Anyone who thinks the case is about fish is going to need a bigger boat.

In reality, this whale of a case could harpoon the Federal Communications Commission, which is clearly at risk of seeing its newly approved, highly controversial digital discrimination rules aimed at broadband Internet Service Providers get fed to the sharks.

Since 1984, the Supreme Court’s Chevron Doctrine has required lower courts to defer to an agency like the FCC when reasonably interpreting vague legislative language passed by Congress. The doctrine was established in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

Opponents of the Chevron Doctrine aver that judicial deference has gone too far, leading to outsized accretions of bureaucratic power that threaten the nation’s constitutional order sustained by the separation of powers.

“Chevron deference has become a central pillar of the modern administrative state,” said Stanford Law School Professor Michael W. McConnell. “Although Chevron appeared routine when it came out, it has become the most important doctrine in administrative law.”

The FCC under Democratic Chair Jessica Rosenworcel has a lot riding on the high court’s ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which is ostensibly about the regulation of fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1976. A decision is not expected for several months after Wednesday’s oral arguments.

In November, the FCC adopted Internet digital discrimination rules as required by Congress in section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021.

The FCC rules included a “disparate impact” standard imported from civil rights law that can hold ISPs liable for unintentional acts of discrimination across a broad range of activities – from the price and quality of Internet service to late fees, equipment rentals, and the use of customer credit and account history.

Litigation on the basis that the FCC developed rules far broader than Congress intended is inevitable.

“The FCC’s regulatory overreach will prove impossible to administer and impossible to comply with,” said Michael Powell, President & CEO of the NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, in a Nov. 15, 2023 statement.

The Supreme Court likely has at least five justices who want to dismantle the Chevron Doctrine entirely. The Court majority that would do so is likely the same one that in 2022 barred an agency like the FCC from adopting rules of vast economic and political significance without explicit authority from Congress.

The Chevron Doctrine has its defenders, including the Environmental Defense Fund and other green groups that say opponents of judicial deference have been exaggerating the harms.

“This campaign is marked by the kind of sloganeering, argument by anecdote, and sacrifice of empirical rigor that are all too familiar in hardball politics but out of place in legal argumentation,” the EDF said in its amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court last September. “Like any shrewd campaigners, petitioners and their supporters seek to ‘drive up the negatives’ by misstating what Chevron instructs.”

Last June, an article on the Natural Resources Defense Council’s website disputed ideas that the Chevron Doctrine gave an agency like the FCC “a rubber stamp” to adopt onerous rule and regulations. Ironically, the NRDC supports the maintenance of the Chevron Doctrine, even though it was the losing party in the 1984 case.

“…As noted by the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy institute, federal agencies face legal challenges to their rules all the time – and only prevail in about 70% these challenges, even with the Chevron Doctrine on their side. In other words, their powers are far from unchecked,” the article said.

A problem with the NRDC article’s analysis is that it gave equal weight to each case in the sample. Broadband ISPs have much more at stake in their likely legal challenge to the FCC’s digital discrimination rules than in their potential case taking on new FCC rules requiring Internet providers to display ‘Broadband Nutrition Labels’ at the point of sale.

In the end, by scuttling the Chevron Doctrine, the Supreme Court will not only reel in a big fish like the administrative state, it will also send Congress a message about the need to craft clear laws.

“Congress will face more pressure to clearly articulate agency authority and delegate fewer details to administrative agencies,” the Brownstein Hyatt law firm said in a client alert last May.

Ted Hearn is the Editor of Policyband, a new website dedicated to comprehensive coverage of the broadband communications market. This piece is was published on Policyband on January 15, 2024, and is reprinted with permission.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

The average U.S. triple play is about $220.00 a month, and with an exchange rate of 1 Euro=$1.09 Dollars, the overcharging, which we documented, is $150+ a month — or more.

The Digital Divide was created, in large part, because prices are unaffordable, and America is now paying for over 20 million low-income families to have broadband — up to $30. a month allowance.

America’s prices are out of control, yet where are the investigations and audits to explain how overseas prices are a fraction of what we are paying in the U.S.? And why are we giving billions to the companies that helped to create the Digital Divide in the first place?

We assembled our previous research with new findings in this new series, using both 3rd party expert analysis as well as actual examples from December 2023, comparing and detailing the out of control US prices vs the services of free Telecom in France and Spectrum-Charter in New York City.

America’s broken promises and the state 5-year broken broadband plans

America’s prices for broadband have made high speed internet unaffordable for many households, Moreover, the pandemic revealed a major Digital Divide where whole areas of the U.S. were never upgraded to fiber optic networks, much less high speed services even over the copper wires. Thus, no competition to lower rates.

And every state now has plans to ‘bridge the Digital Divide’, but in all of the state broadband plans, none have addressed how the Divide started in their state or about the massive financial price divide between America and the EU or Asian countries that charge a fraction of the prices charged in the US.

Over $150 billion is being given out in state and federal government subsidies over the next few years, and much of It going to the companies that helped to create the Digital Divide.

The states must investigate the core issues as they impact almost every FCC, NTIA, FTC, Congressional and state current and future actions.

The opening chart tells the tale of how the European countries did not allow for massive multiple additional made up fees, such as the Broadcast-Sports fee ($27.90 on a Spectrum Triple Play). Moreover, the services do not charge ridiculous prices for equipment, such as set top box, that is required to use the service. Also, because there is competition, customers have choices and prices have not skyrocketed, but are actually going down.

America’s prices are 5–10 times higher than comparable data from other countries

How can America’s prices for the stand-alone, double and triple play — (phone, cable TV and ISP-broadband) be 5–10 times more when comparing data from other countries, as highlighted in the European Union Commission’s report, published July 2022 for the year 2021. And, as the report details, even basic stand-alone high speed broadband prices overseas are a fraction of what we’re paying in the U.S.

• America’s “Double play” — high speed broadband and phone service — is being overcharged, on average, almost $75 a month — a whopping $900 a year.
• The “Triple play” is being overcharged by $180 a month on average; this comes to overcharged, over $2,200 for the triple play.

The current triple play in America, after the promotional prices end, is now around $220.00 a month, yet overseas, the average was around $40 a month, but the prices overseas are in decline. However, in some countries, it can be as low as $23.00 for 200 Mbps or more; only $15 for the double play.

According to the EU report, we’ve even been beaten out by Bulgaria, Romania and let’s not forget Slovakia:

• “Overall, Lithuania and Romania have the most attractive prices for broadband internet in the EU. All the offers in these countries belong to the cluster of the least expensive countries in their respective baskets. Bulgaria, Latvia and Slovakia follow. Poland, Hungary, France and Spain have low prices especially for Triple Play.”

But when the EU report says prices are “attractive”, we are talking $10–12 bucks a month for stand-alone broadband and $20–23 for the triple play, with speed of 200 Mbps or more.

By the way, Bulgaria does get Netflix and their Top 10 shows are close to America’s viewing.

How is it possible that America’s Triple Play is $150-$200 a month over what is being charged overseas? That’s over $2,200.00 a year ‘extra’ being charged to families — including low-income families and fixed income seniors. This is on top of the fact that there could be only one or no providers of high-speed services in the rural regions or in low-income neighborhoods of cities.

It would be one thing if it was a small differential between the overseas EU group and others price of service, but this is a difference that is too large to be ignored.

What are the underlying issues?

No Serious Competition to keep market forces and rate increases at bay. First, AT&T et al. failed to show up with high-speed competition to keep the cable companies, the other group of providers that use a wired connection, in check. For example, in CA, AT&T-Pac Bell had obligations to bring fiber optic broadband throughout the state and our maps showed that much of AT&T’s entire Los Angeles county region had been left to deteriorate and not upgraded as promised with fiber optic infrastructure.

Made-up Fees and surcharges are out of control. One of the sleaziest practices in the US has become the addition of made-up taxes, fees and surcharges that are not mandated or government sanctioned. This is being done so that the companies can quote a price that is missing 20–40% of the total costs,

Made-Up Taxes include:

• Broadcast and Sports surcharge: $15–24.00 a month
• Cost Recovery Fee: $1.99–2.99
• Admin Fees: $1.49-$2.99 per month
• Pass-through taxes, Gross receipts tax, telecom taxes

The largest and most egregious added fee is now the Sports and Broadcast surcharge, which is really 2 separate charges that have been merged in many cases:

“Made-up, Broadcast-Sports Fees Up 820%; Overcharging $250+ a Year — then Quintuple-Taxed, Fee’d and Surcharged.” This article was written in December 2021, and along the way there have been increases bringing the total charge on the Spectrum NY June 2022 bill to $23.70 a month. This one fee on the Spectrum NY Triple play bill is more than the entire charges for a triple play in many overseas EU countries.

This charge went up to $27.90 a month extra in 2023. That is an overall increase of 1,140%.

• Quadruple Taxed, Fee’d and Surcharged. — If the increases to this one fee is not enough, there are made-up taxes, fees and surcharges being applied to this fee as it is considered ‘revenue’ to the company and is taxed as such. And some of these surcharges are actually tax pass-throughs where the company gets to have the customer pay the company’s taxes.
• It is impossible to calculate the exact tax assessment as there is no ‘Rosetta Stone’ to be able to unravel how each tax, fee and surcharge is applied.

But, considering that basic telecom taxes can be 12–20% depending on the city and state, if a 15% tax is applied, that would add an additional $3.55 more per month.

• Not included in the advertised price: To add irony to obfuscation, this fee is never included in the advertised rates, nor is it added completely in the promotional price, making the increases after the promotion even more egregious.
• Not included in the EU statistics for the U.S. Triple Play: Ironically, the EU informed us that they do not include the extra charges and fees in the US because — well, the other countries only have a VAT (Value Added Tax), and not the made-up fees.
• No Oversight, No Audits; Regulators Failed U.S.: The idea that a state-franchised cable service or the Holding Companies that control the state telecommunications public utility can just make up fees and add them to bills with no one asking for a cost analysis or some other justification to raise this make-believe charge, should have the peanut gallery screaming.
• Public has Amnesia: No one knows who these local telecom companies are or what they’ve been able to get away with. And virtually no one could answer basic questions about who the companies are or the services they offer.
• Let’s give government subsidies to keep America in a perpetual state of “Please Sir May I have another?” Currently there are subsidies being given to low-income families to go online, which are then handed over to the same companies that have caused this Divide in the first place; i.e.; a new flavor of Corporate Welfare. We will address these issues in an upcoming story.

The telecom holding companies that control the critical infrastructure wires, towers and antennas created the Digital Divide. They also control the pricing of all services, wireline, wireless, broadband, internet and even cable, and as we will discuss, they also were able to manipulate the accounting formulas to have the state telecom utility act as a cash machine to fund, illegally, the other lines of business.

America must go after these cooked books and must clean up the mess. There is plenty of money to get America upgraded, and it must be seen as the first step in LA County to clean up the mess and decades of public policy and regulatory issues.

Government subsidies, both state and federal, to companies who have created the Digital Divide and can control the prices and profits over the public utility wires needs immediate investigations — not more gifts of largesse.

Bruce Kushnick is Executive Director of New Networks Institute and a founding member of the Irregulators. He has been a telecom analyst for 40 years, and playing the piano for 65 years. A version of this piece originally appeared on Medium on January 9, 2024, and is reprinted with permission.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Many of our members plan to actively compete for the BEAD money, so we have submitted comments directly to the states on their Initial Proposals to NTIA. Through these comments, we have stressed the importance of ensuring state broadband offices address barriers to deployment including gaining access to the public rights-of-way and streamlining the permitting process.

To reinforce this, we put together the “Broadband Ready City” Checklist as a guide for state and local governments to coordinate and effectively implement the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program.

The checklist covers five points on promoting fair and reasonable costs on applications and accessing the rights-of-way, to timely permitting reviews, greater transparency in the review process, and promoting more innovative deployment processes and construction techniques such as micro-trenching.

We were excited to see Kansas be one of the first states to lead on adopting specific local ordinances ahead of time and before any BEAD funding is awarded. I would like to personally commend Governor Laura Kelly and the Kansas Office of Broadband Development for their work in introducing a new statewide program called “Kansas Broadband Ready Communities.” This is an important step in the right direction.

By certifying communities and towns as a Broadband Ready Community, these state and local review guidelines will enable faster processing that will allow the deployment of broadband infrastructure more quickly, including small cells and other wireless equipment and fiber that is used by both fixed and mobile providers to connect their networks. An efficient and effective permitting process will help ensure that the taxpayer’s investment through the BEAD Program will deliver broadband service faster and more affordably.

We appreciate the Kansas Office of Broadband Development taking this important step, and we urge other states to build on this and implement the language of our “Broadband Ready City” Checklist.

As we continue to work hard to bridge the digital divide, we believe this process will serve as a catalyst for removing barriers to deployment at the state and local level and lead to more successful broadband projects in the future.

Chip Pickering is CEO of INCOMPAS, the internet and competitive networks association. For nearly three decades, he has been at the forefront of every major telecommunications milestone, from his time as a Senate staffer on the Commerce Committee shaping the Telecommunications Act of 1996, to his role as a Member of Congress leading on tech issues and overseeing the transition to the commercial internet. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Investments for the latest 5G infrastructure have yet to show a significant revenue increase. In fact, subscriber traffic has continued to grow while service plan pricing has remained relatively flat. MNOs realize that further network investment must focus on cost savings and new revenue streams.

Nonetheless 5G enhancements have been a primary focus this past year. New 5G radio frequency bands, like C-Band, were implemented in high traffic venues where its increased bandwidth improved performance. Yet the deployment strategy of higher mmWave frequencies varied across the MNOs. While mmWave supports high data rates and low latency, its propagation characteristics limit its coverage area which requires careful planning and consideration by MNOs.

One application where mmWave has been quite successful is for Fixed Wireless Access services as an alternative to wired broadband. With the use of advanced 5G antenna technology such as Massive MIMO, and a relatively clear line-of-site between towers and FWA users, the distance limitations can be minimized while delivering high performance broadband service. Since the last mile connection is delivered wirelessly, the cost per customer is reduced and the service price can be highly competitive.

Next-generation core network architecture

We are also seeing a ramp in the deployment of the next generation 5G core network architecture. Originally 5G was deployed in a Non-Stand-Alone architecture that allowed MNOs to deploy their 5G RAN as an overly of the existing 4G network, whereby 5G devices depend on 4G signaling and core network to establish a connection.

Moving to 5G stand alone, which is based on cloud-native principles, provides an inherent service-based architecture that supports full end-to-end 5G capabilities including advanced mobile core functionality that opens the door for new services and higher performance. While 5G SA deployment in the US started before 2023, this year has seen continual growth.

A major benefit of the 5G stand alone mobile core is the implementation of advanced functionality including network slicing, Voice over New Radio and time-critical communication. It allows MNOs to create separate network layers for customized capacity, latency, and performance to address specific applications or user requirements. This provides a platform for new edge services based on customer groups, and new revenue streams.

Another key benefit of 5G stand alone is the ability to separate and virtualize the various functions of the mobile network. For example, RAN functions can be moved to optimal locations within the network running on standardized information technology servers or in a hosted cloud.

This architecture allows MNOs to reduce hardware costs compared to traditional network infrastructure options and implement software-based RAN functionality that efficiently scales with traffic needs. The next step is leveraging 5G SA network principles along with Open RAN capabilities as we move into 2024.

Open RAN likely to accelerate in 2024

O-RAN elevates this optimization further by allowing elements from different vendors to interoperate based on the defined standards. This gives MNOs significant flexibility and cost savings through a more competitive and scalable approach.

While there are operational challenges, these challenges can be overcome with careful interoperability testing and verification. One example of this strategy is the recent announcement by AT&T to invest significantly in O-RAN implementation starting in 2024.

Indoor users also benefit from these network architectural advances. DAS solutions have begun to evolve to an O-RAN architecture that simplifies its connectivity to the MNO core network with included baseband functionality. This eliminates the need for a separate and costly BTS signal source traditionally deployed by each of the MNOs.

When an inbuilding O-RAN solution is approved for use by the MNO it can be deployed and managed by the inbuilding solution provider, thereby reducing MNO capital expenditure and operational expenditures while delivering dedicated capacity to the venue. Furthermore, this architecture supports the centralization of RAN functions that can optimize connectivity between the MNO network and multiple venues.

Finally, this architecture further simplifies the integration of neutral host and private network services where 5G SA network slicing and edge services support the ability to offer value-added custom applications to the building owners, tenants, and guests, on top of neutral host service.

While private network solutions have been deployed for quite some time, they primarily serve the internal venue users. Addressing the needs of both private and public mobile users on those solutions has been a challenge due to factors driven by MNO requirements. Fresh solutions have already emerged that solve this challenge with the O-RAN and 5G architectural advances.

These new solutions optimize the coexistence of MNO neutral host and private services on the same scalable platform with improved economics. With the network densification and cost benefits of this approach, it is expected to be an area of growth in the coming year.

John Cinicolo leads Tillman Digital Cities’ Technical Operations function including solution architecture, technology strategy, program execution and technical services. He has more than 35 years of experience building mobile technology business around the world in leadership roles with network infrastructure provides and entrepreneurial startups. He holds a Bachelor of Engineering in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Though the new rules were finalized in October, Internet Service Providers have until April 10, 2024 to publish their broadband labels, though providers with 100,000 or fewer subscriber lines have until October 10, 2024.

Just like the label on the back of packaged food in grocery stores helps shoppers understand the nutritional value of the food they are buying, the broadband label requires ISPs to disclose their broadband pricing and service information (at the point of sale) to help potential subscribers make informed decisions about the service they are signing up to get.

Transparency on Display

Though the label is just another red-tape requirement for some providers, others see it as an opportunity to show off the quality of their services.

Google Fiber, for example, published via social media and its blog a preliminary version of its own broadband consumer label, just days after the final rule was published, and six months before its deadline.

In a post titled “Is your internet high fiber?,” Ariane Schaffer, the company’s Government Affairs & Public Policy Manager, wrote about how the broadband nutrition labels are “a great idea,” adding “we didn’t think that Google Fiber customers should have to wait for that clarity. As of today, GFiber is launching nutrition labels for our residential 1 Gig, 2 Gig, 5 Gig, and 8 Gig products — some of the first to roll out anywhere.”

Schaffer told ILSR, “we think that transparency is the right thing for the customer. It should be easy to understand what you are paying and what you are getting for that price.”

The label helps Google show off its consistent speeds and straightforward pricing structure, especially when compared with large monopoly providers known for making it difficult, if not impossible, for subscribers to figure out exactly how much they can expect to pay month-to-month.

Planet Networks, an ISP serving just over 6,000 subscribers in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York, didn’t wait until the final requirements were published to get their label over a year ago. The ISP posted the label on social media in addition to publishing it at the point of sale, the minimum requirement.

Planet Networks CEO Robert Boyle told ILSR that putting the label together was simple:

“We don’t play games with pricing and we overprovision everything to ensure customers always get what they are paying for.”

He believes Planet Network’s straightforward and honest pricing, exhibited on the label, gives the provider a market advantage, which is why the company shared it on its social media platforms. “I think greater transparency is going to help us compete against the cable company when they advertise one price, but actually bill significantly more after all their made up fees that they disguise as government taxes and surcharges,” Boyle said. “There is no sales tax nor other government taxes in any jurisdiction where we do business.”

