Agenda - Council - 09/13/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Other commenters suggested that 100 Mbps symmetrical speeds were unnecessary given current broadband usage needs and that such high standards may have the potential to slow down expansion to unserved or underserved rural areas. Some argued that setting this symmetrical threshold may limit the type of technologies that can be used, thereby decreasing competition and limiting flexibility to recipients whose communities might be better served by technologies such as wireless solutions or inexpensive gap networks. Commenters suggested alternate minimum speeds, ranging from 25/3 Mbps (which some argued best balances reaching all communities and maximizing the impact of federal funds) to 100/20 Mbps (which some argued best serves the typical broadband usage patterns of households and businesses, including new pandemic -driven needs). A few commenters suggested a higher minimum speed, such as gigabit speeds, advocating that such speeds were necessary for a network to last at least a decade. Many commenters supported the interim final rule's lower speed standards for projects where it is impracticable to meet minimum reliable speeds of 100 Mbps symmetrical, as it provides flexibility for recipients to invest in hard -to -reach areas, such as those in mountainous regions. A few commenters indicated that Treasury should more clearly define the characteristics of a location eligible for this exception. Some indicated that the minimum standard for all new projects should be 100 Mbps symmetrical. In contrast, others argued that scalability to 100 Mbps symmetrical should not be a requirement to meet today's demands, particularly in hard -to -reach areas. Some commenters requested that Treasury clarify eligibility for middle -mile projects as these projects potentially provide connectivity to far-reaching areas, while other commenters suggested that last -mile projects generally require more capital investment and are therefore most in need of government support. 305