App Rising: Ten ways broadband stimulus rules fail America

From App-Rising's perspective, the Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) announced July 1 for the first round of $7.2 billion of grants and loan subsidies for U.S. broadband telecommunications infrastructure falls short of the goal of Obama administration and Congress in authorizing the funds as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Some key excerpts:

In large part this stimulus is business as usual for America's broadband policy, or lack thereof. We're continuing to muck around, shuffling our feet when the rest of the world is racing forward. It's not just that this NOFA isn't aspirational enough, it's that it does seem to be aspiring to anything at all. There's no ultimate goal for what it's setting out to achieve other than getting some people some broadband. And there's seemingly little being done to even use this as a learning experience that we can build from and help guide future investments. It feels like NTIA and RUS just took the safest route, followed the same steps that have failed us in the past, and at best only marginally improved the approach. Because of this I can't help but feel pessimistic about what the ultimate impact of the broadband stimulus will be.

There are a host of truly shovel-ready, truly innovative, true testbed showcase projects for us to be supporting through this broadband stimulus. But based on how things are looking so far, I can't help but feel like this NOFA is already a massive failure and the money hasn't even gone out the door yet.

I agree the rules governing this first NOFA issued two weeks ago create too much opportunity for incumbent providers to delay proposed projects in order to maintain their territorial hegemony that is a hallmark of America's privately built and operated telecommunications infrastructure.

On the other hand, App-Rising sees this first NOFA as all encompassing broadband policy. It is not. The broadband provisions of the economic stimulus legislation call for the creation of an omnibus U.S. broadband policy by Febuary 2010. Plus the funding allocation was described by Obama administration officials as a "down payment" on a badly needed upgrade of the nation's telecommunications infrastructure. Finally, there's a good chance the rules of the first NOFA will be revised based on complaints such as these in the second and third rounds of funding later this year and early 2010.

Ironically, some broadband stimulus projects may need stimulation of their own

Grants and loan subsidies totalling $7.2 billion in the Obama administration's economic stimulus package are aimed at "shovel ready" broadband telecommunications infrastructure projects that can generate employment and do so quickly while expanding access to broadband .

Project plans that have already been drawn up and have been sitting on the shelf and not proceeding but for sufficient capitalization will likely be the only ones that will be able to meet the fast approaching Aug. 14 deadline for the first round of funding under rules developed by the two federal bodies administering the funds, the Dept. of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

However to qualify for subsequent rounds of funding, start up projects -- particularly those proposed by nonprofits and telecommunications cooperatives -- ironically face significant financial hurdles just to get their stimulus funded project proposals ready. That's because the funding application guidelines jointly issued by the RUS and the NTIA and published last week in the Federal Register require extensive preparation including the foundational step of identifying contiguous census blocks that fall within the guidelines' definition of "unserved" and "underserved" when it comes to broadband access. And that doesn't include the actual project network plan that in the case of a project that will cost more than $1 million or more to build requires retaining professional engineering consultants to review and sign off on the build.

Both of these pre-build steps can run anywhere from $30,000 to $100,000 and potentially far more depending upon the size and scope of the proposed project. While the rules allow these application preparation costs to be reimbursed should a proposed project be approved for funding, raising these sums on the front end with no guarantee of reimbursement given both the complexity of the rules as well as likely challenges of proposed projects by incumbent providers as specifically provided under the guidelines could prove to be an insurmountable hurdle for projects by telecom coops and cash-strapped local governments. That will lead to far fewer potentially meritorious projects being proposed than might otherwise be the case. For the next two rounds of broadband stimulus funding this fall and next year, the RUS and the NTIA should liberalize the rules to include at least some of these costs for broadband build out projects proposed by nonprofits and local governments.

Prospective FCC chair on defining underserved areas

A key task assigned to the Federal Communications Commission in the broadband infrastructure buildout subsidies in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is to define what constitutes "unserved" and "underserved" areas of the nation for the purpose of allocating funding.

