The group touted U.S. wins at the World Radiocommunication Conference in Dubai, as well as lawmakers’ goals for spectrum auction authority heading into 2024.

World Radio Congress

Going into the conference, in which representatives from around the world meet to coordinate spectrum usage, “the 6 GigaHertz (GHz) issue was the top priority of the U.S. government,” said Phil Murphy, a senior advisor at the NTIA.

The band was set aside in 2020 by the Federal Communications Commission for unlicensed use in the United States, but some countries like China wanted to see some of the band tapped for 5G mobile use, Murphy said.

The U.S. delegation was ultimately able to deliver in December: the conference decision set aside 700 MegaHertz (MHz) for mobile, but left the door open for regulatory agencies to approve unlicensed use throughout the band.

That’s a win for the American Wi-Fi industry: the Wi-Fi alliance announced its official Wi-Fi 7 certification on Monday ahead of the tech conference. The new generation supports wider spectrum channels and multi-link operation, both of which will make use of the 1,200 MHz of real estate in the 6 GHz band.

“We’re really excited by the results,” Murphy said. “We’re really excited to see 6 GHz moving forward, not just here in the United States, but in other parts of the world as well.”

Auction authority

The Federal Communications Commission’s authority to auction and issue licenses for the commercial use of electromagnetic spectrum expired for the first time in March 2023. That’s not an issue for technologies like Wi-Fi, which don’t require such licenses to operate in bands set aside for unlicensed use, but it is important for ever-expanding 5G networks and wireless broadband.

“The Chair’s number one priority is to reauthorize the FCC spectrum auction authority that expired in March,” said Kate O’Connor, chief counsel for the Republican majority on the communications and technology subcommittee. “Even if it hasn’t been public, there’s been a lot going on behind the scenes.”

Jennifer Epperson, chief counsel for the Democratic side of the subcommittee, and Murphy, the NTIA advisor, agreed on the importance of the issue. 

“I think reauthorizing the FCC’s spectrum auction authority is a priority for the administration as well,” he said. “There’s probably spectrum that the FCC has available to auction right now, but they can’t because they don’t have the authority to do so.”

At a House oversight hearing in November, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said “I have a bunch of bands sitting in the closet at the FCC,” pointing to 550 MHz in the 12.7-13.25 GHz band as spectrum the agency could go to auction with “relatively quickly.”

Efforts at blanket reauthorization have stalled publicly since a bill cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee in May, but a stopgap measure allowing the Commission to issue licenses that had been purchased before the lapse was signed into law in December.

“With the funding bills coming up, we’re taking a look and hoping that we can turn this on as soon as possible,” O’Connor said.

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.

“We have an implementation plan that’s going to be out sometime in March,” said Phil Murphy, a senior advisor at the NTIA. “We’re really excited about the next steps.” 

The White House first unveiled the plan in November. It involves studying nearly 2,800 megahertz of spectrum for potential repurposing amid growing commercial demand. The plan also calls for a revamped spectrum pipeline with increased communication between government agencies and the private sector, as well as establishing a testbed for spectrum sharing.

The Biden administration also tasked the NTIA with producing an implementation plan within 120 days, putting the planned March release near the end of the agency’s window.

The implementation plan will, according to the NTIA, set up specific outcomes for each of the strategy’s “strategic objectives.” The plan will also designate responsible parties and set out start dates and timelines for their work.

Those strategic objectives are peppered throughout the strategy document, numbering 12 in total. They include ensuring spectrum resources are available for government and the private sector, developing an evidence-based spectrum allocation methodology, a spectrum research and development plan, and improving policymakers’ understanding of spectrum issues.

The agency took public comments on the implementation plan until January 2.

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.

The money will go to the establishment of the company’s Open RAN Center for Integration and Deployment, or ORCID. The Cheyenne, Wyoming-based testing facility will allow companies to test equipment and software to ensure their technology works with existing 5G networks. The funding for ORCID is an attempt to allow smaller vendors to enter the market. 

“Today’s market for wireless equipment is static and highly consolidated. Just a few firms today provide the full set of radios and computers that power mobile phones,” NTIA Administrator Alan Davidson said at an announcement event in Las Vegas. 

Some of those providers Davidson noted, “pose national security risks to the U.S. and our allies around the world.” That’s in part a reference to Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE, who are barred from federally subsidized networks by the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act. 

That law provided $1.9 billion to reimburse providers for the replacement of the companies’ equipment, but the effort has stalled amid a funding shortfall and other supply chain issues – the Commission told Congress last week that just five companies have completed their replacements.

The ORCID facility is set to use open RAN hardware and spectrum bands owned by DISH, now a subsidiary of EchoStar, as a test bed for vendors to ensure the interoperability of their equipment. Open RAN refers to open radio access networks, or networks built with generic components rather than proprietary ones produced by a handful of large suppliers.

The company’s experience with its existing open RAN network puts it in a good position to help companies looking to enter the space, said Charlie Ergen, EchoStar co-founder and chairman.

“We learned some hard lessons regarding how to best deploy open RAN, lessons we will bring to and leverage at ORCID,” he said.The NTIA also announced $30 million in Innovation Fund grants to five additional recipients. The agency has now awarded a total of more than $98 million from the $1.5 billion CHIPS Act program. Up to $140 million is set to be made available through the first round of funding.

“We need to not only open up more spectrum bands, we need to use them as efficiently as possible,” said Chris Lewis, president and CEO of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge.

Lewis cited as a step in the right direction the National Spectrum Strategy, a plan put forward by the White House in November to study almost 2,800 MHz for potential repurposing and to set up a long-term spectrum planning framework.

Beefing up the nation’s spectrum pipeline, as well as promoting unlicensed use and dynamic spectrum sharing, should be positive for 5G adoption going forward, Lewis said.

The plan “set down the right principles to move forward,” he said.

For all that to come to fruition, the Federal Communications Commission will need its spectrum auction authority renewed, something the Commission has been pushing lawmakers on. Congress let the authority lapse for the first time in March, and efforts to reinstate it have stalled. 

A stopgap measure was passed in December allowing the Commission to issue licenses that had been purchased before the lapse. Those will be used, largely by T-Mobile, to expand 5G footprints.

The World Radiocommunications Conference also tapped in December several hundred megahertz of spectrum for licensed, mobile use globally, part of an effort to help satiate the demand for growing 5G networks.

Some of that has already been reserved for Wi-Fi and other unlicensed use in the United States.

Chris Emmons, vice president of devices and accessories at Verizon, said freeing up more spectrum would allow the company to continue expanding home broadband on its 5G networks. Some states have flagged concerns about the capacity on those networks, as cell traffic is prioritized during congestion, but Emmons said fixed wireless broadband is more adequate on 5G networks than on previous standards.

“Fixed wireless access for consumers has been a dream for a long time,” he said. “There were 3G attempts, there were 4G attempts… There have been a lot of things that people have tried over the years, but we’ve actually seen a fixed wireless solution now that scales successfully.”

“As long as we continue to get the spectrum we need, we will engineer that properly and provide for all these use cases,” Emmons said.

This new one-day event will run from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and brings together the top stakeholders in understanding broadband speeds, prices, availability, reliability and competition. The Summit is in-person, but with a webcast component.

The Early Bird price of $195 available until Friday, February 9, 2024. Existing Breakfast Club Members take an additional $100 off the in-person event.

Sign up for the Broadband Measurement Summit, and visit the event page for updated information about panelists, keynotes and sponsors.

The announcement coincided with news of another service provider failing to fulfill their initial bid within the program. Wavelength, a service provider from Arizona, defaulted on its commitment to deploy services to 12,418 locations, after failing to demonstrate its financial qualifications to receive RDOF support adequately. 

Three years prior, the FCC had announced granting RDOF awards totaling $9.2 billion in Phase I of the auction. However, following the comprehensive long-form process, the final awards amount to slightly over $6 billion. This indicates that more than $3 billion, or one-third, in awards were defaulted on, meaning that the bidder couldn’t fulfill the promised project.

The FCC has faced considerable backlash for what critics say is an insufficient screening of applicants and overreliance on winning bidders’ long-form submitted after the auction.

Three of the initial largest winning RDOF bidders, LTD Broadband, SpaceX, and fixed wireless startup Starry, contributed to nearly $2.5 billion in defaults, with several smaller defaults also recorded.

A total of 379 of the original 427 long-form applicants have successfully secured winning bids, with 97 percent of locations covered by winning bids for Gigabit speed service. 

Notable winners include Charter Communications, bidding as CCO Holdings, securing a significant $1.1 billion to deploy services to over 993,000 locations spread across 24 states. 

The Rural Electric Cooperative Consortium, with more than 90 participating electric cooperatives across 22 states, brought in $1.05 billion to serve nearly 600,000 locations.

Windstream Communications acquired $522 million to serve 192,501 locations, while AMG Technology Investment Group, bidding for Nextlink, won $428.9 million to serve 205,000 locations. Frontier obtained $427.8 million for 148,000 locations, and CenturyLink secured $262 million for service areas spanning 20 states.

There has been no word on what will happen with the more than $3 billion in defaulted RDOF funds. RDOF was originally budgeted for $20.4 billion, but it’s not clear when or if the remaining money will be awarded.

Service providers that default on RDOF bids are subject to a $3,000 base violation charge, with additional violations for each census block group forfeited in a bid.

The partnership is intended to use SpaceX satellites to provide service to mobile devices on some of T-Mobile’s spectrum bands.

But Dish, in a Tuesday filing, is concerned about the potential for harmful interference in adjacent bands in which it operates its own satellite systems and asked the FCC to limit the number of satellites SpaceX can test, or to halt future testing altogether.

AT&T and the Rural Wireless Association, a trade group of small, rural wireless carriers, have also opposed the move out of fears that other systems could be interrupted. SpaceX applied to operate the service in May 2023.

Satellite-mobile company Omnispace met with Commission staff on December 11 to discuss an analysis that raised similar concerns. Dish submitted a letter signing onto Omnispace’s study and asked the agency to require further study on the potential for interference before fully authorizing the service.

The FCC granted SpaceX authorization on December 1 to test the radios on its satellites in the 1910-1915 megahertz and 1990-1995 MHz bands, known as the “G-Block,” but only for 10 days at a time. 

The size of SpaceX’s fleet makes that limitation less effective at mitigating the effects of any interference, Dish said in its petition.

“When a system is authorized for 7,500 satellites, testing for each launch would effectively allow such operations for an astounding 75,000 days, the equivalent of two centuries,” the company said.

