| Up for the Count September 7, 2010 By Paula Bernier Just as we were all daydreaming about our upcoming three days of R&R, the Federal Communications Commission last week issued a report on Internet access availability and speed. The research indicates that as of June 2009, less than half of the residential U.S. wireline Internet connections met or were higher than the National Broadband Plan’s new goal rates of 4mbps downstream and 1mbps upstream. To be precise, just 44 percent of the 71 million landline connections were in that group. It went on to report that, while there’s still plenty of work to be done on the broadband deployment front, broadband and wireless connectivity in the U.S. continues to improve. Fiber connections saw the greatest gain among the wireline group, with a 23 percent jump. That was followed by the 3 percent/41 million increase in cable modem connections. DSL connections, meanwhile, ramped up to 31 million in the first six months of 2009. On the wireless front, mobile data subscriptions were upped by 40 percent – to 35 million – in the first half of last year. That’s not surprising given the rise of the smartphone. As for satellite Internet, those connections improved by 6 percent, with 1 million total U.S. users. |
| Net Neutrality Gets the Hook September 2, 2010 By Paula Bernier When in doubt, hit the brakes. That seems to be the motto of the Federal Communications Commission when it comes to the thorny issue of network neutrality. The FCC this week indicated it is not prepared to move forward on network neutrality, and addressing if or how it might be applied to wireless service providers. It says it wants more time to gather input from interested parties on the matter. Of course, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has been talking a lot about the importance of network neutrality in the last few months. But deciding how to tackle the issue is a huge challenge; even the term network neutrality itself is a matter of debate. For a second there, it appeared as if things might be moving forward on network neutrality when Google and Verizon came out with a proposed framework on how the issue might be addressed. But the framework only seemed to stir the pot, and it put a spotlight on the question as to whether wireless services should be subject to any net neutrality regulations that might be enacted. (The Google/Verizon framework suggested wireless services should be exempt from net neutrality requirements, indicating wireless is a different and still maturing animal. However, opponents of that view note that the U.S. wireless market has been saturated, and thus it is not a nascent beast.) In any case, this thing we call net neutrality is such a sensitive one that it should come as no surprise that Genachowski and the FCC are cautious about making any rulings around it – particularly before the elections. While the FCC chairman says the industry has made progress on the subject, some analysts say we shouldn’t hold our collective breath waiting for any movement on this before November. |
| Broadband Stimulus Unplugged August 31, 2010 By Paula Bernier The Federal Communications Commission has spent a lot of its time, relative to the broadband stimulus, talking about its high hopes for wireless. But until recently, that hasn’t been reflected in the actual broadband stimulus awards. That’s starting to change. The FCC recently has announced various broadband stimulus winners from both the cellular and satellite worlds. For example, Cellular One of East Central Illinois has been awarded $13 million in federal stimulus funds. More than 66,000 people, over seven thousand businesses, and approximately seven hundred community groups are expected to benefit from the stimulus grant awarded to Cellular One. It is estimated that 267 jobs will created are part of the company’s broadband stimulus effort. “Not only will this grant address the critical need to build out broadband services in Eastern Illinois, but more importantly, it will make a significant contribution to the long-term economic growth of communities in the region,” says Richard Nespola, chairman and CEO of TMNG Global, whose strategy advisory subsidiary, CSMG, assisted Cellular One of East Central Illinois in the creation and submission of its grant application. “Only a handful of cellular companies thus far have received broadband stimulus funding and we are honored to have assisted Cellular One through their successful submission process.” Other recent broadband stimulus awards went to EchoStar, which has received a $14 million broadband stimulus award to offer satellite broadband service to rural residential and commercial subscribers. Meanwhile, Spacenet got an $8 million award, which will allow it to offer satellite broadband service to rural residential subscribers in Alaska and Hawaii. Hughes Network Systems garnered $59 million to provide satellite broadband service to rural residential and commercial subscribers nationwide. And WildBlue won $20 million to provide satellite broadband service to rural residential and commercial subscribers in the West and Midwest. So, it is now crystal clear that cellular and satellite will be an important part of the nation’s broadband efforts. Still, some are saying that rules around wireless should be different from those covering wireline efforts because wireless is still in a formative stage. But, as Carl Ford of Crossfire Media, recently pointed out, it is wrong to think of wireless as nascent. “We have saturated the market with wireless services, and the wireless world looks much like the PSTN did in the 1990s when people were buying modems for the first time. (Yes, we can make the case that the iPhone is nothing more than an integrated dongle),” he says. “The current network architectures for wireless are being migrated to an Internet model, but to allow companies to claim it is not part of the need for competitive services is wrong. The innovation at the edge needs to be encouraged, and solutions that enable more transport power on the edge should be part of the goal. Calling wireless nascent leaves the status quo on the road to long term to evolution and off the tracks of competition. I might add that a TMCnet report recently debunked the FCC notion that 14 million to 24 million Americans cannot buy connections running at 4mbps or faster in the downlink. Technically, the report indicated, that is not correct. HughesNet, for example, already offers a 5mbps tier of service, and there is no doubt the other providers will offer such speeds with their next round of satellite launches. That said, satellite service is far more expensive than fixed network service or even mobile service, but, technically, there are very few U.S. homes that physically are unable to buy a 5mbps service, according to the report. |
| Debate Flourishes Over Google/Verizon Joint Proposal August 26, 2010 By Paula Bernier As we all know by now, Google and Verizon recently defied convention by coming together on net neutrality, going as far as offering joint recommendations on what they both see as a workable solution to this controversial topic. Quick response, emotionally-charged debate on the matter has been ricocheting around the industry ever since. Among the latest involves an exchange between Free Press and Verizon. David Fish, a Verizon spokesman, blogged yesterday that while the Free Press comments “is a fun summer read” it fails to consider all the facts, and includes some “extreme pronouncements”. He goes on to write that Free Press is trying to apply old telephone regulations to today’s Internet ecosystem, which he says is wrong and will harm the Internet and its users. In an effort to set the record, as he sees it, straight, Fish lays out the following about the Google/Verizon joint proposal: Fact: Our proposal enforces a tough non-discrimination requirement and promotes and protects Internet access. Fact: It includes a presumption against all prioritization on Internet connections. Fact: The non-discrimination provision and presumption against any prioritization are stronger than what the FCC could obtain through Title 2 reclassification. Fact: The non-discrimination provision for Internet connections is in-line with the President’s priority on net neutrality, and it establishes specific FCC authority called for by the Free Press. Fact: The FCC is given specific authority for the first time to oversee these provisions. Fact: Our proposal protects Internet users by ensuring that potential services beyond robust Internet access (e.g. medical monitoring, smart grid and other ideas in the National Broadband Plan) are differentiated from the Internet and subject to GAO and FCC monitoring and reports to Congress. Fact: Openness is fast becoming the standard in the wireless industry, as the FCC envisioned. Verizon purchased spectrum in the FCC’s 700 megahertz auction for national deployment of our 4G network, knowing it came with open access, non-discrimination and no-blocking requirements. Others are following suit. |
| Broadband Is Key Thread in the Fabric of Our Lives August 24, 2010 By Paula Bernier News relative to broadband has been mixed of late. On the one hand you have your broadband stimulus awards, which are now coming fast and furious; the fact that the federal government clearly understands the broad-ranging positive impacts that broadband can have on society; and the growing number of online applications and services, which require ever more bandwidth. On the other hand, you have some people who say they don’t want or need broadband, and that the federal government should stay out of it. Meanwhile, there have been recent reports indicating that demand for broadband in North America dropped significantly in the second quarter, which is no doubt linked to the current state of the economy. But the bottom line is – whether or not some individuals personally want broadband or not, and whether they agree with government support of broadband or not – what’s clear is that connectivity via broadband has become an important part of life and work for most of us. It’s become, as they say, “table stakes” in such key areas as the economy (like in job postings and searches, stock trading, commerce, etc.), education (including stuff like providing access to content via the Internet, enabling webinars and teleconferencing), civic involvement (disseminating and building support during elections, sharing information with citizens), health care (electronic health records, remote diagnosis, etc.). And while some areas of broadband have seen recent declines, others are surging. For example, as BroadbandTrends.com recently noted, there was strong demand for GPON platforms across all regions that resulted in a sharp increase in both ports and revenue during the second quarter. Global GPON revenue increased by 45 percent to reach $436 million, while global GPON ports (both OLT and ONT) increased by 24 percent to exceed one million. That’s the first time port shipments have exceeded this threshold, according to the firm. |
| Aug. 17 Webinar to Offer National Broadband Roundup, Analysis August 12, 2010 By Paula Bernier The end is near! Come Sept. 30, allocation of $7.2 billion in broadband stimulus funding is expected to be complete. Of course, that’s just the deadline for the job of allocating the funds. The work related to the broadband stimulus, and The National Broadband Plan, is far from done. To offer an update on the status of both the broadband stimulus effort specifically, and the larger regulatory and legislative picture as it relates to broadband in the U.S., ADTRAN is holding a webinar on Aug. 17. We invite you to spend an hour with Gary Bolton, vice president of global marketing with ADTRAN, as he walks us through a variety of important recent developments on the broadband front. That will include discussion on the latest details of the broadband stimulus program; the implications of a potential 1996 Telecom Act revise; the D.C. Circuit Court Comcast/net neutrality ruling and what it means; the recent FCC report identifying a $24 billion broadband investment gap; and the planned reform of the Universal Service Fund. Clearly, these are some very important and far-ranging topics that could have an important impact on your business. |
| Google, Verizon Offer Framework of Suggestions about Net Neutrality August 10, 2010 By Paula Bernier After several weeks of reports about closed door net neutrality meetings at the FCC, and articles talking about who has or has not been negotiating special deals on this front, Google and Verizon yesterday jointly unveiled a seven-point policy framework on what they believe should be the guiding principles around this controversial topic. “It is imperative that we find ways to protect the future openness of the Internet and encourage the rapid deployment of broadband,” according to a blog posted yesterday by Alan Davidson, Google director of public policy, and Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president of public affairs, policy, and communications. To allow that to happen, the two big guns say that regulators and other players must ensure that consumers have access to all legal content on the Internet, and can use what applications, services, and devices they choose. “This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition,” Google and Verizon say. And they suggest that rules be created to prohibit discriminatory practices. However, the pair says the FCC should enforce openness only as complaints arise, on a case-by-case basis. Those found in violation of the proposed new rules could face a penalty of up to $2 million, according to the framework proffered by Google and Verizon. “Importantly, this new non-discrimination principle includes a presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic – including paid prioritization,” the blog continues. That’s interesting, considering that, while broadband operators and their suppliers never talked about “discriminating” against any traffic, there have been discussions about the idea of paid prioritization in an effort to ensure higher-level customer experiences and application requirements. However, Google and Verizon address that later in the blog by saying “we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services.” Examples of this kind of thing, say Google and Verizon, might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options. “Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules,” according to the blog, which says the FCC would be charged with policing these safeguards under the framework Google and Verizon are suggesting Other framework tenets include exempting wireline networks and services from all of the above (because Google and Verizon see wireless as a different beast), except for the suggestion calling for the creation of “transparency rules” for wireline and wireless services requiring providers of said offerings to provide clear information about their services’ capabilities, and the support for USF reform in an effort to bring broadband to areas where it is not now available. |
| Broadband Stimulus, Round 2 August 4, 2010 By Paula Bernier There was big news out of the Department of Agriculture today. The agency announced funding for 126 broadband projects to the tune of $1.2 billion – all part of the second round of the USDA’s Recovery Act funding. That’s expected to be matched with $117 million in private funds to total a $1.31 billion infrastructure investment. New awardees include Montana Opticom LLC, which will receive a $32 million dollar loan and $32 million dollar grant to build a fiber-to-the-premises network in rural communities in Gallatin County, Mont. The project is expected to create an initial 650 jobs. Crystal Automation Services Inc. of central Michigan, meanwhile, has been selected to receive a $7.9 million loan and $18.5 million grant to deploy a hybrid fixed wireless, fiber optic network that will provide high capacity broadband to health care facilities, libraries, schools and community organizations. The USDA already has provided $2.65 billion in loans and grants to construct 231 broadband projects in 45 states and one territory. It has an additional $1 billion to dole out by Sept, 30, which is less than two months away. A story on the broadbandbreakfast.com site this week says that, combined, the Department of Agriculture and Commerce have a combined $4 billion in stimulus funding to disperse by the September deadline. It goes on to say that the Agriculture Department will announce the next set of 50 grants worth $190 million during the week of Aug. 16 and that, during the same week, the Department of Commerce will announce 70 grants worth $1.3-$1.6 billion. That is expected to be followed by more announcements the first and last weeks of September. |
