That's A Wrap: Techdirt Greenhouse, Broadband In The Covid Era

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

Over the last few months a wide variety of activists, experts, engineers, and academics provided their insights into broadband access (or a lack thereof) in the COVID era. We'd like to thank all of the participants for their insights during a difficult and complicated time, and hope readers gleaned something useful from the exercise. You can peruse all of the contributions here if you missed any of them during the busy holiday season.

Our first two Techdirt Greenhouse panels, focusing on content moderation and privacy, saw no shortage of elaborate solutions for extremely complicated subjects. While broadband access can certainly be complicated (especially when it comes to policy, legislation, and network management), in many ways it's the simplest subject we've tackled so far.

42 million Americans still lack access to any broadband whatsoever, double official FCC estimates. Millions more can't afford access (given US broadband pricing is some of the highest in the developed world). The primary reason why: 83 million Americans can only obtain broadband access through a single provider (aka a monopoly). Hand-in-hand with regulatory capture, the result has been decades of high prices, slow speeds, stifled competitive potential, and abysmal customer service.

The reason isn't that complicated: We've let natural telecom monopolies dominate the market and (with the occasional exception) dictate state and federal policy. These politically-powerful monopolies have then cultivated an environment of apathy or outright denial. And instead of driving more, creative solutions to market, the US solution to this problem has (again with the occasional exception) been to downplay or deny there's a problem, or to use flawed data and sloppy policy to throw millions in subsidies at giant companies for networks routinely left half deployed. Often with zero penalty.

The one-two punch of monopolized access and apathetic/corrupt regulators/lawmakers has calcified a problem that should have been solved a decade ago. That's left a discordant chorus of folks, usually on the state or local level, scrambling to fix the problem using limited funds and bad data, usually without adequate federal support. All while being undermined at every step of the way by powerful entrenched monopolies whose top priority is to deny there's a problem, unfairly demonize creative solutions to said nonexistent problem, and keep the broken status quo intact.

Peggy Schaffer, in charge of expanding broadband access in Maine, discussed how federal data is so lacking, states have been forced to crowdsource their own home-grown solution simply to identify US broadband gaps. As Pew's Anna Read confirmed, there's a lot the federal government can learn from watching state efforts to bridge this persistent digital divide.

For years the internet saw ample debates over whether broadband was a luxury or an essential utility; the latter generally opposed by industry because it creates greater urgency to actually address monopolization. With COVID making it clear broadband is essential for survival, opportunity, health care, education, and employment, experts like Consumer Reports' Jonathan Schwantes argue that it's time to treat broadband as the essential service it is.

Experts like Gigi Sohn say the federal response during the COVID era has been a profound disappointment. And, as Francella Ochillo and Andrea Kelemen noted, the most vulnerable among us are usually the first punished by our collective failure.

Fortunately, this is all fixable, and COVID could finally provide the impetus to break through decades of policy dysfunction.

Most of our experts agree the first step is better data and better maps to accurately identify the scope of the problem (Blair Levin), something we've only just begun with the recent passage of the DATA Act. From there, the solution involves supporting local, creative efforts to drive more competition to market, whether that comes in the form of innovative mesh networks (Terique Boyce), or local community broadband builds (Christopher Mitchell). It also involves giving regulators at the FCC the authority and resources to actually do their jobs (Dana Floberg), and applying antitrust enforcement consistently.

Again, the solutions are difficult but not impossible, though they all start with challenging entrenched, politically-powerful monopolies, which has never been America's strong suit. But while COVID has taken much from us, our COVID-era educational failures (Brandon Forester, Deb Socia, and Geoff Millener) could finally provide the motivation we need to take America's broadband affordability and availability problem seriously.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, covid, digital divide

Could The Digital Divide Unite Us?

from the the-game-has-changed dept

The digital divide is not only a rural problem. The digital divide is a problem that unites us across rural, urban, suburban and tribal lands. It is a bipartisan problem. The solution must be multi-pronged: affordable ubiquitous broadband with the appropriate devices and trusted digital literacy and technical support.

Last March, as the pandemic forced all kinds of essential activities online, communities across the U.S. woke to the reality that large numbers of their residents couldn’t access the internet because they lacked the necessary broadband connections, equipment and/or skills. Schoolchildren and college students couldn’t participate in online classes; patients with chronic illnesses couldn’t visit their doctors via telemedicine; seniors living alone were cut off from service programs, faith, and even family support. Companies found that many employees lacked the connectivity to work where they lived. Whole families found themselves in library parking lots, using Wi-Fi for online tasks they couldn’t perform at home.

Suddenly there was a widespread realization that the digital divide is everywhere -- not just out in the country, but in the biggest cities and many of their suburbs as well.

Yes, there were (and are) many families in rural communities struggling to deal with online learning, work and social life because the available internet services where they live are far too slow to support them. But there are also millions of American households whose communities have excellent access to high-speed broadband service from one, two or three providers -- but at a monthly cost that those households just can’t afford. Many of those same households don’t have computers -- for the same reason, i.e. affordability -- or have never had a chance to develop the basic digital skills to use the technology.  

Enter the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, the $2.3 trillion COVID relief and government funding package, which includes several provisions that address broadband deployment and digital inclusion, particularly broadband affordability. The new law allocates $3.2 billion for an Emergency Broadband Benefit program, which will reimburse internet service providers for providing broadband service and devices to low-income households. Additionally, the Act lists digital inclusion and broadband adoption as activities eligible for funding within “Tribal Connectivity” and the “Office of Minority Broadband Initiatives.”

While there are still many questions as to how the broadband sections will be implemented, one thing is certain - we now have Congressional recognition that the affordability barrier to digital equity must be addressed.

For years, the conversation and advocacy around the digital divide was itself divided. In part, due to the inconsistency of what is meant by “digital divide.” According to the 2019 U.S. Census, 36 million households do not subscribe to a wireline broadband service. 26 million of these households are in urban areas. 10 million are in rural areas. The lower a household’s income, the less likely they are to consistently subscribe to a wireline broadband service.