Boyle also mentioned that Planet Networks would eventually publish the label on monthly bills – something advocates fought hard for but that didn’t make it into the final ruling.

A Challenge for WISPs

While the label is a great opportunity for fiber providers to show off their speeds, some wireless Internet service providers (WISPs) are concerned that meeting the requirements will be more difficult for them. WISPs with straightforward and transparent pricing structures shouldn’t have an issue when it comes to reporting cost of service. The challenge is reporting performance metrics.

Matt Larson, CEO of Vistabeam, a wireless provider serving over 8,500 subscribers across Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, & Wyoming, told ILSR that “it’s almost impossible to put out performance metrics that will be consistent across the board because network conditions change constantly.” Speed and latency, he said, vary greatly depending on what time of day it is and how much traffic there is.

Larson worries that the label will create unrealistic expectations by incentivizing providers to overstate their services. He also emphasized that it leaves out other important information that could help potential subscribers make decisions, such as the level of competition in a given area, what kind of company is offering the service, and the provider’s responsiveness to service outages and billing concerns.

Bringing Transparency to Market

Ideally, no ISP would try to lure subscribers into purchasing broadband service through complex pricing structures or other deceptive sales tactics. And while the new labels may be a headache for some providers, the idea behind requiring them is rooted in enabling the transparency true free markets require, and to establish mechanisms that are in the best interest of subscribers.

Although, it should also be noted that a number of public interest groups agree the label requirements don’t go far enough, as noted by Free Press policy director Josh Stager who points out how the FCC opted not to require the label be put on the monthly bill (only at the point of sale), adding that the new rules still allow providers to hide the label from subscribers who are not aware that the label even exists.

Still, we hope to see the new labels nudge providers away from opaque pricing and sneaky deals that are actually a huge part of the reason why big cable and telecom companies are among the most hated companies in the nation.

Emma Gautier is a Researcher with ILSR’s Community Broadband Networks Initiative. She supports data collection and analysis within the broadband initiative. Emma recently received a BA in Women’s and Gender Studies from Carleton College, and since graduation has been working in research, advocacy, and political organizing for social and environmental justice. She is interested in the synthesis of research and on-the-ground action in communities. This piece was originally published on communitynets.org on December 19, 2023, and is reprinted with permission.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

In the UK, the number of fiber lines increased by 52% in 2022 despite overall fixed-broadband growth of just 0.7%. Major operators and altnets such as Community Fibre are collectively spending billions to bring fiber connectivity to tens of millions of homes in the coming years. 

Europe looks to be on track to meet ambitious targets set out by Gigabit Society 2025 and Digital Decade strategies. Similar growth is afoot in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. 

Now it’s a matter of building out networks quickly and profitably. Two mainstream tools – geospatial information systems for mapping and design and deployment operations management systems for work management, asset management, and more – are now being integrated for that very purpose. Each has its own track record of helping network operators and contractors deploy fiber networks. But they’re better together.

Different strengths

The advantages of GIS are familiar. They help network planners, designers, and engineers visualize their networks. That informs everything from troubleshooting network-ops problems to planning for future growth. GIS may also support sales and marketing efforts by visualizing network availability to potential customers. 

Deployment operations management systems are less of a household name, but critical infrastructure companies have found that these systems can shorten fiber development timelines by roughly 33% by combining program planning, project management, and fieldwork management capabilities across hundreds of simultaneous deployments. 

These cloud-based systems help manage mass deployments, like FTTH and other network expansion initiatives, in a few key ways. Templates honed by the lessons of thousands of fiber jobs embody best practices across the design, build, and maintenance phases. Those templates and other tools standardize repeatable elements while enabling project-by-project variation based on equipment, accessibility, priority, staffing, material availability, and other factors. Standardization and repeatability in turn drive improvements to forecasts and overall data quality, helping managers make better data-driven decisions such as scheduling crews and allocating resources. Mobile apps bring field crews and subcontractors into the fold. Dashboards and reports tap into data in real time, keeping everyone from top management to field crews on the same page. 

So, what does integrating GIS and deployment operations management systems bring to fiber deployment? Think of GIS as a common language between network planners, engineers, project managers, and construction crews in the field, as well as developers, network operators, asset owners, and contractors. But the various players all speak different dialects of that common language, and you end up with “lost in translation” issues. Handoffs get muffed; traceability suffers; faulty or incomplete fieldwork leads to additional truck rolls.

Those problems affect a project’s entire lifecycle. Combining deployment forecasting with geospatial data tightens the connections between planning, design, engineering, and construction to increase accuracy and efficiency, speed fiber deployment, and cut costs while accelerating time to revenue. Let’s drill down a bit.

Planning and design

Consider the BEAD program. Yes, there’s U.S. government money available for fiber. But you still need a viable commercial model, and some towns and neighborhoods present better business cases than others, particularly in rural areas. GIS provides a great common language to drive fiber-network planning at a high level. But ultimately, you need on-the-ground (and under-the-ground) details to understand the true cost per home passed, the number of homes you’ll actually pass (buried impediments, for example, can trim back a GIS map-based estimate), and the take rate among the homes you do pass, among other variables. 

Those estimates will sharpen as you run fiber in a given neighborhood, and those lessons, when fed back into the GIS maps quickly, inform the next phase of planning and design. Historically, jobsite-based revisions have taken weeks or longer to find their way back into GIS maps. By integrating GIS with deployment operations management, you enable the creation, through new GIS layers, of as-built drawings more or less as you build. That knowledge brings planning and execution closer together. That saves time and money down the line.

Engineering and construction

You can only design so far on a map. It falls on field crews to reconcile design with reality. Fiber imitates life: The earlier you catch a problem, the easier and cheaper the solution will be. The fielding process that can precede a fiber run, in which an engineer walks the design and notes inevitable inconsistencies, is too often a missed opportunity in fiber development. There just hasn’t been a good way to update GIS maps and associated designs fast enough to make a difference for construction teams. So the design-and-engineering deliverables stray from ground truth and the construction team – and, by extension, all stakeholders – pay the price as surprises mount. 

With GIS integrated into deployment operations management, fielding can quickly feed back into GIS maps and higher-quality, easier-to-build designs. And the surprises the construction teams do unearth get fed back into those designs quickly.

Bottom-line impact

The faster you finish a neighborhood, the faster it’s lit and the faster you can sell to and activate subscribers. The precision and visibility you gain from integrated GIS-deployment operations management helps sales and marketing approach customers based on actual service availability, typically weeks earlier than usual.

That’s found money for operators. Contractors also benefit from faster completion times: they often use debt to float their business, and getting paid faster is increasingly crucial in a high-interest-rate environment.

Integrating GIS mapping with deployment operations management systems connects engineers, construction crews, subcontractors, local municipalities, and other stakeholders into one secure, collaborative tool. It improves design and engineering accuracy and creates feedback loops fostering continuous improvement, thereby smoothing future deployments.

That benefits everyone down the line, from those planning and scheduling work to those pitching high-speed data service to the right customers, sooner. The result is faster, more efficient, and more profitable fiber network growth that benefits everyone involved in serving the world’s insatiable appetite for high-speed data.

As director of telecom industry products at Sitetracker, Brant Carter helps wireless operators use recent infrastructure budgets to expand broadband in rural and underserved areas. Sitetracker is the deployment operations management platform of choice for most of the world’s largest wireless, telecom and tower operators. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

As states rush to outline their BEAD spending plans, time is of the essence. In an extensive economic study, economist Patricia D. Kravtin and I estimate that each month of delayed broadband expansion costs Americans between $491 million to $1.86 billion in foregone economic gains. The FCC can help connect all Americans by taking explicit action now.

Broadband providers need practical and fair access to utility poles, otherwise cost-effective and speedy deployment of broadband infrastructure will not happen. But deployment is delayed when certain pole owners inhibit or outright prevent pole attachments. The problem is that most communities have a single network of utility poles, and in rural areas it can take up to 10 poles to connect just one household or business.

This economic reality creates a concentration of power in pole owners, and offsetting that is partly why utilities are regulated in various ways. When it comes to pole attachments, however, existing rules leave scope for pole owners to partake in opportunistic behavior that harms currently unserved communities.

It is already complex and costly to extend broadband infrastructure through our country’s diverse, largely rural terrains, including the tough Appalachian granite beneath where I live in Western North Carolina. Too often, pole owners compound the problem by imposing harmful delays and passing their own costs onto attachers.

In rural areas, “make-ready” and pole replacement costs can comprise up to one-third of total broadband buildout costs. Broadband deployment is also delayed by time-consuming pole attachment applications, slow and uncertain timelines, and arbitrary restrictions that sometimes set aside standard construction procedures.

Broadband providers remain willing to pay their fair share of pole attachment and replacement costs. And utilities should be fully compensated for the costs of accommodating attachment requests—their rate-payers deserve nothing less. But economically infeasible costs and delays mean that broadband providers cannot utilize government funds to connect unserved communities as intended. This only keeps those communities stuck on the wrong side of the digital divide.

The FCC has the opportunity to take meaningful action that addresses these excessive costs and needless delays so providers can maximize the use of federal broadband funds. Although the FCC opened a proceeding three years ago to remove pole attachment barriers, the Commission only recently released draft guidance.

Based on my research, in the 40 months FCC has waited, Americans have lost tens of billions worth of foregone economic gains. Elected officials like West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito have rightfully urged the FCC to delay no longer on meaningful reform.

Specific FCC guidance should call for clearly defined pole attachment application standards with enforceable timelines for projects of all sizes. Guidance should also provide for efficient and fair cost allocations between pole owners and broadband providers. Ideally, new “cost causation” rules would also clarify the incremental costs of attachment versus the utility’s internal facilities and upgrade costs.

Washington’s unprecedented public investment in broadband expansion deserves a shot. Real pole access reform from the FCC would remove barriers that have stymied universal connectivity for years.

Dr. Edward J. Lopez is Professor of Economics and Truist Distinguished Professor of Capitalism at Western Carolina University. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Given that we are in the midst of World Radio Conference—the international conference that decides how we structure global 5G networks–an assessment of where we are in relation to spectrum allocation and what we need to do to secure our dominant position in the race to 5G becomes all the more important.

Spectrum, for the unfamiliar, is the reason you are able to read this article from a mobile device. It is the invisible real estate that allows 5G networks to transition services, like autonomous vehicles, precision agriculture, and even artificial intelligence, from science fiction into today’s reality.

In no uncertain terms, without spectrum, there is no mobile revolution. Think about every device that relies on wireless networks. Your smartphone, laptop, smartwatch, Fitbit, and Airtags are just some of the products fueled by spectrum. Without spectrum, they won’t work.

And for nearly a decade, we have dominated the race to 5G. We did so, because we made 5G a national priority and coordinated an interagency effort to build out 5G networks. And it worked. By 2020, we led the world on 5G speeds and the procurement and distribution of valuable spectrum.

The U.S. is in a rebuilding year

If we were an NFL team, we were Tom Brady’s New England Patriots.

But, akin to the Patriots’ 2023 season, we’re in a rebuilding year. We have no new high-powered mid-band spectrum in the pipeline and some of the spectrum we do have available is getting bogged down due to unnecessary intergovernmental fighting.

Even if we did, it would be incredibly hard to get the spectrum out into the market expeditiously because Congress allowed the Federal Communications Commission’s spectrum auction authority to lapse—something that had never before happened since Congress granted it in the 1990s. This lapse of authority has not just stalled new spectrum from coming into the market but has also prevented the FCC from releasing nearly 8,000 licenses of valuable 2.5 GigaHertz (GHz) mid-band spectrum purchased last year.

Conservative estimates show that 5G must be able to support the data transmissions of 1 million devices for every third of a mile. And we expect there to be 41.6 billion devices online in less than two years. Our networks won’t be able to handle that onslaught.

What’s more, the advent of AI will require even more data transmissions over our 5G networks and will inevitably strain them. Without a refilled spectrum pipeline, data-driven applications—like AI—will become a pipedream for the U.S.

Worse, this opens the door for China to pick up its pace on 5G and 6G. Much of what China is doing in spectrum and deployment are to position itself to win in 6G. How? Because 6G builds on 5G, much like 5G built on 4G/LTE. Hence, if China wins here, 6G networks will be built on their 5G foundation.

We need to keep up our pace.

The U.S. is constrained by the lack of spectrum auction authority

But here’s the rub, the Administration is constrained in what it can do to open up new bands and get spectrum out into the market quickly.

For example, the FCC has said repeatedly that it won’t release spectrum it has already auctioned, specifically in the 2.5 GHz band, without its auction authority being reauthorized.

But you know what branch of government isn’t constrained? Congress.

And there’s some good news on that front. Sen. John Kennedy’s 5G Spectrum Authority Licensing Enforcement (SALE) Act unanimously passed a rollcall vote in the Senate. The SALE Act would allow the FCC to move forward on releasing those 8,000 2.5 GHz licenses, which allows T-Mobile to enhance its existing 5G networks. This action alone creates more competition in 5G offerings, which inevitably lowers the price for consumers.

But more must done!

With the National Spectrum Strategy, the Administration has given Congress a path forward to turn our franchise around. The Administration’s plan identifies the lower 3 GHz and the 7-8 GHz bands as primary contenders for a strong pipeline of spectrum for private sector use—bands Congress itself identified in last year’s draft of the bipartisan Spectrum Innovation Act.

Better yet, the strategy does not foreclose looking at less controversial mid-band spectrum—particularly bands that build on mid-band spectrum already in the market, like in 4.4-4.9 GHz range. Using this spectrum can create a more contiguous band of 5G mid-band spectrum to handle the immense data transmissions we’ll see from AI.

Lastly, Congress needs to reauthorize the FCC’s spectrum auction authority to ensure we can get this spectrum into the market expeditiously.

Although we won’t likely auction off any new spectrum in the next year—just as the Patriots will not make the playoffs, we can use this as a teachable moment to rebuild and strengthen our networks. It would behoove Congress to move fast because while we twiddle our thumbs, China continues to build.

Joel Thayer is president of the Digital Progress Institute and an attorney based in Washington, D.C. The Digital Progress Institute is a nonprofit seeking to bridge the policy divide between telecom and tech through bipartisan consensus. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

]]> https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2023/12/joel-thayer-no-5g-spectrum-means-no-digital-future/feed/ 0 56314 https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2023/12/emma-gautier-addressing-digital-discrimination-will-take-more-than-policing-isps/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=emma-gautier-addressing-digital-discrimination-will-take-more-than-policing-isps https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2023/12/emma-gautier-addressing-digital-discrimination-will-take-more-than-policing-isps/#respond Mon, 04 Dec 2023 14:42:37 +0000 https://broadbandbreakfast.com/?p=56184 This is a walk and chew gum moment for broadband-for-all advocates. On the one hand, the Federal Communication Commission new digital discrimination rules have the potential to reign in egregious examples of digital discrimination. On the other hand, the new rules still fall short of putting forward the kinds of structural solutions necessary to address underinvestment in communities where federal infrastructure dollars may never reach.

Last week, the FCC published its final digital discrimination rules, giving the agency the authority to penalize Internet Service Providers whose policies have a “disparate impact” on historically marginalized communities. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, passed by President Biden in 2021, included a mandate directing the FCC to develop “rules to facilitate equal access to broadband internet access service, taking into account the issues of technical and economic feasibility presented by that objective, including—preventing digital discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin.”

After hosting listening sessions and inviting public comment, the final ruling ultimately defined digital discrimination as “policies or practices, not justified by genuine issues of technical or economic feasibility, that (1) differentially impact consumers’ access to broadband internet access service […], or (2) are intended to have such differential impact.” Such an approach authorizes the FCC to penalize providers even if it can’t identify instances of intentional discrimination.

Initial Responses to the Ruling

As expected, the big monopoly incumbents all but exploded over the FCC’s decision to measure discrimination based on disparate impact, arguing that the new rules go beyond what the IIJA intended when it granted the agency authority to prevent digital discrimination and facilitate digital equity. A secondary argument they make is that the disparate impact approach micromanages business and will discourage providers from investing in certain areas for fear that they will be penalized for profit-seeking behavior.

Meanwhile, public interest groups and members of Congress have lauded the ruling for its focus on disparate impact, a standard advanced by the disability community. In comments filed with the FCC, the American Association of People with Disabilities emphasized how people who are discriminated against experience the effects of discrimination whether or not it was the result of conscious bias:

• “For decades, the disability community has noted that discrimination occurs unintentionally and often results from seemingly neutral policies. Too often, disabled people experience discrimination not because of malicious intent or explicit exclusion within programs or policies but because the disabled people were simply not considered in the first place.”

How Much Practical Impact Will The Rules Have?

Despite industry pushback, it shouldn’t be lost on anyone that the rules have limitations that raise questions about the practical effect they will have. It is unclear, for example, what exactly the FCC will allow on the basis of “economic feasibility.” The rules don’t outline how the Commission will distinguish between “economic feasibility” versus profit-maximization or whether such a distinction will be used to adjudicate rulings. All we know is that the Commission will evaluate each instance of alleged discrimination on a case-by-case basis, relying on precedent set by other ISPs to determine what is technically and economically feasible and what is not.

A detail that has been largely overlooked is that to find an ISP responsible for digital discrimination, the rules say, disparate impact must be traced back to a “specific policy or practice that is causing the disparity.” Policies and practices adopted prior to when the rule became active are not subject to repercussion.

Another reason to question the rules potential impact is that historically the FCC doesn’t have a strong track record holding big cable and telecom companies accountable. While large providers have been found to neglect infrastructure upgrades and charge higher prices for lower speeds in low-income neighborhoods, it would be uncharacteristic of the agency to crack down on these massive companies. There is very little information from the FCC about what enforcement will really look like; the ruling only notes that “possible violations will be investigated by Commission staff using our standard investigative toolkit, and all penalties and remedies will be available when we determine that our rules have been violated.”

Concerns have also been raised around the transparency of the complaint process the FCC will use to help it identify discrimination. As The Markup points out, “complaints [filed by the public] won’t necessarily begin a formal adjudication process against the ISP, but they can be used as a basis for the FCC to begin its own investigation into the provider’s conduct.” There are no transparency mechanisms laid out in the ruling, which will no doubt make it easier for the FCC to sweep complaints under the rug.

Another wildcard that could come into play is how the U.S. Supreme Court rules on a case now before it that, while focused on the SEC, has implications for federal agencies ability to enforce administrative judgements.

A Surface-Level Response to a Deeply Structural Issue    

As other public interest groups argue, it is more important to advocate for the needs of communities than it is to try and untangle the intentions of ISPs. And truly centering communities begins with an honest recognition that digital discrimination is deeply structural – something the FCC and federal lawmakers have been reluctant to acknowledge.

It’s a challenge that merits a ground-up solution that goes beyond giving the FCC theoretical authority to penalize providers. Instead, it would be more productive to focus on facilitating community investment that will meet the varying needs of households that aren’t yet connected.