| All Things Considered August 2, 2010 By Paula Bernier The economy. Jobs. Afghanistan. National security. Considering all the things on the plates of the Obama administration and the U.S. Congress, it’s actually kind of surprising that telecom and broadband issues are getting as much play in Washington as they are. Of course, when the powers that be within the federal government launched the broadband stimulus program and called for the creation of The National Broadband Plan, it ignited an enormous new initiative, and reignited debate on everything from the definition of broadband and who should get it when; to how to reform the Universal Service Fund in light of its problems and the importance of broadband; to net neutrality. We’ve already heard about the broadband stimulus awards as they’ve trickled out from various federal government bodies. One of the more recent announcements on this front had the National Telecommunications and Information Administration make a nearly $9 million American Recovery and Reinvestment Act investment to expand and upgrade public computer centers at more than 150 locations throughout Chicago. The idea here is to provide technology and job assistance training to residents, particularly at-risk youth, senior citizens, people with disabilities, and the unemployed. The award is part of the second round BTOP grant awards, which the NTIA expects to complete by Sept. 30. Meanwhile, discussions continue over how to retool the USF to include broadband. I’ve written in the past about how the FCC aims to accomplish this. What’s new here is that Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) now is reportedly urging the FCC for USF reform and Rep. Rick Boucher (R-Va.) two weeks ago introduced a bill to reform the fund. According to a Multichannel News piece on the matter, Rockefeller in an Aug. 2 letter wrote FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski that the explosion at the Upper Big Branch mine in his home state that killed 29 people exposed a "troubling lack of communications facilities in rural communities,” which could also be a barrier to various areas of the country as they work to address problems with floods, hurricanes, tornadoes or even terrorist acts. Meanwhile, meetings about net neutrality are ongoing. FCC Chief of Staff Edward Lazarus has reportedly been in talks with recently, and will meet again this week with, various companies with a stake in the net neutrality debate. That includes AT&T, Google, NCTA, the Open Internet Coalition, Skype, Verizon and others. However, as noted in recent posts on CNET, the Technology Liberation Front and TMCnet, Amazon apparently has switched sides on the net neutrality debate. And it may not be the only company rethinking things. The Technology Liberation Front piece, which as is turns out was written by Steve Titch, with whom I used to work at Telephony magazine, writes in the above-mentioned piece: Along with Amazon, Microsoft, Expedia, Yahoo! and Sony also have backed off from one-time hard-line support. Just last October, [Amazon] CEO Jeff Bezos co-signed an Open Internet Coalition letter supporting regulation. Back in 2006, Misener himself was warning about the potential of ISP abuse of their networks to throttle Internet discourse. Even Google, which has been funding the Open Internet Coalition, has been sending mixed messages on the regulation for more than a year. What changed? Well, the FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's plan to reclassify broadband Internet service as a regulated "telecommunications service," all for the sake of pushing a network neutrality agenda, is shaking the entire U.S. Internet industry to its senses. For companies like Amazon, when the FCC's power was circumscribed around carriers, network neutrality was "regulation for thee, but not for me." It's significant that Misener raises the issue of investor uncertainty, an ISP talking point that network neutrality proponents have in the past pooh-poohed. |
| Mr. Chairman, the Ball is in Your Court July 30, 2010 By Paula Bernier It seems that the Obama administration views the Universal Service Fund as being somewhat akin to the nation’s health care situation – both are in need of a remodel and, while finding a new solution will be controversial and won’t be easy, staying with the status quo is simply unfeasible. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski reiterated that point about the USF earlier this week at the OPASTCO convention in Seattle. “As the math of the overall Universal Service Fund gets worse each year, the importance of broadband to rural America gets greater,” Genachowski said, according to one report. “There is a clear need to reform USF – not to end it, but to reorient USF to directly support broadband all over America.” As TMCnet columnist Doug Mohney recently noted, funding for the USF has been on the decline for years as its primary source of funding – long-distance revenues – have fallen off, and flat-rate unlimited plans, wireless buckets of minutes, and Internet services have grown in popularity. “For a while, charging a rate per phone number was in vogue; now, any provider that offers a network connection would be required to contribute to the fund,” he writes. “Exactly how the money would be collected is unclear and the Universal Service Reform Act just introduced into Congress would leave the details for the FCC to work out.” But whatever the challenges, Genachowski says something needs to be done. “Let’s not kick the ball down the road,” the FCC chairman said. “Let’s focus on principles, let’s focus on facts, let’s work together to reform USF, and provide clarity for the path forward.” |
| FCC Breathes New Life into Broadband July 20, 2010 By Paula Bernier “…between 14 and 24 million Americans still lack access to broadband, and the immediate prospects for deployment to them are bleak.” That’s the key take away from the FCC’s latest broadband deployment report, which was made public earlier this week and which for the first time provides granular data about where broadband is available and where it is not. The commission – which in this new report upgrades the definition of broadband from the 200kbps downstream standard that was set years ago before online images, video and other rich media applications were widespread, to 4mbps downstream and 1mbps upstream – says that this data spells out the need for “comprehensive reform of the Universal Service Fund, innovative approaches to unleashing new spectrum, and removal of barriers to infrastructure investment.” While some – including FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps – are lauding the new report for its clear presentation of reality, others – like USTelecom President and CEO Walter B. McCormick and FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell – are calling the report contradictory and indicating it devalues significant broadband gains that have been made in recent years. Here’s what these folks are saying: Copps: “By relying on an inadequate and unrefined approach to data collection for the previous five reports, the Commission seriously defaulted on its statutory responsibility. Going down the same old path here would have done a further injustice to this country’s reinvigorated commitment to broadband. In early data collection exercises, the Commission used information from service providers that simply reported on which zip codes had at least one subscriber to broadband service at a speed of 200 kbps or higher. I still fail to see how anyone ever viewed this approach as indicative of anything useful. The false impression left by that approach was that everyone in a zip code was fully connected to high-speed broadband when all we really knew was that one person or business somewhere—perhaps on the very fringe of a zip code—subscribed to a minimum-speed service. That told us nothing about the extent to which broadband was available within a zip code or the quality of that service. … “Good data is a prerequisite to good policy choices. The five preceding reports lacked such data and the results were … poor policy choices. This is even clearer now than it was at the time of those reports, given the depth of data we that has been mined as part of the lengthy, fact-driven process that resulted in the National Broadband Plan, including input collected from the newly-revised FCC Form 477 requiring providers to report broadband subscribership by Census Tract instead of zip code.” Genachowski: “[Those] areas not yet served with broadband are mostly expensive-to-serve areas with low population density. Without substantial reforms to the agency’s universal service programs, these areas will continue to be unserved, denied access to the transformative power of broadband.” McCormick: “It is absolutely appropriate for the Commission to be concerned about the remaining small percentage of Americans who may not yet have access to wired broadband. Identifying important communications objectives for Congress is the right thing to do, and we support efforts to bring the benefits of broadband to everyone. However, it is inconsistent with the Commission’s own data to conclude that deployment is not progressing in a timely and reasonable manner.” McDowell: “Instead of focusing on the great strides that America has made in broadband deployment, as the Act requires, this Report emphasizes subscribership. Collecting granular data, including subscribership numbers, is important. But, subscribership data does not equate to the ‘availability’ of broadband, which is what Congress requires the Commission to assess under Section 706. |
| New FCC Broadband Deployment Report Stirs Debate July 23, 2010 By Paula Bernier We’ve all known for some time that health care is a key focus for the Obama administration and that this cause would in many cases dovetail with the federal government’s activities related to the broadband stimulus. Indeed, the FCC, NTIA and RUS encouraged broadband stimulus applicants to work with community anchors such as health care institutions to put together their funding requests. And late last week (while I was on vacation in D.C. as a matter of fact), the FCC took the broadband/health care effort a step further with the introduction of a new USF program that will dedicate up to $400 million annually to the cause. The effort aims to make high-quality health care more accessible to folks in underserved and remote areas of the country while at the same time reducing health care costs. Job creation and driving private investment in broadband are also among the goals of the initiative. “This program has the potential to do for rural health care providers and patients what the enormously successful E-Rate program has done for schools and students,” according to a statement the FCC released. The same statement indicates that nearly 30 percent of federally funded rural health care clinics can’t afford secure and reliable broadband services, and that only 8 percent of Indian Health Service providers have access to the broadband they would need to deliver advanced health care to their patients. |
| Readying for Today, Planning for Tomorrow July 8, 2010 By Paula Bernier The downturn in the economy once again has given rise to the notion that you should use what you have when you can, but that it also makes sense to invest in quality products that can meet your needs today and well into the future. This thinking certainly applies to broadband and next-generation networking. "Service providers today are challenged to take advantage of next-generation services revenue but at the same time protect their existing assets,” notes Kevin Morgan, director of product marketing at ADTRAN. “Solutions that make sense for these providers must be flexible and able to provide a smooth transition path for legacy TDM and ATM networks as they migrate to Ethernet and offer a variety of next-generation services.” Morgan is making reference here to the ADTRAN Total Access 5000 MSAP, a broadband access and aggregation platform that supports TDM to packet, ATM to Ethernet, copper to fiber, and legacy to next-generation services simultaneously and from a common platform. More than 150 service provider customers today use the Total Access 5000. “As a whole, it signals that the TA5000 has come on the scene as a game changer in this market,” says Morgan. Among the most recent customers to sign on to use the solution are Frontier Communications Corp., Millry Telephone, Reliance Connects and TEC. The TEC deal is related to the broadband stimulus. TEC, which is the holding company for a group of service providers in the Southeast, has selected the Total Access 5000 Multi-Service Access and Aggregation Platform and Total Access fiber-to-the-node DSLAMs for its broadband stimulus project at Bay Springs Telephone Co. that involves FTTN and FTTN. The company received a broadband stimulus award from the Rural Utilities Service in the first round of the federal government’s program. Because the Total Access 5000 can allow a company to start out with DSL-based copper access and then push fiber closer to the customer over time, for example, or allow a carrier with ATM-based DSLAMs evolve to Ethernet without a wholesale system change, Morgan says the ADTRAN product can exist in a service provider network for at least 20 years. “Our customers are very comfortable knowing this product is going to be around for a while,” he adds, noting not only is the Total Access 5000 flexible enough to stand up over time, but ADTRAN is a proven, stable company that carriers can be sure will be around for many years to come. |
| Government Announces New Awards, But Pulls $602M July 6, 2010 By Paula Bernier Last week was a good news/bad news one for the broadband stimulus. On the one hand, President Obama announced 66 new awards, totaling $795 million in grants and loans. On the other, the House Appropriations Committee moved to rescind $602 million from the broadband stimulus program in an effort to help pay for the additional $75 billion being spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. (The government apparently is lowering funding from a wide variety of programs as part of that effort.) The administration says government funding for these latest broadband stimulus initiatives, which have been matched by more than $200 million in outside investment, will create 5,000 jobs, spur economic development in some of the nation’s hardest-hit areas, and improve the employment picture longer term as well. The awards address last mile, middle mile and public computing center deployments. More than 685,000 businesses, 900 health care facilities and 2,400 schools in all 50 states stand to benefit from the investment, according to the White House. The following is a breakdown of which states got what number of awards as part of the White House’s announcements last week: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona (3), Colorado, Georgia (2), Idaho, Iowa (7), Illinois, Kansas (3), Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota (3), Mississippi, Missouri (3), Montana (3), New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina (2), North Dakota (2), Nevada (2), Ohio, Oklahoma (3), Oregon (3), Pennsylvania, South Dakota (2), Tennessee (3), Texas (2), Utah, Vermont (2), Virginia, Wisconsin (2), West Virginia (2) and Wyoming. The District of Columbia got two. Some of the above-noted awards include more than one state. Also, one additional award that goes to all the states is a $62.5 grant, with an additional $34.3 million applicant-provided match, to interconnect more than 30 existing research and educational networks, creating a nationwide high-capacity network that will enable advanced networking features for more than 100,000 essential community anchor institutions. In announcing the news last week, the government noted that 37 communities in rural America will be touched by the newly awarded monies. Indeed, Arizona’s wins on this front made headlines this weekend in the local press. Specifically, Arizona’s San Carlos Apache Telecommunications Inc. got $10.5 million to provide fiber to the premises-based connectivity to the San Carlos Apache Reservation, where more than 6,000 people, 20 businesses and 50 community institutions reside. A $3.6 million grant to Hopi Telecommunications Inc. will bring broadband to Jeddito and Spider Mound, Ariz., residents. And a $1.6 million grant and $706,000 applicant match is expected to expand computer centers at 28 state and tribal libraries. At this point, more than $2.7 billion in broadband stimulus monies have been awarded. They have gone to help fund more than 260 projects. |
