AT&T apparently hoping for BEAD subsidies to replace DSL over copper with FTTP

AT&T is apparently hoping for BEAD subsidies to replace its legacy DSL services delivered over twisted pair copper with fiber to the premise (FTTP). States should take a flexible approach in subgranting the subsidies allocated by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program to afford “ISPs flexibility to identify project areas to include a mix of unserved and underserved locations will allow for the most efficient use of limited funds,” suggested Erin Scarborough, president, Broadband and Connectivity Initiatives in an April blog post. In a blog post this week, Scarborough stated that would allow providers to “identify project areas that combine unserved and underserved locations to enable the most effective and efficient deployments.” For AT&T, those would be locations served by legacy ADSL and VDSL, respectively.

That would comport with the BEAD program rules spelled out in the NTIA’s Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). It permits states to subgrant up to 75 percent of construction costs to builds “constituting a single unserved or underserved broadband-serviceable location, or a grouping of broadband-serviceable locations in which not less than 80 percent of broadband-serviceable locations served by the project are unserved locations or underserved locations.” The NOFO defines “unserved” locations as those not marketed connectivity with throughput of less than 25/3 Mbps and latency exceeding 100ms. “Underserved” locations are those not offered at least 100/20 Mbps. That would encompass premises served by AT&T’s legacy DSL offerings delivered over obsolete twisted pair copper initially designed to support voice telephone service.

Whether states will have sufficient BEAD funding to subgrant subsidies for underserved locations remains to be seen after the NTIA announces state allocations next week. The BEAD NOFO requires states to award subgrants “that ensures the deployment of service to all unserved locations within the Eligible Entity’s jurisdiction.” These unserved locations are likely to be in lower density areas lacking wireline connections, requiring higher capital construction costs and subsidization.

Affordable Connectivity Fund uncertainty reveals key breakdown point in market-based advanced telecom policy

WASHINGTON, June 20, 2023 – Experts are pushing Congress to extend the funding available to the Affordable Connectivity Program or else it will hamper efforts to build out infrastructure in other parts of the country.

The essence of the argument is that the $14.2-billion ACP, which provides a $30- and $75-per month subsidies to low-income Americans, is helping internet service providers with revenues used to build more infrastructure in underserved areas. But experts are warning that the ACP – which currently enrolls about 18.5 out of 48 million eligible Americans – could run out of money as soon as early 2024, which observers have said could affect private investment in broadband deployment.

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

“This is the first time we’re seeing these deployment grants make a specific requirement for recipients to actually include and participate in an affordability program,” said Kathryn. “They are trying to stabilize revenue for internet service providers who are connecting areas that might not offer a high return on investment.”

This funding from the ACP would provide the groundwork for a decade-long investment in internet infrastructure, according to Jonathan Cannon, technology policy counsel at think tank R Street Institute.

https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2023/06/lack-of-affordable-connectivity-fund-money-could-hobble-broadband-deployment-experts/

This is a critical point of breakdown in the current market-based policy for modernizing legacy metallic telecom infrastructure such as copper to support analog telephone service to fiber for advanced telecom services.

Legacy telephone service has high cost area and low income customer subsidies. But they were properly paired with a universal service/non discrimination mandate and state utility rate regulation under Title II of the Communications Act. By contrast, advanced telecom is not subject to Title II and instead is lightly regulated as an optional information service under Title I of the statute. 

Negative manifestations of market-based vs. publicly owned advanced telecommunications infrastructure policy

• Lack of coordinated federal advanced telecommunications infrastructure policy. 
• Highly fragmented deployment of fiber only where most profitable, highest ARPU.
• Advanced telecommunications marketed as “broadband” and sold in individually priced speed tiers.
• Widespread complaints and media coverage of poor access, “slow speeds” high monthly cost, very expensive connection fees quoted by cablecos.
• Localities adversely impacted by advanced telecommunications infrastructure deficits, attempt to address on their own with federal and state grants amid constituent tax/fee resistance due to adverse demographics/socioeconomics. Spawns cottage industry of consultants conducting feasibility studies and high level estimates. Vast majority result in no infrastructure construction or commitment to serve all addresses.
• One time, highly restricted federal and state grant programs instead of permanent high-cost subsidy mechanism.
• No federal or state policy of universal service. Universal service legislation does not advance. Years of dashed political promises of universal service. Sloganeering in lieu of actionable policy.
• Issue muddling, deflection/distraction from infrastructure to secondary issues:
• "Broadband adoption"
• Digital equity/digital skills
• Net neutrality
• Incumbent protectionism via broadband mapping, inflated service area and throughput claims, “ground truthing” speed tests.
• Reliance upon interim technology (DSL over copper) wireless technologies (fixed and mobile wireless, satellite) vs. FTTP.
• Capitulation to investor-owned incumbent provider control of telecom policy. Influence dominates over merits of policy that allow minority shareholder interests to prevail over broader public interest.
• Misapprehension: Complaints of market “monopolies” that fail to recognize telecom infrastructure like other utilities functions as natural monopoly. Feeds into privately owned provider paradigm that advanced telecommunications infrastructure a competitive market and government should therefore not own advanced telecommunications infrastructure.

States should use BEAD mandated coordination with localities to build support for bond funding for universal FTTP, rapid permitting

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program requires states to "rigorously explore ways” to cover the cost of advanced telecommunications infrastructure builds eligible for BEAD subsidies with other sources of funding. BEAD also charged states with developing strategies to ensure universal access as part of their required Five-Year Action Plans due this year.

