A US regulator is proposing a reverse auction to attain national broadband, providing $300m to the company that claims to be able to do the most with the cash pot. "Auction 901" won't start until September 27, but the FCC has published an interactive map showing which areas of the US are still lacking wireless coverage so …
The FCC Always Misses The Point
We have a huge deficit and the FCC wants to give away the spectrum (obviously worth more than 300 Million). This is the problem with the entire system. The entire Satellite/cable/fiber/cellular/POTS/IT/Backbone infrastructure should be the permanent property of the USA and we should charge telecoms to use and maintain it. This way all telecoms would have to share cell sites & maintenance costs but they could all have the benefit of the technology at the same time. None of them could be monopolies because all costs would be the same and they don't own the backbone. Then the cost of service could actually be lower and competition would be greater.
Many of these remote areas would be better served by satellites sending and receiving 4G Signals. Distance is really not an issue if phones & spectrum were better designed. Seems to work well for Sirius/Xm Radio (for transmission to customer) Remind me how did we get locked into the same thieving telecoms for cell service as we did for plain old telephone service?
You see, we could have nice things in this country if we weren't subsidizing the costs of iPhones and lobbyists.
> Distance is really not an issue if phones & spectrum were better designed.
It is if low-latency is important to you.
What would the government infrastructure look like.
I think a government monopoly would be far worse than what we have now. Business decisions would be based on votes and election cycles rather than reality. Companies would lobby to have everything standardized around their hardware and software.
I think what we needed is some changes that would make the market work more efficiently.
My suggestion would be to require a separation of hardware and services. If they want to finance your next phone, that would be separate from your service agreement. You'd owe each month for your plan, and for the phone (unless you already had one or chose to buy one outright). If you switch providers you'll still have to make payments on the phone or buy out the balance.
They will have to focus on providing the best possible service to keep their customers happy, instead of trying to lock them in.
Rent it out
I've always wondered  why private companies pay once for common property and then get to use it forever at no additional cost. Can they even sell it to someone else and keep the loot?
The auction should be to determine the rental price of the bandwidth for a fixed time (5 years? 10?). When the lease is up, hold another auction to determine the price for the next rental period. We get a continuing income, and it's (theoretically) possible for another company with a better idea to get the BW to implement it. As it is now, one company squats on it and has no incentive to implement some neat new idea that would undermine their current income stream.
 Well, not really...just check out the campaign donations.
Rural 3G extends voice coverage and Internet on the go. It doesn't provide broadband. None at all.
Fixed Wireless with directional outdoor aerials can provide broadband, but only if there are NO mobile/nomadic users.
see also http://www.techtir.ie/comms