| Data Mining July 1, 2010 By Paula Bernier Making good policy decisions rests in large part on having the correct data available to help reach the most logical conclusions. With that in mind, the Federal Communications Commission this week officially launched what it calls the Data Innovation Initiative. The effort aims to modernize and streamline how the FCC collects, uses, and disseminates data. “Smart policies depend on quality data, and public data should be accessible to the public in meaningful ways using modern digital tools,” says FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. “The Data Innovation Initiative will accelerate the FCC’s progress toward becoming a model for excellence in 21st century government. Building on the exemplary work of our strategy planning and new media teams, I expect that the data team will both streamline and open up our data processes, institutionalizing positive change at the FCC.” Leading the charge is Greg Elin, associate managing director of new media at the FCC, who will assume the newly created chief data officer position. He will head up a team of chief data officers from three FCC bureaus. That includes Robert Alderfer of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Kris Monteith of the Media Bureau, and Steven Rosenberg of the Wireline Competition Bureau, among others. And if you have thoughts about what current data collections should be eliminated, what new ones should be added, and how existing collections can be improved, the FCC’s Wireline, Wireless, and Media Bureaus want to know. |
| Something in the Air June 29, 2010 By Paula Bernier The big news of the week as it relates to the federal government’s broadband efforts is that President Obama has announced plans to make 500MHz of additional spectrum available for wireless broadband. No big surprise there, as this administration has been banging the wireless broadband drum for some time. “The initiatives endorsed today will spur economic growth, promote private investment, and drive U.S. global leadership in broadband innovation,” said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in the wake of the news. “Spectrum is the oxygen of wireless, and the future of our mobile economy depends on spectrum recovery and smart spectrum policies. As over one hundred companies, representing billions in investment and millions of American jobs, told the FCC: ‘Our nation’s ability to lead the world in innovation and technology is threatened by the lack of sufficient spectrum for wireless broadband applications and services.’” If this 10-year new spectrum plan comes to fruition, it would double the spectrum of the wireless industry, which would be able to bid for the spectrum in upcoming auctions. The FCC intends to pry about 120MHz of that from TV stations, which it hopes will hand over excess spectrum for a share funds from the auction, which could raise tens of billions of dollars. A good amount of the rest of the spectrum is expected to come from the federal government itself. That is likely to include the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Aviation Administration. That’s great. Wireless is a fine and useful medium. I use it every day. But, as I’ve mentioned in this space before, the fact that the federal government is just now putting the wheels in motion to free up more wireless spectrum – which it indicates is a key requirement for the U.S. to make broadband more widely available – is just another example of why further investment in fixed broadband is so important. Solutions based on xDSL and fiber-based access are available and proven today, and they don’t require a lengthy process involving recapturing spectrum, then figuring out how to divide it up, and then auctioning it off before anyone can even begin to think about using it as a basis for a network build and service rollout. |
| The Trend Toward Openness June 24, 2010 By Paula Bernier The Federal Communications Commission this week held another meeting about net neutrality with leaders in the communications space, including AT&T, Google, Skype and Verizon. However, Free Press is unhappy that these meetings have been closed to the public. The Washington Post reports that Josh Silver, head of the public interest group, recently stopped by the newspaper’s offices to make that point, saying that his group and others have not been allowed to attend the meetings thus far and have not been invited to future such events. As Silver sees it, the meetings could lead to a corporation-led initiative to avoid the reclassification of broadband. And that, he believes, would harm consumers. Responding to the concern, Eddie Lazarus, the FCC chairman's chief of staff, notes that all comments on this discussion will be posted on the agency's Web site, and that staffers of the commission are available to meet with anybody who’s interested. Clearly, the issue of net neutrality is a complex one, and it’s understandable that those involved in the conversation would need to take some time to flesh out the challenges and possible solutions to maintaining open networking while at the same time allowing network owners to manage their networks. It would be good, however, if they considered opening the meetings to all parties to allow for more transparency on the discussion as it happens. |
| About the Internet ‘Kill Switch' June 22, 2010 By Paula Bernier At a time in which many are battling against further regulation of the Internet and broadband, but hackers around the globe are becoming better and better at infiltrating networks, word that proposed legislation could enable President Obama to unplug the Internet at will created a quick and widespread outcry. However, as is so often the case, what’s being discussed on this front is far more nuanced than what Internet “kill switch” reports might indicate. Saying some reports on the matter were misinformed, Sen. Joseph Lieberman explains the goal here is to better enable the administration to have a level of control over the Internet during “times of war.” In an effort to clarify the issue, Lieberman reportedly has said the government should never take over the Internet, however, he said: “we need the capacity for the president to say to an Internet service provider, ‘We’ve got to disconnect the American Internet from all traffic coming in from this country.’” Then he mentioned that China currently has the ability to disconnect parts of the Internet. I don’t know enough about the proposed legislation to render an opinion on it. On the one hand, giving control of the Internet to bureaucrats seems misguided. On the other hand, networks can be used as powerful tools on a number of fronts, including national security, and recognition of that fact by politicians should not come as a surprise. So it should be interesting to hear more of the details about this as the story develops. |
| FCC is Three for Three June 17, 2010 By Paula Bernier Today’s meeting of the Federal Communications Commission saw Mignon Clyburn and Michael Copps publicly voice their support for Julius Genachowski’s previously stated interest in bringing broadband under Title II regulation, which the FCC chairman has described as a third option. So now we have three for three. And although plenty of interested parties have already weighed in on the chairman’s plan, the FCC is now opening the floor to public debate. Here’s a refresher on the issue: As noted in my May 6 blog, following the Comcast court ruling that threw into question the FCC’s authority over broadband rules, Genachowski introduced a new four-tenet approach through which he’d like the commission to address the Internet and broadband. Under that plan, the commission would, as he put it:
Genachowski unveiled this proposal in response to the Comcast court ruling, which saw the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rule in the cableco’s favor in a lawsuit it filed against the FCC. In the suit, Comcast challenged the FCC, saying the agency lacked the authority to stop it from taking steps to manage bandwidth-hogging traffic (in this case involving BitTorrent peer-to-peer transmissions). What’s new today is that the FCC has opened a Notice of Inquiry through which it formally invites public comment on the Genachowski plan. The inquiry asks for public comment on issues including:
The notice also seeks input on how best the FCC might classify terrestrial wireless and satellite broadband Internet services. Comments from the public are due July 15. Reply comments are due Aug. 12. Visit broadband.gov for more details. |
| BITAG, You’re It June 15, 2010 By Paula Bernier Politicians and regulators, who tend to be generalists with little understanding of the inner workings of networks and application performance, clearly are not the ones who should be formulating plans for how to engineer the Internet and broadband networks. So it comes as good news that a coalition calling itself the Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group has come together to enable technical types to do consensus building on broadband network management and the related performance of end users’ Internet experiences. Perhaps even more interesting – and promising – is the makeup of BITAG, who participants include both big incumbent service providers like AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon as well as over-the-top leader Google. Those companies – as well as Cisco Systems, Inc., DISH Network LLC, EchoStar Corp., Intel Corp., Level 3 Communications LLC and Microsoft Corp. – have joined forces under the auspices of Dale Hatfield, a former Federal Communications Commission chief technologist who’s currently an adjunct professor for the University of Colorado at Boulder. The group, which expects to formalize its structure in the near future, aims to educate policymakers on technical issues related to broadband and application performance; attempt to address specific technical matters in an effort to minimize related policy disputes; and serve as a sounding board for new ideas and network management practices. "This joint effort by industry leaders provides an exciting opportunity to address key operational challenges facing the Internet user experience," says Leslie Daigle, chief Internet technical officer of the Internet Society. "The Internet Society believes this activity is an important contribution to the ongoing global, open technical dialog and looks forward to seeing its output appropriately integrated with the work of existing Internet standards activities." Indeed. This kind of coalition is what many in the industry have long been calling for. By working together to solve problems, rather than letting them escalate to regulators, legislators and the courts, everybody can benefit by helping create an environment with a lighter regulatory touch and one in which businesses spend less time and money battling and more time working out their differences. |
| FCC Chairman Disses USF June 10, 2010 By Paula Bernier In an interview with Julius Genachowski earlier this week, the FCC chairman says the Universal Service Fund is, like, so yesterday. And, he says, it only serves to extend a long-outdated regulatory regime that props up an old network. The piece has The Wall Street Journal’s long-time tech guru Walt Mossberg in a Q&A with Genachowski. In it, Mossberg tells the chairman that the FCC’s National Broadband Plan sounds less like a plan and more like a set of suggestions. (Indeed it is, as the FCC presented the plan to Congress at the instruction of President Obama.) The journalist went on to say that it appears as if Genachowski and the FCC either don’t have to power or the will to actually achieve the goals laid out in the plan. In response, Genachowski answers: “There was a court decision about a month ago that raised questions about whether the provisions of the Communications Act that the FCC had been pointing to, to adopt sensible policies on broadband, can be relied on going forward. It's created a problem that we're trying to tackle. “I'll give you an example. We run something at the FCC called a Universal Service Fund. It's an $8 billion-a-year fund that's actually done a good job over the last decades promoting universal telephone service. This fund and the people who run it wake up every day and put money into yesterday's telephone network. “So, one of the recommendations of the plan is we obviously need to transform this fund so that it's smartly, efficiently supporting broadband communications, not telephone service. This court decision raises questions about whether we have the authority to do that. It's crazy not to do it. “The chairmen of the Senate and House Commerce committees, which have jurisdiction in these areas, have said that they're starting a process to look at a legislative fix.” |
| Rural Telcos, Congress People Concerned Over NBP’s 4mbps Goal June 8, 2010 By Paula Bernier A trio of rural telco groups along with a lengthy list of Congress members have expressed their opposition to key aspects of The National Broadband Plan, which they say could further expand the digital divide. In a May 28 letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, 40 U.S. Congress members say that setting a 4mbps broadband goal for rural regions “while boasting about the benefits of 100mbps for more densely populated areas” is a mistake that abandons the Universal Service Fund-supported approach through which the small independent telcos have invested in rural networks over the last three decades. “Establishing such a low threshold for rural residents and businesses is not enough broadband capacity for the next several years, let alone the future demands of commerce, health care, education, energy and public safety,” according to the letter. It goes on to say: “The plan as written will lead to job loss, less investment in rural areas, a further erosion of state and local economies, and the deterioration of communications services for our constituents.” The letter is signed by the following members of Congress: Sam Graves, Betsy Markey, Lee Terry, Leonard Boswell, Frank Lucs, Jim Oberstar, Jerry Moran, Peter DeFaazio, Blaine Luetkemeyer, Christopher Carney, Tom Latham, Bob Filner, Lamar Smith, David Loebsack, Mike Simpson, Rick Larsen, Mac Thornberry, Ann Kirkpatrick, Hal Rogers, Kurt Schrader, Randy Neugebauer, Bill Owens, Howard Coble, Bruce Braley, Tim Murphy, Marion Berry, Steve King, Timothy Johnson, Lynn Jenkins, Collin Peterson, John Boozman, Ruben Hinojosa, Tom Cole, Earl Pomeroy, Denny Rehberg, Mike Ross, Don Young, Dan Boren, Lincoln Davis and John Salazar. The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, the Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies (better known as OPASTCO) and the Western Telecommunications Alliance together issued a press release hailing their support for letter. As I discussed in my March 17 blog following the release of The National Broadband Plan, there are six long-term goals laid out by the FCC in its recommendations to Congress via the National Broadband Plan: Goal No. 1: At least 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second. Goal No. 2: The United States should lead the world in mobile innovation, with the fastest and most extensive wireless networks of any nation. Goal No. 3: Every American should have affordable access to robust broadband service, and the means and skills to subscribe if they so choose. Goal No. 4: Every American community should have affordable access to at least 1 gigabit per second broadband service to anchor institutions such as schools, hospitals and government buildings. Goal No. 5: To ensure the safety of the American people, every first responder should have access to a nationwide, wireless, interoperable broadband public safety network. Goal No. 6: To ensure that America leads in the clean energy economy, every American should be able to use broadband to track and manage their real-time energy consumption. However, the shorter-term plan calls for the creation of the Connect America Fund to support affordable broadband and voice with at least 4mbps actual download speeds, and of a Mobility Fund to ensure no state lags significantly behind the 3G wireless coverage national average. The Connect America Fund will be fed, at least in part, from the Universal Service Fund. The FCC is suggesting that $15.5 billion over the next decade should be shifted from the USF to the CAF. |
