As California works to bridge the digital divide, Controversies swirl about who shall be connected and whether there shall be enough money to finish the job.
State leaders have promised to expand high-speed web access to all unserved or underserved neighborhoods. In 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill providing $6 billion in public funding to attain this ambitious goal. The Biden administration is taking one other step $1.9 billion for California from the 2021 infrastructure bill.
Until now, fiber optic cable has been the technology of alternative to attach Californians. Fiber is by far the perfect option for the state's planned 10,000-mile web backbone to be built along major highways.
But relating to connecting this “last mile,” the ultimate route from a significant web network to neighborhoods and individual homes, reliance on fiber threatens California’s ability to satisfy its goals.
Fiber optic lines are expensive and laying them underground can cost tens of hundreds of dollars per mile. Hang them on poles in a mountainous area, and also you're spending hundreds of thousands to attach a small variety of users — because the state proved this 12 months with an expensive deal for Plumas County. Such costs of providing last-mile web access will quickly strain the most important budgets.
Therefore, California should develop plans that mix fiber with alternative technology for these last-mile connections. In some situations, landline wireless, satellite and even old-fashioned coaxial cable technologies can provide less expensive Internet connections while still meeting state and federal speed standards.
Fixed Wi-Fi – where Wi-Fi routers are attached to towers or other tall structures – may be particularly helpful in distant, mountainous and rural areas. Today it serves 4% of residential broadband subscriptions in California. But landline radio is also a less expensive solution for underserved or unserved suburbs and concrete areas.
Fortunately, after years of prioritizing fiber projects, the California Public Utilities Commission appears to be more open to alternatives — at the least in its public comments. It stays to be seen whether the agency will meaningfully incorporate additional technologies to bridge the digital divide cost-effectively.
It's ironic that it took California leaders so long to significantly consider cheaper alternatives to fiber in a state known for its technological advancements. Newsom even vetoed a state Senate bill last 12 months that will allow eligible wireless carriers to use for billions of dollars in federal grants to expand web access, claiming that introducing wireless options would slow your complete initiative.
But without them, California's efforts to expand web access have been problematic. The nationwide initiative launched in 2021 has grown into one wasteful and reckless distribution of billions of dollars, using erroneous maps to develop the primary connecting routes. Now this system lacks the cash to construct all of its planned 10,000 miles of backbone fiber networks. Officials are eagerly awaiting one other $1.5 billion within the upcoming state budget to finish the work.
But there isn’t a guarantee that more government money will flow, especially given the estimated budget deficits in the following fiscal 12 months of between $38 billion and $73 billion.
As far as federal funding is anxious, that’s The responsible authority prefers fiber optic connections, but its overall goal is to assist states reach all households with poor or no web connection, even when this requires the introduction of other technologies.
Although the CPUC claims to support this goal, it agreed in January 5 million dollar project The use of fiber for a roughly 60-mile connection to simply 31 homes in Plumas County was just because no other provider applied for the grant.
It will not be enough to be open to alternatives to expensive fiber optic lines when expanding last-mile access. The CPUC must aggressively leverage cost-effective technologies.
Paying lip service to alternatives while accepting fiber because the default wastes public money and jeopardizes the nationwide deployment of high-speed web.
image credit : www.mercurynews.com