Home »AT&T weighs the definition of broadband speed and opposes rural symmetric fiber broadband

Joan Marsh, AT&T's executive vice president of federal regulatory relations, argued in a blog post late last week that the federal government should not use the definition of broadband speed that excludes fixed wireless networks. As Marsh pointed out, this definition is important because federal infrastructure legislation that is expected to be passed soon may provide substantial funding for broadband deployment.

Marsh pointed out in a blog post that the current FCC's definition of a minimum broadband speed of 25/3 Mbps is too low.

"When the average family of four uses a combination of zoom, streaming and Twitter, it is easy to conclude that download speeds must be increased," Marsh wrote.

However, she went on to say, “It’s not clear whether we need to increase the upload speed to the same level as the download speed in order to define the “unserviced” area.”

Marsh believes that a broadband speed definition based on symmetrical speeds may greatly expand areas that are considered "unserviced" and may lead to unnecessary overbuilding in certain areas, while leaving less funds to support Regions more in need.

Marsh pointed out that when deployed with C-band spectrum, fixed wireless technology can easily provide 100 Mbps of downstream traffic. (AT&T was one of the biggest winning bidders in that auction.) But she added, “Wireless networks are not built to provide symmetrical speeds, so any mandatory requirements around symmetrical performance may undermine these efficient and powerful technologies. The delivery of the solution makes it difficult to provide services. The region of the country."

One of the broadband infrastructure funding proposals, called the "Accessible and Affordable Internet for All (AAIA) Act", requires US$80 billion to be awarded through a competitive bidding process and requires funding recipients to deploy support for symmetric gigabit speeds The service-a target which basically requires fiber to the premises. The Fiber Optic Broadband Association believes that if the AAIA proposal is adopted, funds should flow to fixed wireless networks only if there are no providers bidding to deploy fiber optic broadband.

However, Marsh believes that requiring the recipient of funds to deploy fiber will increase deployment costs, and "there is no convincing evidence that these expenditures are reasonable in terms of the quality of service of 50/10 or 100/20 Mbps products."

The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) took a similar stance to Marsh in a series of broad policy recommendations made last week, including recommendations on funding for broadband infrastructure. On behalf of fixed wireless providers, the association also opposes the symmetrical service requirements of any broadband funding program, and believes that priority should be given to communities without broadband rather than upgrading to existing broadband.

AT&T’s fixed wireless advocacy emphasizes the importance of this technology in provider plans—not only small rural WISPs, but also major broadband providers. These major broadband providers have considerable influence on federal policy makers.

For example, major broadband providers played an important role in persuading the FCC to add a 50/5 Mbps speed grade to the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction, which is most likely to be associated with fixed wireless networks.

I don’t know if it’s laughing, crying, or screaming in the street! ! Of course, AT&T and other companies are advocating against real life, under the premise that it is measurable, the promised/delivered result comes from fiber optic connections...because they will not and do not plan to do so. But for those who do it every day, the result is... and the result is great! ! AT&T may not need funding to continue to provide 5G or whatever they want to name the next generation of G... This is all honest marketing. At the same time, FTTH is working in high-cost areas in rural areas, and we believe that there are enough funds to build networks in this way. Give us money and territory, and we will continue to prove it. The 6000 subscribers (so far) in the rural areas of southeastern Missouri can attest to this. Please, please, please don't listen to the opinions of the masters of waste of telecommunication funds... Actually, they think that speed is not what they need. LOL you, the customer, you definitely don't need it to be fast and symmetrical. Let us (insert your telecom giant's name here) tell you what you need. LOL Oh, lobbying from telecommunications giants and ensuring that rural consumers are restrained. Wireless is "good enough". "They don't need symmetrical speed."

Unless forced, ATT will not provide high-quality experience for rural users. They are currently installing optical fiber to compete with the cable ISP and will not go beyond any traction range of the central ky.

I don't care about what AT&T "thinks" rural people need or deserve. None of this matters to me, because when Starlink is available in my area, I can't wait to be its customer. I was shocked by all the government's "rural broadband plans" and the irony of the recipients getting rid of the actual provision of a wide range of service capabilities and service levels (meeting customer needs while losing funds).

Starlink will provide the same service to everyone, no matter where they are, what is the concept! There is no more rubbish of "constituency service". If you can see the sky where you are, you will have first-class service, which is great. Don’t worry about “high-cost areas” and population density as factors and excuses for not providing services. If you are the only person within a 20-mile radius, you will receive the same services as someone living in the most densely populated city on earth.

Starlink will change the world, and I can't wait to watch it unfold.

I pre-ordered for Starlink. I don't want to give up AT&T, but I will.

For many years, big companies have been touting "wireless is enough for rural areas," but too many people in charge of policies and regulations have bought it, and this has led to a larger digital divide. Rural residents need the same high-speed options and sufficient upload speeds as in urban areas. Depending on the download speed, it may not be symmetrical, but the upload must be sufficient. We need fiber-to-the-home and high-speed mobile wireless networks, not one of them. Our network needs are growing every year, and we may not be able to imagine how much bandwidth citizens will need in the next 5 to 10 years. Finding ways to build networks to provide the services needed for more than 30 years and ensure that they are sustainable during that period is the best investment. In the future, pure wireless areas will require more towers to provide any type of minimum coverage and speed, and all towers will have fiber optics installed at the bottom. In most rural areas, you only need to bring the optical fiber all the way to the place. In the long run, it will be cheaper, citizens will get enough services, and you won't have towers everywhere.

It's not that they can't build a symmetrical network-they can. The question here is, if this becomes the new definition of high-speed Internet, and all these new funds can be used to build these networks in rural America, where will all asymmetric customers in American cities (most American subscribers) go? )? This left them with the so-called low-speed Internet, rather than federal funds to fix it.

Your email address will not be published. Required places have been marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time you comment.

What is happening with broadband and why is it important? Subscribe to Telecompettor's newsletter now to learn more.

Your information will never be shared with any third party.

What is happening with broadband and why is it important? Subscribe to Telecompettor's newsletter now to learn more.

* Your information will never be shared with any third party.