The California Public Utilities Commission has published updated versions of maps of broadband availability in the Golden State that were issued in early 2008 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's California Broadband Task Force.
There are two versions of the maps: "classified" versions accessible only to approved providers and "unclassified" maps that are publicly available and published online as .pdf files. The secret maps -- classified at the insistence of incumbent providers who don't want the public or potential competitors knowing exactly what they are providing (and more importantly, not providing) and where -- purportedly reveal street address level broadband availability organized by census block. The unclassified public maps by comparison show only the view from 60,000 feet and are sanitized via rasterization and the omission of key highway and road identifiers and town markers. This renders them nearly inscrutable to outsiders and consumers -- some of whom complain the maps exaggerate the boundaries of where broadband availabilty truly exists.
Notably, the two federal agencies administering the distribution of $7.2 billion of grant and loan subsidies to faciltiate the build out of broadband telecommunications infrastrucutre -- the Dept. of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) -- issued rules last week for the first round of funding requiring proposed projects include service area maps delineated by census block and posted on the federal government's Broadband Stimulus Portal.
When compared with the California maps, these newly created maps of proposed project areas may show where the broadband black holes really exist in a way the California maps do not.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Ironically, some broadband stimulus projects may need stimulation of their own
Grants and loan subsidies totalling $7.2 billion in the Obama administration's economic stimulus package are aimed at "shovel ready" broadband telecommunications infrastructure projects that can generate employment and do so quickly while expanding access to broadband .
Project plans that have already been drawn up and have been sitting on the shelf and not proceeding but for sufficient capitalization will likely be the only ones that will be able to meet the fast approaching Aug. 14 deadline for the first round of funding under rules developed by the two federal bodies administering the funds, the Dept. of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
However to qualify for subsequent rounds of funding, start up projects -- particularly those proposed by nonprofits and telecommunications cooperatives -- ironically face significant financial hurdles just to get their stimulus funded project proposals ready. That's because the funding application guidelines jointly issued by the RUS and the NTIA and published last week in the Federal Register require extensive preparation including the foundational step of identifying contiguous census blocks that fall within the guidelines' definition of "unserved" and "underserved" when it comes to broadband access. And that doesn't include the actual project network plan that in the case of a project that will cost more than $1 million or more to build requires retaining professional engineering consultants to review and sign off on the build.
Both of these pre-build steps can run anywhere from $30,000 to $100,000 and potentially far more depending upon the size and scope of the proposed project. While the rules allow these application preparation costs to be reimbursed should a proposed project be approved for funding, raising these sums on the front end with no guarantee of reimbursement given both the complexity of the rules as well as likely challenges of proposed projects by incumbent providers as specifically provided under the guidelines could prove to be an insurmountable hurdle for projects by telecom coops and cash-strapped local governments. That will lead to far fewer potentially meritorious projects being proposed than might otherwise be the case. For the next two rounds of broadband stimulus funding this fall and next year, the RUS and the NTIA should liberalize the rules to include at least some of these costs for broadband build out projects proposed by nonprofits and local governments.
Project plans that have already been drawn up and have been sitting on the shelf and not proceeding but for sufficient capitalization will likely be the only ones that will be able to meet the fast approaching Aug. 14 deadline for the first round of funding under rules developed by the two federal bodies administering the funds, the Dept. of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
However to qualify for subsequent rounds of funding, start up projects -- particularly those proposed by nonprofits and telecommunications cooperatives -- ironically face significant financial hurdles just to get their stimulus funded project proposals ready. That's because the funding application guidelines jointly issued by the RUS and the NTIA and published last week in the Federal Register require extensive preparation including the foundational step of identifying contiguous census blocks that fall within the guidelines' definition of "unserved" and "underserved" when it comes to broadband access. And that doesn't include the actual project network plan that in the case of a project that will cost more than $1 million or more to build requires retaining professional engineering consultants to review and sign off on the build.
Both of these pre-build steps can run anywhere from $30,000 to $100,000 and potentially far more depending upon the size and scope of the proposed project. While the rules allow these application preparation costs to be reimbursed should a proposed project be approved for funding, raising these sums on the front end with no guarantee of reimbursement given both the complexity of the rules as well as likely challenges of proposed projects by incumbent providers as specifically provided under the guidelines could prove to be an insurmountable hurdle for projects by telecom coops and cash-strapped local governments. That will lead to far fewer potentially meritorious projects being proposed than might otherwise be the case. For the next two rounds of broadband stimulus funding this fall and next year, the RUS and the NTIA should liberalize the rules to include at least some of these costs for broadband build out projects proposed by nonprofits and local governments.
