[HN Gopher] FCC fines Charter, LTD Broadband more than $3M for R... ___________________________________________________________________ FCC fines Charter, LTD Broadband more than $3M for RDOF defaults Author : PaulHoule Score : 81 points Date : 2022-07-25 17:02 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.fiercetelecom.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.fiercetelecom.com) | dylan604 wrote: | Another toothless fine from the government. A measly $3M is | nothing for these giant corps. If you want a fine to stick, make | it a not small percentage of their gross sales. Otherwise, this | just gets rolled into cost of business and not a deterrent for | future problems. | m463 wrote: | I wish it was a multiplier against the cost of actually | installing broadband in some areas. | | So if it costs $1m to install broadband in some community, make | the fine 3x @ $3m. | | If corporations don't have intent and want to risk it, don't | take the money. | Arrath wrote: | A clawback of the full amount initially granted out, as well as | punitive fines against the revenue from customers in census | blocks they were supposed to upgrade but kept extracting | profits from through their ancient existent infrastructure | seems like a good start. | dylan604 wrote: | Some of these rural places they bid on are so rural that in | their mind it is cost prohibitive to incur the expenses of | bringing them the service. In their life time of being a | customer, they will not likely pay enough to cover that | initial construction cost. This is why I'm sure the bean | counters have said to just ignore them and pay the fines. | It'll be cheaper in the long run for the company. | | So maybe make the fines the equivelant to all of the | construction fees they are trying to avoid by reneging on | their bids + a severe penalty. Make it so that it is more | financially attractive to do what they promised. | wmf wrote: | No, fines are not cheaper than simply not bidding on areas | they can't serve. | indigodaddy wrote: | Exactly my thoughts as well-- why did they bid in the | first place? | horsawlarway wrote: | Because the team drafting the grant application isn't the | same team that's evaluating the feasibility of doing the | work. | | Honestly - if it's anything at all like some of the | companies I've peripherally worked for around government | grants, the team seeking grants doesn't actually give a | flying fuck if they can do the work. Their job is to | secure as much grant funding as possible, any way | possible. | | Implementation planning only happens after securing the | grant. At that point it's far too late. | dylan604 wrote: | Also, you may know there are certain areas required by | the bid that are less desirable. As long as there is | enough desirable in the there to make up whatever | punative fines will be levied for failing on the other | areas, then it's still a win for the company | dylan604 wrote: | you bid on it so someone else can't get it before you do. | you then hope that there's going to be a way to make it | work, but in the end, you realize it's just not going to | happen. so now, you just take the fine and walk away | wmf wrote: | I'm pretty sure no money was initially granted out because | these ISPs defaulted before it got to that point. In that | context I think these fines are fair. | | Now I want to know what process the FCC has for re-bidding | those defaulted areas. | pavon wrote: | Before the RDOF auction began there was a controversy about | the FCC not having accurate service coverage data to | determine what census tracts should be eligible for the | program. The result was that something like $16 billion | would be paid out in this first round of auction, and $4 | billion was held back for a second auction to fill the gaps | once we had more accurate data. Then the bidding actually | went low enough that the FCC was able to cover all their | first-round goals with just $9 billion, leaving $11 billion | for the second round. My understanding is that any areas | (and clawed back funds) that weren't serviced during the | first round will go back into the pot for the next round. | Arrath wrote: | > I'm pretty sure no money was initially granted out | because these ISPs defaulted before it got to that point. | | I'm gladdened to hear that, at least. | | Is there any mechanism for local, independent ISP's to pop | up and take advantage of this funding, or is it all | tailored towards big-telco? | wmf wrote: | Lots of RDOF funding went to local ISPs you've never | heard of so I'd say the mechanism is... RDOF. | Arrath wrote: | Nice! I was honestly curious as this program is well | outside my field. | [deleted] | londons_explore wrote: | So these fines represent 0.3% of the original funding... | | Does that mean the other 99.7% of the work has been completed to | a satisfactory standard? | wmf wrote: | RDOF buildout mostly hasn't even started