infrastructure bill – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Cox Sues Rhode Island Because It Dared To Use Infrastructure Bill Money To Fund Broadband Competition

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

As we’ve mentioned a few times, $42.5 billion in taxpayer-funded broadband subsidies will soon start hitting the states next year courtesy of the 2021 infrastructure bill’s Broadband, Equity And Deployment (BEAD) program. Efforts to expand affordable fiber access don’t get all that much press attention in the AI hustlebro era, but the impact will be massive all the same.

Unfortunately, a ton of that money is going to be given to giant telecom monopolies with a long history of empty promises and half-completed networks. But an impressive chunk will also wind up in the hands of smaller broadband ISPs, cooperatives, city-owned electrical utilities, and municipal broadband networks, allowing them to build fiber access out into areas that would have never seen service otherwise.

Unsurprisingly, entrenched telecom giants like Verizon, Cox, AT&T, and Comcast are working hard to ensure the lion’s share of this funding goes to them, and not pesky competition. That has involved overstating coverage areas so that other companies can’t get funds, trying to block funds from funding direct competitors, or miring competing grant applications in costly bureaucratic grant challenges.

Since the states are in charge of fund disbursement, how corrupt and fucked up fund dispersal is will be highly state dependent. Some states, like New York, California, or Vermont, are spending big on popular community broadband networks. Other states, like Pennsylvania, are just throwing the lion’s share of funding at giants like Verizon, ignoring the company’s long history of sketchy subsidy abuse.

In Rhode Island, incumbent cable giant Cox Communications has filed a court challenge attempting to block the state from doling out $108.7 million to the company’s competitors.

Cox is very upset that not all of the state’s share of infrastructure bill broadband money is going to Cox, so they’re trying to pretend the process was somehow flawed:

“The cable company claims Rhode Island used “flawed Internet speed data” to determine which areas are underserved and that the plan “will benefit wealthy parts of the State already served with high-speed Internet in contravention of the program that it purports to implement.”

Cable and phone giants have lobbied extensively (with mixed results) to make sure the majority of this infrastructure money goes to completely unserved, heavily rural locations they historically couldn’t care about because of the high cost of deployment. The problem is that limited competition means that affordability is also a key consideration; so driving some new competition into these stagnant suburban and urban markets where apathetic regional monopolies like Cox do business would also be helpful.

Cox, of course, doesn’t want that. Like most giant telecoms they’re perfectly happy with their regional domination of largely uncompetitive U.S. broadband access, allowing them to price gouge captive customers. For years, big ISPs like Cox have taken advantage of inaccurate FCC mapping data to overstate their coverage footprints in order to downplay the lack of competition.

Now that the government has improved mapping data (in this case the state also used Ookla crowdsourced speedtest data), and it’s highlighting competition and coverage gaps, Cox is suddenly upset. The Rhode Island Commerce Corporation (RICC) issued a statement correctly noting that Cox is simply angry that it may soon face new competitors in long-stagnant markets:

“Let’s be clear about what’s behind Cox’s lawsuit: It is an attempt to prevent the investment of $108.7 million in broadband infrastructure in Rhode Island, likely because it realizes that some, or even all, of that money may be awarded through a competitive process to other Internet service providers.”

The RICC also noted that Cox was largely absent from earlier conversations about how the state’s share of BEAD funding would be distributed, and only showed up to whine when it became clear the infrastructure bill would help fund new competitors:

“Cox did not submit public comments on the design of the BEAD program, did not raise concerns at public Broadband Advisory Council meetings (where they are the sole provider represented), and declined to share its network map information during the 90-day Rhode Island Broadband Map Challenge Process. Our planning process was open and participatory, and Cox did not participate.”

This is par for the course for U.S. telecom monopolies. They work tirelessly to crush all competition in a region with the help of corrupt and state federal lawmakers. Then, when somebody actually does anything that addresses regional monopoly power, they whine, and file lawsuits, and kick and scream like rich, petulant toddlers who didn’t get the right toy for Christmas.

I spend pretty much every week now talking to a different municipality somewhere in the U.S. that has been able to build out affordable new fiber networks thanks to either 2021 COVID relief legislation (ARPA) or the infrastructure bill. In many instances, the funding is helping to construct new open access fiber networks that deliver locals uncapped, symmetrical gigabit fiber access for as little as $70 a month.

You can see how fat and comfortable cable giants, used to charging twice that for slower service, might not appreciate that.

These projects may not be seeing much nationwide press attention, but they’re hugely impactful all the same. This being government, I’m laboring under no illusions that there won’t be ample graft at the hands of lazily-regulated telecom giants. But I’m also seeing first hand how these funds are making a meaningful difference in a lot of long-neglected communities country wide.

