End of ACP illustrates need for omnibus reform

Alphabet (Google’s parent) alone has a market cap of nearly $2 trillion – roughly twice that of the top 10 companies contributing roughly 77% of all universal service funding combined. Yet Google and others in the Big Tech pantheon like Facebook, Netflix, and Amazon contribute not a dime. These dominant Big Tech companies that benefit financially from the connectivity that USF makes possible should contribute to our shared goals of connectivity and affordability.

Policymakers have long explored ways to hold these companies more accountable for their dominant market positions. Contributing to the nation’s effort to provide affordable and universal connectivity that is the foundation of their financial success is a great place to start. The FCC needs the legislative tools to do so, and there is growing momentum for this on Capitol Hill. Congress should give the FCC a bright green light to proceed.

https://ustelecom.org/a-permanent-solution-for-connecting-low-income-families-2/#0

Rather than trying to reform legacy subsidy mechanisms created for voice telephone service, wouldn’t public ownership of open access regional fiber to the premises (FTTP) provide a twin win of superior access and affordability? And supporting its construction and operation by making low interest long term loans available as well as technical assistance grants to help them organize?

The information technology companies mentioned in this article all pay income taxes that could help fund this. They might even be willing to pay an additional advanced telecommunications infrastructure surcharge since ubiquitous, affordable fiber connections synergistically benefits their business if not framed in adversarial terms as one industry asking another to pay for assets they would not own. Publicly owned infrastructure thus offers a neutral solution to this standoff.

This would make more sense than effectively subsidizing the shareholders of privately held telephone and cable companies through means tested end user subsidies for households that find it difficult to afford their commercial “broadband” offerings and bundled services. Publicly owned regional open access infrastructure also offers an additional source of revenue to cover operating and debt servicing costs in the form of lease fees paid by internet service providers to offer services on them.

Open access fiber: Public ownership offers lower cost operating model. Private ownership less constrained capital access.

Gigapower CEO Bill Hogg – the brand name for AT&T’s joint venture with BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Fund to build open access fiber delivery advanced telecommunications infrastructure -- boasted other open access networks would be unable to scale up like Gigapower. Gigapower will be “much larger than any other provider in the space,” Hogg declared at a webcast panel presentation last September hosted by Broadband Breakfast. “The scale at which we are going to operate will be a differentiator in the U.S. marketplace.”

Publicly owned open access networks like UTOPIA Fiber, owned and financially backed by a 20 Utah municipalities, operate with a built in cost advantage over investor owned infrastructure like Gigapower. They operate free of the need to generate profits and earnings dividends for investors and income tax liability. Those advantages should provide them the ability to match the scale of Gigapower as regional open access networks.

But that advantage could be offset by freer, ready access to expansion capital from BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Fund. The fund includes state and local pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, and family endowments, according to Adam Walz, managing director of the fund. According to Walz, the fund is focused on investments in digital infrastructure opportunities across fiber networks, data centers, and wireless infrastructure.

AT&T and BlackRock can independently make decisions on which Gigapower projects to build and finance. By contrast, publicly owned open access networks rely on capital bonds sold on public bond markets to finance construction. Bond underwriters set the terms and conditions of bond offerings and may require additional sources of repayment security beyond network revenues from end users and lease fees paid by internet service providers to access the network. That limits the scale and pace at which they can expand.

Going forward over the long term, this boils down to a competition between private and public capital and which is most responsive to slake the nation’s deep thirst for fiber to replace outdated metallic delivery infrastructure. The competition will likely play out at least initially in densely developed areas since both forms of ownership presently prefer them over less dense areas: privately owned for more rapid ROI and publicly owned to better assure sufficient bond debt servicing.

AT&T’s two pronged fiber build out strategy

AT&T appears to be pursuing a two pronged strategy to build out fiber to the premises (FTTP) delivery infrastructure. The first is targeting densely built up metro areas with its Gigapower joint venture with BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Fund. The second using subsidies extended to the states from the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s (IIJA) Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program to build FTTP infrastructure in less densely developed areas that meet the program’s funding eligibility requirements.

Last fall, AT&T urged states to award the BEAD subsidies for contiguous builds that qualify as unserved (where at least 80 percent of serviceable addresses in the project are not offered throughput of 25/3 Mbps or better) and underserved (where at least 80 percent of serviceable addresses are not offered throughput of 100/20 Mbps or better). However, under BEAD, states must first exhaust their funding allocations on subsidies for projects addressing unserved locations.

