The FCC wants to roll out 'improved broadband' to over 106,000 rural homes and businesses...

[Polycount]

Back in January of 2018, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced a proposal that could have allocated over $500 million toward the development of rural broadband internet lines. At the time, Pai said that closing the "digital divide" between rural and urban broadband was the FCC's "top priority."

Though not strictly related to that proposal, the FCC will be putting its money where its mouth is on some level soon. Today, the organization released an announcement claiming that "over 106,000" rural homes and small business across a whopping 43 states are set to get "improved broadband" service.

40 percent of those locations will receive this improved broadband by 2022, and the deployment will escalate 10 percent every year until the rollout is finished in 2028.

The FCC defines improved broadband as 25Mbps upload, and 3Mbps download speeds. Those numbers are a far cry from the Gigabit speeds companies like AT&T, Google, and Verizon are starting to provide but they're significantly better than what many rural areas have access to right now.

Indeed, the FCC says many of the homes and businesses set to receive these internet speed improvements are currently making do with around 10 Mbps download and 1Mbps upload speeds.

The FCC says this new broadband rollout is only possible due to recent reforms to the Universal Service Fund. The organization has also brokered agreements with 186 network providers that have chosen to take part in the "Alternative Connect America Cost Model Program" - the program is giving those companies a total of $65.7 million annually over the next decade, provided they follow through on their new broadband expansion obligations.

Time will tell whether or not the FCC and its business partners can accomplish their goals.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/79863-fcc-promises-roll-out-improved-broadband-over-106000.html

 

[treetops]

Half a billion dollars to double .01% of the USA populations internet over a span of 10 years. Noooice! To be fair if no money at all was given.... I think over a decade their speeds would probably double regardless?

 

[avioza]

Setting the bar pretty low?

 

[brucek]

Great, now that we're equalling connection speeds up between urban and rural, can we get government subsidies for all urban rents/mortgages to bring them down to the much more affordable rural equivalents?

If not, why is it fair for it only to work one way?

 

[Evernessince]

Half a billion dollars to double .01% of the USA populations internet over a span of 10 years. Noooice! To be fair if no money at all was given.... I think over a decade their speeds would probably double regardless?

Yes but then Pai wouldn't be able to give out free money to these companies. Block small ISPs from forming and corporate welfare, that's this administration's hallmark.

 

[ShadowDeath]

Hey... I think you made a mistake in your article.

"The FCC defines improved broadband as 25Mbps upload, and 3Mbps download speeds."

 

[PEnnn]

" Ajit Pai announced a proposal that could have allocated over $500 million toward the development of rural broadband internet lines"

Now, if you were to ask those people in those areas - who would be benefiting from this technical welfare -
what they think of Socialism....you'll hear lots of cursing and swearing while happily befitting from it!!

In other news, some Americans (maybe the same ones mentioned above) are mighty upset the government is providing healthcare to poor people....

 

[ghostf1re]

Hey... I think you made a mistake in your article.

"The FCC defines improved broadband as 25Mbps upload, and 3Mbps download speeds."

Yeah I was confused by this. I'm assuming they got this backwards.

 

[texasrattler]

Hey... I think you made a mistake in your article.

"The FCC defines improved broadband as 25Mbps upload, and 3Mbps download speeds."

Yea was going say is that correct? Most rural areas are at 10Mb download and 1 Mb upload, now they are saying 25 upload and 3 download, ummm I hope that was just miswording on the writers part. I wouldn't want my download speed decreased.

 

[texasrattler]

10 years to do something that should have happened a decade ago. Yea that will go over well, especially when they don't deliver on most of that in 5 years.
Rural area getting shafted but probably pay the most taxes, gotta love how that works. It don't pay to middle class unless you got a really good job or already have some money.

 

[psycros]

Oh boy, here we go again. How many times are they gonna run this scam, loading Big Telecom's pockets with tax dollars earmarked for rural broadband only to see it used solely for upgrades in the biggest metros? In most rural areas you can already get between one and three megabytes/second on cell data..now if the telecoms would just stop requiring you to have voice service as well and get rid of the laughable data caps the problem would be partially solved. Oh, and if the phone barons would stop abusing the law to repress municipal ISPs and rural WISPs, that'd be greeaaat.

 

[6L6GC12AU7]

So how much money to provide only 2500 subscribers in each of 43 states? Last time I looked Viasat is providing 25x3. There are 2 major satellite cloud networks being launched today which will provide consumer grade low latency, high speed internet. Instead of chasing fiber runs out into the country where you might have 20 or 30 miles of fiber to serve a dozen subs, why not let the market work and provide satellite service over these next generation birds?

 

[Palladium1987]

Free market

10 years to do something that should have happened a decade ago. Yea that will go over well, especially when they don't deliver on most of that in 5 years.
Rural area getting shafted but probably pay the most taxes, gotta love how that works. It don't pay to middle class unless you got a really good job or already have some money.

Welcome to America, the land of the "free market" AKA excuse unbridled corporate greed.

