AT&T, Verizon and other Internet service providers (ISP) bombard us with advertising touting their fast download speeds. (Upload speeds, not so much.) The boasting always comes with an asterisk, though. The fine print gives reasons and circumstances when they might not deliver the speed we think we’re paying for.
The Federal Communications Commission has a plan, and funding, to upgrade Internet service in rural areas where consumers receive less attention from ISPs than in more densely-populated areas. Subsidizing services to rural America is historically in the purview of the federal government, as in delivery of mail and electricity. The F.C.C. has $20 billion to spend over ten years for areas underserved by ISPs. The money for this “Rural Digital Opportunity Fund” comes from fees on telephone bills.
AT&T thinks this is a great idea. They’re ready to take the money. But they don’t like the part about providing faster download and upload speeds. USTelecom, the lobbying organization for AT&T, CenturyLink, Verizon and others, argues that it’s too hard to provide the speeds required and it would cost them too much. They say that higher speeds, particularly upload speeds don’t make all that much difference anyway. They want the federal money without making significant network upgrades.
(The USTelecom public web site is full of innocuous prattle about their wanting the best for everyone but it’s very light on details.)
Oddly enough, groups representing small ISPs are exhorting the F.C.C. not to lower the download/upload requirements. The Fiber Broadband Association, which represents equipment vendors, ISPs, and others also is urging the F.C.C. to not lower the standards required for federal funds. The small guys apparently see it as an opportunity for them; the big guys contend they should get the money, well, because they should get it.