"The reality is, if we're going to connect every American, including the tens of millions of Americans who now don't have the internet, we're going to have to lay fiber all across this country,” said U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, whose department oversees the NTIA and BEAD. While the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021 appropriates $42.5 billion for advanced telecommunications infrastructure, it won’t achieve this alone. As BEAD guidance notes, states and regions within them are going to have to come up with additional funding strategies such as long term bonds to cover the capital construction costs and potentially initial operating costs of publicly owned fiber in order to ensure universal, affordable access and further digital equity. Publicly owned fiber is particularly needed given the reduced likelihood private, investor owned providers will be able to profitably offer service affordable to lower income households.

States will also have to gain the cooperation of local governments to ease permitting of advanced telecommunications infrastructure. “Eligible Entities and their political subdivisions are strongly encouraged to remove time and cost barriers associated with BEAD projects, including by expediting permitting timelines and waiving fees where applicable, where doing so does not undermine other critical policy goals,” the BEAD Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) states.

GAO: U.S. lacks national strategy for deployment of advanced telecommunications infrastructure, calls for presidential leadership

In a statement this week, the U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) underscored a report it issued in May 2022 finding the United States lacks a 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.

The GAO statement once again called for presidential leadership. The Executive Office of the President should develop and implement a unified national strategy, noting as of May 2023, the recommendation has not been implemented. “[A] national strategy could guide the efforts of states and localities implementing programs in coordination with the federal government,” the GAO said. “The roles of states have become even more important as they receive and then distribute funds from new federal broadband programs administered by NTIA and the Department of the Treasury,” it added. The NTIA’s Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program has charged states with developing strategies to ensure universal access as part of their required Five Year Action Plans due this year.

However, $42.5 billion BEAD allocates to states to subsidize up to 75 percent of the cost of constructing advanced telecommunications infrastructure in areas where it is lacking could run into complications. That’s because eligibility is based on highly granular areas – that could be as small as a few premises -- that might be ineligible for BEAD subsidies because those locations received subsidization from one of many fragmented and overlapping federal programs. Not to mention various state subsidy programs.

We identified at least 133 funding programs—administered across 15 agencies—that can be used to support broadband access, including support for planning and deploying infrastructure, making service affordable, providing devices, and building digital skills. Some of these programs support broadband as their main purpose or one possible purpose, and others can be used for multiple purposes related to broadband. Eligible recipients for these programs range widely and include: internet providers; other private sector entities; nonprofits; tribal, state, and local governments; education agencies; and healthcare providers. Through these programs, federal agencies invested at least $44 billion in broadband-support activities from fiscal years 2015–2020, according to our analysis of agencies’ data.

Given the current lack of an overarching, coordinated strategy ensure universal service, “most of the agency officials and more than half of the nonfederal stakeholders we interviewed said a new national strategy would be helpful,” the GAO stated.

BEAD funding fight between private, public sectors joined

With the naming of former U.S. Federal Communications Commission nominee and staffer Gigi Sohn as the first executive director of the American Association for Public Broadband, the battle between the public and private sectors over $42.5 billion in advanced telecommunications infrastructure funding has been joined.

The AAPB’s mission is to “build a diverse membership of public broadband networks from around the country, and advocate in support of municipal broadband and local choice at the federal, state, and local levels.” Sean Gonsalves of the Institute for Local Self Reliance’s Community Networks reports from the Broadband Communities Summit held in Houston this week where Sohn announced her new role after withdrawing as the Biden administration’s nominee to fill a vacant FCC seat amid strong opposition from telephone and cable companies:

When (Sohn) officially takes the reins at AAPB beginning in June, she said her top priorities would be to increase AAPB membership beyond its current “handful of members,” advocate for municipal broadband and other public entities to have access to the $42.5 billion in broadband deployment funds forthcoming from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) – “at least on an equal basis as private providers” – and to tell the positive stories that will “make public broadband a thing that towns and communities want to have.”

Those companies also hope to snag some of the funds once they are allocated to the states as federal block grants later this year under National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. Like the AAPB, they too will claim they deserve an equal shot at the funds. One recently urged Oregon state officials to adopt a “business model agnostic” stance in awarding subgrants, a talking point likely to be repeated in other states. But that could run into local opposition as states do their community and outreach and engagement as required by BEAD from residents and businesses that for years complained of redlining and poor service by the legacy providers.

Federal, state legislation that would regulate Internet as common carrier telecom utility stalls

H.R. 8573, proposed legislation that would subject internet service to regulation as a common carrier telecom utility under Title II of the Communications Act has stalled in Congress. A similar measure introduced in the California legislature, AB 1714, is also not advancing. Neither bill has been set to be heard in committee.

FCC’s seesawing stance on regulation of internet services could soon end

The two-decade-long back and forth at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission over whether internet access should be regulated as a common carrier telecommunications utility under Title II of the Communications Act or as an Information Service under Title I of the law could soon end.

That’s the likely upshot if the U.S. Supreme Court as predicted by legal pundits overturns its 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984). That ruling -- which established the doctrine of judicial deference to agency administrative law interpretations of statutes when they could be construed ambiguously -- will be revisited by the high court in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, granted review this week.

If the court abandons the Chevron doctrine as expected, the question of how internet service is to be regulated would be left to Congress and the courts rather than administrative agencies like the FCC. That could have major implications for the FCC’s current policy expressed in its 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom order, classifying internet service as an information service under Title I. Accordingly, providers are not required to honor reasonable requests for connections or subject to rate regulation by state public utility commissions had they would if classified as telecommunications providers under Title II.