SpaceX, for its part, has said in filings that its software can quickly turn off individual satellites in the event of any interference with existing systems and has refuted Omnispace’s analysis, arguing the potential for such interference is low.

PCMag reported the Commission gave the company permission on December 14 to go further and conduct field tests with on-the-ground devices in 25 locations across the United States. SpaceX launched its first six satellites for that purpose on Tuesday and plans to “soon” begin testing, the company said in a release.

Dish and SpaceX did not respond to requests for comment.

All but one of the awardees are Colorado-based internet service providers and municipal network operators. The other, Visionary Communications, offers service across two additional states, Montana and Wyoming. 

Administered through the Advance Colorado Broadband Grant Program, the awards were funded by the Treasury Department’s Capital Projects Fund. The program saw fierce competition, receiving 112 applications seeking a combined total of over $642 million across 47 counties.

Clearnetworx emerged as a major victor, securing $25.3 million for five projects. Based in Montrose, Colorado, the locally owned and operated fiber and wireless service provider arose in 2012 to address the region’s broadband scarcity.

Clearnetworx has been granted awards to install fiber along Highway 160 and Highway 184 in Montezuma County. This development coincides with the Colorado Transportation Commission’s recent approval of a fee schedule that allows broadband service providers to install fiber along the state’s roadways at reduced rates. Under the revised fiber access fee structure, broadband providers in rural counties such as Montezuma will gain access to some of the most competitive rates in the region, priced at $0.03 per foot.

Close on its heels, Maverix Broadband, is in line to win $25.1 million, aiming to deploy fiber-to-the-home services across Gilpin, Boulder, Chaffee, and Saguache counties, and Kiowa city, extending coverage to 731 locations in a city of 725 residents.

Fort Collins Connexion, a municipal broadband utility, secured $10.8 million for four projects serving 1,409 locations in Larimer County. Meanwhile, another municipal network operator, Loveland Pulse, is slated to receive $3.2 million to extend fiber connectivity to three service areas.

The Southern Ute Indian Tribe secured $8.5 million to serve 557 locations within the Southern Ute Reservation, marking a significant step in enhancing connectivity.

The recipients are committing over $42 million in additional funds towards the project’s costs – a total $155.5 million investment. 

Additionally, more funding from the Capital Projects Fund is designated for the Ridge View campus in rural Colorado. This initiative aims to establish a supportive residential community to aid in overcoming homelessness, ensuring long-term housing stability, and fostering successful reintegration into preferred communities.

The awards are set for finalization following an ongoing challenge process.

The state is committed to connecting 99 percent of Colorado’s households to “adequate” broadband by 2027. Today, over 90 percent of Colorado’s households and businesses have access to internet with 100 * 20 Megabits per second service, according to state data.

Counties, municipalities, non-profits, and organizations serving high-poverty areas can apply for grants until March 4. The funds can be used to make devices like laptops and routers available for loan at local community centers, or to equip those community centers with connectivity equipment and devices.

The money comes from the Treasury Department’s Capital Projects Fund, a $10 billion pandemic response that provides states money for expanding broadband infrastructure and other connectivity projects. About $9 billion of that has been awarded so far.

Florida received an additional $247 million in CPF funds for its Broadband Infrastructure Program, which the state awarded in July. Those projects are expected to get broadband 59,000 homes, businesses, farms, and community centers. 

CPF rules require new infrastructure funded by the program to deliver speeds of at least 100 * 100 Megabits per second (Mbps), but most projects funded by the state are expected to provide up to 1 * 1 Gigabit per second (Gbps).

The state will hold a webinar on the Digital Connectivity Technology Program’s application process on January 10.

The $42.5-billion broadband expansion program’s rules mark the fixed wireless technology as “reliable broadband service,” meaning areas receiving home internet on licensed spectrum are only by default eligible for BEAD-funded infrastructure if speeds are below the program’s minimum threshold of 100 Megabits per second download and 20 Mbps upload. The states and territories were required to submit initial proposals for implementing the program to the federal government by December 27.

The states consistently cite concerns about wireless networks’ ability to handle large numbers of users at once, particularly in the case of broadband provided with the excess capacity on networks designated for mobile use, as those networks prioritize mobile users during periods of congestion.

“As additional customers are added and subtracted from fixed wireless networks, the amount of available bandwidth available per customer varies,” Rob Fish, deputy director of the Vermont Community Broadband Board, said in an email. “A particular fixed wireless customer could receive 100/20 Mbps or better during one month and then no longer be able to receive that speed in another month as customers are added.” 

States with initial drafts marking some wireless broadband ‘underserved’

Four states – Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, and Vermont – published initial drafts of those plans that would mark areas whose only internet comes from wireless broadband on cellular networks as “underserved,” making them eligible for BEAD-funded infrastructure. 

North Carolina’s draft plan would set homes and businesses receiving service from the technology to “unserved,” putting them at the front of the line for BEAD-funded infrastructure. By default, locations receiving less than 25 * 3 Mbps are unserved and locations receiving less than 100 * 20 Mbps are underserved, with unserved getting special priority. The state’s draft would also mark as unserved locations connected via a general access license in the CBRS band.

Three other states – Ohio, Nevada, and Wisconsin – planned to extend the underserved designation to locations receiving fixed wireless broadband on licensed spectrum, including networks specifically designed for home broadband.

California published a draft plan that would modify locations receiving licensed fixed wireless at speeds on the lower end of the underserved range, moving them into the unserved category. New Mexico did the same, but only if the service is provided by cellular networks.

No drafts including these measures have been officially approved by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Commerce Department agency handling BEAD.

States are allowed to modify the designation of certain locations, provided they justify them with sufficient evidence, according to an NTIA policy notice. 

Ohio’s plan to designate all fixed wireless unserved was scrapped

The agency scrapped Ohio’s plan to designate all licensed fixed wireless as unserved, citing inconsistency with the BEAD definition of reliable broadband. A revision in the state’s BEAD draft acknowledges that the NTIA informed the state broadband office that categorizing the technology as unserved would breach the rules laid out in NTIA’s Notice of Funding Opportunity.

Vermont and Georgia’s plans to mark as underserved wireless broadband on cellular networks, however, survived NTIA edits to their draft proposals. Both state offices said they submitted proposals including the measure.

“I believe we made a convincing case and are expecting final approval any day on our Volume 1 proposal,” Fish said. “Are we concerned that it could still be rejected? Yes, of course, but we firmly believe we proved our case and believe the NTIA shares our desire to avoid declaring mission accomplished and then having people come out of the woodwork saying they are unserved.”

The fear that some homes and businesses in Vermont receiving cellular fixed wireless at reported speeds above the minimum BEAD threshold may turn out to lack consistent internet access comes from concerns about the capacity on those networks and the state’s geography.

The state, 78 percent of which is covered in heavy tree canopy, incorporated into its BEAD plan a line-of-sight analysis to demonstrate potential obstructions to radio signals necessary for fixed wireless. The analysis reveals 1,108 locations lack visibility to any towers, and therefore, would experience diminished service for a significant portion of the year.

Those factors can amount to inconsistent wireless service in Vermont, the state’s broadband office said in its draft proposal. It cites 2,464 challenges submitted as of 2023 to FCC coverage data for the state’s biggest cellular fixed wireless provider, over two-thirds of which were upheld.

Georgia broadband office shares Vermont concerns

Jessica Simmons, Executive Director of the Georgia Broadband Program, said the state shares some of Vermont’s concerns about broadband provided on cellular networks.

“This is a good technology, it’s just a capacity concern,” she said. With home internet users and mobile users competing, she said, it can be difficult for all locations within range of a cellular network to consistently connect on its excess bandwidth.

Georgia’s plan to mark homes and businesses served only by the technology as underserved is an effort “to make sure that those locations that are being marked as ‘served’ can actually get access that they requested,” she said.

Simmons said the NTIA requested additional information on why the state felt it necessary to make the change. The measure survived edits from the agency, but has yet to be officially approved. 

The NTIA did not respond to a request for comment.

Republican lawmakers at a House oversight hearing in December pushed Alan Davidson, the agency’s top official, on state plans to open up more wireless broadband service areas to BEAD infrastructure. They expressed concerns that such plans would lead to states subsidizing networks in areas that already receive adequate internet.

Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Michigan, said he was “very concerned” about his state’s draft proposal, which would mark locations receiving cellular fixed wireless as underserved and asked Davidson to commit to rejecting the plan.

“I can’t really answer the question without having without seeing sort of the totality of what they’re proposing and what their what the state will be working on,” Davidson said at the hearing. 

“I will say there are good reasons states have tried in some situations to work within the statute… to make these changes as they go through their own challenge process and figure out where they’re going to spend the money that we’ve given them,” he said.

Update: This story was updated to correct Rob Fish’s name.

This story was reported and written by Reporters Jake Neenan and Jericho Casper.

The current definition, set in 2015, requires a speed of 25 Megabits per second download and 3 Mbps upload for internet service to be considered broadband, or high-speed internet. The commission sought comment in November on a proposal to increase that threshold to 100 * 20 Mbps, in addition to using more data sources in its assessment of broadband availability in the U.S.

NTIA officials met with commission staff on December 21 to express support for the move, according to an ex parte letter the agency filed last week. 

“We support the Commission’s proposal to raise the speed threshold for fixed broadband to 100 Mbps downstream and 20 Mbps upstream,” the agency wrote, saying a higher benchmark would better reflect user needs and bring the standard in line with the Infrastructure Act’s Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program, which the NTIA is tasked with managing.

That $42.5-billion broadband expansion effort already has a 100 * 20 Mbps benchmark, meaning infrastructure funded by the program will be required to provide at least that speed, and areas currently receiving slower internet will be eligible to be served with BEAD funded infrastructure. Homes and businesses receiving less than the current FCC benchmark of 25 * 3 Mbps are given special priority.

The commission is required by section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to conduct annual assessments of the “availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.” In the same November notice of inquiry, the FCC proposed adding a number of new data points to that assessment, including latency, affordability, adoption, and equitable access among minority groups. That will partly be facilitated by the commission’s new Broadband Data Collection database, which has more precise information from internet providers.

The NTIA endorsed all of that as well, writing: “The Section 706 inquiry has the potential to serve as an important indicator of our nation’s progress toward achieving digital equity, and it will be best equipped to do so if it examines the available data on a wide range of challenges in this field.”

The agency added that it is working on a project with the Census Bureau to estimate broadband adoption in small geographic areas.