Filed Under: BEAD, broadband, competition, fiber, gigabit, high speed internet, infrastructure bill, rhode island, telecom
Companies: cox communications

AT&T, T-Mobile Embrace ‘Open Access’ Fiber After Years Of Opposition

from the financially-incentivized-to-see-the-light dept

Thu, Sep 26th 2024 05:26am - Karl Bode

Two years ago, Techdirt’s Copia Institute released a report discussing how open access fiber networks were a potential path toward boosting fiber competition in the United States. Such networks, sometimes community owned, involve collaboratively building a centralized fiber infrastructure that multiple competitors can come in and compete over.

In instances where this has been successfully achieved — like Utah’s Utopia or in Ammon, Idaho — users sometimes have the option of dozens of different fiber ISPs, which in some cases can be switched between with just a few clicks on a web portal. The projects lower the cost of market entry. The competition drives down prices, improves service quality, and generally results in better broadband access.

Understandably big ISPs like Comcast and AT&T didn’t much like that, and spent years fighting such projects knowing they threatened their regional dominance. But now some executives at AT&T and T-Mobile appear to have seen the light, with both companies striking new deals to build or participate in such open access networks:

“Once staunch opponents of open access, Tier 1 Internet Service Providers are now entering a space that, in the United States, has been pioneered by local governments two decades ago.

In the last year-and-a-half, AT&T has embraced open access through its Gigapower joint venture with BlackRock, the world’s largest money manager with $10 trillion assets under management.”

In this case BlackRock is building the network, and AT&T would be the “anchor tenant” (the first ISP to sign up for service). The about face for AT&T is fairly significant; the company went from fighting such network vehemently, to their CEO making the rounds talking up the benefits of open access.

The approach always made sense financially and developmentally; AT&T and larger ISPs simply opposed it because they didn’t want anything disrupting their regional telecom monopolies or duopolies, which allow them to price gouge captive customers trapped in markets without competition. AT&T’s opposition was particularly venomous when community-owned networks (municipals, cooperatives) were involved.

What changed these companies minds? They’re lining up to potentially obtain more than $45 billion in broadband subsidies currently looming thanks to 2021 infrastructure bill legislation. That money isn’t expected to start flowing in earnest until next year. The bullishness is great to see, but it will be interesting to see if it remains intact once AT&T (a company with a long history of making promises it doesn’t deliver on) has nabbed their desired cut of taxpayer funds.

Filed Under: BEAD, broadband, competition, fiber, high speed internet, infrastructure bill, open access, telecom
Companies: at&t, blackrock, t-mobile

GOP Holds Show Hearing To Complain About Providing Affordable Broadband To Poor People

from the poor-people-have-it-too-easy dept

Wed, Sep 11th 2024 05:24am - Karl Bode

Over the next six months, states are poised to receive more than [$42.5 billion in taxpayer subsidies](http://states will soon receive more than $42.5 billion in taxpayer funded broadband subsidies courtesy of the 2021 infrastructure bill.) to help fund broadband rollouts around the country. A lot of this money is getting dumped into the laps of big telecom monopolies with a lousy track record of follow through. But a lot of it is also going to transformative efforts by cooperatives, municipalities, and community-owned networks.

Republicans voted against COVID relief legislation (ARPA) and the infrastructure bill (IIJA), but they still like taking credit for both bills’ broadband funding efforts with local constituents (who’s going to correct locals’ perceptions, Sinclair broadcasting?).

At the same time, Republicans are holding a series of hearings because they’re very upset about a small component of the infrastructure bill’s BEAD (Broadband Equity And Deployment) program: namely that it (gasp!) requires ISPs to try and provide a basic, affordable broadband tier for low-income Americans.

Regional telecom monopolies like AT&T and Comcast are always worried that any government effort to force them to actually try or compete on price could snowball into more such efforts to fix our broken telecom markets (it never does due to widespread corruption, but this is their persistent worry).

So they’ve convinced Republican House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chair Bob Latta to hold a series of silly hearings this week that will focus on attacking the low-income provision of the infrastructure bill.

The first such hearing is slated for this week, and the witness list doesn’t include anybody from the Biden Administration. Its underlying claim will be that requiring that states ensure poor people can afford the broadband access (they’re funding with their own taxpayer dollars) is akin to “rate regulation”:

“The [Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021] prohibits the NTIA from regulating the rates charged for broadband service. At the same time, NTIA requires states receiving BEAD funds to define a low-cost broadband service option. NTIA is responsible for reviewing and approving these low-cost options and has used this requirement as a way to regulate rates,” the staff memo said. “The Committee considers these rate regulated approvals to be a violation of the IIJA’s rate regulation prohibition.”

Telecoms have always vehemently opposed any effort to address the high prices and spotty access caused by two major things: unchecked telecom consolidation and monopolization, and the corruption that protects it. It doesn’t matter that our regulators are generally too cowed to actually do that; any effort to address runaway costs is portrayed as radical extremism, and “rate regulation” is always thrown around as this menacing bogeyman that never actually comes to town in any real way.

