U.S. appellate court grants stay of FCC Title II reclassification of Internet as common carrier utility, citing lack of clear congressional authority

The Sixth District United States Court of Appeals has granted a stay of a rulemaking issued by the Federal Communications Commission that would regard Internet protocol services as a common carrier telecommunications utility under Title II of the Communications Act. The stay puts on the rulemaking on hold pending a hearing before the court later this year on the merits of a challenge against the reclassification brought by telecommunications industry interests.

In granting the stay, the court determined it was likely the challengers would prevail on the merits of the major questions doctrine, finding that the Congress failed to clearly authorize the FCC to classifying Internet Protocol as a common carrier telecom utility. The court signaled its decision on the merits will turn on interpreting Congress’s intent vis 47 USC § 153(51) and specifically whether internet service providers meet the definition of “telecommunications carrier” in the statute, enacted in the 1996 Telecom Act.

The law clearly defines telecommunications as “the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.”

However, the court found that “Nowhere does Congress clearly grant the Commission the discretion to classify broadband providers as common carriers. To the contrary, Congress specifically empowered the Commission to define certain categories of communications services and never did so with respect to broadband providers specifically or the internet more generally.”

“Absent a clear mandate to treat broadband as a common carrier, we cannot assume that Congress granted the Commission this sweeping power, and Petitioners have accordingly shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits.”

Industry opposition to FCC Title II rules could lead to state-based regulation

Advanced telecommunications providers favor a federal regulatory scheme over disparate state by state regulation, correctly arguing that telecommunications is essentially interstate. But in opposing the U.S. Federal Communication’s Commission’s adoption of its Open Internet rulemaking classifying Internet protocol telecommunications as common carrier utilities under Title II of the federal Communications Act, they are potentially setting themselves up for state-based regulation in the unlikely event they prevail in their judicial challenge to overturn the rules.

States could respond by enacting their own statutes treating advanced telecommunications as a common carrier utility, imposing universal service mandates barring neighborhood redlining and imposing rate regulation in order to ensure access and affordability and promote digital equity. While providers would claim universal service mandates impose cost burdens they cannot bear, states could point to state and federal subsidies they’ve received to build infrastructure in support of these goals.

Uncertainty and delay could also prompt states to act since litigation over the FCC Title II rules could take several years to be fully adjudicated up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case would require the high court to review its 2005 ruling in Brand X Internet Services, et al. 545 US 967 (2005) wherein the court upheld the FCC's regulatory authority under the Chevron doctrine of judicial deference to administrative agency interpretation of statutory law. Brand X, however, could be undermined if the Supreme Court discards the Chevron doctrine in a case argued earlier this year, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, bolstering the claim by providers that a Title II regulatory scheme making advanced telecommunications a common carrier utility is a major public policy issue within the purview of Congress and not administrative agencies.

FCC reclassification of Internet access as Title II utility likely to have little impact on affordability

When the U.S. Federal Communications Commission votes to reclassify Internet access as a common carrier utility under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 as expected April 25, it’s unlikely to increase affordable access. The primary reason is the FCC is forbearing rate filing and regulation in the joint federal-state framework with state public utility commissions that regulate rates for as they do for legacy voice telephone service under Title II authority.

While Title II would subject Internet service providers (ISPs) to Title II’s universal service and nondiscrimination provisions requiring reasonable requests for service be honored, without rate regulation ISPs could charge exorbitant rates difficult for households and small businesses to afford.

For example, an ISP could tell a group of households and small businesses that they’ll honor requests for fiber to the premises (FTTP) service. But given the area’s characteristics such as density of fewer than 15 premises per road mile, old utility poles in need of replacement and distance from middle mile backhaul, extending fiber connections would require a connection fee of $1,000 per prem and $250 per month for service.

With the FCC’s forbearance, these end users also would lack the ability to claim the rates constitute discriminatory conduct under 47 U.S.C. 202, titled Discrimination and Preferences. This provision makes it unlawful for common carriers engage in “unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.” (Emphasis added)

An ISP could also contend that this pricing would not constitute a discriminatory practice per the FCC’s recently adopted Preventing Digital Discrimination rulemaking because those charges are needed for reasons of economic and technical feasibility in order to extend service. The abovementioned pricing could well become common for new FTTP service reflecting the growth in labor and material costs.

