34 Million Americans Still Lack Access to Real Broadband The Telecommunications Act requires the FCC to report annually on whether broadband "is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion." And with the FCC redefining broadband and anything 25 Mbps or greater, the answer continues to be no. According to the FCC's 2016 Broadband Progress Report (pdf), 34 million Americans (or about 10% of the population) lack access to any 25 Mbps connections whatsoever. Last year's report found that 52 million Americans (or about 17% of the population) lacked access to 25 Mbps service.

And while that's a notable improvement, the FCC found that 49% of rural Americans still lack access to 25 Mbps service, compared to 4% for urban residents. That jumps to 68% for those living on tribal lands. And despite quite literally throwing money at the problem for a decade, 41% of schools have yet to meet the FCC's goal of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students/staff. And that's before you even get to the problem with the general lack of competition, which has resulted in two-thirds of homes lacking access to more than one ISP at speeds of 25 Mbps. Much like it omitted price from our national broadband map, the FCC continues to fail to note how this lack of choice results in high price for broadband service, a notable barrier to entry. "Fixed broadband prices are so high that millions of struggling families aren’t connecting at all," noted consumer group Free Press. "To close this unacceptable digital divide, the FCC needs to factor in the rising costs of going online and take action to make high-speed Internet access more affordable in the United States." The telecom industry's response to the report was, as you might expect, to pretend that nothing is wrong with the marketplace. "It is unfortunate that the Federal Communications Commission’s annual broadband report seems to have become a cynical, fact-starved exercise with a conclusion that is contrived to justify a continuing expansion of regulatory authority," stated US Telecom, whose biggest member is AT&T. "Given the $78 billion in annual private sector investment and the billions in USF support that is being used to extend broadband to remote parts of the county, it is ludicrous to say that broadband deployment in the United States is unreasonable – and no one really believes it." "It is unfortunate that the Federal Communications Commission’s annual broadband report seems to have become a cynical, fact-starved exercise with a conclusion that is contrived to justify a continuing expansion of regulatory authority," stated US Telecom, whose biggest member is AT&T. "Given the $78 billion in annual private sector investment and the billions in USF support that is being used to extend broadband to remote parts of the county, it is ludicrous to say that broadband deployment in the United States is unreasonable – and no one really believes it."







News Jump California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more Cogeco Rejects Altice USA's Atlantic Broadband Bid; AT&T Is Astroturfing The FCC In Support Of Trump Attack; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 84 comments

OwlSaver

OwlSaver

Premium Member

join:2005-01-30

Berwyn, PA 21 recommendations OwlSaver Premium Member The solution is simple Make the pipe a regulated utility like electricity, power, or water and let providers compete to offer TV, Video, and Phone.



Divide the country up into regions - it could be by state or by county. Each region would open up a competitive process for companies to bid on laying fiber to the home and connect it to central offices. Consumers could then shop for service providers to sell them video, phone, and internet service - ala cart or bundled. The service providers would pay the utility for the right to distribute over the fiber - rates would be regulated.



Until we do this, we are going to stay far behind what the rest of the world has. We could have fiber to 95% of homes in 5 years if we set our mind to it.



It seems to me to be a reasonable balance of government regulation to ensure that everyone can access the services and free market competition to deliver services at a low cost while still making a profit. What we have today is business not competing and selling a low quality service at a high cost.

scott2020

join:2008-07-20

MO 15 recommendations scott2020 Member MOVE I'm going to sit back and wait for the 'just move out of the sticks' comments. Once 50% of the country simply picks up and moves to the big city, all of our broadband problems will be solved. yay!

TIGERON

join:2008-03-11

Boston, MA Motorola MG7550

9 recommendations TIGERON Member a question that should be asked.......... I dont understand why is it that these companies that are getting CAF II funding from the federal government to expand services to more households and improve speeds/rehabilitate network infrastructure cant or unwilling to thereby forcing these states to build out their own municipal fiber and find it to be cheaper and more cost effective???

When I see companies like AT&T, Frontier, CenturyLink, Fairpoint, and Windstream taking taxpayer money on the promises to expand and improve services and infrastructure and then the CEOs get a massive pay bonuses yet the customers do not see a change except higher bills anyone would start getting angry and ask what are these companies doing??? Case in point in West Virginia : What are companies like Frontier doing with the taxpayer funds??

Axe_man

join:2016-01-22

Everett, WA ARRIS SB6190

Linksys EA6350

4 recommendations Axe_man Member I know that I might be a bit out there... I honestly think public regulated and provided utilities are best. The reason being that maintaining and upgrading infrastructure is so damn expensive and no one wants to do it. Private companies like Comcast, AT&T and others have shareholders to be mindful of and so when it comes down to the wire, the money that is cut is infrastructure.



Not sure it would be popular in general or whatnot but those are my two bits. userBeavis

join:2004-01-31

Pleasant Hill, MO 3 recommendations userBeavis Member Ok...why? Ok...why is this an important spend of tax payer money. I'm stuck at 1.5mbs and I would love faster but is it really the responsibility of the tax payer to provide any of this? What, so I can download higher quality video? Believe it or not I can actually run two streams of netflix...granted I'll never get HD quality but why should tax money be used so I can get a better picture at my house? Should tax money be used for better projectors at the movie theater too? or enhanced shopping experiences at the mall? I mean, how did we get to the point that the highest quality internet access is now considered an essential service worthy of massive tax expenditure. I don't agree at all and my connection truly sucks but I'm able to do everything essential, including two people working from home, online gaming, netflix, etc...just not at the fastest and highest quality. bcltoys

join:2008-07-21 1 edit 3 recommendations bcltoys Member It's higher then that? According to the National map and the Maryland map all 14 house's on my road have broadband the truth be told none of us do.I'm sure this is happening all over the whole country. If one person on a tax block has broadband then the National broadband map just counts everybody in that block as having it total bullshit. Maryland's map works the same way.I make this post on my very expensive VW wireless plan.

GlennLouEarl

3 brothers, 1 gone

Premium Member

join:2002-11-17

Richmond, VA 2 recommendations GlennLouEarl Premium Member Like most Americans I don't need "broadband". I just need Internet access. I never need faster than 10mbps. So, where are my slower and cheaper options? Well, my "need" grows less each day. I expect that eventually--sooner rather than later--I won't feel the need for any access at all.

Martijn2

@att.net 2 recommendations Martijn2 Anon 7 million people don't even have access to 3/1 Mbps Reality is even worse, of this 34 million, 7 million don't even have access to 3/1 mbps.