The law in question, IIJA, delegates fund management to the states, which should start receiving money this fall. It also requires that providers that take taxpayer money provide at least one “low-cost broadband service option for eligible subscribers.” But the law also says the NTIA may not “regulate the rates charged for broadband service.” At a hearing last May, NTIA Administrator Alan Davidson put it this way:

“The statute requires that there be a low-cost service option. We do not believe the states are regulating rates here. We believe that this is a condition to get a federal grant. Nobody’s requiring a service provider to follow these rates, people do not have to participate in the program.”

AT&T and friends want to hoover up billions in taxpayer dollars with no meaningful conditions on how those funds are utilized. So Republicans are poised to put on a show this week (with the press’ help, I’m sure) about how unfair it is that AT&T and Comcast have to offer a $20, 25 Mbps service tier (which costs them virtually nothing to provide) to families that qualify for low-income lunch programs.

I suspect that whether Republicans succeed or not at stripping away the low-cost provisions (which were never going to be enforced with any zeal anyway), you can absolutely be certain they’ll take singular credit for the bill’s broadband deployments, despite fighting the program every step of the way.

Filed Under: BEAD, bob latta, broadband, cathy mcmorris rodgers, deployment, high speed internet, infrastructure bill, telecom

Big Telecom Will Soon Get $42 BIllion In Taxpayer Subsidies, But Balk At Providing Affordable Broadband To Poor People

from the this-is-why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept

Fri, Aug 2nd 2024 05:34am - Karl Bode

Broadband providers poised to receive $42 billion in taxpayer broadband subsidies from the infrastructure bill are ramping up complaints about a small requirement affixed to the massive handout: they have to try to make broadband affordable to poor people.

Earlier this month we noted that the GOP, in lockstep with the telecom industry, had launched an “investigation” into the low-income requirements attached to the Broadband Equity Access And Deployment (BEAD) subsidy program and the agency overseeing it (NTIA).

The requirements are not onerous: the NTIA delegates most authority for how the money is to be spent to the states, which are “strongly encouraged” (according to BEAD program guidelines) to provide a slower, cheaper service tier somewhere between around 30and30 and 30and48 per month. And only to families that qualify for existing low-income assistance programs.

But in a new letter to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo (hat tip, Ars Technica), telecom lobbying organizations (most of them directed by AT&T) vaguely threaten that they’ll take their ball and go home if the requirements for a low-cost option aren’t eliminated:

“Without significant and immediate changes of approach toward its implementation, we are concerned the program will fail to advance our collective goal of connectivity for all in America. We and our members sincerely want this program to work, but we believe that your agency’s administration of the low-cost service option requirement in particular risks putting the overall success of BEAD in jeopardy.”

To be clear I’m not sure that federal or state lawmakers are even able to enforce this requirement with any consistency, given the rank corruption and feckless careerism that abounds in telecom regulatory oversight. But just the faintest hint that they might have to make their product affordable greatly upsets regional monopolies, who’ve spent decades working to undermine competition and oversight in a bid to keep U.S. broadband prices artificially inflated.

Telecom giants like AT&T have grown fat and comfortable ripping off captive local subscribers and effectively telling regulators what to do. They’re so comfortable, in fact, that the barest bone efforts asking them nicely to provide a less expensive option to poor people is being treated like some kind of draconian, radical and illegal effort at unchecked “rate regulation.”

This wouldn’t be quite such a contentious issue if most of these companies didn’t have a 40 year track record of gobbling up taxpayer dollars for broadband deployments they never quite seem to finish. Or if they hadn’t made U.S. broadband so patchy and expensive due to relentless efforts at anti-competitive regional monopolization.

BEAD money is poised to start flowing to the states this fall, but big telecoms, if they wanted, could throw a wrench in the process over these modest requirements (AT&T’s already apparently doing this in Virginia). At which point, telecom giants (and the politicians bribed into a near-mindless fealty to them) will absolutely blame government for the entirely avoidable delay.

Filed Under: affordable, BEAD, broadband, high speed internet, infrastructure bill, ntia, telecom, USTelecom

U.S. Broadband Maps Suck Slightly Less, But Still Let ISPs Comically Over-State Coverage

from the prepare-to-flush-billions-of-dollars-down-the-toilet dept

Mon, Jun 17th 2024 05:22am - Karl Bode

We’ve noted more than a few times that for all of the government’s talk about wanting to “bridge the digital divide,” it’s consistently struggled to even map where broadband access is or isn’t available. The government has spent more than $400 million on trying to map broadband access to date, and while there certainly have been improvements, the end result continues to be a decidedly mixed bag.