The ruling implicitly assumes the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program (BEAD) will lead to investment in areas traditional providers have not found economically attractive, and that together, the digital discrimination ruling and BEAD work to make Internet access available for all.

Unfortunately, many of the communities that have been impacted by digital discrimination are urban areas that are unlikely to see BEAD dollars, as the infrastructure law was designed to funnel funds to mostly rural communities. Add to that the flawed FCC maps, which vastly overstate coverage, speeds, and competition, and it will be extremely difficult if not impossible for BEAD funding to reach most urban areas deemed “served” by monopoly providers.

The reality is that it can be profitable to discriminate, as the big monopoly ISPs are set up to first and foremost serve their shareholders, not the communities from which they derive their profits.

These companies are structured to offer service in areas where they will see a quick return on investment, which often means the parts of town that most need to be connected are left unserved or grossly underserved.

Imposing penalties on discriminatory ISPs could potentially scare some into upgrading parts of networks or eliminate glaring price disparities in historically marginalized neighborhoods. But without actual policies in place that encourage competition and universal access to high-quality Internet, the impact of the new digital discrimination rules will likely be limited.

It should also be noted that monopoly ISPs wield tremendous power over markets in a multitude of ways, not the least of which is their well-documented assault on competition. These companies fight tooth and nail to block new ISPs from entering the market, leveraging their considerable influence to convince lawmakers that there is no urban broadband problem that merits public funding. This has worked to persuade Congress that new infrastructure funding should target rural communities and leave the larger urban markets to the big incumbents, even if the service they offer is expensive and of poor quality. Their influence can also be seen in the federal government’s failure to take competition into account, which is indisputably linked to the quality of broadband service and price offered in a particular area.

Real Solutions Will Be Community-Rooted

After such major outcry among major ISPs responding to the digital discrimination ruling and its “disparate impact” approach, it’s difficult to imagine these companies bringing quality, affordable broadband service – as well as digital equity support – to communities that need it. It’s not just cynicism to point that out, as these very same companies argue that the ruling will “chill” investment, which doesn’t exactly instill confidence that they intend to invest in communities most in need of service.

There are approaches, however, that do aim to connect the unconnected in ways that are not squarely focused on a quick return on investment. Municipal broadband, partnerships with small community-minded ISPs and other forms of publicly-owned, locally-controlled networks have demonstrated a way to provide universal, affordable service across an entire community, as well as the programs to address other barriers to broadband adoption such as providing devices and digital skills training.

In a letter to the FCC regarding the digital discrimination proposed rulemaking, a group of digital equity initiatives and public interest organizations including ILSR elevated an approach to closing the digital divide that focuses on “building trusted relationships, allowing communities to own infrastructure, build capacity, and experiment with solutions, and allowing for community-driven decision-making and knowledge-building.”

It is crucial to prioritize community solutions where service is offered by trusted entities or providers operating in partnership with trusted community institutions. The public comment goes on to emphasize that “challenging digital discrimination cannot be solely concerned with giving more Black, Brown, tribal, and people in rural areas broadband run by large corporations just to increase their upload and download speeds. In fact, this approach simply exposes our people to more data surveillance and dependency.”

Continuing to Push for Community Control

Biden’s original broadband vision did call for “support for broadband networks owned, operated by, or affiliated with local governments, non-profits, and co-operatives—providers with less pressure to turn profits and with a commitment to serving entire communities.”

The Biden administration also intended to promote “competition among internet providers, including by lifting barriers that prevent municipally-owned or affiliated providers and rural electric co-ops from competing on an even playing field with private providers.”

Such an approach recognized that where community broadband providers have been established, subscribers get fast, reliable service at competitive rates. While this approach offered some hope that Biden’s broadband plan would invest in boosting competition among providers, the plan was substantially watered down before it passed in Congress.

As a result, few municipal broadband projects outside of rural America are likely to receive funding under BEAD, IIJA’s largest bucket of broadband infrastructure money. The failure of Congress to prioritize community broadband is evidence of the political tradeoff made by Democrats to get the law passed. And while it’s better to penalize providers for egregious discrimination than to continue allowing them to exploit communities in an unfettered pursuit of quick profits, it’s important to keep pushing for more structural solutions.

Now that federal law and policy-makers have set the parameters, it seems wise to direct our attention towards the local level.

The digital discrimination ruling could, for example, give cities leverage in combating digital discrimination at the local level, or at least provide an opportunity to offer up better data that illustrates where and in what contexts discrimination is occurring.

We hope to see cities, public interest groups, and broadband-for-all advocates use the new FCC rules to highlight why certain communities face chronic underinvestment while making the case that community-minded ISPs and non-traditional providers can offer high-quality, affordable broadband to the communities who most need it.

Emma Gautier is a Researcher with ILSR’s Community Broadband Networks Initiative. She supports data collection and analysis within the broadband initiative. Emma recently received a BA in Women’s and Gender Studies from Carleton College, and since graduation has been working in research, advocacy, and political organizing for social and environmental justice. She is interested in the synthesis of research and on-the-ground action in communities. This piece was originally published on communitynets.org on November 30, 2023, and is reprinted with permission.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

By bringing this infrastructure closer to subscribers, cable operators are evolving their networks, adopting greater virtualization  and redistributing key elements toward the edges. They expect these changes to increase their network’s interoperability and, ultimately, improve the speed and uptime available to subscribers. In turn, cable operators expect these new capabilities will help redefine what services they can offer.

However, these new advanced networks are much more complex than previous generations. By virtualizing or cloudifying functions at the edge, operators risk losing the sort of visibility that is essential to rapidly pinpointing the source of service disruptions – and ensuring their networks are meeting desired performance thresholds for next-gen applications.

The challenge of complexity in virtualized networks

As cable networks evolve, so does their complexity. The adoption of technologies like virtualized Cable Modem Termination Systems (vCMTS) and distributed access architecture presents operators with a plethora of new variables to manage, particularly on the user control plane.

Always-on applications and those applications that are most sensitive to network performance changes, such as video games, AR/VR, and remotely-piloted drones, to name just a few examples, require continuous measurement and monitoring for reliability. But ensuring consistent quality of service under all conditions the network may face is no small feat.

To illustrate, let’s consider how cable operators will manage disruptions in a virtualized environment. When issues inevitably pop up, will they be able to isolate the problem virtually, or will they need to dispatch a technician to investigate? Additionally, once a technician is onsite, will they have advanced intelligence to determine if the source of the problem is hardware or software-related?

Or will they need to update or replace multiple systems (e.g., consumer premesis equipment, optical network terminals, router, modem, etc.) to try to resolve the problem? Finally, will they need to also investigate additional network termination points if that doesn’t do the trick?

Indeed, each time a truck or technician is dispatched represents a significant outpouring of resources, and adopting a trial-and-error, process-of-elimination approach to resolution is a costly means of restoring service that cable operators cannot afford at scale. Likewise, the customers that depend the most on constant network availability and performance for various uses, such as content distribution networks, transportation services, and industrial manufacturers, won’t tolerate significant disruptions for long.

Packet monitoring for rapid resolution of last-mile disruptions

In the evolving landscape of cable networks, where downtime can lead to customer dissatisfaction, churn, and revenue loss, rapid resolution of last-mile service disruptions is paramount. Cable operators need more advanced network telemetry to understand where – and why – disruptions are occurring. In short, evolved networks require evolved monitoring. This starts with deep packet inspection at scale.

Packets don’t lie, so they offer an excellent barometer into the health of both the control and user planes. Additionally, they can help determine last-mile & core latency per subscriber, as well as by dimension, so operators can test how different configurations affect performance.

Additionally, in the event of a major service disruption, packet monitoring at the edge enables operators to accurately measure how many subscribers are out of service – regardless of whatever hardware or software they’re using – and determine if there’s a common reason for mass outages to help technicians resolve any problems faster. Finally, proactive monitoring, especially when combined with artificial intelligence, empowers operators to detect and address potential issues before they impact subscribers.≠

All in all, cable operators are navigating a challenging yet exciting era of network evolution. The transition to advanced infrastructure and the demand for high-quality, low-latency services necessitate sophisticated monitoring and diagnostic tools. Deep packet inspection technology will continue to play a pivotal role in ensuring the smooth operation of evolved cable networks.

Additionally, in the quest to maintain the quality of service expected by subscribers, operators must abandon the costly process-of-elimination approach and adopt rapid resolution techniques. By doing so, they will not only reduce service disruption but also make more efficient use of resources, ultimately benefiting both their bottom line and the end user’s experience. Evolved cable networks require evolved strategies, and rapid issue isolation through advanced monitoring must be at the forefront of this transformation.

John English is Director of Service Provider Marketing and Business Development at Netscout’s Service Provider unit. He has an extensive background in telecom, including a decade at a major communications service provider and numerous OEMs and ecosystem partners. English is an expert on how communications service providers can successfully implement new technologies like 5G and virtualization/cloudification while continually assuring the performance of their networks and services. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

At its Dec. 13 open meeting, FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel is planning to launch a rulemaking designed to bar cable and satellite TV providers from collecting early termination fees and billing cycle fees – even though the agency receives just hundreds of informal complaints about these fees annually. The U.S. has 53.3 million cable and satellite TV subscribers combined, down 15.7 million since January 2021.

Although the FCC says a ban on these fees has nothing to do with rate regulation, the agency is likely to face strong rebuttal on this point – if not from NCTAitv, the trade association for large cable TV operators, then at least from Charter Communications.  Charter invoked impermissible rate regulation in its court fight against a billing cycle fee ban adopted by the state of Maine in 2020 that remains in effect.

In seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of its loss below, Charter was emphatic that Maine’s billing cycle fee statute embraced prohibited price regulation by requiring partial-month refunds.

“Maine’s law … caps Charter’s rates during the final month of service and precludes Charter from charging either for the full month, or a daily rate higher than its standard monthly rate. That is rate regulation, pure and simple,” Charter said last year in a brief with the high court. The Supreme Court declined to take the case, handing victory to Maine.

An early termination fee is collected when a customer cancels service prior to the expiration of an existing service contract, which can run as long as 24 months. A billing cycle fee involves denial of pro rata refunds when customers cancel before the end of the month. Echoing President Biden, Rosenworcel blasted ETFs and BCFs as “junk fees” that penalize consumers and impede competition.

If all goes according to plan, the FCC will adopt new junk fees rules in 2024. The FCC has floated an exemption for small or rural cable TV operators, but it put the onus on these entities to justify any special treatment.

The FCC’s crackdown on ETFs and BCFs would run counter to the agency’s bipartisan light-touch approach to cable TV regulation that began more than two decades ago. By law, the FCC in 1999 had to cease regulating the price of cable’s expanded basic tier, a service level which typically includes ESPN, C-SPAN, CNBC, and Fox News. 

In 2015, the FCC stripped away the last layer of cable rate regulation. The agency, led at that time by Chairman Tom Wheeler, an Obama appointee, held that every cable operator in the country was subject to “effective competition.” That prevented local governments from continuing to regulate cable’s basic tier – the traditional home of local TV stations and public access channels. Rosenworcel, then an FCC Commissioner, voted against the Wheeler plan as going too far.

Rosenworcel is evidently not planning on letting the agency’s long legacy of cable deregulation to prevent her from pivoting in the opposite direction.

Sprinkled throughout the FCC’s junk fees ban proposal are references to recent court cases holding that BCFs are not rate regulation preempted by federal law, but rather consumer protection measures that states are permitted to adopt and enforce. The FCC said the logic used by the courts in upholding state BCFs applies just as well to a would-be ETF ban.

The FCC said its authority to ban ETFs and BCFs on cable is contained in the 1992 Cable Act, saying it provides for the agency to protect “consumers against … poor customer service” and “establish standards by which cable operators may fulfill their customer service requirements.”

Whether past FCC cable deregulation steps would prevent a junk fees ban, the FCC concluded: “The applicability of ETF and BCF regulations are not affected by the existence of effective competition in a community.”

DBS providers Dish and DirecTV will probably have an easier time than cable in getting a junk fees ban struck down in court.

Since their arrival in the mid-1990s, Dish and DirectTV have never been price regulated at the state or federal level or subject to any form of cable-like specific customer service obligations adopted by the FCC. 

Still, the FCC is confident regarding its power to act, asserting that it retains “exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the provision of direct-to-home satellite services” and authority to impose “public interest or other requirements for providing video programming” on DBS.

In a final rationale left undeveloped, the FCC said a junk fees ban exemption for Dish and DirecTV would be inappropriate because it would allow the DBS providers to gain “a competitive advantage over their competitors through the use of ETFs and BCFs.”

The FCC failed to explain how DBS reliance on junk fees deemed unlawful for cable could be an effective tool at keeping customers or attracting new ones while Dish and DirecTV bled nearly 700,000 subscribers in the most recent quarter.

Maybe FCC lawyers don’t have it all figured out after all.

Ted Hearn is the Editor of Policyband, a new website dedicated to comprehensive coverage of the broadband communications market. A former communications executive and reporter for newsletters and trade journals, Hearn has decades of experience with traditional video and broadband industry trends, regulatory developments, technology advancements, and market dynamics. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Two popular programs are central to this goal: the Affordable Connectivity Program and the Rip-and-Replace program. Both of these programs have tremendous bipartisan, bicameral support; but both have been underfunded and now risk dying on the vine. Congress has the opportunity to fully fund these programs if it has the will to do so.

Let’s break it down.

The Affordable Connectivity Program provides low-income American families and veterans with discounts on Internet service and connectivity equipment, including higher discounts for those living on Tribal lands. With affordable broadband, more Americans can get online and be a part of the digital economy.

The ACP has been wildly successful, connecting over 21 million households to essential broadband they could otherwise not afford. And it continues to garner widespread support, with the vast majority of voters (78%) calling for its extension, including 64% of Republicans, 70% of Independents, and 95% of Democrats.

Congress provided the ACP with $14.2 billion in 2021—but funding is now running low and is projected to be fully exhausted by spring 2024. Governors, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, public interest groups, and Internet service providers are all raising the alarm about its imminent depletion. That’s why the Biden Administration in October called on Congress to replenish the program’s coffers with an additional $6 billion.

A good start, but not the whole story. Our foreign adversaries are well known for their espionage, and while a spy balloon might get the attention, a far more insidious problem lurks in our communications networks: equipment designed and produced by Chinese suppliers Huawei and ZTE. A bipartisan Congress passed the Secure and Trusted Networks Act to eradicate national security threats such as these, but sufficient funding for the Rip and Replace program has never materialized.

Again, the Biden Administration has stepped up and identified a need for $3.1 billion to fully fund the program as a “key national security priority” in its emergency supplemental funding request. It’s a narrative we can all get on-board with: that broadband falls under the umbrella of national security as a whole. American consumers and institutions both benefit from American-built networks and increased protection at home. But communications providers can’t live up to these needs on their own.

As it stands, the responsibility to get affordable, secure connectivity programs across the finish line rests with Congress. Even with a consensus of support for these two programs, the devil is in the details of how to make the price tags palatable to enough policymakers on Capitol Hill. The key is ensuring that any changes preserve the widespread efficacy of the program that has made it popular so far.

For example, Congress could cut the cost of the ACP by limiting the additional Tribal funding to rural Tribal lands. Any such change should be grounded in an evaluation of existing need in urban areas, but could be an opportunity to ensure funds are being directed to areas of greatest need. And Congress should consider indexing the ACP to inflation. The high inflation of recent years has wreaked havoc on the budgets of consumers—and inflation-proofing the program would ensure that broadband remains affordable for all Americans even should inflation come back.

As for Rip-and-Replace, those of us urging for more funds could concede putting safeguards in place to ensure the money is being used for its intended purpose – the kind of compromise needed to get such policies across the finish line

These are just some ideas as we head into the final funding fight. Not everyone is going to be on the same page on what is and isn’t working best, but shared success starts by recognizing that we all have the same endgame. Congress must ensure that adequate funding for the ACP and Rip and Replace program are included in any year-end spending package. We have an all-too-rare opportunity to win the race for high-tech dominance—we just need to provide the resources.

Kate Forscey is a contributing fellow for the Digital Progress Institute and principal and founder of KRF Strategies LLC. She has served as senior technology policy advisor for Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo and policy counsel at Public Knowledge. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Bipartisan legislation from Congress made it clear that states needed to offer a low-cost broadband plan to residents to qualify for BEAD funding. For the uninitiated, the ACP is a $30-a-month subsidy that an eligible consumer can use towards any broadband plan a participating service provider offers.

In fact, many providers have started offering broadband plans at a $30 price point so the effective cost of broadband to the consumer is zero. Using ACP is an easy way for ISPs to meet the affordability requirement, a “short-hand” of sorts for them to offer affordable plans using an existing — and successful — model.

However, the ACP is expected to exhaust its funding in the first half of next year, leaving a potentially disastrous scenario for families who may have little savings or discretionary income. Ultimately allowing the ACP to end leaves a crucial question unanswered: what good are networks if people cannot afford to connect to them?

During a congressional oversight hearing in May, National Telecommunications and Information Agency Administrator Alan Davidson explained to Members of Congress that the BEAD program will be negatively impacted if continued funding for the ACP is not found. He emphasized that for low-income rural Americans, the ACP is the lifeline ensuring they can afford to access the internet. Without it, some providers may hesitate to deploy in rural areas over fear that the investment will be sustainable. Subscribership concerns may prove to be a limiting factor on which rural areas are served.

The ACP extends every BEAD dollar further. A study conducted by Common Sense Media found that the ACP could reduce the BEAD subsidy needed to incentivize providers to build in rural areas by up to 25% per year. According to the study, ACP reduces the per-household subsidy required to incentivize ISP investment by $500. Simply put, ACP improves the economic case because it 1) effectively lowers the cost of service, 2) creates a customer base with less churn, and 3) makes subscribers easier to acquire because of the massive public and private investment in raising awareness for the program.

But if the ACP is allowed to end, the federal government could end up overspending on every broadband deployment made through BEAD. This ultimately means BEAD networks will fail to connect millions of Americans.

The ACP is more than a simple affordability program; for over 21 million households; it’s a gateway to our ever-increasing digital society. Without it, millions of Americans will be unable to see doctors, visit with family, shop, and engage with their communities online. At the same time, the ACP plays a significant role in future infrastructure deployment. Allowing the ACP to end all but ensures that millions will be disconnected and future funding dollars won’t go the distance to close the digital divide.

Ryan Johnston is senior policy counsel at Next Century Cities. He is responsible for NCC’s federal policy portfolio, building and maintaining relationships with Federal Commissions Commission officials, members of Congress and staff, and public interest allies. Working with various federal agencies, Ryan submits filings on behalf of NCC members on technology and telecommunications related issues that impact the digital divide such as broadband data mapping, benchmark speeds, spectrum policy, content moderation, privacy, and others. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

But if they want to access your email, all they need is just to wait for 180 days.