Friday, July 10, 2009
California PUC adopts order aimed at leveraging federal broadband infrastructure grants
The California Public Utilities Commission announced July 9 it has adopted a proposed order designed to leverage and maximize California's share of $7.2 billion set aside for broadband infrastructure construction in unserved and underserved areas of the nation in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
The decision pertains to grants of up to 80 percent for such projects administered under the $4.7 billion National Telecommunications and Information Administration's Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP). It would cover half of the minimum 20 percent BTOP match required of those proposing broadband infrastructure projects, bringing the potential total combined federal/state subsidy level up to 90 percent for approved California BTOP projects.
The CPUC supplemental BTOP funding would be allocated out of the regulatory agency's California Advanced Services Fund (CASF). Created in 2007, the $100 million CASF is funded by a surcharge on intrastate long distance calls, of which about $80 million remains unspent.
Projects that qualify for the supplemental grant match will have to meet a higher minimum thoughput standard than under the BTOP. While the federal standard is just 768 Kbs for downloads and 200 Kbs for uploads, under CASF rules the minimum is 3 Mbs down and 1 Mbs for uploads.
While the current CASF rules restrict funding to wireline and wireless providers that have been certified by the CPUC, the decision contemplates making the CASF funding available to entities that aren't providers such as local governments and nonprofits. That would require legislative authorization under an urgency bill currently pending in the state Senate, AB 1555.
Lawmakers should approve this measure and sent it to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. California cannot rely exclusively on providers to close the digital divide and build out badly needed broadband infrastructure; local goverments and telecommunications cooperatives need to be part of the solution.
The decision pertains to grants of up to 80 percent for such projects administered under the $4.7 billion National Telecommunications and Information Administration's Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP). It would cover half of the minimum 20 percent BTOP match required of those proposing broadband infrastructure projects, bringing the potential total combined federal/state subsidy level up to 90 percent for approved California BTOP projects.
The CPUC supplemental BTOP funding would be allocated out of the regulatory agency's California Advanced Services Fund (CASF). Created in 2007, the $100 million CASF is funded by a surcharge on intrastate long distance calls, of which about $80 million remains unspent.
Projects that qualify for the supplemental grant match will have to meet a higher minimum thoughput standard than under the BTOP. While the federal standard is just 768 Kbs for downloads and 200 Kbs for uploads, under CASF rules the minimum is 3 Mbs down and 1 Mbs for uploads.
While the current CASF rules restrict funding to wireline and wireless providers that have been certified by the CPUC, the decision contemplates making the CASF funding available to entities that aren't providers such as local governments and nonprofits. That would require legislative authorization under an urgency bill currently pending in the state Senate, AB 1555.
Lawmakers should approve this measure and sent it to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. California cannot rely exclusively on providers to close the digital divide and build out badly needed broadband infrastructure; local goverments and telecommunications cooperatives need to be part of the solution.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Video conferencing vaporware
The San Jose Mercury News reports Cisco Systems is collaborating with phone and cable carriers on products and services that would allow people to video conference using their televisions. Built on Cisco's TelePresence corporate-video conferencing system, the consumer version will debut within 12 months, the newspaper reported today.
Um, I don't think so. Short of a crash program to wire up homes throughout the United States with fiber optic connections over the next year, this is pure vaporware. Given the pathetic state of last mile Internet connectivity that can barely support low quality YouTube video, the key question is got bandwidth? The answer: nope and not likely except for that small slice of the nation that has fiber to the premises.
In many respects, we're not much closer to ubiquitous videoconferencing than we were nearly 50 years ago when Ma Bell demonstrated the first videophone at the 1960 World's Fair.
Um, I don't think so. Short of a crash program to wire up homes throughout the United States with fiber optic connections over the next year, this is pure vaporware. Given the pathetic state of last mile Internet connectivity that can barely support low quality YouTube video, the key question is got bandwidth? The answer: nope and not likely except for that small slice of the nation that has fiber to the premises.
In many respects, we're not much closer to ubiquitous videoconferencing than we were nearly 50 years ago when Ma Bell demonstrated the first videophone at the 1960 World's Fair.
