dslreports logo
Wall Street Whines About New 10 Mbps Min. Broadband Definition

For years the FCC has had a rather flimsy definition of what constitutes broadband, something that benefits the industry by making speed and penetration statistics look much better than they actually are. As a result, every time the FCC proposes to raise that bar -- whether that was the belated previous moves to 768 kbps or to 3 Mbps -- the all-too comfortable, uncompetitive broadband industry whines -- because it might force them to work just a little bit harder.

That's once again the case with recent reports suggesting the FCC is considering raising the definition of broadband to at least 10 Mbps -- and potentially 25 Mbps. That latter mark is highly unlikely, and after ample carrier lobbying it seems more likely the minimum definition will be set somewhere around the entirely-reasonable mark of 5 to 6 Mbps.

Enter Wall Street analyst Craig Moffett, who insists that increasing the standard definition of broadband whatsoever would be bad because it would highlight industry problems (specifically the lack of competition largely responsible for slower speeds). That, in terrifying turn, might actually encourage the FCC to do something about it:

quote:
"Raising the FCC standard will naturally lower the number of people who have 'broadband' (i.e. penetration will fall, at least initially)," Craig Moffett, senior analyst, said in a cover note about the 50-plus page report. The change will also have wider implications because "it will reduce the portion of the country for which broadband is deemed 'available,' arguably bolstering the case for FCC authority to do something about the shortfall."..

"Cable's share will, on paper, appear to rise. Importantly, so too will that share of the country where cable is deemed to be the only available option, bolstering arguments for FCC authority to intervene in the absence of effective competition," Moffett wrote.


Granted Moffett is the same guy who thinks most network upgrades are a waste of money and heavily-capped data plans are "the next generation of communications," so take this latest insight as what it is: protecting the profitable, uncompetitive status quo. Moffet's biggest worry is amusingly that if we slightly bump broadband definitions -- it might encourage regulators to actually start doing their jobs and embrace policies that encourage competition. The absolute horror.

In reality Moffett, Wall Street or carriers don't need to worry; the FCC has paid empty lip service to broadband competition for more than a decade, and with an ex-cable and wireless lobbyist now at the helm -- that doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon.

Most recommended from 98 comments



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

12 recommendations

Zenit_IIfx

Premium Member

Boo Hoo

It is so hard to be a very rich, profitable ILEC that has ridden on the same decades old copper cabling while doing very little to provide service in "unprofitable markets" that were profitable enough to deploy telephone service to.

Lets just keep selling the ADSL hack. That will work. And if your Verizon, lets just abandon anything without FTTH unless the Government makes us do anything.

/10mbit is not a very high target in 2014 - I got 15mbit in a remote alpine village in Germany on Telkom ADSL2/

The United States has failed itself with deregulation. We let the phone companies do as they wish, and the nation will pay for this.

We will end up with pockets of very good service, and vast miles of shit that would be laughable in the 3rd world.

Flyonthewall
@206.248.154.x

3 recommendations

Flyonthewall

Anon

Want some cheese with that whine?

Investments are risky, period. You want guarantees? Put your money in the bank and collect the crappy interest rate. So tired of people trying to lock down their investment with guarantees: Those are the reasons no one wants to invest in infrastructure, to avoid stock sales and loss of value.

F'in babies if you ask me.
15444104 (banned)
join:2012-06-11

2 recommendations

15444104 (banned)

Member

As a nation we should be ASHAMED of our infrastructure!

There are times when government MUST force certain items that are for the greater good of the ENTIRE society, our US Constitution allows for this and encourages it when appropriate. When it comes to bringing our broadband into the modern world, forget about being first world, the proper authorities need to create laws and legislation to make it a reality, maximum profit and shareholders be damned!

I think that we need to bring back the monopoly of The Bell System as we knew it before the 1984 break up.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

2 recommendations

BiggA

Premium Member

This makes total sense

The results are exactly what they should be- representing reality. If anything, the standard should be higher, although 10mbps is good for now. The biggest and most dramatic effect will be showing how little competition there is. Like at my parents' house, where AT&T offers "U-Verse" service that's actually re-branded 3mbps ADSL2+, because they haven't put a VRAD on the crossbox at 4200' (which would get them probably 18 or 24mbps pair bonded), and they refuse to put fiber in the empty conduits that are already underground dedicated to fiber. So Comcast is their only option, with 25mbps (D2), 50mbps (D3), and 105mbps ($10 more) options.