As noted in the above linked blog post, AT&T’s BEAD funding appears predicated on the two generations of Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) technology that runs over its legacy copper voice telephone delivery infrastructure. The first, ADSL, will in many less densely developed areas qualify as unserved since it typically provides bandwidth lower than 25/3 Mbps. However, these areas are often adjacent to those served by its second generation VDSL technology. Those areas won’t qualify as unserved but could likely qualify as underserved.

Federal and state officials overseeing the award of BEAD funds will likely come under pressure from AT&T to liberally interpret the program rules to allow subsidization of contiguous FTTP projects spanning areas including both types of DSL technology. Expect AT&T to argue that this will provide the most efficient use of the funds and cover the greatest number of serviceable locations as well as meeting the BEAD program's preference for FTTP.

The d factor: Why publicly owned, financed FTTP may not balance the Crawford equation

Author Susan Crawford in her 2019 book Fiber: The Coming Tech Revolution – And Why America Might Miss It, set out a vision of ubiquitous and affordable fiber connections as with copper delivered voice telephone service in the 20th century.

The United States stumbled in the late 1980s and early 1990s by failing to develop a comprehensive strategy to transition from the legacy copper to fiber to support digital Internet protocol voice, video and data services. Instead, fiber to the premises (FTTP) was left to the market whims of investor owned companies that construct it only where it meets their rate of return and profitability standards. That’s typically densely settled urban and suburban areas.

That leaves much of the nation outside these areas unfibered with uncertain prospects for FTTP amid a multiplicity of siloed federal and state grant programs. Only recently have these programs begun to favor FTTP for subsidization albeit with eligibility still based on marketed “broadband” bandwidth to protect the customer “footprints” of incumbent providers from interlopers.

An open question is can publicly owned and financed regional telecom authorities provide a lower cost work around to the investor owned providers whose business structures require them to generate profits and dividends for their owners and pay income taxes on their earnings?

Let’s call Crawford’s vision the Crawford equation and express ubiquitous access as x and affordability as y. Can these alternative business models solve for both since they avoid the higher structural costs of the investor owned business model?

They may not. It boils down to the same reason for both: residential density. Let’s call it the d factor. For the investor owned providers, building FTTP isn’t likely to pencil out in less densely developed exurban areas with lower d value featuring curvilinear roads instead of suburban and urban grid-style development. These areas typically fall short of the investor owned standard of about 15 homes per linear road mile. That translates to more road miles and a relatively lower number of homes per mile. That leads to higher construction costs and longer returns on investment, diminishing the short term profitability investors desire and more certain revenues debtholders want for debt service.

For publicly owned providers and particularly open access FTTP networks reliant on network revenues to service capital bonds, bond underwriters prefer a sizable number of end users to ensure bonds secured by network revenues obtain sufficient revenue from end user fees. That correlates with d. A higher d factor translates to more end users. That translates to lower default risk since there is more revenue to secure debt service. The y factor -- affordability -- can also be adversely affected by networks seeking to boost the x factor in less densely developed areas.

For ISPs offering services to end users, the d factor is similarly critical. ISPs aren’t going to be interested in leasing network access unless there is a sizable market of end users, particularly since they are likely competing against other ISPs on an open access network.

Bottom line, publicly owned and financed FTTP infrastructure may not solve the Crawford equation for much of exurban America where telecom infrastructure is often substandard and not up the needs of knowledge workers migrating to metro fringes and beyond.

Replacing copper with fiber: poles need replacing too

Hundreds of thousands of utility poles, hundreds of millions in funding and increasingly tight deadlines are part of Virginia’s quest to bring broadband to far-flung rural locations.

The commonwealth has been among the nation’s leaders in deploying internet, state leaders and observers say. But the goal of bringing universal high-speed access — with lots of federal and state money in play — is facing delays.

The latest delays center on stringing broadband fiber across electric utility poles, some of which are so out-of-date that they need to be replaced. Issues between internet service providers and pole owners include how much the work will cost and who will pay for it. 

