This is stupid and a huge waste

[ScottW]

https://redstate.com/setonmotley/2021/10/18/why-dont-republicans-know-dc-and-democrats-are-lying-about-internet-access-n458623

“half of all Americans lack Internet access” – by only counting hardline connections as an Internet connection.

So we're going to be paying big bucks for rolling out wired internet to rural areas while 5G is being deployed and soon will become the standard cell service and cover virtually all the country.
It's idiotic to be paying for cable or fiber to every home in rural areas when cellular data will suffice.

ScottW

[MiNe109]

The real goal is hard wiring agriculture ("on-farm technology"),
according to the USDA. Of course, that 5G depends on fiber or wire networks.

Consumer will just be a side benefit.

https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/case-for-rural-broadband.pdf

If the dispute is how you count, reasonable people can disagree without
"lying."

https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/07105617/Rural-Internet-Accesss.pdf

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is charged with monitoring
the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability and each year
releases a report describing internet availability.3 According to its
most recent report, in 2017 high-speed internet was available to about
93.5 percent of the population through fixed terrestrial technologies
like cable, including about 73.6 percent of the rural population.
Furthermore, high-speed internet was available through satellites to
virtually the entire population.

However, the availability rates reported by the FCC provide an
incomplete account of internet availability in rural areas. As discussed
in a subsequent section, the FCC method for determining availability
likely overstates availability in rural areas, and the value of internet
services to rural residents depends not only on availability but also on
the price and quality of the services available...

While FCC reported that such services were available to over 90 percent
of the population, Microsoft found that probably less than half of the
population actually accessed the internet at those speeds [25 megabits
per second or faster].

End quote.

Does RedState mean Microsoft was lying?

[Art Sackman]

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 2:04:08 PM UTC-4, MINe109 wrote:


> The real goal is hard wiring agriculture ("on-farm technology"),
> according to the USDA.

a waste, with 5G available

Of course, that 5G depends on fiber or wire networks

What? please explain how 5G requires wires.

[ScottW]

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 11:04:08 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> On 10/18/21 11:37 AM, ScottW wrote:
> > https://redstate.com/setonmotley/2021/10/18/why-dont-republicans-know-dc-and-democrats-are-lying-about-internet-access-n458623
> >
> > “half of all Americans lack Internet access” – by only counting
> > hardline connections as an Internet connection.
> >
> > So we're going to be paying big bucks for rolling out wired internet
> > to rural areas while 5G is being deployed and soon will become the
> > standard cell service and cover virtually all the country. It's
> > idiotic to be paying for cable or fiber to every home in rural areas
> > when cellular data will suffice.
> The real goal is hard wiring agriculture ("on-farm technology"),

Still stupid and unnecessary. 5G bandwidth is a game changer and it's far
cheaper to put one fiber to a cell tower that services many square miles than
a cable to every house.

> according to the USDA. Of course, that 5G depends on fiber or wire networks.

Most backhauls are fiber but some cases can use microwave.
"Microwave Links are a valuable tool in Mobile Carrier Backhaul: Microwave technology can be deployed to provide traditional PDH 16xE1/T1, STM-1 and STM-4, and Modern IP Gigabit Ethernet backhaul connectivity and Greenfield mobile networks. Microwave is far quicker to install and lower Total Cost of Ownership for Cellular Network Operators compared to deploying or leasing fibre optic networks"

>
> Consumer will just be a side benefit.

Doesn't matter....data is data and nothing takes more data than streaming video.

What kind of bandwidth does "on-farm" technology really need?
How many 4K streaming channels do cows watch?
Let me give you a hint....there isn't anything in equipment monitoring and automation
that needs hard wired data.

>
> https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/case-for-rural-broadband.pdf
>
> If the dispute is how you count, reasonable people can disagree without
> "lying."
>
> https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/07105617/Rural-Internet-Accesss.pdf
>
> The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is charged with monitoring
> the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability and each year
> releases a report describing internet availability.3 According to its
> most recent report, in 2017 high-speed internet was available to about
> 93.5 percent of the population through fixed terrestrial technologies
> like cable, including about 73.6 percent of the rural population.
> Furthermore, high-speed internet was available through satellites to
> virtually the entire population.
>
> However, the availability rates reported by the FCC provide an
> incomplete account of internet availability in rural areas. As discussed
> in a subsequent section, the FCC method for determining availability
> likely overstates availability in rural areas, and the value of internet
> services to rural residents depends not only on availability but also on
> the price and quality of the services available...

You will note they exclude terrestrial wireless (cellular) networks.
Why?

>
> While FCC reported that such services were available to over 90 percent
> of the population, Microsoft found that probably less than half of the
> population actually accessed the internet at those speeds [25 megabits
> per second or faster].
>
> End quote.
>
> Does RedState mean Microsoft was lying?