and the deadline is | 2028. This is a case of ISPs admitting that they can't serve | areas they bid on. Around 2030 we'll discover the areas that | ISPs still aren't serving even though they got paid to do so. | susanasj wrote: | shameless plug: https://internetforall.nyc/ | | There is a coalition of organizations trying to get NYC to start | its own public broadband provider. If you live in NY, talk to | your friends and reps about it, if you don't, get your city to | start one. NYC had to sue Verizon because they didn't fulfill | their contracts to provide broadband to low income parts of the | city (just like Charter and LTD haven't), but there really is no | choice except to keep subsidizing these godawful companies unless | we have a publicly owned alternative. | IMSAI8080 wrote: | I think the best approach would be publicly owned | infrastructure with a mandate to reach all addresses. Run a | basic no-frills public ISP service over it at a fair price but | the private sector can also operate added value services over | the public infrastructure if they want for a nominal | maintenance fee. | jnathsf wrote: | This is exactly the approach SF[1] was taking but | unfortunately our main political champion, the Mayor, passed | away unexpectedly. We were estimating $25-30/mo for 1Gb | symmetrical as a utility tax for all households (subsidized | for low income). | | [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/07/12/amer | ica... | lelandfe wrote: | This is great. The flip side of this is NYC Mesh, which is a | group of fed up volunteers building a giant mesh WiFi, along | with public access points. It's pretty impressive: | https://www.nycmesh.net/map | intrasight wrote: | Seems a good opportunity for Starlink to get some RDOF funds | NelsonMinar wrote: | Starlink is currently expected to get $900M of RDOF funds. I'm | curious about how FCC is going to enforce performance. | Starlink's bid promised 20Mbps upload speeds but the reality | for users is less than 10. Download speeds aren't reliably at | the 100Mbps the RDOF bid specifies, either. | https://starlinktrack.com/speedtests/region/us | smoldesu wrote: | Just visited fast.com, got 55 Mbps down on a whim (Starlink | in Michigan). Sure, it doesn't hold a candle to in-home | fiber, but it definitely beats the pants off HughesNet and | our local WISP. I'd say for Monday afternoon traffic, I'm | getting really solid performance. Definitely worth the | $100/month just for the unmetered connection alone. | | I too am curious with how far they can push performance | though. I've got a hunch that it has something to do with | balancing satellites, users and regional coverage, but only | time will tell if they make good on their promise. Even if | things stay the same as they are right now though, there's | nothing else that comes close in my area. | causi wrote: | Sad to say, but 50% of promised performance is spectacular | with regard to American telecom companies' rural promises. | dylan604 wrote: | How does RDOF test that? Speedtest.net? Fast.com? Rarely have | I received 100Mbps via http transfer mechanisms, and that's | the majority of what people do all day. Websites, streaming | video, etc are all small discrete downloads via lots of | multiple requests. They don't have time to get "up to speed". | What that 100Mbps is allow ~10 people to use ~10Mbps at the | same time. That's the testing I'd be interested in seeing | proof of their service being met. | wmf wrote: | If they do any testing it will probably be through | SamKnows. | | I don't think 10 people has anything to do with a single | household but maybe I'm just an out-of-touch liberal | coastal elite. But seriously, one person can use around 25 | Mbps which is why there's discussion of defining broadband | to be 100 Mbps per household. | dylan604 wrote: | NelsonMinar wrote: | Historically the FCC relied on self-reported numbers from | ISPs to verify performance. Unsurprisingly, ISPs lied. | Lately FCC has gotten smarter about verifying performance. | | The RDOF performance requirements are much more subtle than | just average speeds though, there's details about | percentiles and time of day and the like. I'm hopeful | someone is being thoughtful at the FCC | Tuna-Fish wrote: | Starlink won't get paid until they meet the performance | goals, but IIRC they have until 2028 to actually fully meet | them. They do have to have a plan of how that would happen, | and FCC must accept that plan. | | It's public knowledge that they intend to launch a lot more | satellites before that, so they are probably counting on that | to help them. | phkahler wrote: | >> It's public knowledge that they intend to launch a lot | more satellites before that, so they are probably counting | on that to help them. | | Yeah, but they also want to substantially increase the | number of subscribers. It seems a shame to add capacity and | not users just to get a cheque from