There tends to be general agreement when it comes to defining unserved: locations stuck in 1993 and still relegated to dial up or at the tender mercies of substandard satellite Internet providers who charge a lot of money for usage capped, high latency connections better described as molasses net.

However, when it comes to underserved, there's less consensus and the debate tends to center on the level of throughput that defines broadband. Last year, the FCC set a low standard of 768 Kbs in one direction that's already too slow and outmoded.

Julius Genachowski, President Barack Obama's nominee to chair the FCC, offered a broader definition of underserved to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee at his confirmation hearing Tuesday.

Underserved could be defined not only as substandard throughput speed, according to this IDG News Service report at Yahoo!Tech on Genachowski's testimony. It could also mean those areas where broadband adoption is low or where there are pockets of unserved areas in places that generally have broadband, Genachowski told the committee.

Under the latter "pockets" definition, much of the United States would be deemed underserved because of the incomplete, helter skelter deployment of broadband infrastructure over the past decade. In fact, these pockets are so numerous that accurate mapping of broadband availability wouldn't produce a usable map but rather something that looks more like a display of the moon's surface with the countless craters representing various sized broadband black spots. Or a disorganized "hodge podge" as the Communication Workers of America has described the nation's telecommunications infrastructure.

Underpowered DSL signals peter out and can't reliably provide service. Cable company cable runs suddenly and arbitrarily stop. Consequently, one premises may enjoy broadband access -- sometimes from both telco DSL and cable -- while another just down the street or road or even next door does not. For years, visitors to this blog have come to it after performing searches that go along the lines of "My neighbor can get broadband and I can't/why not."

The danger of attempting to define what "underserved" means is that the exercise lends itself to subjective, self serving interpretations that can further delay broadband infrastructure deployment that should have been in place years ago for many more years. Instead of defining the broadband deficits, the goal should be to define and focus on the nation's desired broadband assets. President Obama has done that by calling for ubiquitous broadband access. We should work backward from that goal.

Microtrenching gets increased attention as lower cost fiber deployment technique

As U.S. broadband infrastructure projects gear up for their share of the $7.2 billion set aside for them in the federal economic stimulus package, a relatively new and lower cost method of burying fiber optic cable in the middle and last miles called microtrenching is generating some buzz.

Here's a good article outlining the pros and cons of microtrenching. It's far less time consuming than conventional trenching since the trenches are more like discrete slots in the pavement near the curb instead of the wider and deeper trenches traditionally used for buried fiber runs.

Not only is the methodology of burying fiber improving, so is the fiber itself, according to the article. It mentions that LiteAccess Technologies is out with fiber that's placed in water and airtight microducts that are less likely to have to be dug up later due to water seepage or other contamination and require less signal attenuation-inducing splices.

Another article from New Zealand however raises questions regarding whether the technique is a suitable alternative to aerial fiber deployment in more rural areas where road surfaces are thinner, often chip sealed and resurfaced frequently.

California PUC proposes supplementing US broadband stimulus funds

The California Public Utilities Commission has issued a proposed order that would allow it to supplement federal economic stimulus funds for broadband telecommunications infrastructure construction in unserved and underserved areas of the Golden State. Specifically, the proposed order would supplement $4.7 billion of the $7.2 billion broadband infrastructure stimulus funding to be distributed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP).

In an apparent bid to leverage the BTOP funds, the CPUC would supplement the 80 percent BTOP grant subsidy with 10 percent of the total project cost -- amounting to half of the 20 percent funding match for BTOP grant recipients. That means 90 percent of the cost of approved projects would be subsidized by the combined 80 percent BTOP grant and 10 percent CPUC funding under the proposed order.

The CPUC funding would be allocated out of the regulatory agency's California Advanced Services Fund (CASF). Created in 2007, the $100 million CASF is funded by a surcharge on intrastate long distance calls. As much as $80 million of CASF funding remains unrewarded, according to the proposed order. A likely reason according to proceeding documents filed by CPUC staff late last year, is applicants balked at the requirement they put up 60 percent of project costs, complaining the CASF 40 percent subsidy is inadequate.

