Some believe the Federal Communications Commission deliberately is ignoring its own data to justify more regulation over the broadband business, when the facts might suggest a lighter touch is justified.
In fact, analysts at the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies go so far as to argue that "ubiquitous availability is today an unreasonable expectation and unreasonable goal."
The Phoenix Center argues that since the FCC analysis requires an expenditure of $50,000 or more, on top of actual and accepted industry investments for a new broadband access line, to serve the last 200,000 or so U.S. locations, the reasonable and proper goal of fostering widespread broadband access descends into an improper specifying of how that access is to be accomplished, in essence.
The economists at Phoenix Center do not argue "nothing" can be done to serve the remaining five percent or so of isolated locations. Satellite services can reach most of those remaining locations now, with improvements coming, for example.
That is not to say any of the satellites now delivering satellite broadband are as fast as we would like, cost as little as we might prefer, or can literally reach "every" location in rural areas. Some of the spot beam transponders can become fully loaded, meaning no more customers can be added within the footprint of a particular spot beam.
Some of the locations could be in areas where a particular satellite does not have any spot beams aimed at the ground. But the launch of new satellites by ViaSat and HughesNet does mean existing load on the older satellites will, over time, be alleviated, allowing some locations to once again buy service, while likely also allowing faster service, even using the older satellites.
Satellite broadband isn't perfect, nor does it offer speeds as fast as fiber to the home networks. But satellite broadband is getting much better, and already is built. In many areas, that means speeds "up to" 12 Mbps or 15 Mbps can be purchased. Coverage is not 100 percent, by any means. But coverage is quite substantial, and no taxpayer or service provider expenditure of an incremental $50,000 per location, whether a person buys, or doesn't buy, is required.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Is the FCC Ignoring its Own Data to Justify More Regulation Over Broadband?
Gary Kim has been a digital infra analyst and journalist for more than 30 years, covering the business impact of technology, pre- and post-internet. He sees a similar evolution coming with AI. General-purpose technologies do not come along very often, but when they do, they change life, economies and industries.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Will AI Fuel a Huge "Services into Products" Shift?
As content streaming has disrupted music, is disrupting video and television, so might AI potentially disrupt industry leaders ranging from ...
-
We have all repeatedly seen comparisons of equity value of hyperscale app providers compared to the value of connectivity providers, which s...
-
It really is surprising how often a Pareto distribution--the “80/20 rule--appears in business life, or in life, generally. Basically, the...
-
One recurring issue with forecasts of multi-access edge computing is that it is easier to make predictions about cost than revenue and infra...
No comments:
Post a Comment