The questions not asked and answered during Clinton administration, leading to today's telecom infrastructure crisis

"All of the large ISPs have received considerable federal support to provide universal access over the past few decades, yet all have failed to do so."

So notes Christopher Ali, Pioneers Chair in Telecommunications and Professor of Telecommunications in the Bellisario College of Communications at Penn State University in an interview with Sarah Stonbely, director of the State of Local News Project of Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism on the latest federal subsidy program, Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD).

Reflecting back on Ali's synopsis and BEAD -- and with hindsight being 20/20 -- it's clear the following questions should have been posed by public policymakers circa 1992-93 when the Clinton administration and Vice President Al Gore in particular was talking about the “information superhighway” to pave over the analog voice telephone copper roads with digital fiber freeways for the 21st century: 

• Are the telephone companies capable of modernizing the analog copper POTS infrastructure to FTTP for emerging digital, IP telecommunications in the next 15-20 years?
• If so, what regulatory policies will be needed to ensure that happens?
  
• If not, what are the best alternatives to fully relying on the telephone companies? 

As to the first point, the answer would have likely been no -- which became apparent by the end of the first decade of the next century. In a December 21, 2009 filing, AT&T asked the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to sunset the copper-based publicly switched telephone network (PSTN), noting it was in a death spiral. It urged the FCC to modernize its regulations to ensure an orderly transition from the PSTN to an Internet Protocol (IP) based system. The filing also cited the "enormous" amount of capital necessary to modernize the network with the needed infrastructure to ensure all Americans have access to IP-based services.

Concurrent FCC rulemakings would bar redlining for Internet service

One month after proposing a rulemaking to classify Internet protocol-based advanced telecommunications as a common carrier utility subject to universal service and non-discrimination mandates, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission will take up a similar rulemaking. The FCC’s proposed rulemaking Preventing Digital Discrimination is set for a vote at its November 15 meeting. It is primarily intended to remedy disparate impact (versus intentional) discrimination by providers that affects neighborhoods based on their demographics: income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion and national origin.

According to the FCC, the rulemaking implements section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021. It states federal policy that “insofar as technically and economically feasible— subscribers should benefit from equal access to broadband internet access service within the service area of a provider of such service.” Section 60506 defines equal access as “the equal opportunity to subscribe to an offered service that provides comparable speeds, capacities, latency, and other quality of service metrics in a given area, for comparable terms and conditions.”

Since IP telecom is currently classified as lightly regulated optional information service under Title I of the Communications Act, providers are free to deploy delivery infrastructure wherever they wish and at rates of their choosing. They naturally prefer denser, higher income neighborhoods that will produce faster return on capital investment (ROI) and where households are less price sensitive and more inclined to subscribe to higher priced services, thereby maximizing average revenue per unit (ARPU).

The proposed rulemaking gives providers an out by allowing them to defend deployment and pricing decisions based on technical and economic feasibility. They could conceivably argue that they must be more conservative in building infrastructure in lower income neighborhoods and charge more for comparable services than those offered in higher income communities in order to feasibly meet their ROI and ARPU targets. The higher rates in turn would be out of reach of some lower income households, making them less likely to sign up for services and perpetuating an unvirtuous cycle. Similarly, they could argue middle mile infrastructure isn’t adequate to serve a given community, thus making delivery infrastructure deployment technically unfeasible. It's entirely logical to segment markets and pricing in a market-based scheme under Title I regulation. Disparate market impact will be a natural outcome. Additionally, providers choosing to build fiber in higher income areas but not in lower income areas could be seen as intentional discrimination based on income, i.e. disparate treatment.

The proposed rulemaking apparently contemplates a comparison of deployment activity to help regulators establish a pattern of market conduct demonstrating discrimination. That assessment would be based on a mandate on providers annually report on their deployment activities:

We propose that each annual report must address the following components to provide a
comprehensive picture of each major deployment, maintenance, and upgrade project completed or substantially completed for each state and territory within its service area or footprint: (1) the nature of each project completed or substantially completed in the calendar year immediately preceding the submission of the report (i.e., deployment, upgrade, maintenance, or a combination thereof); (2) the number of housing units affected by the project (i.e., the number of housing units whose broadband availability or quality is positively impacted by the project) by census tract (utilizing the system presently used in the BDC); and (3) a narrative description of the project and of the areas served by the project, to allow for greater precision and clarity regarding what the project is designed to accomplish and what communities are served by the project. 