Cost is a large part of the make-ready process and is typically the ISP’s responsibility. If a pole is outdated and must be replaced according to the National Electric Safety Code, that could ultimately be a utility’s responsibility, and a fair amount of that is going on in rural areas, Marsden said. But there is a lot of room for gray in determining who is responsible and who has to pay, and that can slow the make-ready work as ISPs and owners negotiate, McKay said.

https://cardinalnews.org/2024/01/03/as-broadband-funding-flows-expansion-projects-hit-a-low-tech-snag-utility-poles/

A major cost of updating the nation’s outdated legacy copper infrastructure designed for voice telephone service is not only replacing the copper with fiber but also the poles to which it is attached. Like the copper cable plant, much of the nation’s utility pole stock is deteriorated and at the end of its useful life.

This is a big deal because in less densely populated regions of the nation, burying conduit is cost prohibitive and prone to delay over right of way access, making aerial fiber construction on existing utility pole infrastructure the preferred option.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021 appropriated $43.45 billion in grants to the states to subsidize advanced telecommunications distribution infrastructure. That funding is targeted to these less densely settled exurban and rural areas more likely to qualify for funding as delineated in the law as “unserved” and “underserved” locations. Much of that funding could be chewed up to cover the cost of replacing old poles.

The IIJA separately appropriated $5 billion to the states for fiscal years 2022-2026 (with a 15 percent match) for undergrounding electrical equipment and utility pole management. That amount is way below what’s needed in high fire risk areas of the western U.S. where electrical utilities look to underground distribution lines to reduce the risk of sparking wildfires like those in California over the past several years that consumed entire communities and thousands of homes.

Doing so would offer a “dig once” opportunity to place fiber conduit underground instead of on aerial poles. The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program set up by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to administer the IIJA’s telecom infrastructure appropriation encourages states to develop plans that utilize existing infrastructure (such as utility poles) and “promote and adopt dig-once policies, streamlined permitting processes and cost-effective access to poles, conduits, easements, and rights of way, including the imposition of reasonable access requirements.”

Groups urge NTIA’s Davidson to adhere to preference for FTTP in BEAD subsidies

America’s adversarial Pinata telecom policy is heating up. Three telecom trade groups urged the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to resist calls for alternative technologies and maintain a long term focus that prioritizes grant funding of fiber to the premises (FTTP) advanced telecommunications infrastructure in its Broadband Access, Equity, and Deployment (BEAD) program.

The organizations also called on the NTIA “to establish metrics going forward to track whether States and Territories have fulfilled their responsibilities to connect all eligible locations to high-performance broadband service and maximize all-fiber builds, the critical communications infrastructure for the 21st Century.”

While the groups didn’t specifically mention fixed wireless access (FWA) as an alternative to FTTP, their joint letter is clearly intended to head off arguments by FWA providers that they can get more locations connected faster and cheaper than constructing FTTP. Another FTTP alternative is extending coaxial cable plant that comprises the majority of the delivery infrastructure used by cable companies, the dominant providers of landline IP telecom.

“Too often, as federal broadband funding programs have moved from concept to implementation, there has been a tendency to seek to support broadband infrastructure that is ‘just good enough’ for the moment,” the NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association, the Fiber Broadband Association and ACA Connects–America’s Communications Association wrote the NTIA’s Alan Davidson in a February 2, 2024 letter.

“Under these prior programs, initial lofty goals of giving every American robust and affordable connectivity that will last for generations have given way to delivering the bare minimum to satisfy user demands here and now – leaving consumers and communities vexed and resulting in the need to establish yet more programs to address the needs left unaddressed.”

The basis for the groups’ position is the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) authorization allowing Davidson to develop technical criteria that prioritizes advanced telecommunications infrastructure eligible for BEAD funding based on throughput, reliability, and consistency in quality of service. The rationale as stated in the IIJA is to “ensure that the network built by the project can easily scale speeds over time to meet the evolving connectivity needs of households and businesses” and provide backhaul for wireless technologies and other advanced services. The NTIA in its Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the BEAD program specifically defined that as “end-to-end fiber-optic facilities to each end-user premises.”

Report: GFiber parent Alphabet seeks outside investment as part of spin off strategy

Metro fiber to the premises (FTTP) player GFiber is seeking external investment to capitalize its expansion. Reuters (via yahoo! finance) reports GFiber’s parent company Alphabet has retained an investment bank to start the process of selling equity in the company, citing a source close to Alphabet's efforts.

