Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Electronic Frontier Foundation Government Network The Internet United States

The US Desperately Needs a 'Fiber For All' Plan (eff.org) 204

Posted by BeauHD from the importance-of-fiber dept.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has published a new report calling for a "fiber for all" plan to combat the broadband access crisis in the United States. Government data and independent analysis show we are falling behind the rest of the developed world in this area, and "the U.S. is the only country that believes having no plan will solve this issue," writes Ernesto Falcon from the EFF. "We are the only country to completely abandon federal oversight of an uncompetitive, highly concentrated market that sells critical services to all people, yet we expect widely available, affordable, ultra-fast services. But if you live in a low-income neighborhood or in a rural market today, you know very well this is not working and the status quo is going to cement in your local broadband options to either one choice or no choice." From the report: Very small ISPs and local governments with limited budgets are at the frontline of deploying fiber to the home to fix these problems, but policymakers from the federal, state, and local level need to step up and lead. At least 19 states still have laws that prohibit local governments from deploying community broadband projects. Worst yet, both AT&T and Verizon are actively asking the FCC to make it even harder for small private ISPs to deploy fiber, so that the big incumbents can raise prices and suppress competition, a proposal EFF has urged the FCC to reject.

This is why we need to push our elected officials and regulators for a fiber-for-all-people plan to ensure everyone can obtain the next generation of broadband access. Otherwise, the next generation of applications and services won't be usable in most of the United States. They will be built instead for markets with better, faster, cheaper, and more accessible broadband. This dire outcome was the central thesis to a recently published book by Professor Susan Crawford (appropriately named Fiber) and EFF agrees with its findings. If American policymakers do not remedy the failings in the US market and actively pursue ways to drive fiber deployment with the goal of universal coverage, then a staggering number of Americans will miss out on the latest innovations that will occur on the Internet because it will be inaccessible or too expensive. As a result, we will see a worsening of the digital divide as advances in virtual reality, cloud computing, gaming, education, and things we have not invented yet are going to carry a monopoly price tag for a majority of us -- or just not be accessible here. This does not have to be so, but it requires federal, state, and local governments to get to work on policies that promote fiber infrastructure to all people. Most of the talk lately has been about 5G networks, but the less-spoken truth about these networks is that they need dense fiber networks to make them work. "One estimate on the amount of fiber investment that needs to occur is as much as $150 billion -- including fiber to the home deployments -- in the near future, and we are far below that level of commitment to fiber," the report says.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The US Desperately Needs a 'Fiber For All' Plan More

The US Desperately Needs a 'Fiber For All' Plan

Comments Filter:

  • Start by hobbling the monopolies (Score:5, Informative)

    by Krishnoid ( 984597 ) on Friday March 22, 2019 @04:36PM (#58317710) Journal

    If they could prevent local cable companies from interfering with cities/towns setting up their own municipal Wi-Fi or networking, that could bootstrap the whole process. Looking at it as a whole-country fiber everywhere project sounds really expensive, with a lot of setup overhead. Plus, don't a lot of people in poorer areas (not sitting at a desk all day) access the internet primarily from their phones anyway?

    • Looking at it as a whole-country fiber everywhere project sounds really expensive, with a lot of setup overhead.

      Perhaps Elon could start a subsidiary: 'The Mini Boring Company' - small scale, fibre-laying drillbots.

      (On a related note, a nationwide project to address this utter bullshit is both much-needed and - IMHO as a "libertarian type" - serves as an excellent example of the sort of problem for which "socialism" is the ideal solution. I do, however, believe that "legitimate socialism" - as opposed to the other kind - can only be 'opt-in;' the minute it's enforced at the point of a gun, it becomes tyrannical and

  • No it doesn't (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cjonslashdot ( 904508 )
    I don't want to pay for fiber to rural homes. If someone wants to live in the mountains, let them or their local community pay for their infrastructure.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I don't want to pay for roads to carry food from the rural areas to the cities. If someone wants to live in a city, let them or their local community grow their own food.

      • I wish them Good luck producing all the oil, machinery, fertilizer, and pesticides they need on-site without roads to bring it in. I guess it's back to horse-drawn plows for most of them. Profits could no longer be made - I guess we can leave profitable large-scale farming to the Socialist nations - but perhaps they could still survive on subsistence farming.

    • Re:No it doesn't (Score:5, Informative)

      by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Friday March 22, 2019 @05:01PM (#58317852) Journal

      let them or their local community pay for their infrastructure.