While the language of the proposed rulemaking includes providers’ more proscriptive term to describe where they have built infrastructure and offer advanced telecommunications services , i.e. “footprint,” should the FCC reclassify Internet protocol telecommunications as a utility under Title II of the Communications Act as proposed in a separate notice of proposed rulemaking issued September 28, 2023, Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet, 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(5) affords state public utility commissions and the FCC authority to develop their own geographic parameters for the purpose of Title II’s universal service mandate requiring providers to offer service to all serviceable addresses within the service area:

(5) “Service area” defined

The term “service area” means a geographic area established by a State commission (or the Commission under paragraph (6)) for the purpose of determining universal service obligations and support mechanisms. In the case of an area served by a rural telephone company, “service area” means such company’s “study area” unless and until the Commission and the States, after taking into account recommendations of a Federal-State Joint Board instituted under section 410(c) of this title, establish a different definition of service area for such company.

Similar to the FCC’s Preventing Digital Discrimination rulemaking, reclassification of IP services under Title II would give regulators additional statutory authority to sanction discriminatory conduct under 47 U.S.C. 202, titled Discrimination and Preferences. While FCC is forbearing rate regulation in the proposed Title II reclassification rulemaking, this provision makes it unlawful for common carriers engage in “unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.” The statute allows for fines of $6,000 for each violation and $300 daily penalties for ongoing violations.

FCC’s proposed readoption of Title II rules won’t likely increase access and affordability

The Federal Communications Commission’s proposed rulemaking that would once again reclassify internet services as common carrier telecommunications utilities under Title II of the Communications Act from their current classification as information services under Title I of the statute in theory isn’t likely to have any meaningful impact on access and affordability.

President Joe Biden encouraged the FCC to adopt the rulemaking in a July 9, 2021 executive order, Promoting Competition in the American Economy. But the intent of the order to promote competition is at odds with the underlying rationale of Title II regulation that was used for decades to regulate voice telephone service. That regulatory scheme is properly predicated on the notion that telecommunications like other utilities functions as a natural terminating monopoly. The high cost of building utility infrastructure naturally deters potential competitors from entry – a point made by FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel in a speech announcing the proposed rulemaking.

Utility infrastructure also affords incumbents first mover advantage, making it difficult for would be competitors to dislodge them. Investor owned utilities recognize the value there since connecting a customer premise essentially means owning the customer for the long term and potentially selling out to a consolidator for a big future payday. That incentive is now drawing in private equity capital into fiber to the premise (FTTP) deployment in areas where FTTP is spotty or nonexistent.

Since these microeconomic conditions cannot assure universal and affordable access, Title II does so by making telecommunications a common carrier utility, barring discrimination, and requiring reasonable requests for service be honored. It also allows for rate regulation. Authority for the latter was not included when the FCC last reclassified internet as a utility in a 2015 rulemaking and won’t in the forthcoming one, according to Rosenworcel. But the non-discrimination/universal service mandate – that Public Knowledge's Harold Feld has termed "the quintessential common-carrier obligation" – was.

Should it also reappear in the new proposed rulemaking expected to largely mirror the 2015 rulemaking, it’s questionable whether it will be meaningfully enforced. The FCC didn’t enforce that provision of the 2015 rulemaking, effectively letting service providers off the hook in response to a consumer complaint that a request for service wasn’t honored. All providers have to do is claim the customer location isn’t in its current footprint and the complaint is summarily dismissed. Similarly, providers might argue a request for service outside of its existing footprint is unreasonable since the necessary delivery infrastructure doesn’t exist, rendering the universal service mandate moot and allowing continued neighborhood redlining.

Sohn questions key policy premise of 1996 Telecommunications Act

Gigi Sohn, executive director of the American Association of Public Broadband, made a profound observation on U.S. telecommunications policy in a podcast interview this week with Mike Masnick of TechDirt at (around 47:50)

 “The facilities-based competition when you have cable competing against telecom competing against wireless, maybe wasn’t the best idea."