Reuters quoted the source as saying the goal is to spin off the unit, formed in 2010 as the nation grew impatient to migrate from its legacy copper telephone service delivery infrastructure to fiber-delivered Internet protocol-based voice, video and data.

"This next step of raising external capital will enable them to scale their technical leadership, expand their reach, and provide better internet access to more communities," Ruth Porat, Alphabet's president and chief investment officer, told Reuters in a statement. 

GFiber’s debut -- branded as Google Fiber -- was enthusiastically welcomed by localities looking for a more rapid alternative to bring fiber connections than the slow walking legacy incumbent telephone companies. But the company faces the same high capital expenses that come with utility infrastructure construction. It identified no overwhelming technological or marketing advantage over the incumbents as a Google 10X project, throttling back expansion plans in 2016, most notably and somewhat embarrassingly in its Silicon Valley region headquarters. "There’s no flying-saucer shit in laying fiber," Google co-founder Larry Page later explained.

In a move similar to Alphabet’s seeking outside investment capital for GFiber, AT&T in late 2022 entered into a joint venture with private equity firm BlackRock to build fiber connectivity to an initial 1.5 million customer locations beyond AT&T’s current footprint branded as Gigapower. Gigapower CEO and retired AT&T executive Bill Hogg, asserted in 2023 that Gigapower will be “much larger than any other provider in the space. The scale at which we are going to operate will be a differentiator in the U.S. marketplace.”

GFiber parent Alphabet’s move appears aimed at rivaling Gigapower’s plans. GFiber has a presence in 18 states and plans to expand to 25 new metros, finalizing a franchise for the Las Vegas metro this week, a metro also on Gigapower’s target list. It too will be entering the metro, according to the Las Vegas Review Journal.

Paradoxical affordability crisis facing publicly owned Vermont CUDs

NEK Broadband continues to bring affordable fiber access to the long-neglected corners of the Green Mountain State. According to the latest update by NEK Broadband, a recently completed rollout has delivered affordable fiber access to 700 new addresses across multiple rural Vermont communities. NEK Broadband is one of nine Communications Union Districts (CUDs) scattered across the state of Vermont. NEK Broadband alone represents 45 Vermont communities across Caledonia, Essex, Orleans and Lamoille Counties in the northeast part of the state (see the full list of communities here).

NEK Broadband currently offers four tiers of broadband service: symmetrical 50 megabit per second (Mbps) service for $80 a month; symmetrical 250 Mbps service for $103 a month; symmetrical 500 Mbps service for $135 a month; and a symmetrical gigabit per second (Gbps) offering for $250 a month.

Unlike many large private cable and phone companies, there are no hidden fees, usage caps, or long-term contracts with NEK pricing. As a non-profit municipality, any revenue created through broadband subscription services gets funneled back into building and repairing infrastructure and increasing affordability for local residents.

Vermont CUDs tell Fierce Wireless they are considering the creation of a new, statewide fund to help fill the gap defunding the ACP will create, leveraging “philanthropic dollars, local donations, and digital equity dollars.”

https://communitynets.org/content/nek-broadband-expands-access-affordable-fiber-rural-vermont

If NEK Broadband’s rates are representative of other CUDs, it’s not hard to see why some households might struggle to afford the lowest cost option at $80 a month. It’s also something of a head scratcher insofar as publicly owned advanced telecommunications infrastructure comes with a lower cost structure than investor owned that must generate profits for investors and pay income taxes.

That offers major advantages for access and affordability since more premises can be connected and offered lower monthly access fees than with investor-owned ISPs. Yet ironically, here we are witnessing the same affordability challenges as with investor owned ISPs. And not surprisingly so at rates that emulate those of investor-owned ISPs and unfortunately reinforce the perception of "broadband" as a luxury.

To give NEK Broadband the benefit of the doubt, it could well be those rates are needed in order to service capital expansion and finance costs. But given the affordability issue, it might behoove it and other CUDs to take another look at the numbers before resorting to setting up a charity to support affordable access. For example, can they pencil out at a flat $50/month for all residential users at the same bandwidth for all instead of slicing and dicing bandwidth into price tiers like investor-owned providers do? Most nearly all households could probably do fine over the near term with symmetric 100 to 300 Mbps, assuming they aren’t hosting server farms.