Those seeking the CASF funding must act quickly. Priority will be given to project applications received by July 17 -- about two weeks after the NTIA is to publish its own rules for allocating the federal broadband stimulus funding. According to the proposed order, the CPUC will make those awards in September. Applications for a second round of funding will be accepted from July 18 to August 14 with funds awarded in October. As per current CASF rules, priority will be given to unserved areas lacking broadband access.

Current CASF rules restrict funding to registered wireline and wireless providers. Whether others such as local government entities, nonprofits and cooperatives would be eligible for the CASF funding depends on the enactment of authorizing legislation, AB 1012, currently pending in the California Senate after breezing out of the Assembly May 28 on a 78-0 vote. If enacted, the urgency measure would take effect immediately. If it is, under the proposed order the CPUC would require these other entities to meet the same application requirements as wireline and wireless providers including maps of areas to be served and financial and technical information.

It takes a village to build fiber

This item out of the UK reinforces my belief that fiber optic telecom upgrades for many won't come about absent local action to make them happen.

The same principle applies in the U.S., where the $7.2 billion in broadband infrastructure subsidies in the recently enacted federal economic stimulus package makes it much easier to accomplish.

California seeks $1 billion in broadband stimulus funding

Here's a story in today's Sacramento Bee on California's desire to get $1 billion of the $7.2 billion earmarked for broadband infrastructure build out in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed into law in February.

Your blogger -- walking his talk in urging local empowerment and action to fill in broadband black holes -- is quoted. Sunne Wright McPeak, president and CEO of the nonprofit California Emerging Technology Fund, is also quoted.

New mindset emerging on U.S. broadband build out

There's a new mindset on broadband infrastructure build out emerging in the United States, moving away from self interest and the proprietary profit centers of the telco/cable duopoly to broadband as a community resource.

So reports internetnews.com in this dispatch on the Freedom to Connect conference held April 1 in Silver Spring, Maryland discussing the $7.2 billion in broadband build out subsidies allocated in the recently enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

Some key excerpts:

"We are turning away from what I believe was a misguided effort to restructure the economy along the lines of selfishness: I've got mine and if you don't have yours, that's too bad for you because it's how the market works," said Harold Feld, legal director of consumer lobby Public Knowledge.

The act assumes that broadband provides benefits to a whole community, creating a new ecology. "For years, the debate has been about incenting the market and getting carriers to invest," Feld said. "Entities that were despised in yesteryear -- and I mean literally last year -- such as state and local entities and non-profits are now presumed to be most in tune with the philosophy of a broadband ecology."

Just say no to broadband stimulus funding for satellite

Here's another boondoggle in the making: a plea by satellite Internet providers for some of the $7.2 billion in federal economic stimulus funding for broadband infrastructure.

Giving even a dime to satellite Internet providers would be a major mistake and waste of taxpayer dollars. Doing so would underwrite an inferior and costly stopgap technology intended to temporarily fill in where advanced telecommunications infrastructure is lacking -- and not be a permanent solution. Talk about unclear on the concept.

4 of 5 proposed California state subsidized broadband projects challenged

Since the California Public Utilities Commission began accepting proposals last year for broadband infrastructure projects eligible for 40 percent subsidies from the CPUC's California Advanced Services Fund (CASF), about four out of five of 30 projects proposed to date have not been approved.

The reason, according to a recently issued CPUC resolution as well as other documentation posted on the CPUC's Web site is they were challenged by unnamed providers on the grounds they didn't comply with CASF funding guidelines targeting unserved areas (no broadband access) and underserved areas of the Golden State (broadband access at speeds less than 3 mbs down and 1 mbs up).

There's a lesson here as the federal government revs up its own plans for subsidizing broadband infrastructure buildout: avoid going down this slippery, ever changing slope of throughput requirements and attempting to define what constitutes served, unserved and underserved when it comes to advanced IP-based services.

