Connect with us

FCC Workshops

Metrics Workshop: Measuring Current Network Versus Internet Users' Needs

WASHINGTON, September 2, 2009 – The Federal Communication Commission’s workshop on how to best benchmark broadband for evaluating the various dimensions of broadband across geographic areas highlighted the difference between measuring the current network versus focusing on internet users’ needs.

Published

on

WASHINGTON, September 2, 2009 – The Federal Communication Commission’s Wednesday workshop on how to best benchmark broadband for evaluating the various dimensions of broadband across geographic areas highlighted the difference between measuring the current network versus focusing on internet users’ needs.

Richard Clarke, assistant vice president of public policy at AT&T, said that the FCC should benchmark broadband very broadly. This would allow the agency to cope with different classes of user necessity and service differentiation across user capabilities and time of day.

Clarke also argued that the FCC must establish benchmarks that do not vary over time.

Taking a different point of view was Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge and Catherine Sandoval, Assistant Professor of Law, Santa Clara University. Feld and Sandoral said that the focus of benchmarks should be upon the American citizens’ right to use broadband – and should not be limited by usage availability or cost.

They also said that FCC benchmarks must somewhat be adaptive to the changing needs of consumers, and will inevitably change over time.

Where Clarke said that broadband should be tailored to different service levels depending upon the needs of different types of consumers, Feld, Sandoral and Scott Berendt said that it will take superior levels of broadband – beyond that what is currently used in low-usage areas – for internet usage in rural and low-income areas to progress. Berendt is director of research, evaluation of documentation for the non-profit group One Economy.

The three argued that broadband must be benchmarked by types of technology, and by gaps of service, as well as by speed and by ZIP code-based locations of service.

In particular, Sandoral’s presentation urged the FCC to not only focus on the traditional metrics like speed, but also on internet service providers restrictions on downloading applications, application use, computer tethering, device attachment and congestion policies and practices.

She also urged interpretation of the different types of broadband available when accounting for where improvements in broadband service are necessary.

Sandoral gave examples of how the types of broadband available exist due to “application restrictions, bandwidth limits, usage policies, slowdown policies, device attachment prohibitions, peak, average and slowdown speeds.”

Among the issues discussed during the question and answer session included the most meaningful way to measure the price of broadband, why “average use” broadband speeds are so low, and how to most effectively collect data about where and broadband is actually being used.

On the question of how to collect insightful broadband data, Jon Peha, the Chief Techonlogy Officer of the FCC, asked how we make sure the data that is collected about broadband is not “slanted” towards a certain direction.

In response, Santa Clara University Computer Science Director Jon Eisenberg said that there are several ways to collect data, even including how Apple tracks iTunes download performance. Feld jumped in to mention that many independent companies already track broadband usage data for profit.

A questioner from the audience asked whether it might be possible to collect information about broadband access in the 2010 Census. Most of the workshop participants liked this idea. But Sandoval and Feld said that these questions must be addressed in strategic ways for those that have little knowledge about how broadband access works and is defined.

Ironically, the participants in the workshop themselves did not have definitive answer to that definition.

FCC Workshops

Indian Tribes Will Have Six-Month Window of Opportunity to Apply for Former EBS Spectrum at 2.5 GigaHertz

Published

on

Photo of FCC tribal broadband workshop by Adrienne Patton

WASHINGTON, January 14, 2020 – Federally-recognized Indian tribes will have a six-month priority window, beginning February 3, in which to apply for access to the radio frequency spectrum available at 2.5 GigaHertz (GHz).

At a workshop at the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday, Chairman Ajit Pai and agency officials detailed the eligibility requirements for access to the spectrum in the band of the federal airwaves that was previously referred to as the Educational Broadband Service. The window will run from February 3 until August 3, 2020.

Historically, educational services, including universities and school districts, has special access to the 2.5 GHz spectrum band.

When the FCC eliminated the education requirement in July 2019, Pai said tribal lands would have a priority window for free access to broadband, before commercial auctions.

Catherine Schroeder, senior advisor to the Wireline Competition Bureau, explained the benefits of 2.5 GHz in rural settings. As it is a midband spectrum, she said, 2.5 GHz combines the qualities of a lower band, but with greater broadband capacity.

Schroeder continued that 2.5 GHz is particularly useful in rural areas because it has high power limits, a lower frequency, and can travel through walls, windows, and densely wooded areas.

Because 2.5 GHz is already utilized with other radio frequency transmissions, Schroeder said that there is an “ecosystem of equipment” that can be relatively inexpensive because the education licensees have already used 2.5 GHz to deploy broadband or have leases with a commercial entity.