      Well, that's the rub, isn't it? The state, in order to serve big business, prohibits them from setting up their own service. You understand the real issue, right?

      • Yes, you are right. It is the battle between moneyed interests and the public interest. My feeling is that that battle plays out at the Federal level as well. I am a believer in a publicly utility for the last mile. But the place to wage that war is not in the Federal government - it is in the local community. Don't you think? Do you want the Federal government meddling in your local utilities, e.g., your water and electricity?

        • Sometimes you have to call in the Cavalry...

        • The issue is that local government tends toward naked nepotism, and flagrant corruption.

          The ISPs know this. They bank on this.

          • Yes, as does the Federal government. It is even worse at the Federal level, because there is more at stake. At least with 50 states, some of them will work well. One can compare, and one can even move if things are a mess. But moving out of the US is a much more difficult change.

            Government is always corrupt - always. It is a matter of degree.

            One of the main problems is that the ISPs are too large. The Federal government should break them up. Also, local communities and states should set up their own local f

    • I'm somewhat rural, and until recently could only get 1.5mb dsl due to distance from the magical box down the road. Now there is fiber connecting them, so I can get 6mb and possibly 12mb, but the fiber is running literally 200 feet from my front door... why shouldn't I be able to get fiber to my phone junction box?

      • Hi - you should. It is a terrible situation. The Federal government has allowed these telcos to combine into these monolithic near monopolies, which lobby to block community broadband. Local communities should be the entities that should run fiber to the home, just like they run water and sewer lines - via a local utility company.

        • In that case, I may be hosed. On well w/ septic system. I do get electric service though, so could we use that for the comparison?

          • In most communities, electric service is provided through a local utility company that is regulated because it is a monopoly.

            You might consider satellite Internet, although I don't think it works well for phone calls or for video streaming.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      All kinds of monopoly laws stand in the way of good local community efforts to use community broadband.
      Remove the laws and control and they will be able to bring in their own new and amazing community networks.
      • Yes. That's the core problem. Local communities should be running fiber to the home.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by AHuxley ( 892839 )
          To the home.
          The ski resort.
          The hotel.
          Small business.
          For education.
          A medical center.
          Everyone wins with faster internet and allows people to stay in a community.
          That attracts new jobs and allows for growth and more wealth.
          Every part of a small community a monopoly ISP totally failed to bring fast new network services to.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Khyber ( 864651 )

      "I don't want to pay for fiber to rural homes."

      Your dumb ass already did with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. And the telecom companies gave neither you nor the rural communities shit.

      What now, motherfucker?

  • Daily fiber intake? (Score:4, Funny)

    by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Friday March 22, 2019 @04:37PM (#58317714)
    I misunderstood the title. I thought it was a suggestion to start taking Metamucil.

    • I misunderstood the title. I thought it was a suggestion to start taking Metamucil.

      Don't forget Google's plan to hook up everyone to the internet via the sewer lines. Link. [google.com]

  • Central Services: We do the work, you do the pleasure.

    Fuck off EFF. Everybody _doesn't_ need fiber. Last thing we need is another billion/year going to rent seekers. Like all the rural electrification money we're still bleeding, 50 years later.

    Market is working, let it. Unless the bigs get their shit together, all those tiny ISPs will own them. Wireless network's fiber backhauls are in fine shape, again market is working.

    If you live out in BFE, you already know how to live with satellite or at best a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jonwil ( 467024 )

      All that needs to happen is to repeal all the laws, deals etc (at various levels of government) that prevents or restricts new players from entering the market (be they government run, community run, not-for-profit, for-profit or otherwise). That includes things that allow the incumbents to tie things up in court and deny the new players until they give up.

      If you have proper competition against the last-century dinosaurs and the market is truly unrestricted, new players will emerge that offer the service pe

    • If you live out in BFE, you already know how to live with satellite or at best a cell data plan.

      And they currently make do with sneakernet over motor vehicles. whose exhaust pollutes the air. From an interview [irlpodcast.org]:

      Dominic Girard: Rural America, likely lots of agriculture and that is very much the case here. Farmers like any other business need the internet to do their work, but here’s the thing. Farmers in this region can’t even do the most of basic stuff with their existing internet speeds. Mark Erickson, he gives this example.

      Mark Erickson: They create these files that they need to then upl

  • hey I know (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Hey I know we can pay verizon, google, at&t, windstream to build this thing out. They will not rip us off again at all Lets give them billions this time. I am sure they can get it right this time.

