FCC Chairman - another Czar-fail
-
@George-K said in FCC Chairman - another Czar-fail:
If only there were a solution for that...
Having a technological solution is one thing.
Having a scalable solution is another.
Having an affordable solution is yet another.
Having a quickly implementable solution is another still.We have more technological solutions for building walls than we do for connecting people to broadband. And you saw what happened to the last administration's aspiration to build a wall.
Last I looked, the FCC just came up with accountability and reporting rules about using the funds for expanding rural broadband access, and that was around the middle of this year. Give it another year and you'll see reports rolling in that tell you where, how much, and on what the money is spent.
-
@Axtremus said in FCC Chairman - another Czar-fail:
Having a technological solution is one thing.
Starlink exists
Having a scalable solution is another.
It covers the entire United States
Having an affordable solution is yet another.
It's about $400 to install (see above)
Having a quickly implementable solution is another still.
UPS/FEDEX etc can usually deliver in a matter of days.
We have more technological solutions for building walls than we do for connecting people to broadband. And you saw what happened to the last administration's aspiration to build a wall.
Not for lack of technology. Perhaps you can let the Lithuanians, Israelis, Indians, Saudis, Hungarians, Spaniards, Norwegians, Koreans, and Greeks know that building walls is a futile adventure.
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in FCC Chairman - another Czar-fail:
What about 5G on the rural route?
As of 4 years ago, any cellular connectivity in the far reaches of the plains was non-existent. Montana, in particular was horrible. I doubt it's much better now.
Long stretches of northern North Dakota where's there's nothing as well.
5G is great, if you can get it. In my house, right now, I have 2 out 4 bars. I'm 0.57 mile from a tower, and my condo faces the tower. If you want speed, 5G is your answer. If you want distance, 4G LTE is the solution.
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in FCC Chairman - another Czar-fail:
@Jolly said in FCC Chairman - another Czar-fail:
Ok, real world 100Mbps speed for 4G. Doesn't that meet broadband definition?
How far can 4G reach with internet?
Let's ask AI:
The range of a 4G LTE signal depends on several factors, such as the environment, network configuration, and cell tower infrastructure. Typically:
Urban areas: The signal range is usually between 2 to 5 miles (3 to 8 kilometers) due to obstructions like buildings and other interference.
- Rural areas: The signal range can extend up to 10 to 15 miles (16 to 24 kilometers) due to fewer obstructions, although it varies based on terrain.
- However, obstacles like mountains, tall buildings, and dense forests can significantly reduce this range.
The range of 5G signals depends on the specific frequency band being used. There are three main types of 5G bands, and each has a different range:
- Low-band 5G (below 1 GHz):
Similar to 4G LTE in range, low-band 5G can reach up to 10 miles (16 km) or more. However, it offers only slightly faster speeds than 4G. - Mid-band 5G (1–6 GHz):
Mid-band 5G can cover distances of 1 to 5 miles (2 to 8 km). It provides a good balance between speed and range, offering significantly faster speeds than low-band but with reduced range. - High-band 5G (millimeter wave or mmWave, 24–100 GHz):
mmWave 5G has the shortest range, typically around 1,000 feet (300 meters) or less. It delivers extremely high speeds but is easily blocked by obstacles like walls and trees.
In practical deployment, a combination of these bands is used to balance speed and coverage.
-
Some thoughts...
Broadband availability does a lot for rural folks, opening up remote learning and work opportunities. But as George pointed out, the no-signal spots range from small pockets to huge swaths of territory.
So maybe we need a different approach.
- Close up fiber optic dead zones where possible.
- Next, close up 4G dead zones.
- Satellite internet of some flavor for the big empties.
-
Ignore the incompetence and focus on the joy!
Link to video -
Looking at this situation, I think that the headline in the original video is incorrect.
The attached article indicates the the final approval was in June 2023, and the money was to be given to the individual states, with the federal government being nothing more than the banker, with the states being responsible for implementation.