These metrics are simply too subjective and prone to being manipulated and gamed by providers, particularly incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) more interested in preserving their territorial hegemony than serving their customers' telecommunications needs.

The better course is to allow entities such as local governments and telecommunications cooperatives with priority for federal broadband economic stimulus funding determine for themselves where infrastructure buildout is most needed. Most of these entities will likely opt for fiber and avoid the issue of throughput speeds altogether given fiber's tremendous capacity to accommodate current and future bandwidth requirements.

Feds shouldn't provide broadband funding directly to large telcos, cablecos

From Bloomberg today:

March 16 (Bloomberg) -- Groups representing companies including Comcast Corp. and AT&T Inc. pressed U.S. regulators to let broadband providers and equipment makers apply to a federal program disbursing $4.7 billion in grants to expand high-speed Internet. Companies already providing broadband “have extensive technical, financial, and managerial experience and expertise,” Curt Stamp, president of the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, told a meeting in Washington today. The program is part of the U.S. economic recovery package.

Bad idea. True, these companies have technical expertise to deploy broadband infrastructure. But their role -- except perhaps for small, locally owned providers -- should be limited to that when it comes to distributing $7.2 billion in grants and loans contained in the recently-enacted federal economic stimulus legislation. They should NOT be the direct recipients of any grants or loans for last mile infratructure.

Instead, the stimulus finding should be directed to nonprofit telecommunications cooperatives and local government entities to put in place buried and aerial fiber optic cable and distribution plants over the last mile the telco/cable duopoly has neglected for years.

We should not forget the lessons of history and repeat the fiasco following the enactment of the Federal Communications Act in 1996 that saw an estimated $200 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to deploy advanced digital telecommunications infrastructure virtually disappear, spawning in the current plague of broadband black holes instead of near ubiquitous fiber that was to be in place by 2006.

If the feds directly provide the telco/cable duopoly broadband infrastucture monies as either part of the stimulus measure -- described by the Obama administration as a down payment on America's sorely needed telecommunications upgrade -- or in follow on funding, the U.S. will likely find itself shortchanged again with a substandard telecommunications infrastructure done on the cheap that won't meet the nation's current or future needs.

Using U.S. economic stimulus funding for native fiber backbone and FTTH

Good piece in Network World today on using federal stimulus funding for fiber build out, both for native backbone and over the last mile. The article also touches on a point that's problematic in mainstream media coverage of broadband access: covering the issue exclusively along urban and rural lines as if it were still 1950. U.S. settlement patterns have changed substantially since then, with many Americans migrating to the exurbs, penturbs and semi-rural areas filled with broadband black holes. Here's the relevant excerpt:

In addition to building fiber backbones in rural areas, some ISPs also think that subsidizing fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) connections would be feasible for certain rural areas that have relatively high population densities. Patrick Knorr, the COO of cable and broadband provider Sunflower Broadband, says there are some suburban communities in his vicinity that have been sprouting up in rural areas that would have enough population density to justify building out FTTH infrastructure.

"Fiber to the home, like a lot of wire-based solutions, is cost intensive," he says. "But it is cheaper than DSL or coaxial cables. Fiber works better over long distances because it doesn't require as much maintenance as a lot of other technologies. The issue is that there is a significant initial infrastructure cost, which is why there should be opportunities for subsidies to build FTTH in areas that otherwise wouldn't be able to access fiber service."

The article also discusses the downside of Broadband over Power Lines (BPL), which in the opinion of this blogger isn't deserving of either investment capital or federal stimulus subsidies.

Vermonters declare independence from telco/cable duopoly

The Wall Street Journal today features an initiative by 22 central Vermont towns to take their telecommunications destiny into their own hands instead of relying on a telco/cable duopoly that cannot meet their needs.