Sohn is essentially -- and astutely-- questioning a fundamental policy premise of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and once held by her former boss, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler: that facilities-based competition would unleash market forces that would benefit all Americans by bringing them affordable Internet access. 

This is also referred to as "technological neutrality" in the context of subsidizing advanced telecommunications infrastructure. The assumption baked into law -- along with opening up the legacy metallic copper telephone delivery plant to Internet Service Providers -- is market competition would benefit all Americans regardless of their location by bringing them access to the then-emerging form of digital telecommunications. 

It was incorrect largely because fiber optic delivery technology existed in the 1990s that was technologically capable of modernizing the legacy copper and cable coax connections to homes, businesses and institutions. No technology has emerged since that's superior to fiber when it comes to delivering high quality, reliable digital, voice and video services.

Another fundamental flaw in this policy was seeing connectivity as a market commodity of "broadband bandwidth" instead of a natural monopoly that utilities are and where market forces don't operate to benefit buyers and instead strongly favor sellers. A single fiber connection would suffice; fiber to the premises (FTTP) should have been designated as the national telecom delivery infrastructure standard. There is no need for more than one fiber connection or other type of technologies for premise service.

Feds punt universal advanced telecommunications service to the states

The U.S. federal government has whiffed multiple times over the past three decades when it comes to mandating universal service for advanced telecommunications as it did for analog voice telephone service before it. A universal service mandate recognizes that telecommunications infrastructure like other utility infrastructure functions as a natural monopoly because of high cost barriers to competitor entry and first mover advantage accorded incumbents limit choice among multiple sellers.

It first did so in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The statute includes language stating legislative intent that access to advanced telecommunications and information services should be provided in all regions of the Nation including rural and high cost areas -- but no means to ensure that it would.

The closest federal policy came to mandating universal access to advanced telecommunications was in 2015 when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) placed Internet protocol telecommunications under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, classifying it as a common carrier utility requiring reasonable requests for service be honored and barring neighborhood redlining. The FCC declined to enforce a regulation adopting the reclassification and reversed course in 2018, repealing it.

Instead, the FCC and state public utility commissions must merely “encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans … in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity” per 47 U.S. Code § 1302(a). The statute also turns economic logic on its head by mandating these regulatory bodies promulgate “measures that promote competition in the (aforementioned natural monopoly) local telecommunications market.”

In 2021, the feds punted the universal service issue to the states with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that appropriates $42.5 billion in grants to the states to subsidize advanced telecommunications infrastructure and prioritizing funding of fiber to the premise (FTTP) delivery infrastructure. The funding is administered under the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program.

The BEAD program requires states to develop “Five-Year Action Plans” including “a comprehensive, high-level plan for providing reliable, affordable, high-speed internet service throughout the (state) including the estimated timeline and cost for universal service.” It also frames universal access as a matter of digital inclusion and equity, noting that it's necessary for civic and cultural participation, employment, lifelong learning, and access to essential services. 

For the states, that will mean developing their own concrete universal service policies and funding strategies given that federal policy remains aspirational. A U.S. General Accountability Office report issued in May 2022 concluded there is no national strategy to guide the deployment of advanced telecommunications infrastructure. Instead, the report found, there are numerous, uncoordinated subsidy programs administered by multiple federal agencies.

Fearing universal service mandate, price regulation small and medium size incumbents claim robust market competition makes Title II regulation unnecessary

ACA Connects, a trade association of small and medium sized telephone and cable companies, has issued a white paper titled Broadband Is Competition Thriving Across America. Anticipating ongoing policy debate on regulation of advanced telecommunications, it presents data it claims show the Federal Communications Commission need not readopt regulations that regard Internet protocol telecommunications as a common carrier utility regulated under Title II of the Communications Act as the Biden administration urged in a July 9, 2021 executive order.

The paper argues robust competitive market forces make regulation unnecessary because nearly nine out of 10 American homes have access to advanced telecommunications meeting the FCC’s throughput-based definition of “broadband.” Homes having access to that and higher bandwidth is likely to increase based on current trends, it adds.

