Want to provide 100-Mbit/s broadband service to every U.S. household? No problem: Just be ready to write a $350 billion check. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) officials shared that jaw-dropping figure today during an update on their National Broadband Plan for bringing affordable, high-speed Internet access to all Americans. The Commission is schedule to present the plan to Congress in 141 days, on Feb. 17.

Zufolo explained the RUS decision to use its $2.5 billion in funds primarily to subsidize loans and not provide grants, as the agency's best opportunity to make the more efficient use of the federal money and have maximum impact. Because the default rate on RUS loans is less than 1% and the subsidy rate is also low, only about 7%, it costs the government only $72,000 to loan $1 million for rural network development, she said.

1. Subscribers need accurate information to make informed decisions. If they subscribe to "broadband," they should immediately know if it will actually support modern applications. This means incorporating common usage scenarios: multiple devices concurrently using a connection for browsing, e-mail, games, video-chats, media downloads, and large file uploads (online backup is becoming more popular and easy and people increasingly want to work effectively from home).
2. Large companies, particularly telephone carriers, claim that there is no need for government intervention in broadband because almost everyone has access under the existing definition.

I therefore lay down the following principle: That where a community--a city or county or a district--is not satisfied with the service rendered or the rates charged by the private utility, it has the undeniable basic right, as one of its functions of Government, one of its functions of home rule, to set up, after a fair referendum to its voters has been had, its own governmentally owned and operated service. That right has been recognized in a good many of the States of the Union. Its general recognition by every State will hasten the day of better service and lower rates. It is perfectly clear to me, and to every thinking citizen, that no community which is sure that it is now being served well, and at reasonable rates by a private utility company, will seek to build or operate its own plant. But on the other hand the very fact that a community can, by vote of the electorate, create a yardstick of its own, will, in most cases, guarantee good service and low rates to its population. I might call the right of the people to own and operate their own utility something like this: a "birch rod" in the cupboard to be taken out and used only when the "child" gets beyond the point where a mere scolding does no good.

• NTIA head Larry Strickling has suggested that if an incumbent wants to veto a stimulus grant in its territory, the data it uses to show the area is served will be on the public record. As this is a step in the direction of making such information public, it is good. However, there is still no clear method of appealing such a veto.

• Craig Settles has called for letters to the NTIA asking for a deadline extension for the first round of grant applications. Muniwireless.com published a commentary explaining why a delay is a good idea.

• West Virginia, one of the most-underserved states by broadband providers, is starting to worry much of the state may not qualify for broadband funds according to the Charleston Daily Mail. Unfortunately, they are relying on data from the industry-backed Connected Nation operation, so who knows? Being so heavily influenced by incumbents, Connected Nation significantly overstates existing coverage.

  However, the story is interesting in pointing out that the approach taken by NTIA will not result in sustainable network. Because network deployers must stick to the areas of least density, they have no revenue base with which to cover operating costs. Once the stimulus money goes away, one wonders how many of these networks will fold -- though NTIA has claimed that networks must demonstrate fiscal viability after the grants run out.

This means networks that offer competitive pricing from more than one provider get preference--this is huge, and could have important long term consequences. The rules also do something else quite important on the same page (page 66, line 1463), where there is explicit preference for open access transport, which in telecom jargon is "interconnection." The rules say that companies that post their interconnection fees publicly and agree to nondiscrimination will get preference.

I am in the minority in thinking they played this right.