In addition to rural deployment solutions, we must:

• establish a permanent broadband benefit

• increase access to affordable computers

• increase access to digital literacy and technical support

• improve broadband mapping including residential cost data, and

• support local/state digital inclusion planning

It has been over a decade since the federal government has supported broadband access and use for disadvantaged communities. The current emergency support for digital inclusion is temporary. This pandemic has resulted in local innovative and collaborative solutions addressing the digital divide. Now is the time for innovation and collaboration at the federal level.

Might the digital divide unite us?

Angela Siefer is the Executive Director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. She has been working in the field we now call digital inclusion since 1997. She has helped physically set up computer labs in underserved areas, managed broadband conferences, conducted research, managed digital inclusion programs, assisted with the Department of Commerce’s Broadband Adoption Toolkit, testified before Congress and more. Government Technology Magazine named Angela one of their Top 25 Doers, Dreams, and Drivers of 2019.

Bill Callahan is the Research and Policy Advisor for the National Digital Inclusion Alliance while also directing the Cleveland-based Connect Your Community. He has been active in local and national efforts to promote digital empowerment for low income people and communities since 1996, when he organized Cleveland's first neighborhood technology center and home computer ownership program.

Sean Davis is a graduate of George Washington Law and Manager of Research and Policy for the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. Prior to joining NDIA, Sean worked with the Wikimedia Foundation where he researched content moderation laws and the national Consumers League where he advocated for a federal privacy bill.

Filed Under: broadband, digital divide

How Smart Software And AI Helped Networks Thrive For Consumers During The Pandemic

from the adaptation dept

Staying ahead of modern Internet usage – including the unprecedented surge caused by the global pandemic – requires much more than just raw capacity. More than ever, networks need to be smart in order to effectively anticipate and respond to traffic demands that are growing exponentially larger and more complex each year. For years, network operators have been investing in software and artificial intelligence that played key roles in meeting the unique challenge posed by COVID-19.

Throughout the pandemic surge, we have observed the performance of our network more closely than ever before, conducting nearly 700,000 diagnostic speed tests per day, and since March we’ve continued to deliver above-advertised speeds across the country, even in the areas we serve that have been most dramatically affected by COVID-19.

Our industry’s commitment to adding capacity was certainly critical to that success – since 2017 alone, Comcast has devoted more than $12 billion in private investment to strengthen and expand our network – including building more than 33,000 new route miles of fiber. But in today’s network environment, even massive capacity improvements have become table stakes. Every 2.5 years we add as much capacity to our network as we added in all the previous years combined, and while that’s enabled us to consistently deliver faster speeds to more people, we know that by itself, it is not enough.

Our teams also stepped-up in the face of the pandemic surge, performing an average of 771 network augments each week between March and September – compared to about 350 per week pre-pandemic (and averaging over 1,000 per week in the first few months of the pandemic). That our teams did this in the midst of an unprecedented shift to working from home and adapting to new ways to serve our customers – and safely conducting vital field work – made it that much more impressive. That work continues today, as pandemic-related stay-at-home activity continues to drive elevated traffic.

Of course the combination of investment and hard work was vital, but we also implemented new technologies and innovations to meet the unique challenge posed by the pandemic.

Internet traffic hasn’t just increased exponentially in recent years, it’s become dramatically more variable and complex. One illustration of this is popular gaming downloads, the largest of which can spike downstream demand across our entire network by as much as 10 percent overnight. With downstream usage regularly generating more than 14 times more Internet traffic than upstream, these gaming spikes represent truly massive traffic events. Today, such surges are commonplace, and are only one example of how much the modern network landscape has evolved to handle all kinds of Internet traffic.

We’ve been working to build smarter networks for more than a decade, transforming architecture, equipment, and tools to be faster, more efficient, and more resilient, but that work has accelerated dramatically in recent years, as we’ve leaned into AI and machine learning to monitor, optimize, and repair network performance faster than was previously possible.

Perhaps the most remarkable recent example of this work has been our Comcast Octave AI platform.

Comcast engineers in Philadelphia and Denver designed Comcast Octave to check more than 4,000 telemetry data points (such as external network “noise,” power levels, and other technical issues that can add up to a big impact on performance) on tens of millions of modems across our network every 20 minutes. It is programmed to detect when a modem isn’t using all the bandwidth available to it and automatically adjust the modem to deliver significant increases in speed and capacity.

This is not an example of AI replacing the work of human technologists, but rather of AI performing a volume of work at a speed that would be impossible for thousands of engineers, working around the clock. As a result, Octave enabled us to improve network performance and enhance customer experiences in a way that wasn’t previously possible. In essence, Octave becomes a force multiplier for the network that is constantly and automatically optimizing performance, in conjunction with the 24/7 work of our network technicians, engineers, and field crews across the country.

We developed Octave in 2019, just before the pandemic, so when it hit, we had only rolled it out to part of our network. Knowing how important it could be to providing additional performance and capacity, a team of about 25 engineers worked seven-day weeks to reduce the deployment process from months to weeks. As a result, in addition to the capacity we gained by adding significant new physical infrastructure in March and April 2020 and the work of hundreds of other network engineers to make other optimizations, we were also able to deliver a 36 percent increase in capacity with Octave alone – just at the time that customers needed more bandwidth than ever as they shifted to doing everything from home.

While Octave’s behind-the-scenes operations are invisible to users, its positive impact on them is unmistakable. Octave helped us to provide sustained, robust Internet access for our customers throughout one of the most significant challenges in our history – to maintain the high quality of remote classes they take, movies they stream, games they play, and video conference calls they participate in. And because Octave is so new, we continue to make significant improvements to the technology, improving device performance even more as the pandemic surge continues.

As we accelerate the digitization and virtualization of our networks, and evolve our use of AI and machine learning to not only monitor performance, but also automatically improve it millions of times every hour, we are approaching an inflection point in network technology that will deliver unprecedented speed, resiliency, reliability, and enriched service for consumers, even as demand continues to skyrocket.