Monday, July 06, 2009
U.S. broadband stimulus funding rules for "underserved" areas could produce controversy, delay
While designed to stimulate employment and do so quickly, the federal economic stimulus package enacted in February and specifically the $7.2 billion it allocated as a down payment on a badly needed upgrade of America's aged telecommunications infrastructure may not work as rapidly as intended. With unemployment persisting and exceeding that forecast by the Obama administration as it took office just before the enactment of the stimulus package, this could prove problematic.
The $7.2 billion allocation is targeted for build out of telecom infrastructure in those areas of the nation that are "unserved" and "underserved" when it comes to broadband access. Under the rules governing the award of grants and loans issued last week by the two federal agencies overseeing them, generally only deep rural America where dialup and satellite are the sole options for Internet connectivity will likely meet the definition of unserved. Proposed broadband projects to serve these areas are unlikely to generate much controversy.
However much of the U.S. is chock a block with broadband black holes located in metro areas outside of rural areas due to incomplete buildout of the existing telco and cable company wireline infrastructure and the well known technological shortcomings of DSL over copper. Most of these census blocks will fall into the underserved category. The definition of what constitutes underserved is complex and likely to lead to controversy, delay and potential litigation that could frustrate the key goal of the stimulus funding: to rapidly preserve and generate jobs.
Since the rules require maps of the contiguous census blocks of proposed broadband projects to be posted at a Web site run by the two agenices administering the stimulus funds and stipulate that only one project can be approved for a given area, it's possible -- if not probable -- that existing providers will challenge some of the proposed projects as not in compliance with the definition of underserved. They could contend that they serve at least half of a given census block with wireline broadband, thereby eliminating a key element of the definition of an underserved census block. Under the guidelines, such a challenge would quickly put a proposed project on hold or ultimately result in its rejection by the agencies.
The incumbent wireline providers -- typically deep pocketed telcos and cable providers -- could tie up these proposed projects both in challenges before the agencies and in court if necessary. Incumbent wireline providers tend to view their service areas as franchises and even sovereign territory regardless of whether (or not as is often the case) they are actually providing services throughout them.
Wireless providers could also stymie proposed projects in underserved areas, but for them it could be harder. Under the rules, a census block is considered underserved if no wireless broadband provider advertises service providing at least 3 Mbs download. That eliminates 3G cellular based wireless as well as many fixed terrestrial Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) since in underserved areas they typically offer download speeds below 3 Mbs. That's because both prefer relatively lower cost T-1 lines for backhaul that can't provide 3 Mbs download speeds in order to enhance their profit margins.
Even if an area doesn't qualify as underserved under these parameters, a third prong of the definition deems it such if only 40 percent or fewer households within the census block subscribe to broadband service. That's likely to be the case in many underserved areas due to the poor value wireless providers currently offer in terms of high monthly rates for slow speeds barely adequate to support video, high latency and in the case of 3G services, bandwidth useage caps similar to those employed by satellite Internet providers.
Regarding the third underserved qualification -- broadband take up of 40 percent of households or less -- how is that figure to be determined both for the purpose of documenting proposed projects as required under the agencies' guidelines or in the case of disputes? Must those proposing to serve these census blocks engage a polling company to go door to door asking residents if they subscribe to broadband services? That's certain to introduce cost and delay for projects proposing to serve "underserved" areas. And in the case of disputes, will the parties be forced to hire an independent pollster, adding even more cost and delay?
The $7.2 billion allocation is targeted for build out of telecom infrastructure in those areas of the nation that are "unserved" and "underserved" when it comes to broadband access. Under the rules governing the award of grants and loans issued last week by the two federal agencies overseeing them, generally only deep rural America where dialup and satellite are the sole options for Internet connectivity will likely meet the definition of unserved. Proposed broadband projects to serve these areas are unlikely to generate much controversy.
However much of the U.S. is chock a block with broadband black holes located in metro areas outside of rural areas due to incomplete buildout of the existing telco and cable company wireline infrastructure and the well known technological shortcomings of DSL over copper. Most of these census blocks will fall into the underserved category. The definition of what constitutes underserved is complex and likely to lead to controversy, delay and potential litigation that could frustrate the key goal of the stimulus funding: to rapidly preserve and generate jobs.