Because of a 1986 law called the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, people using third-party email providers, like Gmail, only get 180 days of warrant protection. It’s an odd quirk of the law that only exists because no one in 1986 could imagine holding onto emails longer than 180 days. There simply wasn’t space for it back then!¹

ECPA is a stark illustration of consistent phenomena in government: policy choices, especially technical requirements, have durable and long-lasting effects. There are more mundane examples as well. GPS could be dramatically more accurate but when the optical system was recently upgraded, it was held back by a technical requirement in the Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) of 1999. More accurate headlights have been shown to be better at reducing night crashes yet adaptive headlights only just got approved last year, nearly 16 years after Europe because of technical requirements in FMVSS 108. All it takes is one law or regulation to crystallize an idea into an enduring framework that fails to keep up with developments.

I fear the approach pushed by the White House in their recent executive order on AI might represent another crystallization moment. ChatGPT has been public for a year, the models on which they are based are only five years old, and yet the administration is already working to set the terms for regulation.

The “Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence” is sprawling. It spans 13 sections, extends over 100 pages, and lays out nearly 100 deliverables for every major agency. While there are praiseworthy elements to the document, there is also a lot of cause for concern.

Among the biggest changes is the new authority the White House has claimed over newly designated “dual use foundation models.” As the EO defines it, a dual-use foundation model is

• an AI model that is trained on broad data; generally uses self-supervision; contains at least tens of billions of parameters; is applicable across a wide range of contexts; and that exhibits, or could be easily modified to exhibit, high levels of performance at tasks that pose a serious risk to security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.

While the designation seems to be common sense, it is new and without provenance. Until last week, no one had talked about dual use foundation models. Rather, the designation does comport with the power the president has over the export of military tech.

As the EO explains it, the administration is especially interested in those models with the potential to

• lower the barrier of entry for non-experts to design, synthesize, acquire, or use chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons;
• enable powerful offensive cyber operations through automated vulnerability discovery and exploitation against a wide range of potential targets of cyber attacks; or
• permit the evasion of human control or oversight through means of deception or obfuscation

The White House is justifying its regulation of these models under the Defense Production Act, a federal law first enacted in 1950 to respond to the Korean War. Modeled after World War II’s War Powers Acts, the DPA was part of a broad civil defense and war mobilization effort that gave the President the power to requisition materials and property, expand government and private defense production capacity, ration consumer goods, and fix wage and price ceilings, among other powers.

The DPA is reauthorized every five years, which has allowed Congress to expand the set of presidential powers in the DPA. Today, the allowable use of DPA extends far beyond U.S. military preparedness and includes domestic preparedness, response, and recovery from hazards, terrorist attacks, and other national emergencies. The DPA has long been intended to address market failures and slow procurement processes in times of crisis. Now the Biden Administration is using DPA to force companies to open up their AI models.

The administration’s invocation of the Defense Production Act is clearly a strategic maneuver to utilize the maximum extent of its DPA power in service of Biden’s AI policy agenda. The difficult part of this process now sits with the Department of Commerce, which has 90 days to issue regulations.

In turn, the Department will likely use the DPA’s industrial base assessment power to force companies to disclose various aspects of their AI models. Soon enough, dual use foundation models will have to report to the government tests based on guidance developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). But that guidance won’t be available for another 270 days. In other words, Commerce will regulate companies without knowing what they will be beholden to.

Recent news from the United Kingdom suggests that all of the major players in AI are going to be included in the new regulation. In closing out a two-day summit on AI, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that eight companies were going to give deeper access to their models in an agreement that had been signed by Australia, Canada, the European Union, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Singapore, the U.S. and the U.K. Those eight companies included Amazon Web Services, Anthropic, Google, as well its subsidiary DeepMind, Inflection AI, Meta, Microsoft, Mistral AI, and OpenAI.

Thankfully, the administration isn’t pushing for a pause on AI development, they aren’t denouncing more advanced models, nor are they suggesting that AI needs to be licensed. But this is probably because doing so would face a tough legal challenge. Indeed, it seems little appreciated by the AI community that the demand to report on models is a kind of compelled speech, which has typically triggered First Amendment scrutiny. But the courts have occasionally recognized that compelled commercial speech may actually advance First Amendment interests more than undermine them.

The EO clearly marks a shift in AI regulation because of what will come next. In addition to the countless deliverables, the EO encourages agencies to use their full power to advance rulemaking.

For example, the EO explains that,

• the Federal Trade Commission is encouraged to consider, as it deems appropriate, whether to exercise the Commission’s existing authorities, including its rulemaking authority under the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq., to ensure fair competition in the AI marketplace and to ensure that consumers and workers are protected from harms that may be enabled by the use of AI.

Innocuous as it may seem, the Federal Trade Commission, as well as all of the other agencies that have been encouraged to use their power by the administration, could come under court scrutiny. In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court made it more difficult for agencies to expand their power when the court established the major questions doctrine. This new line of legal reasoning takes an ax to agency delegation. Unless there’s explicit, clear-cut authority granted by Congress, an agency cannot regulate a major economic or political issue. Agency efforts to push rules on AI could get caught up by the courts.

To be fair, there are a lot of positive actions that this EO advances.² But details matter, and it will take time for the critical details to emerge.

Meanwhile, we need to be attentive to the creep of power. As Adam Thierer described this catch-22,

• While there is nothing wrong with federal agencies being encouraged through the EO to use NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework to help guide sensible AI governance standards, it is crucial to recall that the framework is voluntary and meant to be highly flexible and iterative—not an open-ended mandate for widespread algorithmic regulation. The Biden EO appears to empower agencies to gradually convert that voluntary guidance and other amorphous guidelines into a sort of back-door regulatory regime (a process made easier by the lack of congressional action on AI issues).

In all, the EO is a mixed bag that will take time to shake out. On this, my colleague Neil Chilson is right: some of it is good, some is bad, and some is downright ugly.

Still, the path we are currently navigating with the Executive Order on AI parallels similar paths in ECPA, GPS, and adaptive lights. It underscores a fundamental truth about legal decisions: even the technical rules we set today will shape the landscape for years, perhaps decades, to come. As we move forward, we must tread carefully, ensuring that our legal frameworks are adaptable and resilient, capable of evolving alongside the very technologies they seek to regulate.

Will Rinehart is a senior research fellow at the Center for Growth and Opportunity, where he specializes in telecommunication, internet and data policy, with a focus on emerging technologies and innovation. He was formerly the Director of Technology and Innovation Policy at the American Action Forum and before that a research fellow at TechFreedom and the director of operations at the International Center for Law & Economics. This piece originally appeared in the Exformation Newsletter on November 9, 2023, and is reprinted with permission.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

In the age of digital automation and personalized AI agents, this simple truth may be the most surprising fact of the burgeoning movement for digital navigators.

Today (and tomorrow), we’re excited to be a part of the Connect20 Summit here in Washington and online. Together with Network:On and the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, Broadband Breakfast has helped to gather the key leaders in this space for this free event here in Washington.

It’s not too late to participate online. In fact, we invite you to view the event page and sign up for Free Zoom Registration. You’ll also receive access to the videos of each of today’s sessions.

Listening to Angela Siefer

In the lead-up to the event, I had to chance to catch up with Angela Siefer, executive director of the NDIA. She’s a leader in the digital equity movement, and has done so much to define this field that we now call “digital inclusion.”

“Technology is not going to solve the digital divide” without people involved, said Siefer. “There is a necessity of a human” who can guide or navigate those who need help managing technology and the internet.

Think of it this way: Will our nation enable digital adoption through better broadband access, or through more affordable internet connections? The answer, of course, is both/all. Access, affordability and adoption must work together.

Siefer says, referencing the Affordable Connectivity Program that provides a $30/month subsidy to lower-income internet users, “If we had only ACP and no digital navigators, we wouldn’t make much progress. If we had only classes in front of an instructor, that wouldn’t work either.”

The last few years have prompted a groundswell of understanding, Siefer said, about the role of digital mediators, i.e, “a person who can help you with your digital needs.”

The Connect20 Summit will discuss the role of these persons that we call digital navigators.

Why Connect20?

The Connect20 Summit is built around the understanding that a core component of Americans — about 20 percent — that are NOT connected to the benefits available through broadband internet services.

In a blog post last year, officials at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration highlighted the fact that “internet access means access to education, healthcare, jobs, and entertainment. It’s essential to full participation in our modern economy,” wrote the authors, Michelle Cao and Rafi Goldberg.

“Still, NTIA data show that about one in five U.S. households are not connected to the Internet at home,” they write, citing barriers that range from cost to access to no computer to a lack of interest or awareness.

The NTIA’s Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program is one important initiative to make sure all Americans are connected to affordable broadband; the ACP program administered by the Federal Communications Commission is another. Both are enabled by the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which was signed two years ago tomorrow.

But what does this mean for digital navigators?

From a stool to a ladder

Previous discussions about digital inclusion often centered around a metaphor of a “stool” that included access, affordability and adoption.

But Siefer said that we now realize there is a better paradigm. It is a digital ladder or pathway with about five steps:

The first is affordable connectivity itself. This presumes access to broadband, but it also includes making individuals aware of ACP and helping them sign up for it.

Second is the role of appropriate digital devices. Lots of work that needs to be done in this space because of a surfeit of low-quality computing equipment that’s become too prevalent since the pandemic, said Siefer.

Third are digital skills. This is where digital navigators really shine. They guide the disconnected by understanding their needs and empathizing with what they must learn and where they want to go.

Fourth is tech support. This is generally more specific to devices that have stopped working. “If you have resources, you go to your Genius Bar,” quipped Siefer. “If you don’t have resources, the device gathers dust.”

Fifth are applications. Interestingly, this can mean “application” in the sense of something like an application for benefits or an unemployment application. Or it could mean a software application that someone is trying to use for the first time. While NDIA doesn’t focus on specific applications, someone who has been trained by a digital navigator will have the confidence to get answers to their digital dilemmas.

Better Broadband, Better Lives

The confluence of the IIJA’s provisions to promote broadband equity, access and deployment present a once-in-a-generation opportunity to connect these 20% of Americans who don’t subscribe to home broadband.

Digital navigators are indeed the key to helping all American get on this pathway.

Our motto at Broadband Breakfast is “Better Broadband, Better Lives.” We’re passionate about this topic not just because we want better broadband. But it’s also because – with the help of digital navigators – we want to see everyone on the ladder of opportunity that leads to better lives.

Inflation is a major force impacting companies and consumers alike. Cost of living increases are driving consumers to scale back overall spend on new connectivity and content experiences, but only 16% of households with broadband connections have reduced or plan to limit spending on home broadband, mobile connectivity or streaming. Regardless of spend, network reliability remains a critical decision factor for consumers, with 26% of respondents experiencing unreliable home broadband connections and a growing number willing to spend more for better customer service (up 6% year on year to 36%) and backup connectivity.

What is increasingly interesting for broadband providers is that economic conditions, consumer habits and maturing technologies have paved a path for the return of the bundle; however, the bundle of the future will have shifted from the classic package of video, fixed voice and internet. Wired and wireless technological advances, as well as emerging economic models and market ecosystems, are revolutionizing the bundle proposition and folding in mobile offerings through captive or mobile virtual network operator services; linear video content, including direct-to-consumer streaming packages (especially with the most recent cable and content negotiations); and other value-added services, such as security and coverage extensions, the consumer is more willing to adopt.

Bundles are much more attractive for consumers and operators alike

These industry trends, coupled with ongoing cost of living increases, are making bundles much more attractive for consumers and operators alike. Bundles can offer the value consumers currently crave. And many broadband providers are uniquely positioned to offer low-cost, convenient packages that combine fast and reliable in-home broadband, evolved video products and/or mobile solutions that are resonating with the market.

For operators reframing their bundles, content has been a big question mark — what content to include and how to package it within the overall offering, especially when considering that consumers have a growing sense of decision fatigue, with 54% of survey respondents reporting being overwhelmed by the abundance of content across platforms. More specifically, for the operator, video currently tends to be accessible everywhere with a subscription (that is, it’s accessible in and out of the home), with direct-to-consumer streaming services channeled by the content providers.

Recent negotiations between major media conglomerates and cable providers signal that this mature, legacy video model is no longer viable; the go-forward model will include tying linear content packages to the direct-to-consumer offering, as well as finding some differentiation in pricing through ad-supported streaming services and/or picture quality (e.g., HD vs. 4K).

In this evolving video landscape, broadband providers first must decide if they want to offer video (or other revenue-generating units, such as mobile) in their propositions and, if they do, how to go about it, for example, offering their own packages — white label offerings — or virtual offerings, such as a virtual multichannel video programming distributor proposition. In some instances, video can be the loss leader, and in others, especially with a new model, it could be margin accretive. Nevertheless, broadband providers need to once again rethink how video fits into the equation.

There are other opportunities to bundle, including with mobile

Outside of video, there are other opportunities to bundle, namely mobile. Broadband providers traditionally limited to cable- and fiber-based products can now expand where only a few operators play, in the integrated wireline and wireless operator space, by building mobile propositions through wholesale arrangements with mobile network operators and/or through hybrid networks.

Similar to customer demand for video content in and out of the home and how video may be converging back to the traditional bundle, communications and broadband may also be converging to a subscription that is in and out of the home and on a singular bill (just in time to meet consumers’ demand for more value out of their providers).

Bundles hold enormous potential for cutting through decision fatigue by offering consumers much-needed simplicity. Providers selling services can justify offering more value to the customer by having a more compelling lifetime value when the consumer utilizes more services. Additionally, from an operating cost perspective, complexity places a greater burden on customer support, which can be eliminated from the customer experience as operators use this pivot point to rethink operating models.

Across the board, operators need to simplify and clarify their purpose and the value offered to customers. Ultimately, within the context of the increased cost of living, broadband providers with the most straightforward and comprehensive propositions may have the opportunity to capitalize on consumers’ growing rejection of complex and fragmented services that increasingly offer unclear value.

Michael Misrahi, is’s EY Americas Telecommunications Leader. The views reflected in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ernst & Young LLP or other members of the global EY organization. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Growing up in an underserved area, I witnessed the transformative power of connectivity and its potential to uplift communities. As Zayo’s Chief Product Officer, I am passionate about utilizing technology to connect people and businesses. My role involves leading the company’s product strategy and roadmap, with a strong focus on developing innovative products and services that expand internet access. Through our recent funding from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Middle Mile Grant Program, Zayo is taking decisive steps to connect communities and pave the way for a more inclusive and connected future. I’m proud to be a part of this effort.

Zayo’s transformative middle-mile projects

The $92.9 million in funding represents a major milestone in our commitment to closing the digital divide. With these funds, we plan to undertake three projects extending network infrastructure across eight states and over 2,100 route miles. These projects have been carefully selected based on needs-based criteria, such as current broadband speeds, rural and socio-economic indicators, to ensure we can significantly affect marginalized communities. Fiber is the foundation for broadband for all. Connecting these regions can bridge the technological gap and create a pathway for better economic prospects and educational resources.

Oregon-California-Nevada Project

The first project aims to build a high-capacity fiber route spanning over 622 route miles — or fiber optic cables linking locations along a specific route — to connect communities in Oregon, California and Nevada. Our primary goal is to connect these underserved communities and benefit households, businesses and anchor organizations in Oregon, California and Nevada.

El Paso to Dallas Project

Our second project involves constructing a high-capacity, middle-mile fiber route stretching over 644 miles to establish broadband in rural areas across Western Texas, from El Paso to Dallas. These areas currently lack fiber networks with the capacity to serve entire rural communities.

Dallas to Atlanta Project

The third project focuses on creating additional network connectivity exit ramps along our existing unique, five-state route between Dallas, Texas and Atlanta, Georgia, covering 822 route miles.

Network connectivity exit ramps are crucial access points and off-ramps for data traffic, facilitating seamless connections and providing enhanced flexibility to customers. By optimizing network efficiency and streamlining data transfers, they lead to improved user experiences and higher performance for businesses across industries. These exit ramps add value by meeting evolving digital demands and solidifying Zayo’s position as a leader in innovative, future-ready network solutions.

We targeted these areas in particular because the median broadband access speed is at or less than 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) down * 25 Mbps up. We’ve observed that a significant percentage of the population in these regions falls under the federal poverty rate, and many school districts have a high level of participation in the national school lunch program. Additionally, 36 schools are within 1,000 feet of the fiber routes, meaning they’ll benefit from improved connectivity, enabling them to access essential online resources, support remote learning initiatives and enhance educational opportunities for students and faculty alike.

​​Connecting communities one project at a time

Zayo’s middle-mile mission is built on partnerships with government entities and local ISPs. These collaborations foster economic growth within the state and ensure broadband connectivity for underserved areas. Our strong relationships with local ISPs, cultivated over years of working together to interconnect on our network, allow us to identify and address the specific needs of each community. We are actively working with ISP partners and local broadband offices to identify other potential underserved areas.

Fiber is the perfect solution for connecting underserved areas because it is a long-lasting, reliable, scalable infrastructure asset. Fiber can connect the edge to the core and support a wide range of applications, including 5G, cloud computing and enterprise networking. With the support of our partners, we aim to foster a collaborative ecosystem around fiber, ensuring equal internet access for all communities and preventing them from becoming isolated broadband islands.

This funding is a step forward in our mission to help transform remote education, telemedicine and public safety communication. We understand that connectivity is both a technological endeavor and an essential tool for empowerment and economic development. Internet access is a fundamental right, and my mission is to provide reliable bandwidth to these communities, foster economic growth and level the digital playing field.

As Chief Product Officer at Zayo, Bill Long leads the company’s overall product strategy, financials, and roadmap. He has nearly two decades of experience in the telecommunications industry with expertise in interconnection and infrastructure services, enterprise and wholesale voice, and business and product development. Prior to joining Zayo, Bill served as senior vice president of product management and was responsible for the overall growth and profitability of Equinix Interconnection and was Voice President of Voice Services at Level 3 Communications. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

This issue of the digital divide wasn’t unique to Houston, the disparity in internet access was happening across America. In fact, in 2019, the Federal Communications Commission estimated that over 20 million Americans didn’t possess strong broadband access.

In  July, I was tasked to lead a new nonprofit organization in Houston called Link Health. At Link Health, our organization leverages the health sector to connect patients to the Affordable Connectivity Program and close the digital divide in healthcare.

The organization was founded by an emergency room physician and Harvard University Professor, Dr. Alister Martin, who tapped university students to serve as fellows and digital equity ambassadors. The fellows and ambassadors are placed in clinics and hospitals to actively enroll patients into the Affordable Connectivity Program while they wait to see the doctors. These college students are attacking the problem with fervor and urgency!

In Houston, over 400,000 households are eligible for the Affordable Connectivity Program, but there has only been a 30% adoption rate. Through our partnership with healthcare systems like Legacy Community Health, San Jose Clinic and Lone Star Health Center we have an opportunity to enroll over 200,000 people who are current patients of those systems. In our work, we found that many of those patients that are eligible for the Affordable Connectivity Program need support in completing the application, uploading documentation and then getting the actual discount applied to their internet service account. Our team is there from start to finish in this process.

Although our program is new, we have found success in our clinic- to- community partnerships. Our team has screened over 10,000 patients and enrolled almost 1,000 families into the program. We estimate that through Affordable Connectivity Program enrollments we have helped families save over $290,000 on home internet and our work is just beginning.