Jason Livingood is Vice President, Technology Policy and Standards, Comcast Cable.

Filed Under: ai, broadband, covid, network management, octave, pandemic
Companies: comcast

With Terrible Federal Broadband Data, States Are Taking Matters Into Their Own Hands

from the rose-colored-glasses dept

As a director of a state broadband program, one of my biggest challenges is data. I know lots of areas in my state have inadequate or no service. I get those emails every day. We have a public facing broadband map which is based on the data that the internet service providers (ISPs) provide to the FCC on what is known as the Form 477. The notorious problem with the 477 data is that gross inaccuracies are built into the reporting. ISPs report advertised speeds based on census blocks, where if one home in a census block is served, or could reasonably be served, the entire census block is considered served.

What this means, besides extreme frustration on the part of state broadband authorities and communities, is that we do not have the information needed to make decisions on where resources (money and time) should be spent. States have tried for years to get their ISPs to provide better information. I even changed the statute this year to require it. To no avail. So what should states like Maine do?

I firmly believe that it is time to pull the power from the ISPs and give it to the community. ISPs are businesses, and we have great partnerships with many of them in our state. But our interest as a State is to get people broadband. All people. And high-quality broadband that meet the use requirements that have only grown under COVID. Our mission and an ISP's mission are sometimes at odds. And that is ok. But we must take the power of information on who is served and who is not (and at what quality service) back and put it in the hands of consumers. Or, in state government speak, taxpayers.

Luckily, others across the country have the same goal. This past year a number of states have contracted with GeoPartners to undertake a comprehensive speed testing strategy. The platform is easy for the end user to navigate and use. There are other companies doing similar work, and M-labs, a consortium of research, industry, and public-interest partners, also provides the largest collection of open Internet performance data on the planet.

In Maine, the state broadband office, ConnectMaine, is working closely with the Maine Broadband Coalition with a variety of community partners including Island Institute, Greater Portland Council of Governments, Maine Community Foundation, Maine West and others to roll out this strategy. A strong marketing strategy, and outreach to get as many people as possible to take the test is a critical factor in the success of this initiative. Maine launched the project through a community building project called the Maine West Boot Camp in mid October, and plans to expand it statewide by the end of the year.

So why are states doing this? Maine has had a community planning process in place for about four years. While we have seen some successes in expanding service to those areas, we have also discovered roadblocks. One of them is who in a community has service at what level. Prior to this citizen lead speed test initiative, that knowledge was all in the hands of the incumbent ISP.

Engaging communities in this process does a couple of really important things: it puts an important piece of the puzzle squarely in the hands of the consumer, removing a road block that can hang a community up for months waiting for answers from the ISP. It puts the power of determining the scope of the project firmly in the hands of the community. It can motivate other communities who are not connected to jump into and begin the process of improving their service.

Crowdsourced speed tests also provide state broadband offices with the information they need to justify funding, direct resources, and lay out a strategy to address the real problem in there state, not the problem defined by inaccurate FCC data.

Also, not to be understated: it gives states, in my case Maine, the power and the data to challenge the FCC data. Right now, the FCC is preparing to give out $16.4B based on data that everyone acknowledge (even the FCC) is accurate.

Yet they persist. And not for the first time. CAFII provided billions of dollars to rate of return carriers to bring 10/1 Mbps (a substandard speed when the started the program seven year ago) to more people. They just extended that program another year. Despite the evidence that some providers have not built out as required.

Many of Maine's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) areas are in what we call "unorganized territories", which are exactly what the name implies: not towns and not that populated. In other words not one that is targeted. Areas like the RDOF-eligible area northeast of Baxter State Park with its 825 possible locations probably will likely not get served any other way (if in fact they even get served with this program.) But RDOF proposes to spend $10 million in subsidies to bring service to 825 possible locations while many, many unserved rural communities that the FCC deems as "served" with their mapping are not eligible for a dime. That is a waste of resources. And without good data, states are powerless to protest.

In response, we are going to go out and get our own data, and empower those communities to take up this gauntlet and take charge of their own future.

As executive director of ConnextMaine, Peggy Schaffer manages the Authority's rulemaking efforts, investment decisions and policy recommendations. Peggy was the Small Business Advocate for the Secretary of State's office, and served as the Co-chair of the Maine Broadband Coalition, a statewide group advocating for high speed broadband.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband data, competition, fcc, maine, rdof, rural digital opportunity fund, states

A National Solution To The Digital Divide Starts With States

from the think-local dept

Although the digital divide didn’t start with COVID-19, the pandemic has put into stark relief the need to bridge this divide once and for all. The solution—providing tens of millions of Americans with high-speed, reliable broadband—might seem like a daunting task. But our research has found that Colorado and other states are leading the way in connecting communities to high-speed, reliable internet.

The digital divide is a costly challenge to solve: A 2017 report from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) found that 14% of residential and small and medium-sized businesses lacked access to broadband and that it would cost $40 billion to get fiber optic cable—which carries broadband signals—to 98% of those premises. It would cost another $40 billion to serve the last 2 percent.

When it comes to closing gaps in broadband connectivity, “the easy stuff … has been done,” and the hard work remains. In addition to cost, the challenge of solving the digital divide is compounded by geography, demographics, and the types of entities that provide service, which can leave one rural community unserved while a local telephone company or electric cooperative is available to provide a neighboring community “fiber to the home and to the farm and to the cabin.”

States will be key to completing the job of expanding access to broadband; they play a critical and often overlooked role in shaping the way broadband reaches our doorsteps and enables stakeholders from the public and private sectors to participate in connectivity efforts.

State governments recognize that a single policy or a one-time funding initiative is not enough to get their citizens online. So, they are creating policies and programs that reinforce each other and will help reach the goals that are necessary to fully deploy broadband. For example, state legislatures have passed complementary policies that set service speed targets, set up funding and financing mechanisms, designate who can provide service, and regulate access to the infrastructure that providers need to build and operate networks. These policies create and support the work of state broadband programs.

