Connect with us

Broadband Mapping & Data

Garland McCoy: On Maps, States Need a Digital Sheriff to Fend for Themselves

The day the music stopped for rural America with the release of FCC’s “new” map.

Published

on

The author of this Expert Opinion is Garland McCoy, Executive Director of Precision Ag Connectivity and Accuracy Stakeholder Alliance

State Broadband Officials are justifiably bewildered over how Washington, DC operates. In just the last week, NTIA’s BEAD program director signaled that the “new” FCC Map released in November of 2022 will not be the only map — nor the primary map — consulted when determining the distribution of BEAD funding to a state. Not surprisingly, he had to immediately walk the statement back.

At the same time, we’ve seen FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel plead with the states to help fix the “new” FCC map. She also recently announced that the FCC is launching a campaign to identify and hold ISPs accountable if they have provided inflated network service speeds for the “new” FCC map.

One could conclude that officials in Washington view citizens outside of D.C. as intellectually challenged. Why? It’s been well known for many years that the FCC allows — and indeed encourages — ISPs to post their advertised networks speeds (not their real network service speeds) on the FCC maps, which is why the “new” FCC map continues to be flawed and mostly indistinguishable from the old FCC maps (hence my use of quotation marks).

None of this frankly surprises me given we’ve seen this movie before with each update of the FCC maps. Yet, I held out a glimmer of hope that this time would be different. This time the FCC received clear directions as part of the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability (DATA) Act of 2020 – legislation that specifically instructed the FCC to produce more accurate maps once and for all.

Notably, the Broadband DATA Act drew deep and broad bipartisan support in the otherwise hyper-partisan nation’s capital. In the Senate, the DATA Act boasted 70 Senate cosponsors, which made it one of the most bipartisan pieces of legislation enacted in the 116th Congress. It became Public Law 116-130 in March 2020 and called on the FCC to set up a process to collect “crowdsourced” data directly from citizens “on an ongoing basis” to “ensure that the Broadband Map is granular and accurate.”

These new and improved maps would then guide federal broadband deployment dollars to those areas of the country with no or subpar connectivity. That was music to the ears of tens of millions of rural Americans who still lack broadband. However, that music stopped on November 18, 2022 when the FCC released its “new” and inaccurate maps.

States must now look to the future and look to themselves to ensure they are well-positioned for additional broadband infrastructure funding that will be forthcoming from a variety of Federal agencies, untethered to the FCC Broadband Map. It’s time for states to get their own houses in order by ensuring that their respective broadband maps are supported by a statewide device-driven network metering program. A network metering program would allow states to validate their broadband data in a secure way and keep it up-to-date. It would also give states the ironclad data needed to support audits of ISP self-reported data, the FCC-mandated ISP broadband labels, and compliance with publicly funded broadband infrastructure contracts.

States need someone armed with security, industry-standard network monitoring

States need in effect, a “Digital Sheriff” who is armed with secure, industry-standard network monitoring/metering devices to do for broadband what is already done for other important essential services and commodities, e.g., the metering of electricity, natural gas, water to the home, and the gasoline you pump into your car. All are independently metered for the consumer’s protection. Somehow, as important as it is, broadband has escaped this same level of accountability. States should now step up and add this much needed accountability for broadband.

I do see a silver lining in all of this. The “new” FCC map and controversies around the CostQuest Fabric rollout have opened the eyes of many in the broadband stakeholder community. For example, it is spurring efforts to build an opensource Fabric data site that would provide this valuable information to the general public.

It reminds me of Craigslist and its genesis in 1996 as a free, unencumbered classified advertising website, while newspapers had charged for this service for the last century. Likewise, the latest FCC map episode has also focused attention on the need to meter broadband, as an essential service, the same way other essential services are metered for a customer’s protection and the public good.

We may very well be witnessing the final gasps of the FCC’s attempt to build a credible National Broadband Map. But from its ashes, states now have the opportunity to rise up and take on the responsibility of providing an accurate accounting – and in doing so, truly close the nation’s broadband gap.

If you want a citizen-centric partner in these validation and network metering initiatives, please reach out to us. PAgCASA (pagcasa.org) is a non-profit organization focused on promoting rural prosperity, utilizing industry standard network monitoring/metering devices, litigation-ready methodologies, and an expert team and partnerships to accomplish our goals.