BEAD framed as end of one off grants for advanced telecommunications infrastructure

The fiber broadband industry is experiencing a historic moment. According to Joseph Wender, Director of Capital Projects Fund at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, never before (and likely never again) have multiple government agencies provided tens of billions of dollars in funding to provide affordable, reliable, high-speed internet for all Americans and close the digital divide once and for all. “We are living in a historic moment and it is exciting, which makes our jobs much more important. We have to get it right this time,” Wender said on this week’s Fiber for Breakfast episode.

https://fiberbroadband.org/2024/01/17/making-a-down-payment-on-affordable-reliable-high-speed-internet-for-all/

Wender is correct. The United States is at a policy inflection point on the future of the nation’s advanced telecommunications infrastructure. It’s at this point because it lacks a national strategy to guide its deployment, the U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) observed in 2022 and 2023.

While the GAO didn’t specifically say so, the main casualty of this policy failure is the now long tardy modernization of copper telephone lines that reached nearly every address in in the 20^th century to fiber optic lines with the proven capacity to carry high quality digital voice, data and video. It should have been completed by the start of the second decade of the 21^st.

That has led policymakers to spend the last three decades defining the issue by its resulting symptoms of constrained access and affordability that worsened a decade later with the public health restrictions imposed in response to a viral pandemic. That spawned according to the GAO 133 disparate federal funding programs administered by 15 agencies, mostly one off grant programs aimed at treating constrained capacity by boosting “broadband” bandwidth.

That has begun to shift somewhat in the latest and largest grant program, the $43.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) state grant subsidy program administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). BEAD expresses a clear preference that the subsidies be spent on fiber as the best long-term value for taxpayer dollars.

To the point of this article and others like it, there’s a tone of finality associated with these one time grant subsidy programs that has accompanied BEAD. It’s been described as “once in a lifetime,” and “once in a generation.” Hence, warnings by Wender to “get it right this time,” because the tap is being shut off and the pinata party will soon end.

“Pinata policy” instead of well thought out strategy for universal access

In 1996 and nearly a quarter century later in 2021, the United States enacted legislation stating public policy that all Americans should have access to reliable advanced telecommunications. The 1996 Telecommunications Act stated that “Consumers in all regions of the Nation, including low-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and high cost areas, should have access to telecommunications and information services, including interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and information services.” It also charged the FCC and state public utility commissions to “promote competition and remove barriers to infrastructure investment.”

There’s a major flaw with both bills. The 1996 Telecom Act is predicated on the inaccurate notion that premise advanced telecommunications functions as a competitive market and thus market forces and technological advances will bring about universal access. That’s incorrect because advanced telecommunications infrastructure like other utilities and voice telephone service functions as a natural terminating monopoly where market forces are weak or nonexistent. Many buyers but few sellers and high cost barriers to competitor entry along with first mover advantage enjoyed by incumbents discourage competition and cannot be overcome by regulation. In 1996, no technology was superior to fiber to the premise (FTTP) for reliably delivering advanced, Internet protocol-based voice, video and data and none better has emerged since.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021 contains findings by Congress that “Access to affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband is essential to full participation in modern life in the United States” and a “persistent ‘digital divide’ is “a barrier to the economic competitiveness of the United States and equitable distribution of essential public services, including health care and education.”

But like the 1996 Telecom Act, the legislation contains the flawed assumption that “increased competition among broadband providers has the potential to offer consumers more affordable, high-quality options for broadband service." (Emphasis added) That’s not a solid policy to bring about the aforementioned access. The term “has the potential” reflects the same aspirational, magical microeconomic thinking that a natural monopoly utility market can somehow transform itself into a competitive one with providers competing to sell FTTP connections door to door. Electric power, natural gas and water utilities don’t work that way and neither do telecommunications lines.

Achieving universal access to reliable advanced telecommunications infrastructure like the copper lines that brought voice telephone service to most every American doorstep in the 20th century is undoubtedly good public and economic policy. But it cannot be attained if the underlying assumptions about it are based on wishful thinking. Also needed is well considered program policy to implement the goal that’s absent from both pieces of legislation.

Instead, the U.S. has defaulted to what could be called pinata policy. Various federal agencies established tightly proscribed and vastly oversubscribed grant programs to futilely throw money at the challenge hoping the goal will somehow be met. Then investor-owned telecom and cable companies and public entities whack at the pinata with big sticks and scramble for some of the grant dollars that fall to the floor. That’s hardly well thought out program policy that’s optimally aligned with policy and puts the funding cart before the policy horse.

