nanog mailing list archives
Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers
From: Dorn Hetzel <dorn () hetzel org>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2022 10:36:16 -0400
I live pretty deep in a rural area, and there are only about 3 or 4 houses in the square mile I live in. My electric service comes from a co-op, and I'd be darn well pleased if that co-op could install and provide layer 2 service over fiber back to some local pick-up point where I could meet one or more internet providers. On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 9:44 AM Masataka Ohta < mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp> wrote:
Sean Donelan wrote:USF is great for rural, but it has turned medium density and suburban areas into connectivity wastelands.Carrier & cable lobbying organizations say that free market competition by multiple providers provide adequate service in those areas.That's simply untrue, because of natural regional monopoly. Competitive providers must invest same amount of money to cover a certain area by their cables but their revenues are proportional to their local market shares, which means only the provider with the largest share can survive. In urban areas where local backbone costs, which are proportional to market shares, exceeds cabling costs, there may be some competitions. But, the natural regional monopoly is still possible. Still, providers relying on older technologies will be competitively replaced by other providers using newer technologies, which is why DSL providers have been disappearing and cable providers will disappear. In a long run, only fiber providers will survive. The problem, then, is that, with PON, there is no local competition even if fibers are unbundled, because, providers with smaller share can find smaller number of subscribers around PON splitters, as, usually, fiber cost between the splitters and stations are same, which is why fiber providers prefer PON over SS. But, such preference is deadly for rural areas where only one or two homes exist around PON splitters, in which case, SS is less costly. Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers, (continued)
- RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Kord Martin (Jun 06)
- Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers John Schiel (Jun 01)
- RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Mitchell Tanenbaum via NANOG (Jun 01)
- Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Seth Mattinen (Jun 01)
- Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Jared Mauch (Jun 02)
- Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Sean Donelan (Jun 03)
- Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Josh Luthman (Jun 05)
- Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Joly MacFie (Jun 06)
- RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Mitchell Tanenbaum via NANOG (Jun 01)
- Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Owen DeLong via NANOG (Jun 02)
- Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Dorn Hetzel (Jun 02)
- Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Owen DeLong via NANOG (Jun 02)
- Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Masataka Ohta (Jun 03)