Who knows and why would it matter? If people are happy with DSL speeds,
who the hell cares?
Seriously....why is the gov't forcing an upgrade on people who don't need it.
And 25 Mbps is perfectly fine for most people. 5M supports a zoom call
uplink so unless you're on a fat conference you'll be fine.
Anyway...the point is is they want to put faster data out there....cellular is the way to do it.
It's happening pretty fast and if the gov't wants to make it faster to rural America...great.
Just don't don't be stupid by stringing soon to be obsolete landlines.
Won't be long before your home no longer has a land line and you won't know the difference.

ScottW

[MiNe109]

On 10/18/21 11:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 11:04:08 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>> On 10/18/21 11:37 AM, ScottW wrote:
>>> https://redstate.com/setonmotley/2021/10/18/why-dont-republicans-know-dc-and-democrats-are-lying-about-internet-access-n458623

>>> “half of all Americans lack Internet access” – by only counting
>>> hardline connections as an Internet connection.
>>>
>>> So we're going to be paying big bucks for rolling out wired
>>> internet to rural areas while 5G is being deployed and soon will
>>> become the standard cell service and cover virtually all the
>>> country. It's idiotic to be paying for cable or fiber to every
>>> home in rural areas when cellular data will suffice.
>> The real goal is hard wiring agriculture ("on-farm technology"),
>
> Still stupid and unnecessary. 5G bandwidth is a game changer and
> it's far cheaper to put one fiber to a cell tower that services many
> square miles than a cable to every house.

Like the postal "last mile" problem.

>> according to the USDA. Of course, that 5G depends on fiber or wire
>> networks.
>
> Most backhauls are fiber but some cases can use microwave.

I assumed that from context.

> "Microwave Links are a valuable tool in Mobile Carrier Backhaul:
> Microwave technology can be deployed to provide traditional PDH
> 16xE1/T1, STM-1 and STM-4, and Modern IP Gigabit Ethernet backhaul
> connectivity and Greenfield mobile networks. Microwave is far
> quicker to install and lower Total Cost of Ownership for Cellular
> Network Operators compared to deploying or leasing fibre optic
> networks"

Yes, I knew that microwave links exist.

>> Consumer will just be a side benefit.
>
> Doesn't matter....data is data and nothing takes more data than
> streaming video.

Okay.

> What kind of bandwidth does "on-farm" technology really need? How
> many 4K streaming channels do cows watch? Let me give you a
> hint....there isn't anything in equipment monitoring and automation
> that needs hard wired data.

The USDA may have meant hard-wiring the farm, then wireless to the cows.

>> https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/case-for-rural-broadband.pdf

>>If the dispute is how you count, reasonable people can disagree
>> without "lying."
>>
>> https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/07105617/Rural-Internet-Accesss.pdf

>>The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is charged with monitoring
>> the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability and each
>> year releases a report describing internet availability.3
>> According to its most recent report, in 2017 high-speed internet
>> was available to about 93.5 percent of the population through
>> fixed terrestrial technologies like cable, including about 73.6
>> percent of the rural population. Furthermore, high-speed internet
>> was available through satellites to virtually the entire
>> population.
>>
>> However, the availability rates reported by the FCC provide an
>> incomplete account of internet availability in rural areas. As
>> discussed in a subsequent section, the FCC method for determining
>> availability likely overstates availability in rural areas, and
>> the value of internet services to rural residents depends not only
>> on availability but also on the price and quality of the services
>> available...
>
> You will note they exclude terrestrial wireless (cellular) networks.
> Why?

Mobile broadband is discussed later in the report.

>> While FCC reported that such services were available to over 90
>> percent of the population, Microsoft found that probably less than
>> half of the population actually accessed the internet at those
>> speeds [25 megabits per second or faster].
>>
>> End quote.
>>
>> Does RedState mean Microsoft was lying?
>
> Who knows and why would it matter?

Because the URL accuses Democrats of lying and Microsoft is the source.
It speaks to RedState's good faith in reporting.

> If people are happy with DSL
> speeds, who the hell cares? Seriously....why is the gov't forcing an
> upgrade on people who don't need it. And 25 Mbps is perfectly fine
> for most people. 5M supports a zoom call uplink so unless you're on
> a fat conference you'll be fine. Anyway...the point is is they want
> to put faster data out there....cellular is the way to do it. It's
> happening pretty fast and if the gov't wants to make it faster to
> rural America...great. Just don't don't be stupid by stringing soon
> to be obsolete landlines. Won't be long before your home no longer
> has a land line and you won't know the difference.

Nice impassioned support of cellular! Short answer:future needs. I won't
bore you with speculation about, say, 3D medical scans in real time or
the like. Access is part of it, too, and there are places with
insufficient cellular coverage.

My opinion at this time is that internet access is too important to be
left to private quasi-monopolies.