The pinata fights will grow more intense in 2024 as states will have to sort out competing claims by private and public sector entities over eligibility for some of the $43.45 billion in grants appropriated by the IIJA to states to subsidize advanced telecommunications infrastructure projects. As 2023 drew to a close, California offered a preview for another federal grant appropriation to states for advanced telecommunications infrastructure.

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.”

States should partner with special districts, utility cooperatives to maximize reach of BEAD funds

A conflict between state and federal laws may delay the first distribution of funds to the states from the $42.5 billion program to expand internet access. Sixteen states bar or restrict municipally owned broadband – and nearly all of those states, according to an analysis by Route Fifty, appear unwilling to amend their laws as they finalize plans for how they will use their share of Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment, or BEAD, funds. That could put them at odds with the Biden administration, which supports having more cities and local governments offer broadband.

The 2021 infrastructure law requires that states allow local governments and utilities to receive BEAD funds to provide internet service. At the time the law was being crafted, the administration argued that local governments would be under “less pressure to turn profits” than broadband companies and, therefore, would likely offer internet access at lower prices.

https://www.cityandstatepa.com/policy/2023/12/pennsylvania-stands-alone-clarifying-bead-plan/392566/

This isn’t likely to cause any delay for the states. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) language as Pennsylvania has apparently noticed is sufficiently open to allow BEAD funds to be granted to states that have laws restricting or barring municipally owned advanced telecommunications networks.

Per the IIJA, states “may not exclude cooperatives, nonprofit organizations, public-private partnerships, private companies, public or private utilities, public utility districts, or local governments from eligibility for such grant funds.” That language does not specifically bar states that have statutes limiting or banning these networks from participating in the BEAD grant funding as eligible entities.

The reference to public-private partnerships would theoretically allow states to form a partnerships between government units and the investor owned providers who lobbied for these state laws. The public entities would function as pass through entities for private subsidies as some local jurisdictions have done with American Rescue Plan Act funds earmarked for capital improvement projects.

A superior option better aligned with BEAD program guidance would be for states to partner with non municipal entities such as public utility authorities, special districts and utility cooperatives. Doing so comports with BEAD program guidance urging states to maximize their BEAD allocations to minimize their outlay and “extend the reach of the BEAD program funding and help to ensure that every unserved location and underserved location in the United States has access to reliable, affordable, high-speed internet.”

These entities would be better situated to do so since they operate with lower cost structures that don’t require them to generate profits or pay income taxes – constraints that brought about the nation’s crisis in deficient advanced telecommunications infrastructure that the IIJA seeks to address. To comply with the IIJA’s requirement that BEAD funds be distributed in “an equitable and nondiscriminatory manner,” those entities could partner with investor owned entities for network design, construction, and operation and to offer services as ISPs.

Failure to modernize copper to fiber reaches inflection point

Ensuring everyone can access modern broadband networks requires not only financial investments but also the support of forward-looking public policy. Unfortunately, the regulatory environment in some states, like California, is hindering these much-needed investments. Outdated regulations such as Carrier of Last Resort, or COLR, require providers to overlook the needs of the vast majority of consumers and prevent investments in modern networks. It’s worth noting Congress and many state legislatures have invested a historic number of resources towards high-speed broadband expansion in hard-to-serve areas; however, none of these programs are intended for preserving legacy voice services.

Today, public policies in California and states across the country should prioritize connecting as many households as possible and ensuring broadband access reaches underserved communities.

https://www.attconnects.com/how-broadband-networks-helped-create-21st-century-technology/

Some background here. AT&T California is petitioning the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for geographically targeted relief from its Title II common carrier utility regulatory requirement to provide landline voice telephone service to any customer requesting a connection. It contends fixed prem wireless service served by its mobile wireless network will provide a reliable voice replacement in less densely populated areas where its isn’t deploying fiber to replace legacy copper POTS infrastructure.

Not everyone is convinced. Understandably so considering wireless is designed primarily for mobile use and can degrade in quality when too many users are using the system, particularly since these networks carry both voice and data. Wireless signals can also be less reliable in these areas that frequently feature hilly terrain and vegetation that can interfere with them.