We recognize that the Affordable Connectivity Program is slated to sunset when the funds are exhausted. However, in the meantime, our student-led organization will continue to meet people where they are. We will move forward with bringing on new clinical partners and guiding their patients to receive access to these necessary discounts. To broaden our reach, we are sharing resources and marketing material for community health sites that include posters, RX discharge paperwork, brochures and other graphics that promote the ACP.

While news stations are no longer constantly covering stories about students’ connectivity challenges, the issue is still extremely prevalent in many communities. At Link Health we want to assist eligible families in connecting to the internet so that they have access to other resources like telehealth. Opening up access to the internet is one sure fire way to address social determinants of health and we are poised to connect people to the world.

Ar’Sheill Monsanto is the manager of Link Health, which connects patients to broadband access. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Whether on their mobile devices or in front of laptops, millions of people across the country remain disconnected to reliable high-speed access to the world wide web. Whenever they attempt to access the internet for work, school, or a telehealth appointment, they either cannot connect or sit staring at a buffer symbol. These users are victims of a digital divide that should not be allowed to remain. That responsibility will by assigned to the industry proven capable of installing that technology.

It is not a matter of convenience. It has become self-evident that access to reliable and affordable broadband is essential to compete, work, learn, and communicate in a 21st Century economy. Nor is it a Third World problem. The Federal Communications Commission has identified 8.5 million unserved and 3.6 million underserved locations across the country, creating a societal schism between those who have crucial high speed access and those who don’t.

While President Biden has put forth a $42.5 billion program to provide affordable and reliable high-speed internet access to every home and business in the country by 2030, for many, that is a far distant aspiration rather than an immediate solution. In the interim, the administration has also proposed the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides eligible households $30 per month off their internet bills, but that presumes there is high speed access.

Reviewing the impact of digital deserts in the United States and elsewhere

The crisis in connection is not unique to the United States. The International Monetary Fund has devoted considerable resources to reviewing the impact of digital deserts here and around the world. They note that even in advanced economies disparities exist. In many developing countries, women in underserved areas are particularly at a disadvantage, the IMF reporting that fewer women may own or access mobile phones. The COVID pandemic created some initiatives. The governments of El Salvador, Malaysia, and Nepal provided fee discounts or waivers for internet access, but, once again, that presumes there is an infrastructure in place to offer high speed access.

The Biden connectivity plan calls for distributing tens of millions of dollars to states identified as suffering from internet insufficiency who, in turn, will contract for the technology. But at the end of the day, the success or failure of this initiative will rest on the shoulders of fiber optic installers.

Our industry needs to appreciate that this domestic “Moon Shot” will bring with it a level of scrutiny that is unprecedented on every level. Staffing, engineering, innovation, and results will be reviewed and questioned by audiences that range from the Congressional Office of Management and Budget to the end user who will question how long it will take for the promise of installation to become reality.

Our industry’s track record will also be subject to review. Collectively, we may be asked to provide prior performance criteria similar to Excell’s which, to date, has connected over one million homes with fiber optic cable and one billion feet of fiber in rural areas across 15 states, including West Virginia, Mississippi, and Arkansas.

Our industry will also need to tell our story of innovation and the challenges we will overcome in meeting the administration’s mandate. For example, we need to provide insight as to how wiring multiple dwellings can slow down installations or the role of pioneering tools used for splicing fiber optics. Another important story for our industry to tell is how 5G uses a high-frequency signal which does not travel over long distances. This results in the need for a much larger number of fiber optic base stations to amplify the signal.

Today, broadband access is as essential as water or electricity. Doctors rely on the internet for medical equipment, teachers for smartboards, students for studying, and workers for job opportunities. Those without access to reliable internet connection suffer greatly, but we have the technology and the track record to deliver a solution. In the months and years to come, our industry will need to tell that story as it accepts a federal challenge to wire the nation.

Helder Pereira is the Chief Operating Officer, Excell Communications, which offers fiber installation and construction services. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

The BEAD investments are vital to close geographic gaps in broadband coverage. But the job of connecting communities to broadband does not end with laying cables and installing hardware. Success requires a long-term commitment to the technological, economic, social, and civic vitality of each community.

Congress has made capital funds available only for building these broadband networks. Operating and maintaining them — and keeping them secure and innovative — will require continuous investment. As Brookings recently explained, “If a government decides to greenlight a project by only looking at the upfront sticker price, it’s a recipe for deteriorating infrastructure.”

In most communities, particularly those that have lacked broadband until now, success is best assured by building public-private partnerships with established and experienced ISPs. Community leaders should carefully consider which partners have a real track record that can be relied upon to make broadband successful beyond the build – long after the federal grant dollars have been spent.

Six key ISP capabilities that communities should prioritize in potential BEAD partners

1. Superior Scale. Selecting a partner with vast resources and networking experience facilitates more rapid and extensive rollout of broadband infrastructure, and also brings assurances of quality network management in the future. Whether it is conducting routine maintenance and upgrades or coping with critical natural disaster recovery or supply chain shocks, an ISP with superior scale is best equipped to meet the ongoing demands of operating critical infrastructure and to keep costs down.
2. Financial Stability. Companies with strong balance sheets have superior access to capital, are better able to manage rising interest rates and to withstand uncertain economic conditions, and have the resources to operate networks for decades. When companies with flimsy balance sheets take federal broadband subsidies but prove unable to follow through on their commitments, it wastes the public’s money and leads to costly delays in serving communities. Prime examples can be found in any of the many recipients of the FCC’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) grants who have defaulted even before beginning construction, affecting one-third of RDOF census blocks.
3. Continuous Innovation. Partners who are at the forefront of technological advancements can keep pace with the changing digital landscape, innovating continuously to meet consumer demand. Internet traffic is growing incredibly fast – up over 20% in the last year alone. Broadband speeds are up over 3x since 2017. Leading innovators like Comcast always keep their networks and services ahead of the curve and bring those capabilities to their public sector partnerships.
4. Seamless Security. In 2022, cyberattacks against tech and telecom companies more than doubled. Investment in cybersecurity is essential to protect American businesses and consumers, and it already carries a price tag of over $200 billion a year worldwide. While no ISP is immune to cyberattacks, companies may underinvest in network security, creating serious risks. We have one of the deepest cybersecurity teams in the world, with hundreds of employees dedicated to minimizing cybersecurity harms. Small, inexperienced ISPs cannot match this.
5. The Skills to Promote Broadband Adoption. A local community can have good broadband infrastructure, but if its citizens are not taking the service that’s not success. A company with a proven track record in driving higher adoption rates can ensure that many more households reap the benefits of broadband. We have been the industry leader in meeting the adoption challenge for over a decade, with our first-of-its-kind Internet Essentials program as well as our successful participation in the bipartisan-supported Affordable Connectivity Program, which has helped millions of low-income households connect to the Internet.
6. Track Record for Serving Communities. Efforts by local governments to go at it alone in building broadband, or choosing inexperienced partners, are riddled with failure. Whether it’s participants in BTOP, RDOF or state subsidy programs, we have seen scores of ISPs over-promise and under-deliver. At Comcast, we have an unmatched track record: We meet our commitments, and we bring service to all neighborhoods in our footprint.

The broadband future depends on effective collaboration

Community leaders who understand the complexity and risk associated with building and maintaining a broadband network will value a partner that can help them deploy digital infrastructure that is not just built to last, but built to lead.

Comcast brings to local communities its deep-rooted commitment to high-quality technology, widespread adoption, and services that are stable, secure, and innovative.

We are ready and able to work with communities to maximize the value of their broadband investment to every household. With Comcast, communities can be sure they will have a steady and reliable partner who will ensure their success beyond the build for decades to come.

David Don is Senior Vice President of Public Policy at Comcast. This piece is was posted on Comcast’s blog on September 28, 2023, and is reprinted with permission.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

A push by the FCC to eliminate the practice could result in price increases for many broadband users.

Rosenworcel announced a proposal in June to investigate how internet data caps affect consumers, especially the impacts on those with disabilities and lower incomes. Many broadband providers offer tiered pricing based on data usage, limiting how much a customer can use before paying more for their service or facing slowdown in their speeds.

“Internet access is no longer nice-to-have, but need-to-have for everyone, everywhere. As we emerge from the pandemic, there are many lessons to learn about what worked and what didn’t work, especially around what it takes to keep us all connected,” Rosenworcel said. “When we need access to the internet, we aren’t thinking about how much data it takes to complete a task, we just know it needs to get done. It’s time the FCC take a fresh look at how data caps impact consumers and competition.”

But usage-based billing ensures that those who use the most data pay the most money, helping keep costs lower for those who use less data. It is a common practice across many industries. For example, if you operate a business, your accountant would bill you for more hours to do your taxes than you neighbor who only files personal taxes. If you travel farther across the city in an Uber, you’d pay a higher rate than another customer traveling a few blocks. And – since Democrats wants to regulate the internet as a utility – if you use more kilowatts of electricity in your home than your neighbor, you get a higher power bill.  

As James Erwin of Digital Liberty notes, it’s this latter point where the proposition by the FCC really falls apart.

“If one accepts the premise that high-speed broadband is now a necessity, not a luxury, and uses that as justification for outlawing usage-based billing, why shouldn’t the same logic apply to electricity? It has been government policy for close to a century that universal electricity is imperative for access to modern life. Despite this, electric utilities still put meters on our houses and measure our usage to charge us.”

Case for Consumers points out that pricing is one of the most critical decisions by a business and can determine its success or failure.

“This is why letting the market, as opposed to government, set prices is an enormous advantage to consumers, as prices for goods and services necessarily reflect the actual costs incurred and most often land at a point of equilibrium reflecting actual market value at the time and place delivered,” the organization posted on a blog. “This allows businesses to efficiently and economically produce goods and services, as well as improve those goods and services, in order to make a profit while preventing consumers from overpaying their hard-earned money.”

Most internet providers offer tiered plans, which allow light users to pay a much lower rate for a limited amount of data and heavy users to pay a higher rate for unlimited data. An effort by a Democrat-led FCC to eliminate this structure, capping the rate, would likely lead to light users (who often have lower incomes) having to pay more for their internet.

As Case for Consumers notes: “If the government dictated the price of a fill-up (regardless of tank size), then gas stations would set the price high enough to ensure they did not lose money on larger vehicles, meaning the driver of a Geo Metro would pay the same at the pump as the owner of a Chevy Suburban, an absolutely outlandish notion.”

A large reason why the United States enjoyed robust broadband infrastructure during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic was the ability of internet providers to use the revenue from such tiered pricing systems to continue to reinvest and maintain their systems. Efforts by the FCC to force providers to charge a lower-than-market price would put such long-term stability at risk.

Johnny Kampis is director of telecom policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Do a medical needs assessment of NTIA’s eight populations (target markets): 1) low-income urban dwellers, 2) rural communities, 3) Native American communities 4) veterans, 5) seniors, 6) people with disabilities, 7) those for whom English is a second language, and 8) the incarcerated. Low-income Americans have high rates of heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and other chronic conditions compared to higher-income Americans.

How many people would we help with telehealth and how many people would go home with a computing device? A marketing win-win – attack the disease, attack the digital divide.

By the numbers

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports 4 of 10 adults live with two or more chronic diseases. That’s 103.2 adult human beings. Imagine if we leveraged those $45 billions from NTIA, the thousands of all staff people, and the hosts of volunteers to treat, cure, or prevent chronic conditions?

In 2020, 1,603,844 new cancer cases were reported and 602,347 people died. About 695,000 people in the U.S. died from heart disease in 2021 and the disease costs us about $239.9 billion each year in 2018 and 2019. 37.3 million people have diabetes.

Many more millions suffer from and die from lung disease, strokes, Alzheimer’s disease, obesity, and kidney disease. What’s more, many these of chronic diseases are driven by unhealthy lifestyles – smoking, minimal physical activity, poor nutrition, and excessive alcohol use.

Make sure the numbers include the dramatic disparities. For example, African Americans make up 12% of the U.S. population, but twice as many die from strokes (100,000) as all other ethnic groups combined. Studies have found that Black people between the ages of 45 and 54 die of strokes at a rate that’s 3 times greater than their White counterparts. Being overweight or obese increases your risk of stroke. About three out of four Hispanics are overweight.

Telehealth making a difference: Gilda Radner’s legacy

Gilda’s Club Twin Cities, part of the Cancer Support Community global non-profit network providing free social and emotional support for those impacted by cancer, offers telehealth to medically underserved Minnesota urban and rural residents. The club partnered with telehealth firm Equiva and ISP Infinti Mobile to enroll members in the Federal Communications Commission’s Affordable Connectivity Program, to sign them up for Internet access, and send them tablets preloaded with special content.

“CSC organizes the telehealth content in a way that makes sense for their constituents,” says Beth Strohbusch, head of marketing for Equiva. “Members learn about cancer treatment options, digital support groups, and free psychosocial services if members are having problems with depression.”

Strohbusch believes it’s not just hospitals and support groups pursuing broadband and telehealth. Healthcare organizations, nursing homes, and financial risk-bearing organizations are seeing telehealth as an opportunity to enhance connectivity with patients and improve organizations’ financial and chronic healthcare outcomes.

Jason Welch, Infiniti president, says, “Equiva has a reach we don’t have – the healthcare communities, the cancer support community, those in elder care, the larger healthcare organizations. Infiniti saw a natural, practical fit. The Equiva ACP Connect Program is a practical combination of services that are easily explained. Our customers understand accessing healthcare and related resources from their computers and is the data transport mechanism allowing them to do so.”

The eyes have it

Age-related macular degeneration affects the central part of the retina that allows you to see fine details clearly. AMD causes damage to the macula and results in blurring of your central vision. It is a leading cause of blindness among older Americans and is more common in individuals of European ancestry.

Ocutrx manufactures an augmented reality corrective devices that tackles AMD and doubles as patients’ cell phone with Wi Fi, 4G, and 5G capabilities. CEO Michael Freeman says, “We build circuit board in our headsets that enables them to do everything that cell phones do, control seven cameras, and creates the six degrees of freedom where patients can pose virtual objects out in front of their eyes.”

The user puts on the headset and continually does a field test in each eye. Software signals the device when the user can’t clearly see an object, which triggers the cameras that starts projecting real-time on the lens a live 60-frames/second video. Augmented reality moves pixels from the peripheral to the front of the user and within 13 milliseconds the user can see the object.

Ocutrx has a headset for patients with chronic disease. Patients and their doctor each has a headset and cell phone capabilities for talking real time over an encrypted network. This headset measures temperature, respiratory rate, heart rate and other readings. Freeman adds, “Its camera can be disconnected so you can show the doctor your arm or leg.” To treat ‘lazy eye’, AI in the headset let’s patients play a game virtually. It frosts the lens of the good eye and makes the lazy eye work harder and tracks how well the eyes work together when they’re doing the exercises.

The fruits of telehealth

Telehealth vender Fruit Street delivers digital therapeutics for addressing bad habits that have medical consequences. CEO Laurence Girard says, “digital therapeutics may be programs that deal with sleep, stress, and resiliency, others may focus on opiate addiction or general mental health. ​

One in three adults have prediabetes in which someone’s blood glucose (sugar) level is too high but not high enough yet for a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. Fruit Street’s Digital Diabetes Prevention Program combines group telehealth sessions, wearable devices, and dietary tracking in the vender’s mobile application. Besides lowering the risk to develop type 2 diabetes, the program can also lower the risk of having a heart attack or stroke, improve health overall, and help subscribers feel more energetic.​

Consider nonprofits marketing core digital therapeutics within a community. Imagine teams of “Life Changers” whose main goal is to embed broadband, smart home, cloud, and telehealth infrastructure that keeps residents healthy while reducing asthma, diabetes, hypertension, and other chronic illnesses.

Craig Settles conducts needs analyses with community stakeholders who want broadband networks to improve economic development, healthcare, education and local government. He hosts the radio talk show Gigabit Nation, and is Director of Communities United for Broadband, a national grass roots effort to assist communities launching their networks. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

In the weeks since the BEAD initiative was rolled out by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, state officials have been voicing mounting concerns over what they see as bureaucratic roadblocks to implementation. Tamarah Holmes, director of Virginia’s Office of Broadband, recently called BEAD “the most burdensome federal program” she’s ever encountered. Given that she previously worked for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, an entity notorious for extensive bureaucracy, that’s saying something.

One frequently cited problem has been NTIA’s preference for fiber-optic connections, which finds itself in tension with realities on the ground. While fiber connections often provide the best solution, implementing them can be challenging in rough terrain and remote areas. Other technologies like fixed wireless and satellite often make better sense in such territories. Here, the one-size-fits-all approach that NTIA has preferred is proving detrimental to a more tailored, location-based strategy.

This  should not be news to NTIA. As Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., and his colleagues noted in April, states must overcome numberous hurdles before BEAD will be able to succeed—from labor stipulations that are more prescriptive than inclusive to the program’s inexplicable favoritism for government networks over private enterprises. Coupled with requirements like the middle-class affordability option, which will essentially function as a form of rate regulation, the entire implementation push has been creaking under the weight of its own red tape.

In its initial notice of funding opportunity, NTIA also required a preference for noncontract labor when an internet service provider rolls out a network. Unfortunately, there are not nearly enough fiber-optic technicians available in the United States to keep up with the demand created by BEAD. Thus, creating impediments to quickly bringing technicians online only saddles the program with further costly problems.

So, where does this leave America’s ambitions of broadband equity and access?

For one, there’s a compelling need to reassess the BEAD initiative’s guiding principles. The rigidity that’s currently the program’s hallmark needs to be replaced with adaptability. Each state, with its unique geography and challenges, should be given the flexibility to chart its own digital course. The federal role should be that of facilitator, not gatekeeper or, worse still, roadblock.

Moreover, implementation should be guided by a principle of technological neutrality; preferences for particular technologies simply do not make sense. Above all, realities on the ground must shape deployment strategies, not overarching directives that may be disconnected from the local context. The impending workforce challenges must also be addressed proactively. The most obvious solution would be to remove requirements that frustrate the onboarding of technicians as expeditiously as possible.

America’s broadband aspirations will only be realized through a commitment to adaptability and putting the demands of reality ahead of political preferences.

Kristian Stout is the director of innovation policy at the International Center for Law and Economics. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

A core necessity needed to support remote workers is high-speed Internet connectivity. Remote workers count on their Internet service provider to deliver the connectivity needed to keep up with and manage the applications required to have a successful workday in a remote environment. Fiber Internet is the best solution to provide the “enterprise-level” performance and reliability needed to support this paradigm shift.

Why is a strong remote work culture important and what are best practices?

Just like the work culture in the office, there are many benefits to developing a work culture that considers the remote nature of the environment:

• A strong and consistent remote work culture can unite employees and give them a shared sense of purpose.
• Remote work culture prepares organizations for future success.
• Remote work culture can build long-term relationships using the right environment.