States also have the tools and expertise already in place—including dedicated staff—to help local stakeholders overcome the barriers to internet access. These staff members on state broadband programs serve as a point of contact for addressing broadband challenges, providing information on state programs, and responding to questions from grantees and others. They also work to build strong relationships with local groups, and often play a central role in facilitating coordination among communities and providers to advance broadband projects and policy.

Colorado illustrates this multifaceted approach to closing gaps in broadband access by funding both middle and last mile projects, providing support for planning, evaluating and improving existing deployments, and collaborating closely among agencies engaged in broadband efforts.

The state’s broadband programs are led by the Colorado Broadband Office (CBO), which is housed in the Governor’s Office of Information Technology. The CBO focuses on federal funding, public-private partnerships, and broadband data. It also coordinates with the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) and the Department of Regulatory Affairs (DORA), which house the state’s broadband grant programs, as well as with other state agencies engaged in broadband deployment, including the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Pew’s report on How States Are Expanding Broadband Access provides a more detailed explanation of Colorado’s program.

Several key elements have contributed to the progress being made by Colorado’s broadband initiatives. First, the state’s broadband grant programs provide funding for both middle and last mile infrastructure. According to the CBO’s executive director, the middle mile projects bring fiber as close as possible to communities, which are then able to form public-private partnerships to leverage this middle mile infrastructure for last mile projects—some of which are funded through a last mile grant program. Together, this work helps extend broadband service to rural and unserved communities.

Like several other states highlighted in our report, Colorado has invested in planning to build the local capacity needed to then be able to apply for support for broadband infrastructure projects. These grants, funded through DOLA, provide support for the development of regional broadband strategies. The planning process has helped educate community leaders about the importance of broadband and develop local broadband champions capable of moving projects forward; combined with the infrastructure funding, the investment in planning has led to the development of multiple networks that meet local and regional needs, including the Region 10 middle mile network and Project THOR.

Further, the state has continued to evaluate the impact of its broadband efforts and make recommendations for next steps. The CBO manages data and mapping, which helps the state assess its progress and—because DOLA and DORA grant recipients are required to provide geographic information system data on network operations for five years—helps ensure the accountability of public funds.

Colorado also focuses on how future broadband needs should inform its policies and programs. In October 2020, an interagency working group published a report that found that “policies must be updated to support the actual bandwidth needs of Coloradans” and made recommendations to concentrate on technology solutions and policies to meet those needs.

And, finally, although Colorado’s broadband initiatives are run through different agencies, the departments collaborate closely. The CBO leads a biweekly interagency meeting that helps ensure that DOLA, DORA, the Department of Transportation and other state agencies are aware of each other’s activities—creating opportunities for efficiencies and for troubleshooting any issues that arise.

A suite of policies creates the framework that supports Colorado’s broadband program and goals, including the executive order that created the CBO and enabling legislation for the DORA grant program—as well as policies focused on expanding broadband access and ensuring the quality of those services, such as addressing barriers to broadband deployment by electric cooperatives and requiring DORA grantees to adhere to the principles of net neutrality.

Other states are taking a similarly comprehensive approach, including steps to ensure that grants and loans support projects that meet connectivity needs over the long term. For example, states have set speed goals that exceed the FCC’s 25 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 3 Mbps upload standard for deployment, such as Minnesota’s goal of border-to-border residential access of 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload by 2026, Washington’s goal of 150 Mbps symmetrical service by 2028, and Vermont’s goal of 100 Mbps symmetrical service by 2024.

Like Colorado, Maine and North Carolina provide planning and technical assistance to aid communities in identifying local solutions. California and Virginia have provided grants for middle mile infrastructure to help decrease the cost of deploying last mile service to homes and businesses, in addition to grants targeted toward building last mile infrastructure. And Tennessee and Minnesota have technology neutral grant programs that can provide funding to any technology that delivers internet service at broadband speeds, and either encourage or require that grant-funded networks are built in such a way that they can be upgraded to significantly higher speeds.

As all levels of government work to address gaps in broadband access, policymakers can learn from states about effective strategies to expand high-speed internet. These efforts are built on multiple, mutually reinforcing activities that address components of what makes broadband deployment so difficult—from setting goals that look to future needs, to building expertise at the local level, to funding support to reduce the cost of infrastructure deployment. Through these efforts, states are making meaningful progress in ensuring that their citizens have access to reliable, high-speed internet access.

Anna Read is an officer with The Pew Charitable Trusts’ broadband research initiative.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, covid-19, digital divide, municipal broadband, states

The Cost Of Broadband Is Too Damned High

from the too-much-for-too-little dept

How much do consumers pay for internet service in the United States? The question might seem relatively simple, but the answer has stymied the federal government for years—because no agency collects this data. Throughout 2020, my organization, New America’s Open Technology Institute, published the Cost of Connectivity series to crack open the black box of internet pricing. The collective takeaway of these studies is clear: the cost of internet service is alarmingly high, and there is substantial evidence of an affordability crisis in the United States.

Our research found that U.S. consumers pay some of the highest broadband prices in the world, at an average $68.38 per month. Most of these plans advertise a temporary promotional rate, after which the monthly cost jumps an additional $22.25, on average. Of the 760 plans we surveyed across Europe, Asia, and North America, U.S. plans are the most expensive. Prices are particularly high in rural and Tribal communities. Unfortunately, these higher prices don’t appear to give U.S. consumers faster speeds than consumers abroad.

Moreover, we found that internet pricing typically includes a byzantine maze of ancillary fees and hidden costs. The fees for equipment rentals, data overages, and contract terminations can be substantial. For example, modem rental fees can add an additional 75 percent to the total cost of monthly internet service in the United States, compared to just 30 percent abroad. Consumers struggle to navigate this maze and determine their total cost of service.

But it’s not all bad news: we found evidence of cheaper, faster service in a handful of U.S. cities that offer municipal networks. The most affordable U.S. city in our survey is Ammon, Idaho, a city with a locally-owned open access network. Ammon offers dozens of inexpensive, high-speed plans, including several for less than $10 per month. What’s more, if consumers find a better deal, they can switch providers within seconds using the city’s website—no equipment changes or lengthy customer service appointments required.

