https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-348770A2.pdf
FACT SHEET ON DRAFT 2018 BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT REPORT
"Recognizing the importance of high-speed broadband Internet access, Congress
in 1996 tasked the Federal Communications Commission with 'encourag[ing] the
deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications
capability to all Americans.' To ensure the Commission took this obligation
seriously, Congress required the Commission to report on its progress each
year. Chairman Pai has circulated a draft 2018 Broadband Deployment Report to
his colleagues and below are the key findings and additional information.
"Topline Takeaways:
"The 25/3 speed benchmark is maintained. The draft report finds that the
current speed benchmark of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps remains an appropriate measure by
which to assess whether a fixed service provides advanced telecommunications
capability.
"Mobile services are not full substitutes for fixed services—there are salient
differences between the two technologies. Both fixed and mobile services can
enable access to information, entertainment, and employment options, but there
are salient differences between the two. Beyond the most obvious distinction
that mobile services permit user mobility, there are clear variations in
consumer preferences and demands for fixed and mobile services."
"Because fixed services and mobile services are not full substitutes, it is
important to evaluate progress in deploying fixed broadband service as well as
progress in deploying mobile broadband service. Any analysis that only looked
at the progress in deploying fixed broadband service or only looked at the
progress in deploying mobile broadband service would be incomplete. Therefore,
the draft report takes a holistic view of the market and examines whether we
are both making progress in deploying fixed broadband service and making
progress in deploying mobile broadband service."
I'm gratified to see that the Chairman now *seems* to acknowledge this fact.
Although in the very recent past, he did wonder whether deployment of mobile
broadband should not be considered enough, to claim that broadband coverage is
available in a given location. He also wondered whether what constitutes
broadband should be revisited, as in, lowering the bar. Let's see if this
becomes another case of saying one thing but doing the opposite.
"Since the last report, the FCC has taken many steps to encourage broadband
deployment. Most notably, the Commission has taken concrete actions to reduce
regulatory barriers to the deployment of wireline and wireless infrastructure,
constituted a Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee to assist in these
efforts, reformed the legacy high-cost universal service program to ensure
accountability and introduce opportunities for new entrants through reverse
auctions, modernized our rules for business data services to facilitate
facilities-based competition, authorized new uses of wireless spectrum both
terrestrially and in space, and voted to eliminate the heavy-handed regulations
contained in the Title II Order, returning to the successful lighttouch
regulatory framework for broadband Internet access.
Some of those initiatives might be valuable, but at least two, probably not.
The 84 MHz in the 600 MHz band is probably not meaningful, as articles have
also acknowledged. And certainly, trying to make broadband service just another
gatekeeper service like cable TV, is not. The pushback against this crooked
move would probably be less, were it not for the Chairman's blessing to
monopoly local services throttling and blocking what sites they don’t like.
"Due to these efforts, the draft report concludes that the FCC is now meeting
its statutory mandate to encourage the deployment of broadband on a reasonable
and timely basis. That positive finding, however, does not undermine our
continued commitment to closing the digital divide. Too many Americans remain
unable to access high-speed broadband, and we have much work to do if we are
going to extend digital opportunity to them."
The Chairman patting himself on the back. In fact, there is no evidence to
suggest that anything BUT the government subsidies, along with municipal, or
municipal and private partnerships, are doing anything to provide broadband in
the difficult rural areas. His idea that removing the neutrality mandate does
any good has never been demonstrated. If he were honest, he might look to see
what service requirements these rural municipal systems are setting. I would
not be surprised if net neutrality were not a requirement in most, or all,
cases. So the real damage will be in urban and suburban markets, where
incumbent carriers have a monopoly, and would get this nice little freebie,
right from the corrupt FCC.
Bert
b��ju
I@R ����^:��
5e��b��(���Rȧ��^PԔ �
�i��اʋ��ǫr�ߊ �jب�ǭ�)౫E�狊�l���ǧv)�jg��� ��)zwm�����-~���+-����+a����n�˛���m觶����r�b