With $42 billion in looming broadband subsidies headed to the states courtesy of the 2021 infrastructure bill, the states and feds are in a rush to finally address our shitty mapping to try and minimize waste and make sure this money goes to areas that need it most.

While the new maps are definitely an improvement, the FCC’s latest still has problems with over-stating coverage and available speeds (try it for yourself). You can input any address and watch in real time as the FCC basically hallucinates competitors and speeds, routinely claiming that areas under a Comcast monopoly actually have the option of a dozen different meaningful competitors.

The FCC also still refuses to collect and share pricing data, which industry opposes because it would only work to further highlight monopolization, consolidation, and muted competition. And the underlying data isn’t transparent or owned by the public itself, with the latest improved $44 million mapping contract doled out to a company named Costquest that won’t let anybody look under the hood.

Recently the FCC released the 4th version of its National Broadband Map, with data it claims to be accurate as of December 2023. In the 3rd version of the map, the FCC insisted there were still 10.1 million locations deemed “underserved or unserved” when it comes to broadband access. Broadband mapping gurus say that in just six months that number has dropped a whopping 11 percent to 8.8 million.

But the kind of folks who actually work with the reality on the ground, like broadband consultant Doug Dawson (who advises municipalities on how to improve regional broadband infrastructure), that quick of an improvement raises more than a few eyebrows:

“Is it believable that 1.3 million fewer unserved locations in the country got upgraded to faster technology in a six-month period? Almost by definition, most of the unserved and underserved locations are rural. While there is a lot of fiber construction underway due to broadband grants, it’s hard to picture that grants covered that many new rural locations during a six-month period.

Consider the amount of investment that would have required. If the average cost per upgrade was 6,000,thiswouldhavemeantcompleting6,000, this would have meant completing 6,000,thiswouldhavemeantcompleting7.8 billion of construction in the second half of last year in rural areas. It’s hard to think even half of that was spent in a six month period.”

So what’s actually likely to account for our sudden improvement in broadband coverage? ISPs are likely changing the areas they claim to cover and the speeds they are claiming to provide in order to elbow in on billions in looming subsidies. That’s made possible, in part, because the FCC allows ISPs to declare broadband coverage based on “advertised” speeds, not reality:

“The FCC mapping rules only require ISPs to report marketing broadband speeds. If an ISP markets to customers with speeds ‘up to 100/20 Mbps’ it is not breaking FCC rules to make that claim in the maps – even if it only delivers 30/5 Mbps to a location. This FCC rule to allow marketing speeds instead of some approximation of actual speeds has made a travesty out of the maps.”

Given I talk to a different municipality pretty much every week about broadband access, I know for a fact that the infrastructure bill’s BEAD (Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program) funding is going to do a lot of good for disconnected communities. But from decades of telecom reporting experience I also know the government’s belated and clumsy rush to finally care about accuracy in broadband mapping is going to result in oodles of fraud.

This is an industry filled with clever regional monopolies that have abused federal subsidy programs for decades with very little accountability, grabbing billions upon billions of dollars in exchange for fiber networks that are always somehow mysteriously left half-deployed, if they’re deployed at all. Often managed by an FCC that, across parties, routinely redefines feckless oversight (it’s why the Biden administration chose the NTIA and states to manage BEAD funding).

The scale of the infrastructure bill broadband subsidy program is staggering, and while well intentioned and genuinely poised to do a lot of good, we’d likely have avoided a significant chunk of looming fraud if the government had shaken off lobbying influence and started caring about factual reality decades earlier.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband maps, digital divide, fcc, high speed internet, infrastructure bill, ntia, states

Telecoms To Get $45 Billion In Taxpayer Broadband Subsidies, But Are Whining Because They Might Have To Deliver Affordable Broadband To A Few Poor People

from the greedy-telcos dept

Tue, Apr 16th 2024 05:23am - Karl Bode

The 2021 infrastructure bill is throwing more than $42 billion at America’s mediocre broadband networks. And while a lot of that money will be put to good use shoring up fiber, a lot of it is being dumped in the laps of regional monopolies with a long, long history of taking subsidies in exchange for broadband networks they repeatedly, mysteriously, leave half completed.

Companies like AT&T, Charter, and Comcast that, thanks to years of anti-competitive behavior and lobbying, enjoy regional monopolies, limited oversight, and all that results (spotty access, high prices, slow speeds, and comically terrible customer service).

So not too surprisingly, there’s some fairly basic requirements affixed on this infrastructure bill money. The feds are preferring that the money be used to help build future-proof fiber networks. Some states (like Washington) are also urging the construction of “open access” networks, which allow numerous ISPs to come in and compete in layers, driving down prices.