Unfortunately, this kind of affordable, customer-friendly internet service is rare in the United States. The reasons for this dynamic are multifaceted, including a lack of competition, a lack of transparency, and years of policy failures at all levels of government. Today, U.S. internet service is dominated by just four companies—Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and Charter—and they’ve carved up the market so that most Americans have, at best, one or two providers serving their home. This lack of choice negatively affects the quality and cost of internet service.

Broadband has become even more unaffordable during the COVID-19 pandemic, as millions of people struggle to pay for basic necessities amid widespread job and income losses. It’s clear that the federal government needs to take action to make internet service more affordable, both during the pandemic and beyond. There are many steps that Congress and the Federal Communications Commission should take, including, but not limited to:

• Expand Lifeline. The FCC’s Lifeline program provides a $9.25 monthly subsidy for qualifying low-income households to pay for phone or internet service. It’s not enough. Lifeline is the only federal program that directly addresses broadband affordability, and it needs to expand. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed two bills that would create a $50 monthly internet subsidy for low-income households, students, and the newly unemployed. The Senate should pass these bills.

• Legalize municipal broadband. Locally-owned networks save consumers money, yet many states prohibit or restrict their development. AT&T and other large telcos lobbied for these restrictions because they fear competition. Congress should repeal these state laws so every community can invest in affordable internet infrastructure.

• Ban landlord exclusivity deals. Internet providers often broker sweetheart deals with landlords to ensure that tenants are locked into their service, producing hyperlocal monopolies that deprive tenants of choice and cheaper alternatives. The FCC tried to outlaw these exclusivity deals a decade ago, but the companies found loopholes. The FCC should close these loopholes and ban exclusivity deals once and for all.

• Step up antitrust enforcement. Competition leads to lower prices, but the U.S. broadband market is an oligopoly. The FCC, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Department of Justice should use their legal authorities to investigate the broadband market, block anticompetitive conduct, and break up any providers that have become too big. And Congress should allocate more resources to these agencies for this task.

• Make internet pricing transparent. The federal government needs to finally start collecting data on the cost of internet service. There is no reason for this information to be in a black box, hidden from consumers and policymakers. The FCC should require internet providers to disclose pricing data in a simplified “broadband nutrition label” that helps consumers comparison-shop, avoid hidden fees, and know what they are paying for.

Ultimately, many of these actions could be accomplished if the Senate simply passed H.R. 2 or if the FCC used its existing authority. The high cost of internet service should be an urgent priority for all policymakers, particularly during a pandemic that has made the internet an essential part of daily life. The broadband affordability crisis will not solve itself.

Joshua Stager is the senior counsel for New America’s Open Technology Institute.

Filed Under: broadband, cost, fcc, fees

Can Broadband Policy Help Create A More Equitable And inclusive Economy And Society Instead Of The Reverse?

from the newfound-urgency dept

25 years ago, then NTIA Administrator Larry Irving warned that the rising importance of the internet had the downside of creating what he coined a “digital divide."

15 years later, the National Broadband Plan reported that as “more aspects of daily life move online and offline alternatives disappear, the range of choices available to people without broadband narrows. Digital exclusion compounds inequities for historically marginalized groups.” In light of these trends, the plan warned “the cost of digital exclusion is large and growing.”

Judging by the limited government response to those described dangers, both warnings arguably were ahead of their times. In those eras, many viewed internet access as a luxury and saw many other needs as higher priorities for government funds.

That changed this past spring. COVID accelerated the momentum of the economy and society towards "remote everything," revealing that the divide was more costly and urgent than the country had realized. This then launched countless editorials from a wide spectrum of political views, that called for government action to get networks everywhere, get everyone on them, and use them to improve the delivery of essential public goods like education, health care and job training.

That is progress but it is still far from an achievement.

To get networks everywhere, we first need accurate data, something that on a bipartisan basis Congress recognized the FCC has not collected. We also need the FCC to revisit two issues: what now constitutes being unserved, and the minimum standards for any government subsidized deployment. While many have offered their instinctual views on the answers to both, COVID created a real world experiment for high-bandwidth use cases that we should use to illuminate how we answer those questions for a remote everything economy and society.

Once we have a better map and understanding broadband need, Congress should provide funding, at a minimum, to pay for the capital expense of building out networks where no further operating expenses are necessary. Those funds should be allocated in ways that use market forces to assure the public funds are efficiently distributed.

That is not always true today. For example, recently the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utility Service (RUS) awarded Beehive Telephone Company Inc. a $2.3 million ReConnect grant to deploy a fiber-to-the-premises network to four residents, four farms, and four businesses in Washington County, Utah. It also doled out a $2.7 million grant to deploy a fiber-to-the-premises network to connect 147 people in Elko County, Nevada. These average out to be more than $33,000 per home passed.

That compares rather unfavorably to the FCC’s recent Rural Development Opportunity Fund (RDOF) reverse auction which averaged about $1,770 per home passed. There are concerns about that auction, particularly as other such auctions have experienced a number of defaults owing to technological, economic or competitive factors. Further, the mapping failure likely led to millions spent on unnecessary subsidies. Still, the auction demonstrates that if we had good maps and devoted the appropriate resources, we can finish the job of getting networks everywhere.

Helping everyone connect is tougher and statistically more important. After all, three times as many Americans have access to networks but have not adopted service as those who simply have no available networks. Yet we devote far more to the availability gap than we do the adoption gap. in 2019 the ratio was greater than five to one—even though the cost to America of an individual not adopting is similar to the cost of an individual not having access.

To get everyone on, we have to address two critical issues: digital readiness and affordability. For digital readiness, we need a more focused effort at the local, state and federal level, for developing, testing and improving such efforts for targeted communities of non-adopters.

Affordability, however, is the most significant factor. Affordability can mean two things. First, it can mean the price of an average service. Second, it can mean the entry level price for a baseline service. Policy needs to explore both; if we are looking at the challenge of affordability for the currently unconnected, we have to prioritize addressing the second.