The paper relies on Form 477 reports on their service availability that providers must file with the FCC. The data includes providers using cable, DSL, fiber or fixed wireless technologies but not satellite or other technologies “because capacity limitations may limit the competitive impact of providers using these technologies.”

The paper states common-carrier-style regulation would be “particularly problematic” because of “rapid technological change.” That’s been a consistent message from incumbent investor-owned companies wishing to defer capital investment in upgrading legacy metallic outside plant to fiber to the premise (FTTP) for as long as possible to protect their bottom lines.

That rationale is understandable, but based on a false premise. No new advanced telecommunications delivery infrastructure technologies have emerged that are superior to FTTP, which has been around for decades. Perhaps by the 23rd century, it will be obsoleted by a Star Trek-like quantum subspace channel. But not over the foreseeable future.

While not stated directly, the apparent purpose of the paper stems from concerns that readoption of the Title II regulatory scheme will subject the organization’s member companies to universal service mandates and state rate regulation through public utility commissions.

Framing advanced telecommunications service as a competitive market undercuts the regulatory rationale for Title II regulation because it is predicated on telecommunications as a natural monopoly market like other utilities that don’t lend themselves to meaningful market competition being claimed by ACA Connects. That requires prices to be regulated because market forces won't act to control them and protect affordability. Also, universal service/non-discrimination mandates since homes in areas deemed unprofitable to connect would go without.

Notably, the July 2021 Biden administration executive order was issued with the purpose of promoting competition in the U.S. economy, implicitly recognizing competition is negligible in advanced telecommunications that is dominated by large investor-owned corporations. ACA Connects urges if the Title II rules are readopted, they should apply only to these entities and exempt smaller players like its members. Additionally, its white paper points to the stated plans by large providers to deploy fiber to the premises (FTTP) as evidence of strong market competition making utility regulation unnecessary.

IIJA language on “digital discrimination:” Happy talk with no real world impact.

Title V and specifically Section 60506 of the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) enacted in November 2021 contains provisions titled “digital discrimination.” They state federal policy that “insofar as technically and economically feasible— subscribers should benefit from equal access to broadband internet access service within the service area of a provider of such service.” Section 60506 defines ‘‘equal access’’ as “the equal opportunity to subscribe to an offered service that provides comparable speeds, capacities, latency, and other quality of service metrics in a given area, for comparable terms and conditions.”

It directs the Federal Communications Commission to take steps to ensure that “all people of the United States benefit from equal access to broadband internet access service” and adopt rules by November 2023 to facilitate equal access to broadband internet access service, “taking into account the issues of technical and economic feasibility presented by that objective, including— preventing digital discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin and identifying necessary steps for the FCC to take to eliminate discrimination.”

That definition sounds in language similar to provisions of Title II of the Communications Act that regards telecommunications as a common carrier utility and mandates reasonable requests for service to be honored while barring neighborhood discrimination. The FCC’s Open Internet rulemaking adopted in 2015 applied Title II to Internet protocol-enabled advanced telecommunications services. It was repealed and replaced in 2018. The Biden administration in a July 2021 executive order urged the FCC to readopt the 2015 Open Internet rulemaking.

The IIJA also requires the FCC to report to Congress on the FCC’s options for improving its effectiveness in achieving the universal service goals. The report, due by August 15, “will focus on examining options and making recommendations for Commission and Congressional actions toward achieving those goals,” according to a proceeding the FCC opened to gather public comment.

The administration was more likely to move the nation toward universal service as it was initially inclined to do by subsidizing public sector and consumer cooperative owned advanced telecommunications infrastructure, aptly noting these entities don’t operate with the economic burden of earning profits for their shareholders. The administration abandoned that stance in negotiations leading up to the IIJA’s enactment last year.

While few would object to Section 60506’s provisions, they are essentially happy talk with no real world impact. In the predominant market-based U.S. telecommunications landscape, commercial providers have incentive to discriminate since their shareholders naturally object to serving neighborhoods that are less profitable. That’s why only about a third of American homes that should have been connected to modern fiber optic delivered advanced telecommunications infrastructure at least a decade ago are not and still have copper telephone connections.