the government for | hitting some arbitrary numbers. IIRC they could have bid | for a lower speed target that they would probably be | hitting today. | wumpus wrote: | The speed categories were set by the FCC, and SpaceX | would have gotten nothing if they weren't in the "fast" | category. | Tuna-Fish wrote: | > It seems a shame to add capacity and not users | | ... I think they will be doing both. They currently have | ~2500 sats in the ~53deg constellation. The V2 system | that has been approved and is targeting similar latitudes | has 3 times the sats, and each sat is claimed to support | 9 times the bandwidth of the current ones. So if they | need to triple bandwidth per user, they can still | increase subscriber count 9-fold and meet it. | chrisjc wrote: | And I believe there is great opportunity for Starlink on the | RDOF funds they don't win directly and it might/could come in | two forms: | | - Others will end up shipping rebranded/white-label versions of | Starlink | | - Starlink will provide backhaul to others in hard to reach | places. Then they'll set up their microwave or 5G based off of | that connectivity. (but wouldn't the first option just be | easier?) | | But is it cheaper to ignore your rural obligations, pocket the | money and incur the fines than it is to enter into a contract | with your competition? | | Somewhat reminiscent of how Tesla took advantage of zero- | emissions credits from legacy auto manufacturers that didn't | want to (or couldn't) produce their own zero-emissions | vehicles. | InitialBP wrote: | Starlink is a god send for my hometown in West Virginia. | | Current internet service there is provided by Frontier | Communications. They offer "advertised" speeds of 6 Mbps but | for years my parents internet came in around 1 or 2 on a good | day. Service is abhorrent and they are still using phone lines | that will likely never be replaced. They've taken serious | advantage of the state of WV and even after a class action | lawsuit in 2015 that they settled on I doubt it will ever | improve. | | My parents finally got starlink setup ~3 months ago, it's | around 100 mbps (roughly 100x as fast) and way more reliable | even though it's satellite. | briffle wrote: | I have an RV I like to use often, and have been watching this | with quite a bit of interest. Additionally, some of the phone | companies are starting to have 'real' 5g home connections | that compete with cable. | | While I live in a suburb now, my last home I moved out of in | 2016 was 2M/256k wireless internet, that was $60/month, and | only 5-6 miles south of downtown Madison, WI. | | Between Starlink and the 5G home connections t-mobile and | verizon have been selling lately, its going to be interesting | that Rural locations will suddenly see good internet choices. | I may be able to finally buy a place in the middle of no- | where. Working from home has made that not possible | previously. | dghughes wrote: | It's the same in my province for rural areas. I recall fiber | optic lines being run in the mid 1990s but then nothing. | Politicians promising just basic Internet connectivity at | first then "high speed" (the famous up to) for the last 25 | years. | | Here in south-eastern Canada we were some of the first to be | in the Starlink coverage area. From what I hear it's doing | well not fantastic but better than up to x speed which always | seems to end up being less than 1MBps. Luckily I am in a town | with lots of options but still the cost is high $100/month | for 350Mbps. | | Setting aside Musk's abrasive personality, any typical | satellite Internet issues, orbital clutter, escalating costs, | it's at least something. Internet access is more than just | for entertainment these days. | tuckerpo wrote: | The default answer in the cable industry for solving | "underserved" communities seems to be run fiber - but that's | prohibitively expensive, especially for very rural | communities. I believe "underserved" is defined as sub 32 | MBps down and sub 6 MBps up. There's HFC which alleviates | things somewhat but that still implies noise problems and | signal amplitude loss for each home's coax tap. | | It's nice to have Starlink as an intermediary solution for | rural people while the "fiber everywhere" approach takes slow | adoption. | PaulHoule wrote: | Is fiber really more expensive to run than coax? I'd | imagine that most of the cost is the cost of digging a | trench or stringing out cables under the power lines. If | you take a close look at the outdoor plant for a cable | system there are a large number of large powered boxes that | also cost money. | | Contrast that to a fiber system which has very few active | parts. | | I'd imagine that coaxial cable still dominates in many | places because it was installed in the 1980s and 1990s. | When the cable company wants to upgrade the system it is | cost-effective to replace the uppermost nodes of the | network with