Since the rules require maps of the contiguous census blocks of proposed broadband projects to be posted at a Web site run by the two agenices administering the stimulus funds and stipulate that only one project can be approved for a given area, it's possible -- if not probable -- that existing providers will challenge some of the proposed projects as not in compliance with the definition of underserved. They could contend that they serve at least half of a given census block with wireline broadband, thereby eliminating a key element of the definition of an underserved census block. Under the guidelines, such a challenge would quickly put a proposed project on hold or ultimately result in its rejection by the agencies.
The incumbent wireline providers -- typically deep pocketed telcos and cable providers -- could tie up these proposed projects both in challenges before the agencies and in court if necessary. Incumbent wireline providers tend to view their service areas as franchises and even sovereign territory regardless of whether (or not as is often the case) they are actually providing services throughout them.
Wireless providers could also stymie proposed projects in underserved areas, but for them it could be harder. Under the rules, a census block is considered underserved if no wireless broadband provider advertises service providing at least 3 Mbs download. That eliminates 3G cellular based wireless as well as many fixed terrestrial Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) since in underserved areas they typically offer download speeds below 3 Mbs. That's because both prefer relatively lower cost T-1 lines for backhaul that can't provide 3 Mbs download speeds in order to enhance their profit margins.
Even if an area doesn't qualify as underserved under these parameters, a third prong of the definition deems it such if only 40 percent or fewer households within the census block subscribe to broadband service. That's likely to be the case in many underserved areas due to the poor value wireless providers currently offer in terms of high monthly rates for slow speeds barely adequate to support video, high latency and in the case of 3G services, bandwidth useage caps similar to those employed by satellite Internet providers.
Regarding the third underserved qualification -- broadband take up of 40 percent of households or less -- how is that figure to be determined both for the purpose of documenting proposed projects as required under the agencies' guidelines or in the case of disputes? Must those proposing to serve these census blocks engage a polling company to go door to door asking residents if they subscribe to broadband services? That's certain to introduce cost and delay for projects proposing to serve "underserved" areas. And in the case of disputes, will the parties be forced to hire an independent pollster, adding even more cost and delay?
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Australian blogger offers bearish view on U.S. broadband stimulus
Here's what Australian Paul Budde has to say on the U.S. government's rules on broadband stimulus funding released this week:
With countries like Australia and New Zealand implementing infrastructure that can deliver 100Mb/s for their next generation broadband—and with most Europeans not too far behind this—it is quite shocking to see that the $7.2 billion economic stimulus package in the USA (under the RUS Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) and the NTIA Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP)) requires nothing more than 768 kilobits per second (kb/s) downstream and 200 kb/s upstream.
I am sure that some of you will think that I have misread this but, no, that is indeed the case.
In 2003 Hong Kong decided not to classify as broadband any service that didn't provide 2Mb/s!
The sad part of the story is that, as this money will mainly be deployed in rural America, this guarantees an enormous digital divide in the USA. AT&T and Verizon already offer FttH services in some of the more affluent suburbs, and they are currently extending these services guaranteeing a progressive increase in the quality of broadband services provided to these markets; however, for the foreseeable future there is little hope of seeing such service quality increase (speed) beyond the major cities.
So far, however, our interpretation, and the comments that I have received from my American colleagues, raises very serious concerns, and represents a massive setback for the deployment of broadband in regional and rural America.
Friday, July 03, 2009
U.S. government formally recognizes broadband "underserved"
One of the notable aspects of the U.S. government's changing policy vis broadband is the formal recognition that much of the nation is served by incomplete telecommunications infrastructure, incapable of delivering advanced telecommunications services.
We're not necessarily talking about remote or deep rural areas of the nation where population density is very low. Rather, it's large areas of the U.S. that can be found in metropolitan areas where service from existing wireline providers goes only so far into a community or down a street or road, creating highly arbitrary pools of broadband winners and losers. Exhibit A: Lots of folks have stumbled across this blog via online searches looking to solve the vexing riddle of why they can't order service while a nearby neighbor can.
The rules governing the disbursement of $7.2 billion in economic stimulus funding to build out broadband infrastructure to unserved and "underserved" areas issued by the federal govenment this week embody the formal recognition of this sad state of affairs:
"The term 'underserved' is not a common term in telecommunications, although it is commonly applied in other fields, such as healthcare, education, social services and retail, to denote populations lacking access to critical services," the rules note.