Should that order come back before the Supreme Court should it overturn the Chevron doctrine, it could also be invalidated along with the court’s decision in National Cable & Telecommunications Association, et al. v Brand X Internet Services, et al. 545 US 967 (2005). Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the decision for the majority, has expressed misgivings over it. In that case, the high court ruled the FCC’s determination that internet service provided by cable companies should be regulated under Title I was a reasonable interpretation of ambiguous provisions of the 1996 Telecom Act under the Chevron doctrine. In the 18 years since the Brand X ruling, cable companies have become the dominant provider of internet connectivity in the United States.

Lacking public policy establishing universal service, U.S. will continue to struggle and spin its wheels to achieve it.

As the U.S. General Accountability Office report noted in a report issued in May 2022, the United States lacks a 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.

The Biden administration has stated a policy principle of universal service: “Internet for All.” That was emphasized in March by Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo at an interview with Yahoo Finance. "The reality is, if we're going to connect every American, including the tens of millions of Americans who now don't have the internet, we're going to have to lay fiber all across this country,” Raimondo said.

But the administration’s context here is yet another subsidy program – the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program authorized by the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) – and not affirmative public policy ensuring fiber reaches most every American doorstep as Raimondo described the mission.

Like the 1996 Telecom Act that “encourage(s) 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” the IIJA does not create universal access as public policy. It merely states that it’s “essential to full participation in modern life in the United States.”

Nor has public policy that has primarily relied on investor-owned companies to deploy fiber to the premise (FTTP) infrastructure been “consistent with the public interest” since investor-owned providers must naturally place the interests of their owners ahead of the public interest of ubiquitous, affordable connectivity. That’s arguably inconsistent with the public interest. (Emphasis added)

Until affirmative public policy that actually has the means to expeditiously attain universal, affordable access is put into federal statute or administrative law based on a unifying and action-based policy principle, the nation that invented the internet will continue to struggle and spin its wheels to achieve this goal.

After decades and a patchwork of grant programs, what’s next for U.S. advanced telecommunications infrastructure policy?

By the late 1980s and early 1990s when it became apparent internet protocol-based telecommunications would replace legacy analog voice and cable TV, the United States failed to put in place policies to ensure the timely modernization of its delivery infrastructure – twisted pair copper telephone and coaxial cable, respectively – to fiber optic lines. Instead of integrated, comprehensive policy, it developed a patchwork of grant programs to attempt to fill in holes in a giant Swiss cheese, crazy quilt pattern of fiber infrastructure construction by a mix of public, consumer cooperative and mostly private sector corporations.

That became a paper chase of “broadband mapping” designed sort grant eligible holes from the cheese, including controversy over what meets government quality standards for the cheese. While nominally intended to expand affordable access to advanced telecommunications – something that enjoys widespread support -- the process is an adversarial one prone to delay and controversy. Incumbent providers – typically investor owned – claim they already sell cheese where another entity insists there’s a hole, requesting grant funding to build fiber to fill it.

The competitive paper chase is posed to heat up considerably in 2023 as the federal and state governments determine how to allocate nearly $43 billion in grants earmarked for advanced telecommunications infrastructure in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021.

Even after all that "once in a generation" money is spent, the nation will likely continue to come up short getting fiber to every doorstep without resolving the larger question of how is the infrastructure optimally owned and operated to ensure universal affordable access and uniform service level and reliability standards. Government owned regional advanced telecom authorities along with utility cooperatives are the best option since the short term, market segmented business models of investor owner/operators don’t lend themselves to attaining these. They are also better able to ensure ongoing financial support and stability without the need to generate profits for investors.

This is not to say there isn’t a role for investor-owned entities. There is plenty of work for them to design, build, operate and offer services over the fiber infrastructure just as is the case with other public works such as transportation infrastructure. But as history has shown with the nation’s fragmented Swiss cheese advanced telecommunications infrastructure, they can never place the public interest in ubiquitous, affordable access to modern infrastructure ahead of that of their shareholders and can only build fiber where it generates a relatively rapid return on investment. Telecom policymakers should act accordingly and appropriately assign the roles and players instead of the futile effort of sorting the “broadband” holes from the cheese.

IIJA provides NTIA opportunity to route around flawed "broadband map," use infrastructure-based standard for subsidization.

Extending the process to challenge the U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s data on the availability of broadband Internet access service proposed in recently introduced federal legislation won’t ultimately lead to complete and accurate data for the allocation of infrastructure subsidies to the states. The reason as Doug Dawson details in a blog post is the data is based on marketing claims of providers of where they provide service.

ISPs are pretty much free to claim whatever they want. While there has been a lot of work done to challenge the fabric and the location of possible customers – it’s a lot harder to challenge the coverage claims of specific ISPs. A true challenge would require many millions of individual challenges about the broadband that is available at each home.

While that’s consistent with the nation’s current market-based regulatory paradigm for advanced telecommunications, it can’t possibly be complete and accurate. Nor is it intended to be. The purpose of marketing is to create brand awareness and attract potential customers, not for planning the deployment of critical infrastructure.

Fortunately, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) provides a workaround to the fool’s errand of “broadband mapping” based on marketing claims. It does so with a flexible definition of “broadband” that would allow it to be defined in administrative versus statutory law. Section 60102(a)(2)(B) of the IIJA defines it by reference to 47 Code of Federal Regulations 8.1(b):

Broadband internet access service is a mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all internet endpoints, including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up internet access service. This term also encompasses any service that the Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent of the service described in the previous sentence or that is used to evade the protections set forth in this part.

or any successor regulation. (Emphasis added)

Although the context clearly refers to the FCC, there is nothing in the statutory language that limits the promulgation of a successor regulation to the FCC. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which has prioritized fiber to the premises (FTTP) delivery infrastructure for subsidization in its Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, could promulgate its own regulation citing this authority in the IIJA. 

