By Gary Bolton / Fiber Broadband Association
Less than a decade ago, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) set 25 Mbps/3 Mbps as the de facto standard for broadband in the United States. While it was clear at the time to many within and outside of government that this was inadequate, it took the COVID pandemic for the agency to update the definition to 100 Mbps/20 Mbps with an aspirational goal to get to 1 Gbps/500 Mbps.
Today, fiber passes more than 70 million locations, with access to much better services than the updated benchmark, meaning these homes are best able to participate in the modern world of streaming, IoT devices, telework and health, and all the other ways that the internet supports our daily lives. The reality is that these homes are connected to gigabit and faster speeds based on how people want to live and need to connect. While the FCC 100/20 definition continues to keep many on the wrong side of the digital divide, forward-thinking communities and states that continue to invest in fiber are not leaving their citizens behind.
To compound the issue and create noise in a program designed for the public good, some want to manipulate the FCC’s standard to skirt the bipartisan Congressional mandate and leave consumers with technology that has inferior performance and scalability - low earth orbit (LEO) satellite. By relegating these unserved families to an interim option, the digital divide that these funds were intended to close will instead be extended.
My argument is not that LEOs have no role in the broadband ecosystem. Emergency circumstances like the recent hurricanes in North Carolina and Florida provide a good stopgap for periods when the most basic services are interrupted. But when it comes to dedicating federal and state funding for Infrastructure, we are talking about long-term investments with even longer-term implications.
In the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Congress provided clear instructions that broadband projects need to be prioritized that “can easily scale speeds over time to meet the evolving connectivity needs of households and businesses.”
There are four key reasons why LEO is not a good investment in building our nation’s critical broadband infrastructure:
· Never Enough Spectrum
· Trailing Fiber Capacity by 100-200x
· Greater Monthly Service Cost
· Technology Lifetime of 5 Years vs 50+ Years
Never enough spectrum
Like cellular, LEO broadband depends on the availability of spectrum for the number of customers it can support and how effectively it can support them. The service works great when only a few people are on the cellular data network, offering fast speed and no download delay. Once the thousandth person is on the cellular network, it begins to take a while to download webpages and much longer to upload files and videos, and there are service problems, mainly when everyone uses the network simultaneously.
When performance slows, the solution is simple: add more spectrum, more powerful radios, and more cell towers. This cycle has been repeated in the cellular industry since its very early days through 5G and into the discussions of 6G.
LEO satellite broadband service is no different. However, there is a limited amount of radio frequencies to share, with the cellular and satellite industries in constant conflict over how they can be used and how their respective operations will interfere. Both sides are asking for more spectrum currently allocated for other applications to be released for use.
We know in a general sense how satellite companies will try to “fix” the capacity problem over the long term, and that’s more spectrum, bigger satellites, and more satellites. According to their FCC filings, to get to “fiber-like performance” and gigabit speeds, SpaceX needs to launch 30,000 more larger satellites. (To Offer Gigabit Speeds, SpaceX's Starlink Makes New Push for 30,000 Satellites | PCMag) What we don’t know is the impact of this in the long term.
Trailing fiber capacity by 100-200x
Today’s state-of-the-art LEO solution delivers, on average, around 100 Mbps download speeds and anywhere from 5 to 20 Mbps upload speeds. In other words, at best, LEOs can sometimes meet the FCC's current basic definition for broadband. Compare that to the fiber industry’s current standard of 10 Gigabit symmetric XGS-PON, which enables fiber providers nationwide to deliver 1 Gbps+ symmetrical speeds as an essential service efficiently. Multi-gig plans are available from all the major carriers and industry leaders, like EPB and GFiber, that are introducing 25 Gbps service as well as testing the boundaries of the near future by demonstrating the ability to deliver 50 Gbps and 100 Gbps using its existing infrastructures.
LEO satellites will constantly lag fiber. By the time any LEO provider can deliver gigabit speeds, in some cases, fiber providers will be providing 50 Gbps to homes and businesses with a clear path to 100 Gbps. This speed gap will keep the country's most economically challenged households and areas on the wrong side of the digital divide instead of moving them to parity.
Greater monthly service cost
The 100 Mbps/5-20 Mbps Starlink service costs $120 per month for an unlimited plan in a residential location, with no discount plans offered by the company. Depending on the location and service provider, most fiber providers offer reduced-cost plans at lower speeds for economically challenged households, starting at $30/month, with some providing the service for free to qualified households.
Households pay more monthly because there’s an ongoing and continuous capital expense to launch more satellites, build bigger satellites, and support exploration to Mars. (Yes, really). According to some politicians, it’s easier to fund a colony on Mars by funneling it through terrestrial broadband rather than dealing with the nation’s civilian space agency.
LEO providers have also made it very clear that each is wrestling with the scarcity of spectrum, despite public claims that everyone across the country can be served with enough funding from the federal government. Starlink, for example, charges a $100 one-time “congestion fee” to new subscribers today, particularly in the south and eastern states. ($100 More? SpaceX's Starlink Adds 'Congestion Charge' For Certain Areas | PCMag) The Maine Connectivity Authority (MCA) is being asked to secure a “reservation” with SpaceX for capacity to ensure that the 9,000 households eligible to get dishes under its Working Internet ASAP (WIA) program will also have enough to meet 100/20 Mbps speeds. (Maine thinks Starlink can help connect its unserved quickly | Fierce Network)
Precisely what constitutes “congestion” is unclear. Starlink has not been transparent about how many users can be supported within a service area and how much service speeds degrade as more users are added.
We would welcome and encourage SpaceX to disclose and discuss the required network architecture in greater detail on its website so that decision-makers, such as state broadband officials, can make fully informed decisions as they consider how those who live in the communities they serve will connect to their future.
Technology lifetime of 5 years vs 50+ years
Fiber deployment is a “set it and forget it” technology in most instances, especially when the cable is buried underground and not subject to adverse weather events. Fiber is repaired and replaced for aerial deployment on poles in the same maintenance cycle that restores power lines.
There’s also the matter of replacing and upgrading satellite dishes to support gigabit speeds, which has remained unaddressed to date.
LEO does not check the box
Every time a government agency draws a circle around an antenna to claim a home and checks a “served” box, it relegates families and communities to the wrong side of the digital divide and all the economic benefits that a robust, high-quality, quality and critical broadband infrastructure provides. With LEO satellites, that issue is magnified as a satellite constellation can claim to cover a massive area. In short, if a single home can be considered “served” by LEO, then every home could be considered served. That was not Congress’ intent when it passed the bipartisan infrastructure law.
Relegating hard-to-reach communities by checking boxes out of convenience serves no one. Every American deserves to benefit from the social and economic benefits of a robust, future-proof critical broadband infrastructure. Let’s not leave any home or community behind on the wrong side of the digital divide.
Gary Bolton is the president and CEO of the Fiber Broadband Association.
With more than three decades in the telecom industry, Bolton joined the Fiber Broadband Association as president and CEO in 2020 after serving on the association’s board as vice chairman, treasurer, and vice chair of public policy and marketing committees.
Before taking the leadership role at the Fiber Broadband Association, Gary spent 11 years at ADTRAN serving as vice president of global marketing and government affairs.