Newly installed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski also referred to the problem of the broadband "underserved" before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee at his confirmation hearing. The term, he testified, encompasses areas where there are pockets of unserved areas in places that generally have broadband (such as where one neighbor has service while another doesn't).
That's a tacit recognition of the incomplete nature of the nation's telecommunications infrastructure that in too many places is like a half built highway or bridge or at best, a rutted dirt road. Bringing America's telecommunications infrastructure to where it should have been a decade ago and where it needs to be in the future requires a clear recognition that broadband black holes aren't confined to rural areas. Unfortunately, they are comprised largely of Genachowski's "pockets" that are scattered all across the nation and can be found most anywhere and not just in rural areas.
We're not necessarily talking about remote or deep rural areas of the nation where population density is very low. Rather, it's large areas of the U.S. that can be found in metropolitan areas where service from existing wireline providers goes only so far into a community or down a street or road, creating highly arbitrary pools of broadband winners and losers. Exhibit A: Lots of folks have stumbled across this blog via online searches looking to solve the vexing riddle of why they can't order service while a nearby neighbor can.
The rules governing the disbursement of $7.2 billion in economic stimulus funding to build out broadband infrastructure to unserved and "underserved" areas issued by the federal govenment this week embody the formal recognition of this sad state of affairs:
"The term 'underserved' is not a common term in telecommunications, although it is commonly applied in other fields, such as healthcare, education, social services and retail, to denote populations lacking access to critical services," the rules note.
Newly installed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski also referred to the problem of the broadband "underserved" before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee at his confirmation hearing. The term, he testified, encompasses areas where there are pockets of unserved areas in places that generally have broadband (such as where one neighbor has service while another doesn't).
That's a tacit recognition of the incomplete nature of the nation's telecommunications infrastructure that in too many places is like a half built highway or bridge or at best, a rutted dirt road. Bringing America's telecommunications infrastructure to where it should have been a decade ago and where it needs to be in the future requires a clear recognition that broadband black holes aren't confined to rural areas. Unfortunately, they are comprised largely of Genachowski's "pockets" that are scattered all across the nation and can be found most anywhere and not just in rural areas.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Much anticipated broadband economic stimulus rules released
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service and the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration's much anticipated regulations governing disbursement of $7.2 billion allocated for broadband telecommunications infrastructure in the federal economic stimulus bill enacted in late February were issued today.
At 121 pages, the rules are mind numbingly complex. They're also certain to disappoint many by adopting the Federal Communications Commission's wimpy standard of broadband of just 768 Kbps downstream and 200 Kbps upstream that's inadequate to deliver even low quality video.
"RUS and NTIA favor this broadband speed threshold because it leverages the FCC’s expertise, utilizes an established standard, facilitates the use of many currently common broadband applications (e.g., web browsing, VOIP, and one-way video), allows for consideration of cost-effective solutions for difficult-to-serve areas, and is the most technology-neutral option because it encompasses all major wired and wireless technologies," the two agencies explain in an appendix to the rules. "For these same reasons, RUS and NTIA decline to impose a latency requirement or technology-specific definitions."
That's quite a step down from the speeds Congress contemplated in a January draft version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as minimally defining wireline broadband of at least 5 Mbs download and 1 Mbs uploads and 45 Mbs on the downside and 20 Mbs up for "advanced" wireline broadband. Wireless providers would have had to provide connectivity of 3 Mbs down and 1 Mbs up under the draft legislation that set off howls of protest from both incumbent wireline providers as well as wireless broadband providers complaining those standards were simply too tough to meet. The good news is the RUS and NTIA will give bonus points to projects that will offer higher speeds and an upgrade path to them. And point demerits are given for high latency.
The rules also define another controversial aspect of where the funds will go: areas considered unserved for broadband and underserved. The former is defined as one or more contiguous census blocks where at least 90 percent of households lack access to facilities-based, terrestrial broadband service, either fixed or mobile.
Underserved gets a bit more complex. The rules define it as one or more contiguous census blocks where one or more conditions exist: 1) No more than 50 percent of the households in the proposed funded service area have access to facilities-based, terrestrial broadband service (presumably including fixed terrestrial wireless); 2) No fixed or mobile broadband service provider advertises (yes, advertises, believe it or not) broadband speeds of at least 3 Mbs down and; 3) The rate of broadband subscribership is 40 percent of households or less.
