from home. We could host our own servers from home. We could use the internet like a PCI bus. Transfers would be instant, no longer waiting, latency would drop and internet slow down of any kind would disappear for ever, if these legacy copper lines were replaced.

LOL
coryw
join:2013-12-22
Flagstaff, AZ

coryw

Member

Re: 10Mbps/1Mbps is sure slow..

w0g is not wrong. I have gigabit to my desk at work, and our campus has ten gigabits to the greater Internet. I can actually upload from my USB 3.0 hard disk to Google Drive at about 200 megabits per second, which is just about all the faster I think transfers to and from that disk can go anyway.

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
·StarLink

SimbaSeven to Packeteers

Member

to Packeteers
said by Packeteers:

10/1 is enough

This sounds familiar. Sure, 10/1 was enough, a decade ago. Now, with more and more services being offered, 10/1 seems awfully slow. Especially with more cloud-based services being deployed.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

1 recommendation

InvalidError

Member

Re: 10Mbps/1Mbps is sure slow..

I'm not a fan of cloud-based service: you have no control over availability, are completely screwed if your cloud provider or internet goes down, are completely screwed if your cloud provider gets hacked, etc.

While it is possible for my computer to get compromised, I am still a far less juicy target than cloud providers to most would-be attackers.

10/1 might not be blazingly fast but it is still enough to let people access just about anything online in relative comfort. The whole point of this subsidy program is to bring broadband to communities that have almost no access whatsoever and might not get any more than whatever they already have otherwise.
coryw
join:2013-12-22
Flagstaff, AZ

coryw

Member

Re: 10Mbps/1Mbps is sure slow..

Just because you personally don't like cloud services doesn't mean other people wouldn't. I would absolutely be using more of them if I had more network throughput.

Even if you don't have a cloud service you want to use, with more network throughput, (especially upload) you and a friend or a family member could get a pair of devices like these: »www.filetransporter.com/ (or run similar software on yor own computers) in order to do file replication.

aaronwt
Premium Member
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
Asus RT-AX89

aaronwt to Packeteers

Premium Member

to Packeteers
said by Packeteers:

10/1 is enough for 720p 30fps streams and all online games as long as latency is good.
it's only when multiple family members are online simultaneously that 10/1 will be painful.

A 1Mb/s connection is enough for most online games. Playing Call of Duty on a 150Mb/s connection or a 2Mb/s connection is basically the same in my experience.

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
·StarLink

SimbaSeven

Member

Re: 10Mbps/1Mbps is sure slow..

said by aaronwt:

A 1Mb/s connection is enough for most online games. Playing Call of Duty on a 150Mb/s connection or a 2Mb/s connection is basically the same in my experience.

You can run CoD on an ISDN connection. It doesn't take much traffic.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA to Packeteers

Premium Member

to Packeteers
10/1 is a lot better than nothing, but it isn't really fast enough for today's needs. I was amazed the other day when I was at a friend's house (in the middle of nowhere, but that's irrelevant since here was 100% HFC coverage), and one of our friends downloaded a 41GB game on his XBOX One. That kind of blew my mind. It took over an hour, even on his 100mbps Charter line.

trollstumper
join:2014-10-28

trollstumper to w0g

Member

to w0g
They offer that already if u are willing to pay

bockbock
@207.156.4.x

bockbock to w0g

Anon

to w0g
5Mbps broadband in 2001? Wow, that must have been a premium service back then. I could remember somewhere along the 1-3 Mbps range for cable providers and ADSL was anywhere between 512k - 2 Mbps. Back then, if you could just get broadband you were considered a "city dweller" because you had to live in the "big city" to get broadband. Just remember, FTTH, xPON, DOCSIS 3.0 or VDSL2 services did not exist in the USA in the year 2001. Now, you have some of those services in very small rural communities and out in the sticks.

w0g
o.O
join:2001-08-30
Springfield, OR

2 edits

w0g

Member

Re: 10Mbps/1Mbps is sure slow..

This was AT&T@Home. All @Home back then was uncapped, except for upload, it was $29.99 / mo because I owned my own modem. It easily and consistently hit 5Mbps or higher. This was the standard package everyone got. All other cable providers used @Home's networks back then too, Insight@Home, etc.

Then @Home went bankrupt, ATTBI started their own service which was capped at 1.5Mbps/256kbps.. Then it went to 3Mbps, then an 8Mbps/768Kbps package came out around 2005, by that time I think Comcast bought ATTBI.

Roadrunner I think was uncapped back then too. Optimum Online was 10Mbps/1Mbps, faster then even @Home. OO is just the cable network that serves East coast subs, and they used a technology besides DOCSIS to do it if I recall.