The current program for addressing that affordability is called Lifeline. It is inadequate in many respects, most obviously in the subsidy it offers, of $9.25 a month. It also is distributed poorly, with only 7 million of the 38 million eligible homes taking the benefit. But if the FCC increased both the subsidy and the number of recipients, it would blow up the current funding mechanism, which is based on an assessment on certain phone services that is already at 30%.

Further, even if the monthly subsidy could be increased, it would not necessarily lead to broadband where we need it. We should approach Lifeline reform by recognizing that certain public goods are enhanced with greater broadband in homes. We all benefit when all school children have to tools to do their homework and engage in other online learning in their homes. We also benefit when all can take advantage of telehealth in the home, both improving community health and lowering costs for the overall system. We all benefit when the unemployed are not cut off from on-line training or the tools to search, apply and interview for new jobs, diminishing the time they are unemployed.

The current Lifeline program does little to capture these benefits as in practice it is an important but limited mobile service. Simply increasing the subsidy and distribution mechanisms would not capture the benefits of home use.

We need to continue to improve efforts to connect all to voice services, but we also need to capture the public benefits of in home broadband. As to the benefits for school children, Congress to step up, as it did with the school lunch program and other federal support for schools serving low income students, ensuring that they have a baseline access to educational opportunities outside the classroom, which are overwhelming online. We also need to examine how the health and unemployment insurance programs can assist in getting such persons connected. Such programs can provide both efficient distribution mechanisms and use savings to the program to help offset the costs of a broadband benefit.

Some might argue that the FCC should use its authority to assess charges on other parts of the communications networks so as to fund in-home broadband needs itself. While that might make some theoretical sense, there are multiple problems.

First, as the recent legal battles on classifying carriers under Title I or II of the Communications Act have shown, any FCC assessment that is used to subsidize broadband has significant legal vulnerabilities until the classification controversy is resolved. Second, even if the courts were to uphold a Title II classification—the most favorable outcome for expanding FCC authority for increased assessments—the revenue base may still be too limited and charges on it tend to be regressive. Third, the issue is fraught with political difficulties, which is why, a decade after the National Broadband Plan called for reform, every FCC Chair has chosen to let his successor face the consequences of the unsustainable trends.

In short, counting on FCC action to reform the current system would likely delay closing the availability and adoption gaps for many years.

Finally, there is a utilization gap; the gap between how our communications networks are used today and how they could be used to improve outcomes in delivering essential services.

Yes, we need all students online to be able to continue learning outside the classroom, but we also need for tools that provide teachers the support they need to enable students to maximize the effectiveness of digital content. Yes, we need low income persons to be able to access telehealth, but we also need to improve how we use digital technologies to target and treat diseases that disproportionately afflict low-income communities. Yes, we need the unemployed to stay connected while searching for a job but we also need to us AI and other technologies to improve how we empower people to upgrade their skills for the jobs of the future. And we need to upgrade government services so that all can access critical information and assistance on a 24/7/365 basis.

There is no silver bullet for closing any of the three gaps. All three require multiple actions by multiple government institutions across different jurisdictions. By my rough and preliminary estimate, there are over 100 federal government actions that would useful in addressing one of the key questions for government in the next decade: how can we use the tools of the information society to create a more equitable and inclusive economy and society?

But it is also one area where there is a distinct possibility of a bipartisan effort to make progress. When I discuss these issues with Republican friends, I always ask if they think the country would be better off if there were broadband networks everywhere, if everyone who wanted to be was on, and if we used the networks to improve how we deliver health care, education and job training. The answer is always yes, something that was not true prior to COVID. I then ask if they think market forces alone will achieve those goals. The answer is always no. While we may disagree on specific policies—and while compromises will likely result in policies all sides view as sub-optimal—those answers set the stage for productive conversations and policies considerably better than we have today.

In contrast with the attitudes of decades past, COVID has created a broad and deep understanding that costs of digital exclusion are too great for our economy and society to tolerate. Congress and the incoming Administration, aided by an FCC that hopefully will take its role as an expert agency seriously, to finally assure that there are networks everywhere, everyone can get on, and that we use them to improve how we deliver essential services.

Blair Levin is a Senior Non-Resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution and a Policy Analyst for New Street Research, a global telecommunications and tech equity research firm. Previously he was Chief of Staff to the Chairman of the FCC, from 1993-1997, Executive Director of the effort that produced the 2010 United States National Broadband Plan, and he has consulted with a numerous cities, states and countries on broadband policy.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband plan, covid, digital divide, fcc, net neutrality

The FCC, 2.5 GHz Spectrum, And The Tribal Priority Window: Something Positive Amid The COVID-19 Pandemic

from the Nilch-Bee-Naa-Alkaa-Go-Ohooa-Doo-Eidii-Tii dept

Never has “necessity is the mother of invention” rung more true than in trying to get high speed broadband to Native Americans. Long on the other side of the “digital divide,” Tribes have struggled to attract traditional carriers to provide service on their reservations, where population densities are low, poverty rates are high, and a Byzantine array of federal, state, and Tribal regulations related to rights-of-way stall or derail deployment efforts. In a dramatic mid-pandemic paradigm shift, Native Americans are becoming the early adopters of a promising wireless technology – the 2.5 GHz band.

The FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan identified, and attempted to quantify, for the first time, the digital divide in Indian Country. The FCC has taken significant positive steps to close the digital divide, but most of those steps have involved tweaks around the edges. A heightened Tribal variable in the High Cost program helps provide slightly more money to carriers. Reverse-style auctions in the Tribal Mobility Fund and upcoming Rural Development Opportunity Fund (RDOF) help carriers deploy to the next cheapest areas (since funds are awarded to the carrier seeking the lowest amount of support), but don’t really address how to get broadband deep into the heart of rural America (or rural Tribal lands).

