FCC issues proposed order creating Connect America Fund

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has released its proposed order revamping the Universal Service Fund (USF) that has for decades subsidized plain old telephone service (POTS) in high cost areas. The USF will now be directed to support Internet connectivity as the Connect America Fund (CAF). The CAF will instead subsidize telecommunications infrastructure to serve what the FCC estimates to be 18 million Americans who involuntarily remain off the Internet “grid” because it costs too much to connect them.

Whether the proposed order would achieve that and do so in a timely manner is an open question. The executive summary of the rather inscrutable 759-page document states that “[w]hile continuing to require that all eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) offer voice services, we now require that they also offer broadband services.” But a close reading of the order shows no indication the FCC will expand the telcos’ existing common carrier obligation to provide voice service to all (and not just some) premises in their service areas to encompass Internet. For example, paragraph 1090 on page 398 of the proposed order:

Under section 214 of the Act (the federal Communications Act of 1996), the states possess primary authority for designating ETCs and setting their “service area[s],” although the Commission may step in to the extent state commissions lack jurisdiction. Section 214(e)(1) provides that once designated, ETCs “shall be eligible to receive universal service support in accordance with section 254 and shall, throughout the service area for which the designation is received . . . offer the services that are supported by Federal universal service support mechanisms under section 254(c).” Although we require providers to offer broadband service as a condition of universal service support, under the legal framework we adopt today, the “services” referred to in section 254(e)(1) means voice service, either landline or mobile. (Emphasis added).

That sounds like POTS and not Internet. In addition, there is no reference in the proposed order to Title II Section 214(e)(3) of the Communications Act of 1996 that empowers the FCC to "determine which common carrier or carriers are best able to provide such service to the requesting unserved community or portion thereof and shall order such carrier or carriers to provide such service for that unserved community or portion thereof." So it appears that telcos could continue to not serve some areas even while accepting CAF subsidies to serve others -- thereby perpetuating the existing problem of broadband black holes.

It’s also unclear from the proposed order how unserved areas in states where the incumbent telco has relinquished its carrier of last resort status would be able to benefit since these carriers would appear to be ineligible for CAF subsidies. Or whether telcos, even if eligible for CAF subsidies, would accept them. In California, for example, telcos have generally shunned generous subsidies available through the California Public Utilities Commission to offset the cost of constructing infrastructure to provide Internet connections to premises in unserved and underserved areas of the state.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, given that many people have and continue to “cut the cord” to landline voice service, will there be enough money to be had from phone bill surcharges that have historically funded the USF to sustain the CAF?

FCC: More subsidies needed for U.S. telecom infrastructure

Just days before President Barack Obama took office this year, his then-technology advisor and now Federal Communications Commission broadband czar Blair Levin told the State of the Net Conference that the $6 billion allocated for broadband infrastructure in the forthcoming American Recovery and Reinvestment Act represented only a portion of the new administration's planned efforts to boost broadband deployment in the U.S. (Congress increased that amount to $7.2 billion in the final version of the bill.)

The FCC clearly signaled more robust federal subsidies will be needed in an update released Tuesday on its progress and plans toward developing an overall broadband build out strategy to achieve universal access as required by the economic stimulus legislation.

Current subsidies including the the $7.2 billion in grants and loan subsidies contained in the economic stimulus package "are insufficient to achieve national purposes," the FCC said in a Sept. 29 news release. The reason as explained in the news release: $20 billion in subsidies would be needed to fully deploy slow speed "basic" broadband that would be quickly outmoded. To bring the U.S. where it needs to be for the future -- fiber to the premises providing throughput of 100 Mbs or better -- the number rises to $350 billion.

U.S. "headed into an extraordinary period where the government is directly investing in broadband infrastructure"

From PC World today:

The nation is headed into an "extraordinary period where the government is directly investing in broadband infrastructure," said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, a media reform group. "This process of handing out $7 billion, although there's a great deal of urgency to get the money out the door, must fundamentally be data driven. We need to make sure the money is spent wisely, on projects that deliver the biggest bang for the buck for the American taxpayer."

Scott also called on the government to fund high-speed networks, not just basic broadband. "We're concerned that stimulus dollars not be used to build obsolete networks," he said. "If we want to make sure that ... we're not simply re-creating a digital divide by building a substandard network that then has to take another leap to catch up."

Scott's got it right on the money here. The greatest hazard with government subsidization of broadband telecommunications infrastructure is subsidizing yesterday's obsolete technology (such as DSL over copper) instead of tomorrow's (read fiber to the premises).

Anyone who's ever bought more than their first personal computer understands this principle. The best value isn't the lowest priced bargain. It's the machine that's got more processing power, memory and storage than what's presently needed but allows the user to expand and add new applications and programs in later years.

Will state broadband subsidies have meaningful impact?

Massachusetts appears set to join California among states providing subsidies to expand broadband telecommunications infrastructure where little or none exists.

The Berkshire Eagle of Pittsfield, Massachusetts reports Bay State lawmakers have sent Gov. Deval L. Patrick legislation that would provide $40 million to help underwrite the cost of building infrastructure in the notorious sprawling broadband black hole in the western part of the state. According to the newspaper, the goal of the legislation, signed into law today by Patrick, is to wire 32 unserved communities with high-speed broadband in the next two years.

Out on the left coast, a deadline passed July 24 for providers to submit proposals to the California Public Utilities Commission under which they would receive a 40 percent subsidy to deploy either wireline or wireless-based broadband infrastruture capable of speeds of at least 3 Mbs down and 1 Mbs up. Priority will be given first to unserved areas and then underserved areas. The $100 million California Advanced Services Fund is funded by a surcharge on telephone bills. The CPUC is expected to announce those projects selected for funding by the fall or later this year.

Given the high cost of broadband telecommunications infrastructure, it remains to be seen if these relatively small state subsidies can make a signficant dent in both states' many broadband black spots. Some believe broadband market failure is so pervasive that a much broader, larger federal initiative similar to the Eisenhower-era federal highway act is needed to bring America into the modern age of Internet-based telecommunications and are urging presidential candidates to back such a program.