[National-fiber-coalition] Next steps, big tent letter

Gary Bolton gbolton at fiberbroadband.org
Mon May 24 07:03:46 PDT 2021

Christopher and All,
Attached are some slides from Charter earlier this year where they communicated plans to invest $5B ($1.2B in RDOF and $3.8B Charter investment) to deploy FTTH (1G/0.5G) to their >1M homes locations in 24 States.

Gary Bolton
President and CEO
Fiber Broadband Association
gbolton at fiberbroadband.org<mailto:gbolton at fiberbroadband.org>

From: National-fiber-coalition <national-fiber-coalition-bounces+gbolton=fiberbroadband.org at lists.eff.org> on behalf of Christopher Mitchell <christopher at ilsr.org>
Date: Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 9:53 PM
To: Ernesto Falcon <ernesto at eff.org>
Cc: "national-fiber-coalition at lists.eff.org" <national-fiber-coalition at lists.eff.org>
Subject: Re: [National-fiber-coalition] Next steps, big tent letter

Top of the executive summary - Charter is building FTTP

I know that Comcast and others sometimes still build HFC to new developments but most of them are also building FTTP in other greenfields. May be useful to highlight that they are committing to fiber in many of their announcements.

Christopher Mitchell
Director, Community Broadband Networks
Institute for Local Self-Reliance


On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:13 PM Ernesto Falcon <ernesto at eff.org<mailto:ernesto at eff.org>> wrote:
Just to recap for folks that weren’t on the call today.

Fiber Broadband Association is working on a big tent letter that we need to counter the cable blitz on what should be in an infrastructure program. Once it reaches draft language that we have critical mass on we will need to circulate it as widely as possible. I’ll be reaching out to folks for feedback along with Kim Bayliss with FBA next week. The idea behind it is to isolate cable on the Hill in their position on what should an infrastructure program do to show a lot of consensus from the broadband ecosystem on the other side.

I think the House GOP’s “cable leadership” (literally written into the legislation) is a good framework to know what they are articulating as the future. No support if you have 25/3 mbps, build to 100/20 mbps services, and a very small amount funding compared to the national need. This looks a lot like what I have seen from cable in California against our fiber bill.

National-fiber-coalition mailing list
National-fiber-coalition at lists.eff.org<mailto:National-fiber-coalition at lists.eff.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/national-fiber-coalition/attachments/20210524/37703a79/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 950 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/national-fiber-coalition/attachments/20210524/37703a79/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Charter 2.26.2021 Webinar Slides.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2735153 bytes
Desc: Charter 2.26.2021 Webinar Slides.pdf
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/national-fiber-coalition/attachments/20210524/37703a79/attachment-0001.pdf>

More information about the National-fiber-coalition mailing list