FTTH also did exist, but companies refused to deploy it in America because they prefer to milk their copper infrastructures and refuse to invest a dime to upgrade or innovate. Fibers been around since the 1980s and maybe 1970s, Japan had it back in 2001 for sure.

KennyWest
@98.28.97.x

KennyWest

Anon

Re: 10Mbps/1Mbps is sure slow..

@Home was the network that gave the ILECs a run for their money. If it wasn't for them, DSL still would be over priced and slow speeds. @Home was a great company but Excite also gave them a huge hit. But just about every MSO Partnered with them; Rogers@Home, Cox@Home, Comcast@Home, Insight@Home, MediaOne@Home.

If there was another ISP that would come back and do that on a national level it could be awesome in terms of what could be offered. Something that ILECs should consider doing when wanting to get away from being the ISP, bring in another company and let them offer the services-similar to Earthlink did for Sprint.

bockbock
@207.156.4.x

bockbock to w0g

Anon

to w0g
Fiber has indeed been around since circa late 1970s - early 1980s. At the time, it was mainly used specifically for IP backbone networks and telephone networks. No one at the time would have fathomed it would be fed directly to someone's house or MDU. Regarding Japan and South Korea having FTTH in 2001, I believe it. It is a small country to wire and their government has invested more in their broadband infrastructure over the years.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA to bockbock

Premium Member

to bockbock
I had 1.5/256 in 2003, and that was pretty awesome at the time. However, prior to that, there were some cable providers offering uncapped modems, which would have been similar or a bit faster than today's 25/5 Comcast plan, which is the end of the line for DOCSIS 2, since it's already able to suck down more than half of the QAM it's attached to.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina to w0g

Member

to w0g
HFC is well suited to provide 1Gbps service w/coax as the last mile (literally last mile). If you have good coax to your house, w/DOCSIS 3.1 providing 10Gbps, why would a cable operator need FTTC/FTTH?

Regarding 1Gbps/500Mbps being the new standard, that seems like a huge increase. If we're going to subsidize this, I'd rather see us cover more folks with 100Mbps service than a few with 1Gpbs service. Why not use funds to push FTTN and from there DOCSIS / G.Fast on coax / copper to raise the bar to 100Mbps?

At 100Mbps, a household of video streamers and gamers is easily supported and will quicken the transformation of how we access and consume entertainment and information.

•••••••

AnonDude
@97.95.147.x

AnonDude to w0g

Anon

to w0g
said by w0g:

IMO, they should increase it again, to 1Gbps/500Mbps.

All that would do is guarantee that NO ONE accepts these funds. And these funds are the only way some of these companies will build out to those currently unserved. How does that benefit anyone?

bockbock
@207.156.4.x

bockbock

Anon

Re: 10Mbps/1Mbps is sure slow..

Well, according to his logic, it would force the major ISPs to "step up their game" and give us what we all want. Gigabit fiber for everyone! That would be great.
grabacon9
join:2013-08-21
Newark, OH

grabacon9 to w0g

Member

to w0g
I'd die for that. I am only getting 3mbps/512kb with AT&T Uverse.

treich
join:2006-12-12

treich to w0g

Member

to w0g
the reason why we cant have fiber to each house is due to the high cost of putting in fiber underground or aerial setup. Fiber lines are very costly.

••••

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
·StarLink

SimbaSeven to w0g

Member

to w0g
said by w0g:

We could replace hard drives .. We could broadcast mega def video channels from home. We could host our own servers from home.

I wouldn't replace hard drives, but I do host my own servers from home. The problem isn't the downstream, it's the upstream. Most providers think 4mbps is plenty of upstream. Ha!

They need to bump the upstream to a MINIMUM of 10mbps to actually pull this off. I'd love to see 100mbps myself, but I doubt this will actually happen this decade.

Remember.. PROFITS, PROFITS, PROFITS!
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA to w0g

Premium Member

to w0g
It should not be 1000/500, because that would require FTTH. It should include HFC, as it's a proven technology for delivering broadband, but currently tops out at 300/20. For the next couple of years, 50/10 is going to be enough. As more applications come out for faster internet, that will creep up over time, but HFC will grow as well when D3.1 comes out.

dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI

1 recommendation

dnoyeB

Member

Double edged sword

as this certainly creates a new hurdle for entry into the market.

••••••
MrkFrnt
join:2000-11-26
Winston Salem, NC

MrkFrnt

Member

Does it actually have to work

We reduced our package from 12 to 6 to clear up all the packet retries, half the speed, twice as fast, go figure.