Section 60506’s language while nominally barring “digital discrimination” gives commercial deployers an out with exculpatory language, applying only where “economically feasible.” Fiber connections simply aren’t economically feasible within the business models of investor-owned providers, an economic reality seemingly unacknowledged by Section 60506. Digital discrimination is baked into the market segmentation strategies of those business models that favor newer and more densely developed neighborhoods in urban and suburban areas. Additionally, commercial providers have and will continue to argue it’s not technologically feasible to deploy fiber connections to homes and businesses within their service territories citing challenging geography.

Infrastructure bill mandates FCC report to Congress on universal service

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) requires the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to deliver a report to Congress on the FCC’s options for improving its effectiveness in achieving the universal service goals. The report, due by August 15, “will focus on examining options and making recommendations for Commission and Congressional actions toward achieving those goals,” according to a proceeding the FCC opened to gather public comment.

The IIJA mandated report also requires the FCC to determine whether expanding current universal goals is in the public interest. The goals are:

• Preserve and advance universal availability of voice service;
• Ensure universal availability of modern networks capable of providing voice and broadband service to homes, businesses, and community anchor institutions;
• Ensure universal availability of modern networks capable of providing advanced mobile voice and broadband service;
• Ensure that rates for broadband services and rates for voice services are reasonably comparable in all regions of the nation; and
• Minimize the universal service contribution burden on consumers and businesses.

The FCC defines universal service as “the principle that all Americans should have access to communications services,” noting the Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded that to include Internet protocol-based advanced telecommunications services “for all consumers at just, reasonable and affordable rates.” The 1996 statute states “access to advanced telecommunications and information services should be provided in all regions of the Nation.” Advanced telecommunications capability is defined as “without regard to any transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.”

The 1996 Act also employs a dynamic definition of universal service as “an evolving level of telecommunications services that the Commission shall establish periodically … taking into account advances in telecommunications and information technologies and services.”

The Infrastructure Bill is About More than Money | Benton Institute for Broadband & Society

The Infrastructure Bill is About More than Money | Benton Institute for Broadband & Society: it is now the policy of the United States that: Subscribers should benefit from equal access to broadband internet access service within the service area of a provider of such service; "Equal access" means the equal opportunity to subscribe to a service that provides comparable speeds, capacities, latency, and other quality of service metrics in a given area, for comparable terms and conditions; and The FCC should take steps to ensure that all people of the United States benefit from equal access to broadband internet access service.

-------------

The Benton Institute is right. While the billions appropriated to the states in the advanced telecommunications infrastructure component of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act headed to President Biden's desk gets most media attention, the measure contains important expressions of telecommunications policy. How they ultimately end up being implemented will be crucial headed into 2022 and beyond.

The Benton Institute's call that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission act to ensure the "equal access" provision sounds in the Title II universal service and anti-redlining requirements enacted in the FCC's 2015 Open Internet rulemaking reclassifying Internet Protocol delivered services as a common carrier telecommunications utility.

In an executive order issued in July, President Biden called on the FCC to reinstate that rulemaking that was repealed in 2018 during the Trump administration that deemed IP services as optional information services under Title I of the Communications Act of 1934. The order also calls on the FCC to initiate a rulemaking to require service providers to regularly report price and subscription rates to the public in a useful manner to improve price transparency and market functioning. The infrastructure bill mandates the FCC convene a proceeding to determine how to achieve universal service and to recommend to Congress expand it “if the Commission believes such an expansion is in the public interest.”

Another key policy issue that will be addressed in the infrastructure bill's implementation is the role of public sector and nonprofit entities like consumer utility cooperatives. When the Biden administration issued its foundation for the infrastructure bill -- the American Jobs Plan -- it clearly favored them as more nimble and complete builders and operators of much needed infrastructure as shown in this paragraph from the plan:

Build high-speed broadband infrastructure to reach 100 percent coverage. The President’s plan prioritizes building “future proof” broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved areas so that we finally reach 100 percent high-speed broadband coverage. It also prioritizes support for broadband networks owned, operated by, or affiliated with local governments, non-profits, and co-operatives—providers with less pressure to turn profits and with a commitment to serving entire communities.

The pressure private investor owned vertically integrated telephone and cable companies face to generate profits works against full deployment in their putative service territories. That has brought about longstanding, widespread gaps in landline connectivity to homes and small businesses, creating a pattern of Swiss cheese holes in delivery infrastructure in urban, suburban, exurban and rural areas with the latter two categories most severely affected.