They're doing so with a public/private partnership to deploy 1,400 miles of aerial fiber-optic lines to provide high-speed Internet access, phone and video. The project is to be financed through a capital lease, with the towns raising money from investors to build the network, then leasing it back from the investors over 23 years.

Tim Nulty, the project's consultant to the towns, told the WSJ he originally wanted loan guarantees as part of the recently enacted federal economic stimulus package but is now looking into grant funding under the legislation, which allocated $7.2 for broadband built out.

While this project involves a sparsely populated rural area, I expect other more densely populated areas will also form municipal and cooperative fiber ventures as it becomes more apparent that locals must take responsibility for getting fiber over the last mile and cannot continue as they have for years in vain to expect telcos and cable companies to provide it -- particularly when it's not in their business plans.

The article also contains a desperate comment by a telco flak to keep the telco's outmoded copper-delivered DSL relevant -- which due to DSL's notorious technical limitations can't easily serve areas like rural New England -- amid the growing realization that its future prospects are severely limited in the era of fiber.

California legislation would form broadband task force with eye on federal economic stimulus funds

Legislation has been introduced in California to speed up deployment of broadband in areas of the Golden State that lack access.

The urgency legislation, which would take effect as soon as it's signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, would update the status of several recommendations issued by Schwarzenegger's Broadband Task Force last year to expand the availability of broadband access.

Its main objective is to develop a strategy to expedite access to $7.2 billion in grants and loan guarantees contained in the recently enacted federal economic stimulus legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The proposed California Broadband Task Force would also be tasked with identifying public and private community development partners, necessary statutory or regulatory changes, and needed resources to qualify for the stimulus funding.

The full text of the measure is available here.

Stimulus measure's broadband funding could spell economic opportunity

NetworkWorld published a piece today examining the potential economic impact of the $7.2 billion earmarked for grants and loan guarantees to finance the construction of broadband telecommunications infrastructure.

The article discusses how broadband access may effectively stimulate entire towns and regions by supporting businesses and jobs that might not otherwise locate there. In the larger scheme, broadband has the potential to more evenly distribute economic activity and population across the United States among major metro regions and less populated areas.

Here's an excerpt:

Asked whether the stimulus plan could mean call centers such as those in Mumbai could start showing up in central Kansas, Settles said, "It depends on how fast the stimulus works, but there is pent-up demand in the U.S. for broadband. If a company wanted to expand a business, broadband could decide if they go to rural Kansas rather than Milwaukee and would be a driver to get a company to open a business in a smaller community with less overhead. Generally, it might still be cheaper to go abroad, but broadband would help companies afford to build not just call centers but IT service operations."

Opening such businesses in the U.S instead of abroad would certainly lessen "administrative hassles," he added.

Broadband provisions of U.S. economic stimulus legislation

Here are the broadband grant funding provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signed into law today by President Barack Obama, taken from a summary of the bill prepared by the House of Representatives:

Provisions on Broadband Infrastructure

The Conference agreement creates a new Broadband Technology Opportunities Program within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) of the Department of Commerce. The new grant program will distribute $4.7 billion to fund the deployment of broadband infrastructure in unserved and underseved areas in the country, and to help facilitate broadband use and adoption. An additional $2.5 billion in loans and grants will be administered by the Rural Utilities Service.

The Conference agreement combined portions of both the House and Senate bills. The main provisions of the NTIA program include:

• Grant Recipient Criteria. Any entity is eligible to apply for a grant, including municipalities, public/private partnerships, and private companies, so long as the entity can comply with the grant conditions. Applicants must put forth 20% of the proposed project’s total cost, subject to a financial hardship waiver.
  

• Grant recipients must agree to abide by a set of conditions, including adhering to a build out schedule, to interconnection and non-discrimination requirements as established by NTIA, and to the principles contained in the Federal Communications Commission’s Broadband Policy Statement. The Conference agreement does not require that grant recipients meet certain broadband speed thresholds, although the NTIA is expected to consider and support the highest possible broadband speeds in awarding grants.
  