| Play It Forward June 3, 2010 By Paula Bernier It’s been more than a month since the last of the first round stimulus awards were announced. The NTIA as part of BTOP will distribute $1.2 billion in federal funding among 82 grants. A list of who’s getting what as part of the first-round RUS BIP effort is available at this link. Meanwhile, the NTIA just closed the comment period for existing broadband service providers that want to comment on round 2 applications. It also got input on those applications from states, territories and tribal entities. And just yesterday, RUS posted an updated version of its round 2 application directory, which provides a listing of the BIP infrastructure applications received during this round, as well as a listing of the organizations that filed responses regarding those applications. That said, it seems a good time to ask: Where are we now? Well, we know the awards for the first round already have been announced. The NTIA and RUS already have filled us in on that part. The more interesting question – and answer – is: Where is the money, and to what extent is it being used to meet the federal government’s goal of creating jobs, expanding broadband and meeting other national goals? The answer, it appears, is that the money is still tied up in the process. But the process is moving things forward. And, wisely, many of the winning applicants simultaneously are selecting equipment suppliers, seeking loans for their matching funds, hiring folks and otherwise getting ready to ensure they can get the broadband ball rolling as soon as possible. For example, it was announced just yesterday that TEC, the holding company for several telecom service providers in the Southeast, announced its selection of ADTRAN gear for its broadband stimulus upgrade project at Bay Springs Telephone Co. TEC received a RUS award in the first round to upgrade its transport network and push fiber deeper into the Bay Springs Network for enhanced broadband delivery. And a story on ConnectedPlanet talks about how some other first round award winners are applying for bank loans and adding staff in efforts to keep things moving forward. The piece notes that is especially important for awardees that are building broadband networks that involve digging and will be located in parts of the country in which the earth freezes during the fall and winter months. |
| Democratic Rep. Green Leads Charge Against Net Neutrality May 27, 2010 By Paula Bernier Net neutrality is often seen as a partisan issue about which all Democrats are clearly aligned. But a group of House Dems recently have demonstrated that simply isn’t the case. While the Obama administration and its newly installed FCC chairman have championed the net neutrality cause, a whopping 74 Democratic members of the House of Representatives recently have come out against the effort. A letter authored by Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) and signed by many of his colleagues reads: “We cannot expect broadband providers to continue investing tens of billions of dollars a year into their networks when they don’t know how much ability they will have to manage and protect that investment. This uncertainty not only slows deployment and expansion of broadband, it costs jobs associated with laying the lines and connecting households.” The letter adds that The National Broadband Plan, as it now stands, relies heavily upon private investment. It also mentions that the FCC’s recent efforts to move broadband services under Title II regulation could create a prolonged period of uncertainty during which the moves could be challenged in circuit court and the Supreme Court. If that happens, as is expected to be the case “capital investment will undoubtedly be drastically reduced, if not halted, effectively ceasing the improvement and expansion of access to the unserved and underserved areas of the country,” writes Green. “Most people consider this a partisan issue – Democrats support net neutrality regulations, Republicans oppose it,” Green writes. “This letter clearly shows it is not a partisan issue. A large number of Democrats have reservations about such a significant regulatory shift and the impacts it will have on jobs and investment.” |
| TIA’s Seiffert: Title II for Broadband Would Create a ‘Tectonic Shift’ with ‘Drastic Effects’ May 25, 2010 By Paula Bernier Following the Federal Communications Commission’s recent exclamation that it intends to regulate broadband under Title II of the Communications Act, Grant Seiffert, president of the Telecommunications Industry Association, voiced his concern, but with language that was rather reserved. "TIA's member companies have historically been negatively affected by application of many of the Title II requirements and, after years of deregulation, we would greatly regret to see the trend reverse, especially in these times of economic distress," said Seiffert, just shortly after FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced his plans relative to recapturing FCC authority over broadband regulation following the appeals court ruling in the Comcast case. Seiffert last week, however, offered a more pronounced assessment of what would happen if the FCC moves broadband under the Title II umbrella: "We're extremely concerned about what the reclassification of broadband would mean for TIA's member companies and the ICT industry. This would be a tectonic shift with potentially drastic effects, both long-term and near-term, especially as it comes on the heels of the worst recession in nearly a century.” In light of that threat, the TIA is working to explain the downsides of enacting such a regulatory regime. The group held a Webinar on the subject late last week. The online event featured economist and former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth as well as Russell Hanser of Wilkinson, Barker & Knauer. If you missed it, I believe it’s available on-demand at www.tiaonline.org. Of course, the FCC’s attempt to move broadband under Title II was prompted by the recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling in Comcast’s favor over the FCC. In the suit, Comcast challenged the FCC, saying the agency lacked the authority to stop it from taking steps to manage bandwidth-hogging traffic (in this case involving BitTorrent peer-to-peer transmissions). And when Comcast won it threw into question the FCC’s authority to regulate broadband and the Internet. |
| It’s a Bird. It’s a Plane. It’s – Satellite? May 20, 2010 By Paula Bernier Chances are if you’re reading this blog, you’re in the wireline camp when it comes to broadband access. But it’s always good to know what the folks in the next camp over are doing, so here’s a look at a relatively new development on the broadband wireless front – in this case, satellite. Earlier this month the Rural Utilities Service began accepting requests for stimulus funds from those seeking to deliver broadband using satellite technology. That’s especially notable given that RUS in the past hasn’t funded satellite services. Anyway, as part of this new broadband stimulus initiative, RUS has set aside about $100 million for the satellite efforts, according to a recent TMCnet story on the matter. The story goes on to say that this program could provide hardware and installation costs for 200,000 rural users, assuming each location can be brought up with about $500. “That might not sound like such a big deal, but consider that the Federal Communications Commission recently estimated that the cost of providing service of about 4mbps to the 'most rural' 250,000 U.S. unserved homes would cost $13.4 billion, using the best available fixed access technologies,” writes TMCnet blogger Gary Kim. As part of my reporting for another of my gigs, I spoke with Globalstar yesterday. Tony Navarra, president of global operations at the satellite service provider, said the firm (which is already working with WiMAX operator OpenRange) is keeping a close eye on this development. “We’re very much aware of this, and we’re following it,” he said. Navarra is also excited about some language in the FCC’s National Broadband Plan that he says will relieve some restrictions on satellite and enable Globalstar to use up to 25 megaHertz of its spectrum for rural communications throughout the U.S. “Satellite operators must have spare satellites,” he explains. “They must have compatible billing systems. They must be able to have the subscribers that are on the satellite use the same handset or laptop device on the ground terrestrial system as well as on the satellite system. We expect that the FCC is going to relieve, or loosen up, some of these requirements, which is going to rapidly allow the use of the spectrum instantaneously, rather than having to build additional products that have what I call dual modality, meaning the modes of operation are for both satellite and ground.” |
| Non-Profits Support Genachowski’s Net Neutrality Effort May 18, 2010 By Paula Bernier I wrote on May 11 that the network operators are, not surprisingly, none too happy about FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s efforts to bring Internet under Title II regulation. As I noted, USTelecom President and CEO Walter B. McCormick Jr. says such a move would be “a mistake of historic proportions.” Since then, a collection of non-profit groups has come out in support of Genachowski’s plan. “The Internet is the lifeblood for nonprofits, who do most of their fundraising and constituent communications through the web,” according to the group. “There is increasing concern in the non-profit community that unless the FCC is successful in obtaining the ability to regulate ISPs, non-profits may end up with restricted access to the Internet, making it far more difficult to raise funds and get their messages out.” And several non-profit groups are sending the FCC letters voicing support for the agency's efforts to regulate the Internet and keep ISPs from throttling service. “It's quickly becoming one of the biggest issues in the non-profit sector,” according to an e-mail I received earlier this month from Neal Stein of Technology PR Solutions, who was representing Blackbaud in this capacity. Blackbaud provides software and services to thousands of non-profits around the world. |
| Broadband Penetration Looking Up May 13, 2010 By Paula Bernier Although it seems like we’ve been hearing about the federal government’s broadband stimulus plan forever, it’s still early days, given the NTIA and RUS have yet to even announce all of the award winners. So the broadband builds based on these monies largely still remain on the drawing board. The good news is that in the meantime broadband penetration continues to increase, and the broadband stimulus monies coming available in the months ahead will help improve that even more. Just look at the recent reports from comScore Inc. and Leichtman Research Group Inc. According to digital measurement firm comScore, broadband penetration in rural markets has seen double-digit growth in the past year as regional providers capture an increasing share of the market in these areas. Meanwhile, Leichtman Research Group Inc. says the 19 largest U.S. cablecos and telcos, which represent about 93 percent of the market, added more than 1.4 million high-speed Internet subscribers in the first quarter of 2010. That means there are 73 million subscribers between them -- with cable companies having 40.2 million broadband subs and telcos having nearly 32.9 million subscribers. “The recent announcement of the government’s National Broadband Plan demonstrates the increasing importance of broadband expansion as a country-wide initiative, with rural areas playing an important role in this expansion,” says Brian Jurutka, comScore senior vice president. “Although rural markets have witnessed significant increases in broadband penetration during the past few years, these areas still lag behind the penetration rates of metropolitan areas. As the primary drivers of rural broadband growth, regional ISPs have the opportunity to increase their market share by delivering broadband to the millions of households still relying on dial-up services.” Broadband penetration in rural markets reached 81 percent in the fourth quarter, according to the firm, which reports this is an increase of 13 percent. The firm also called out the fastest growing ISPs in rural areas. It also identified leading service providers in the country’s most rural markets based on population density. |
| Network Operators: Genachowski Plan Could Be “A Mistake of Historic Proportions” May 11, 2010 By Paula Bernier Over-the-top types like Amazon, Google and Netflix are supportive of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s recently announced plans around how he aims to regulate broadband under Title II of the Communications Act. Not surprisingly, many network operators and suppliers are not, indicating regulation will only bring uncertainty to the industry, and potentially dissuade carriers from further network and staffing investments. “We believe it would be a mistake of historic proportions to abandon the longstanding bipartisan policy to keep the rapidly-evolving Internet free of growth-inhibiting government regulation,” says USTelecom President and CEO Walter B. McCormick Jr. “… the Commission is acting in a way that would seem to be fundamentally at odds with its own stated interest in promoting broadband deployment and adoption, encouraging expanded consumer choice through increased investment in facilities-based broadband networks, and encouraging jobs and economic growth,” he added. McCormick said that although Genachowski positioned the proposed move as a “light touch” compromise to broadband regulation, it in fact “goes far beyond the authority granted to the FCC by Congress.” The Telecommunications Industry Association has voiced similar concerns. "TIA's member companies have historically been negatively affected by application of many of the Title II requirements and, after years of deregulation, we would greatly regret to see the trend reverse, especially in these times of economic distress," says TIA President Grant Seiffert. However, Seiffert added: "We are encouraged that Chairman Genachowski has vowed to embrace a light touch approach and refrain from applying provisions that would have the unintended consequence of hindering investment and innovation." According to The Wall Street Journal, Republican politicians and regulators in Washington have strongly criticized Genachowski’s plan, and there’s been talk of reviving the legislation that Arizona Senator John McCain proposed last year to prohibit the FCC from Internet regulation. Of course, this entire debate was prompted by the recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling in Comcast’s favor over the FCC. In the suit, Comcast challenged the FCC, saying the agency lacked the authority to stop it from taking steps to manage bandwidth-hogging traffic (in this case involving BitTorrent peer-to-peer transmissions). And when Comcast won it threw into question the FCC’s authority to regulate broadband and the Internet. |