Industry response

In comments to the commission, broadband industry groups expressed broad support for the 100 * 20 Mbps benchmark, but some disagreed on the commission’s proposed long-term goal of 1 Gbps * 500 Mbps – something the NTIA did not touch on.

CTIA, a trade group representing wireless providers, wrote that while the commission noted some situations in which users require more than 100 * 20 Mbps, “none of these justifies a fixed broadband benchmark above 100 * 20 Mbps, even as a long-term goal.” That’s a view shared by WISPA, an association of wireless broadband providers.

NTCA, which represents small and rural broadband providers, advocated for an even higher long-term goal, but did not specify an exact number. Trade group INCOMPAS pushed for setting the download benchmark to 1 Gbps now, rather than in the future.

USTelecom, another broadband industry group, said the long-term 1 Gbps * 500 Mbps goal would be impractical, as the only technology capable of providing those speeds is fiber-optic cable.

“There are locations where deployment of fiber is not practical now and may never be,” the group wrote in comments to the Commission.

CTIA also opposed adding non-deployment metrics like adoption and affordability to the 706 inquiry, arguing that reporting requirements for existing Universal Service Fund programs are a better venue for assessing them.

This story was updated to reflect the current definition of broadband, 25 * 3 Mbps.

This prolonged situation has raised industry concerns about the future of 5G stemming from the scarcity of accessible mid-band spectrum and the uncertainty surrounding upcoming spectrum auctions.

• On the Tenth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  Nearly 10 Months Without FCC Spectrum Auction Authority
  93 Percent Match of Federal Funds for Enabling Middle Mile Broadband Program
  The Number 8 As a Representation of Balance, Justice and Fairness
  7 Layers to the Open Systems Interconnection Model and Open Access Networks
  One-hundred-and 66 Billion Dollars of American Semiconductor Investment
  56 States and Territorial Broadband Offices Implementing BEAD
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence

The ongoing spectrum standstill prompted the need for a bill to be pushed forward to enable the FCC to authorize the sale of 8,000 2.5 GigaHertz (GHz) spectrum licenses sold to companies last year. President Biden signed the 5G Sale Act to reinstate limited FCC authority to auction the 2.5 GHz licenses on December 19.

T-Mobile is poised to leverage the over $300 million worth of spectrum licenses it secured to fortify its existing 5G networks. 

Otherwise stagnant spectrum pipeline prompts worries

A years-long battle between the Defense Department and the commercial telecommunications industry over access to the 3.1-3.45 GHz S-band raged between military and commercial establishments.

The Defense Department produced a report in December finding that the agency cannot currently share S-band spectrum with commercial users. The Pentagon currently uses the band for its air, land and sea-based radars, weapons systems and other electronics.

The Defense Department was required to produce the report investigating the potential for commercial use of the spectrum in conjunction with the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which administers use of the airwaves by federal agencies. The study was required by the 2021 Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act. 

This spectrum band is considered important because it allows for longer-range transmissions than the millimeter-wave spectrum that makes up much of what has so far been available in the U.S.

The NTIA will continue to study opening the band in the future, either by exploring options that would make spectrum sharing possible or moving a government system to another band. 

National Spectrum Policy released

That and other studies laid out in the Biden Administration’s National Spectrum Policy released in November are set to be complete within the coming two years. The White House’s plan calls for a two-year study on potentially repurposing five spectrum bands, a total of 2,786 megahertz, and identifies the lower 3 GHz and the 7-8 GHz bands as primary contenders for a strong pipeline of spectrum for private sector use. 

The plan also calls for the federal government to develop a new process aimed at increasing communication in decision making between government and private sector stakeholders.

The last time the federal government freed up spectrum for commercial use was when the 3.45-3.55 GHz band was made available under Republican FCC chief Ajit Pai in 2020.

This uncertainty about spectrum places the U.S. in a troubling position. The government’s reservoir of new spectrum for private sector allocation appears to be drying up. The typically bipartisan process of replenishing it has ground to a halt.

Months of delays and disagreements over reauthorization

Many thought the shock of the lapse of the FCC’s spectrum auction authority would prompt quick action in the 118th Congress.. 

The House Energy and Commerce Committee cleared in May a bill that would reinstate FCC spectrum auction authority for three years. That bill would allow for, but not mandate, an auction of the lower 3 GHz band.The bill stalled after clearing the Energy and Commerce Committee.

In an Expert Opinion piece in Broadband Breakfast, Joel Thayer argued that unnecessary intergovernmental infighting is now jeopardizing the nation’s 5G rollout.

“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.,” he wrote.

See “The Twelve Days of Broadband” on Broadband Breakfast

• On the First Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Second Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Third Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Fourth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Fifth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  56 States and Territorial Broadband Offices Implementing BEAD
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Sixth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  One-hundred-and 66 Billion Dollars of American Semiconductor Investment
  56 States and Territorial Broadband Offices Implementing BEAD
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Seventh Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  7 Layers to the Open Systems Interconnection Model and Open Access Networks
  One-hundred-and 66 Billion Dollars of American Semiconductor Investment
  56 States and Territorial Broadband Offices Implementing BEAD
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
  
• On the Eighth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  The Number 8 As a Representation of Balance, Justice and Fairness
  7 Layers to the Open Systems Interconnection Model and Open Access Networks
  One-hundred-and 66 Billion Dollars of American Semiconductor Investment
  56 States and Territorial Broadband Offices Implementing BEAD
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Ninth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  93 Percent Match of Federal Funds for Enabling Middle Mile Broadband Program
  The Number 8 As a Representation of Balance, Justice and Fairness
  7 Layers to the Open Systems Interconnection Model and Open Access Networks
  One-hundred-and 66 Billion Dollars of American Semiconductor Investment
  56 States and Territorial Broadband Offices Implementing BEAD
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Tenth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  Nearly 10 Months Without FCC Spectrum Auction Authority
  93 Percent Match of Federal Funds for Enabling Middle Mile Broadband Program
  The Number 8 As a Representation of Balance, Justice and Fairness
  7 Layers to the Open Systems Interconnection Model and Open Access Networks
  One-hundred-and 66 Billion Dollars of American Semiconductor Investment
  56 States and Territorial Broadband Offices Implementing BEAD
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence

In addition to the federal funds awarded an additional $848 million in funding for projects is being put forward by reward recipients. That’s the equivalent of 47 percent of the total project cost, or a more than 93 percent “match” of the federal project funds.

• On the Ninth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  93 Percent Match of Federal Funds for Enabling Middle Mile Broadband Program
  The Number 8 As a Representation of Balance, Justice and Fairness
  7 Layers to the Open Systems Interconnection Model and Open Access Networks
  One-hundred-and 66 Billion Dollars of American Semiconductor Investment
  56 States and Territorial Broadband Offices Implementing BEAD
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence

That brings the total to $1.8 billion that has been allocated for middle-mile investments. These investments will facilitate the installation of over 12,000 miles of fiber-optic cable, to be laid within 1,000 feet of 6,961 community anchor institutions.

Over 40 states and territories are embarking on ambitious plans to address deficiencies in middle-mile infrastructure, backed in part by the NTIA’s Enabling Middle Mile program, but also by the Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment Program. These initiatives aim to improve connectivity and bolster the national internet framework.

Notably, companies like Zayo will utilize $90 million in middle mile funding to establish new routes connecting major cities like Dallas, Atlanta, El Paso, and regions between Oregon and Nevada through Northern California. The NTIA’s Middle Mile program enables companies to establish middle mile connections in areas where the return on investment is usually lacking.

Rising awareness about role of carrier-neutral Internet Exchange Points

This year marked a notable rise in recognizing the vital roles played by not only middle-mile infrastructure, but also carrier-neutral Internet Exchange Points in overcoming challenges for affordable rural broadband.

The NTIA’s program did not fund any carrier-neutral internet exchange points projects when it announced awards, despite receiving several IXP applications. 

In 2023, a significant gap remains in the infrastructure for carrier-neutral IXPs across the United States. Fourteen states and three territories have yet to establish these critical points, hindering efficient data transfer.

Experts urged states to set aside a percentage of their BEAD allocations for building internet exchange points in their state at Mountain Connect in August.

Kansas is one state which appears to have taken that advice. The Sunflower State recently granted $5 million to Connected Nation to build the state’s first carrier-neutral IXP. In conjunction, Kansas will utilize a $42 million award from the NTIA’s Middle Mile program to create a 682-mile open-access middle-mile fiber optic network, that will connect to the IXP in Wichita. The IXP stands to reduce IP transit pricing to below 10 cents per megabit, an expected 90% reduction in cost as compared to current transport and transit pricing through Kansas City, Missouri. 

As states strive to close the connectivity gap and propel their digital ecosystems forward, the critical need for robust middle-mile infrastructure and Internet Exchange Points remains at the forefront of the national agenda.

Will $1 Billion in NTIA funding be enough?

Industry leaders disagreed on whether $1 billion for NTIA’s Middle Mile program would be enough to deploy all the necessary infrastructure to connect Americans, speaking at a Broadband Breakfast for Lunch event at Connect X in May.

Having received more than 260 applications requesting $7.47 billion in funding from the Middle Mile program, the NTIA might require additional funding in the future to build out middle-mile projects and carrier-neutral IXPs necessary to close the digital divide.

And, while attention is naturally focused on the $42.5 billion in BEAD funding, that federally-funded broadband infrastructure could be less effective without more internet exchange points, experts highlighted at Broadband Breakfast’s Digital Infrastructure Investment Summit on December 5.

While emphasizing “last mile” builds, or connections to individual homes and businesses, BEAD connections are only part of the puzzle, said Tom Cox, vice president of state and government affairs at Connected Nation, a nonprofit that works with states to expand broadband access.

“If you don’t figure out a way to solve the transport issue, and if you don’t figure out a way to solve the latency issue, a lot of this BEAD money is going to be kind of all for naught,” said Cox

See “The Twelve Days of Broadband” on Broadband Breakfast

• On the First Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Second Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Third Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Fourth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Fifth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  56 States and Territorial Broadband Offices Implementing BEAD
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Sixth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  One-hundred-and 66 Billion Dollars of American Semiconductor Investment
  56 States and Territorial Broadband Offices Implementing BEAD
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Seventh Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  7 Layers to the Open Systems Interconnection Model and Open Access Networks
  One-hundred-and 66 Billion Dollars of American Semiconductor Investment
  56 States and Territorial Broadband Offices Implementing BEAD
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
  
• On the Eighth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  The Number 8 As a Representation of Balance, Justice and Fairness
  7 Layers to the Open Systems Interconnection Model and Open Access Networks
  One-hundred-and 66 Billion Dollars of American Semiconductor Investment
  56 States and Territorial Broadband Offices Implementing BEAD
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Ninth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  93 Percent Match of Federal Funds for Enabling Middle Mile Broadband Program
  The Number 8 As a Representation of Balance, Justice and Fairness
  7 Layers to the Open Systems Interconnection Model and Open Access Networks
  One-hundred-and 66 Billion Dollars of American Semiconductor Investment
  56 States and Territorial Broadband Offices Implementing BEAD
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence

In a year in review note published Friday, Rosenworcel touted the FCC’s efforts to promote the ACP, which provides a $30 monthly internet discount to low-income households. She noted the more than $77 million in ACP outreach grants – money for organizations to advertise the program and get eligible households enrolled –  the Commission awarded in 2023 and the 7 million new households that signed up for the program, bringing the total to more than 22 million.