During the six-month window beginning February 3, Indian tribes seeking to apply would apply on the FCC website for rural areas in which the applicant’s tribe has a “local presence.”

Harold Chesnin, representing the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, was concerned about non-contiguous tribal lands. Dana Shaffer, chief of staff of the agency’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, replied that applicants can fill out waivers to turn in with their application.

Tribal lands will be able to define their license area and can apply for an overlay license. Although tribal areas will not be able to access spectrum or build on areas that are already covered, an overlay license is useful for areas that are partially covered.

If there is availability in one of the three channels, overlay licensees can request that slot.

There are buildout requirements, but it does not require that anyone be signed up for service. Schroeder explained that after the first two years, 50 percent of the population must be provided service, with 80 percent of the population to be covered within five years.

Shaffer clarified that rural areas do not have to use every megahertz within the spectrum range. The tribal lands that are approved can lease to a third party for buildout, but must maintain primary responsibility for the execution, completion, and buildout deadlines.

The FCC developed an improved mapping tool to help applicants know what channels are available on their lands. A search box and various color coding allows for simple maneuvering on the site. Users can follow links to see who has current licenses to those who have part of the spectrum, however, the site does not clarify if there is active deployment in those licensed areas.

In the case of a waiver to be filed with evidence for adding pockets of non-reservation lands to an area. The FCC made it clear that waivers are not to be used for access already-licensed spectrum. Furthermore, waivers are not guaranteed approval.

The FCC urged attendees to avoid applications for spectrum and areas that overlap.

Danae Wilson, a representative for Nez Perce tribe, wanted to know how an application might differ for tribes who are in the process of purchasing more land. The mapping data is based on the latest census, and those areas are only eligible for the 6-month window, said FCC Staff.

At the close of the priority window, the agency will move to an auction with bidding on the remaining spectrum in three channels at 2.5 GHz. Licenses will not be dispersed within the six months, but granted afterwards.

Shaffer said every federally recognized tribe has been contacted personally. FCC officials insisted that they want the initiative to be successful and feasible, and invited questions throughout the process.

Continue Reading

5G

Removing Chinese Telecommunications Equipment From U.S. Broadband Networks Would Cost More Than $1 Billion

Published

on

WASHINGTON, June 27, 2019 – When it comes to removing Huawei or ZTE telecommunications equipment from U.S. broadband networks, a strategy of “rip and place” would cost well over $1 billion.

Rural broadband carriers don’t have the budget for that, and they are concerned that the costs of a retrofit would delay the deployment of 5G wireless networks.

That was the message that multiple broadband providers – particularly rural entities – delivered to Federal Communications Commissioner Geoffrey Starks at a Thursday FCC workshop that had been framed as a discussion about network security.

Starks staked out a strong position against the use of Chinese telecommunications equipment in U.S. broadband networks, noting existing steps by the Trump administration to prohibit procurement of telecommunications equipment from Huawei and ZTE.

Starks convened the discussion at the agency, however, to address equipment that is already inextricable intertwined within U.S. networks.  “Network security is national security, and our interconnected networks are only as secure as their most vulnerable pieces,” he said.

The discussion applies to wired networks because equipment to run fiber-optic wires will be more instrumental in operating 5G networks than previous technologies. Mike Saperstein, vice president of policy and advocacy at US Telecom, said he is in support of federal risk management activities to “identify supply-chain threats.”

Others cited the distinction between trusting equipment and trusting suppliers. Much of 5G and 4G traffic will not necessarily pass through a network core, said Brian Hendricks, vice president of policy and government relations at Nokia. The radio layer of a mobile network has become a more vulnerable point of attack.

The issue of deploying 5G will fall “particularly hard” on small rural carriers in the United States, Hendricks said.

The only way to eliminate any risk would be to ban Chinese equipment entirely, said Jim Lewis, senior vice president and director for the Center for Strategic and International Studies. And such a “rip and replace” is not tenable, he said.

Moreover, he said, just as big American tech companies use Chinese components in their equipment, Chinese telecom depends on U.S. technological advancements.

And doing anything that would delay the deployment of 5G technology would ultimately hinder the economy.

Carri Bennet, general counsel at The Rural Wireless Association. Cited the figure of more-than $1 billion figure for replacing all Huawei and ZTE equipment. And attempting to replace network equipment while the network is still in operation could create service issues, including for public safety.

She suggested that it would be good to start with third-party monitoring of carrier networks.