Such a rulemaking could use a fiber infrastructure-based subsidization eligibility standard, consistent with the IIJA’s intent to modernize and expand critical infrastructure in the 21st century. That could include a different challenge process based on the rebuttable presumption that FTTP doesn’t exist -- very likely in what the IIJA identifies as subsidy eligible areas with poor existing service. Those that would challenge FTTP subsidies would be required to show that it does and passes all addresses in their service areas with an exception for extremely remote locations. 

As Dawson writes, "Grant funding could have been done in other ways that didn’t rely on the maps. I don’t think it’s going to make much difference if we delay six months, a year, or four years – the maps are going to remain consistently inconsistent." 

Investor-owned providers make FTTP “land grab.”

Just a few years ago, it would have been hard to imagine investor owned legacy telephone and cable companies would consider a major push into fiber to the premise (FTTP) due to their extractive business model constraints averse to major capital expenditures. That tends to favor fiber builds in high end condominiums and select “fiberhoods” as a luxury amenity.

A recent roundup in Broadband Communities paints a picture of regime change in what an economist quoted in the article calls a fiber “land grab” even in historically less densely developed areas where ROI was too far out to justify investment in FTTP. Cable providers are abandoning coaxial cable and migrating to FTTP. Overbuilding incumbents with fiber – also previously unheard of – is occurring. The overall impression from the article is FTTP is busting out everywhere, albeit a generation late relative to the demand for Internet-based services. (Separately, even private equity -- impatient capital hardly a source for long term capital investment - is getting in on the fiber real estate rush, looking for a future profitable flip.)

What’s driving the change? A couple of likely factors. There’s first mover advantage: whichever provider gets fiber to the prem first gets a very sticky customer thanks to the terminating monopoly characteristic of these connections. It’s not as though they have multiple fiber connections and can chose among them. Nor is it economically feasible to provide them. Legacy providers may also be lengthening their investment timescale away from the traditional internal ROI standard in order to gain first mover advantage, knowing they’ll own the customer over the long term and the opportunity to sell services to them.

Second, to foster an impression of progress and momentum after years of minimal investment in FTTP fueling public policy discussion of the nation’s advanced telecommunications infrastructure deficiencies displayed in stark relief during the public health restrictions of the 2020 pandemic outbreak. Investor-owned providers probably know that they don’t appear to be making rapid progress to remedy them, support for public and consumer utility coop owned FTTP and appropriations to help fund them will grow despite plying elected officials with campaign contributions. That could also spark proposals to regulate commercial internet delivered services as common carrier public utilities. That would bring with it requirements to honor customer requests for FTTP connections and state rate regulation that are anathema to investor-owned providers.

Should BEAD green subsidize greenfield FTTH?

Legacy incumbent telephone and cable companies might conceivably seek state subsidies under the federal government’s Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program is to edge out their footprints to serve new “greenfield” housing developments. These providers prefer new housing developments for multiple reasons. The homebuyer is going to need service and new homebuyers tend to be relatively higher income and generate good ARPU and ROI. Deals can be cut with homebuilders to bring fiber to each homesite. It’s easier to trench fiber in new and unoccupied housing developments as lots and streets are being finished.

From the service provider’s perspective, greenfields are  a better risk to extend fiber to the home (FTTH) than a brownfield development that is already generating revenues, often on non-FTTH delivery infrastructure, thus requiring households to upgrade to fiber or to overbuild an existing provider. In a greenfield development, every household can be connected to FTTH before the new homeowners move in.

Greenfields nominally qualify for BEAD subsidies because there’s not yet an existing provider offering service, thus meeting eligibility threshold of not less than 80 percent of broadband-serviceable addresses being unserved or underserved. BEAD guidance defines a “Broadband-Serviceable Location” as “a business or residential location … at which fixed broadband Internet access service is, or can be installed” (as with a new housing development).

Providers that have historically preferred greenfields as better risks might also be willing to pay higher BEAD match amounts than the minimum 25 percent, possibly 50 percent or more, given BEAD guidance that encourages states to incentivize proposed projects with higher match amounts.

Greenfield projects seeking BEAD subsidization could however raise digital equity concerns by federal and state BEAD administrators. They might conclude the use of subsidies for these lower risk builds does not comport with the legislative intent expressed in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The statute notes the “persistent ‘‘digital divide… disproportionately affects communities of color, lower-income areas, and rural areas”— populations that typically face affordability challenges to buy in new home developments and may resent adjacent neighborhoods being offered government subsidized FTTH when they are not served by it.

Relative advantages, disadvantages of public and private capital investment in FTTP

As the long running battle between public and private capital continues in the advanced telecommunications space amid what have described as a private capital “gold rush” to capture and own customers, here are the relative advantages and disadvantages of each. 

PUBLIC CAPITAL ADVANTAGES	PUBLIC CAPITAL DISADVANTAGES
Access to lower cost, more patient capital in public bond markets.	Lack of coherent, committed public policy and strategy for getting FTTP to most all doorsteps.
No need to earn profit or pay shareholder dividends.	Goal dilution; focus on ancillary benefits vs. universal FTTP connectivity.
Longer term commitment.	Slower capital allocation due to political decision-making process and tax & fee resistance/exhaustion. Private capital deals can be made within months vs. years.
Accountable to public interest and not just investor shareholders.	Subject to disinformation campaigns by private capital owners exercising First Amendment rights.