| FCC Addresses ‘the Comcast Dilemma’ May 6, 2010 By Paula Bernier FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has unveiled his response to the Comcast court ruling, which saw the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rule in the cableco’s favor in a lawsuit it filed against the FCC. In the suit, Comcast challenged the FCC, saying the agency lacked the authority to stop it from taking steps to manage bandwidth-hogging traffic (in this case involving BitTorrent peer-to-peer transmissions). And Comcast won the case. Not surprisingly, that set off a hail storm of debate. Pundits opined that the FCC basically had two ways to go in light of the Comcast ruling. It could either, as Genachowski now puts it, continue relying on Title I “ancillary” authority, and try to anchor actions like reforming universal service and preserving an open Internet by indirectly drawing on provisions in Title II of the Communications Act (e.g., sections 201, 202, and 254) that give the Commission direct authority over entities providing “telecommunications services.” Or, the commission could reclassify Internet communications as a “telecommunications service,” restoring the FCC’s direct authority over broadband communications networks but also imposing on providers of broadband access services dozens of new regulatory requirements. Genachowski was not altogether comfortable with either of those options. So instead he wants to go with a hybrid approach to broadband regulation. Here are the four key tenets of this “narrow and tailored approach,” according to the FCC. Under the plan, the commission would:
The FCC expects to launch an effort to gather comment on this approach. |
| New Study Indicates Net Neutrality Could Negatively Impact Investment, Consumers May 4, 2010 By Paula Bernier Net neutrality, if regulators or legislators enact it, could turn the business cases for broadband investment upside down and potentially have a negative impact on consumers. That’s the message of new research out of Frost & Sullivan. The research and consulting outfit says that net neutrality “distorts” operator investment decisions, as a result, has the potential to discourage those investments. Were net neutrality rules to go into effect, Frost & Sullivan posits, network operators probably would reduce their investments in broadband as a result of the increased risk. However, the firm says, even if they continued with their investments, they’d have to find a way to recover their costs, and that would likely come at the expense of end users. “An operator denied the opportunity to generate service revenue would be forced to adopt other methods for covering deployment costs: These could include simply passing along the costs to the consumer, creating service bundles that limit consumer choice or passing the cost along to content providers,” according to Frost & Sullivan. And that, the firm opines, could in turn actually reduce broadband penetration. |
| Swanson Revisits Argument Against Net Neutrality in New FCC Filing April 29, 2010 By Paula Bernier An interesting piece on Ars Technica this week discusses Bret Swanson’s recent filing with the FCC regarding the negative effects net neutrality legislation could have on the Internet’s ability to handle the onslaught of bandwidth-hungry applications like online gaming. Swanson is a senior fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute and frequent contributor to the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. He made his reputation in high-tech working for the Gilder Technology Report and the Gilder/Forbes Telecosm conference. Anyway, the article talks about the Swanson filing, which from the sounds of it puts a pretty similar argument forward on net neutrality that Swanson made in his piece in The Wall Street Journal more than two years ago. In the WSJ piece, he notes that the first phase of the Internet involved Arpanet connecting a few thousand scientists; the second phase brought a graphical component to the Internet and moved it into the mainstream; and the third phase, which we’re experiencing now, brings video and other rich media into the fold. “The third wave is now swelling into an exaflood, or torrent, of Internet and Internet Protocol (IP) traffic,” he wrote. “There's YouTube, IPTV, high-definition images and ‘cloud computing" -- in which individuals and businesses use the centralized computing resources of Google and IBM data centers, instead of the local computing resources of their own PCs or office systems. Not to mention the ubiquitous mobile camera.” Swanson in his February 2008 WSJ piece went on to say that Discovery Institute estimated that by 2015 U.S. IP traffic will reach an annual total of 1,000 exabytes, or one million million billion bytes, making the U.S. Internet 50 times larger and in need of $100 billion in new infrastructure investment in the U.S. by 2013. “We need a dramatic expansion in raw capacity, or bandwidth, and also fine-grained traffic management capabilities to ensure robust service for increasingly demanding consumers,” Swanson wrote. “But none of this can happen if we regulate complex network traffic engineering and experimental business plans.” |
| The Latest on the Broadband Reclassification Discussion April 27, 2010 By Paula Bernier In the wake of the recent net neutrality/bandwidth throttling court ruling favoring Comcast over the FCC, the media has been taking the temperatures of various FCC commissioners about their feelings on reclassifying broadband services. FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn hasn’t yet publicly voiced an opinion on the matter, but one report indicates she is likely to follow in the footsteps of whatever FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski – a strong net neutrality advocate -- decides. Meanwhile, another report, also by The Washington Post, says FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell does not support putting broadband services under the same regulatory regime as phone services. According to McDowell, reclassifying broadband under Title II would only be overturned in court. Instead, McDowell suggests that Congress should clarify the agency’s authority over broadband under Title I, a category over which the agency now has only “ancillary” oversight. As I mentioned in this blog earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on April 6 ruled in Comcast’s favor in a lawsuit the cable company filed against the FCC. In the suit, Comcast challenged the FCC, saying the agency lacked the authority to stop it from taking steps to manage bandwidth-hogging traffic (in this case involving BitTorrent peer-to-peer transmissions). In the ruling, Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said the FCC in ordering Comcast to stop had “failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to any actual law enacted by Congress. As a result, Tatel said, the agency does not have the authority to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices. Now everybody is waiting for the FCC to make the next move. The word is that the commission either will ask Congress to give it the authority to regulate broadband services or try to regulate broadband under common carrier rules. |
| Levin is Done, But the Plan Lives On April 20, 2010 By Paula Bernier Putting together The National Broadband Plan was no small task. But now at least the initial job has been done. That’s the part that involved the FCC putting together the draft plan and presenting it to Congress. One of the folks who shepherded this document through the formulation process was Blair Levin, formerly managing director at investment firm Stifel Nicholaus. Over the past several months Levin has acted as executive director of the FCC as it put together what is expected to be our nation’s broadband blueprint for the future. But, as a recent story in The Washington Post reports, Levin is leaving the commission to become a fellow at the Aspen Institute. Although the plan has its fair share of critics and criticisms, Levin tells the Post that he knew the document wouldn’t please everyone on all counts, but that it’s a pretty decent start. “This was supposed to be a compass, not an end goal,” he says, adding: “We knew going in that people would like about 80 percent of the ideas and really hate about 20 percent of them and that is where the focus would be.” That’s a good point. Although the plan has been presented to Congress and Levin is apparently done with it and his job at the FCC, the government has made clear from the start that The National Broadband Plan is a living document. That means that those in the industry who are less than happy with certain aspects of the plan can always offer their opinions on how it might be reworked to better address the goals of more broadly available and capable broadband connectivity, and there’s still a chance that the FCC and the other powers that be will take their comments into consideration to tweak the plan and/or whatever procedures, entities, programs, definitions or other items they involve. |
| More on the Great Net Neutrality Debate April 15, 2010 By Paula Bernier I couldn’t make it to the Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the National Broadband Plan yesterday, but Nate Anderson has a very descriptive piece on Ars Technica about the action on hand at the event. Much of the discussion at the hearing had to do with net neutrality. This, of course, comes in the wake of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruling on the side of Comcast, which challenged the FCC, saying the agency lacked the authority to stop it from taking steps to manage bandwidth-hogging traffic (in this case involving BitTorrent peer-to-peer transmissions). (For more on that, see my April 8 blog.) Anyway, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), who is a co-sponsor of net neutrality legislation, reportedly railed about what he described as “light touch” regulation on the net neutrality front and said he wants the FCC to respond to the circuit court ruling “aggressively”. The senator reportedly also revisited former AT&T head Ed Whitacre’s popular comment that over-the-top players shouldn’t be able to use telco networks for free. Dorgan went on to say had AT&T implemented special charges for over-the-top traffic at that time, Google might not have been able to reach his constituents. Dorgan reportedly went on to tell FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to reclassify Internet access as a Title 2 common carrier service. But Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) said that the FCC simply does not have to power to make that reclassification. To make that change to Title 2 would “be like remaking the world," the senator reportedly said. If Genachowski wants to make policy, Johanns suggested, he should run for office. |
| NTIA Gets 867 Applications Seeking a Total of $11B for Second Round April 13, 2010 By Paula Bernier The National Telecommunications and Information Administration got 867 applications requesting $11 billion in stimulus funds. RUS has yet to weigh in on the response it got from applicants during the second round of the stimulus program. NTIA says the applicants came from a wide variety of entities including state, local, and tribal governments; non-profits; industry; anchor institutions, such as libraries, universities, community colleges and hospitals; public safety organizations; and other entities in rural, suburban, and urban areas. It got 355 applications, requesting a total of $8.4 billion, that fall into the category of comprehensive community infrastructure; 251 applications, asking for about $1.7 billion, have to do with sustainable broadband adoption; and 261 of the requests, which seek $922 million in federal monies, were for public computer centers. A searchable database offers summaries of each application. And those who want to comment on any or all of the applications will have the opportunity to do so; NTIA this week expects to announce the window of time during which it will accept that comment. The response period is not available yet. The dates will be announced the week of April 12th, 2010. |
| Appeals Court Sides with Comcast on FCC’s Lack of Authority on Network Management April 8, 2010 By Paula Bernier In a victory for operators that want to be able to manage bandwidth on the networks they own, and in which they continue to invest, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday ruled in Comcast’s favor in a lawsuit the cable company filed against the FCC. In the suit, Comcast challenged the FCC, saying the agency lacked the authority to stop it from taking steps to manage bandwidth-hogging traffic (in this case involving BitTorrent peer-to-peer transmissions). Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed. In his ruling, Tatel said the FCC in ordering Comcast to stop had “failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to any actual law enacted by Congress. As a result, Tatel reportedly opined, the agency does not have the authority to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices. To those of you for whom this news unleashes a mighty huzzah I offer my heartfelt congratulations. However, it ain’t over til it’s over. The FCC has repeatedly emphasized its interest in net neutrality and “open” networks, whatever all that may mean, and it’s clearly not ready to give up the fight. In the wake of the court’s decision, FCC spokeswoman Jen Howard issued this following comment. “The FCC is firmly committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans. It will rest these policies -- all of which will be designed to foster innovation and investment while protecting and empowering consumers -- on a solid legal foundation. “Today’s court decision invalidated the prior commission’s approach to preserving an open Internet. But the court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet; nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end.” If you’re interested in letting the FCC’s know your thought on net neutrality, the commission – in light of the court ruling -- has extended its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the subject until April 26. |
| A Broader Focus April 6, 2010 By Paula Bernier The National Grange, a 200,000-member group that describes itself as the nation's oldest national agricultural organization, has been holding events around the country to discuss the national broadband effort. While the National Grange on March 16 issued a statement commending the Federal Communications Commission for the National Broadband Plan, the group has recently held rallies in South Caroline, Tennessee and Texas at which it expressed “deep concerns that the commission’s policy focus is shifting from developing a national broadband plan encouraging universal deployment and adoption of broadband services to underserved rural, farming, and tribal communities, to a policy focused on regulating broadband network management practices.” National Grange President Ed Luttrell sent that message to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in a letter last month, adding that the commission should not be burdening “technology that it has little first had knowledge using” with unnecessary management regulations. Agreed, it is probably best that the FCC, and regulators and legislators in general, not get too involved in network management practices. So that’s a point well taken. However, I’m not sure the FCC has shifted its focus from universal broadband and getting access to underserved areas to network management. It seems to me that the FCC was pretty comprehensive in its approach within the National Broadband Plan of addressing a broad range of issues relative to broadband – with its key focus being on how to make broadband more available, affordable and user friendly to a great number of users in all parts of the country. And I think the broadband stimulus funds that have been awarded to date bear out the FCC’s intentions to bring broadband to more of these areas. |
