The Obama administration's policy to support build out of Internet Protocol telecommunications infrastructure with grants and low cost loans is once again running into stiff resistance from legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies.
As they did in a previous round for funding requests for $4.2 billion set aside for this purpose in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the incumbents are challenging numerous projects proposed for funding under the current funding round of USDA's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP). The challenges are permitted under provisions of the Act that allow incumbents to delay or block proposed projects in their service areas by claiming they already provide advanced telecom services. A searchable list of BIP applicants and incumbent challenges is posted here.
Unlike in the first round of ARRA funding last year, the RUS has not posted details of the challenges. Listed are only the service areas of the proposed projects and the name of the challenging incumbent provider. Incumbent challenges of ARRA telecom infrastructure projects administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Agency's (NTIA) Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) have not yet been posted by the NTIA.
Showing posts with label BTOP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BTOP. Show all posts
Friday, June 04, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
California PUC approves $7.9 million supplemental broadband stimulus funding for 9,000 square mile Central Valley wireless project
The California Public Utilities Commission today conditionally approved a resolution providing $7.9 million in supplemental funding for a major wireless broadband project requesting federal funding via broadband infrastructure subsidies allocated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The supplemental funding allocated from California PUCs' California Advanced Services Fund covers half of a 20 percent recipient match required under the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Broadband Technology Opportunities Program and is contingent on federal funding approval.
The California Valley Broadband (CVB) project, proposed by a the consortium of Moreno Trenching Ltd, Mika Telecom Group and MT2 Telecom, LP, plans to build wireless infrastructure that will serve about 77,195 households in Fresno, Madera, Merced, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, and Stanislaus counties. The consortium claims it will deliver Internet connectivity and VoIP over nearly 9,000 square miles at speeds of up to 20 Mbs on the download side and up to 6 Mbs uploads using two unregulated (WiFi) frequencies and one licensed (WiMAX) frequency "to accommodate range, terrain, tree and other interference issues."
The CVB project faced multiple challenges from incumbent telco and cable companies who claimed they already serve census block groups in the proposed CVB footprint. But PUC staff rejected the bulk of the challenged census block groups finding the incumbents didn't offer broadband as the California PUC defines it: at least 3 Mbs for downloads and 1 Mbs on the upload side.
It remains to be seen however how the NTIA will respond to protests the incumbents lodged against CVB's proposed project that is pending approval for the 80 percent BTOP subsidy.
In allowing incumbents to contest proposed broadband infrastructure projects in the first round of stimulus funding that closed last summer, both the NTIA and the Rural Utilities Services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture -- which is also distributing a portion of the broadband stimulus funds -- set the stage for an adversarial process that by implication would require the agencies to adjudicate contested applications. However, it's likely they are less able than the California PUC to carry out that function since the PUC can reference the state's broadband availability maps and has dedicated staff evaluating comparatively far fewer proposed projects.
Since putting in place a process to resolve applications contested by the incumbents and make findings of fact regarding whether the area of a proposed infrastructure project is underserved or unserved requires substantial time and resources, my guess is the two federal agencies simply put contested applications into a "hold" file while trying to figure out how to square the applications with incumbent telco/cable objections. That would explain why so many now impatient applicants haven't heard anything whatsoever after rushing to get their applications in by the first round funding deadline in mid-August of 2009 after having been initially led to believe they'd know by the year end holidays at the latest whether their projects were approved for funding.
This sets the stage for political blow back from federal and state representatives in areas where broadband stimulus projects in their districts are stuck in limbo after hearing from frustrated constituents asking them to expedite approval of their applications. The incumbents couldn't stop the broadband stimulus provisions from becoming law in the rush to enact ARRA one year ago. So they may instead opted to fend off threats to their territorial hegemony (remember, an incumbent telco/cable "service territory" doesn't mean everyone is served) in a "death by a thousand cuts" strategy to vector and shoot down stimulus applications one by one.