 

PRIVATE CAPITAL ADVANTAGES	PRIVATE CAPITAL DISADVANTAGES
Current dominance as legacy (telephone and cable company) providers. First mover advantage in natural (utility) monopoly that can slow end user acceptance of public owned open access FTTP.	Business model constraints that limit capex for deployment, misalignment between capex and ROI needs.
Unregulated “wild west” spawns “gold rush” for cherry picked FTTP archipelagos offering relative rapid ROI; no universal service mandate, rate regulation.	Negative public perception due to deployment of FTTP only in select neighborhoods and not most; poor customer support.
Established control of public narrative based on “broadband” as market commodity vs. FTTP as utility infrastructure.	High debt and shareholder dividend obligations.
Public policy path dependency recognizing private sector dominance of policymaking process.
Relatively rapid access to private capital markets, private equity.

“Business model agnostic” rating urged by legacy incumbent telco for BEAD subgrants

Investor-owned providers, anxious public policymakers might adopt a fiber to the premises (FTTP) infrastructure standard for advanced telecommunications infrastructure that would complicate their business models, for years urged public policymakers to instead embrace a “technology neutral” standard.

Policymakers at the state level who will distribute $42.5 billion in federal grant subsidies appropriated under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) are now hearing a similar sounding plea – this time aimed at dissuading them from favoring publicly owned FTTP once the federal dollars arrive. Lumen Technologies is urging Oregon to adopt a “Business Model Agnostic” standard when evaluating subcontract awards to connect premises where the vast majority – 80 percent – are not offered throughput meeting what the Federal Communications Commission in 2015 deemed “broadband” or those deemed “underserved” and not offered throughput of at least 100Mbps for downloads and 20Mbps uploads.

In a PowerPoint presentation at the March 30 meeting of Oregon’s Broadband Advisory Council, Lumen cited an open access fiber build by the Kitsap County (Washington) Public Utility District as an example of the risk of not being business model agnostic that shows higher monthly and service drop fees than Lumen charges for its vertically integrated (connection and services) “Quantum” branded FTTP. Jim Farr, manager of Lumen’s Mass Markets Grant Team, also urged Oregon officials to score subgrant applications to favor those having low per premise passed cost to maximize the number of premises connected, which would likely leave less densely developed neighborhoods unconnected.

Lumen’s motivation is clearly to own the customer. Whoever owns the delivery infrastructure owns the customer in a natural monopoly market that characterizes utilities. The problem with that is it turns access to advanced telecommunications into a market commodity, with FTTP regarded as a premium product offering in highly segmented markets where there are sufficient premises and households most likely to generate the fastest return on investment and highest revenues.

That’s contrary to current federal policy expressed by the Biden administration to connect all Americans, highlighted this week by Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo at an interview with Yahoo Finance. "The reality is, if we're going to connect every American, including the tens of millions of Americans who now don't have the internet, we're going to have to lay fiber all across this country,” Raimondo said.

There is another way to get there besides regarding advanced telecommunications as a binary choice between public and private capital. But in order to do so, U.S. telecom policy will have to shift away from the dominant private sector “own the customer” business model in which it has been mired for decades and is the major impediment to near universal access to affordable FTTP connectivity.

That means public (or consumer cooperative) ownership of the infrastructure and various levels of involvement of private capital to design, build, operate and deliver services over it. This eliminates the winner take all dynamic in which investor-owned providers must ensure their shareholders come out as winners. Consequently, the public has been losing for decades as shown by continuing issues with access and affordability. That calls for a more comprehensive, holistic policy instead of doling out one off grants as consolation prizes to the public when the public interest inevitably comes in second place.

Oregon audit reinforces BEAD direction to states on universal service

As states move to the forefront to provide affordable access to advanced telecommunications with the direction of the federal government’s Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program to develop Five Year Action Plans for universal service, a recent State of Oregon audit report offers them some critical guidance.

It meshes well with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s use of the word “action” in the requirement states develop strategies to ensure universal service to all their residents in their Five-Year Action Plans. Those strategies must be actionable roadmaps and not serve as aspirational wish lists that gather dust after they’re issued. From the Oregon Audits Division report:

The (Oregon) Broadband Office published a strategic plan in January of 2020, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The plan is high-level and notes: “This plan is aspirational and designed to carry out the mission and directives charged to the Broadband Office. The scope of activities the Broadband Office will ultimately undertake will be enabled, or limited, by the resources available.”

The plan does not contain specific and realistic approaches, strategies, or appropriate KPMs for how these aspirations will be measured, reported, and achieved; nor does it identify what resources would be needed to undertake the scope of activities.

The biggest reason “broadband plans” over the past 15 to 20 years have been aspirational is they were conditioned on funding. That’s to be expected for a bet on the come financing strategy that relies on one off government grants. An action plan by contrast has a clearly identified funding source to ensure universal service and not one based on the hope that financing will someday become available.

The resulting lack of progress naturally angers people who’ve had their hopes for modern fiber connections to replace legacy metallic ones dashed for years amid piecemeal, incremental progress that never quite seems to reach them where they live and work despite promises from their elected representatives at all levels of government. A solid plan can help restore their trust in public officials to get the job done where the private market cannot.

The Oregon audit notes “Oregon’s broadband public policy needs to be focused on the future, be more aggressive, be more financially supportive, be more specific, and have a renewed sense of urgency.” (Emphasis added)

Being more financially supportive means Oregon (as well as other states) cannot continue to rely on one off, highly restrictive government grants to attain universal service. They need to develop ongoing organic funding for the both the construction and reliable operation of fiber to the premise (FTTP) advanced telecommunications infrastructure to every doorstep. Grants such as those available through BEAD can only do part of the job – implicit in BEAD’s Five-Year Action Plan requirement.

Amid fading federalism in U.S. telecommunications policy, states on deck to regulate

For Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS), federalism underpins a scheme of shared regulatory oversight between the federal government (the Federal Communications Commission specifically) and state public utility commissions. It operates under the framework of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 that regards telecommunications networks as a natural monopoly. Accordingly, voice telephone service is regulated as a common carrier utility to ensure it is accessible (universal service) and affordable (rate regulation by state PUCs) given the absence of market forces and buy side market power to assure that it is.

