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?
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.
Charter Communications wants to buy both Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks in a $67 billion deal. It will create an entity second in size to…
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are having a direct impact on social and economic development, according to interesting new research…
With a combined valuation of roughly $77 Billion and revenues of $15 Billion once the transaction closes the new Avago will have the human and technic…
Verizon Communications raised a few eyebrows earlier this month when it announced plans to acquire AOL for $4.4 billion. It seemed a lot to pay just t…
If there's one thing that's abundantly clear about the Apple Watch, it's that this isn't your grandpa's timepiece. Oh, it tells time, sure. The rest i…