FCC Tries to Lower the Bar For Broadband Deployment Under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, the FCC is required to consistently measure whether broadband is being deployed to all Americans uniformly and "in a reasonable and timely fashion." If the FCC finds that broadband isn't being deployed quickly enough to the public, the agency is required by law to "take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market."

Unfortunately whenever the FCC is stocked by revolving door regulators all-too-focused on pleasing the likes of AT&T, Verizon and Comcast -- this dedication to expanding coverage and competition often tends to waver. What's more, regulators beholden to regional duopolies often take things one-step further -- by trying to manipulate data to suggest that broadband is faster, cheaper, and more evenly deployed than it actually is. We saw this under former FCC boss Michael Powell (now the top lobbyist for the cable industry), and more recently when the industry cried incessantly when the base definition of broadband was bumped to 25 Mbps downstream, 4 Mbps upstream. Ars Technica highlights how we're now seeing this behavior once again under current FCC boss Ajit Pai, whose agency this week filed a notice of inquiry (pdf) toward reshaping how "reasonable and timely" broadband deployment is measured. Under this new proposal, any area able to obtain wireless speeds of at least 10 Mbps down, 1 Mbps would be deemed good enough for American consumers, pre-empting any need to prod industry to speed up or expand broadband coverage. Under the previous FCC, wireless was deemed important, but not yet anywhere near a suitable replacement for fixed-line broadband, especially in more remote areas where cellular connectivity will likely remain spotty for decades to come. The move directly caters to AT&T and Verizon, who have largely given up on rural and second and third-tier city fixed-line broadband deployment, arguing that existing, expensive wireless connectivity is "good enough" (pretty consistently users in the real world find that's just not true). As part of this push, these companies have worked tirelessly to gut consumer protections governing these lines, many of which were extensively subsidized by taxpayers. Of course many of these DSL lines are very much still in use, and while driving these fixed-line users to more expensive wireless is better for AT&T and Verizon's bottom line, the quality, cost and reliability of the connection often lags. And while someday wireless will reach the point of parity with fixed-line networks, that date remains a long way away for most of the country. While the FCC's Notice of Inquiry (pdf) tries to frame this shift as a modernization of FCC policy, the actual goal isn't quite so noble: to downgrade the current, 25/4 Mbps standard definition of broadband to a lower threshold of 10/1 Mbps, reducing pressure on ISPs to compete and improve. And while AT&T and Verizon technically will tell the FCC they already offer 10 Mbps mobile broadband across most of America, if you've ever traveled across the country you've probably noticed that actual mobile connectivity is a far, far cry from what's advertised. Out here in the real world, everybody and their uncle can tell that US broadband is expensive, often slow, and notably uncompetitive. By fiddling with the numbers and the measuring stick, former Verizon lawyer turned FCC boss Ajit Pai hopes to lower the bar to ankle height, helping justify his refusal to seriously improve market competition and availability. As an aside, you can file (polite) public comments on the FCC's latest proposal at As an aside, you can file (polite) public comments on the FCC's latest proposal at this link







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 58 comments



Zenit

The system is the solution

Premium Member

join:2012-05-07

Purcellville, VA 7 recommendations Zenit Premium Member 25Mbps and Telcos I'd wager that the 25Mbps requirement is hurting deployment in very rural areas by small providers. While I do like the 25Mbps standard, it makes most twisted pair solutions completely ineligible for government funds unless you do pair bonding or VDSL and place DSLAM's really close to the customers. Of course this is harder in rural areas.

These standards define the term "broadband" and impact CAF funds and how they can be used. CAF funds are free money for providers to build out service. They have to use the money and build something compliant with FCC specifications, that means minimum 25Mbps new "broadband" service in 2017. There is a major loophole - most providers sell "HSI", not "broadband" and the major providers aside from CenturyLink and Frontier do not take CAF funds. Verizon purposefully declined free CAF money that was offered to them because it would mean deployment of modern equipment under the FCC's yardstick, not obsolete Octal T-1 DSLAM's paired with a fiber to copper multiplexer from Fujitsu (Verizon is incredibly backwards on the copper side of the house, the planners have not bothered to move past 2003).

10Mbps is attainable with ADSL2+ fairly easily at a distance of 1-2 miles. More attainable in rural areas for small telephone companies.



The real solution is for the smaller telcos is to build out FTTP or HFC. These standards do not impact Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, et al. as they do not sell "broadband", they sell "high speed internet" so



Do I like this decision by Pai? Nope, its awful! Lowering the yardstick is a very bad move. They should keep it at 25Mbps for wireless at a minimum; 5G and even LTE can reliably deliver that to the end user when sectors are not overloaded and backhaul is good, given enough spectrum.



What has had a more meaningful impact on internet speeds is the presence of Google Fiber and other competitive fiber over builders. Seems like the mere existence of the service in a limited area has made cable providers jump to increase speeds footprint wide. We see pressure to deploy DOCSIS3.1 too.



IMO for areas yet to have service the priority should be establishing something moderately decent in the interim to close the gap. Too many places have gone without connectivity for too long, poor and rich. Something is better than nothing.

TIGERON

join:2008-03-11

Boston, MA 7 recommendations TIGERON Member What will it take? What will it take for this country to wake up and realize that people like Pai and companies like AT&T and Verizon are screwing us? When are we going to bring the pitchforks? grandrivers

join:2005-01-27

Rome, OH 6 recommendations grandrivers Member Really?? They need to RAISE !!!! not LOWER it

Anon57023

@verizon.net 4 recommendations Anon57023 Anon 10/1 per *person* might be acceptable but most *customers* consist of families--2 to 5 people. Taken together, 25/4 is a more than rational definition for "broadband". However, all of the marketing lately is for gigabit, so consumer focus in most places ignores the FCC idea of broadband anyway. Vertigo101

join:2012-06-13

Farmington, ME 3 recommendations Vertigo101 Member Chesterville Maine's Broadband :o



Right now I'm at 0.50mbps down, 0.05mbps up.



Oh and that's 29.99 a month... I live in Chesterville Maine, our speeds are Insane at a wopping 7.5mbps down on a good day, 0.25mbps up.Right now I'm at 0.50mbps down, 0.05mbps up.Oh and that's 29.99 a month... kinda pissed

join:2012-06-06

Newsoms, VA 3 recommendations kinda pissed Member Not in the industry so forgive my basic questions Does infrastructure that delivers 25+ cost more then infrastructure that delivers 10+? I mean you gotta lay wire or build towers either way. The labor cost should be the same regardless. I know people say fiber is expensive but they wouldn't need to use fiber. Cable or LTE can both deliver more then 25 megs although LTE kinda sucks as a home Internet option unless they remove or at least raise the caps

firephoto

We the people

Premium Member

join:2003-03-18

Brewster, WA 2 recommendations firephoto Premium Member Almost broadband again. Sweet, I'll be close to having broadband again, or if I pay an extra $15 I will have broadband at an awesome 10M down for $75.