“We should not be reliant on suppliers from adversarial nations to design manage and secure our critical infrastructure, especially as we develop cloud technologies,” said Travis Russell, director of cybersecurity at Oracle Communications. There is no finalized definition yet of what a stand-alone 5G network would look like, he said, so there is still time to “work out a solution” for this dilemma.

The FCC has a vital role in understanding the issues that small, rural carriers face, said Dileep Srihari, senior policy counsel at Telecommunications Industry Association.

Many rural providers lack the budget to replace banned equipment, said Jeff Johnston, senior economist at CoBank.

A “rip and replace” strategy to remove equipment that some have suggest is not secure would bear an “enormous” opportunity cost for rural carriers relying on Huawei for telecom infrastructure, said Christopher Reno, chief accounting officer at Union Telephone Company.

Continue Reading

Broadband's Impact

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Pai Announces Broadband Advisory Group to Propose Model City Ordinances

Published

on

WASHINGTON, January 31, 2017 – Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai on Tuesday announced the formation of a new federal advisory committee that would seek to accelerate deployment of high-speed broadband nationwide, and to close the digital divide, by providing a model approach to deployment for municipalities.

“Access to broadband is increasingly critical for all Americans, no matter who they are or where they live,” Pai said in a statement.  “It’s becoming the 21st-century gateway to jobs, health care, education, information, and economic development everywhere, from the smallest town to the largest city.  That makes it imperative for us to remove regulatory barriers to the deployment of high-speed Internet access.”

The FCC said that the committee would focus on developing specific recommendations for how the agency can encourage broadband deployment by further changing the FCC’s pole attachment rules; identifying unreasonable regulatory barriers to broadband deployment; and through ways to entice local governments to adopt what it considers to be deployment-friendly policies.

In particular, according to the FCC release:

“[O]ne of the Committee’s first tasks will be drafting a model code covering local franchising, zoning, permitting, and rights-of-way regulations.  Many localities may not currently have or be able to develop policies conducive to deployment.  With a model code approved by the FCC, any city could build a better regulatory environment for deployment, and any provider would have a better case for installing infrastructure.”

The agency said that nominees for the newly formed Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee would be drawn from a diverse set of stakeholders representing both urban and rural areas, and that all are encouraged to apply.

More information is available at www.fcc.gov/broadband-deployment-advisory-committee. Nominations should be made by e-mail to BDAC@fcc.gov, and the FCC will accept nominations until February 15, 2017.  The Commission expects to hold its first meeting of the new Committee during the spring of 2017.

For additional information about the Committee, please contact Brian Hurley, the Designated Federal Officer for the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, at (202) 418-2220 or (Brian.Hurley@fcc.gov), or Paul D’Ari, the Deputy Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 418-1550 or (Paul.DAri@fcc.gov).

Below is Chairman Pai’s complete statement about the BDAC:

“Last September, I proposed what I called a Digital Empowerment Agenda—a blueprint of policies that would accelerate the deployment of high-speed Internet access, or broadband, in communities across the country.

“Today, I am excited to announce the formation of the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC), which will aim to provide advice and recommendations to the FCC on how to do just that.  The BDAC’s mission will be to identify regulatory barriers to infrastructure investment and to make recommendations to the Commission on reducing and/or removing them.

“One of the first things the BDAC will be asked to do is draft for the Commission’s consideration a model code for broadband deployment.  This model code will cover topics like local franchising, zoning, permitting, and rights-of-way regulations.  Building, upgrading, and deploying broadband networks isn’t easy, and red tape often can make the task harder than it needs to be.  Similarly, many localities that have a strong interest in promoting a digital economy within their borders may not have the resources or expertise to develop and implement deployment-friendly policies.  Consumers ultimately pay the price in terms of less access to next-generation services.  Our hope is that with a model code approved by the FCC, one that any city could use as a template, the case for broadband deployment would be much easier, especially for communities that seek to proactively encourage it.

“We’ve already filed the necessary paperwork to stand up the BDAC, with plans to convene its first meeting this spring.  Two dedicated members of the FCC staff, Brian Hurley and Paul D’Ari, have agreed to be the Committee’s Designated Federal Officer and Deputy Designated Federal Officer respectively, and I’d like to thank them for their commitment to these efforts.  But we also need your help.  The Commission will be releasing a Public Notice with more details about the Committee’s work and an explanation of the member-selection process.  I encourage interested members of the public to apply and to be ready to share your best ideas in order to help bring digital opportunity to all Americans.”

Continue Reading

Signup for Broadband Breakfast News



Broadband Breakfast Research Partner

Trending