To be clear, the NTIA rules affixed to the $42 billion in infrastructure subsidies allow states to ask that in exchange for this massive handout, ISPs make an effort to ensure they’re providing low-income users in those areas some kind of lower-cost option. And telecom giants like AT&T, Comcast, Charter, and Verizon are successfully lobbying states to have those requirements killed.

The feds themselves aren’t engaging in “rate regulation,” though this is how it’s been framed by telecom lobbyists and the politicians who love them. AT&T lobbyists have gone state by state, having success in states like Virginia threatening them to eliminate requirements that ISPs provide lower-cost service for poor people, or they’ll take their ball and go home:

“In Virginia, AT&T warned the state in a legal filing last September that strict pricing requirements “would be contrary to good public policy, lead to litigation and more importantly will discourage provider participation.” The company requested that “any rate regulation language be removed” from Virginia’s blueprint.”

If you’re a regular Techdirt reader, you probably know that AT&T has an extremely long history of taking taxpayer money, subsidies, tax breaks, and other federal favors, then making a sort of farting sound when asked to do much of anything (including actually delivering on a broadband network or new jobs).

That they’re being asked to do some basic things to get taxpayer money shouldn’t be seen as onerous notes Gigi Sohn, the popular telecom sector reformer whose nomination to the FCC, you might recall, was scuttled by a coordinated GOP and telecom industry smear campaign:

“This is a requirement in exchange for a humongous government benefit,” said Gigi Sohn, executive director of the American Association for Public Broadband, which advocates for low-cost options. “The kind of notion that government can require something in exchange for giving out billions of dollars, that’s standard.”

The state requirements aren’t a big deal. And decades of lobbying and dodgy court rulings have left most states without the staff or regulatory firepower to actually enforce requirements anyway, so it’s unlikely that telecoms would have faced any real penalty should they have half-assed it.

But big ISPs are absolutely terrified of even the faintest idea that anybody in government would so much as think about “rate regulation” (or any attempt to stop them from exploiting their regional monopolies to rip off captive customers). Even if, thanks to regulatory capture and widespread U.S. corruption, that hasn’t been a serious threat to their regional fiefdoms any time in the last quarter century.

Most state and federal regulators are so corrupt and captured, they can’t even publicly admit that monopoly power and consolidation has resulted in competitive market failure, much less propose any real solution to it. So what we get instead are these sort of bare minimum half efforts; and even that results in no limit of ceaseless whining by these pampered, widely disliked telecom giants.

Giants who find it trivially easy to throw a few hundred thousand dollars at corrupt state and federal officials to ensure that even the most basic requirements affixed to taxpayer money are rendered inert.

Filed Under: affordable access, broadband, infrastructure bill, subsidies, telcos
Companies: at&t, charter, comcast, verizon

from the this-is-why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept

Wed, Mar 6th 2024 05:22am - Karl Bode

The FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), part of the 2021 infrastructure bill, currently provides 23+ million low-income Americans a $30 broadband discount every month. While it didn’t get much hype, that’s a big deal in a country where broadband affordability is a massive obstacle to adoption due to muted competition and high service prices.

But those 23 million Americans are poised to soon lose the discount because Republicans — who routinely dole out billions of dollars on far dumber fare — refused to fund a 4−4-4−7 billion extension.

As a result, the FCC is notifying households that signed up for broadband service during the pandemic that they’re about to see a dramatic spike in their broadband bills starting in April:

“Many of these households have contacted the Commission to express their disappointment and frustration that they can no longer sign up for the program. Others have contacted the agency to express concern about the impending end of the program, noting its impact on older adults, families with school children, and military families at risk of losing their internet service without the ACP benefit,” said Chairwoman Rosenworcel in her letter to Congress. “They worry that without ACP support they will lose access to employment, education, health care, and more.”

Republicans claim they opposed the ACP because it was “wasteful.” But these are the same Republicans that gave AT&T a $42 billion tax break for doing nothing (technically less than nothing: they eliminated 42,000 jobs not long after). Republicans love slathering telecom giants with badly managed subsidies, tax breaks, regulatory favors, and merger approvals in exchange for bupkis. But helping the poor? No way.

For whatever reason the FCC is too polite to clearly mention that opposition by numerous key Republicans are the reason the bill is going away. Similarly, the press outlets that can be bothered to cover this kind of stuff (it doesn’t get engagement and clicks so why bother) also often can’t be bothered to mention that the GOP is directly responsible for the death of the program.

Republican telecom policy basically involves letting giant regional monopolies crush competition underfoot, rubber stamping anti-competitive mergers and consolidation, and opposing all broadband consumer protections. The argument is this creates some sort of innovative Utopia; the reality is it results in market failure, regulatory capture, patchy coverage, high prices, and slow speeds.

