Coalition of California civic, advocacy groups accuse AT&T of cherry picking, gaming federal subsidy program

A broad-based coalition of civic and advocacy groups led by the California Alliance for Digital Equity are accusing AT&T of gaming a California state advanced telecommunications infrastructure subsidy grant program. The accusation was detailed in a December 11, 2023 letter to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The letter also complains the CPUC has not provided an appropriate and transparent process to comment on the projects proposed by AT&T under the CPUC’s Federal Funding Account (FFA) program. Nearly 900 objections to proposed builds were filed with the CPUC on 484 grant applications for projects in each of the state’s 58 counties totaling more than $4.6 billion -- more than double the $2 billion available.

The funding is authorized by 2021 California legislation allocating federal funding appropriated by the federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Similar to the federal Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program funded under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021, eligibility is limited to “unserved” areas for which no landline service is offered to “an entire community” of at least 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream. The FFA program rules also take into consideration whether proposed projects would target areas prioritized by the CPUC based on demographic and digital equity information and analysis of the number of low-income households, median household income, disadvantaged community status, and digital equity.

“After careful review of the limited information available in FFA project summaries, it is abundantly clear that incumbent ISPs, particularly AT&T, have manipulated the grant process to secure funding for projects that are inconsistent with FFA goals and are attempting to prevent potential competitors from receiving FFA funds,” the letter states.

Every AT&T application advocates reviewed includes a map of a large potential project area with tens, and in some cases dozens, of very small and widely geographically dispersed (sometimes 50 miles or more in largely urban and suburban areas) extremely small service areas. These very small service areas form no coherent whole, and in most cases, these extremely small service areas border or overlap with similarly extremely small service areas inexplicably included in separate AT&T applications. Broadly, this approach is ‘cherry picking,’ wherein a provider delineates a sizable boundary but proposes to serve a small fraction of households within it. This approach also makes collaboration or coordination with local interests impossible.”

Like the Golden State Connect Authority (GSCA), a joint powers authority of 40 counties authorized by the 2021 California legislation to build open access fiber to the premise distribution infrastructure, the groups allege the large number of projects proposed by AT&T calls into question has the financial, technical, or operational capacity to complete all the proposed projects within the timeframe required by program. The GSCA filed objections to 50 proposed AT&T projects.

Notably, Jeff Luong, AT&T’s vice president of network engineering, reportedly said at the recent Fierce Telecom U.S. Broadband Summit that even with AT&T spending about $20 billion per year on infrastructure, “we cannot build out in all the areas we deem as economical.”

The groups expressed concern that AT&T may be gaming the program rules with the numerous small projects in hopes of winning quick approval of each and then rejecting grant funding in order to delay or exclude other applicants from receiving grants.

“We wish to emphasize that it is standard industry practice for providers to claim that they intend to deploy infrastructure in specific areas (thereby preventing other entities from receiving state or federal funding to deploy infrastructure) but never actually do,” the groups wrote.

A potential point of contention suggested by the groups but not explicitly stated in their letter is since FFA program rules limit grant funding eligibility to “an entire (unserved) community,” the disparate proposed AT&T projects cannot reasonably be construed to be serving an “entire community.” The term is not specifically defined in the rules. In a footnote, the rules suggest the CPUC reserves broad discretion to make that determination using “data from a variety of services, including broadband deployment data, subscriber data, crowdsourced data, service quality data, and qualitative data.”

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.

Subordination of stakeholders to shareholders obstacle to progress in advanced telecommunications infrastructure

The U.S. health economy is little changed since then –- it is still organized as inputs for niche impacts, not outcomes from a coherent whole. We are governed by the logic of market fragmentation. At an individual level, the story is everyone doing the “right thing” to protect and grow their businesses, brands and shareholders. At a system level, the story is collapse, a function of the design flaw in the orientation of the economics. The center of gravity is value extraction for shareholder benefit, not value creation for stakeholder benefit. America is flailing to reshape healthcare because a $4 trillion market is on a cliche treadmill.

https://www.bluespoonconsulting.com/blog/the-strategy-that-didnt-fix-healthcare-cxcgj

The title of this blog post by John G. Singer of Blue Spoon Consulting is The Strategy That Didn't Fix Healthcare. The same could also describe the state of advanced telecommunications infrastructure in the United States over the past 30 years and the nation’s highly fragmented approach to its modernization. As with health care, value extraction for shareholder benefit in a market-based paradigm of selling “broadband bandwidth” is most highly valued.

Households, businesses, institutions and state and regional economies are key stakeholders in having the legacy metallic telephone and cable infrastructure timely updated to fiber for the 21st century – and which should have reached most every American address by 2010. But their legitimate interest as stakeholders has been subordinated by public policymakers to that of the shareholders of these legacy companies that has delayed progress and produced slogans such as “Internet for All” and “Closing the Digital Divide.”