“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.