• National Broadband Plan. The Federal Communications Commission is required to develop a national broadband plan within one year.

NPR story on U.S. broadband access illustrates major flaw in media coverage of issue

NPR's Morning Edition has a story out this AM on the $7.2 billion set aside for grants to subsidize broadband telecommunications infrastructure that Congress sent to President Barack Obama. Unfortunately this NPR story like others in the mainstream media paint the U.S. broadband landscape with far too wide a brush and reinforce the myth that lack of broadband access is confined to rural areas.

Due to the technological limitations of Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) over copper cable offered by telcos and the limited footprints of single purpose cable company plants built decades ago solely to provide TV, broadband black holes can be found most anywhere in the United States: in urban centers, suburbs, exurbs, quasi-rural as well as rural areas.

Homes and small businesses in one part of these areas may have access to broadband while those adjacent and just one or two miles away -- and oftentimes in even closer proximity -- don't. As noted by this blog recently, the Google search phrase that brings the largest number of hits and visitors to it goes along the lines of "My neighbor can can high speed Internet access but I can't/why not?"

Congress should reject telco whining over broadband requirements in economic stimulus measure

Economic stimulus legislation on a congressional fast track that would allocate $6 billion (House version) and $9 billion (Senate version) for broadband telecommunications infrastructure build out to underserved areas is unsurprisingly eliciting whining from the big telcos.

Industry representatives and think tanks that front for them complain the measures' minimum connectivity speed requirements for wireline and wireless service to underserved areas as well as open access requirements would not dispose them to applying for broadband infrastructure grants, loans and loan guarantees.

What they want instead are tax breaks just as telcos received under the 1996 Communications Act that was to have brought broadband to all Americans in a decade's time. Bottom line: business as usual. Continued proprietary (and geographically limited and underpowered) DSL access over crappy, aging (depreciating from the telcos' perspective) copper cable, maintaining wireless Internet connectivity at or below the less than impressive capabilities of current deployments and continuing to tell millions of Americans to go suck a satellite or live in dial up purgatory.

Congress should reject these whiners that have led the U.S on a race to the bottom when it comes to advanced IP-based telecommunications services. The telcos propagated a broadband boondoogle with the 1996 Communications Act. Broadband access is too important to allow them to repeat the fiasco.

Maintaining open access requirements in the stimulus legislation will assist local governments and citizens by providing seed funding to form their own fiber cooperatives. That will allow them to break free of the telco/cable duopoly that has failed to provide them adequate broadband access for their current and future needs.

Tax cuts, expanded NTIA funding for broadband proposed

Provisions of economic stimulus legislation rapidly moving through Congress could be expanded to include tax cuts and tripling the amount of grants for broadband infrastructure.

Bloomberg reports today U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) will propose tax credits to encourage telephone, cable and wireless companies to expand broadband access. The Bloomberg item also states the Senate Appropriations Committee wants $9 billion for broadband grants administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), compared to $3 billion in the House Appropriations Committee's version of the stimulus legislation.

The broadband provisions of the economic stimulus measure will likely undergo more revisions before the bill reaches President Barack Obama, who has called for its enactment by mid February to shore up a flagging U.S. economy.

President Obama reiterates need for broadband infrastructure in weekly radio address

President Barack Obama mentioned the expansion of broadband telecommunications infrastructure in his weekly radio address today urging swift enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The measure, which cleared Congressional committees this week on track for passage by mid-February, includes $6 billion in grants and loans to finance broadband build out.

Here's the relevant passage from the president's address:

Finally, we will rebuild and retrofit America to meet the demands of the 21st century. That means repairing and modernizing thousands of miles of America’s roadways and providing new mass transit options for millions of Americans. It means protecting America by securing 90 major ports and creating a better communications network for local law enforcement and public safety officials in the event of an emergency. And it means expanding broadband access to millions of Americans, so business can compete on a level-playing field, wherever they’re located.