Since the pandemic, companies have been working hard to create a remote work culture and a lot of best practices are coming out of that work:

• Create an environment of trust — To create a healthy remote work company culture, it’s important to communicate all the high-level decisions with teams to show employees that they are trusted completely to manage their work and are not being left out of the conversation just because they are not in the office.
• Share the company’s mission and goals — Creating an optimum and high performing remote teamwork culture becomes easier when everyone understands the mission and goals an organization is trying to achieve. It can work as a constant reminder for employees to always know what they are trying to accomplish as a team.
• Define the company’s remote work policy — Remote work or flexible work can mean different things to different people. As a result, a company needs to be as specific as possible about the organization’s remote work policy so the employees know exactly what to expect. More clarity will only lead to smoother remote work and better culture.
• Make face-to-face meetings a priority — While there is no replacement to meeting your team members directly, regular video calls can help close the communication gap. Team managers should hold regular one-on-one meetings with employees to build better connections, establish trust, and celebrate their individual accomplishments. Another simple thing — encourage team members to switch on their video during team meetings. Face-to-face communication helps workers get to know each other in a better way.
• Collect regular feedback and make changes accordingly — It is always a good idea to ask remote employees for their feedback regularly so that they can tell you what’s working for them and what just isn’t. Many are new to the remote work culture so feedback is invaluable.
• Use the right tools — The long-term success of remote work also depends on whether you’re using the right tools to manage work. Such things as video conferencing, a digital workplace platform for collaboration, or instant messaging are essential to supporting the remote culture workers’ needs. Having the right tools makes a difference, but just as important is having high performing bandwidth to make those tools perform optimally.

Broadband connectivity is the technological backbone for building a remote culture

All kinds of technology tools are popping up to better support the remote worker from online video conferencing to digital workplaces to cloud-based data management tools. As a result, greater broadband bandwidth that is reliable and secure is necessary to support the delivery of a quality remote culture and work environment. There are four reasons why:

• Performance Needs to Be Comparable to That in the Office – Just because one is remote doesn’t mean poorer network performance than the enterprise is okay. Companies are demanding commercial grade Internet performance at home, too.
• Remote Enterprise Applications Demand More Bandwidth — New, advanced applications requiring greater network speeds that could only be available at the office need to be attainable by remote workers.
• Scalability Is Paramount — Broadband connectivity needs to be able to scale as more remote workers require access and applications require greater bandwidth and performance.
• To Duplicate In-Person Culture, Bandwidth Needs to Do More — Bandwidth needs to be fast enough to support technologies that can more closely duplicate in-person culture, such as AI, real-time interactive streaming, and human resources applications that analyze unique types of data about the employee experience and interaction, often in real time.

While technological innovations will continue to change and improve the cultural experience for an organization regardless of where an employee works, the demand for higher performing, more reliable, and more secure bandwidth will be needed. Fiber is the only technology that can meet these demands today and scale to meet even greater demands in the future.

Scott Sampson is an experience executive with extensive knowledge in all aspects of telecommunications and IT and is one of the industry’s leading experts on fiber to the home. He has worked with companies such as Arrow Electronics, ULA, and Rio Tinto, as well as a successful sale of a company he co-founded. Sampson is known for building high-achieving teams. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Next generation 5G fixed wireless access is the latest technology disrupting the broadband landscape by offering consumers a cheaper, faster, and more widely available internet connection than traditional wired technologies. Essentially, this technology harnesses the power of 5G wireless networks to deliver high-speed internet via electromagnetic spectrum instead of coaxial cable or fiber.

This means that more homes and businesses can access the high-speed internet they need to work and live in the 21^st century. We know that far too many rural areas of the United States still lack reliable high-speed internet connectivity due to the overwhelming cost and deployment challenges of traditional wired technologies.

Outside of our urban cores and highway corridors, many modern life-enhancing technologies remain unavailable. For underserved constituencies, health outcomes are less positive; educational and business opportunities are more limited; and a myriad of other harms are borne by our more rural constituencies.

5G Fixed Wireless Access provides new opportunities

But 5G FWA stands to finally connect those communities that remain unserved or underserved. Because this technology can span distances and cross terrains that coaxial and fiber cannot, at a fraction of the cost, more communities will be connected using 5G FWA than ever before

Nowhere, however, is the opportunity to deploy this new technology more apparent than on Tribal lands. Native Americans living on Tribal lands experience some of the lowest quality connectivity in the nation. Often, Tribal lands are in the most remote areas of the country where traditional wired broadband technology is unavailable. And when that technology is available, monthly broadband service fees are cost prohibitive.

While recent initiatives like the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program are worth applauding, we still have a long way to go in connecting Tribal lands. Even the Federal Communications Commission’s official data, which historically presented an over-rosy picture of the state of the digital divide, shows less than 50% of Native American households have fixed broadband coverage, which is more than 25 percentage points lower than non-Tribal areas.

The situation quickly goes from bad to worse when you attach dollars and cents to the data. For instance, Tribes such as the Navajo Nation are paying an increased cost of anywhere from $20 to $40 per month (or more) compared to other parts of the U.S., making broadband more expensive to some of the least-resourced communities in the country.

The federal government knows this and is looking to tackle the digital divide through programs such as its $42 billion investment in digital equality via the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program.  However, we may miss a major opportunity to finally connect all areas of the country, including Tribal lands, if we don’t leverage 5G FWA technology that is disrupting the broadband market today.

While many Tribal communities own all the natural resources on their lands, one natural resource- electromagnetic spectrum- remains under the control of the FCC.  And this is for a good reason — spectrum is a finite resource that must be controlled almost like a highway, so that it can be used most efficiently with minimal interference.

Recognizing that it is in the public interest to grant Tribal communities’ access to spectrum to improve broadband connectivity, the FCC allowed Tribal access to specific spectrum bands to build out new wireless networks. However, the most recent 2.5 GHz Tribal access window closed before the BEAD program was conceived, and so many Tribal communities cannot take advantage of this critical combination of technology and funds.

Perhaps an overlooked, but meaningful opportunity to change the face of connectivity on rural and Native lands in light of disruptive 5G FWA technology, would be to allow rural and Tribal communities access to more spectrum just in time for the disbursement of BEAD funds. And the perfect candidate for this access would be the 12 GHz band.

FCC has the opportunity to use 12GHz to enhance digital equity

After more than two years of studying the 12 GHz band, reviewing numerous engineering studies, and listening to all sides of the debate, the FCC has an opportunity to greatly enhance current digital equity efforts by unlocking the 12 GHz band to enable local 5G FWA implementation.

Taking this step would go a long way toward alleviating the digital challenges facing Native American communities because wireless networks are a proven solution to the distance and terrain challenges of these lands. Providing increased connectivity options – at faster speeds, for less money – will reduce the digital divide and bring more communities online who can reap the benefits of today’s technologies. And doing so before the once in a generation $42 billion investment in connectivity is simply smart governing.

Government agencies rarely have the opportunity to significantly and immediately improve the lives of unserved and underserved constituencies, but this is one of those moments for the FCC. The 21^st century is the dawn of the digital era – and it is well past time that we work to ensure that everyone, regardless of location or Native nation, shares in the bounty of the innovations and disruptions of this digital revolution.

Sascha Meinrath is a Penn State telecommunications professor and founder of X-Lab – a think tank dedicated to achieving digital equality. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

The article has caused not only a stir in the UK, but in the U.S. where many of these technology companies are headquartered.  The BBC piece offers ‘a very simple question’ – ‘should technology companies be able to read people’s messages?’ The question is incorrect. What should be asked is – ‘should technology companies be forced by governments to provide a facility for the government and law enforcements agencies to intercept and read all messages, on all devices’?

Proposed legislation in the UK, the Online Safety Bill, will require technology companies to break the end-to-end encryption through a backdoor, allowing messages to be scanned for illegal content. So, the headline is very misleading, as it’s not big tech’s desire to read the messages, it’s the UK government.

Breaking security in this way opens the opportunity for cybercriminals to abuse this backdoor method, as well as for abuse by governments. If the facility to extract data from a secure communication existed then it would not be long before another headline appears stating that some rogue government is monitoring all its citizens, or have rounded up all those that oppose them.

Demand for end-to-end encryption is unquestionable

The demand for messaging apps that provide end-to-end encryption is unquestionable, with billions of users relying on them as a means of communication every day. The demand has been met with a variety of apps and technology companies moving existing services to offer end-to-end encryption. This means a conversation between two people, or a group, remains private and is only readable to the participants of the conversation. And these technology companies behind the apps and services are proudly stating that their platforms are secure and private, which is what we as consumers have demanded of them.

The issue with providing encryption functionality as default is that some individuals or groups will use it for illegal purposes, and the implemented security makes it complicated for law enforcement and government agencies to intercept the content in a form that they can read. At the same time, it makes it complicated for cybercriminals, those that may use the information for extortion, identity theft, or fraud.

There is a collision course set as many big tech companies that provide end-to-end encryption-services have stated that they will remove their services from the UK rather than break the security currently being used by a large proportion of the population.

A statistic used in the BBC article leans on emotion while claiming the majority of the population supports the ability to break the encryption and to scan messages for child abuse material. If asked, I would probably agree as well. And let’s be clear, I would support severe punishment to people guilty of these crimes, not just locking them up! The question posed to survey respondents should be ‘should a government policy force technology companies to break end-to-end encryption for everyone, on all their messages, on all devices, for all apps, to allow everything they send to be intercepted and scanned, either in transit or on their device’? This is likely to get a very different response.

Numerous security researchers, privacy advocates and experts have published their concerns in an open letter. Their concerns detailed in the letter need to be strongly considered as legislators attempt to push the proposed legislation through the process to become law. It’s also important to understand this will become a cat and mouse game as the people guilty of abusing end-to-end encryption to commit crimes will find other ways to stay hidden, which will require more legislation and likely involve further degrading of security for the entire population.

In my opinion end-to- end encryption of personal messages is not a nice to have, it’s essential, and there should not be any built-in method to circumvent this vital security.

Tony Anscombe has more than 20 years of experience as an established author, blogger and speaker on the current threat landscape, security technologies and products, data protection, privacy and trust and internet safety. He has spoken at RSA, Black Hat, VB, CTIA, MEF, Gartner Risk and Security Summit and the Child Internet Safety Summit. He has been quoted in BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times and USA Today, with broadcast appearances on Bloomberg, BBC, CTV, KRON, and CBS. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

In the U.S., leading mobile carriers such as Verizon and T-Mobile, are fully embracing Fixed Wireless Access. Their customer base continues to grow as they lead the charge in deploying FWA services. Verizon reached over 1 million fixed wireless access customers last year and T-Mobile added 920K new FWA subscribers in Q3 alone, with their total FWA subscribers now reaching just over 3.2 million. Recognizing the potential of FWA, these operators are leveraging the power and ubiquity of their 5G networks generating new revenue streams.

Business potential for fixed wireless

Fixed Wireless Access provides operators with the opportunity to deliver broadband services to homes at a lower cost compared to fiber-optic connections. This offers a cost-effective approach for mobile operators to extend their coverage and tap into markets that may have been overlooked. Introducing new connectivity solutions to existing customers not only enhances ARPU and decreases churn, but mobile operators can especially broaden business development opportunities since the “last mile” cable infrastructure is no longer required to deliver service to households.

It is crucial for operators to act swiftly in seizing the home value-added services opportunities presented by a carrier-grade cloud offering powered by 5G FWA such as protecting data and content of every member within a household, benefiting both operators and subscribers alike.

FWA has the potential to deliver data speeds that surpass current broadband networks, enhancing the consumer experience, like sharing content across different devices, whether that’s sharing personal pictures or videos or the latest digital streaming content. FWA leverages 5G capacity to deliver faster services like lightning-fast uploads and downloads with minimal latency.

Another advantage of FWA is the swift and straightforward installation process, resulting in lower expenses when compared to fiber and cable technologies. Since FWA operates exclusively on wireless signals, the requirement for cables and extensive infrastructure deployment is eliminated.

FWA plays a crucial role in augmenting internet infrastructure and enables a diverse array of applications inside and outside of the home. By offering high-speed broadband connectivity, FWA facilitates the advancement of smart homes, ensuring dependable connections for access control, security and surveillance systems, appliances, entertainment, and collaboration tools.

Furthermore, FWA enables personal cloud services that manage digital content across multiple devices, such as smartphones, tablets, and desktop computers, even more convenient and user-friendly when coupled with faster connectivity.

FWA presents a solid structure for service providers to refine and improve on. Offering a cost-effective and exceptionally fast broadband service that is simple to deploy and install, consumers and service providers can experience a host of advantages, fostering a mutually beneficial situation. Consumers have access to a diverse array of new services and bundled offerings, while service providers can expand their customer base and reduce churn.

U.S. operators created the blueprint and service providers around the globe are following suit. This allows them to enter new markets and provides access to underserved areas. FWA has experienced significant growth in the United States and worldwide, providing compelling evidence of its increasing popularity and adoption.

Jeff Miller serves as President and CEO of Synchronoss Technologies. During his tenure as CEO, Miller has placed increased focus on driving the growth of the Synchronoss Cloud business, which has enjoyed accelerated subscriber adoption and expansion with new customers. Miller previously served as President for IDEAL Industries Technology Group, following a 16-year experience with Motorola Mobility where he served as Corporate Vice President of North America. Miller also serves on the Board of 1871, Chicago’s largest start-up incubator, and on the non-profit Boards of Aspire Chicago and Junior Achievement. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

We were only able to achieve such strides in 5G because our government made releasing spectrum—the invisible real estate that makes your mobile device work—a national priority. For example, Congress, in a bipartisan effort, passed the MOBILE NOW Act in 2018, which, among other things, created a spectrum pipeline for commercial 5G use. At the speed of 5G, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) responded with its 5G FAST Plan and opened up more than six gigahertz of spectrum for licensed 5G services, including more than 600 megahertz of mid-band spectrum to auction to augment our 5G capacities.

Their work paid off.

5G speeds are increasing. According to the IEEE—the preeminent standards group for wireless technology, “[w]ireless carriers like Verizon and AT&T have recorded speeds of one gigabyte per second.” To put that in perspective, that’s, as IEEE continues, “even faster than a fiber-optic cable connection.” Due to the comparable speeds to fiber, it’s no wonder why 92% of users access broadband services through their mobile device.

The 5G revolution has also been a boon to our economy. It has enabled 4.5 million jobs and will contribute a total of $1.5 trillion to the United States’ gross domestic product by 2025. The added competition from wireless providers have also put more money in consumers’ pockets as monthly internet bills have decreased by 14% to 42% on average over the past 5 years.

5G is also helping carriers reach those on the wrong side of the digital divide. Because of 5G’s wireless nature, it is more adept than fiber at reaching those in hard-to-connect regions of the country, such as the hollers of the Appalachians or the vast plains of the American West. This allows it to fill in the gaps where fiber options are untenable.

Even in 2022, we were still going strong. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel carried out the 5G FAST Plan by auctioning off more mid-band spectrum in the 2.5 gigahertz and 3.45 gigahertz bands.

But we have a problem. We’ve have no spectrum left in the pipeline. Even if we did, the FCC’s spectrum auction authority has lapsed for the first time ever.

The good news is that Congress is making progress on restoring the FCC’s auction authority.

The bad news is the legislative process  is going to take some time to complete.

But there are things the FCC can do to promote 5G today.

Specifically, it can issue T-Mobile’s 7,156 spectrum licenses it purchased last year in the FCC’s 2.5 GHz auction. These licenses allow T-Mobile to access invaluable mid-band spectrum that can fuel its 5G networks and expand their reach. Better yet, T-Mobile said they can start lighting up areas as soon as the FCC issues its license. Better service from T-Mobile means: more competition in the 5G space, more folks connected, and ultimately even lower prices for consumers across the board.

So what’s the hold up?

The FCC argues that it cannot act without its auction authority. That’s a strange conclusion because the 2.5 gigahertz auction occurred before its authority expired—and T-Mobile has already paid for the licenses. And the FCC issued spectrum licenses for six decades without auction authority. Frankly, the FCC doesn’t need auction authority to issue licenses it already lawfully granted. Indeed, a bipartisan group of former FCC general counsels all agree that the lack of auction authority is not a legal barrier for the agency.

The FCC should reconsider its prior conclusion and think about other authorities it can use to get this spectrum to market. If need be, it can grant T-Mobile temporary access while seeking comment on its authority, but doing nothing is not an option. We need our leaders at the FCC to make the right calls while Congress finds more spectrum.

The fate of 5G and beyond depends on it.

Joel Thayer is president of the Digital Progress Institute and an attorney based in Washington, D.C. The Digital Progress Institute is a nonprofit seeking to bridge the policy divide between telecom and tech through bipartisan consensus. Greg Guice is director of Public Knowledge. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

For decades, speed has been used as the primary indicator of broadband performance. At the same time, networking experts have long realized that speed is just one dimension of broadband performance, and newer, increasingly interactive applications have made users aware that more than just speed is required to provide the best possible experience. As a result, the industry needs to look beyond conventional measurements of speed and even latency, to improve overall broadband experience and to facilitate the management of network performance against service and application requirements.

Making the network invisible to the customer

Because our ‘always on’, ultra-connected lifestyle now demands so much more from our networks, Quality of Experience can no longer be ignored. For example, the emergence of applications such as Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and other high bandwidth, latency-sensitive applications have the potential to place tremendous strain on broadband networks.

Notably, VR technology has become more accessible and widely used over the past few years and it only continues to grow in popularity, with an estimated base of more than 171 million users worldwide and applications in gaming, healthcare, education, architecture, and other markets.

As VR technology and applications evolve, they require much more responsiveness from the network, including stringent latency requirements that are critical to providing customers with a realistic and comfortable experience. In effect, a network providing VR must be invisible to the customer, delivering data packets so quickly and reliably that its presence between the user and the application is not detected.

Latency, or the amount of time it takes for a data packet to travel from one point to another, is one of the network performance metrics used to describe customer QoE and consumers have become increasingly aware of its importance. However, conventional latency measurements do not necessarily provide enough information to drive improvements to network performance, especially when supporting demanding applications and services.

The industry needs to be able to break latency into its components, each of which is affected by distinct factors within the network.  By understanding the individual components that make up latency, network designers can focus on the most effective techniques to provide performance optimized for subscribers, services, and applications.

Treating the ‘network illness’ with the right cure

Broadband Forum’s Broadband Quality of Experience Delivered project, published as a series of specifications under the TR-452 umbrella, defines metrics that capture variability in network quality, relating directly to end-user QoE. The framework uses principles of Quality Attenuation (written ∆Q) to characterize the performance metrics, measurements, and analysis required by innovative broadband networks, tackling factors such as latency, consistency, predictability, and reliability.

Quality Attenuation measurements provide the capability for decomposing latency into distinct components, matching them to the sources of performance degradation. For example, packet delay is decomposed into a constant component (due to distance travelled and also bounded by the speed of light), a variable component (caused by queuing or buffering), and a serialization delay (tied to link speeds).

Quality Attenuation then builds a representative statistical distribution of these latency components as well as packet loss, based on the measured transit times of variable sized packets sent over a network segment over time. This makes Quality Attenuation a powerful tool for evaluating both the nature and the causes of network performance issues.

For example, Broadband Quality Attenuation can be used to identify quality degradation due to an inadequate scheduling operation when the network is under load. This in turn allows network operators to optimize broadband performance more cost-effectively via configuration changes, treating the root cause of the issue rather than just increasing link speeds, which could entail significant expenditure without solving the problem.