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday March 22, 2019 @04:46PM (#58317760)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • AT&T's market cap is 226 billion. Your 300 billion claim is not plausible. If you got that somewhere, post the link, so we can know who the liars are.

      The rest of your post is on point. They should just stop all M&A in the market until their is healthy competition.

      People get the local government they deserve. If your from Seattle, suck it, vote the bastards out or shut the fuck up. Don't ask for a federal solution.

      • Yea, all this. We need to remove the market protections so new companies can compete(read: bring fantastically [no, super-fantastically] better product and service) in the same space. Allowing these fuckers to have local dominance is criminal.

        Also, fuck you Ajit Pai

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by mcl630 ( 1839996 )

        Actually, it's now up to $400 billion:

        https://www.huffingtonpost.com... [huffingtonpost.com]

        I don't understand the reference to AT&T's market cap... $400 billion paid to various large telcos for services and upgrades they never provided over the course of 20 years has little connection to AT&T's current market cap.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Cite the information they used to get to $400B.

          Because I've seen a TON of lies from 'those kinds'. Gas taxes counted as gas subsidies. Parking and vendor revenue ignored when discussing economics of airports. etc etc etc.

          The simple fact is that places like Huffpost don't have to backup their claims, just preach to the choir.

          A claim from a 'shitty rag' does not make a _preposterous_ claim plausible. If they got $400B in subsidies, they did an absolutely awful job of turning it into shareholder value.

    • that's why we're discussing this. It's too expensive to get internet out to the boonies. Just like it was too expensive to get electricity and phones there. We did it anyway because it was good for the country. A connected, modern and well educated rural population was much less likely to do boneheaded things at the polls.

      And I mentioned this elsewhere but if you live in the city the average rural voter has 40 times the voting power you do thanks to how the Senate and Electoral college works, and that's

      • The real problem is that the locals are excluded from setting up their own services by the state that represents the big telcos.

        In capitalism the market is open to everybody, and it does find a way. The protection of monopolies by the state is more like communism. You can't even get good vodka from them.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dryeo ( 100693 )

          Actually, it is capitalism at its purest. Capitalism rewards the most efficient, and it is more efficient to buy laws, regulations and subsidies then to actually produce product.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by thejam ( 655457 )
      I totally agree: no subsidies. They're unfair, and they breed corruption.
  • The 'crisis' is caused by telecom companies who won't invest unless there's profit to be made, and meanwhile they price-gouge everyone else.
    Eventually if our civilization is to advance some things are going to have to be not-for-profit instead of squeezing people for every penny they can make, by hook or by crook. We see this mainly with healthcare; but since internet is still seen as 'optional' instead of 'a necessity' it doesn't loom as large in people's minds.
    The healthcare industry was at one point in

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by thejam ( 655457 )
      Please no. Fast internet shouldn't be an entitlement. Not only would such an entitlement be an unjust subsidy for certain lifestyles, but it'll promote corruption. Also it'll limit still faster internet. That'll just limit, because out of consistency it can't be introduced until everyone can benefit simultaneously.
      • Who said anything about 'fast internet'? Also is 1Mb/S 'fast'? It's not. I'm talking about everyone having access, not being excluded because greedy telecoms don't think they'll make enough profit to justify bringing it to a community.

    • Also municipalities should not ever be prohibited from providing access themselves.

      This is the only real issue here. Everybody would have broadband if they were allowed to build it, and with minimal, if any subsidies.

      The closed market is the cause of many of our problems. It's very "communist" to let big corporations make the rules for government to enforce. It just looks different because the Politburo wears Armani, instead of that drab green/gray [youtube.com].

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dryeo ( 100693 )

        No, it is the opposite of communism. This is freedom, the freedom of the rich to buy politicians with their capital and produce more capital from that investment in buying government.
        Next you'll be calling for big government to force free markets with actual competition, something that sounds like socialism or worse, restricting peoples right to give money away to who they choose, which would be tyranny.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      When a monopoly network won't keep up with tech its time to open the community to better more innovative brands.
      The monopoly was granted to keep a network working and to keep that network in a productive condition.
      What was once granted to a network can be removed.
      Wont offer 1000/1000 services? Bring in a new ISP that can do a community broadband network.
      Build that network and invite a lot of different ISP onto that new community network.
      Enjoy services. The freedom to select from US wide ISP brands.
  • Now people feel forced to move away from cities, where good internet is cheap, to rural areas that may lack it, in part because housing in cities often is restricted to single family dwellings and apartments are much harder or impossible to develop, making city living extremely expensive. Zoning is in effect a subsidy on those who enjoy it, and is an effective way of discriminating against the poor. It should be easier for people to enjoy the benefits of city living, without being a millionaire. A rural
  • While it's clear that some com companies are using dirty tricks to keep small players out of the game, smoothing this out isn't gonna magically grow fiber to the whole US. The US is a fairly large landmass. My understanding is that most countries with really good internet connection everywhere are pretty small in comparison. As in "equivalent to one or two US states" kind of small.