When the FCC decided to overhaul the underutilized 2.5 GHz Educational Broadband Service (EBS) in 2019, it turned to an approach long-advocated in Indian Country – a Tribal Priority on the spectrum. (I was fortunate to have been involved with helping push for the Broadcast Tribal Priority in 2008.) Used only once before, in the broadcast service, FCC Chairman Pai went far out on a limb to propose giving Tribes first dibs on any unused spectrum. The Broadcast Tribal Priority has been something less than a success, with fewer than a dozen AM and FM stations awarded to Tribes under the program over the past decade.

The FCC set a relatively short window for filing applications, yet 457 applications were filed, representing the vast majority of the 574 federally recognized Tribes, and virtually all Tribes that have reservations that are not in urban areas.

Meanwhile, while the FCC considers the pending applications, the agency “doubled down” on the “Tribal window” by allowing Tribes to receive special temporary authority (STAs) to utilize the spectrum. The FCC granted the Navajo Nation an STA for the largest single reservation — to provide students with broadband access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Navajo Nation put together a unique and diverse team in order to deploy the 2.5 GHz spectrum quickly. Navajo Technical University (NTU) is the lead on the project, working with local carrier Sacred Wind Communications and MuralNet, an outside consultant The team leveraged a National Science Foundation Award (#1827199 “Nilch Bee Naa Alkaa Go Ohooa Doo Eidii Tii (Using Air (Technology) to Learn and Understand New Things”)) for backhaul and quickly began deploying 2.5 GHz equipment around its Crownpoint, NM, campus, to provide free service to college students.

Early data indicate that the 2.5 GHz spectrum is performing well above theoretical predictions, even on the topographically diverse Navajo Nation. Students who previously had no affordable and reliable broadband service because the total lack of wireline infrastructure can now continue their studies from home. Those relatively close to the towers where 2.5 GHz spectrum antennas are deployed are enjoying 25 Mbps download and 6 Mbps upload speeds. One student lives more than four miles away, and not within line-of-site of the tower, yet is still getting consistent speeds of 8 Mbps down and 10 Mbps up. And that’s with first-generation gear, sure to improve as the 2.5 GHz spectrum is further developed and deployed.

But most important, students are getting access to broadband now, during the pandemic, when they need it most. Instead of Navajos having to wait years for carriers to deploy new technologies first in urban areas and then ever so slowly into more rural areas, Tribes get to jump to the “front of the line” with 2.5 GHz spectrum. For once, Tribes get to be early-adopters.

If ever there was a win-win-win story in these bleak times, the 2.5 GHz spectrum is it. FCC Commissioners were willing to take the risk of providing spectrum directly to Tribes now, instead of just auctioning it off to the highest bidders sometime in 2021. The FCC staff then moved swiftly to grant the STAs needed to begin deployment. And Tribes responded by leveraging all the assets they could come up with to provide broadband to their students, many of whom had been in continued lockdown since March. We should congratulate everyone in this virtuous cycle. It’s a model to which the FCC, and the entire federal government, should look. Get assets into the hands of those at the local level who can make use of them most quickly, and watch what happens when those with the most need, and most “skin in the game” have a seat at the table.

Oh, and the icing on the regulatory cake? Pilot projects such as that on the Navajo Nation are clearing the path for future deployment of this spectrum. Indeed, the value of the remaining 2.5 GHz spectrum which goes up for auction next year, may well increase significantly based on these test cases, netting the federal government more money than if they’d held back the spectrum and auctioned it off without any real understanding of its technical capabilities. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a true return on investment!

James E. Dunstan is General Counsel to TechFreedom. In his private practice at Mobius Legal Group, PLLC, he represents the Navajo Nation in matters before the FCC

Filed Under: 2.5ghz, broadband, competition, covid-19, fcc, open spectrum, spectrum, wireless

Colorado's Broadband Internet Doesn't Have to Be Rocky

from the one-size-fits-all-doesn't-work dept

It's 2020. The Internet should be reliable and powerful regardless of where you live, but that's not the case for millions of Americans. In many ways, Coloradans represent a microcosm of the demographic diversity across the country, with groups from farmers to business owners, students and young professionals. This makes the job of a regional service provider like us challenging.

And that was before the COVID-19 pandemic threw the country into disarray.

In the rural Colorado communities we serve, many of our customers were content with a stable connection that enabled them to browse, stream their favorite shows and occasionally check work email from home. That quickly changed eight months ago when some broadband luxuries became necessities.

This story isn't uniquely ours, though, as rural providers around the country that work with communities—historical or not—face similar challenges.

Since our founding in 1990, Jade Communications has worked with mayors of some of America's oldest towns to ensure that their history remained intact, but that their citizens weren't left behind by obsolete technology. What we see and hear from bigger internet providers is a one-size-fits-all approach. That would never work in San Luis, Colorado, the oldest town in the state, or most rural communities we serve.

We have built an understanding of the 30 communities we serve in Southern Colorado and quickly realized that while the services we provided were far better than average, residents weren't used to working and learning remotely.

Instead of catastrophe, we found a solution.

At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in mid-March, we offered all subscribers: free installation, a complimentary speed tier upgrade, and a premium Wi-Fi upgrade—all at no cost for 60 days. After the complimentary period, 62 percent of those who had upgraded a service tier opted to keep it.

Pre-pandemic internet speeds were no longer fruitful for our communities. Most people weren't used to their kids being at home or running their business from their kitchen tables. Our doubling (and, in some instances, tripling) of bandwidth was critical to ensuring people could comfortably work and learn from home. We also offered them the ability to increase/decrease speeds to certain devices (or limit access for apps like TikTok on children's devices during certain times of day) via our app. Following our conversations with seven different school districts across the San Luis Valley, we've connected more than 100 students and are still working with these districts to get even more of their most remote students connected.

Together with our sister company, Blanca Networks, we signed the Federal Communications Commission's "Keep Americans Connected Pledge." We are the first and only providers in the San Luis Valley to sign the pledge. Along with the other 390 U.S.-based broadband companies and associations that have signed it, we promised to continue to work with customers disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.