This federalist regulatory scheme does not exist for advanced, internet protocol (IP) telecommunications. Since 2018, federal policy promulgated by FCC administrative law regards it as a lightly regulated information service under Title I of the Communications Act similar to dialup services like CompuServe and America Online that were widely used in the early 1990s. Congress has not weighed in on the matter of how IP telecom is to be regulated since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which similarly adopted a light touch, wait and see stance. Recent court rulings have cleared the path for states to move forward.

In the absence of regulatory federalism for IP-based telecommunications, one leader state is considering legislation that would regard IP telecommunications as a common carrier utility. AB 1714 would amend California’s Public Utility Act to include “broadband service” offered by a corporation (defined in the statute as including a corporation, company, an association, and a joint stock association) within the definition of a public utility. “Broadband Internet access service is defined at California Civil Code Section 3100(b) as “a mass-market retail service by wire or radio provided to customers in California that provides the capability to transmit data to, and receive data from, all or substantially all Internet endpoints, including, but not limited to, any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet access service.”

“Just as the infrastructure of water and electricity grew at the end of the 19th century and led to the creation of regulation to make sure that these technologies were available to everyone, the internet has grown to a point that demands it be regulated as a public utility subject to the same regulatory process to make sure that everyone has access to this technology, moving us closer to digital equity,” said the bill’s author, Assemblymember Jim Wood in a news release. 

The proposed legislation comes as AT&T California petitioned the California Public Utilities Commission to relieve it of its POTS universal service obligations as carrier of last resort in parts of the state where there are alternatives such as VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) or mobile wireless.

Private activity bonds could fund regional open access fiber networks

Nearly all U.S. airports are owned by state or local governments, mandated by the federal government to be as self-sustaining as possible, and thus receive little or no direct taxpayer support, according to the Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA), an industry association representing local, regional and state governing bodies that own and operate commercial airports in the United States and Canada.

Over the past decade, according to the ACA-NA website, about 60 percent of bonds issued to finance airport capital projects were issued as private activity bonds, a type of municipal bond that is issued to finance a facility that serves a public purpose for the benefit of a private user – in this case airline companies. “Private activity bonds used for airport construction and renovation—are the most cost-efficient form of infrastructure financing available today,” the ACA-NA states.

Section 80401 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) amended Section 142(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to specifically include advanced telecommunications infrastructure as an eligible use of private activity bond proceeds. Specifically, for “qualified broadband projects.”

On its face, the eligibility definition is more generous than the IIJA’s Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program providing grant funding of up to 75 percent of infrastructure deployment costs. Basic BEAD eligibility is limited to builds where at least 80 percent of serviceable addresses lack access to infrastructure providing throughput of at least 20Mbps for downloads and 3Mbps for uploads with latency below 100ms. There is no definition of the minimum number of addresses that must be included. Projects could be as small as a handful of addresses or even a single address.

Eligibility for private activity bond funding is available for projects in one or more census block groups in which more than 50 percent of residential households do not have access to fixed, terrestrial broadband service which delivers at least 25Mbps downstream and at least 3Mbps upstream. Funded projects must provide access with at least 100Mbps for downloads and 20Mbps megabits for second for uploads.

That appears looser than the basic BEAD “unserved” eligibility standard of at least 80 percent of serviceable addresses unserved. But then it gets tighter with an additional qualification, unfortunately creating ambiguity. Private activity bond funding is available “only if at least 90 percent of the locations provided such access under the project are locations where, before the project, a broadband service provider— (i) did not provide service, or (ii) did not provide service meeting the minimum speed requirements.”

In another unfavorable provision, the IIJA amendment to the Internal Revenue Code opens this financing mechanism to potential incumbent gaming and stalling, further requiring existing providers be notified of a planned project and its intended scope and given at least 90 days to provide information on their ability to deploy, manage, and maintain a network capable of providing access at gigabit speeds – essentially fiber to the premises (FTTP).

The aeronautical analogy easily translates to publicly owned regional open access fiber network such as the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA). Kimberly McKinley, UTOPIA’s chief marketing officer, described its partnership with an open access FTTP network rolling out in Bozeman, Montana as similar to city or state construction financing for airports, according to a recent article in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle.

UTOPIA is also partnering with the Golden State Connect Authority, a joint powers authority of 40 less densely developed California counties to build publicly owned open access FTTP. Its chair, Calaveras County Supervisor Jack Garamendi, compared it to a regional airport authority in a 2022 interview with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

States will likely need additional federal funding to attain universal service under BEAD Five-Year Action Plans

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program – part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) – requires states that received planning grants in 2022 to develop “Five-Year Action Plans” in 2023 that will inform their requests for $42.5 billion in grants to subsidize advanced telecommunications infrastructure.

The plans must include “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.” Additionally, the plans must include planned utilization of federal, state, and local funding sources to pay for it.

As with any infrastructure, it won’t come cheap. Hence the $42.5 billion BEAD allocates to states to subsidize construction costs. But BEAD also requires states to "rigorously explore ways to cover a project’s cost with contributions outside of the BEAD program funding." In developing their Five-Year Action Plans, states will have to determine to what extent they will have to cover shortfalls by, for example, issuing long term bonds to finance construction. 

And whether they will legislatively mandate universal service, requiring existing investor owned providers honor connectivity requests at serviceable addresses as proposed California legislation would do by deeming Internet service a public utility and establishing state policy of digital equity as a right of access. Or to fund public or consumer utility cooperative owned fiber to the premise (FTTP) infrastructure as a means of ensuring digital inclusion and equity as required by BEAD given challenges faced by investor owned providers that frequently scale back deployment plans to accommodate their business model constraints.