[MiNe109]

From the USDA cite:

Moreover, the increased speed and capacity from forthcoming 5G mobile
coverage depends upon network densification, requiring the extension of
deep fiber or intensity of infrastructure for similar services to build
adequate networks throughout rural America. A recent Deloitte Consulting
analysis estimates the United States requires between
$130 and $150 billion over the next five to seven years, to adequately
support rural coverage and 5G wireless densification.

[Art Sackman]

>
> My opinion at this time is that internet access is too important to be
> left to private quasi-monopolies.

My opinion is that it is too important to be left
to the actual monopoly government,

[ScottW]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 6:41:31 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> On 10/18/21 11:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
> > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 11:04:08 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> >> On 10/18/21 11:37 AM, ScottW wrote:
> >>> https://redstate.com/setonmotley/2021/10/18/why-dont-republicans-know-dc-and-democrats-are-lying-about-internet-access-n458623
>
> >>> “half of all Americans lack Internet access” – by only counting
> >>> hardline connections as an Internet connection.
> >>>
> >>> So we're going to be paying big bucks for rolling out wired
> >>> internet to rural areas while 5G is being deployed and soon will
> >>> become the standard cell service and cover virtually all the
> >>> country. It's idiotic to be paying for cable or fiber to every
> >>> home in rural areas when cellular data will suffice.
> >> The real goal is hard wiring agriculture ("on-farm technology"),
> >
> > Still stupid and unnecessary. 5G bandwidth is a game changer and
> > it's far cheaper to put one fiber to a cell tower that services many
> > square miles than a cable to every house.

> Like the postal "last mile" problem.

Now you're getting it.

> >> according to the USDA. Of course, that 5G depends on fiber or wire
> >> networks.
> >
> > Most backhauls are fiber but some cases can use microwave.
> I assumed that from context.
> > "Microwave Links are a valuable tool in Mobile Carrier Backhaul:
> > Microwave technology can be deployed to provide traditional PDH
> > 16xE1/T1, STM-1 and STM-4, and Modern IP Gigabit Ethernet backhaul
> > connectivity and Greenfield mobile networks. Microwave is far
> > quicker to install and lower Total Cost of Ownership for Cellular
> > Network Operators compared to deploying or leasing fibre optic
> > networks"
> Yes, I knew that microwave links exist.
> >> Consumer will just be a side benefit.
> >
> > Doesn't matter....data is data and nothing takes more data than
> > streaming video.
> Okay.
> > What kind of bandwidth does "on-farm" technology really need? How
> > many 4K streaming channels do cows watch? Let me give you a
> > hint....there isn't anything in equipment monitoring and automation
> > that needs hard wired data.
> The USDA may have meant hard-wiring the farm, then wireless to the cows.

So the gov't is gong to pay to wire the farms?

> Nice impassioned support of cellular! Short answer:future needs. I won't
> bore you with speculation about, say, 3D medical scans in real time or
> the like. Access is part of it, too, and there are places with
> insufficient cellular coverage.

Yes, there are....but this would fix that. Two birds one stone.

>
> My opinion at this time is that internet access is too important to be
> left to private quasi-monopolies.

WTF is it now for everyone? What was AT&T to landlines?
You think a gov't run ISP will provide better service?

You've gone to the commie dark side.

ScottW

[MiNe109]

Private companies won't invest in 100% coverage, similar to how private
delivery systems can't do the "last mile" as the USPS is required to do.

[MiNe109]

On 10/19/21 10:12 AM, ScottW wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 6:41:31 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>> On 10/18/21 11:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 11:04:08 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>>>> On 10/18/21 11:37 AM, ScottW wrote:
>>>>> https://redstate.com/setonmotley/2021/10/18/why-dont-republicans-know-dc-and-democrats-are-lying-about-internet-access-n458623
>>>>> “half of all Americans lack Internet access” – by only counting hardline >>>>> connections as an Internet connection.

>>>>> So we're going to be paying big bucks for rolling out wired
>>>>> internet to rural areas while 5G is being deployed and soon
>>>>> will become the standard cell service and cover virtually all
>>>>> the country. It's idiotic to be paying for cable or fiber to
>>>>> every home in rural areas when cellular data will suffice.
>>>> The real goal is hard wiring agriculture ("on-farm
>>>> technology"),
>>>
>>> Still stupid and unnecessary. 5G bandwidth is a game changer and
>>> it's far cheaper to put one fiber to a cell tower that services
>>> many square miles than a cable to every house.
>
>> Like the postal "last mile" problem.
>
> Now you're getting it.

Indeed.

>>> What kind of bandwidth does "on-farm" technology really need?
>>> How many 4K streaming channels do cows watch? Let me give you a
>>> hint....there isn't anything in equipment monitoring and
>>> automation that needs hard wired data.
>> The USDA may have meant hard-wiring the farm, then wireless to the
>> cows.
>
> So the gov't is gong to pay to wire the farms?