Garland T. McCoy, Co-Founder and Executive Director of Precision Ag Connectivity and Accuracy Stakeholder Alliance, is a long-time non-profit veteran in the fields of technology and telecommunication policy having served as Founder and CEO of the Technology Education Institute. Garland was recently an adjunct professor at Syracuse University’s iSchool, teaching information policy and decision making, and can be reached at garland.mccoy@pagcasa.org. 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 reflected in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Broadband Breakfast is a decade-old news organization based in Washington that is building a community of interest around broadband policy and internet technology, with a particular focus on better broadband infrastructure, the politics of privacy and the regulation of social media. Learn more about Broadband Breakfast.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Broadband Mapping & Data

Bruce Kushnick: Look Overseas, America’s Prices for Broadband are Out of Control

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

Published

on

The author of this Expert Opinion is Bruce Kushnick, New Networks Institute Executive Director.

This chart, taken from the European Union Report on Broadband, shows that a triple play — phone, cable TV, broadband-Internet, can cost about 36 Euros for a service with 30–100 Mbps speeds, and 21 Euros for a stand alone service.

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.

Continue Reading

Broadband Mapping & Data

Broadband Measurement Summit Announced for March 7

With state broadband challenges underway, Broadband Measurement Summit brings BEAD into dialogue with FCC nutrition labels.

Published

on

WASHINGTON, January 9, 2024 – Broadband Breakfast is pleased to announce the Broadband Measurement Summit on Thursday, March 7, in Washington, D.C.

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.

PANEL 1: THE CHALLENGE PROCESS FOR STATE BROADBAND OFFICES

Many state broadband offices are about to begin their broadband mapping challenges under the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment grant program. This is a process for states to verify locations that are unserved (i.e., they lack access to 25 Megabits per second (Mbps) * 3 Mbps broadband), and locations that are underserved (i.e., they lack access to 100 Mbps * 20 Mbps broadband). A few advanced states have already begun, or have already completed the process. What have they learned? What “challenges” are they facing? What’s next for broadband mapping?

PANEL 2: THE VALUE OF MAPPING ASSETS BEYOND BEAD

Besides current broadband challenges, what geospatial, demographic, and operational information is important for BEAD implementation? In particular, what geospatial information do investors and operators of broadband networks need to better deploy broadband? This session will consider why mapping assets is valuable well beyond the BEAD program.

PANEL 3: THE FCC’S BROADBAND NUTRITION LABELS

As if the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s BEAD program wasn’t enough, the Broadband Measurement Summit will consider the current status of the Federal Communications Commission’s broadband “nutrition” labels. By April 10, 2024, larger ISPs must display these new Broadband Consumer Labels at the point of sale. They must use clear, easy-to-understand, and accurate information about the cost and performance of broadband services. Internet service providers with 100,000 or fewer subscriber lines must do so by October 10, 2024. How is the FCC’s nutrition labels process going?

PANEL 4: MEASURING AND TRACKING BROADBAND PRICING

The Biden Administration’s “Internet for All” program emphasizes the important role of affordable broadband. That’s one reason that the Affordable Connectivity Program has loomed so large in discussions of America’s broadband buildout. What does the evidence show about the price of broadband in the United States versus other Western nations? How does it vary by location? As part of the more detailed and granular broadband mapping and data now being collected, is broadband pricing data being left out?

SPONSORED BY

BroadbandNow is a data aggregation company helping millions of consumers find and compare local internet options. BroadbandNow’s database of providers, the largest in the U.S., delivers the highest-value guides consisting of comprehensive plans, prices and ratings for thousands of internet service providers. BroadbandNow relentlessly collects and analyzes internet providers’ coverage and availability to provide the most accurate zip code search for consumers.

Broadband Measurement Summit Program

 


Continue Reading

Broadband Mapping & Data

NTIA Endorses FCC’s Proposed Increase of Broadband Speed Benchmark

The FCC sought comment on upping the definition to 100 * 20 Mbps.

Published

on

Graphic by Richard Patterson.

WASHINGTON, January 3, 2024 – The National Telecommunications and Information Administration is backing the Federal Communications Commission’s proposal to alter the definition of broadband to increase the speed benchmark. 

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.

Continue Reading

Signup for Broadband Breakfast News



Broadband Breakfast Research Partner

Trending