It's likely states could conclude that in order to attain universal service, they will need additional federal funding. That is evidently contemplated in BEAD. As part of their Five-Year Action Plans, states must detail technical assistance and “additional capacity needed for successful implementation of the BEAD Program.”

1996 Telecom Act, IIJA reflect America’s slow transformation and progress toward digital socio-economy

The United States innovated most of the information and communication technologies (ICT) that over the past 40 years that are transforming an analog socio-economy into a digital one. But the nation has lagged in the transition. Much of its existing telecommunications infrastructure is designed for an analog 20th century world of voice telephone service over twisted pair copper and premium television channels over coaxial cable.

America’s slow modernization of its legacy copper telephone system to fiber reflects the prolonged transition from an analog-based socio economy to a digital one in the 21st century. Related to this is that many Americans do not utilize ICT to allow their “full participation in the society and economy of the United States” according the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021.

At the close of the 20th century, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 foresaw the digitization of the telecommunications as the mass market Internet was taking off and some regional telephone companies filed plans with state regulators to offer two way video over fiber. But because the Internet as a means of communication was new, its drafters believed market competition would bring about reliable and affordable Internet connectivity as well as Internet-enabled devices and applications and online content.

The market competition will float all boats theory failed to reflect reality relative to Internet connectivity. A quarter century after the law was enacted, millions of Americans lack reliable and affordable connectivity, creating a “digital inclusion” challenge as it is described in the IIJA. Instead, market forces led to market segmentation, leaving lots of locations unconnected. The reason is making those connections isn’t that different from other utilities. Like voice telephone service, those copper cables that delivered it every home and business voice telephone service function as a natural terminating monopoly that doesn’t operate as a competitive market due to high cost barriers to competitor entry and first mover advantage.

That fundamental flaw in the 1996 Telecom Act left the nation further behind than where it should be for deployment of robust digital infrastructure with the old analog copper twisted pair telephone connections replaced with fiber reaching most every doorstep by 2010 at the latest. Over the interim, substandard and less reliable substitutes were employed such as Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) over copper and fixed and mobile wireless and satellite technology.

The IIJA while nominally an infrastructure measure that allocates federal dollars to states to build out advanced telecommunications infrastructure, like the 1996 Telecom Act, it doesn’t affirmatively  specify fiber to the premises (FTTP) infrastructure. However, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), charged with administrating the federal funds to the states, states a clear preference for FTTP. In that regard, public policy is slowly advancing into the digital age.

ICT access as industrial policy

The United States currently lacks public policy assuring every American home is able to connect to landline Internet service as it did for voice telephone service in the 20th century under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. It is instead an aspirational goal rather than affirmative public policy.

According to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 “expanded the traditional goal of universal service to include increased access to both telecommunications and advanced services …for all consumers at just, reasonable and affordable rates.” In the nearly three decades since the law was enacted, the nation continues to struggle to meet that goal with numerous proscribed subsidy programs despite many billions of dollars spent.

In 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) adopted an expanded view of access to advanced telecommunications service, including it in a broader context as access to “affordable information and communication technologies (ICT) such as reliable fixed and wireless broadband internet service.” That definition – titled “digital inclusion” -- acknowledges a long term shift from an analog, industrial age 20th century economy to a 21st century digital economy. It encompasses internet-enabled devices, applications and online content designed to enable and encourage self-sufficiency, participation, and collaboration” as well as access to digital literacy training, quality technical support, awareness of measures to ensure online privacy and cybersecurity.

Digital inclusion in turn supports “digital equity,” defined in the IIJA as “the condition in which individuals and communities have the information technology capacity that is needed for full participation in the society and economy of the United States.” Accordingly, universal access to advanced telecommunications service is now framed in the larger context of access to ICT and the broad social and economic benefit of all Americans having access to and being able to use it.

In that regard, the IIJA states access to advanced telecommunications infrastructure as industrial policy – subsidizing and expanding access in order to promote social and economic benefit. This is an important development because it reframes public policy on advanced telecommunications infrastructure and access beyond the traditional market commodity based “broadband” offering.

However, the IIJA retains broadband service as a metric to determine eligibility for allocating $42.5 billion in grants to the states to subsidize advanced telecommunications infrastructure, with priority afforded to fiber to the premises (FTTP). Subsidies are largely targeted to areas where “broadband” – defined as 25Mbps down and 3Mbps – is not marketed to most serviceable addresses.

Industrial policy by definition calls for a broad and sustained effort. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is charged with administrating the IIJA advanced telecommunications infrastructure subsidy dollars. It describes that appropriation as representing only the beginning. According to a fact sheet, the NTIA’s subsidy program represents an “historic investment will lay critical groundwork for the infrastructure needed to connect everyone, from big cities to small towns and everything in between.” 

Another provision of the IIJA at Title VI that expresses industrial policy calls for the creation of an interagency federal working group to develop recommendations to address the workforce needs of the telecommunications industry and provide guidance to the states. In a report to Congress in January, the working group recommended measures to support the recruitment and retention of telecommunications workers.

States face major challenge to develop plans for universal FTTP access

Given America’s highly fragmented, piecemeal deployment of fiber to the premises (FTTP) over the past few decades that continues in the current one, states are confronting a significant challenge to develop plans to ensure it reaches most every doorstep.

Last year, all states and territories received planning grants under the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program – part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).

That funding requires states to develop Five-Year Action Plans in 2023 that will inform their requests for $42.5 billion in grants to subsidize advanced telecommunications infrastructure, with priority afforded to FTTP. The plans must include “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.” 