The California Valley Broadband (CVB) project, proposed by a the consortium of Moreno Trenching Ltd, Mika Telecom Group and MT2 Telecom, LP, plans to build wireless infrastructure that will serve about 77,195 households in Fresno, Madera, Merced, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, and Stanislaus counties. The consortium claims it will deliver Internet connectivity and VoIP over nearly 9,000 square miles at speeds of up to 20 Mbs on the download side and up to 6 Mbs uploads using two unregulated (WiFi) frequencies and one licensed (WiMAX) frequency "to accommodate range, terrain, tree and other interference issues."
The CVB project faced multiple challenges from incumbent telco and cable companies who claimed they already serve census block groups in the proposed CVB footprint. But PUC staff rejected the bulk of the challenged census block groups finding the incumbents didn't offer broadband as the California PUC defines it: at least 3 Mbs for downloads and 1 Mbs on the upload side.
It remains to be seen however how the NTIA will respond to protests the incumbents lodged against CVB's proposed project that is pending approval for the 80 percent BTOP subsidy.
In allowing incumbents to contest proposed broadband infrastructure projects in the first round of stimulus funding that closed last summer, both the NTIA and the Rural Utilities Services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture -- which is also distributing a portion of the broadband stimulus funds -- set the stage for an adversarial process that by implication would require the agencies to adjudicate contested applications. However, it's likely they are less able than the California PUC to carry out that function since the PUC can reference the state's broadband availability maps and has dedicated staff evaluating comparatively far fewer proposed projects.
Since putting in place a process to resolve applications contested by the incumbents and make findings of fact regarding whether the area of a proposed infrastructure project is underserved or unserved requires substantial time and resources, my guess is the two federal agencies simply put contested applications into a "hold" file while trying to figure out how to square the applications with incumbent telco/cable objections. That would explain why so many now impatient applicants haven't heard anything whatsoever after rushing to get their applications in by the first round funding deadline in mid-August of 2009 after having been initially led to believe they'd know by the year end holidays at the latest whether their projects were approved for funding.
This sets the stage for political blow back from federal and state representatives in areas where broadband stimulus projects in their districts are stuck in limbo after hearing from frustrated constituents asking them to expedite approval of their applications. The incumbents couldn't stop the broadband stimulus provisions from becoming law in the rush to enact ARRA one year ago. So they may instead opted to fend off threats to their territorial hegemony (remember, an incumbent telco/cable "service territory" doesn't mean everyone is served) in a "death by a thousand cuts" strategy to vector and shoot down stimulus applications one by one.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Second and final broadband stimulus funding rules issued
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) today issued guidelines for the second and last funding round to disburse $7.2 billion allocated for broadband infrastructure and adoption in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009.
Here's a news release on the Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) as well as links to the NOFAs for the NTIA's Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) and the USDA/RUS Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP).
Given the delays in awarding funds from the first broadband stimulus round that closed last August, I expected this NOFA might not appear until mid-March at the earliest. Particularly given the NTIA and USDA solicited comments late last year on the funding requirements that elicited plenty of complaints and suggestions to digest.
I suspect the delays in making first round broadband infrastructure awards -- in large part likely due to numerous incumbent challenges -- prompted the NTIA and USDA accelerate the timetable in order to meet the ARRA requirement the broadband stimulus funds be fully disbursed by Sept. 30 of this year.
Unlike the first round, the latest NOFA calls for separate applications to each agency, with the NTIA concentrating on middle mile telecommunications infrastructure. I suspect by putting last mile far down on the list of funding priorities, the NTIA is hoping to cut down on the number of incumbent challenges tying up infrastructure awards in non-rural areas.
The RUS/BIP NOFA covers both middle mile and last mile infrastructure with an emphasis on the latter in unserved rural areas. Any area in which at least 50 percent of premises lack access to broadband of 5 Mbps combined for upstream and downstream throughput and is at least 75 percent rural combined is eligible under the BIP guidelines.