“But our progress here cannot slow down – we need help from Congress to keep this groundbreaking program going,” she wrote.

The ACP was set up with a $14.6 billion allocation from the Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act. About $3.6 billion of that remains, according to a monitoring tool developed by the advocacy group Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Rosenworcel testified to the Senate in September that the Commission expects that money to dry up as early as April 2024.

Republican leaders on the House and Senate commerce committees expressed some skepticism about the program in a December 18 letter to Rosenworcel, calling the ACP “wasteful” because many enrolled low-income households were able to subscribe to broadband before receiving the subsidy. The FCC’s estimates put the number at 78 to 80,  Rosenworcel testified at a November House oversight hearing, but she noted the figures are not exact, as providers are not required to collect that information when someone enrolls.

President Joe Biden asked Congress in October for $6 billion to keep the fund afloat through 2024. Bipartisan groups of lawmakers and broadband industry groups have also pushed for Congress to refund the program, saying it will be an important tool for closing the digital divide and ensuring low-income subscribers stay online.

Providers who build new infrastructure with money from the Infrastructure Act’s $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program will be required to participate in the ACP, which experts have said would help stabilize revenue for ISPs who build in the hard-to-serve areas targeted by BEAD.

Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-New York, hinted at introducing a bill before the new year to address the impending ACP shortfall during the FCC oversight hearing, but the legislation has not yet materialized.

The NTIA sought comment on how to modify the framework, known as the Uniform Guidance, this summer after hearing from stakeholders that some provisions might harm participants in the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program, agency Deputy Chief Counsel Sean Conway said in a statement.

The agency said state broadband offices and internet providers repeatedly asked in those comments for Uniform Guidance adjustments that would bring BEAD in line with other federal broadband funding efforts managed by the Treasury Department. The Capital Projects Fund and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund are already being used in part to deploy broadband infrastructure, and aligning the program would make it easier for states to administer BEAD.

The policy notice makes four updates to BEAD guidance to do so. The changes apply to awards for infrastructure projects, defined as those in which more than 50 percent of the total project cost are necessitated by infrastructure deployment.

Program income

Broadband providers will be able to use income from BEAD-funded infrastructure “without restriction,” meaning they can keep subscriber revenue as profit. That, the policy notice says, is designed to “address a core problem for which the BEAD Program was created to solve, namely, the lack of a sustainable business case to expand and improve broadband services to unserved and underserved areas.”

Fixed amount awards

States and territories will be able to fund new infrastructure projects with fixed amount awards. That is generally not allowed in programs that require cost sharing or matching funds, which BEAD does, or for awards exceeding $250,000.

But the Uniform Guidance allows for fixed amount awards if projects have “measurable goals and objectives” and adequate data is available for a “reasonable estimate of actual cost,” the policy notice says. The NTIA reasons BEAD rules will result in grant applications meeting both of these requirements and is allowing fixed amount awards for the program regardless of the value of the award and without further approval from the agency.

The waiver is contingent on states and territories making an effort to monitor the reasonableness of project costs, the policy notice notes.

Permissionless upgrades

Broadband providers will be able to upgrade equipment in BEAD-funded networks without getting approval from the NTIA.

Ten-year Federal Interest period

BEAD-funded infrastructure will be subject to a ten-year Federal Interest period starting when a given project is completed, meaning equipment “acquired or improved” with BEAD funds will for that time be “held in trust for the beneficiaries of the BEAD Program,” according to the policy notice.

One key difference

The NTIA highlighted in its statement a notable difference between its Uniform Guidance policy and the Treasury Department’s: states and territories will still be required to structure their agreements with broadband providers as “subgrants” under BEAD.

If the agreements were structured as contracts, for example, a smaller set of Uniform Guidance provisions would apply, the agency said.

“Ultimately, this approach will further the goal of ensuring everyone in America has access to affordable, reliable, high-speed Internet service,” the NTIA said in its statement.

The collaboration known as the Gigapower joint venture, forged between AT&T and private equity investment giant BlackRock in May, lent new legitimacy to the open access approach, which separates the provision of broadband services from the network operator.

• On the Seventh Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  7 Layers to the Open Systems Interconnection Model and Open Access Networks
  One-hundred-and 66 Billion Dollars of American Semiconductor Investment
  56 States and Territorial Broadband Offices Implementing BEAD
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence

Another major operator venturing into the space is T-Mobile, which is set to become the primary tenant in a recently established $500 million partnership between Tillman FiberCo and private equity firm Northleaf Capital Partners.

The joint venture will allow T-Mobile to offer fiber Internet services to customers in markets across Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Nevada and Texas, all without investing a dime in the infrastructure.

In an industry long characterized by a preference for vertically-integrated ownership and control, incumbent providers are pivoting towards a model that emphasizes sharing networks.

What are open access network?

In an open access network, broadband infrastructure is owned by one entity, which can be either a public or a private entity and is often operated by a separate network operator. The network operator leases or shares the infrastructure with multiple retail internet service providers.

One can think of an open access network as a real-world implementation of the 7-layered Open Systems Interconnection model by the International Organization for Standardization. The OSI model is a broader construct for understanding the physical layer, data link layer, network layer, etc., in internet networking.

However, understanding the basics of the “layer cake” approach helps conceptualize the unique business and technical dimensions behind open access networks.

In an important contribution to this discussion, Broadband Breakfast’s Digital Infrastructure Investment Summit on December 5 demonstrated exactly how many forms open access networks can take. After a keynote presentation on the “Past and Future of Open Access Networks” by COS Systems Mikael Philipsson, a panel delved into diverse perspectives on such networks in the U.S.

The panel emphasized the differences and variations in several last-mile broadband deployments, including those of SiFi Networks, UTOPIA Fiber, Google Fiber, municipalities like the Eastern Shore of Virginia Broadband Authority and what panelists called the “utility lease model.”

In other sessions at the summit, panelists voice the belief that shared infrastructure is poised to become more common in broadband networks.

Regarding the AT&T-BlackRock joint venture of Gigapower, AT&T President of Broadband and Connectivity Initiatives Erin Scarborough highlighted scalability as a pivotal factor guiding AT&T’s choices, speaking at a Broadband Breakfast Live Online event in September.

Although Scarborough emphasized AT&T’s preference for the ownership model, she noted the agreement will allow the company to expand outside its traditional footprint.

“The model used by the joint venture will make sense to other ISPs, gain a lot of traction, and help break down historical biases telecos have had about not controlling all the assets,” predicted Gigapower CEO Bill Hogg during the event.

T-Mobile CEO Mike Sievert has also publicly acknowledged potential network capacity limitations for the company’s fixed wireless access service. At a conference in San Francisco in September, he said the open access model offers a “capital-light way to enter [the fiber] business and take advantage of [T-Mobile’s] embedded customer base and fantastic brand.”

Traditionally pioneered by municipalities

The large telecos appear to be displaying a newfound openness in their approaches to achieving growth. However, the open access model has historically been pioneered by  municipalities, city-owned utilities, and cooperatives in the U.S.

Founded by a consortium of 11 Utah cities in 2004, UTOPIA Fiber expanded its fiber footprint across five cities in Utah this year. UTOPIA now offers its 10 Gigabit services to residents in 19 cities spanning four states. The government organization completely funds the open access builds and network operations through subscriber revenue.

The acceptance of open access might gain new traction through the Washington state legislature. This year, a bill would require all state funding from the federal Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program, nearly $1 billion, to be used to build open-access networks in the state. The bill did not pass in 2023, but 14 of Washington’s 28 Public Utility Districts are committed to deploying citywide open access networks to improve access to telecommunications services. Initiatives like the one to build countywide dark fiber led by the Lewis County PUD are happening across the state.

In Vermont, 22 communities partnered with Great Works Vermont Internet to build open access fiber that is expected to serve 30,000 locations.

A number of city’s collaborated with SiFi Networks this year to announce citywide open access fiber builds. The company set an ambitious goal to pass 40,000 homes per month in early 2023.

For example, the network in Placenta, California will see 20,000 homes, businesses and institutions served by open access, alongside 70,000 households in Oceanside, California. The company announced agreements to partner with Cleveland, Ohio, Saratoga Springs, New York, and Sugarland, Texas this year.

How will the momentum behind open access networks – from telco giants to scrappy innovators to persistent municipalities – play out in 2024?

See “The Twelve Days of Broadband” on Broadband Breakfast

• On the First Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Second Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Third Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Fourth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Fifth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  56 States and Territorial Broadband Offices Implementing BEAD
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Sixth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  One-hundred-and 66 Billion Dollars of American Semiconductor Investment
  56 States and Territorial Broadband Offices Implementing BEAD
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Seventh Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  7 Layers to the Open Systems Interconnection Model and Open Access Networks
  One-hundred-and 66 Billion Dollars of American Semiconductor Investment
  56 States and Territorial Broadband Offices Implementing BEAD
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence

The Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program got closer to breaking ground as maps were finalized, allocations were made, and states got to work drafting and refining their proposals for implementing the program.

• On the Fifth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  56 States and Territorial Broadband Offices Implementing BEAD
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence

Mapping was a central concern early in the year, as states pushed the Federal Communications Commission for more time to contest its coverage data. The commission had released the initial version of its broadband map in November 2022, and the updated version would be used by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to determine relative need among states and territories and make final BEAD allocations.

The commission ultimately held to its January 13 deadline and unveiled the second version of its map in May.

Based on the data in that map, the NTIA made its BEAD allocations the next month. Texas saw the largest, at over $3.3 billion, with California taking home $1.8 billion. Missouri, Michigan, and North Carolina each received more than $1.5 billion and 14 other states were slated to get more than $1 billion to fund new broadband infrastructure.

