Infrastructure measure pending in Senate would allow incumbents to challenge proposed projects

Similar to the Obama administration’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the massive omnibus infrastructure pending in the Senate would allow incumbent providers to challenge the award of federal grant funds for advanced telecommunications infrastructure.

A provision of the bill requires states receiving the funding to establish procedures governing challenges by service providers as well as local governments and nonprofits. The challenges could be filed contending locations within a proposed project area fail to meet the project requirement of at least 80 percent of premises being “unserved” (“reliable” service with a minimum throughput of 25 Mbps/3Mbps (“unserved”) and 100 Mbps/20 Mbps (“underserved”) with latency sufficient to support real-time, interactive applications.

As a practical matter, the provision would also potentially allow wireless providers offering at least the “unserved” service level – regardless of end user cost -- to challenge a proposed project that would deliver service to prems over fiber or coaxial cable infrastructure where none presently exists.

The provision is apparently included to address concerns by incumbents that proposed projects would “overbuild” within their service areas – a key concern in heavy incumbent lobbying of the bill. The measure authorizes the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to reverse state determinations of challenges and to modify the challenge process.

Big cable’s influence, potential benefit reflected in infrastructure measure pending in Senate

The influence of big cable TV companies like Comcast and Charter Communications is reflected in the massive omnibus infrastructure bill pending before the U.S. Senate. A major indication is the proposed legislation’s requirement that some $42 billion in grant funding it would allocate to state governments be used to provide IP connectivity of at least 100 Mbps down and 20 Mbps up with latency that sufficient to allow “reasonably foreseeable, real-time, interactive applications.” That’s perfectly aligned with the current throughput offered by cable TV providers over hybrid coaxial copper and fiber cable and the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS).

The measure’s emphasis on prioritizing funds to high-cost areas with poor connectivity options points to largely benefit big cable. Consider cable TV’s history. It developed in the 1950s to serve rural areas too distant to reliably receive over the air signals from TV transmitters in cities, serving homes with cables distributed from signal amplifiers connected to large “community antenna” arrays to boost the signal.

If the bill becomes law, cable lobbyists could mount a full court press on statehouses like that of the mid-2000s when they worked to shift authority over their local municipal franchises to state public utility commissions in order to avoid universal service demands from the locals. The case they might present to policymakers: give us the funds to build out our footprints in our traditional rural areas without good connectivity just as they lacked access to urban TV signals in the past.

Cable would benefit by attaining a monopoly position in more sparsely populated rural and exurban areas where telephone companies have abandoned their legacy copper telephone lines and have not offered residential services delivered over fiber. There, cable would not have to share a duopoly market with telephone companies in more densely developed areas where the telcos are offering symmetric fiber services instead of cable’s asymmetric 100/20 Mbps throughput.

Infrastructure measure pending in Senate would condemn America to another generation of waiting for replacement of legacy copper telephone lines with fiber, universal service.

The U.S. Senate made public enabling legislation for the Biden administration’s American Jobs Plan infrastructure initiative this week, titled the ‘‘Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.” The bill is disappointing insofar as it fails to define a physical fiber standard for advanced telecommunications infrastructure. Instead, it prioritizes funding telecommunications infrastructure that “can easily scale speeds over time to meet the evolving connectivity needs of households and businesses.” That’s generally viewed as fiber – the “future proof” goal expressed in the American Jobs Plan. But it’s not explicitly referenced in the proposed legislation.

The measure continues the incrementalist doctrinaire view put in place by the 1996 Telecommunications Act that boosting throughput is the paramount policy goal. Furthered by the faulty economic reasoning that market competition despite telecommunications infrastructure being a natural monopoly like other utilities will help achieve that objective. The asymmetric throughput-based standard as stated in the measure retains the classic 1990s-era delineations of premises as being served, underserved and unserved relative to throughput offered by providers serving them. 

That reflects a collective cognitive bias known as anchoring. Dialup -- state of the art connectivity in the 1990s -- is the anchor. All progress is measured by improvements from the anchor as higher "broadband speeds." That cognitive bias has set the tone for the entire telecom policy debate rather than infrastructure. It's thus no surprise to see a nominal infrastructure bill frame the issue as one of supporting higher throughput in areas where it's lagging.

Should the bill become law as written, it will condemn the United States to another generation of waiting to modernize its legacy copper telephone lines built for analog voice telephone service in the 20th century to fiber to support internet protocol-based digital services in the 21st century.

These are some of the other major problems with the proposed bill language:

The proposed legislation does not affirmatively prioritize publicly and nonprofit owned infrastructure as originally envisioned in the American Jobs Plan, allowing investor-owned entities that operate with an inherent conflict of interest between investors and consumers to apply for infrastructure projects. The projects would be funded with $42 billion allocated to state governments with a 25 percent match.

In one of the biggest missed opportunities for a massive infrastructure measure, the bill does not achieve advanced telecommunications universal service as was attained with landline voice telephone service. The bill would require the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to convene a proceeding to determine how to achieve universal service and to recommend to Congress expand the universal service “if the Commission believes such an expansion is in the public interest.”

Funding eligibility 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. The offer of service is 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.

The determination of whether an area is “underserved” is based on maps of throughput offered by providers maintained by the FCC. The maps have proven notoriously controversial and inscrutable and subject to provider abuse of overstating service offerings. The FCC is in the process of revising the methodology to improve them, but that process will likely generate further disagreement and delay that serves only the interests of legacy incumbent providers.