The time is right

In this new gigabit era – with the likes of DOCSIS 4, XGS-PON, 25G, 50G, 100G, coherent PON, and Wi-Fi 7 either available now or on the horizon – more speed has diminishing benefits as perceived by customers. Instead, a new generation of interactive apps and services requires a more responsive network. As this evolution continues, speed will no longer be the main differentiator, but rather just one factor in the quest for a more comprehensive understanding of network performance, based upon service and application QoE.

By focusing on QoE, service providers can achieve reduced churn, new Average Revenue Per User growth opportunities, service differentiation, and lower OPEX applied to customer support and network planning. Services differentiated for specific QoE can be offered initially to particular target groups and ultimately, to the wider broadband subscriber market. These offerings can be powered by Broadband QED, which provides the needed framework to specify, measure, and analyze, and ensure the quality required for these next-generation applications driving value-added services.

Gavin Young is responsible within Vodafone Group for the fixed broadband access technology strategy, architecture, vendor roadmaps and standards across the 17 countries where Vodafone currently has fixed access assets, including fiber, cable and DSL access technologies plus fixed-mobile access. Young was a founding director of the Broadband Forum, for which he served as  technical chairman for 12 years, in addition to serving as co-chair of the UK21CN consultation’s broadband group and on other technical boards. He is chairman of the Ofcom Spectrum Advisory Board and is active in several CableLabs initiatives, and is a fellow of the IET. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

ACP is the best anti-poverty program for the money

People use broadband to get a job, start a business, and learn new skills. Financial support to low-income Americans for broadband connectivity is an important, accepted social good, evidenced by the bipartisan support of the Universal Service Fund for almost 30 years. All Americans are better off when more people can have employment, health, and education. Notably accessing these services by broadband uses less government resources than in person.

Data and learning from ACP is critical to broadband policy researchers like John Horrigan at the Benton Institute, the Pew Broadband Access Initiative, Hernan Galperin at USC Annenberg, and the Government Accountability Office, Paul Garnett, and the American Consumer Institute which just convened an event on the topic. Former Federal Communications Commission Mike O’Reilly observed that the key argument for the ACP is upward mobility.

Randy May of the Free State foundation noted, “the evidence shows that in both rural and urban areas, and in both so-called Red and Blue states, the Affordable Connectivity Program is enabling millions of low-income persons to obtain a broadband connection that otherwise they might not be able to acquire.”

ACP demonstrates policy improvements from decades of suboptimal broadband subsidies programs like Lifeline. ACP works in part because it offers a meaningful benefit directly to consumers with minimal government intervention.

Just as vouchers enable school choice, vouchers enable broadband choice, allowing consumers to select their preferred provider and technology, creating broadband competition in the process.

The benefits of ACP flow to more than just those who it helps subscribe

However beneficial, ACP funds will run out before the end of the year, threatening to pull the rug out from under millions of U.S. households who rely on ACP to afford broadband.  Congress recognizes the importance of the program and the upward mobility that internet connectivity enables. Programs like ACP can pay for themselves over time with targeted reforms to modernize broadband subsidy programs.

As my new research shows, the largest beneficiaries of the ACP are America’s tech platforms Alphabet, Meta, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft. Together they earn hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, annually on each new American who adopts the internet.

However, these companies do not participate financially in federal programs designed to promote broadband adoption. Whereas telecom providers have been paying billions of dollars for years to support the USF, universal service subsidies to fund broadband for rural areas, school, libraries, hospitals, and low-income Americans, tech platforms have contributed zero to such programs.

Yet tech companies get the benefit of any new user who comes online from these programs. My new report describes the ways that these companies could contribute financially, continue to enjoy the financial benefits of new internet users, and minimize pass-through to end users.

Congress and the FCC recognize that ACP should continue and that it should be reviewed as part of the larger Congressional efforts to reform USF and to conduct oversight of broadband subsidies. Kudos to Senators Ben Luján, D-N.M., and John Thune, R-S.D., who have launched a bipartisan working group on these issues.

ACP should not be allowed to run out. Congress should appropriate bridge funding for ACP while it works on long term reforms which will take time. In the interim, our nation can’t afford to unplug millions of U.S. households.

Roslyn Layton, PhD, Senior Vice President of Strand Consult and Visiting Researcher at Aalborg University Copenhagen, is an international technology expert focused on the economics, security, and geopolitics of broadband internet technology. She has testified before the U.S. Congress on competition in wireless technologies, spectrum reform, the security advantages of 5G versus Wi-Fi, and the empirical and ethical case for fair cost recovery for broadband networks. She is also a senior contributor to Forbes, a Fellow of the National Security Institute at George Mason University, and a Senior Advisor to the Lincoln Policy Network. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

For decades, both Democrats and Republicans have consistently affirmed that closing this digital divide is a federal priority. Romney, for example, has often worked with his democratic counterparts to expand broadband access in rural Utah. But, in its eagerness to connect every American, Congress and the executive branch have overseen the proliferation of a complex web of duplicative federal programs. 

According to a GAO report from last year, the federal government runs over 130 programs administered across 15 different agencies all with the singular goal of helping Americans get connected. GAO found that, between 2015 and 2020, the federal government invested over $44 billion in closing the digital divide, and recent legislation has appropriated tens of billions more over the next few years. This funding varies, but generally falls into one of three categories: programs intended to expand broadband access, programs intended to make broadband more affordable, and programs intended to build digital skills. 

Duplication of federal programs in any instance is undesirable as it decreases the efficiency of federal funding and increases the likelihood of waste, fraud, and abuse. Yet, the unique nature of federal broadband programs magnifies the problems. More often than not, multiple agencies are charged with administering multiple programs with the same basic mission, making it much more difficult to oversee, measure, and ensure projects meet their goals.

Moreover, this discordant system results in regulatory divergence, where programs with the same goal have different requirements and regulations, resulting in needless regulatory bloat and red tape. Fragmentation of federal efforts has steered money to overbuilding networks in areas that are already covered, taking resources away from areas that truly need federal assistance.

 At last week’s hearing, Romney appeared taken aback by the magnitude of the problem when speaking to Gene Dodaro, Comptroller General and head of GAO. In response to Romney’s perplexity, Dodaro pointed to the GAO’s recommendations. 

With duplication of funding undesirable, GAO ha recommended federal government streamlining

To increase the efficiency and effectiveness of federal broadband funding, GAO has repeatedly recommended that the federal government streamline its efforts. In fact, after national defense related priorities, the top recommendation from GAO’s most recent report on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication is that the federal government needs “a national broadband internet access strategy” to help the government “better manage fragmented efforts … and to address overlap and potential duplication.”

“Who would make an investment long term without a strategy and a way to check the strategy?” Dodaro opined. At least one federal official agrees. When asked about the future of federal efforts to close the digital divide at a separate hearing earlier this week, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr responded: “I think the time is ripe right now to make sure that we have a coordinated approach to all these different broadband programs.”

In its reports, the GAO has focused its recommendations on the executive branch. Yet, since the report was published, the Biden administration has balked at developing a national broadband strategy strategy and declined to take a position on GAO’s recommendation. Given the considerable amount of money that has recently been appropriated by Congress to set up even more broadband-related programs, it is time for Congress to take matters into its own hands. 

The most expedient way for Congress to take action is through the appropriations process. The Appropriations Committees could simply include a directive in the report language that accompanies the appropriations bills calling on the executive branch to develop a national broadband strategy. However, on its own, such a directive may not be enough to force the federal government to streamline federal broadband funding.  

Earlier this year, I recommended that both the Appropriations Committees direct the Department of Commerce to undertake a comprehensive comparative analysis of all broadband-related programs. This report would compare the return on investment for these programs to help separate the wheat from the chaff. Taken with a directive to produce a national broadband strategy, such a report would be invaluable in the broader goal of increasing the efficiency of broadband funding. 

For too long, Congress and the executive branch have enabled the metastasizing of federal broadband programs. In spite of tens of billions of dollars flowing out of federal coffers to support broadband access and affordability, the digital divide remains. Now, with tens of billions more going to help close the digital divide, it is more important than ever that federal broadband funding is used in the most efficient and effective manner. It is time for the United States to end its haphazard approach to closing the digital divide. It is time for a national broadband strategy. 

Luke Hogg is the director of outreach at the Foundation for American Innovation where his work focuses on the intersection of emerging technologies and public policy. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

However, careful planning and community outreach are essential to using these funds effectively, as is the Affordable Connectivity Program—the most successful program the country has ever enacted to help struggling families afford high-speed internet.

We know that for a lower-income family in the digital divide, just having access to a broadband network is not enough to ensure that they can subscribe. The ACP is an essential tool because it addresses the number one reason people aren’t online—they’re unable to afford internet service. In fact, offline households are often only able to pay $10, yet the median cost of an internet plan is $74.99 per month.

The ACP helps lower-income households by subsidizing the cost of an internet service plan as well as devices, like laptops or tablets. In fact, the program is overwhelmingly popular, and uptake is exceeding even the highest expectations.

Analysis of Affordable Connectivity Fund shows its popularity among Democrats, Republicans and independents

Our analysis shows it’s popular in cities, suburbs, and rural areas. It’s popular with Democrats, Republicans, and independents. In short, the ACP is helping people everywhere, no matter where they live or how they vote.

Here are five facts about the impact the ACP is having on families across the country:

• Roughly 50 million households qualify for the subsidy. That’s nearly 40% of the country.
• Over 18.5 million households are currently enrolled. That’s more than 14% of the country.
• In 2023, ACP enrollment grew by over half a million every month, or at a rate of 3.5% per month.
• Majorities in both parties support the ACP: Sixty-four percent of Republicans and 95% of Democrats.
• The ACP’s success is bipartisan. Forty-six percent of enrollees live in Republican congressional districts, and 50% live in Democratic congressional districts.

The benefit of the ACP also reaches well beyond eligible households. Our research found that connecting families has a significant positive impact on education, health care, government services, and even workforce development. When more households are connected to high-speed internet, outcomes can improve in each of these sectors. For example, when students remain unconnected, our research found an estimated loss of $33 billion dollars in GDP annually. By connecting students, the country could avoid this loss.

A recent analysis by Cigna noted that telemedicine access lowered the cost of care by up to $141 per visit. The same analysis found that telemedicine increased the number of entry points into the health care system as well as improved outcomes. With more families connected, telemedicine could be an option for more people, both patients and providers. Connectivity also increases employment rates and earnings, creating more than $2,200 in economic benefit for lower-income households.

Both new and established providers need certainty that ACP will remain in place as they decide whether to participate in the biggest new broadband infrastructure program, the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program, and determine how ambitious they can be in their proposals.

Our recent analysis found that the existence of ACP led to an estimated 25% reduction in the per household subsidy needed to incentivize providers in rural areas. ACP is the linchpin that will turn the IIJA’s massive once-in-a-generation investment in broadband from a program that is just about building networks to one that is helping our most vulnerable communities connect to the benefits of the digital economy.

At Common Sense, we have worked hard to get to where we are today, and we are determined to see this job through. To close the digital divide once and for all, we need to continue funding a robust ACP.

Amina Fazlullah is the Senior Director Equity Policy at Common Sense. Her work focuses on expanding access to technology and digital well-being advocacy. Prior to joining Common Sense, Amina was a Tech Policy Fellow at Mozilla, where she worked to promote broadband connectivity in underserved communities around the world. Amina has also worked with the Benton Foundation, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the U.S. District Court of Minnesota, and at the Federal Communications Commission. This piece was published on Common Sense on June 20, 2023, and is reprinted with permission.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Broadband improvements have been constrained for decades by inaccurate maps, yet the Federal Communications Commission continues to accept dramatically exaggerated availability and capacity claims from internet service providers. The cumbersome challenge process requires consumers and units of government to prove a negative — a logical fallacy.

The Reid Consulting Group and other parties, including Microsoft, have developed robust algorithms to reliably identify actual broadband availability. RCG utilizes Ookla Speedtest Intelligence data due to the large quantity of consumer-initiated tests. In Ohio, as an example, we draw on more than 16 million speed tests reflecting the lived experience from millions of households. We combine the speed test findings with FCC and Census data to deliver irrefutable identification of unserved and underserved locations.

Such methodologies offer State Broadband Leaders the opportunity to reverse the burden of proof in the BEAD program, requiring that ISPs submit concrete evidence supporting their availability and speed claims. As an example, in Ohio, RCG’s maps were accepted as proof of unserved status for the 2022 state grant program. BroadbandOhio then required ISPs to submit substantial proof in their challenge process. In other words, the ISP’s were tasked with proving a positive instead of expecting citizens to prove a negative.

ISPs and the FCC denounce crowdsourced data unless conducted under unusually restrictive conditions. The ISPs have successfully promoted unsubstantiated myths regarding the value of consumer-initiated speed tests.

Myth: Bad tests are because of poor Wi-Fi.
Reality: RCG eliminates speed tests with weak Wi-Fi and includes GPS enabled wired devices. Even first-generation Wi-Fi would saturate a 25 Megabits per second download and 3 Mbps upload connection.

Myth: Residents only subscribe to low-speed packages.
Reality: According to the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, in areas where rural electric cooperatives offer broadband, 25 to 33 percent of rural subscribers opt for the top speed tier offered. We can clearly see this trend in areas where fiber has been deployed in recent years, as described later in this article.

Myth: People only test when there is a problem.
Reality: Network problems prompt tests, as do resolutions of problems.  RCG recommends focusing on the maximum speed test results to eliminate this “unhappy customer effect.”

Finding the truth: Broadband and the lived experience

In Ohio, RCG analyzed more than 14 million consumer-initiated speed tests over a three-year period. The data reveals a clear pattern of carrier overstatement. The stark visual contrast between the two maps is hard to ignore — and while this study is focused on Ohio, the issue remains nationwide in scope. The sheer magnitude of the overstatements makes the FCC challenge process untenable.

Figure 1: Ohio Broadband Reality vs. FCC ISP stated coverage map.

RCG utilized the “maximum speeds ever seen” at a location for generating maps and coverage figures, but we also examined the results from the average of speed test. Switching between average and maximum speeds does not change the overall picture of broadband availability. As an example, Figure 2 focuses on an area around Bolivar, Missouri. Looking at the maximum speed turns Bolivar itself a deeper green, meaning “better served,” but the rural areas around Bolivar remain predominantly red, meaning “unserved.”  The preponderance of evidence clearly demonstrates that much of the rural area around Bolivar remains unserved, even at maximum speeds.

Figure 2: Map visualization illustrating the difference between viewing average speeds in the Bolivar, Missouri area and maximum speeds documented.

When rating broadband availability in the Bolivar area at the Census block level and overlaying with ISP coverage claims at the H3 R8 level, you can see that many of the unserved and underserved areas have been reported as served to the FCC by ISPs (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Carrier overstatement small scale in Bolivar, Missouri. RCG speed map with FCC H3 R8 hexagon overlay.

Zooming out to examine the entirety of Missouri (Figure 4), the pattern of ISP overstatement becomes quite clear. According to the FCC maps, most of the state is served, whereas the analysis conducted by RCG shows that significant areas remain in need of broadband investment. As with Ohio, the scope of the overstatement in Missouri presents an unreasonable burden on the public to challenge.

Figure 4: Missouri reality vs. ISP Reports, March 2023.

Showing Progress: Change of State Analysis

Change-of-state analysis taps progressive releases of Ookla records to identify areas where broadband speeds have set new highs. This approach works not only for grant funded projects but also private investments. The area surrounding Byesville, Ohio (Figure 5) reveals a significant uptick in test volume, test locations, and speeds from 2020 to 2022. Side-by-side comparison shows a large number of “green” (served) speed test locations where there used to be only “red” (unserved) and “orange” (underserved) results. This change is a direct result of a Charter Communications Rural Digital Opportunity Fund deployment.

Figure 5: The unserved area around Byesville, Ohio before and after broadband deployment.

State Broadband Leaders can use these capabilities to document progress and identify lagging projects. Any service area will always exhibit a mix of speed test results.  Even in an area like Byesville where fiber-to-the-home has been deployed, not all the location “dots” will turn green. However, the preponderance of evidence clearly shows that a funded ISP — in this case, Charter — has made good on its commitment to expanded broadband access. ISPs can help by conducting speed tests at the time of installation from the customer’s premises and by increasing minimum packages to 100/20 Mbps or higher.

There is no mystery to solve — we know how to identify areas lacking broadband services. For many rural Americans, even their telephone services have become unreliable, still dependent on the now-decrepit copper cables built in the 1940s through 1960s. We all depend on a healthy rural economy for our food, water and energy. Let’s make the commitment to build the infrastructure needed to bring these households into the internet age — starting by bringing reality and accountability to the availability maps.

Tom Reid is the president of Reid Consulting Group, a firm specializing in broadband. They work with clients to generate insights, create actionable plans, and identify funding sources to connect unserved and underserved areas. RCG’s engagements in eight states have delivered 6,000 miles of fiber construction with a total project value of $1.6 billion and has secured over $330 million in grant funds on behalf of clients. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Since its creation by Congress in the 1996 Telecom Act, the USF has become a program that millions of families, community anchor institutions and small businesses rely on to get connected. It has been especially valuable for families and businesses that rely on it for work, school and telehealth at home.

The USF spends about $8.5 billion annually to help fund affordable connectivity in rural areas, low-income households, schools, libraries and rural hospitals. Today, the Federal Communications Commission is working to make high-speed broadband as ubiquitous as telephone service, and broadband is the essential communications technology the USF now supports.

While the USF remains vital in an ever-increasing connected world, it is in serious jeopardy of surviving. To fund the programs, telecom providers are required to pay a certain percentage of their interstate and international telecom revenues, known as the “contribution factor.” Typically, telecom providers collect these USF fees from their customers on their monthly bills.

However, the telecom revenues that fund the USF have declined over 60 percent in the last two decades. As a result, the contribution factor has skyrocketed from about 7 percent in 2001 to a historic high of about 30 percent today, as a higher portion of telecom revenues is needed to sustain the fund. That means certain consumers and businesses are now paying an additional 30 percent on top of their phone bills in order to fund the USF.

Telecom revenues continue to decline so rapidly because customers today rely more on broadband services and less on landline and mobile phone services, but broadband revenues do not pay into the USF. While the FCC has modernized each USF program to help support broadband service, it has not modernized its funding mechanism to require broadband services to pay into the Fund even though historically the agency has required supported services to be included in the contribution system.

Without intervention, the contribution factor is predicted to rise to 40 percent by 2025. This is unsustainable and puts the stability of the entire USF at risk. In fact, the contribution factor has become so high that it has led some groups to challenge the USF in federal court as unconstitutional, which also threatens the sustainability of the USF.

Reforming the USF funding mechanism is urgently needed and long overdue

Over 340 diverse stakeholders have come together as the USForward Coalition calling on the FCC to move forward with USF reform by expanding the contribution base to include broadband revenues. This solution is based on the recommendation in the USForward Report (that INCOMPAS helped commission), which was written by USF expert and former FCC official Carol Mattey.