But there's more work to do. While we're proud our customers rarely face issues we can't support, much of Colorado is playing catch up. According to local election results in 2018, access to high-speed internet was one of the top list of issues rural voters cared about. This isn't a sentiment unique to Colorado. According to a Pew Research Center survey, about six in ten Americans in rural communities (58 percent) believe access to high speed internet is a problem in their area. While we work in various parts of Southern Colorado, the majority of the 30 communities are rural towns.

We're at a turning point for Colorado and other states in the U.S. where we see an increase in urban flight. Professionals are moving from expensive cities like Denver to rural mountain towns to save money and enjoy the recreational benefits. But many of these new homes aren't well-equipped for professional needs. While the views might be nice, the technology and broadband options are virtually archaic. The same broadband speeds in urban cities must be available to those in rural towns in order to support this new lifestyle and the ability to work from anywhere.

So how does Colorado find its solution? Is something like fiber the answer? Yes, but it is only part of the equation. Though many may claim that technology behind broadband will save us, the digital divide won't be solved by technology alone. Even prior to the pandemic, we built our business on relationships first, our solutions enabled by technology, education and understanding what leaders in rural communities were looking for.

We believe that technology will enable the solution, but it will take people understanding and learning how, in this case, broadband, can support the economic vitality of their towns, cities and people. We've always been a proponent of fiber broadband as a possible end to the digital divide, but it won't happen overnight or without a thorough understanding of the communities we serve.

The pandemic has impacted our lives in innumerable ways, but it has become clear is that connection matters now more than ever before. Rural and regional CSPs like Jade are putting in the work today so that the future can be a bit brighter—and more connected—as our world changes. Without proper and reliable internet, millions of Americans have suffered from feeling disconnected and left behind. It's always been a problem. It has just taken a pandemic for Americans to wake up and start looking for a solution.

Jordan Wehe is the Director of Marketing at locally-owned Colorado-based broadband provider Jade Communications

Filed Under: broadband, colorado, digital divide, rural broadband
Companies: jade communications

The Trump FCC Has Failed To Protect Low-Income Americans During A Health Crisis

from the moral-imperative dept

As America struggles with a deadly and historic health crisis, millions of Americans risk getting kicked offline due to economic hardship. At a time when stable access to power, broadband, and water are essential for survival, government agencies tasked with representing and defending the public welfare have been asleep at the wheel.

Millions of Americans risk losing access to essential utilities as overdue bills pile up thanks to the COVID-19 crisis. With only 21 states prohibiting utilities from disconnecting impacted users, roughly 179 million Americans risk losing these essential lifelines as bills pile up and their economic woes accelerate.

It’s a problem that extends to broadband connectivity. Data suggests Americans pay some of the highest prices in the developed world for broadband. The pandemic has exacerbated the problem, forcing countless students and teleworkers to huddle around fast food restaurants because broadband isn’t available, or isn’t affordable, in their neighborhood.

While millions of Americans face a mountain of growing utility bills — they’ve seen little help from the federal government.

Back in March the Trump FCC announced with great flourish that it had solved the problem with its “Keep Americans Connected” pledge, an entirely voluntary agreement with broadband providers who agreed they wouldn’t impose late fees or kick users offline during the crisis - at least temporarily.

Despite signing the pledge, some of the nation’s largest ISPs proceeded to ignore it entirely, kicking struggling and some instances even disabled users offline, despite repeated assurances this wouldn’t happen. There was little effort by the FCC to confirm ISPs were living up to the pledge or other pandemic-related promises, such as making Wi-Fi hotspots available to the public, suspending arbitrary bandwidth usage caps and overage fees, and creating or expanding low-cost broadband offerings for low-income Americans.

Despite an accelerating pandemic, the hollow pledge came and went quickly, expiring quietly at the end of June with little fanfare and no substantive FCC action. When pressured by Congress as to why the agency hadn’t done more, the agency punted the problem back to Congress, stating it could only act if lawmakers gave broadband providers more money.

So what were the results of the Keep America Connected pledge and the other promises ISPs made to address the pandemic? Nobody knows. The FCC doesn’t bother to collect data on how many broadband subscribers have been kicked offline during the pandemic due to non-payment. It doesn’t have a clue how many Americans have been disconnected as they face economic collapse, and there’s little to no indication that the agency under Trump has any intention of learning.

Nor does the FCC know whether any of the promised low-cost broadband offerings have made a dent in the tens of millions of Americans who lack broadband either because they can’t afford it, or because they don’t have access to a broadband network at all.

To make matters worse, the Trump FCC has eliminated FCC legal authority over broadband providers and popular consumer protections that would have protected U.S. consumers from bogus fees, surprise surcharges, and predatory behavior during the crisis. Without legal authority over broadband providers, the agency can’t hold any of those companies to their promises — they can simply walk away without penalty. Many already have.

Pinky swears simply aren't adequate to ensure that struggling Americans can work, learn, have access to health care, and communicate during an historic crisis.

The Communications Act of 1934 gives the FCC ample flexibility to ensure the public is protected during a national emergency. But when it comes to broadband internet access, this FCC is powerless by choice, leaving consumers crippled by debt facing the loss of essential services.

The Biden FCC must make restoring the FCC’s authority over broadband providers its first priority. It is essential to ensuring that all Americans remain connected during this crisis and the inevitable crises to come. It is also essential to protect consumers from price gouging, account termination, privacy violations and unfair market practices.

The next FCC must also collect more accurate data about who does and doesn’t have broadband and why they don’t have it. The FCC’s current data grossly overstates the number of Americans who have access to broadband and doesn’t take into account the principal reason many don’t adopt broadband - cost. When the broadband industry makes promises to protect consumers and close the digital divide, the impact should be documented and made public.

Press releases and promises won’t close the digital divide - effective policies and strong oversight will. The American people deserve an FCC that’s committed to ensuring that everyone has access to affordable and robust broadband.

Gigi Sohn is a Distinguished Fellow at the Georgetown Institute for Technology Law and Policy and a Benton Senior Fellow and Public Advocate. She served as Counselor to Former FCC Chairman from November 2013-December 2016.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, covid, covid-19, digital divide, fcc