All plans are due by December 27

That kicked off the planning phase. States have to get their proposals for administering BEAD funds approved by the NTIA. Those plans are due December 27, but some states have got theirs in early, with Louisiana and Virginia leading the pack.

As states worked to get their proposals together, the NTIA issued two important waivers for the BEAD program: one for the Infrastructure Act’s Buy America requirements and one for the original BEAD financing requirements.

The Build America, Buy America, or BABA, provision of the Infrastructure Act requires federally funded projects to spend 55 percent of their component costs with American suppliers and to manufacture materials in the United States.

That raised flags among the broadband industry, as deploying the fiber-optic cable favored by BEAD involves equipment full of semiconductors only manufactured at scale in Southeast Asia.

The NTIA released in August a proposed waiver for BEAD participants, releasing them from BABA requirements for all electronics and from the 55 percent component cost requirement for certain pieces of fiber equipment.

The waiver gives potential BEAD participants more breathing room and makes meeting BABA requirements feasible, Nokia’s Vice President of Broadband Policy Lori Adams said at a Broadband Breakfast event. The company announced a major manufacturing plant in Wisconsin for the fiber equipment that still needs to be American-made under the waiver, which it plans to get operational in 2024.

Alan Davidson, the agency’s administrator, testified at a December House oversight hearing that the finalized waiver will be coming in “weeks, not months.” 

Changes to the Letter of Credit requirements

The NTIA also issued in November a waiver to its letter of credit requirements. The agency’s original rules had mandated that BEAD grant recipients get a letter of credit from an accredited bank for 25 percent of total project costs. That involves putting up an equal amount of cash as collateral, which advocates and broadband providers warned was too restrictive and would prevent small companies from participating.

After months of pressure, the NTIA listened. Its November waiver opens the door for states to use a variety of other means to ensure the financial viability of projects, including performance bonds, which providers only pay out if the project fails, and completion milestones to lower the LOC as infrastructure is deployed and free up more money.

The first – and so far the only – state to have its full BEAD proposal approved by the agency was Louisiana. The NTIA greenlighted the first volume of the proposal, which outlines plans to accept and process challenges to government broadband coverage data, in September and approved the second volume, which details the state’s plan to award grants under the program, on December 15. 

That gives the state one year to accept grant applications and make their selections before submitting a final proposal to the agency.

Two others, Virginia and Kansas, have received approval on their volume ones, allowing them to follow Louisiana’s lead and start accepting broadband data challenges.

Several others have submitted their plans and are awaiting approval. Just as with the proposal process, they will likely be looking to Louisiana for lessons on implementing the BEAD program.

See “The Twelve Days of Broadband” on Broadband Breakfast

• On the First Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Second Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Third Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Fourth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Fifth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  56 States and Territorial Broadband Offices Implementing BEAD
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence

In 2020, the Broadband DATA Act mandated the FCC create maps that don’t simply take as fact the inflated coverage claims of internet service providers. The first version of the map was released in November 2022, but the task of mapping every home and business in the United States and determining their broadband access is a daunting one, and the map still included many incorrectly marked locations. 

• On the Fourth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence

The commission gave states until January 13 to contest the coverage, but not location, data. Those challenges would be incorporated into an updated version of the map, which would ultimately be used to gauge relative need among states and territories and determine how much BEAD money each would receive. That allocation was slated to be finalized in late June. 

That got the year off to a rocky start, as many states were under the impression that both coverage and location data – the coordinates, addresses, and categorization of homes and businesses – could be challenged before the January deadline. 

Many states and advocacy groups asked for an extension to both the challenge and BEAD allocation deadlines, citing a lack of time and resources to gather correct information. But the FCC held firm and kept the cutoff at January 13.

The commission released a new map in May that incorporated the challenges it had received and its own continued data collection efforts. Almost 330,000 new unconnected locations were represented, and more than 3 million homes and businesses had their broadband availability information corrected.

But states were still underwhelmed. The Maine broadband office said it was “disappointed to see claims of advertised speeds at locations where we know it is not possible to receive that level of service.”

BEAD awards were handed down by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Commerce Department agency tasked with handling the program, on June 26. Nineteen states were slated to receive more than $1 billion to expand broadband infrastructure.

There was still work to be done, though. States would be required by the program to conduct their own challenge processes to further refine FCC coverage data before awarding grants under BEAD. The deadline for proposals on how to administer that process is December 27.

Early bird states submitted their challenge proposal separately 

But some early bird states submitted their challenge proposals separately from the rest of their BEAD implementation plans and got the go-ahead to begin from NTIA: Louisiana, Virginia, and Kansas.

Those states used a template process set up by the NTIA. That template allows for some modifications to existing FCC data. Kansas and Louisiana, for example, are attempting to phase out old infrastructure by designating all copper DSL service as inadequate regardless of what speeds an ISP claims to provide. All three are requiring ISPs to prove their reported coverage for an entire census block group or apartment building if enough residents contest the government data.

According to draft plans that have yet to be approved by the NTIA, every other state in the nation is planning to take up its model process, with many opting for the DSL and area challenge modifications used by the states that have already kicked things off.

FCC issued the third version of its public-facing broadband map

The FCC is also continuing its mapping effort to improve the baseline for future BEAD challenges and other funding programs. The commission released a third version of its public-facing map in November. This time, staff processed 4.8 million challenges to coverage data and 1.5 million challenges to location data.

Louisiana is done accepting challenges and is slated to wrap up adjudication in early 2024. Virginia is not far behind – providers can submit rebuttals through December, after which the state will weigh the submitted evidence and finalize its map. Kansas’s approval came later, and the state is still accepting challenges to FCC coverage data.

Other state broadband heads urged states to over communicate about the process at the Broadband Breakfast Digital Infrastructure Investment Summit in December. Only local governments and nonprofits can submit challenges under BEAD rules, and making sure those entities are prepared will be crucial to getting maps ready for grant applications, they said.

In Maryland, which is planning for its challenge process to start up in February, some county governments lack full time IT departments and will need assistance from the state to be successful, said broadband office director Rick Gordon.

“Once addresses are claimed as served, we don’t have the ability to go back and change that, so we have to be very careful,” he said.

See “The Twelve Days of Broadband” on Broadband Breakfast

• On the First Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Second Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Third Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Fourth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence

Broadband providers often attach fiber to wood poles owned by utility companies when expanding their infrastructure. Those poles sometimes need to be replaced to accommodate the extra equipment, either because the pole cannot bear additional weight or to comply with zoning laws.

• On the First Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Second Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence

The biggest disagreement centers on which party has to pay for those replacements. The Federal Communications Commission has authority under the Communications Act to set the terms of pole attachment deals between telecommunications providers and investor-owned utilities. That doesn’t cover all broadband deployments as some broadband providers are not registered telecom carriers and some poles are publicly owned, not to mention the 24 states with their own laws reverse-preempting the FCC on the issue, but it’s a big enough deal for telecoms and utilities to push the agency to intervene.

The standing policy was to allow pole owners to allocate all replacement costs to an attacher if a replacement was “necessitated solely” by the need to accommodate new equipment. But telecom companies argued they were in practice footing the bill for poles that needed replacing anyway, which utilities disputed. The commission first took comments on changes to the cost sharing regime in March 2022, but entered 2023 without issuing a ruling.

Coalitions continued pressing, with utilities signing a letter in January cautioning against shifting more replacement costs on to them. They said doing so would “cause many utilities to reconsider, for the first time in four decades, whether dropping everything to perform voluntary and premature pole replacements is worth the time, effort and expense.”

Telecom companies fired back in April, writing to the commission that “pole owners have exploited their monopoly power to receive windfalls by pushing the entire cost of pole replacements onto a new user of their pole.”

Action late in 2023

The proceeding sat in limbo for much of 2023, with groups still pushing for FCC action as BEAD money was allocated in June and states got to work drafting their plans for awarding grants under the program.

In a Broadband Breakfast Live Online event in October, utilities said that cost for those replacements should be shouldered by broadband providers. But that’s unfair to providers because pole owners benefit from attachers putting in new poles, countered a broadband industry trade group.

The commission announced in November it would be considering new rules on the issue at its December 13 meeting. The version of those rules that were ultimately approved set up the Rapid Broadband Assessment Team, an agency group that will be responsible for quickly resolving disputes that would otherwise slow down broadband deployment.

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said the move was an effort to ease potential friction for BEAD deployments. RBAT, as the commission calls it, will screen cases for placement on the FCC’s accelerated docket, meaning they will be fast-tracked for resolution in under 60 days. For instances too complex or novel for the accelerated docket, the group is tasked with working to resolve them through mediation or other means.

The new rules also expand the definition of a “red tagged” pole, the replacement cost of which cannot be allocated entirely to an attacher by FCC rules. The term previously covered poles that failed to meet safety standards and had been placed on a utility’s replacement schedule for any reason other than accommodating new telecom equipment.

Now, only the latter is required to prevent utilities from shifting all replacement costs to attachers, effectively requiring pole owners to pay for some replacement costs more often.

The FCC is still taking comments in the proceeding, this time asking for input on a defined timeline for processing bulk attachment applications and on when telecoms can do their own contracting work to prepare poles for attachments. Those comments are due in February 2024.

See “The Twelve Days of Broadband” on Broadband Breakfast

• On the First Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Second Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence

The conference, which happens every four years, brings nations together to coordinate agreements on global spectrum use with the United Nations’ International Telecommunications Union. Bands selected for further mobile use include the 1 gigahertz, 3.5 GHz, and notably parts of the 6 GHz band.

In the U.S., that band was opened by the Federal Communications Commission in 2020 for Wi-Fi connectivity and other unlicensed use, blocking mobile providers from expanding networks in the band. The commission also adopted rules in October that open up 850 MHz of the band for very low power, or VLP, use, widening the range of devices that can make use of the spectrum.

Wi-Fi advocates supported the move and pushed the FCC to go further, saying increased reliance on and development of Wi-Fi-connected devices will require more bandwidth to satisfy demand.

The WRC decision taps 700 MHz in the upper 6GHz band for licensed, mobile use in an effort to make more spectrum available for expanding 5G networks, but says regulatory agencies can approve unlicensed use in the band.

That’s still a win, according to the Wi-Fi Alliance, a trade group representing companies that use the technology with unlicensed spectrum.

“Wi-Fi Alliance is thrilled that the conference recognized the pivotal role of 6 GHz Wi-Fi in shaping the future of global connectivity,” the group said in a statement after the conference.

CTIA, another trade group representing wireless providers that operate 5G networks, was also pleased with work done at the conference.

