Survey: Government Broadband Goals Timid 90% think rural goal of 4 Mbps undershoots the moon Monday Oct 25 2010 09:02 EDT When the U.S. government unveiled its first ever national broadband plan, we noted in great detail that while it contained a few nice shifts in policy (like using actual science to inform policy instead of lobbyist spreadsheets), it contained a lot of showmanship -- and policy goals that were politically safe but lacked substance. Worse perhaps, the plan completely fails to address a lack of competition in the sector, its biggest problem. The National Broadband Plan calls for 100 Mbps broadband for 100 million U.S. households by 2020, with 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream an acceptable rural service baseline. A new survey (pdf) by telecom consultant Craig Settles, Successful.com, and sponsored by the International Economic Development Council (IEDC) -- found that by and large, consumers agree that the government's broadband agenda is a bit timid. Says the survey: quote:
Over 90% of those surveyed found government-recommended goals of 4 Mbps for rural areas inadequate for impacting economic development outcomes. Over 55% believe speeds of 100 Mbps (the FCC's goal for 100 million mostly urban and suburban households) or more are needed, but within three years, not 10 as some Federal agencies support.
While "100 Mbps to 100 Million households" sounded great when announced, as we noted then, cable broadband already reaches 125 million homes, and DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades are relatively inexpensive. Verizon alone (currently testing 100 Mbps in employee homes) already offers FiOS to 13 million households. In other words, 100 Mbps to 100 Million by 2020 was happening without the FCC lifting a finger, so making it a major goal meant little. The reality is that while even broadband coverage is important, sustained competition is more important, as it lowers prices, improves quality of service, and can act as a deterrent for network neutrality or other anti-competitive behavior without the need for additional regulation. Instead what the national broadband plan delivered was a long list of feel good endeavors such as the creation of a "digital literacy corps." That said, it's a baby step in the right direction, given we're at least moving away from the days of pretending the U.S. broadband sector has no problems whatsoever. |
 | |
There must be a typo here,Why would the USA need a plan to raise the speeds of the city centers? Economies of scale will dictate the speed increases.
I think if you reverse the premise and make it 100mbs for rural you might have good coverage by 2020. | |
|  FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2010-Oct-25 9:48 am
Fast, reliable, & cheap - you can only pick 2 of 3There is an old project engineering saying - you can have a product that is good, fast(i.e. delivered soon) or cheap; pick any two. Over time it has morphed in to fast(i.e. delivered soon), reliable, or cheap. The broadband plan needs to follow those guidelines. We can have a national broadband network that is fast(i.e. delivered soon) & reliable, but it won't be cheap(the most politically likely solution). If we go for cheap, then it most likley won't be delivered soon. | |
|  |
1 recommendation |
Re: Fast, reliable, & cheap - you can only pick 2 of 3I think the "cheap" will occur over time, but it will be hidden. I think the ISPs look to get a certain price point for services so as not to devalue the "brand". But over time the cost of the services in terms of inflation adjusted dollars has decreased. When digital cellular service was new you might have paid $90.00/month for a certain number of minutes, a few calling features, and a small voice mail box. Today the number of minutes has doubled, you get a large number of text messages, the number of calling features have doubled, and your voice mail box is doubled in size. You also have online or phone based account management and bill payment. All for the same $90.00/month. The cost of the plan did not go down, but the value increased.
I think once DOCSIS 3.0 is fully deployed and is fully functioning throughout a network by a particular cable ISP, I think that ISP will increase the speeds of the lowest tier plans with no increase in the monthly "cost" of the plan. All of you still using DOCSIS 2.0 modems at that time will get the maximum that it is capable of(25 Mbps download?) for the lowest possible price. For many cable customers that would represent a big boost in speed with no "price" increase. The price increases will be in the DOCSIS 3.0 tiers.
Look at what some telephone companies did to get customers to switch to DSL from dialup. They priced DSL the same as dialup. Faster speeds at a lower price. So you got 5-15 times the speed for the same price. | |
| | |
1 edit |
Re: Fast, reliable, & cheap - you can only pick 2 of 3Docsis 3 has no more real capacity than D2. In some areas D3 just fixed speeds to what people were paying for already. D3 plans never hit D3 speeds because of congestion. Uverse VRAD cabinet gets 2.5 gbps last I heard. FIOS is 622/ upto 32, no TV eating away bandwidth. D3 cable is just a tiny 150 mbps shared between 100 or more users. In 2-3 years, D3 will be obsolete from congestion. 150/5mbps for a good SD or HD stream, is just 30 streams, baring all other usage. Cable will either have to split nodes to the curb (less than 10 homes per segment) or do active FTTH. And when will cable get around to shutting off all the ridiculous SD simulcasts? They used to do HD+SD+analog, sheesh. If a house doesn't have atleast 4 mbitps allocated 24/7 (meaning others can boost higher while its not being used), its obsolete today. | |
| | | |  Smith6612
MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY |
Re: Fast, reliable, & cheap - you can only pick 2 of 3Newer GPON areas for FiOS will run at 2.4Gbps/1.2Gbps. There's also word that Verizon is testing a "newer" form of PON that is a huge increase in speed from GPON. | |
| | | | | | |
Re: Fast, reliable, & cheap - you can only pick 2 of 3Verizon doesn't use GPON to its capability. There has been no program to upgrade legacy BPON areas. There are no congestion problems on FIOS nodes, therefore GPON can't relieve any congestion. Therefore its pointless to mention GPON. | |
|
| | |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:There is an old project engineering saying - you can have a product that is good, fast(i.e. delivered soon) or cheap; pick any two. Over time it has morphed in to fast(i.e. delivered soon), reliable, or cheap. The broadband plan needs to follow those guidelines. We can have a national broadband network that is fast(i.e. delivered soon) & reliable, but it won't be cheap(the most politically likely solution). If we go for cheap, then it most likley won't be delivered soon. I think you mean "expensive in the short run", free in the long-run. If we build a national FTTH network like Australia, we won't have to support the corporate profit burden and the network will pay itself off within 20 years. Or heck, use federal government incentives to encourage communities to build their own networks. | |
|
| |
I am sure the big companies willdo their best to make sure that they and only they will be the ones offering these services.