| The Qwest for More Broadband April 1, 2010 By Paula Bernier One of the more interesting developments in the second-round broadband stimulus effort happened recently when Qwest Communications threw its hat into the ring. As you may have heard, the RBOC toward the end of March revealed that it had filed a request for $350 million in federal funds to help it bring 12mbps to 40mbps broadband to rural communities through its local service region. Qwest would like to combine the Rural Utilities Service’s Broadband Initiatives Program grant money with $117 million of its own funds to build new broadband facilities. The proposed effort would bring high-speed Internet capabilities to more than half a million business, homes, hospitals and schools that now lack such access, according to Qwest. When news broke that Qwest was taking part in the broadband stimulus effort – or at least trying to – people took notice. Not only did it signal a major new entrant into the broadband stimulus program, but it came following initial concerns by some of the large incumbent telcos that net neutrality language within the stimulus rules would prevent their participation. But perhaps it shouldn’t come as a surprise that a large incumbent telco has applied for the funds – and that Qwest is that service provider. I say this because Qwest’s region includes 14 Midwestern and Western states, in which populations are often spotty and far-flung. That said, it seems to make perfect sense that the company is asking for federal funds to help it expand broadband within its region. In fact, the FCC in The National Broadband Plan notes that 50 percent of the unserved market is in the territories of the three Tier 1 carriers. Qwest's broadband stimulus application is a sign that the company wants to do its part to narrow the gap of broadband availability in its territory. |
| It Ain’t Over ‘Til the Fat Pipe Sings March 30, 2010 By Paula Bernier It’s over. Yesterday was the application deadline for the second, and what’s expected to be the final, round of the RUS BIP program. The NTIA’s BTOP application deadline was last Friday. Now we wait and watch to see who gets what. According to the agencies, all funds will be “obligated” by Sept. 30. This whole broadband stimulus program has at once been slow and painful, and ever-changing and exciting. The federal government made some mistakes and ran into some delays along the way, but on the whole it seemed to learn from the first round and respond reasonably well to suggestions as to how to improve the program. That’s laudable, particularly considering this broadband stimulus program was unprecedented and initiated during a time of intense economic strife. At the same time, the FCC has done a good job at turning out a comprehensive National Broadband Plan that both lays out where we are today and suggests what needs to be done in terms of affordability, education, marketing, regulation, spectrum and more -- both on the short and long term – to make broadband more widely available, accessible and meaningful to the broadest set of users. Of course, although the application process for the broadband stimulus has concluded, the program itself obviously is far from over. Many applicants are still anxiously awaiting feedback as to whether they will get some funds, and those on the sidelines watch to see how it all shakes out. And then the important part starts – building these networks that will help the U.S. move closer to its broadband ambitions. |
| The Price of U.S. Mobile Broadband March 25, 2010 By Paula Bernier Just a week after the FCC released the National Broadband Plan, our country’s blueprint for making wireline and wireless broadband more widely available and affordable, international broadband comparison Web site Broadband Expert has put out data noting that mobile broadband users in the U.S. pay almost three times more for their service compared to users in the U.K. and Australia. The data also points out that U.S. consumers looking to purchase a USB modem as part of a prepaid plan will pay up to eight times more for that luxury. A typical two-year mobile broadband contract in the U.K. costs $552, compared to $1,440 in the U.S. – a $890 price difference, according to Broadband Expert. The firm notes a typical broadband service in Australia, meanwhile, costs just $648. Broadband Expert also believes that U.S. consumers have “a dramatic lack of choice” in data plans compared to other parts of the world. “With service operators offering only very small or very large data allowances, consumers are very limited as to the type of plan they opt for, unlike in other parts of the world,” the site says. “We manage broadband comparison sites in the U.S., U.K. and Australia and can clearly see that sales in the U.S. are lagging behind other regions,” says Rob Webber, commercial director at Broadband Expert. “We’ve seen a huge growth in the number of people buying mobile broadband devices in the U.K .and Australia over the last two years, a trend that is not reciprocated in the U.S. We think this is mainly due to the fact that customers are put off by the high prices.” That’s a problem considering one of the primarily goals the FCC laid out in the National Broadband Plan is that every American should have affordable access to robust broadband service, and the means and skills to subscribe if they so choose. “Affordability is a key theme of this plan and competition is absolutely necessary to make this happen,” Teresa Mastrangelo, principal analyst of broadbandtrends of The Windsor Oaks Group LLC, recently told me. “Even though the plan calls for a comprehensive review of wholesale competition – its focus is primarily to increase competition to small business and enterprise, not the consumer market that makes up the majority of broadband consumers. The FCC does focus on encouraging wireless-wireline competition for low-end packages, but there [are] few recommendations that would increase competition for services that support the 100-squared goal.” |
| Broadband Actually March 23, 2010 By Paula Bernier Not only does broadband need to be made more widely available, but those that sell such services need to be clearer about what exactly they’re selling as they offer up connectivity to end users. That’s one of the clear messages the FCC conveys in the National Broadband Plan, which it unveiled last week. Like the miles-per-gallon labels on automobiles, and the nutritional labels on foods, broadband service providers should be required to provide consumers with a better idea of what’s inside their service packages, the Plan advises. “Fixed broadband consumers, however, have little information about the actual speed and performance of the service they purchase,” according to the Plan. “Marketing materials typically feature ‘up to’ peak download and upload speeds, although actual performance experienced by consumers is often much less than the advertised peak speed.” And that impinges on customers’ ability to weigh their choices accurately and reduces service provider incentives to invest in better networks, the FCC writes in the Plan, which lays out a universal broadband goal of 4mbps downstream and 1mbps upstream “actual speeds” by 2020. To address this lack of transparency in broadband marketing and pricing, the FCC suggests that it should work with the National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish and update over time broadband measurement standards and methods. It also says it intends to continue its efforts and measure and publish data on actual performance of fixed broadband services, and it intends to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to determine performance disclosure requirements for broadband. The FCC also lays out in the Plan the key characteristics that might be measured under this new effort. That includes actual speeds and performance over a broadband service provider network as well as end-to-end performance of the service; actual speeds and performance both at peak hours and over a set time period; and actual speeds and performance tested against to-be-decided future standard protocols and applications. Also of note is the fact that the FCC does not focus this transparency discussion solely on fixed broadband for consumers. The commission recommends the development of broadband performance standards for mobile services, multiunit buildings and small business users. And that’s good news both for end users and for the industry as a whole, because it will help clarify what players and what technologies deliver the best bang for the buck as well as the best actual performance. |
| The National Broadband Plan March 17, 2010 By Paula Bernier We’ve been getting drips and drops from the FCC in the recent past about what to expect from the National Broadband Plan. But now the plan is really here, so let’s take a look. You’ve probably already heard about the six long-term goals laid out by the FCC in its recommendations to Congress via the National Broadband Plan. To review: Goal No. 1: At least 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second. Goal No. 2: The United States should lead the world in mobile innovation, with the fastest and most extensive wireless networks of any nation. Goal No. 3: Every American should have affordable access to robust broadband service, and the means and skills to subscribe if they so choose. Goal No. 4: Every American community should have affordable access to at least 1 gigabit per second broadband service to anchor institutions such as schools, hospitals and government buildings. Goal No. 5: To ensure the safety of the American people, every first responder should have access to a nationwide, wireless, interoperable broadband public safety network. Goal No. 6: To ensure that America leads in the clean energy economy, every American should be able to use broadband to track and manage their real-time energy consumption. What’s more interesting, however, is some of the discussion in the Plan about how all this will be paid for, and how intercarrier compensation and USF reform fit into the mix. The plan calls for the creation of the Connect America Fund to support affordable broadband and voice with at least 4mbps actual download speeds, and of a Mobility Fund to ensure no state lags significantly behind the 3G wireless coverage national average. The Connect America Fund will be fed, at least in part, from the Universal Service Fund. The FCC is suggesting that $15.5 billion over the next decade should be shifted from the USF to the CAF. The commission is also delicately suggesting that Congress allocate additional public funds for broadband. To wit: If Congress wishes to accelerate the deployment of broadband to unserved areas and otherwise smooth the transition of the Fund, it could make available public funds of a few billion dollars per year over two to three years. Of course, first the FCC needs to figure out which monies can be repurposed in this way and where to get other sources of funding, whether they be through addition “savings,” as the FCC calls it, and/or by seeking public funding from Congress. However, the FCC does lay out where it plans to start… First, the FCC should issue an order to implement the voluntary commitments of Sprint and Verizon Wireless to reduce the High-Cost funding they receive as competitive ETCs to zero over a five-year period as a condition of earlier merger decisions. Sprint and Verizon Wireless received roughly $530 million in annual competitive ETC funding at the time of their respective transactions with Clearwire and Alltel in 2008. Their recaptured competitive ETC funding should be used to implement the recommendations set forth in this plan. This represents up to $3.9 billion (present value in 2010 dollars) over a decade. Second, the FCC should require rate-of-return carriers to move to incentive regulation. As USF migrates from supporting voice telephone service to supporting broadband platforms that can support voice as well as other applications, and as recipients of support increasingly face competition in some portion of their service areas, how USF compensates carriers needs to change as well. Third, the FCC should redirect access replacement funding known as Interstate Access Support (IAS) toward broadband deployment. The FCC says: … the conversion to price-cap regulation would be revenue-neutral in the initial year of implementation, assuming that amounts per line for access replacement funding known as Interstate Common Line Support would be frozen. Over time, however, freezing ICLS would limit growth in the legacy High-Cost program on an interim basis, while the FCC develops a new methodology for providing appropriate levels of CAF support to sustain service in areas that already have broadband. This step could yield up to $1.8 billion (present value in 2010 dollars) in savings over a decade. The FCC, in the Plan, adds that: There is some chance that rate-of-return carriers could accelerate their investment before conversion to price caps to lock in higher support per line. Depending on the details of implementation, such a spike in investment activity could result in further broadband deployment that would narrow the broadband availability gap, but could increase the overall size of the fund. The FCC also calls for “long-term intercarrier compensation reform” that would eliminate distortions created by recovering fixed network costs through per minute rates for the origination and termination of traffic. That, the commission suggests, should involve moving carriers’ intrastate terminating switched access rates to interstate terminating switched access rate levels in equal increments over a period of two to four years. It goes on to write: The FCC has authority to establish a new methodology for ICC, but Congress could make explicit the FCC’s authority to reform intrastate intercarrier rates by amending the Communications Act in order to reduce litigation and expedite reform. Additionally, per minute charges should be incrementally phased out between now and 2020, according to the FCC, which adds that to offset ICC revenue decreases there should be gradual increases in subscriber line charges. |
| The Broadband Dead Zone March 11, 2010 By Paula Bernier It sounds like a remake of a weird sci-fi TV series from the early ‘60s. But, in fact, the Broadband Dead Zone is the name of a report the FCC is compiling to get a better handle on where broadband is and is not available. The FCC is inviting U.S. citizens to submit the street address of locations at which broadband is not available. They can do this by filling out and submitting a special form, which can be accessed at www.broadband.gov; by e-mailing the address information to fccinfo@fcc.gov; by calling the FCC at 1-888-CALL-FCC (TTY: 1-888-TELL-FCC); by sending a fax to 1-877-627-7460; or by using snail mail to relay information about a dead zone to the FCC. In addition to this new program, the FCC this week also introduced what it calls the Consumer Broadband Test, which allows citizens to test the speed and latency of their broadband connections, and shares that information with both the individuals as well as to the FCC. A mobile version of the tool is available via Apple and Android app stores. A fixed version can be accessed through www.broadband.gov. |
| A Taxing Problem March 9, 2010 By Paula Bernier Sometimes overlooking a seemingly small matter can create big problems. So when some entities interested in the broadband stimulus effort recently became aware that a question has arisen as to whether smart-grid grant money is taxable, they moved to get a clarification on taxes as they relate to the broadband stimulus program. In a March 4 letter to U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy F. Geithner, Rob Thormeyer, director of communications for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners wrote that getting clarification on the tax question “is a critically important issue with significant implications for jobs, economic recovery, and the rollout of broadband infrastructures.” Thormeyer writes that grant applicants are concerned about this issue, and: “Unfortunately, even tax experts are unsure of the tax consequences of stimulus grants.” The good news, however, is that, according to Thormeyer: “Nothing in ARRA indicates that the RUS/NTIA broadband (or smart grid) grants are taxable.” |