Buried deep inside the rules at page 72 is a troubling broadband black hole preservation provision. It essentially gives incumbent providers (read the telco/cable duopoly) the power to effectively veto or at least delay the award of grants and loans for broadband infrastructure projects proposed by smaller players, local governments and telecom consumer cooperatives. Proposed project areas are publicly disclosed under the regulations. If an incumbent provider doesn't like what it sees, it can file its own application and challenge the upstarts by claiming their project proposes to serve an area that's neither unserved nor underserved.
"If the information submitted by an existing service provider establishes that the applicant’s proposed funded service area is not underserved, both RUS and NTIA may reject the application," the rules state. Moreover, the rules exempt existing providers from the requirement they publicly disclose the area to be served by their projects as well as the tight application timeframe governing other proposed deployments.
The window for this first round of applications is narrow indeed: just one month between July 14 and Aug. 14 after which the bulk of the funding --$4 billion of the $7.2 billion total -- will be awarded. The balance will be disbursed in two follow on rounds of funding with all $7.2 billion due out the door by Sept. 30, 2010. That means those seeking the funds will have to act very quickly to get their applications in order and gather the large amount of information required under the highly data driven, two-step application process.
At 121 pages, the rules are mind numbingly complex. They're also certain to disappoint many by adopting the Federal Communications Commission's wimpy standard of broadband of just 768 Kbps downstream and 200 Kbps upstream that's inadequate to deliver even low quality video.
"RUS and NTIA favor this broadband speed threshold because it leverages the FCC’s expertise, utilizes an established standard, facilitates the use of many currently common broadband applications (e.g., web browsing, VOIP, and one-way video), allows for consideration of cost-effective solutions for difficult-to-serve areas, and is the most technology-neutral option because it encompasses all major wired and wireless technologies," the two agencies explain in an appendix to the rules. "For these same reasons, RUS and NTIA decline to impose a latency requirement or technology-specific definitions."
That's quite a step down from the speeds Congress contemplated in a January draft version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as minimally defining wireline broadband of at least 5 Mbs download and 1 Mbs uploads and 45 Mbs on the downside and 20 Mbs up for "advanced" wireline broadband. Wireless providers would have had to provide connectivity of 3 Mbs down and 1 Mbs up under the draft legislation that set off howls of protest from both incumbent wireline providers as well as wireless broadband providers complaining those standards were simply too tough to meet. The good news is the RUS and NTIA will give bonus points to projects that will offer higher speeds and an upgrade path to them. And point demerits are given for high latency.
The rules also define another controversial aspect of where the funds will go: areas considered unserved for broadband and underserved. The former is defined as one or more contiguous census blocks where at least 90 percent of households lack access to facilities-based, terrestrial broadband service, either fixed or mobile.
Underserved gets a bit more complex. The rules define it as one or more contiguous census blocks where one or more conditions exist: 1) No more than 50 percent of the households in the proposed funded service area have access to facilities-based, terrestrial broadband service (presumably including fixed terrestrial wireless); 2) No fixed or mobile broadband service provider advertises (yes, advertises, believe it or not) broadband speeds of at least 3 Mbs down and; 3) The rate of broadband subscribership is 40 percent of households or less.
Buried deep inside the rules at page 72 is a troubling broadband black hole preservation provision. It essentially gives incumbent providers (read the telco/cable duopoly) the power to effectively veto or at least delay the award of grants and loans for broadband infrastructure projects proposed by smaller players, local governments and telecom consumer cooperatives. Proposed project areas are publicly disclosed under the regulations. If an incumbent provider doesn't like what it sees, it can file its own application and challenge the upstarts by claiming their project proposes to serve an area that's neither unserved nor underserved.
"If the information submitted by an existing service provider establishes that the applicant’s proposed funded service area is not underserved, both RUS and NTIA may reject the application," the rules state. Moreover, the rules exempt existing providers from the requirement they publicly disclose the area to be served by their projects as well as the tight application timeframe governing other proposed deployments.
The window for this first round of applications is narrow indeed: just one month between July 14 and Aug. 14 after which the bulk of the funding --$4 billion of the $7.2 billion total -- will be awarded. The balance will be disbursed in two follow on rounds of funding with all $7.2 billion due out the door by Sept. 30, 2010. That means those seeking the funds will have to act very quickly to get their applications in order and gather the large amount of information required under the highly data driven, two-step application process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)