The USForward Report explains that the most logical way to reform the contribution system and sustain the USF is to include broadband revenues in its funding assessment. Under this approach, the contribution factor is estimated to fall to less than 4 percent. It also means that the services that get USF support are paying into it, rather than solely relying on telecom customers, including those that have not made the switch to broadband, such as older Americans.

In fact, some members of Congress understand the urgency of reform and also want the FCC to act. The Reforming Broadband Connectivity Act, for example, is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that would require the FCC to reform the contribution system within one year.

Some question whether large tech companies should be assessed to contribute to the USF, and the short answer is “No.” Tech companies invest $120 billion each year in global internet infrastructure, and unlike broadband providers, these companies do not request or receive USF funding for these investments.

The FCC also lacks the authority to regulate tech companies and doing so would require Congress to act. This would further delay reform and expand the FCC’s regulatory authority over all online content and services — an overreach that many question as too broad since nearly every business today has an online presence and uses the internet to conduct business. Moreover, proposals to target certain tech companies risk skewing the online marketplace and competitive markets.

Some also question whether we still need the USF at all, and the short answer is “Yes.” While Congress allocated tens of billions for broadband, most of this investment is targeted for deployment, yet a significant portion of the USF programs focus on affordability. We not only have to make sure we build out our broadband networks, but also that communities can then afford to subscribe to these services.

The FCC should not wait to reform the USF. The USForward Report sets out a real plan that the FCC can and should implement. Congress should encourage the FCC to act now and save the nation’s critical connectivity program.

Angie Kronenberg is the president of INCOMPAS, where she manages the policy team and its work before federal, state and local governments, as well as leading the association’s efforts on membership and business development. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

His point? Springfield learned a valuable lesson: Teens push the edges of technology, and understand how to use technology better than many adults do. Therefore, it is imperative to include teenagers in the planning of what is and will be their main future technologies. The brain power and the creativity alone will lead to the success of tapping this demographic.

Fast forward to 2023. How many communities are leveraging their teen populations in the pursuit of broadband and digital equity? “Kids want to get a look into the future,” said Kevin Morris in a video. “That’s the thing that drives many of them in school.” Morris talks to many students as the director of college, careers and community services for the Duarte Unified School District.

What about their future in broadband, I wondered, when a friend talked to me about her efforts to recruit internship positions for the K12 Foothill Consortium? Many of the high school students in the Consortium are anxious to intern remotely or in-person near their homes in Southern California. It hit me — take the Springfield model of teen engagement to the rest of America!

Imagine the possibilities for local broadband or digital equity teams, local government and nonprofits if they can channel bright, tech-savvy, energetic, inquisitive teens on a mission to help bring the digital equity solutions to communities. Remote or in person interns can help with focus groups, town halls logistics, preparing and writing newsletters, usability testing and Affordable Connectivity Program enrollments.

The K12 Foothill Consortium is recruiting internship hosts for the June through August period and for at least 60 hours total. Those groups and organizations engaged with broadband and digital inclusion projects get the benefit of interns’ prior training in coding, health care, web design, engineering and other related disciplines. Since interns prefer paid internships, the Consortium also raises money for organizations that may be too cash-strapped to offer a stipend but can offer meaningful internships.

Photo of Career Technical Education students courtesy of the K12 Foothill Consortium

Internship hosts view the relationships as a win-win for everyone involved. Ivan Ayro, director of adult and career technical education at Charter Oak Unified School District, agrees. “Students are able to connect the educational experience they’re getting from Career Technical Education classes with real-life experience from workplace learning. Through the internships, many of our students are able to realize in high school if this is something that they want to do for the rest of their lives.”

A recent US News & World Report article states that, although internships are traditionally for college students, high school students increasingly are participating in them. Benjamin Caldarelli, co-founder of Princeton College Consulting, a New Jersey-based educational consulting company, said, “High school students want to work somewhere that interests them and potentially make what they feel is a more meaningful contribution. They see internships as an enrichment activity and opportunity to make an impact rather than simply trading time for a little money.”

More than 205,000 new jobs will need to be created to complete the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment expansion plans, many of them skilled workers. “There is a lot of focus placed on building broadband networks, but we cannot build them without a proper workforce,” Fiber Broadband Association CEO Gary Bolton said in a press release. “Failure to ensure the availability of high-skilled labor will result in workforce bottlenecks, which will ultimately lead to higher costs and project delays.”

The National Telecommunications and Information Association is requiring every state to have a five-year workforce development strategy. FBA published a guidebook to help states develop that strategy. Broadband and digital inclusion teams need to pencil in “internships” as part of their plans.

High school broadband and digital inclusion interns may not be considered skilled workers, obviously, but the interns should be considered the beginning levels of workforce development campaigns in every community. Start people thinking about broadband and all things digital in high school and use internships to shape their college or post-high school plans. Don’t forget that Gen Z can be an important part of broadband discussions, even if they’re not interns.

Amy Foell, principal of Amy Foell Consulting LLC, heads the K12 Foothill Consortium for Azusa, Charter Oak, Duarte and Monrovia Unified School Districts’ CTE. Their mission is to educate and train students to provide a community-sourced talent pool to sustain a healthy, balanced, local economy. Foell also supports workforce development programs across the San Gabriel Valley, including Pasadena Unified School District.

“I like to have an initial phone call and 15 to 20 Zoom sessions to ensure prospective internship sites understand the program,” said Foell. “Before we meet, it’s advisable to create a brief description of the internship project — be sure to share the organization’s purpose and mission. We’ll help hosts identify and interview candidates in May to early June, and students can start mid-June.”

Craig Settles conducts needs analyses, planning, and grant assessments with community stakeholders who want broadband networks and telehealth to improve economic development, healthcare, education and local government. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

The money comes from the Capital Projects Fund, which is $10 billion allocated by the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act. The Act directs the U.S. Treasury to distribute these funds to states, territories, and tribal governments to subsidize new broadband networks.

Congress probably should never have directed the Treasury to lead the program. It’s not a grant-making agency, and Secretary Janet Yellen has bigger things to worry about, like the looming debt ceiling and the global economy.

Still, the Treasury has to do what the law tells it to do, and should be expected to follow some basic rules of good governance.

The program appears to lack even the most basic transparency. Treasury’s website lists a press release similar to California’s for each state award, and those others also provide almost no additional information. They do list “key state contacts,” but it’s typically an entire state agency. That’s just a hair more helpful than telling people to “call Congress” to learn more about government spending.

At a bare minimum, the public should be able to see the plan each state submitted to the Treasury and the final plan the agency approved. That might make it possible for researchers and watchdogs like the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the program — not only to see how well it worked, but to inform other broadband grant programs. Unfortunately, these plans do not appear to be available to the public.

Taxpayers should know how the states intend to spend the money once they have it because there are many ways to distribute the funds to those who would build networks. A long history of broadband subsidies and economic research provide lessons on these practices. It is important to know whether states are heeding or ignoring those lessons.

The answers make a huge difference. Research on the $4.5 billion broadband subsidy program under the Obama administration found that the grant assignment program was little better than randomly selecting winners from the pool of applications, while a more coherent competitive bidding process like a reverse auction would have stretched the money much further.

The little information we have is not encouraging. The grants appear to be spending far more per location than necessary, meaning the money is building less broadband than it could.

For example, California is getting $540 million to serve an expected 127,000 locations, or about $4,250 per location. That’s about the same as what the FCC estimated as the maximum it was willing to pay per location in California in the Rural Development Opportunities Fund in 2020. And because that money was distributed in an auction, the actual subsidy for gigabit connections came in lower than expected, at about $2,000 per location on average.

California does not seem to be an outlier in the Treasury program. Iowa is getting $152.2 million to serve an estimated 18,972 locations, or $8,022 per location. In the FCC’s RDOF subsidy auction, the FCC’s average reserve price for locations in Iowa was about $7,200 per location, and the auction results yielded a lower cost similar to in California — about $2,000 per location.

With the current opaque arrangement, we may never know whether the infrastructure money was well spent because we know little about how the states plan to distribute the money and how their efforts will be evaluated. To its credit, Treasury requires regular reporting on certain metrics by grant recipients. But there is no mention of any plans to invite independent analysis of how the money is spent and its cost-effectiveness.

This kind of transparency is important for more than a nod towards good governance of the $10 billion Capital Projects Fund. Treasury will soon be joined by the Department of Commerce when it releases another $42.5 billion to the states for essentially the same purpose. We should not accept a precedent of keeping the public in the dark on these infrastructure projects.

Scott Wallsten is president of the Technology Policy Institute. He is an economist with expertise in industrial organization and public policy, and his research focuses on competition, regulation, telecommunications, the economics of digitization, and technology policy. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

When it comes to getting connected to the internet, older adults continue to remain an isolated and unserved demographic across the country. There’s more work that remains to be done to get older adults connected to the internet. It’s time to get creative and expand the effort for broadband everywhere to everyone.

There’s an unprecedented wave of federal funding for broadband expansion on the horizon. The Broadband Equity Access and Deployment effort is underway and will soon roll-out the $42.5 billion allocated by Congress to expand high-speed internet access across all fifty states and U.S. territories.

Pair this with several industry discount programs to choose from and there may finally be a real opportunity to drive broadband access and adoption and start to close the digital divide for older adults.

Affordable broadband

For older adults with the greatest need, there’s one federally funded program that has had a significant impact on connecting the community to broadband: the Affordable Connectivity Program.

Congress appropriated $14.2 billion in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 for the ACP program to provide eligible lower-income households with up to a $30 monthly subsidy. About twenty internet service providers (including large ISPs AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Charter and some smaller providers) offer a high-speed, high-quality internet service plan for no more than $30 dollars per month for those that qualify.

So, for these households leveraging ACP, which include millions of older adults, they apply their monthly $30 benefit to a plan and access the internet, essentially for free.

To date over 17 million households have signed up for ACP. Over 45 percent of ACP subscribers are age 50 years and older, and over 20 percent of the ACP recipient households are age 65 and older.

This program is truly one of the most important programs for assisting those in need and has finally provided the aging community the opportunity to receive the benefits of broadband.

While new qualified households continue to subscribe to ACP, time is running out for available funding of this important program. With the current number of household subscribers and continued growth, it’s estimated that the ACP will run out as early as the first half of 2024. Congress must consider options now for continuing funding for the Affordable Connectivity Program.

The ACP is an essential program for customers who require a subsidy to acquire or retain broadband service. For many others who may live in areas currently unserved or underserved, or who still haven’t adopted broadband service in a community, there are now new technologies for internet growth.

New approaches

One technology has upped the competitive marketplace in the home for consumers: fixed wireless internet service.  Internet service providers such as AT&T and Verizon, and wireless carriers such as T-Mobile, offer customers an alternative for accessing internet service.

It’s a type of 5G or 4G LTE technology to enable fixed broadband access using radio frequencies (instead of the cables used to wire traditional wired fixed-line broadband) from the home.  Fixed wireless internet service has opened a competitive field for internet service in many communities.

Satellite internet is another interesting approach for the provision of service. Starlink has offered high speed, low latency internet, primarily in limited rural areas, but upfront costs can be on the expensive side. Now, Amazon is entering this market with Project Kuiper to provide fast, affordable broadband service around the world.

It is planning to do this by deploying thousands of satellites in low Earth orbit linked to a global network of antennas, fiber and internet connection points on the ground. Amazon expects to begin delivering broadband connections in late 2024.

The deployment plan has an interesting strategy, with a key Amazon delivery objective of bringing affordable, high-speed connectivity to all consumers. Project Kuiper will offer low-cost and easy-to-install antennas (also known as “terminals) to make the service affordable. The plan can help connect older adults in unserved, and underserved areas of the country, particularly rural communities, and other remote areas without reliable connectivity.

Now, with the ACP offering an opportunity for affordable broadband, the BEAD roll-out, fixed wireless providing competitive broadband services and satellite internet service competition with Project Kuiper on the horizon, we are on the right track to close the digital divide for older adults.

Debra Berlyn is the Executive Director of the Project to Get Older Adults onLine (Project GOAL), which works to promote the adoption of broadband for older adults, and to advance technology applications for the community. She is also president of Consumer Policy Solutions, is on the board of the National Consumers League, and is a board member and senior fellow with the Future of Privacy Forum. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

However, these grant programs come with strict requirements that don’t end when the application is complete. In fact, much of the work comes from post-award reporting.

Application

As part of your application there are financial requirements that will typically be a part of your submission. Most grant programs require a funding match, typically from 20-50% in the form of cash or in-kind contributions. In the cases where they don’t require a match, often preference is given to applications that choose to offer a funding match regardless.

This is coupled with audited financials, which often need to be completed by an individual outside of your corporation, and a letter of credit demonstrating that you have 25-100% of the grant amount in your account. This is to prove to the government that in case of an issue with the project, they’ll be able to recoup the expense.

Submissions are also required to comply with other federal regulations, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as submit a robust cybersecurity plan. The latter is increasingly important, given government concerns about the security of our digital shores, and concerns about foreign technology (ie., the “Rip-and-Replace” tactic currently happening with Huawei tech).

In addition, your group must be FCC compliant and submit the FCC Form 477 or Broadband Data Collection Form.

All of these requirements will take time to compile.

Post-award reporting

The application is finished and you were lucky enough to receive your award. Sadly, this means your work is far from complete–and not just the project itself.

Depending on the rules of the specific program, the vendors and equipment you purchase will need to comply with Build America, Buy America requirements, which has regulations about where the equipment that can be used for broadband expansion was manufactured and obtained. You will also be required to participate in the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides a discount to your subscribers on their monthly broadband bill.

Then there are reporting requirements. These typically include financial and project progress reports on a quarterly or semi-annual basis. The amount of detail necessary will vary depending on the program, the funding amount, and the location that you report from. This can include but is not limited to speed tests of the new technology (failing to reach the program upload/download speeds can cause you to suffer penalties), explanations of work completed, detailed lists of technology purchased, how it is implemented, and more. You will need to properly report on every penny spent with government funds in order to receive your reimbursement of those grant funds.

This will all need to be completed within the scope of your project timeline, and within the guidelines of the program. Failing to meet these requirements for reporting can result in some or all of the grant money being paid back in some cases, so it is extremely important that you keep track of your reporting requirements.

Brooke Coleman is the Senior Manager of the Business Development division of Widelity’s Compliance Team. Her expertise lies in federal and state grant programs, specializing in broadband programs created by multiple government acts, such as the American Rescue Plan, IIJA, and more. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

TAPs are self-contained spaces that are furnished with an internet connection, a computing device equipped with a camer­­­­a, speaker and microphone, and a dedicated private room or kiosk open to the general public. It is telehealth broken down to its essential elements.

A TAP could be a blessing if a person having a mental health crisis needs a safe place. Rural residents can find TAPs are low-pressure environments to try out telehealth. TAPs at trusted places such as barbershops, hairdressers, or churches are places to go for appointments when people don’t have Internet accounts, laptops or their smart phone is data-capped out.

“The Find Telehealth app located at our webssite is a tool that helps people find TAPs if they need them, and the app will help these established TAPs become better utilized by their communities,” said Jaleen Johnson, program manager for the Northwest Regional Telehealth Resource Center and the Utah Education and Telehealth Network. “TAPs are scalable at many different levels. These typical locations you’ve described would have the basic necessities for a TAP, though some across the region have added features.”

Nicki Perisho, program director for NRTRC, continued, “Currently TAPs are live, but we have been marketing it as only being available in the Northwest Region (Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah). Not all the regional TRC’s have the same telehealth mapping functionality. There is another mapping project being utilized by five of the other TRCs that is still in beta testing.”

Location data can be entered by NRTRC, individuals that run the TAPs and individuals independently finding TAPs after NRTRC verifies it. TAPs do not provide medical services, just access to the Internet and a device to connect to a telehealth appointment. There is no charge for that access at this time.

TAPs, strategically speaking

TAPs have a wonderful potential to impact telehealth deployments, especially if communities maximize TAPs’ public health value with a plan, some thought and a little kick-ass marketing strategy.

Every state is working feverishly to produce statewide broadband plans as well as digital inclusion plans by in Fall. Then true craziness begins as local broadband teams start jockeying for millions of federal and state dollars. Public health official and stakeholders need to leverage these planning activities with health needs assessment to determine where TAPs can play.

Poor people are in a crisis of poor health!

Right off the bat there’s a market need for TAPs because 25 percent of U.S. homes do not have internet access, often due to affordability issues. A little research will uncover that those who can’t afford broadband have trouble keeping food on the table, they don’t have insurance or regular doctors, and they have a higher propensity to be chronically sick or unhealthy. Consider broadband and telehealth the double-edged sword of digital health.

Health Affairs, a leading journal of health policy, wrote recently that “Poor adults are five times as likely as those with incomes above 400 percent of the federal poverty level to report being in poor or fair health. Low-income Americans have higher rates of heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and other chronic conditions, compared to higher-income Americans.” TAPs can or should be a part of every digital equity plan.

TAPs are ideal for trusted spaces

In Cleveland, two Urban Kutz barbershops have been screening customers’ blood pressures for 12 years. Owner Waverly Willis said, “I find at least 90 percent of my customers have high blood pressure, and many don’t know about the dangers of hypertension.” Other than the church, there’s not a more trusted place for TAPs to find sanctuary than the barbershop or hairdresser for African Americans.

And speaking of the church, quite a few churches of every domination worked overtime tackling COVID-19 prevention and detection. Often there were lines at the door and down the street for COVID testing and vaccinations. Thematically and logically, churches where you go to heal the sick or better yet, prevent illness and sicknesses in the first place. Move from church TAPs to telehealth in the home.

“The general principle of TAPs fits well with a specific initiative that addresses middle mile and anchor institution priorities, what we’re calling Connectivity Hubs,” said Andrew Butcher, president of the Maine Connectivity Authority. “A perfect example is a library system that will be upgrading a facility for telehealth utilization, device lending and infrastructure upgrades.” It seems logical to integrate public library systems with TAPs.

TAPs are good for the telehealth ecosystem

Digital equity needs an ecosystem that includes telehealth, and TAPs can be part of the picture. Wireless ISP Vistabeam launched their Empowerment Center in Torrington, Wyoming to foster digital inclusion among residents. The Center has a fulltime digital navigator, telehealth tools and capabilities, and remote doctor visits. Community facilities such as the Center can be added to the TAP map.

“It’s interesting to me because I can see TAPs becoming a part of an ecosystem since we recognize that telehealth is a priority,” said Brandon Carson, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Broadband Development Authority. “We’re investing into a deployment to improve access in areas and we’re looking to future proof of these networks as well. We are developing our programming to account for new innovations like these TAPs.”

Jason Welch, Infiniti Mobile President, said, “By expanding the ecosystem beyond broadband and telehealth providers to also include healthcare organizations themselves, there’s a unique opportunity to educate as well as treat patients.” TAPs, besides giving individuals access to telehealth, can also be health education centers.

It’s time to work plans for TAPs into the fabric of digital inclusion and broadband infrastructure plans. Start your planning with the National Consortium of Telehealth Resource Centers and pick the TRC for your particular state. These centers provide consultation, resources and news at no cost.

Craig Settles conducts needs analyses, planning, and grant assessments with community stakeholders who want broadband networks and telehealth to improve economic development, healthcare, education and local government. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.