This comes amid a rapid increase in FTTP deployment that some have likened to a land grab in order to obtain first mover market advantage. Conditions are ripe. FTTP is a virtually unregulated natural monopoly with strong demand, present and future. That makes it attractive to investor-owned companies where those factors combined with sufficiently high development density and household incomes support the business case. Private equity has even gotten in on gold rush, hoping to flip fiber assets in the future to large providers looking to expand their footprints without investing their own capital by rolling up smaller players.

Local governments that have for years heard complaints from residents and businesses about poor Internet access that grew louder during the public health restrictions of the pandemic that turned homes into places to work and study are handing over their federal pandemic relief dollars to incumbent providers to build FTTP.

Some local governments are building their own. Others have banded together to form regional telecommunications authorities to deploy FTTP where the business case is weak for investor owned providers. In rural areas, electric utility cooperatives are getting into the telecommunications business with FTTP.

Since the U.S. regards Internet protocol (IP) telecommunications as an information service and not a utility (that could change in California under proposed legislation), none of these providers are required to extend FTTP to any home or business that requests service. The result is disparate deployment in discrete areas, leaving a lot of holes in the FTTP Swiss cheese.

Consequently, states face significant challenges to attain a goal of universal FTTP access and developing a meaningful plan that closes the gaps with insufficient market or regulatory incentive for the various aforementioned providers to fill them amid a tight labor market for FTTP technicians and installers.

The $42.5 billion in grants to subsidize advanced telecommunications infrastructure appropriated in the IIJA is intended to help achieve that under the NTIA’s Internet for All initiative, allowing states to contract with providers to build infrastructure and cover up to 75 percent of the capital cost of deployment.

However, as currently structured under the IIJA, those subsidies aren’t targeted to underwriting FTTP. Much of it could end up being requested by cable companies to incrementally edge out their existing coax footprints since the NTIA rules on BEAD funding allow awards for projects of a small number of serviceable addresses and even a single address. Moreover, the NTIA’s BEAD eligibility requirements bar subsidization where a mobile wireless provider using licensed spectrum also advertises fixed premise service meeting minimum throughput standards.

The luxury connotation of advanced telecom -- why it’s still called “broadband.”

Three decades ago, the United States failed to put in place a transitional process to modernize twisted pair copper telephone infrastructure designed in the 20th century for analog voice telephone service to fiber for digital Internet protocol (IP) services that emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It should have been seen as a natural evolution of telecommunications technology.

Instead, the legacy copper infrastructure was kept in place and advanced telecommunications was framed as an enhanced service under the name “broadband.” Basic service was dialup -- relatively inexpensive and affordable to most households and small businesses. By contrast, broadband was always on and allowed end users to access digital voice, web pages, images and video that dialup could not. That distinguished it a premium luxury service providing a far richer amount of information and content.

Broadband was a natural for Cable TV – an enhanced, premium service over television signals broadcast on the public airwaves. Cable companies got into the broadband business in a big way and are now the dominant providers of advanced telecommunications connectivity.

Hence, “broadband” connoted a luxury upgrade over narrowband dialup. As with any luxury, it comes at a price premium and is marketed to select households likely to upgrade. The more broadband, the higher the price.

The term “broadband” is so widely used today it’s become shorthand for advanced telecommunications capability. The luxury connotation has stuck. It’s fundamental to the challenges the nation faces with access and affordability now that advanced telecommunications like the voice telephone service before it has become a basic utility and not a luxury.

Francella Ochillo, Executive Director, Next Century Cities, reinforced the point at the annual Silicon Flatirons conference earlier this month:

“We could hide behind the internet's new and it's really a luxury. And it was really very strategic to even use that language to call it a luxury, because then it made it OK if everybody didn't have it. And I'm not saying that that's intentional. I'm saying that that's just real. And whether or not it's intentional, that was the impact. And so when we're in a moment where we have to start questioning structures, and thinking about why have we been doing it that way for that long.”

It was intentional however to the extent the framers of the 1996 Telecom Act also saw IP powered advanced telecommunications as new. Because it was novel, the thinking went, let’s keep policy technology neutral and see how market competition will evolve to deliver it to homes, schools and businesses. And not establish fiber to as the advanced telecommunications delivery infrastructure standard even though it predates the emergence of IP telecommunications by two decades.

Then as now, fiber was a proven technology for delivering advanced telecommunications services that wasn’t going to be obsoleted by another technology anytime soon. That’s seen in 2023 as public policymakers at all levels of government look to speed fiber connections to nearly every American doorstep, making them as ubiquitous as copper telephone line connections.

States could designate ISPs as public utilities as strategy to attain universal service

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program guidance spelled out in its Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) requires states as part of their Five Year Action Plans to develop “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.”

A potential component of these plans could be legislation deeming companies providing advanced telecommunications as common carrier public utilities and thus mandated to offer universal service to all of a state’s serviceable addresses. These are defined in the BEAD NOFO as “a business or residential location in the United States at which fixed broadband Internet access service is, or can be, installed.”

California legislation introduced this month (AB 1714) would designate these providers as common carrier public utilities. Other states could take a similar route in developing the universal service component of their Five Year Plans due to the NTIA this year.

Voice telephone service is regulated as a common carrier public utility under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Per the law, "It shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor..." It also bars them from “unjust or unreasonable discrimination” in “charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.”

The federal government has declined to regulate providers of advanced telecommunications as such, instead opting to regulate them as “information services” under Title I of the statute. Since information services are not classified as common carrier utilities, they are not subject to the universal service and non-discrimination mandates. That has led to substantial problems with access and affordability with advanced telecommunications that BEAD aims to remedy.

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.