States are expected to submit initial plans later this year (2023) that will unlock 20% of the funding. Once the plans are finalized, which could take to 2025, the government will release the remaining money.
The federal grant program has now green-lighted applications from 34 states, which will let them start accessing the first share of federal aid. But given the lengthy negotiations over the terms of their plans, the administration doesn’t expect broadband projects funded by the marquee program to launch in earnest until 2025.
I think that it would be more accurate to say that the money has been approved. but not yet allocated.
100% agree that there is incompetence however.
-
-
@Axtremus said in FCC Chairman - another Czar-fail:
I suppose this is one those instances where conservatives love government subsidies.
Why don't you just ignore everything said previously?
Many conservatives thought this was one of the few good things to come out of the Biden Administration. We've talked about it multiple times. It involves infrastructure that would have benefited millions of rural Americans, creating job and educational opportunities.
And now, we find out much of it was spiked for political reasons.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in FCC Chairman - another Czar-fail:
we find out much of it was spiked for political reasons.
Why do you think it was political?
I dont think Elon Musk was overly political in 2022. Maybe they were afraid he was in too close to the Chinese?
-
WSJ: The Harris Broadband Rollout Has Been a Fiasco
Three years after the $42.5 billion subsidy passed, not a single project is underway. Here’s why.
The Editorial BoardOct. 4, 2024 at 6:12 pm
The 2021 infrastructure law included $42.5 billion for states to expand broadband to “unserved,” mostly rural, communities. Three years later, ground hasn’t been broken on a single project. The Administration recently said construction won’t start until next year at the earliest, meaning many projects won’t be up and running until the end of the decade.
Blame the Administration’s political regulations. States must submit plans to the Commerce Department about how they’ll use the funds and their bidding process for providers. Commerce has piled on mandates that are nowhere in the law and has rejected state plans that don’t advance progressive goals.
Take how the Administration is forcing providers to subsidize service for low-income customers. Commerce required that Virginia revise its plan so bidders had to offer a specified “affordable” price. This is rate regulation.
Brent Christensen of the Minnesota Telecom Alliance recently reported that none of his trade group’s 70 or so members plan to bid for federal grants because of the rate rules and other burdens. “To put those obligations on small rural providers is a hell of a roadblock,” he said. “Most of our members are small and can’t afford to offer a low-cost option.”
Commerce hoped to spread the cash to small rural cooperatives, but the main beneficiaries will be large providers that can better manage the regulatory burden. Bigger businesses always win from bigger government.
Commerce is all but refusing to fund anything other than fiber broadband, though satellite services like SpaceX’s Starlink and wireless carriers can expand coverage at lower cost. A Starlink terminal costs about $600 per home. Extending 5G to rural communities costs a couple thousand dollars per connection. Building out fiber runs into the tens of thousands.
Fiber networks will require more permits, which delay construction. But fiber will require more union labor to build. Commerce wants grant recipients to pay union-scale wages and not oppose union organizing.
The Administration has also stipulated hiring preferences for “underrepresented” groups, including “aging individuals,” prisoners, racial, religious and ethnic minorities, “Indigenous and Native American persons,” “LGBTQI+ persons,” and “persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.”
Good luck trying to find “underrepresented” hard-hats in Montana. An official overseeing Montana’s program told Congress last month that the Administration has given “conflicting or even new and changed guidance after submitting our plans” and is “slowing states down and second-guessing good-faith efforts.”
The official added that “we have yet to receive clarity on permitting, a foundational component of broadband deployment.” The government system that states are required to use for federal permits, she noted, “will not be available for another 6 to 8 months to evaluate each project’s environmental and historic preservation effects.”
Then there’s this Catch-22. The Biden National Environmental Policy Act guidance requires companies that receive federal funds to consider alternative plans with smaller environmental impact. But the program’s rules disfavor such alternatives as satellites and home 5G.
States must also identify future climate risks and “how the proposed plan will avoid and/or mitigate” them. Broadband providers already safeguard their systems against natural disasters in part with redundant networks, so the extraneous mandates will merely make building more expensive.