AT&T contends the COLR requirement requires it to “wastefully” maintain “two duplicative networks:” the legacy copper POTS network as well as a “forward looking fiber” network. The problem with the tortured, ahistoric logic of this argument is AT&T and other large telecommunications companies have had decades to look ahead and modernize their copper POTS delivery infrastructure to fiber -- state of the art delivery infrastructure then and now. But because their investors are averse to this significant capital investment that cuts into earnings and shareholder dividends, the fiber future was cancelled in areas where the cost of building and operating it runs higher than others.

The delay in that crucial transition has now reached what AT&T properly characterizes as an inflection point, one that became painfully apparent during the public health measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic stage. The issue lies not with CPUC’s COLR regulations but with AT&T’s shareholders whose interests don’t align with the broader public interest of modernizing the legacy copper POTS delivery infrastructure to fiber. The relevant public policy question is should the company's shareholders be rewarded for sitting on the sidelines for so long, leaving the nation years behind where it should be for advanced telecom?

Service providers likely relieved reporting requirement dropped from FCC anti-discrimination rules

Advanced telecommunications service providers are likely relieved that the Federal Communications Commission opted not to include an annual reporting requirement in its recently adopted rulemaking  Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Prevention and Elimination of Digital Discrimination.

The rulemaking bars “policies or practices, not justified by genuine issues of technical or economic feasibility, that differentially impact consumers’ access to broadband internet access service based on their income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin or are intended to have such differential impact.” It applies broadly to service providers, their contractors, entities facilitating or involved in the provision of service or maintaining and upgrading network infrastructure or other entities that otherwise affect consumer access.

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

The reporting requirement could have provided a detailed basis of comparison to a given provider’s other deployments and service offerings to build a case demonstrating intentional -- or unintentional discrimination based on disparate service offerings – among similarly situated areas. The reports would have required providers to report annually “a comprehensive picture of each major deployment, maintenance, and upgrade project completed or substantially completed for each state and territory within its service area or footprint.”

Those reports could have been utilized by state attorneys general, local governments and/or class action attorneys to demonstrate a pattern of discriminatory market conduct in contravention of public policy. Less densely populated exurban communities that have for years complained telephone and cable companies have redlined them while serving adjacent areas could comprise a class of similarly situated plaintiffs. Another potential plaintiff class is residents of low income urban communities alleging they pay more for inferior services than those offered in more affluent nearby communities. The rulemaking permits providers to justify decisions on deployment of infrastructure and services based on technical and economic considerations.

The potential for litigation is enhanced given FCC complaint handing procedures tend to result in summary dismissal of consumer complaints. Complaints are referred to the provider subject of the complaint. Unsurprisingly, providers typically rationalize or deny the complaint and the complaint is then closed.

Need for sell and buy side subsidies points up advantage of government, coop owned fiber networks

Testifying before Congress back in May, NTIA Administrator Alan Davidson confirmed that a failure to fund the ACP will negatively impact BEAD. "As we build out our broadband networks, we want providers to know that there's some certainty that they'll have customers, particularly in these rural areas, particularly in areas where there's lower-income Americans, they need to know that those Americans are going to be able to afford to get online. The ACP plays a major role there," he said.

How ACP negotiations might shake out

This statement clearly points up market failure and the need for a lower cost alternative model for advanced telecommunications infrastructure. Davidson is in effect saying without both seller subsidies -- delivery infrastructure subsidies such as the NTIA's Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program and buy side subsidies based on household income (the Affordable Connectivity Program), market failure will result. In short, providers won't be able to to connect American homes and consumers won't be able to afford their monthly bills since providers have to price in a profit margin and allow for income taxes. Even then, it's hard to make it pencil out. Jeff Luong, AT&T’s vice president of network engineering, reportedly said at the recently held 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.”

This situation clearly points up the need for lower cost alternative and one more likely to avoid the problem of uneven deployment by investor owned providers that must carefully segment where they build fiber that leaves many homes unconnected: fiber optic networks owned by governmental entities and consumer utility cooperatives. Neither must generate profits or pay income taxes.

Incumbent strategy post 1996: Buy time, protect service territories.

As policymakers dithered since the enactment of the 1996 Telecom Act, large incumbent telcos bought time to slow their copper to fiber transition match their business models that would permit only slow, incremental construction and to protect their nominal service areas from public and utility coop owned fiber. They limited their fiber builds to select high potential areas offering sufficient density of relatively affluent households most likely to meet their internal rate of return standards and generate strong ARPU.