“We applaud the global decision to harmonize new spectrum bands for 5G and beyond, particularly the critical lower 3 GHz band and the 7/8 GHz bands,” CTIA CEO Meredith Attwell Baker said in a statement.

Ahead of the next WRC in 2027, the ITU will study the 7-8.5 GHz band for potential 6G use.

The analysis of customers from major internet service providers in the U.S. who switched to T-Mobile’s fixed wireless access service reveals that their median download performance prior to switching was lower than the overall median performance of all customers across major ISPs. Those users joining T-Mobile’s FWA service recorded an increase in their median download speed of 13.04 Mbps.

At the same time, users joining Spectrum, Optimum, Cox and XFINITY from T-Mobile’s 5G FWA service experienced median download speeds over 100 Mbps faster, reports Ookla, highlighting the performance advantages that cable and fiber providers maintain over FWA, it said. 

The report finds cable and DSL providers are shouldering the majority of user churn, with existing cable and DSL customers forming the primary group transitioning to both T-Mobile’s and Verizon’s FWA services. 

While this shift is predominant, there’s a two-way flow occurring: T-Mobile’s larger user base exhibits some migration toward cable providers. In rural areas, where choices are restricted, FWA services are engaging in direct competition, with over 10 percent of users opting for Verizon’s FWA service transitioning from T-Mobile.

The competitive pricing tactics employed by FWA providers have driven prices down across the market, according to the Ookla report. As cable operators face the bulk of customer turnover, their strategic price competition is enticing some FWA subscribers to return to cable services, it added.

Ookla reports that major wireless carrier T-Mobile currently leads the 5G fixed-wireless market share, closely followed by Verizon. AT&T currently lags in terms of service, having recently launched its updated FWA service, AT&T Internet Air, in August 2023.

Nationally, T-Mobile and Verizon’s 5G FWA performance remains robust. Despite substantial customer growth, both companies have sustained their performance levels over the past year, as indicated by Ookla Speedtest data. 

In the third quarter of 2023, both ISPs exhibited comparable median download speeds of over 120 Mbps. However, T-Mobile retains an advantage in median upload performance at 17.09 Mbps, while Verizon’s average upload speed trails at 11.53 Mbps, as shown by Ookla Speedtest data.

The Ookla analysis sheds light on the evolving performance of 5G fixed wireless access (FWA) across the nation and its impact on market dynamics.

Still, notable variations in performance exist at the state level and between urban and rural settings. The performance of 5G FWA services depends heavily on the spectrum bands available in each location.

The report suggests the introduction of more C-band spectrum will bolster the argument for FWA. The rollout of extra C-band spectrum across all three national cellular carriers, coupled with AT&T’s new FWA service, may elevate performance and intensify competitive pressures in 2024.

The data and analysis was gathered through consumers using Ookla’s Speedtest website on internet connections on user devices across the globe.

The agency’s Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee was tasked in December 2022 with assessing the CBRS spectrum sharing framework and determining how it might inform future spectrum management efforts by the NTIA, which is tasked with overseeing federal spectrum use, and other government agencies.

CBRS has since 2020 governed spectrum sharing for 150 megahertz in the 3.5 GigaHertz (GHz) band. The Federal Communications Commission framework allocates spectrum to three tiers of users: military radar systems and other federal users, fixed wireless and mobile providers who purchase priority licenses in certain bands, and general access users who use the remaining spectrum opportunistically. Each is protected from interference by the lower tiers.

CSMAC said in its report that the industry, government, and academic stakeholders the group consulted “unanimously felt that the hybrid CBRS framework has resulted in commercial use without harmful interference” to vital federal systems. 

The group recommended a process for accepting complaints and implementing improvements. The framework is new, the report notes, and “no defined process currently exists, and any suggested improvements are slow to address and implement.”

Expediting the spectrum sharing process

A working policy group composed of NTIA and FCC officials, as well as senior members of organizations in all three access tiers, would help expedite the improvement process, the CSMAC report said. That group would have to be tailored to fit the circumstances of any future frequency bands in which CBRS is implemented.

That’s something the group said had broad support among the stakeholders it consulted, with many noting the framework “provides a strong foundation” for sharing in other bands. Respondents tapped specific bands as strong candidates for a CBRS-like system, with the lower 3 GHz band being the most common suggestion.

A Defense Department study recently found no current openings for commercial users in the band, but the NTIA is studying possibilities for future sharing arrangements.

Some commercial users expressed hesitation about expanding CBRS, the report notes. Nationwide wireless providers and a trade group told CSMAC that the potential for interference in CBRS bands makes the traditional static license system a better option for future spectrum allocation.

Users also suggested improvements to reduce disruption by federal systems. They told the group current methods of safeguarding government users are too conservative and sometime kick off commercial systems unnecessarily.

CSMAC’s findings will likely inform the NTIA’s National Spectrum Strategy, a plan put together at the request of the White House to standardize the nation’s spectrum pipeline and study approximately 2,800 MHz of spectrum for potential repurposing to expand federal and commercial use. 

The FCC will need its spectrum auction authority reinstated to accomplish that goal. A stopgap measure was signed into law on Tuesday that allows the agency to issue previously purchased licenses that have been in limbo since the authority expired for the first time in March.

Correction: An earlier version of this article stated the National Spectrum Strategy called for freeing up 2,800 MHz for commercial use. The plan calls for the study of that spectrum to inform potential repurposing efforts.

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.

Run under the name NoGovInternet.com, the thrust of this campaign hinges on the argument that the government should steer clear of having a role in providing internet access.

Its primary target is UTOPIA Fiber, a coalition of municipalities with a hand in serving 60,000 broadband customers across 20 cities in Utah.

Fronting the campaign is Utah’s former House Speaker Greg Hughes, a Republican from the fast-growing city of Draper along the Wasatch Front.

During a FOX 13 News interview in December, Hughes raised concerns about government bodies regulating internet speed and pricing.

On its end, UTOPIA denounces what it considers “misinformation” driving the campaign and dismisses Hughes’ assertion suggesting the entity’s ability to control internet speed or access.

According to UTOPIA’s chief marketing officer Kim McKinley, the coalition of localities comprising UTOPIA Fiber lack control over either aspect.

“We don’t make any of those choices. The privately owned service providers are the ones who make those choices,” McKinley told KSL in an interview. 

Fifteen private internet service providers utilizing UTOPIA’s open access network are responsible for establishing price points and providing various speed packages. Proponents say this system allows for market-driven competition and consumer choice, ensuring a diverse range of options for users across the network.

Hughes also highlighted concerns about potential financial risks for cities partnering with UTOPIA. The campaign references hurdles encountered during UTOPIA’s launch 15 years ago.

“Some of UTOPIA’s early initiatives proved problematic, requiring some cities to step in to help cover bond payments,” said McKinley. 

“Since 2009, though, after implementing new operating procedures, network demand has always been sufficient to cover bond costs.”

As the largest, and fastest-growing open access network in the United States, UTOPIA has long been the target of groups opposed to public broadband initiatives.

In May, Bountiful, Utah voted unanimously (5-0) to collaborate with UTOPIA to extend fiber broadband to all residents after a years-long process. This initiative was met by a cable-funded group launching a petition opposing the city’s efforts. The opposition campaign ultimately failed as hired signature collectors couldn’t gather sufficient support from registered voters.

“We are being used as this example across the country for how to successfully do municipal fiber,” UTOPIA’s CEO Roger Timmerman told Fox 13. 

“The private company’s don’t like that much, so we are seeing these attacks trying to scare cities from doing that same thing, saying ‘There’s a lot of risk, there’s a lot of cost.’” 

The American Association for Public Broadband, a proponent of public broadband, issued a statement in response to the ads, labeling them as “dark money attacks” and attributing them to “big cable.”

Hughes affirms that there are currently no ongoing legislative endeavors tied to the Domestic Policy Caucus campaign. Furthermore, there is no active attempt to dismantle the current agreements between UTOPIA and its partner cities, he said.

He asserts that the responsibility for broadband and fiber development should remain with private companies. He’s vigorously advocating to spread this message.

Republicans have historically held opposition to municipal broadband initiatives, like that of UTOPIA Fiber, and proposed laws at times that aim to restrict or impose limits on municipal broadband initiatives citing arguments emphasizing free market principles, suggesting that government involvement in broadband provision might hinder competition or private investment. 

However, opponents argue that such laws limit consumer choice and prevent communities from obtaining high-speed internet access that might not be available or affordable from private providers.

At its peak, around 19 states in the U.S. had laws that effectively banned or restricted municipal broadband networks to varying degrees.

Though there are currently no attempts to dismantle UTOPIA, legislation has targeted the organization before.

Notably in 2014, a bill introduced by State Rep. Curt Webb, R-Utah, H.B. 60 was aimed at dismantling UTOPIA, reports Community Networks. 

As the bill was then written, it wouldn’t have just prevented UTOPIA from building to people willing to pay for it. It also would have required the shut down of any existing services and prohibited UTOPIA from maintaining their backbone that links cities together.

David Goldman, Vice President of Satellite Policy for SpaceX, disclosed today that Starlink plans to enter the Affordable Connectivity Program run by the Federal Communications Commission for the past two years.

“We are eligible for it, and we are planning on participating. We haven’t turned it on yet.” Goldman said today on a webcast sponsored by Broadband Breakfast.

Starlink’s standard unlimited data plan costs $120 a month in addition to the upfront equipment charge of $599. The ACP provides a $30 a month discount on monthly broadband bills for eligible households.

David Goldman, Vice President of Satellite Policy for SpaceX, during Broadband Breakfast Live Online event.

Starlink, Goldman said, has deployed about 5,500 satellites into low earth orbit – about 340 miles in the sky. He said current generation satellites have four times the capacity of earlier versions, meaning more customers can be served with “urban-quality” broadband.

“We also are available anywhere in the United States, all 50 states, and we have cleared any kind of backlog that we have,” Goldman said, adding that Starlink serves more than 2 million subscribers globally.

Hosted by Drew Clark, Editor and Publisher of Broadband Breakfast, the webinar also included: Kalpak Gude, Head of Domestic Regulatory Affairs, Project Kuiper; Kelly Martin, Account Director, Eutelsat OneWeb; and Martin Marshall, Senior Sales Engineer Services & Platforms, Eutelsat OneWeb.

The ACP – which originally received $14.2 billion from Congress to help with the recovery from COVID-19 – is expected to run out of money by next April. That could impact up to 25 million households, FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel said in Nov. 30 House testimony. President Biden has requested $6 billion to keep ACP going.