Broadband mapping provision of House-passed infrastructure measure poses risk to timely disbursement of state funding

The Largest U.S. Investment in Broadband Deployment Ever | Benton Institute for Broadband & Society: Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program (And the Need for Better Broadband Maps) The U.S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has six months to create the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program to support projects to construct and deploy broadband networks. Congress has allocated $42.45 billion for the program which will prioritize expansion of broadband in rural areas and states that rank below other states on broadband access and deployment. A key element in the implementation of the program is broadband mapping taking place at the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC is in the process of updating its current broadband maps with more detailed and precise information on the availability of fixed and mobile broadband services.

The Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability (DATA) Act, signed into law in March 2020, requires the FCC to change the way broadband data is collected, verified, and reported. Specifically, the FCC must collect and disseminate granular broadband service availability data (broadband maps) from wired, fixed-wireless, satellite, and mobile broadband providers. To do this, the FCC is required to establish the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric (a dataset of geocoded information for all broadband service locations, atop which broadband maps are overlaid) as the vehicle for reporting broadband service availability data. Additionally, the FCC must put forth specified requirements for service availability data collected from broadband providers, and it must create a challenge process to enable the submission of independent data challenging the accuracy of FCC broadband maps.

                                                                         -----------

This provision of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that passed the U.S. House of Representatives late this week and expected to be quickly signed into law is the largest risk factor to the measure's timely implementation. 

Given the nation's fraught history of broadband mapping, that key provision of the funding eligibility formula and the development of procedures to challenge their accuracy is likely to set off time consuming controversy between investor owned providers, consumer interest and state and federal regulators, bogging down federal disbursements for months and possibly years. The billions of dollars at stake provide impetus for these groups to file challenges and raise questions over the accuracy of the maps, neighborhood by neighborhood.

Eligibility for up to 75 percent grant funding for advanced telecom infrastructure builds is prioritized to “unserved areas,” defined as those where at least 80 percent of premises are unserved – those not having any providers offering service with throughput of at least 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up. That's open to gaming by fixed wireless providers who could conceivably claim offers of service meeting or exceeding the throughput minimum but at exorbitant rates.

“Underserved” areas – defined those lacking access to “reliable broadband service” with no providers offering service with throughput of at least 100 Mbps down and 20 Mbps up are secondarily eligible. For both categories, funding eligibility is limited to areas where least 80 percent of premises are unserved or underserved. Neighborhoods failing to meet the 80 percent threshold would be out of luck and continue to potentially suffer redlining by incumbent providers serving only select parts of them.

Biden administration’s delayed FCC appointments suggests telecom policy strategy overhaul in the works

Telecom policy wonks fretted and info tech press have scratched their heads for months over the Biden administration’s delay in fully staffing the Federal Communications Commission and naming a permanent chair. Affording the administration the benefit of the doubt, it’s likely the new administration has been taking its time developing a wholistic two-pronged telecommunications strategy.

Here’s how it might be playing out. The goal of the first part is to address the nation’s accumulated advanced telecommunications infrastructure deficits built up over the past two decades and bring robust connectivity to as many American doorsteps as quickly as possible. That element of the strategy is expressed in the administration’s “build back better” American Jobs Plan infrastructure initiative, now legislation pending in the House. It appropriates $42 billion to the states for advanced telecommunications infrastructure.

The second strategy prong would have a longer timeline with the goal of establishing a durable regulatory and subsidy regime to ensure Americans can get connectivity no matter where they live, with reliable service at affordable rates. It’s linked to the first prong: The infrastructure measure would require the FCC to conduct an inquiry on universal service and make policy recommendations to Congress.

Given the broad and long-term implications of that component, the administration would naturally want to move at a deliberate pace in nominating FCC members as well as naming a permanent chair. The administration would want to ensure its nominees are fully on board with its broader strategy and able to implement it.

It’s also possible the administration is mulling over the respective roles of the FCC and National Telecommunications and Information Administration relative to advanced telecommunications as part of a broader restructuring that could end up as a legislative proposal later in the administration. The NTIA will develop rules and oversee the telecom infrastructure funding allocated in the pending infrastructure bill.