 

[Thrackerzod]

3 Mbps will be an absolute joke by 2028; actually it already is now. Even my little rural ISP offers up to 1 Gbps up/down, though it's expensive so I'm on the 250M tier. Going back to to 3Mbps would feel like going back to 14.4 dial up. There's no excuse for most of the country to have no acceptable broadband access in 2019, these greedy monopolies need to end.

 

[Uncle Al]

But the real point is that the telco's promised to provide coast to coast coverage when the first licenses were granted ..... why isn't the FCC moving into enforcement mode and holding their feet to the fire on this one? They also promised fiber from home to home for cities and larger towns at the same cost of todays internet .... another one the FCC needs to take up ......

 

[Someone8MyPosts]

Heard this before...still haven't been paid back for that failed experiment.

 

[BigRedPDX]

Hey... I think you made a mistake in your article.

"The FCC defines improved broadband as 25Mbps upload, and 3Mbps download speeds."

Yea was going say is that correct? Most rural areas are at 10Mb download and 1 Mb upload, now they are saying 25 upload and 3 download, ummm I hope that was just miswording on the writers part. I wouldn't want my download speed decreased.

I was looking at the same thing. I'm sure they have it backwards, unless they are looking for every rural household to hold slow media servers, and have slower download rates than what they currently have lol

 

[Cubi Dorf]

My friend live 20 kilometers outside city in America and pay $120 a month for 10 mb downloading speed. They are not getting help with monthly bill from fcc. The proposed money is only to give them decent speed for their $120 per month.

Great, now that we're equalling connection speeds up between urban and rural, can we get government subsidies for all urban rents/mortgages to bring them down to the much more affordable rural equivalents?

If not, why is it fair for it only to work one way?

 

[brucek]

A subsidy is still a subsidy, regardless of whether it is paid directly to the company or first to the consumer to forward to the company.

In this case the proposed money would make it so that your friend, who is currently paying something like $120 for a service valued at $120, would end up paying something like $120 for a service that would now otherwise be valued at $120 + $X, where $X is probably pretty substantial or the company would have just done it on its own long ago.

 

[Cubi Dorf]

Slow Internet is not value at $120. Are you seriously think that? The provider has monopoly and price gouge. They using old phone line, making previously no investment. I live in big city and could not living like that. rural people are the most poor in my country. Is that not same in American?

A subsidy is still a subsidy, regardless of whether it is paid directly to the company or first to the consumer to forward to the company.

In this case the proposed money would make it so that your friend, who is currently paying something like $120 for a service valued at $120, would end up paying something like $120 for a service that would now otherwise be valued at $120 + $X, where $X is probably pretty substantial or the company would have just done it on its own long ago.

 

[brucek]

Whether it's a "good value" is subjective. I suspect most agree with you that it's not, which makes them less willing to pay even more for faster service, which is why the companies are not going to offer it under standard market economics.

As to the higher rural cost reflecting actual higher costs of delivering the service, I believe it. The ratio of cable miles run per customer served is abysmally worse, and even the centralized expenses are still bad too. Head end gear; customer, technical, and administrative support; and sales and marketing are all less efficient when spread among a small audience. If they're hiring just a single full time technical person to support an audience of 1,000 customers only, their employee budget is already horrid compared to the big operators who can spread their HQ efforts over tens of millions of monthly bills.

I don't doubt the providers want to be greedy too, although in this situation they are probably a regulated monopoly under orders to serve all customers including those they would prefer to turn away for untenable economics.

 

[Cubi Dorf]

You making some good points. I still feeling bad for rural peoples although.

Whether it's a "good value" is subjective. I suspect most agree with you that it's not, which makes them less willing to pay even more for faster service, which is why the companies are not going to offer it under standard market economics.

As to the higher rural cost reflecting actual higher costs of delivering the service, I believe it. The ratio of cable miles run per customer served is abysmally worse, and even the centralized expenses are still bad too. Head end gear; customer, technical, and administrative support; and sales and marketing are all less efficient when spread among a small audience. If they're hiring just a single full time technical person to support an audience of 1,000 customers only, their employee budget is already horrid compared to the big operators who can spread their HQ efforts over tens of millions of monthly bills.

I don't doubt the providers want to be greedy too, although in this situation they are probably a regulated monopoly under orders to serve all customers including those they would prefer to turn away for untenable economics.

 

[Danny101]

Much better for the FCC to pay for the lines to be built and then rent them to service providers to recoup the costs. When the lines are paid for, then sell the lines to the service providers.

 

[loki1944]

Half a billion dollars to double .01% of the USA populations internet over a span of 10 years. Noooice! To be fair if no money at all was given.... I think over a decade their speeds would probably double regardless?

Then you are truly clueless. Rural sppeds often have not improved in a decade and a half.

 

[Jim$ter]

"Indeed, the FCC says many of the homes and businesses set to receive these internet speed improvements are currently making do with around 10 Mbps download and 1Mbps upload speeds."

That's funny.... you do realize Verizon only provides at most 3Mbps Down and 756K Upload for most of its rural DSL customers. We have been on that "SuperSpeed" plan for over 15 years now with no change ever in sight.