Senior Capitol Hill Republicans have pushed back on Rosenworcel’s estimate, pointing to data from the Universal Service Administrative Company that only 16% and 22% of current ACP enrollees did not have Internet access prior to the launch of the ACP.

This article by Ted Hearn was originally published on Policyband on December 20, 2023, and is reprinted with permission.

Correction: A previous version of this story said that the current generation of Starlink’s satellites have download speeds four times faster than earlier generations. In fact, the current generation of Starlink’s satellites have four times the capacity of earlier generations. The story has been corrected.

Our Broadband Breakfast Live Online events take place on Wednesday at 12 Noon ET. Watch the event on Broadband Breakfast, or REGISTER HERE to join the conversation.

Wednesday, December 20, 2023 – Space Wars: What to Expect from Satellite Broadband

As satellite internet providers like SpaceX’s Starlink and Amazon’s Project Kuiper continue expanding, the race for space-based broadband is heating up. With the FCC approving SpaceX’s Gen2 satellite deployment and Amazon testing prototype launches, these companies are poised to blanket the skies with thousands more satellites. What are the implications of this new phase, particularly the potential for interference issues, orbital debris concerns and 5G backhaul capabilities? What about the regulatory and policy questions surrounding mega-constellations and space commercialization? Will satellite broadband address the current digital divide, potentially on a global scale? Join the discussion for informed perspectives on the path forward amid the space broadband boom.

Panelists

• David Goldman, Vice President of Satellite Policy for SpaceX
• Kalpak Gude, Head of Domestic Regulatory Affairs, Project Kuiper
• Kelly Martin, Account Director, Eutelsat OneWeb
• Drew Clark (moderator), Editor and Publisher, Broadband Breakfast

David Goldman is the Vice President of Satellite Policy for SpaceX. Prior to joining SpaceX in 2018, he was the Chief Counsel for the Senate Communication and Technology Subcommittee since January 2015. Before that, he served as the Senior Legal Advisor for FCC then-Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, and was her chief advisor on wireless, international, and public safety issues, along with responsibility for other issues of policy, strategy, public relations, and office operations.

Kalpak Gude is the Head of Domestic Regulatory Affairs for Project Kuiper at Amazon. He is also responsible for Project Kuiper’s space safety and sustainability efforts on a global basis. Prior to Amazon, Mr. Gude was General Counsel at Swarm Technologies and President of the Dynamic Spectrum Alliance trade association. He has also had senior roles in the U.S. government at the FCC and U.S. Senate, as well as in industry at OneWeb, Intelsat and PanAmSat.

Kelly Martin is Director for OneWeb servicing government segments including government grant programs, federal government, state & local, and international defense. OneWeb’s go-to-market strategy is through distribution partners. In her director role, Kelly interfaces with AT&T, Hughes and X2nSat in bringing LEO satellite services to the end-user.

Breakfast Media LLC CEO Drew Clark has led the Broadband Breakfast community since 2008. An early proponent of better broadband, better lives, he initially founded the Broadband Census crowdsourcing campaign for broadband data. As Editor and Publisher, Clark presides over the leading media company advocating for higher-capacity internet everywhere through topical, timely and intelligent coverage. Clark also served as head of the Partnership for a Connected Illinois, a state broadband initiative.

As with all Broadband Breakfast Live Online events, the FREE webcasts will take place at 12 Noon ET on Wednesday.

SUBSCRIBE to the Broadband Breakfast YouTube channel. That way, you will be notified when events go live. Watch on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

See a complete list of upcoming and past Broadband Breakfast Live Online events.

That’s when the commission’s ability to auction electromagnetic frequency bands for commercial use lapsed after Congress failed to renew the authority for the first time since 1993. The expiration left 8,000 purchased, but not yet officially issued, licenses in the 2.5 gigahertz band in limbo.

Tuesday’s stopgap measure will allow the FCC to issue those licenses, opening the door for purchasers to use the spectrum to expand 5G mobile networks.

The commission is still unable to hold new auctions and allocate more frequency bands. FCC commissioners and telecommunications providers have been pushing Congress to fully reinstate the agency’s authority, as emerging wireless technologies and expanding networks compete for finite airwaves.

“We badly need Congress to restore the agency’s spectrum auction authority,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel testified to House members at a recent oversight hearing. She and other commissioners supported the 5G SALE Act at the hearing

Efforts to extend the authority have fallen flat on Capitol Hill as lawmakers struggle to reach an agreement on the duration of the restoration and on specific bands to tap for auction. The March expiration came amid concerns over the results of a Defense Department study on sharing the government’s 3.1-3.45 GHz band with commercial users, with holdouts wanting to wait for the study to be completed before granting blanket authority.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration head Alan Davidson told Congress on December 5 that the study found no current avenues for commercial use in the band, potentially complicating a House bill that would reinstate auction authority for three years. The bill stalled after clearing the Energy and Commerce Committee in May, and would potentially allow auctions in the band. 

T-Mobile is set to receive the lion’s share of the newly available licenses. It spent over $300 million on 7,156 licenses in the band to expand its networks into rural areas.

The Biden administration unveiled in November a strategy to free up spectrum, directing the NTIA to study 2,800 MHz for future use over the next two years. That includes the lower 3GHz band blacked by the DoD, with the agency focusing on ways to open the band in the future, including moving government systems to other frequencies.

The commission will need its auction authority reinstated to allow commercial use of any bands those studies identify.

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.

The awards will fund 17 projects slated to get broadband to more than 16,000 homes and businesses by the end of 2025. 

The money comes from the Treasury Department’s $10 billion Capital Projects Fund, a pandemic response that provides states money for expanding broadband infrastructure and other projects. About $9 billion of that has been awarded to states so far.

CPF rules require new infrastructure funded by the program to deliver speeds of at least 100 * 100 Megabits per second (Mbps).

“We are incredibly excited about this first phase of CPF investments in South Carolina,” Jim Stritzinger, director of the state’s broadband office, said in a statement. “With these investments, ISPs are now penetrating hard-to-reach areas from the Lowcountry to the Upstate, and lives are changing by the day.”

He said South Carolina is planning to award the rest of its $185 million CPF allotment sometime in early 2024. 

This round of funding went to eight local service providers, which are set to put $50 million of their own capital toward the projects.

In addition to funding infrastructure, states can also use CPF funds for improving community centers and other projects that improve access to online work, education, and healthcare.

The ACP, set up with a $14 billion allocation from the Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act, provides a $30 monthly internet subsidy to more than 22 million low-income households. That money is set to dry up as early as April 2024.

The impending shortfall has led to calls from advocacy groups, lawmakers, and broadband providers for Congress to renew the program. They say the fund is an important tool in closing the digital divide – the gap in economic opportunity between areas with and without high-speed internet access – and for ensuring people can access new infrastructure set to be funded by the federal government’s $42.5 billion broadband expansion effort.  

President Joe Biden asked Congress in October for $6 billion to keep the fund afloat through 2024. But Republican leaders in the House and Senate commerce committees criticized the administration’s public spending and were doubtful about the ACP’s effectiveness in their letter to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel.

Their concerns centered around the number of ACP recipients who had no broadband access prior to enrolling. Rosenworcel testified at a House oversight hearing in November that FCC surveys put the number at 20 to 22 percent of the program’s participating households, but she noted that the agency has had difficulty pinning down the exact figure because providers are not required to collect that information when someone enrolls.

Sens. John Thune, R-South Dakota, and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Washington, and Bob Latta, R-Ohio, pointed to that number as evidence the program is “wasteful” by subsidizing broadband for low-income households that were able to get online previously. 

The lawmakers also pushed back on Rosenworcel’s testimony at the same hearing that the program’s participants would be forced offline if it were not to be refunded and asked the agency to provide ACP enrollment data it had committed to make public.

“Unfortunately, your testimony pushes ‘facts’ about the ACP that are deeply misleading and have the potential to exacerbate the fiscal crisis without producing meaningful benefits to the American consumer,” they wrote.

The USF spends about $8 billion annually to fund four internet subsidy programs for rural infrastructure, low-income households, schools and libraries, and healthcare providers. It has been funded since 1996 by fees on phone bills from voice providers, with the Federal Communications Commission’s Universal Service Administrative Company responsible for collecting and distributing the money.

Consumers’ Research, along with other conservative groups, has been on a legal offensive against the USF, filing multiple federal suits alleging the fund is unconstitutional and taking the chance to air its concerns again in October by challenging the FCC’s contribution factor for this quarter. 

In each suit – two pending before the Fifth Circuit and one pending before the D.C. Circuit, with another struck down by the Sixth Circuit in May – the group argues that Congress did not put proper guardrails on the commission’s authority to collect the fund and that the FCC abused what authority it does have by handing responsibility to USAC.

The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. In a ruling issued on December 14, the judges found that Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which sets out the commission’s USF responsibilities, is in line with statutes that have survived similar challenges in the past. 

Section 254 directs the FCC to collect fees from telecommunications carriers to support universal service for low-income and rural areas, and to implement policies around the fund that are “necessary and appropriate for the protection of the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” Consumers’ Research alleged this is too broad to satisfy the nondelegation doctrine, a legal standard which requires Congress to articulate an “intelligible principle” when delegating duties to federal agencies, but the Eleventh Circuit found the law meets that standard.

The court also ruled that the FCC oversees USAC closely enough that the fund is still functionally under the agency’s control, not improperly delegated to a third party as the suit alleged.

That follows similar reasoning to the Sixth Circuit’s decision and an initial ruling from the Fifth Circuit. But the Fifth Circuit agreed in July to rehear the case with a full panel of five judges, signaling a potential reversal of its previous decision. Oral arguments took place in September and no ruling has been issued yet.

In a concurring opinion, Eleventh Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom expressed dissatisfaction with the precedent that kept Section 254 standing, saying its “mealymouthed shibboleths provide no meaningful constraint,” but that statutes he finds similarly vague have been found to provide enough guidance to avoid being struck down.

If the Fifth Circuit were to find the law in violation of the nondelegation doctrine, it would tee the issue up for potential review by the Supreme Court.

The Infrastructure Act’s Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program allocated $42.5 billion among all 56 states and territories to get high-speed internet to areas without adequate infrastructure. States are in the process of refining and submitting their initial proposals for administering the program, which are due December 27.

A provision of the program requires that providers set up an affordable plan for low-income households on BEAD-funded infrastructure. States are directed by the NTIA to either explicitly set out in their proposals what that low-cost price point will be, or to share with the agency a formula that will be used to determine that price.

