FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

Tue May 31 13:58:56 UTC 2022

>Yep.  No one is forcing carriers to take USF money.  They can essentially
build whatever they want without USF money.

Unless of course USF funds are used to over build your already existing
network.  This is exactly the situation I'm in.

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:52 PM Sean Donelan <sean at donelan.com> wrote:

> > I would say, if you’re looking to build or expand your networks, focus
> > on how you can get the fiber out there, there’s a lot of money available
> > if you’re willing to take it.  It might mean taking the USF money and
> > the obligations that go with that in reporting, compliance, etc.. but
> > those costs don’t have to be onerous if you are mindful of how the
> > programs work and have the right integration/reporting.
>
>
> Yep.  No one is forcing carriers to take USF money.  They can
> essentially build whatever they want without USF money.
>
> However, if they do take the USF money, what should be the absolute
> minimum delivery requirements?  They can always build above the minimum.
>
> Its essentially a reverse auction.  If the government sets the
> requirements too high, the carriers claim they will walk away and the
> long-tail of broadband doesn't happen.  If the government sets the
> requirements too low, the carriers take the money and build less.
>
> The historical problem is carriers promise whatever it takes to win, take
> the money and don't deliver (or demand more money to finish).
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220531/9382a113/attachment.html>