| Get Energized for Round 2 March 2, 2010 By Paula Bernier Using smart grid technology to lower the nation’s energy costs and usage has been a recurring theme of this presidential administration. The FCC held a National Broadband Plan hearing on Energy & the Environment back on Nov. 30 at MIT. And on Thursday the FCC is scheduled to hold a conference call with reporters to discuss the National Broadband Plan’s working recommendations on how broadband and advanced communications can increase the nation’s energy independence and efficiency. As you probably know, in addition to creating jobs and making broadband move widely available, a key goal of the National Broadband Plan is to address other national interests. That includes advancing the country’s energy independence and efficiency. I’ll provide more details on what the FCC says during this event later on in this space. But the repeated discussions by the FCC about energy issues and the Obama administration’s ongoing talking points about the smart grid – and, more importantly, the fact that it earmarked $3.4 billion in stimulus funds last fall for smart grid efforts – would seem to indicate its dedication to this issue. So if you’re a service provider looking to get a share of those second-round broadband stimulus funds and there’s a way you can bring an energy company and/or some kind of smart grid application into your proposal, it would probably be to your advantage to commit your energies to do so. |
| Man in the Mirror February 28, 2010 By Paula Bernier During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama used a line that really stuck in my mind. It wasn’t that thing about change. Hope? Nope. The line I like the best is this: “We are the ones we have been waiting for.” Whatever your political inclinations, you have to admit that this is a pretty good one. This line came to mind recently when Google announced, to great acclaim, that it plans to create fast fiber networks in an effort to encourage more widespread deployment of this kind of thing. Shortly after that announcement, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski hailed the news and discussed the commission’s interest in bringing 100mbps access to 100 million U.S. households under an initiative called 100 Squared. With big names like Google hopping into the ring (or at least the discussion) around fiber-based access, and the FCC making big plans on this front, it might seem like the broad-based move to these kinds of networks has been all tied up. But it should be noted that Google hasn’t done anything close to building a significant access network yet, that it’s only so far made a call for potential partners on this effort, and that some believe this move by the search giant is simply posing for better position. The FCC, meanwhile, can only do so much to help drive broadband adoption forward. When it comes to deployment of more broadly available and broader broadband, we are the ones we’ve been waiting for. |
| Should Round 2 Deadlines Be Extended? February 23, 2010 By Paula Bernier They say timing is everything. Even if you don’t believe this old adage, you have to admit that timing is certainly important. That’s why a lot of folks are getting pretty upset by the fact that there’s some overlap in timing between the first- and second-round broadband stimulus phases. The problem with this is that, although the NTIA and RUS continue to announce first-round funding winners, all the first-round awards have yet to be made; and it appears that they won’t all be announced for some time. As a recent press release from RUS states: "USDA is continuing to review broadband applications currently on file and expects to make additional announcements concerning awards throughout the current fiscal year." Yet the second-round application deadline is March 15. That means that organizations that submit applications during the second round don’t know -- and won’t know until pretty late in the process – whether the locations they’re targeting with their proposals have already received funding during the first round. As broadband consultant Craig Settles wrote in his recent blog: “NOFA 2 rules say your grant app will be disqualified if your proposed coverage area includes areas covered by Round 1 winners. Which means you have two weeks to either scramble to adjust your application if there turns out to be duplications, or you face two weeks of sheer hell because you waited around for the Feb 28 finale.” In the same blog, Settles calls for an extension of the second-round broadband stimulus application deadlines – something he says NTIA and RUS have already refused to do. “If ever there was a right time for Congress to intervene, now is that time,” he writes. |
| Not the Only Game in Town February 18, 2010 By Paula Bernier The broadband stimulus has obviously gotten a lot of attention, but in setting out the first-round rules for it the federal government noted it’s not the only way that those interested in building communications networks might get dollars. Yesterday the government made an announcement about how various entities would be receiving some of government dough through the FCC’s Rural Health Care Pilot Program. Through the FCC, the program has awarded $145 million to a variety of entities to fund the creation of broadband efforts related to telemedicine in nearly 20 states. This comes after the FCC in April approved up to $46.2 million in funding for similar efforts. It all part of the FCC’s $417 million Pilot Program to increase patient access to care via telemedicine and support the transfer of electronic medical records. The new funding will go to hospitals in Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. You can find information on who got what on the FCC’s Web site. But the point here is that the broadband stimulus program -- while a nice opportunity and probably worth applying for -- is not the only game in town. There are other funding sources out there for companies and other organizations that have great ideas for how to use broadband to create jobs, improve the quality of life of U.S. citizens, stimulate the economy and create savings. You just have to get out there and look for them. |
| Squaring the FCC’s Broadband Ambitions February 16, 2010 By Paula Bernier The FCC will not unveil the National Broadband Plan to Congress until March, after getting a one-month extension on the original mid-February deadline. However, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski today at the NARUC Conference revealed some details about the plan, including an effort he calls the“100 Squared” initiative to outfit 100 million U.S. households with 100mbps access. Talking about how broadband plays an important role in economic prosperity, job creation and other quality-of-life matters, Genachowski noted that more than 20 countries have broadband plans in place to help them capture jobs and other economic advantages. “Look at Shenzhen, China,” he said. “In the 1980s it was a fishing center. Today, it is a city of 12 million that produces about 25 percent of the world’s cell phones. From chip sets to mobile devices to semiconductors and applications, American high-technology businesses today are competing not only with other firms here in the U.S, but with companies in China and India and elsewhere.” Noting the stiff competition from such countries in attracting jobs and business, Genachowski went on to point out that the “broadband ecosystem” in the U.S. needs some work and that the government is trying to do at least part of the job through its broadband stimulus effort and the National Broadband Plan. The “100 Squared” initiative, he indicated, will be part of the effort to get the nation’s infrastructure up to speed. “To meet the imperatives of global competitiveness and enduring job creation, we must have broadband networks of such unsurpassed excellence that they will empower American entrepreneurs and innovators to build and expand businesses here in the United States,” he said. “Our plan will set goals for the U.S. to have the world’s largest market of very high-speed broadband users.” Genachowski, who didn’t provide a timeline for getting 100mbps access to the 100 million households, went on to say that 100mbps will be just one stepping stone along the way. “The U.S. should lead the world in ultra-high-speed broadband testbeds as fast, or faster, than anywhere in the world,” he said. “In the global race to the top, this will help ensure that America has the infrastructure to host the boldest innovations that can be imagined.” Genachowski also noted that Google announced a 1gbps testbed initiative a few days ago. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that Google got a mention in the speech, given the company gets press whenever Eric Schmidt blows his nose. But it’s the service providers – telcos and cablecos – that actually have been investing and continue to invest in the nation’s broadband networks while Google continues deliver over-the-top solutions while making a show about its broadband network ambitions. And while Genachowski in his speech continued to bang the mobile broadband drum, it’s fixed technology like fiber that will allow the nation to get to 100mbps and beyond the most quickly and efficiently. |
| Broadband Stimulus: It’s Better with a Friend February 11, 2010 By Paula Bernier If the NTIA and RUS thought the response to the first round broadband stimulus was big, they ain’t seen nothing yet. I say this because there were probably a fair amount of organizations that sat on the sidelines to gather more information about the process during the first round so they could weigh whether to participate in the second round. Armed with more information and having had more time to put together plans, some of these entities may now be ready to take the plunge. Also, some companies – namely, the large incumbent telcos -- decided they didn’t want to play by the rules laid out in the first Notice for Fund Availability. But it appears that at least one of them finds the second-round NOFA rules are more to its liking. I’m referring, of course, to Qwest, whose senior vice president of public policy and government relations, Steve Davis, says: "We’re pleased the RUS has modified its rules to support broadband deployment to all unserved rural areas. We’re reviewing the rule changes to determine whether Qwest will file an application for stimulus funds in the second round of the program." So second-round applicants are likely, in my opinion, not only to have more competition but, possibly, to have larger competition. That said, it is worth repeating that it would be to broadband stimulus applicants’ advantage to buddy up with other entities to allow them to leverage broader assets during to application creation process, put together proposals that could be more attractive because they benefit a larger number of entities and appeal to the government’s interest in awarding monies to public/private partnerships involving community anchors. |
| NTIA Gets Busy February 9, 2010 By Paula Bernier Less than two weeks after an oversight hearing of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice & Science in which NTIA officials were called on the carpet, the National Telecommunications & Information Administration is showing broadband stimulus applicants the money. According to a Multichannel News story posted yesterday, NTIA has made known its intention to distribute $21.5 million in broadband stimulus grants to the Mid-Atlantic Broadband Cooperative for middle mile projects in Southern Virginia. Part of the effort, which is expected to impact 58,000 students, reportedly involves interconnecting 121 elementary and high schools in rural areas across a dozen counties. Another part of the money has been earmarked for a project that will connect Virginia Tech University and Bedford City, crossing six counties in the state's Appalachian region and connecting the Blacksburg campus with the University's medical school in Roanoke. The Blacksburg to Bedford leg will reportedly be between 10 and 200 gbps; connections to the schools are expected to be in the 1.5 to 10mbps range. This comes after the NTIA took a weekend breather following U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke’s Friday announcement that the agency will award a $5.9 million grant to the South Carolina State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education. That money is intended to expand broadband Internet access for 16 colleges within the South Carolina Technical College System. Specifically, it will be used to enable public computer centers and computer labs in the state to serve more than twice the current number of users, which as a result will have better access to educational resources, jobs databases, and job skill workshops, Locke said. And although the 51 expanded and 19 new computer centers referenced in the program are on college campuses, they will be available to the general public and will include 2,028 new computers, 596 of which will be upgrades. Also on Friday, the NTIA unveiled plans to dole out an addition $1.2 million in Recovery Act funds for a library broadband effort in Rhode Island. OSHEAN Inc., a consortium of not-for-profit organizations, is the winning applicant in this case. The planned deployment involves connecting 71 public libraries in our nation’s smallest state by area, as well as expanding and upgrading public computer center gear. As with the above-mentioned efforts, the aim here is to create jobs, stimulate the economy, and expand broadband Internet access for those seeking education and work. |
| The Program of ‘No’ February 4, 2010 By Paula Bernier To date, the NTIA has announced just 66 broadband stimulus grants totaling nearly $300 million. But the agency has already put the kibosh on more than a thousand applications. At least that was the word from Commerce Secretary Gary Locke during on oversight hearing by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice & Science last week. According to Locke, Commerce Department agency NTIA has sent 1,400 letters informing applicants of the BTOP program that their requests for broadband stimulus funds will go unanswered, at least during the first round. “…we will continue to let them know so every applicant will hear from us in the next few weeks either way,” Locke said. Wow, 1,400 rejection letters. That’s a pretty big number, especially considering that Locke reiterated just minutes later in the same hearing that the NTIA received 1,400 applications in the first round of the broadband stimulus program. (And before the meeting concluded, Locke went on to say that the agency screened 1,800 applications as part of its first-round proceedings. So I’ll let you do the math on that.) But whatever the actual number of applicants and rejections, it seems that the NTIA is putting more emphasis on the glass-half-empty part of this equation than on filling the glass so more applicants can get money sooner to hire new people to get these new builds rolling to get broadband turned up to our citizens. Don’t get me wrong. It’s nice to alert those who didn’t make the cut in the first round of that fact so they have time to try again. However, I believe the goal of the broadband stimulus was to stimulate the economy as soon as possible, so perhaps the NTIA should put the emphasis first on getting the money out and, second, on alerting those who weren’t chosen. That could help quell the concerns of applicants, taxpayers and politicians, as NTIA’s snail-like pace in announcing and distributing these funds is causing delay in investment, stress and questioning of the effectiveness of the program. In fact, Sen. Richard Shelby, ranking member of the above-mentioned subcommittee, went as far as to call for the dissolution of the NTIA BTOP program. “Today, $4.3 billion idly sits in your bank,” said the Republican senator from Alabama during last week’s hearing. “I believe we should save the taxpayer from suffering from any further problems by rescinding the money from the Department of Commerce.” Subcommittee Chairman Barbara Mikulski, a Democrat from Maryland, took a less reactionary stance, but also noted significant concern over the pace of things. “…since this money was given to the Commerce Department, the Department has only granted a little more than $200 million…. we know there is a lot of work to make sure the money is going out is not a boondoggle, we know you need to do due diligence, but we’re getting calls from our constituents wanting to know when they are going to get words about their grants so they can get started. We want to know if there’s something we need to do to help you move faster.” Locke responded that the NTIA expects to announce hundreds of millions of dollars in additional grants in the next several weeks. |