Add in that these companies will ONLY offer fast speeds to the areas that make complete economic sense while those not in the area are screwed | |
|
1 recommendation |
Watch what happens in Australia around RuralAustralia is going through this right now. The politically motivated efforts to spend over 40B to bring fiber to every home is (IMHO) a complete waste of taxpayers $$s. The money is far better served investing in real rural infrastructure (roads, hospitals, schools, etc) vs really, really, really fast Internet access.
Spend 20% of that money on FTTH where 90% of the people live. Spend the other 80% on rural development.
This investment will grow rural business expansion, people will move, network infrastructure will follow. Are we solving the real rural problems or trying to get really fast network access for "us geeks" that want to live in "the sticks"? | |
| |
1 edit |
Re: Watch what happens in Australia around RuralOh goody. A comment I can respond to. I've been following Australia's FTTH ambitions closely for the last few months now. Allow me to lay waste to your analysis. said by FactChecker:The money is far better served investing in real rural infrastructure (roads, hospitals, schools, etc) vs really, really, really fast Internet access. Your 40 billion quote is false. The actual amount being spent is $26 billion, with actual public debt peaking at $18 billion in year 4, according to the NBN implementation study. Unlike roads, sewers, hospitals, schools, etc. the NBN will generate a return of 6-7% annually. This project will ultimately cost Australia nothing, and actually generate a profit to supplement government revenue. Right now Australians pay a corporate tax to Telstra and Optus so that they can pad their bottom line. A government network run at cost will save Australians hundreds, if not thousands of dollars per year. And what the devil is "real rural development" if not the NBN? They pay sky-high prices for 3rd world quality "broadband". Australia's copper network is quickly degrading. You have to replace with something, and fiber is the obvious future-proof solution. Don't you just mean "give me FTTH and forget about those hicks"? It's patently obvious you have an underlying, selfish motivation to decry the NBN's inclusive nature. | |
| | |
2 edits |
Re: Watch what happens in Australia around RuralIts hard to accept unprecedented claims supporting tens of billions in public spending.
I will publicly state that I have NOT been following the details of this closely and I am "enjoying the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of" detailed facts. Generally my point is/was, schools, roads and more tangible growth has proven historical benefits for rural areas. Really, really, really fast broadband to the farmhouse with no real ROI for decades, doesn't.
I have an idea! Build a school and put fast Internet in the school. I bet this would be much cheaper and combine education with internet access. | |
|
 SimbaSevenI Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT ·StarLink
|
It's doable.....just need to deploy the right technology.
I came from a small rural town, so I know the layout quite well. Fiber is a bit overkill to deploy to every farm/ranch house. The phone lines are old and brittle (good luck with DSL or even Cable.. even Dialup).
The best way to deploy broadband would probably be Wireless.. but which wireless. I'm thinking WiMax or LTE (both Data Only). The problem is the technology *NEEDS* to handle at least a 50mi radius between towers. Any less and the coverage would suck.
The next issue is.. ROI.. Everyone wants their ROI NOW. They don't want to see the long-term investment, they want the short-term. Unfortunately, this thinking is what's killing rural deployment of broadband services.
Even an idea of LD-WiFi would be alright for some towns. It's reasonably fast, cheap, and doesn't really require specialized equipment. If you keep it under 1w, anyone could do it without a license. | |
| | | |
Re: It's doable...said by SimbaSeven:..just need to deploy the right technology. I came from a small rural town, so I know the layout quite well. Fiber is a bit overkill to deploy to every farm/ranch house. The phone lines are old and brittle (good luck with DSL or even Cable.. even Dialup). The best way to deploy broadband would probably be Wireless.. but which wireless. I'm thinking WiMax or LTE (both Data Only). The problem is the technology *NEEDS* to handle at least a 50mi radius between towers. Any less and the coverage would suck. The next issue is.. ROI.. Everyone wants their ROI NOW. They don't want to see the long-term investment, they want the short-term. Unfortunately, this thinking is what's killing rural deployment of broadband services. Even an idea of LD-WiFi would be alright for some towns. It's reasonably fast, cheap, and doesn't really require specialized equipment. If you keep it under 1w, anyone could do it without a license. I think the issue is that if you want to grow in the future, you need faster uploads and overall much faster speeds. Fiber is the only medium that can provide that. And those wireless cell towers will need fiber run to them if you want to provide any legitimate bandwidth for 4G services. | |
| | | SimbaSevenI Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT ·StarLink
|
Re: It's doable...said by sonicmerlin:I think the issue is that if you want to grow in the future, you need faster uploads and overall much faster speeds. Fiber is the only medium that can provide that. And those wireless cell towers will need fiber run to them if you want to provide any legitimate bandwidth for 4G services. ..which brings up my point. Most investors want their ROI NOW. | |
|
| |
Our current government sucks.This current government i/e every last one thats there now need to go with that said there will never be 4mbps wired to everyone maybe some form of sat service which is not broadband when your pings are 1000 to 2000mil seconds or higher. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