The draft volume two of Virginia’s initial proposal, which outlines the state’s plans for choosing grant winners under the program, does neither. The state is proposing to require that grant applicants outline and justify their own low-cost options as part of the application process. 

After the state submitted its volume two to the NTIA, the agency wrote in a letter to the state that it “must be able to determine the impact to a customer at the Initial Proposal stage – it isn’t enough to know as of the Final Proposal. Thus the low-cost option must be established in the Initial Proposal as an exact price or formula.”

Virginia is concerned that would amount to “rate regulation,” which the Infrastructure Act bars the NTIA from doing as part of BEAD, and is asking the agency to accept its proposal without changes to the low-cost provision.

“We respectfully request that NTIA accept Virginia’s proposed definition of its low-cost option as submitted,” the state’s newly submitted proposal reads.

The issue came up during NTIA Administrator Alan Davidson’s testimony at a House oversight hearing on December 5.

Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee repeatedly brought up the low-cost requirements as potentially violating the Infrastructure Act, which Davidson pushed back on.

“We are not setting a price at the NTIA. We are not setting a national price for broadband. We are not setting rates,” he said. “It seems quite reasonable to say that in return for receiving these federal funds… providers need to have a low-cost option.”

The money comes from the $10 billion Capital Projects Fund, a pandemic response measure that provides states money for broadband infrastructure and other efforts that bridge the gap between connected and unconnected communities. About $9 billion has been awarded so far.

Wisconsin’s latest award will go to two separate measures: deploying computers and Wi-Fi equipment in apartment buildings and improvements to libraries and other community centers.

The community center improvement effort will get the lion’s share of the funding, $107 million. That money will spin up a new grant program called the Flexible Facilities Program. Local and Tribal governments can apply for funding to construct new facilities or purchase upgraded broadband equipment for an existing one.

Applications for that program will be available in January 2024.

The remaining $33 million will go to the Digital Connectivity and Navigators Program. In addition to new devices, the program will also fund trainings to help residents use them for work, education, and health care. 

Wisconsin was awarded $42 million in CPF funds to expand broadband infrastructure in 2022.

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.

The company was the second biggest winner in the 2020 Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) auction, in which broadband providers competed with plans to serve rural areas with the least government support. More than 600,000 homes and businesses were slated to get internet from Starlink’s low-earth orbit satellite technology.

But the commission concluded in 2022 the nascent technology was not capable of providing the speeds the company claimed. Speed tests showed its current networks operating well below what Starlink’s bids committed to, and the FCC was not convinced the company could improve its technology in time to meet RDOF deadlines. It was pricey too, requiring customers to purchase a $600 dish.

Commissioners reiterated its position by denying the company’s appeal on Tuesday. The agency “has a responsibility to be a good steward of limited public funds meant to expand access to rural broadband, not fund applicants that fail to meet basic program requirements,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenwrocel said in a statement.

Elon Musk’s Starlink was not the only major company to inflate its capabilities in RDOF bids. Nearly 100 bidders have defaulted since the auction, leaving in limbo an estimated $2.8 billion of the $9.2 billion originally awarded. 

The FCC upheld another denial on Monday in the case of LTD Broadband, which appealed the commission’s finding that it could not reasonably serve the more than 500,000 locations to which it had committed. The commission also hit LTD with a $21.7 million fine for its default.

The commission’s two Republicans dissented to Starlink’s denial, claiming they saw a path for the company to improve its speeds before the first deployment deadline in 2025.

Brendan Carr claimed the denial was politically motivated, a case of the Biden administration going after Musk for embracing increasingly right-wing views after purchasing Twitter (now called X) – but that purchase went through in October 2022, after the FCC issued its denial.

LTD was the biggest winner in the 2020 Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction, coming away with more than $1.3 billion in planned support over 10 years. Broadband providers competed with bids to serve unconnected areas using the least government money.

In August 2022 the FCC nixed LTD’s award, declaring it to be in default. LTD, now called GigFire, had failed to meet eligibility requirements in several states it was supposed to serve and, the commission decided, was ultimately unlikely to be capable of getting high-speed internet to the 528,088 homes and businesses to which it had committed.

LTD was not alone. It’s estimated that over $2.8 billion of the $9.2 billion awarded has since gone into default. The commission was criticized at the time for choosing bids from companies that exaggerated their capability and only vetting applicants more closely after the auction.

That’s what happened in the case of LTD – the commission found it to be in default after reviewing a longer application from the company. On the same day the proposed fine was adopted, the FCC denied LTD’s appeal of the default decision, reaffirming its position that the company could not meet its obligations under the program.

By defaulting on its bid, the commission said in a statement announcing the fine, LTD “hindered the disbursement of funds that could have otherwise been expended for the advancement of broadband access across primarily rural areas in the United States.”

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that the company’s CEO Corey Hauer is considering further options, including “taking the FCC to court.” Hauer did not respond to a request for comment.

Other major defaults include SpaceX and Starry, who lost out on $886 million and $269 million respectively. The two companies were slated to serve more than 700,000 rural homes and businesses.

LTD’s penalty is the largest to date – the commission has proposed another $13 million in total fines against 95 other defaulting RDOF bidders. That includes a $732,000 fine against Etheric Communications announced alongside LTD.

RDOF was originally budgeted for $20.4 billion, but it’s not clear when or if the remaining money will be awarded.

The funding is designated for the expansion of Whitman-Walker’s Max Robinson Center, a multi-purpose community facility known for providing essential healthcare services to underserved communities, particularly the LGBTQ community. 

The expanded center will also offer public access to computer terminals and high-speed wireless broadband across the premises, according to a press release. It is also expected to enhance healthcare accessibility for residents, offering both telehealth and in-person visits. In particular, it will establish 63 examination, therapy, and consultation rooms, facilitating the expansion of telemedicine services. 

“Connecting workers and families to training, education, and health care services is central to expanding economic opportunity and prosperity in communities across the country,” Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Wally Adeyemo said in a press release. “The expansion of Whitman-Walker’s Max Robinson Center, financed in part by the American Rescue Plan’s Capital Projects Fund, shows how the Biden-Harris Administration’s historic investments are building projects needed to expand access to critical health and educational services.” 

Additionally, a portion of this investment will facilitate the construction of two versatile community spaces that will support community health and wellness initiatives. The aim is to accommodate an estimated 10,000 new patients by 2025, supplementing the current service of 5,000 patients.

Within the community space, there are plans to host resume building and interview skills workshops, along with educational and training programs tailored for local residents.

The CPF allocates $10 billion to states, territories, freely associated states, and tribal governments, aiming to support essential capital projects. These initiatives aim to expand economic prospects and bridge the gap in internet access within underserved communities. 

The open access session at the Digital Infrastructure Investment Summit Tuesday delved into diverse perspectives on such networks in the U.S., and emphasized differences and variations in several last-mile broadband deployments.

For example, SiFi Networks President Scott Bradshaw emphasized the importance of citywide infrastructure deployment with more than one internet service provider. In the 40 U.S. cities in 11 states in which SiFi operates, SiFi is the network operator, with a least a few ISPs offering services to consumers.

SiFi uses private financing to build, own and operate the network infrastructure – unlike several other models discussed on the panel.

For example, one alternative approach discussed was the utility-lease model, pioneered in Huntsville, Alabama, in a collaboration facilitated by the Broadband Group and the city’s Huntsville Utilities and Google Fiber.

On the panel, Broadband Group President Jeff Reiman touted the benefits of this public-private partnership, while also acknowledging that it was not truly or fully open access.

Under the Huntsville arrangement, the city utility had deployed fiber for smart grid purposes and chose to lease excess capacity to Google Fiber to improve local connectivity. Huntsville Utilities built a dark fiber network to pass everyone. But the city did not put in the drops, or the home-by-home connections.

Huntsville Utilities owns the system’s fiber backbone, but Google Fiber owns the line-to-home connections, manages all hookups and delivers internet services.

Is that open access?

SiFi’s Bradshaw took issue with that Huntsville model. He highlighted the critical juncture in which an ISP installs its electronics to the home. He said that that was the exact moment that the network could no longer considered open access.

Allowing service providers – in this case, Google Fiber – to install electronics hands control back to the ISP, and jeopardizes customer choice if that ISP exited the market. A truly open access network would ensure that no one ISP can control the customer base, said Bradshaw.

But in defending the utility-lease model, Reiman argued that it has proven to bring some of the benefits of open access: Competition and improved service options.

In fact, all Huntsville residents saw that as a result of the utility-lease arrangement, “When Google Fiber entered Huntsville, Comcast and AT&T immediately upgraded all of their infrastructure.”

Springfield’s City Utilities, in Missouri, followed a similar framework. There, the city leased its unlit fiber network on a nonexclusive basis to internet service provider Lumen Technologies, previously CenturyLink.

Weighing in on the exchange, moderator Christopher Mitchell, Director of the Community Broadband Networks Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, said: “There’s a fair number of people who would say we still get some of the benefits of open access, and perhaps the ones that a community values the most, even if they give control of the electronics away.”

“I am a proponent of critical infrastructure being publicly accountable,” continued Mitchell. “But I can’t deny if I talk to Huntsville Utilities and they are happy with what they’ve done.”

Still other variations on open access

The panel agreed that open access, in its pure or three-tier form, describes a network in which a public or private entity builds and/or owns a broadband network complete with fiber drops; a network operator manages connectivity on a lit network; and multiple service providers sell services to individual customers or businesses.

The term ”wholesale broadband” is broader one. It refers to a high-capacity internet provider reselling services on its network through other, more limited retail customers.

Mikael Philipsson, CEO of COS Systems and the keynoter at the Summit,  recounted his experience in Sweden in which gigabit symmetrical connectivity is now available to 98 percent of citizens, and about 60 percent of customers are purchasing their broadband on open access networks.

In his view, open access is centered on providing a range of services to customers, allowing them to switch providers and services as needed.

Robert Bridgham, executive director of the Eastern Shore of Virginia Broadband Authority, exemplified the hybrid nature of the authority’s approach. It offers backbone service while also serving as an ISP.

“We are allowing proprietors to use our backbone, but we also provide end-user services. So we are effectively an ISP and an open access provider. Is it wholesale, is it open access? We don’t limit ourselves,” he said.

“You can see with my fellow panelists, we all have a little bit of a different variance,” said Bridgham, who said he found it fascinating that four experts could offer such distinct interpretations.

But as a whole, all panelists agreed that utility-lease, wholesale, and open access networks (whether constrained or completely open) all inject much-needed competition into a traditionally vertically-integrated model.

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