Democrat telecom policy usually involves either doing the same thing as Republicans (see: Joe Manchin), paying empty lip service to “solving the digital divide,” or proposing fairly toothless initiatives years after they’re needed (see: the broadband nutrition label). Most Democratic telecom policy leaders can’t even acknowledge that telecom monopolies exist and cause competition problems in public statements.

Still, Democrats occasionally stumble into the path of productive ideas in the realm of antitrust reform and consumer protection. The GOP genuinely could not care less about the American telecom/broadband/television consumer, and there are 40+ years of hard evidence.

The ACP was initially a rare, bipartisan way to bring some temporarily relief to low-income users struggling to afford access. Throwing money at big telecoms to temporarily lower prices (that wouldn’t be high in the first place without their assault on competition) isn’t ideal; but it was at least something.

Now, low-income Americans who signed up for already expensive service will see a dramatic uptick in their broadband prices, potentially severing them from opportunity. Press outlets won’t cover it because the subject doesn’t get enough ad engagement. And if they do cover it, their “fair and balanced” “both sides” approach often gives the GOP policy credibility the party doesn’t actually deserve.

The GOP considers it a win that the infrastructure bill won’t get credit for helping the poor during election season, knowing the infotainment press lacks the backbone to clearly illustrate how the decision hurts the poor (a large percentage of the GOP’s own constituents). Democratic FCC regulators won’t really fight for it because being too politically combative puts future think tank or lobbying positions at risk.

So U.S. telecom policy will stumble on apace, with Americans paying some of the highest prices in the developed world for substandard broadband access. Same as it ever was.

Filed Under: ACP, affordable, broadband, fcc, fiber, high speed internet, infrastructure bill, policy, telecom

The FCC Is Trying To Stop Discrimination In Broadband Deployment. Telecoms And Republicans Are Big Mad About It

from the gop-living-down-to-its-reputation dept

Fri, Nov 17th 2023 05:24am - Karl Bode

For decades, big ISPs like AT&T have refused to upgrade low income and poor communities to fiber, despite billions in subsidies, regulatory favors, and tax breaks that were supposed to accomplish precisely that. Groups like the National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA) have released studies on cities like Cleveland and Detroit, documenting how this discrimination lines up with 30s “redlining” efforts.

Section 60506 of the 2021 infrastructure bill dedicated $65 billion in new broadband subsidies. But it also tasked the FCC with creating rules that would prevent future broadband deployment discrimination. The FCC came in just under the wire for Congress’ November 15 deadline, finally unveiling its full rules yesterday.

I’ve spent much of the last few weeks talking to consumer groups, activists, and telecom policy experts about the rules.

The general consensus is that it’s a hugely welcome and long overdue improvement, even though the FCC stubbornly refuses to name and shame ISPs with long histories of clear discrimination (wouldn’t want to upset key domestic surveillance allies), the complaint process isn’t transparent, and many are worried that this FCC, with its sketchy track record on consumer protection, won’t consistently enforce them.

FCC boss Jessica Rosenworcel had this to say about the new rules:

“These rules are strong. When you consider Congress explicitly directed us to “prevent” and “eliminate” digital discrimination of access, they had better be. But I would also argue that they are fair and reasonable.”

Again, these rules are a welcome and long overdue admission by the government that minority and low income Americans have been systematically discriminated against when it comes to broadband deployment, something that’s documentable and indisputably true, despite industry denials.

Late last year you’ll recall The Markup released a story showing that not only do big ISPs systematically discriminate in deployment, they charge low income and minority customers more money for slower service than less diverse, more affluent neighborhoods. It’s not really a debate.

One thing consumer groups are happy about: the rules govern both “disparate treatment” (spotty broadband deployment caused by active, provable discrimination) and “disparate impact” (spotty broadband deployment that falls along discriminatory lines regardless of intent). Telecom execs don’t often put discriminatory intent in emails to staff, so proving discriminatory intent isn’t always possible. Other agencies like the NTIA had advised the FCC adopt this broader approach.

“Strong rules are needed to identify and remedy unequal access to Internet service, no matter what the cause may be,” NTIA Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Alan Davidson wrote**.** “Rules that combat these inequities will bring lasting relief for vulnerable communities that historically have been left behind online.”

Giant incumbent telecom monopolies with decades of discrimination under their belt are unsurprisingly upset. Key trade groups have already threatened to sue over the rules, and seem particularly chaffed that the rules govern discrimination in broadband pricing. They insist the rules interfere with “the practical business choices and profit-related decisions that sustain a vibrant and dynamic free enterprise system.”

Here in reality, U.S. broadband is anything but a vibrant and dynamic free enterprise system. It’s a failed market, dominated by a handful of politically powerful regional mono/duopolies, who hoover up untold billions in taxpayer subsidies for networks they routinely fail to fully deploy. All protected by layers upon layers of state and federal corruption policymakers like to pretend doesn’t exist.

