FCC Authorizes over $18B to Expand Rural Broadband | Hacker News Reader

FCC Authorizes over $18B to Expand Rural Broadband

fcc.gov

30 pointsrntn18 comments

This is one problem that throwing money at just isn't going to help in the long run. Many administrations have tried this, "oh hey we are helping bring broadband to rural areas with lots of $$$ and investment", but then it just leads to the same incumbent isps dragging their feet and doing the absolute minimum possible to meet the requirements. And then those who are now "within reach" of broadband have one provider as their option who have no incentives at all to play nice in terms of pricing, plans, and options.

The federal government needs to invalidate all ISP + Municipality exclusivity deals and invalidate all laws that prevent municipalities from creating their own ISPs and running their own networks.

Chattanooga is way ahead of the times.

> run. Many administrations have tried this

How many do you think?

I just came back from MATSS 2023 and there's definitely a lot of consultant work being built around getting Enhanced A-CAM or BEAD funding. I work for a rural ISP/telco and I can tell you we don't have any expectation of building out regulated networks without some kind of funding to help.

On the flip side that many people don't get exposed to, there are cybersecurity requirements before funding can be applied, so this may help old telcos modernize their networks. Realistically there's no market to spend upgrade money in any of our service areas. Comcast may have 20k subscribers in a single suburb but we don't have that many subscribers in our entire service area, so the ROI would be many years before we break even.

The thing most people forget is that small rural ISPs are regulated with the same laws the corporate behemoths are and it's difficult to reach parity so the small guys can get help while the big guys who don't need it can't get it. It's generally service area by service area and less about which company requests assistance to built out/upgrade that area.

> The federal government needs to invalidate all ISP + Municipality exclusivity deals

But it's not doing that. Instead, it's got $18B of taxpayer dollars to shovel into the pockets of those ISPs.

I trust the rest of the math is doable for you.

Didn't we already pay billions for rural broadband and the ISPs just pocketed the money?

This sounds like funding for traditional cable, fiber, etc. But wouldn't something like StarLink be more practical and cost-effective? afaik, StarLink already does a lot of business with / for the US federal gov, as Starlink seems to have few if any competitors.

How many billions would it take to create a Starlink competitor?

But wouldn't something like StarLink be more practical and cost-effective?

More practical assuming that Starlink does not go out of business or get destroyed. Giving them the benefit of doubt I assume perhaps incorrectly that a panel of people risk ranked such things. Starlink is a military target and a single point of success. Their first customer was the US Army and the only reason it actually exists at all as Starlink would not be profitable otherwise. A few countries have already been saber-rattling to take them out, no idea how they would do it.

Diversifying into cable, DSL and fiber could mitigate some risk for the government employees working from home. I am biased of course because the deployment of my fiber in a very rural area was partially funded by the US government. Not every ISP will use that money correctly and without fraud. That would be my bigger concern is that someone is validating results and that money won't just end up in executive pockets.

destroying a satelite would be equal to nuclear war. The shrowd of debris that would enter into orbit would put all space assets in danger and would put civilization at risk.

>More practical assuming that Starlink does not go out of business

SpaceX is a profitable company, and Starlink has over 1.5M customers.

>I am biased of course

Sounds like it.

destroying a satelite would be equal to nuclear war.

Agreed, that's why I labelled their threats as saber-rattling. Unrelated to this there are country deadpool bets running on nuclear war ranging from 2024 to 2027 when China is ready and what countries would be hit but I am not participating as there are far too many variables. I'm just stocking up on freeze dried coffee as it appears to be a better investment than metals and would never go to waste.

SpaceX is a profitable company

I did not disagree with this either. It is profitable because their biggest customer is the US Military. There are debates about profitability otherwise and some reports one can find on their burn rates vs income. I did not keep them handy because I do not trust what either side is saying.

Why does it matter if they are getting government funding when the article is discussing government subsidy to the tune of $18B?

It might be more cost effective to service rural customers using Starlink. I know of many people working remotely using it. Some of which have fiber at the road in front of them, running it up to their rural home from the road would still cost tens of thousands out of pocket and opted for Starlink.

If we are all helping pay to deliver internet access to every part of this country, which I wholeheartedly agree with, could we do so in a way that maybe also helps R&D space travel instead of whatever Comcast or Verizon is doing?

Some of which have fiber at the road in front of them, running it up to their rural home from the road would still cost tens of thousands out of pocket

I had to trench a quarter mile and it was about $2K it only goes up a little bit with more distance, biggest cost was getting the trencher here on the big rig. For what it's worth that trenching would have been free had I requested the service when the government grant was issued to the ISP as it also covered trenching. I waited too long and it snowed which pushed me outside of that window. That was entirely my fault.

I take it you did this yourself but that is definitely not the cost of paying someone to do it for you. There is no way you can purchase the fiber and pay someone to trench and lay it for you for under $1.50/ft.

I would have preferred a program where in rural counties the up front cost of acquiring the $599 kit can be claimed as a tax credit.

In the FCC press release above,

> Collectively, these companies are committing to deploy broadband service of at least 100/20 Mbps service to over 700,000 locations and to maintain or improve existing 100/20 Mbps service to approximately 2 million locations in 44 states across the United States.

That is Starlink bandwidth and that 18B would pay for 30M install kits instead of just 2.7M homes.

Yes, agreed about Starlink. But that's why I said "something like". The point being $18B feels like a lot of money, most of which - I'm presuming - is going to go to putting holes in the ground (i.e., digging trenches).

Perhaps Elon can crank out a mini Boring Company machine and save the country $10B?

Once fiber is dug down it's good for 50+ years, and is very resilient.

A Starlink satellite will deorbit on it's own, is quite delicate.

My concern with rural physical implementation is maintenance. Bridge washes out...there goes the connection. Thinks like that.

That said, perhaps that's where most of that $18B is going to go...digging trenches.

Do you think in 50 years we will still be using fiber?

Yes. Transmitting at the speed of light, 400 gigabit coherent DWDM optics shooting down fiber laid in the 80s...that's today for many places. The only thing you change is the stuff connected to the end of the fiber. So when the 400 gigabit optics aren't enough (and that will be a while) you can upgrade the fiber system without needing to bury new fiber.

Yeah, I'd wager we'll still be doing that 200 years from now. Probably made out of some fancier material, and better connectors and other wavelengths, but yeah. Still fiber.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com