Yucca Servic
join:2012-11-27
Rio Rancho, NM

Yucca Servic

Member

Pay up

We offer those speeds and more so it.s time to pay up.
mikesco8
join:2006-02-17
Southwick, MA

mikesco8

Member

Makes sense

10 mbps should allow one to continuously download 1 HD stream.
I think that is a reasonable bare minimum.

Mike Smith

••••••••••••••••••••
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

dsl under the microcscope

ATT and CenturyTel will be under the microscope for the slow speeds they currently offer to some customers.

At some point, the USF funds should go low market share companies who can build out fiber to the premise service offerings. These are the companies that can assure the FCC that 100% of their footprint is at high speeds-- RCN comes to mind (unlike the telcos). ATT and Verizon have been pigs at the USF trough for far too long wasting that money on padding profits (a - la Verizon's $20k routers to West Virginia which geographically has near NIL fiber lines running ANYWHERE in the state).

Zenit_IIfx
The system is the solution
Premium Member
join:2012-05-07
Purcellville, VA
·Comcast XFINITY

Zenit_IIfx

Premium Member

Re: dsl under the microcscope

Verizon will be under the microscope too for its poor performance with DSL and the quality of POTS - FIOS is a gem sticking out from a heap of obsolete infrastructure.

The $20K router scandal was insane, but VZ never cared for C&P Tel of W.VA (The RBOC unit that VZ owned in W.VA). The regional managers would even lie that "yes FIOS is coming in 2007!" and then the sale to Frontier happened instead.

VZ never had any intention of laying down 1 inch of FTTP in W.VA. They only intended to sucker the state into overpriced Cisco routers and trash bags to hold up the aging copper network.

Its my understanding that Frontier is STILL cleaning up the infrastructure in W.VA and its been many years since the switch of power. I doubt it will ever be fully rebuilt, and quality of service outside of Comcast areas in W.VA will remain overall horrendous, equatable to the third world.

bockbock
@207.156.4.x

bockbock to tmc8080

Anon

to tmc8080
Makes you think of AT&T's (once BellSouth's) antiquated xFITL network they still have in parts of the Southeast. With IFITL, you get a whopping 1.5 mbps x 256k connection for $42/mo.
Bob61571
join:2008-08-08
Washington, IL

Bob61571

Member

Frontier will have to Up Their Game now!

Frontier is definitely lined up at the fed subsidy trough, with too many of their max DSL speeds are at the 3 & 6 Mbps down level.

Methinks that this FCC requirement will cost Frontier in increased Capex now.

treich
join:2006-12-12

treich

Member

Re: Frontier will have to Up Their Game now!

with frontier you pay for 6mpbs you probably only get 1-3meg of service due the remote hub being fed by either t-1 or ds-3 connection and they are over selling the ports. Even if the remote hub was being by fiber you still only get 1-3 meg out 6meg that your paying for.
BeyondBFE
join:2014-07-08
De Kalb, TX

BeyondBFE

Member

Unserved areas

I hope that this means that unserved areas will now have to be connected at at least 10 Mbps/1Mbps now. I live in a Windscream area that took the subsidy funding to expand DSL into my area. It's been 1 year and yet we have to see JACK!

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Unserved areas

This isn't ever going to be enough money to expect a speed build.
It might be enough to pay for more backhaul in year one, more remote huts in year 2, mainline ducting in year 3, pulling local lines in year 4....and so on, each a necessary step, each a big enough step to take a year or more. and each might need a year or 2 of engineering FIRST.

With a lot of money some steps could overlap and see actual rollouts in just a couple years, but total coverage still would be years away.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536

Premium Member

death knell

for DSL. finally!

•••••

johnny55
@70.196.10.x

johnny55

Anon

BS... Satellite is faster! When does this take effect?

What BS, the most "scarce" tech is Satellite and they dish out 12 - 15 mbps... when does this take effect? My home ISP (only option) is a sleazy WISP just offering the govt minimum to collect fat govt subsidies at grossly overpriced tiers $80/ mo) .

•••

Slylok
@184.5.143.x

Slylok

Anon

Why not just..

Say any of these funds must be used for fiber builds and nothing else.

Or

Fund other companies ( non ISPs ) to lay the fiber for anyone to use. No different than paving a road.. Get in get out and move on.
Lemastre6
join:2009-08-19
Dallas, TX

Lemastre6

Member

Download speed

I'd be happy to get just one megabit downloads. I live in the middle of Dallas, TX, and Earthlink DSL has never exceeded one Mb. Currently, downloads are about two tenths of a Mb. I think part of that is the modem, though, since I've had a modem that provided six tenths to about nine tenths on a good day. Still, if I'm patient, even at two tenths, most of the web sites I peruse will appear, e.g., this one. I'm considering switching to U-verse, which I believe has fiber optic on my street.