fiber and still leave coax for the last half | mile. | | I know a rural "cable" company that today runs fiber optic | plant in communities with favorable economics. Their | primary product is an analog cable signal that is exactly | what goes over the coax just modulated on a light beam. | It's an economical and reliable system now and it is | straightforward to upgrade to GPON or more advanced | technologies in that future. | ThaDood wrote: | It might not be so much that the fiber itself is | expensive. It might just be the conduit or other delivery | mechanism that can be rather costly to run. But in | general, fiber is absolutely a viable option for rural | communities, usually if the project/roll out is being | handled by some local organization (Co-op or municipality | or as you sated a smaller cable company). I wrote my | thesis on community owned broadband programs in Ohio and | did a fair amount of research on the topic. | PaulHoule wrote: | The one entity that is not going to invest in new plant | is an entity that has an existing plant. | | For instance if there is a phone company with a copper | plant that can charge $60 a month for DSL it is obviously | unaffordable for them to upgrade to fiber so they can | charge $70 a month. | | Some other entity might find the new plant is worth | investing in but it still fights against the old plant. | For instance the phone company is making crazy profits on | $60 a month DSL and can probably still make profits on | $40 a month DSL. This puts a downward pressure on pricing | for a fiber service and also means the fiber plant is | going to bypass many possible subscribers because there | are plenty of people who will put up with a 100x drop in | performance to save a few dollars. | | This book | | https://www.commentary.org/articles/leslie-lenkowsky/the- | zer... | | works an interesting case study that was fundamental to | the Democratic party becoming advocates for free trade. | In particular, the steel industry in the US in the 1970s | still depended on open hearth furnaces that were obsolete | in every way to the basic oxygen furnaces used in Germany | and Japan. | | From a marxist perspective, capital is the "master | class", maybe even the capital itself (as opposed to the | capitalist), embodied in those furnaces. Instead of | replacing the furnaces, the US steel industry pursued | protectionism which was harmful to the competitiveness of | other sectors of the economy: inferior and expensive | steel is an ingredient for inferior and expensive cars, | buildings, etc. | | To analogize, however, the problem is that the copper | phone network exists. So long as it exists there are | strong incentives to keep using it. It might not be a | problem of encouraging investment in fiber as much as | forcing disinvestment in copper. | zbobet2012 wrote: | The question isn't _new_ runs of fiber vs coax, everyone | just runs fiber for that. It's the cost of upgrading | existing runs. HFC (hybrid fiber coax) networks have been | the norm for a long time. When the original coax was run | it was significantly cheaper to run it even accounting | for inflation. Like all major construction projects | (which is what a coax replacement is) costs in the US are | spiraling upwards: | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-08/why- | build... | reillyse wrote: | Do people even dig trenches anymore? I assume there is | already a services pipe that runs along most city roads | that has all of the various utilities in it. Am I wrong? | redtexture wrote: | Yes. | | Utilities may have been buried 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago | or more. Without regard to future access, changes or | modifications. | [deleted] | walrus01 wrote: | Frontier is _famous_ in the telecom /ISP network engineering | community for having the absolute worst shit tier quality of | old copper phone wiring running ADSL2+. | | Street side pedestals wrapped in plastic garbage bags and | such. | | What you've got there is probably dialtone POTS copper phone | wiring that was installed in the 1960s to 1980s at a very | long loop length from where the DSLAM is installed. And wet, | dirty connections, noisy with crosstalk. | | Until they come up with a firm financial commitment to | overbuild their legacy POTS dialtone copper phone wiring | outside plant with singlemode fiber it's only going to get | worse. | WebbWeaver wrote: | I've never been satisfied with Frontier internet. | wnevets wrote: | Starlink is basically another scam just like Solar City | crmd wrote: | I hope fining Charter .00002 of their 51.6 billion annual revenue | gets them to change their ways. | [deleted] | user00012-ab wrote: | can we fine fiercetelecom.com for breaking the back button on | that linked page? | | and if you don't want a broken internet, stop sharing sites that | break the internet. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-25 23:00 UTC)