If a proposed BIP project area includes premises with no access to wireline -- or fixed or mobile wireless service -- offering throughput at the now obsolete Federal Communications Commission definition of broadband of at least 768 Kbs down 200 Kbs up, it is deemed "unserved" under BIP.
Unfortunately, the BIP squanders precious funds with a new separate category to underwrite discounted satellite Internet service, which in the view of this blogger is contrary to the ARRA's intent to fund advanced telecommunications infrastructure and not stopgap, substandard substitutes such as satellite.
Unlike in the first funding round, applicants no longer need define their projects based on contiguous census blocks. BTOP applicants must now use census block groups or tracts. BIP applicants can define their proposed service area boundaries as they wish using an mapping tool included in the online funding application.
Like the first round, the window for applications opens on short notice and remains open only briefly: from Feb. 16 to March 15. That means applicants will once again have to scramble which could like the first round in 2009 produce hastily developed and inferior quality applications.
Here's a news release on the Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) as well as links to the NOFAs for the NTIA's Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) and the USDA/RUS Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP).
Given the delays in awarding funds from the first broadband stimulus round that closed last August, I expected this NOFA might not appear until mid-March at the earliest. Particularly given the NTIA and USDA solicited comments late last year on the funding requirements that elicited plenty of complaints and suggestions to digest.
I suspect the delays in making first round broadband infrastructure awards -- in large part likely due to numerous incumbent challenges -- prompted the NTIA and USDA accelerate the timetable in order to meet the ARRA requirement the broadband stimulus funds be fully disbursed by Sept. 30 of this year.
Unlike the first round, the latest NOFA calls for separate applications to each agency, with the NTIA concentrating on middle mile telecommunications infrastructure. I suspect by putting last mile far down on the list of funding priorities, the NTIA is hoping to cut down on the number of incumbent challenges tying up infrastructure awards in non-rural areas.
The RUS/BIP NOFA covers both middle mile and last mile infrastructure with an emphasis on the latter in unserved rural areas. Any area in which at least 50 percent of premises lack access to broadband of 5 Mbps combined for upstream and downstream throughput and is at least 75 percent rural combined is eligible under the BIP guidelines.
If a proposed BIP project area includes premises with no access to wireline -- or fixed or mobile wireless service -- offering throughput at the now obsolete Federal Communications Commission definition of broadband of at least 768 Kbs down 200 Kbs up, it is deemed "unserved" under BIP.
Unfortunately, the BIP squanders precious funds with a new separate category to underwrite discounted satellite Internet service, which in the view of this blogger is contrary to the ARRA's intent to fund advanced telecommunications infrastructure and not stopgap, substandard substitutes such as satellite.
Unlike in the first funding round, applicants no longer need define their projects based on contiguous census blocks. BTOP applicants must now use census block groups or tracts. BIP applicants can define their proposed service area boundaries as they wish using an mapping tool included in the online funding application.
Like the first round, the window for applications opens on short notice and remains open only briefly: from Feb. 16 to March 15. That means applicants will once again have to scramble which could like the first round in 2009 produce hastily developed and inferior quality applications.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
California PUC conditionally funds start up cooperative's middle mile project
The California Public Utilities Commission has demonstrated its support of start up telecom cooperatives -- entities this blogger believes play a crucial role in the rapid expansion of advanced telecommunications infrastructure in areas that are not sufficiently profitable for incumbent providers.
In a resolution adopted earlier this week, the CPUC agreed to fund 19 percent of the California Broadband Cooperative's planned open access wholesale middle fiber project along 448 miles of Highway 395 in the Golden State's Eastern Sierra area including the counties of Mono, Inyo, Eastern Kern and San Bernardino. Coop membership is open to local governments, institutions and Internet Service Providers.
The 19 percent funding level is beyond the 10 percent level the CPUC established in July in an effort to utilize its $100 million California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) to leverage $7.2 billion in federal subsidies for broadband telecommunications infrastructure allocated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The CASF funding is contingent on the project being approved for ARRA funding.