I assume once the farm gets broadband access, it's on its own to
deploy the bandwidth.

>> Nice impassioned support of cellular! Short answer:future needs. I
>> won't bore you with speculation about, say, 3D medical scans in
>> real time or the like. Access is part of it, too, and there are
>> places with insufficient cellular coverage.
>
> Yes, there are....but this would fix that. Two birds one stone.

"This"? Would that be the internet build-out or 5G? How does 5G do in
distant mountain valleys?

>> My opinion at this time is that internet access is too important to
>> be left to private quasi-monopolies.
>
> WTF is it now for everyone?

Excellent point! Complaining about internet and cable companies is
practically a hobby for consumers.

> What was AT&T to landlines? You think a gov't run ISP will provide
> better service?

The hope is that regulations will encourage better service.

> You've gone to the commie dark side.

Why do some states outlaw cities from running their own internet access?

[ScottW]

Yup, compare that to running fiber/coax to every rural home.
I'm not saying the gov't doesn't need to be involved to get service
where it isn't economically viable from a business perspective to install...
just do it smarter....and cheaper.

[ScottW]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:

> >
> > Yes, there are....but this would fix that. Two birds one stone.
> "This"? Would that be the internet build-out or 5G? How does 5G do in
> distant mountain valleys?

How about the same it does in big cities with high rise buildings.
You need more cell sites.
Number of sites is dictated by pop density and terrain.....everywhere.

> >> My opinion at this time is that internet access is too important to
> >> be left to private quasi-monopolies.
> >
> > WTF is it now for everyone?
> Excellent point! Complaining about internet and cable companies is
> practically a hobby for consumers.

We need more competition...not less. But the FCC did get more focused
on making $$ of their spectrum auctions than a sane allocation of bandwidth.
It worked itself out eventually but not without cost to consumers.

> > What was AT&T to landlines? You think a gov't run ISP will provide
> > better service?
> The hope is that regulations will encourage better service.

Regulating a utility is fine. Taking them over....not so much.

> > You've gone to the commie dark side.
> Why do some states outlaw cities from running their own internet access?

No idea..

ScottW

[MiNe109]

I won't argue against smarter and cheaper. You'd think rural satellite
dishes could figure in.

Way back in the day, cable was for places out of reach of broadcast tv
and satellite dishes were for rich farmers who wanted HBO.

[MiNe109]

On 10/19/21 10:48 AM, ScottW wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Yes, there are....but this would fix that. Two birds one stone.
>> "This"? Would that be the internet build-out or 5G? How does 5G do
>> in distant mountain valleys?
>
> How about the same it does in big cities with high rise buildings.
> You need more cell sites. Number of sites is dictated by pop density
> and terrain.....everywhere.

And then the cost considerations kick in.

>>>> My opinion at this time is that internet access is too
>>>> important to be left to private quasi-monopolies.
>>>
>>> WTF is it now for everyone?
>> Excellent point! Complaining about internet and cable companies is
>> practically a hobby for consumers.
>
> We need more competition...not less. But the FCC did get more
> focused on making $$ of their spectrum auctions than a sane
> allocation of bandwidth. It worked itself out eventually but not
> without cost to consumers.

I'm concerned about the effect on weather forecasts and other
externalities: all those churches buying new wireless mic systems.

>>> What was AT&T to landlines? You think a gov't run ISP will
>>> provide better service?
>> The hope is that regulations will encourage better service.
>
> Regulating a utility is fine. Taking them over....not so much.

The public-private thing has problems, stock buy-backs over maintenance,
etc.

>>> You've gone to the commie dark side.
>> Why do some states outlaw cities from running their own internet
>> access?
>
> No idea..

To eliminate competition for private companies who are de facto monopolies.

[ScottW]

Geo sync satellites have a built in latency that makes them problematic for
videoconference. LEO's (used by the sat phones) are expensive and complicated for high speed data cuz they're swooping in and out of view all the time.

>
> Way back in the day, cable was for places out of reach of broadcast tv
> and satellite dishes were for rich farmers who wanted HBO.

Nobody cares about latency on TV.

ScottW

[MiNe109]

Okay, they can't do everything mobile and wired can do.

>> Way back in the day, cable was for places out of reach of broadcast
>> tv and satellite dishes were for rich farmers who wanted HBO.
>
> Nobody cares about latency on TV.

I met people who watched unencrypted network feeds: Letterman raw feed
(no ads), possibly live. So a long time ago.

[ScottW]

C-band satellite....still had the latency I'm talking about.

ScottW

[MiNe109]

Predated gaming of the type now enjoyed on the internet. I can only
wonder how much influence the gaming industry would have in search of
new customers. Marketwatch says gaming is bigger than "movies and North
American sports combined" and never mind music in that ranking.