Cox Communications last week sued Rhode Island over the state’s plan to “build taxpayer-subsidized and duplicative high-speed broadband internet in affluent areas of Rhode Island like the Breakers Mansion in Newport and affluent areas of Westerly,” where Taylor Swift owns a $17 million vacation home. Cox says there are better ways to spend taxpayer dollars. According to the Federal Communications Commission, 99.97% of U.S. households already have access to high-speed internet.
The broadband non-rollout is a classic of modern progressive government. Authorize money for a cause that private industry could do better, but then botch the execution with identity politics and union favoritism. Ms. Harris is promising four more years of the same.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K said in FCC Chairman - another Czar-fail:
According to the Federal Communications Commission, 99.97% of U.S. households already have access to high-speed internet.
Yeah, but it's not really high speed. Commerce should have set a simple rule: If the fiber optic option already exists for your home, no new cable. If not, Mr. State, here's a bloc grant for you to use to serve as many people as possible, be it with fiber optic or satellite.
They would have gotten more done...
-
WSJ:
Elon Musk Rides to Biden’s Hurricane Rescue
The FCC withdrew a grant for Starlink to cover rural counties, but the satellite service is now saving the day in those counties.
The Editorial Board Oct. 9, 2024 at 5:29 pm
Private groups and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in recent days have deployed more than a thousand Starlink terminals to restore internet service in hard-hit areas of Appalachia. The Federal Communications Commission has also given Starlink the green-light to test a direct-to-cell service to broadcast emergency alerts.
Mr. Musk says Starlink will provide temporary free satellite service in affected areas. He’s doing so even though the FCC last December yanked an $885 million grant for Starlink to furnish high-speed internet to 640,000 rural homes and businesses—including in the very counties where FEMA is now deploying Starlink’s satellites.
As we wrote at the time, the FCC awarded Starlink the grant in 2020 because it can cover remote regions at lower cost than traditional broadband providers. But the FCC’s Democratic majority revoked Starlink’s funding last year, claiming it wasn’t making fast enough progress to connect rural Americans—never mind that other FCC funding recipients weren’t doing any better.
The Biden FCC majority called Starlink unproven and unreliable, though Ukraine’s military and people were relying on its service after Russia destroyed other networks. As GOP commissioner Brendan Carr noted in dissent, the FCC’s decision “cannot be explained by any objective application of law, facts, or policy,” adding that the decision “fits the Biden Administration’s pattern of regulatory harassment” of Mr. Musk’s businesses.
The de-funding by Democrats is now looking even more political. Two weeks ago FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel granted Dish Network chairman Charlie Ergen a three-year extension to meet FCC deadlines to build out his fledgling 5G network and avoid stiff penalties for squatting on valuable spectrum. Starlink was well on its way to meeting its commitments to the FCC, but Mr. Ergen wasn’t close to meeting his.
Ah, but Mr. Ergen is a Biden-Harris campaign donor while Mr. Musk is a critic. Note also that Dish lobbied the FCC in 2022 to scrap the Starlink award, saying it “cannot credibly claim that it will be able to fulfill its obligations.” Perhaps Mr. Ergen hopes to win federal funding to cover the rural areas that the FCC had tapped Starlink to connect.
It would be better if the government weren’t subsidizing the expansion of any private broadband networks. But if they’re going to pick winners and losers, the feds should do so based on objective criteria and ensure taxpayer money is spent efficiently.
Instead, the Administration has prioritized $42.5 billion in broadband funding from the infrastructure bill for the most expensive fiber projects while effectively excluding Starlink even though it can connect rural Americans at a fraction of the cost. It’s no small irony that FEMA is deploying Starlink systems in some of the same rural areas that Biden officials earlier wouldn’t let Starlink serve.
Starlink’s FCC award would have covered all or parts of 17 of the 21 North Carolina counties hardest hit by the hurricane. The least President Biden could do is thank Mr. Musk for saving the day.