This was accomplished by sleight of hand, keeping the U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s policy focus on boosting “broadband speed,” while keeping policymakers’ and the media's eyes off the larger challenge of modernizing the legacy copper telephone network to fiber. They also did so by apparently influencing policymakers to dole out piecemeal, highly restricted grants nominally aimed at expanding access since their own fiber builds were very limited, leaving Americans hungry for connectivity. The hunger became acute during the public health restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic with the need for advanced telecommunications to work, school and obtain medical care at home. The goal is to keep the issue framed as "broadband" -- a discretionary information service -- versus an essential utility.

The biggest disruptive threat came with the Biden administration’s draft language of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021. It was initially geared toward building fiber to every American doorstep as was achieved with copper to provide voice telephone service in the 20th century. Priority was to be afforded fiber to the premises (FTTP) infrastructure owned, operated by, or affiliated with local governments, non-profits, and co-operatives. It was a wise decision since telecom like other infrastructure is a high cost undertaking that favors size and economies of scale -- something AT&T put into practice in proposing to form regional operating companies as part of its 1983 settlement of the federal government’s anti-trust action leading to its divesture. As is noted, these providers operate without the need to generate profits for investors (as well as pay income taxes) and thus can be committed toward a goal of universal service.

However, instead of standing its ground and favoring this lower cost model that would have allowed taxpayer dollars to go farther, the Biden administration went along with new IIJA language creating the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) subsidy program with generous subsidies for fiber construction and geared toward investor owned incumbents looking to incrementally edge out their existing “footprints.” Decisions on how BEAD subsidies are awarded will likely result in controversy and produce more delay. Disputes over proposed subsidized projects in California offer a preview. The incumbents are likely singing Time Is on My Side.

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021 marked start of fundamental shift in U.S. telecom policy

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021 marked the beginning of a fundamental shift in how the United States regards what it termed in the 1996 Telecommunications Act as advanced telecommunications based on Internet protocol (IP). It’s evolving from a commercial information service as it’s currently regarded and lightly regulated by the Federal Communications Commission to critical infrastructure.

But not fully. It’s still referred to in the IIJA as “broadband:” the incremental evolution since 1998 in throughput from narrowband dialup and changing FCC definitions of it since then. With those definitions based on the business models of the large telephone and cable companies that market bandwidth in price tiered increments.

As might be expected with evolving public policy, it reflects both old and newer thinking. Current policy regards advanced telecommunications as critical infrastructure on one hand as expressed by the IIJA and as a commercial information service -- with access to information priced on the bandwidth of the connection to access it, i.e., “broadband by the bucket” on the other. 

Authorized by the IIJA, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) subsidy program eligibility guidance increases the bandwidth base level from 1990s narrowband dialup to first generation ADSL (i.e. <25/3 with latency > 100ms) and explicitly favors fiber to the premises (FTTP). The latter is an infrastructure versus a throughput-based standard, although the IIJA continues to utilize a minimum coaxial cable throughput standard (100Mbps down/20Mbps up). Locations not offered that level of throughput are secondarily eligible for BEAD subsidization as “underserved.”

Notably, AT&T is urging states to allow it to qualify for BEAD subsidies for contiguous projects to upgrade both generations of copper delivered Digital Subscriber Line (DSL): first generation ADSL (as unserved) and VDSL (underserved). That’s because locations in AT&T’s service area fall into both categories and are often in proximity -- a function both of the limited technological range of each generation of DSL over decades-old legacy twisted pair copper as well as AT&T’s decisions on where it deployed DSL. 

Some neighborhoods were never offered ADSL while others were, provided they were sufficiently close to telephone central offices and remote DSLAMs. Second generation VDSL is even more limited in range and was deployed to serve denser, cherry picked neighborhoods where cable is often also available. BEAD program rules would allow AT&T to propose projects comprised of a mix of "unserved" and "underserved" locations down to the individual address since the rules define an eligible project as one of just discrete number of addresses or even a single address.

In the not too distant future as advanced telecommunications becomes increasingly FTTP infrastructure-based, the notion of "broadband" bandwidth that bears relevance for legacy metallic landline delivery infrastructure will become obsolete.