How Much Should U.S. Spend to Reach Last Two Percent of U.S. Homes with Broadband?

By Gary Kim August 13, 2012

How prudent should we be to spend “whatever it takes” to provide terrestrial broadband access to every single U.S. home? Perhaps more concretely, does it make sense to spend up to $50,000 per home to provide such service to less than 200,000 locations, when at least two other approaches are already available?


Does it make sense to do so, when the alternatives already  offer speeds three times what the Federal Communications Commission has said is necessary as part of the U.S. National Broadband Plan?

The problem dates back a couple of years, when an FCC  gap analysis suggested $13.4 billion in subsidies would be required to  expand availability to only 250,000 of the highest cost homes (0.19 percent of all U.S. homes). 

According to the FCC, those homes would require subsidies of about $53,600 – on top of what service providers would expect to spend to connect a typical home.

Excluding the cost of serving these 250,000 homes, the cost of connecting the remaining 6.75 million homes would entail a subsidy of about $1,500 per home passed.  

The issue is not whether it is a matter of good public policy to ensure that virtually all U.S. homes have access to broadband service; the issue is what is reasonable and prudent –  especially at a time when the United States is virtually bankrupt – to spend sums of that sort when other alternatives offering three times the speeds envisioned by FCC cost scenarios are already made available on the market. 

Keep in mind that the “broadband gap” affects less than five percent of U.S. homes. The Federal Communications Commission itself estimates that seven million U.S. households do not have access to terrestrial broadband service, representing about 5.4 percent of the 129 million U.S. homes.

Additionally, analysis assumes those households actually are occupied, but they are not. Some percentage is unoccupied, and some are used only partly as vacation homes.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 18 million of the 130 million units are not occupied (about 14 percent).

On average, the gap estimated by the Commission is $3,357 per home passed, note Dr. George Ford, Phoenix Center chief economist, and Lawrence J. Spiwak, Phoenix Center president.

Even the then director of the  National  Broadband Plan, Blair Levin, said it will be too expensive to  provide service to the last two percent of home using terrestrial facilities. Therefore, those homes should be served by satellite broadband. 

A more reasonable approach to satellite broadband at the time might have been that if it costs $50,000 to provide a 4:1 Mbps terrestrial broadband service to a household, then is it reasonable to accept a “lower” service level by a network that already reaches those locations?

The situation has also changed since that analysis. ViaSat’s “Exede” satellite broadband service already has been offering speeds up to 12 Mbps downstream and up to 3 Mbps upstream, for $50 per month, since early 2012.

The HughesNet service, which has launched a new satellite of its own, will begin offering faster service beginning this month. Since both the ViaSat and HughesNet services use exactly the same satellites, it would be reasonable to assume that HughesNet will offer speeds comparable to that of Exede.
 In fact, the National Broadband Plan explicitly recognized that the cost of ubiquitous coverage of terrestrial broadband could not be justified and furthermore recommended the use of “satellite  broadband” as an alternative, as it is  ubiquitously available, Phoenix Center argues. 

The cost picture has changed dramatically since the FCC conducted its gap analysis. Though the original plan called for a 4 Mbps capability, Exede already sells a 12-Mbps service for $50 a month. As of Aug. 13, 2012, Hughesnet has not announced firm pricing and speeds.

But there is no reason to believe HughesNet will offer speeds any less than offered by Exede. The point is that by spending an abundance of money, the government simply does not make sense at the margin.




Edited by Allison Boccamazzo

Contributing Editor

SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Related Articles

Mist Applies AI to Improve Wi-Fi

By: Paula Bernier    11/9/2017

Mist has created an AI-driven wireless platform that puts the user and his or mobile device at the heart of the wireless network. Combining machine le…

Read More

International Tech Innovation Growing, Says Consumer Technology Association

By: Doug Mohney    11/8/2017

The Consumer Technology Association (CTA) is best known for the world's largest trade event, but the organization's reach is growing far beyond the CE…

Read More

Broadcom Makes Unsolicited $130B Bid for Qualcomm

By: Paula Bernier    11/6/2017

In what could result in the biggest tech deal in history, semiconductor company Broadcom has made an offer to buy Qualcomm for a whopping $130 billion…

Read More

How Google's 'Moonshot' Could Benefit Industrial Markets

By: Kayla Matthews    10/30/2017

The term "moonshot" encapsulates the spirit of technological achievement: an accomplishment so ambitious, so improbable, that it's equivalent to sendi…

Read More

After Cisco/Broadsoft, Who's Next for M&A?

By: Doug Mohney    10/27/2017

Cisco's trail of acquisition tears over the decades includes the Flip video camera, Cerent, Scientific Atlantic, Linksys, and a couple of others. The …

Read More