Enter the GOP, which was quick to hyperventilate about the rules at industry’s prompt. Senator Ted Cruz and FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr were particularly incensed, and quickly got to work peppering the media with false claims that the rules were a dystopian Biden administration attempt to exert “government control over virtually all aspects of the Internet,” despite it being a congressional mandate.

Recall, Republicans largely voted against the infrastructure bill, despite the fact that they still take credit for the numerous broadband projects it’s funding among local constituents.

Again, I’m not particularly sure this FCC will consistently enforce the rules (assuming they survive industry legal challenge) or bring any meaningful penalties against big companies, since that’s never been the agency’s strong suit. And the FCC’s failure to name and shape specific ISPs or address very clear past discrimination is a bit feckless. Also, with FCC leadership shifting every election, it’s extremely unlikely that a Trump-run FCC would ever bother to enforce the rules.

At the same time, absolutely any effort to hold big telecom accountable for shitty behavior is treated by the GOP as if it’s some kind of dystopian hellscape of government overreach (though this is the same GOP that wants to abuse FCC authority to bully social media companies that moderate, however sloppily, the party’s race-baiting political propaganda).

Still, simply having the U.S. government overtly acknowledge a generation of discrimination in broadband deployment remains a big deal. It at least attempts to begin to rebalance the scales after generations of redlining and government apathy, something predatory regional monopolies and their loyal puppies in Congress clearly aren’t too keen on.

Filed Under: broadband, corruption, digital discrimination, digital divide, discrimination, gop, high speed internet, infrastructure bill, ndia, racism, redlining

Biden Re-Announces $42 billion Investment In Broadband, Because Apparently People Didn’t Notice The First Time

from the if-at-first-nobody-notices... dept

Tue, Jun 27th 2023 05:24am - Karl Bode

While the Biden administration has been a bit of a hot mess on broadband consumer protection (see: the Gigi Sohn fiasco), the administration has done some amazing things for overall investment in broadband. Largely thanks to both COVID relief legislation (The American Rescue Plan Act, ARPA) and the IIJA (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act).

When the IIJA was signed into law in late November of 2021, the administration, and most of the press, clearly pointed out the bill included a whopping $42 billion to shore up broadband access. Apparently nobody noticed, because the White House is… announcing it again now that money is about to start flowing in earnest:

President Biden on Monday is set to announce more than $42 billion to expand high-speed internet access nationwide, commencing the federal push to help an estimated 8.5 million families and small businesses finally take advantage of modern-day connectivity.

The money, which the administration plans to parcel out to states over the next two years, serves as the centerpiece of a vast and ambitious campaign to deliver reliable broadband to the entire country by 2030 — ensuring that even the most far-flung parts of the United States can reap the economic advantages of the digital age.

It didn’t get much traction the first time around because it’s not as attention-grabbing as falsely claiming rudimentary “AI” chatbots will kill us all or falsely claiming poorly drawn NFTs will revolutionize the planet. But it’s going to be transformative all the same. You can see a breakdown here of how much each state is prepared to receive in broadband subsidies, and the totals are historic.

I spend pretty much every week now talking to a different city, town, utility, or cooperative, and they’re all busy using (or planning to use) either COVID relief money or infrastructure bill cash to build amazing things. Many of them are in the process of delivering affordable, gigabit-capable fiber to rural regions for the first time in history, or building open access fiber network that will finally drive competition to markets long ago monopolized by companies like AT&T and Comcast.

The problem, of course, will be several fold. One, despite spending $400 million on the problem, the government still doesn’t have particularly accurate broadband maps. And while the FCC is working to slowly fix that, the end result has been a bit of a mess so far, and it’s something entrenched monopolies can exploit to overstate coverage and misdirect essential funds away from promising challengers.

The new FCC maps do have a welcome new challenge system (where municipalities or locals can challenge inaccurate data), but state leaders routinely tell me the system favors the deep-pocketed monopolies over often under-funded local representatives. It’s hard to fix a problem you can’t measure, and we’re still struggling to measure U.S. broadband gaps.

The other problem is we still don’t really have an FCC that’s willing to stand up to monopolies. Nor do many U.S. states (the ones in charge of dispersing the funds). As a result we’re already seeing telecom and cable giants (with a long, long history of subsidy fraud) exploit state corruption to funnel a big chunk of historic funding away from potential competitors and back into their own pockets.

So while some states are going to use the funds to shore up funding of independent challenges to monopoly power (like open access fiber networks shared by multiple competitors), significantly more are going to throw the lion’s share of this money at the very monopolies responsible for the problem we’re trying to fix.

So yes, there’s going to be an historic, welcome infusion of broadband subsidies to areas that need it, but I’m also positively certain that without competent state and federal corruption reform — and a general lack of interest in reining in monopoly power (in both markets and across government) — there are also going to be telecom boondoggles, waste, and fraud on a scale we’ve never quite seen before.