    Someone prove me wrong? I'd love to see better net access here but we have LOTS of rural farmland.

  • It'd be nice to have fiber everywhere. It'd be nice to have jetski for each foot, and a dolphin with mechanical spider legs to walk around town as a chariot.

    It's not a right to have any of these things. If my state or local municipality wants to provide for these things at my tax payer expense, well, as a tenth amendment adherent, fine. but not a federal program. I'd prefer government not being involved at all, at any level. Let an investor take the gamble to spread fiber to areas they think they can turn a

  • The entire article is wrong: ""the U.S. is the only country that believes having no plan will solve this issue," - The US does have a plan! It's called Capitalism - and GOP continually scream that capitalism and competition will fix all problems...
    Unfortunately, in practice, capitalists have become so wealthy and powerful, capitalism has become the problem. Elected Representatives need money to get elected. As the wealth concentrates, capitalists have more and more power to influence laws and regulatio
    • government to the ppl solves NOTHING related to this.
      TRUE capitalism combined with true competition is the BEST answer for this. The problem is, you can not do it in small towns up to small cities. You really need a medium to large city for this.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dryeo ( 100693 )

        Actually socialism may be the answer. Small communities installing their own fiber. Co-ops are another socialist idea that can work well. Small businesses should also be a solution except they usually get bought out..
        Unluckily the capitalists hate socialism and will use their capital to buy laws to prevent competition, including competition from small towns or co-ops.

  • Look, fiber out 10 miles in rural area? Nope. Does not make sense.
    Instead, we have 1-web, starlink, etc for the rural areas.
    What is needed is for the cities and towns. In those, we need to allow local gov to run this as utilities OR just own the fiber, but outsource the various services including internet( great for small towns up to small cities), OR for multiple private companies (works best in cities).

  • It's too expensive with too little return on investment to place fiber in all but the highest density areas where the population density and / or more affluent can afford the monthly costs. ( Both Google and Verizon tried it. Both failed. Miserably. )

    In all likelihood, what will happen is they will simply bide their time until 5G is rolled out because wireless is MUCH cheaper to deploy than fiber.
    In addition, since it IS wireless, they get to charge you insane amounts of money for those wireless data pl

  • 1. Ask the monopoly ISP to upgrade their network in your community to 1000/1000 ready services.
    Wait for the offical "no".
    2. Take the offical "no" to your gov and ask them to allow in a new ISP that can build a 1000/1000 ready service.
    Wait for the monopoly ISP to block the new ISP attempt.
    3. Ask for community broadband as the monopoly granted to the ISP is not keeping up with advancements in network tech.
    The monopoly ISP is also using its monopoly position to block competition in your community.
    4.

  • The private scenario: now that the cost of access to space is plummeting, send up constellations of mid-altitude satellites to relay Internet service.

    The public scenario: deploy an ultra high capacity fiber backbone along Interstate Highways, with taps at strategic exits. Access would be leased to local cable providers with the stipulation that each ‘data intrrchange’ be served by at least two competing providers and that one tap at each interchange be reserved for local volunteer organizations

  • Human trafficking? Civil rights violations? School shootings? Mass murder? Clearly none of these are as important as making sure rural Americans can download their porn faster.

  • The specification of fiber-everywhere should be replaced with a goal of broadband-everywhere (defined as > X Gbps, where X is defined by some balance of cost-performance based on current technologies and X increases over time.)

    A lot of us on /. are technical and in engineering-like professions and hobbies. So, why would we demand a specific technology instead of looking at how we can deliver faster broadband to more places in the most economically-efficient way.

    Without a doubt, the most economically effi

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      The idea of "most economically-efficient way" has allowed parts of the USA to stay with paper insulated wireline for too long.
      Wireless works with a engineering approach that has set number of ISP accounts and good math to ensure each ISP account connects with that "antenna".
      Get that advanced math wrong and the long distant network design totally fails.
      The granted local monopolies are just not keeping up with advancements in how to do new networks.
      Time to bring in new local ISP who can provide 1000/1000

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Close