In the initial round of ARRA broadband funding that closed in August, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) generally required project grant applicants to put up a 20 percent funding match. In an effort to get more California projects funded, CASF kicked in half the match amount, bringing total project funding up to 90 percent. That left it to applicants to come up with the remaining a 10 percent match.
However, the California Broadband Cooperative noted as a start up nonprofit with no financial history it would find it all but impossible to come up with the 10 percent match for its proposed $101.4 million project under grant and loan subsidies for broadband infrastructure construction under the BTOP and the USDA's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) program.
Kudos to the California PUC for recognizing that alternative, nonprofit business models like cooperatives are needed in the quest to close the digital divide in California and that these entities face unique and substantial start up funding challenges. As the NTIA and USDA draw up new rules governing an upcoming and final round of funding for broadband infrastructure projects early next year, the agencies should keep the California PUC's action in mind.
In a resolution adopted earlier this week, the CPUC agreed to fund 19 percent of the California Broadband Cooperative's planned open access wholesale middle fiber project along 448 miles of Highway 395 in the Golden State's Eastern Sierra area including the counties of Mono, Inyo, Eastern Kern and San Bernardino. Coop membership is open to local governments, institutions and Internet Service Providers.
The 19 percent funding level is beyond the 10 percent level the CPUC established in July in an effort to utilize its $100 million California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) to leverage $7.2 billion in federal subsidies for broadband telecommunications infrastructure allocated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The CASF funding is contingent on the project being approved for ARRA funding.
In the initial round of ARRA broadband funding that closed in August, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) generally required project grant applicants to put up a 20 percent funding match. In an effort to get more California projects funded, CASF kicked in half the match amount, bringing total project funding up to 90 percent. That left it to applicants to come up with the remaining a 10 percent match.
However, the California Broadband Cooperative noted as a start up nonprofit with no financial history it would find it all but impossible to come up with the 10 percent match for its proposed $101.4 million project under grant and loan subsidies for broadband infrastructure construction under the BTOP and the USDA's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) program.
Kudos to the California PUC for recognizing that alternative, nonprofit business models like cooperatives are needed in the quest to close the digital divide in California and that these entities face unique and substantial start up funding challenges. As the NTIA and USDA draw up new rules governing an upcoming and final round of funding for broadband infrastructure projects early next year, the agencies should keep the California PUC's action in mind.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Canada's version of broadband stimulus
Two weeks after the U.S. government closed out the first round broadband stimulus funding applications seeking seven times more funds than available, the Canadian government is ramping up its own broadband infrastructure subsidy program.
Like the U.S. broadband stimulus targeting unserved and underserved areas, it too appears aimed at creating jobs and economic activity as rapidly as possible. Applicants have until Oct. 23 to apply for subsidies of up to 50 percent of project costs (compared to 80 percent subsidies under the U.S. Broadband Technology Opportunity Program.)
Unlike the clearly inadequate minimum 768 Kbs download standard for the U.S. program, the Broadband Canada: Connecting Rural Canadians initiative calls for a minimum standard of 1.5 Mbs. While twice that of the U.S. minimum, that standard is already on the verge of obsolescence, barely capable of supporting the growing amount of IP-based video content.
Like the U.S. broadband stimulus targeting unserved and underserved areas, it too appears aimed at creating jobs and economic activity as rapidly as possible. Applicants have until Oct. 23 to apply for subsidies of up to 50 percent of project costs (compared to 80 percent subsidies under the U.S. Broadband Technology Opportunity Program.)
Unlike the clearly inadequate minimum 768 Kbs download standard for the U.S. program, the Broadband Canada: Connecting Rural Canadians initiative calls for a minimum standard of 1.5 Mbs. While twice that of the U.S. minimum, that standard is already on the verge of obsolescence, barely capable of supporting the growing amount of IP-based video content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)