The end result might still be a net overall benefit, but it won’t have the same overall impact it could have had if we had lawmakers and regulators keen on genuinely taking aim at the real reason the “digital divide” still exists in 2023: regional telecom monopolization and the corruption that protects it.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, fiber, gigabit, high speed internet, infrastructure bill, monopoly, open access, telecom

Republicans Keep Taking Credit For Billions In Broadband Subsidies Only Made Possible By The COVID Relief And Infrastructure Bills They Vehemently Opposed

from the yes-it-is-I,-the-greatest-political-leader-ever dept

Thu, Apr 27th 2023 05:28am - Karl Bode

There’s an historic $50 billion in broadband subsidies currently heading to the states courtesy of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). There are plenty of potential hiccups on stuff like mapping that could screw things up, but, any way you slice it, this money should still have an amazing, positive impact on affordable broadband expansion.

Amusingly though, the same Republicans who vehemently opposed and voted against both bills are now happily taking credit for their benefits among their constituents.

Case in point: Republican Governor Ron DeSantis keeps crowing about Florida’s broadband investments made possible via Florida’s “Broadband Opportunity Program.” A significant chunk of those funds ($400 million, page 5) were only made possible via the federal ARPA bill DeSantis and state senators opposed, but good luck finding any mention of that in state press releases on the subject. The whole thing was, apparently, Ronald’s idea:

“Investing in reliable internet infrastructure strengthens local economies and opens up new opportunities for students, businesses and families,” said Governor Ron DeSantis. “I am happy to award this $22 million to support Florida’s small and rural communities and I look forward to making more awards in the future that expand internet access to all Floridians.”

I’m seeing the same thing play out in most Republican controlled states, where leaders have (as required by the bills) created what are often their first ever broadband offices to disperse the funds, then pretended that this was all their idea, and that the lion’s share of the money isn’t coming from federal programs they fought tooth and nail against for the better part of the last few years.

Like in Montana, where Republican Governor Greg Gianforte has also repeatedly issued press releases lauding broadband subsidies doled out by the state, without mentioning that Montana’s ConnectMT program is primarily going to be built on the back of ARPA and IIJA funds:

“Expanding access to reliable broadband is a central element of Governor Gianforte’s Montana Comeback Plan.”

Our press often can’t point this out, so Republicans get to have their cake (attack helpful legislation under the highly performative pretense that federal government is always inherently bad) and eat it too (take direct credit for federal legislation they opposed that provides genuine, meaningful assistance).

Granted when it comes to broadband policy, the Republican (and often Democrat) solution has been to basically pretend that broadband monopolies don’t exist and aren’t the obvious cause of the country’s patchy, slow, expensive broadband. While at the same time demonizing pretty much every creative, local voter approved effort to do anything about it (House Republicans literally attempted to ban helpful community broadband networks during a plague).

Granted there are plenty of Democrats who mindlessly pander to telecom monopolies as well. Senators Manchin, Masto, and Kelly (with the GOP’s help) directly derailed the nomination of popular reformer Gigi Sohn to the FCC (leaving the agency without the voting majority to do absolutely anything deemed controversial by industry), and Democratic FCC boss Jessica Rosenworcel has an obvious and comical allergy to even acknowledging telecom monopolization exists or that it profoundly harms consumers.

Mindlessly throwing money at the “digital divide,” but doing absolutely nothing to address the corruption or monopoly rot causing the problem, is very much a bipartisan affair. That said, Democrats did oversee what will ultimately be the biggest broadband funding effort in American history at a time where broadband is increasingly viewed as a utility, which isn’t exactly small potatoes.

In contrast, Republicans have supported AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon on on every last policy debate of note over the better part of a generation (net neutrality, privacy, community broadband bans, etc.), routinely fight efforts to do absolutely anything about telecom monopolization, then taking credit for subsidy programs they claimed to have oppose. There’s a messaging opportunity here for Democrats they’re consistently afraid to exploit.

And when Republican-controlled states do take advantage of said funds, they often do their very best to ensure the lion’s share of the money goes to giant monopolies (see how most of Montana’s new federal broadband funding is being shoveled to Charter and Comcast, two regional monopolies directly responsible for the market failure we’re pretending to address).

If you were to read telecom trade mags or mainstream press coverage on telecom and broadband policy, absolutely none of this context is mentioned. None. Press coverage of the sector is usually superficial cribbing from press releases, which is why it’s so easy for Republican leadership to take credit for policies they opposed, with the voting populace never being the wiser.

Filed Under: arpa, BEAD, broadband, desantis, digital divide, fcc, high speed internet, iija, infrastructure bill, jessica rosenworcel, joe manchin, kelly, masto, ron desantis, subsidies, telecom