| Give and Take February 2, 2010 By Paula Bernier At the risk of being branded a cynic, I have a confession to make. When I recently heard that the Federal Communications Commission stands to collect approximately $6.4 billion in funds in the next decade related to the use of airwaves, I felt I had new insight into why the FCC has expressed openly its favoritism, related to the broadband stimulus effort, toward wireless technology. According to the President’s 2011 budget proposal, the FCC – for which Obama wants to extend indefinitely authority to auction spectrum -- could get $1.6 billion from spectrum auctions through 2020 alone. Of course, spectrum auctions in the past have been a cash cow for the FCC, so this news probably doesn’t come as much of a surprise. What has been a surprise to some is how strongly the FCC, the NTIA and RUS have been leaning toward the wireless contingent as they have spoken about and drawn up rules around the broadband stimulus effort. Although, from what I can tell, most folks tend to rely on their wireline broadband connections (sometimes supplemented by Wi-Fi) and computers to do the bulk of their work and important home-related activities, while using cellular connections and wireless devices for narrowband voice and simple email as well as for more leisure time activities like texting friends, playing games and watching short video clips, government leaders have continued to press the importance of wireless technologies – often at the expense of wireline. An example of this is the fact that, once again, the broadband stimulus rules favor wireless over wireline rather than putting an apples-to-apples point system in place. The round-two broadband stimulus RUS BIP scoring will give wireline products offering at least 5mbps combined upstream and downstream five points. Meanwhile, wireless will get up to eight points for 3mbps combined upstream and downstream bandwidth. And, as I mentioned in a previous blog, the fact that any project costing $10,000 or more per premises passed will not be considered seems to favor wireless, according to some industry watchers. While the rules for this second broadband stimulus round have been set, it couldn’t hurt to continue to emphasize to the powers-that-be both that wireline broadband has a history of reliability and offers higher end rates -- today. So, if the goal of the broadband stimulus and the National Broadband Plan are indeed to make broadband more widely available, and more wide, then perhaps regulators and legislators should be applying a more even hand to both technologies. |
| Division and Deadlines for Round Two of the Broadband Stimulus January 28, 2010 By Paula Bernier As I mentioned in my blog last Thursday, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Rural Utilities Service on Jan. 15 put in place second-round broadband stimulus rules. I talked about the removal of the remote rural language as well as how a new streamlined process should help improve things during this round. Now I’d like to provide a breakdown of what money will be going where in the second round, and the expected timeline around the efforts. For the second round, the NTIA expects to disperse $2.6 billion. That includes $2.35 billion for comprehensive community infrastructure projects, $100 million for sustainable broadband adoption and $150 million for public computer center initiatives. Each winning CCI application, according to the NTIA, likely will be in the $5 million to $150 million range. Winning PCC and SBA applications, meanwhile, will probably be between $500,000 and $15 million each, the NTIA says. RUS this round has $2.2 billion to share. That, RUS explains, will include $1.7 billion for last mile projects, $300 million for middle mile projects, $100 million for satellite projects, $5 million for rural library and technical assistance and $95 million in reserve. The satellite category is a new one for RUS this round, and it is expected that the agency may use the technology to bring broadband to areas for which it doesn’t receive any broadband stimulus proposals. Those interested in watching or commenting on the round-two action may be interested to know that the NTIA expects to post announcements identifying each application received along with a list of the census block groups or tracts that each application proposed to serve through its project, in addition to the information it is required to publicly disclose pursuant to the Recovery Act. That means there will be a greater level of transparency this time as compared to the first round, in which the NTIA only published the names of the applicants and some other basic information about them. NTIA has established a 15-day window during which incumbent service providers are allowed to comment on applications by prospective fund winners who want to build broadband networks in their existing service areas. RUS will allow 30 days for comment. As for the applicants, those seeking more details on the second-round process are encouraged to attend one-day workshop, which the NTIA and RUS will hold through Feb. 12. Because each agency issued its own rules this round, workshops fall under with the NTIA or RUS banner this time around. Between Feb. 16 and March 15 the agencies will accept applications. And the NTIA has said it expects to begin announcing round-two award winners on a rolling basis starting in June. All NTIA grants are expected to have been awarded by Sept. 30. And although RUS hasn’t yet disclosed its timeline, the deadlines for this agency are expected to be pretty much the same. |
| RUS Announces $310M in First-Round Funding January 26, 2010 By Paula Bernier RUS has made another series of first-round broadband stimulus fund announcements. This time it involves the planned allotment of $310 million in funding to a handful of recipients. And it’s a real mixed bag of winners this time around. That includes $88.1 million in grant and loan monies for an Alaskan telecommunications company that will build "middle mile" networks to connect 65 towns and villages in southwestern Alaska to the Internet. It also involves $19.1 million in grant and loan funds, which will go to a Missouri electric cooperative to build a fiber-optic network that will reach nearly 5,000 homes, businesses, public safety entities and community organizations in rural Ralls County, Mo. There also are at least two last-mile efforts here (not sure if the Missouri build is middle mile, last mile or some combination of the two). TDS Telecommunications Corp. will receive a $3.9 million grant to build a DSL network to serve residential, business and community-related organizations in sparsely populated parts of Alabama, and a different telco has received a $376,000 grant and loan to build a WiMAX network to service 325 homes in northeast Iowa. Noting this group of awards is just part of the money to be dispersed by RUS this round, USDA spokesman Bartel Kendrick told me yesterday that additional first-round broadband stimulus award announcements will be made on a rolling weekly basis from now on. This chunk of broadband stimulus awards really doesn’t tell us much about what to expect from RUS regarding the BIP program going forward. However, we can learn a lot about what to expect in round 2 of the broadband stimulus from the notice for fund available (NOFA) issued by both RUS and NTIA earlier this month. For more on that, see my last blog and look for another NOFA-related blog here on Thursday. |
| Round 2 NOFAs Look Pretty Good January 22, 2010 By Paula Bernier The NTIA and RUS last week issued their second-round notice for funds available documents, which outline the rules and processes relative to the broadband stimulus effort. I’ve been out of the office for a few days attending to some family matters, but just got a chance to review what’s new and would like to give you a snapshot of some of the key takeaways from the new NOFAs. (That’s plural because the two agencies this round each issued their own rules.) We’ve got a pretty upbeat story here, as there have been improvements on a number of fronts. For one, after many in the industry lobbied strongly against the removal of the remote rural requirement, the agencies answered the call and dropped that. As I noted in my July 21, 2009, blog, the first-round NOFA defined remote rural areas as those at least 50 miles away from a city or town of at least 20,000, or 50 miles away from an urban area next to a city of at least 50,000 inhabitants. And the first-round NOFA required those seeking funds to build broadband infrastructure in areas defined as remote rural to forward their applications to RUS to be considered for the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP). And if a service provider applicant operates in an area that is defined by the U.S. Census as at least 75 percent rural, the first round NOFA said that company had to go through RUS for broadband funds. The problem with that was unless the service area was classified as remote rural, the RUS BIP program in its first round limited the grant funds for projects up to 50 percent. And the BIP program in its first round was weighted more heavily toward loans than grants. Meanwhile, the NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) in its first round provided grant funds for up to 80 percent of project costs for non-rural areas. That meant suburban and urban populations and providers were better positioned to benefit from the broadband stimulus than were those in rural areas – the very locations that most believed the broadband stimulus program was created to serve. So the removal of the remote rural language was a welcome relief for many. The NTIA and RUS also have made pretty clear what they expect to allocate for each type of project, and for each winner within each of those categories (I’ll talk more about that in my blog next week.) That’s a nice improvement over the last round and will give applicants a better idea of what to ask for and what to expect. There are several other changes to the rules this round, many of which I will discuss in my future blogs. But since I have been railing on the FCC, the NTIA and RUS for their failure to meet deadlines, I want to touch on a few of the NOFA alterations that appear to position the agencies for better forward movement. For one, the agencies have asked those seeking broadband stimulus funds to send their applications to one or the other of them, but not both. That should lessen the review burden on the NTIA and RUS, and thus potentially allow them to move more quickly this time around. The review process also has been streamlined. RUS says it will go from a two-step to a one-step process, and the NTIA aims to gather all information from applicants up front and will only ask for additional information after that on an as-needed basis. And while NTIA has made clear its focus on middle-mile projects and those involving community anchor institutions (and this time the applications involving community anchors don’t necessarily have to be in unserved or underserved areas – a big change), RUS has indicated it will handle most of the last-mile projects, especially those in which the last-mile component exceeds 20 percent of the total project cost. The RUS BIP will target areas where not more than 50 percent of locations have more than 5mbps combined upstream/downstream bandwidth. While projects in areas that are at least 75 percent rural are not required to apply first to BIP, those applicants that are current RUS borrowers, are proposing projects involving last mile service areas that are 75 percent or more rural, or have a last mile component that exceeds 20 percent of the total eligible project cost, are strongly encouraged to apply to RUS under BIP. |
| Net Neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine January 14, 2010 By Paula Bernier Noting the deadline for public comment on the FCCs’s proposal to codify network neutrality rules is today, John Eggerton of Multichannel News posted an interesting article. It talks about how a think tank out of Maryland called Free State Foundation is arguing that net neutrality is somewhat analogous to the fairness doctrine. As you may recall the fairness doctrine is the idea that both sides of a particular public debate must be given the same amount of free on-air time to express their positions. However, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski recently was quoted as saying the fairness doctrine is dead, as Eggerton notes. But while that form of the fairness doctrine is flatlining, the FCC recently resurrected the net neutrality discussion. And Free State indicates that is a mistake because it could compel ISPs to make available content they might not otherwise reveal. That, the group reportedly says, could discourage investment and job creation, slow innovation and adversely affect consumers. |
| No Idea About the Key Takeaways Here January 12, 2010 By Paula Bernier The Federal Communications Commission in a news release issued earlier this week said comments posted to its site http://broadband.ideascale.com are a matter of public record, and the agency encouraged interested parties to consider the ideas expressed on the site as they formulate their own impressions and efforts around the federal government’s broadband-related initiatives. The broadband ideascale site is yet another testament to the democratic nature of the Internet. But just what specifically the government, and the rest of us with an interest in its broadband efforts, will get out of this online venue – at which visitors opine about everything from soup to nuts – is unclear. I guess it’s just another collection of input from various parties on broadband-related issues – but presented in more of a stream-of-consciousness format than we’ve experienced at the various meetings and workshops held by the FCC. The site has comments on everything from the benefits of telecommuting, to the need for less expensive and more affordable broadband, to problems with the site itself – such as the reputed fact that broadband.ideascale.com doesn’t have any link to a privacy policy, which means visitors can get the email address of those who have comments via RSS or the API. |
| Rain Delay January 7, 2010 By Paula Bernier I don’t want to sound like Suzy Rain Cloud, but delay, it seems, is the only thing you can count on regarding the federal government’s broadband initiatives. The latest development on this front has the FCC requesting an extra month to put together the National Broadband Plan, which, per the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, is due to Congress Feb. 17. The FCC has not disclosed exactly where it is in the effort, but based on its recent very general commentary on the plan, I have to wonder whether one extra month will be enough. I say this not because I want to see further delay. No way. Rather, I say this because if the National Broadband Plan is to be of value it needs to address in a reasonable amount of detail at least a good subset of several large and complex matters – including by not limited to how to define broadband, how to ensure the affordable and sustainable accessibility of broadband for all who want it, how to leverage or adjust existing rules related to broadband, net neutrality/fair use and Universal Service Fund reform. That would seem require not only a great degree of data gathering, but also more than a fair amount of analysis. The FCC has the first part down from what I can tell. The commission reportedly has received mountains of input on what it should consider in creating the National Broadband Plan. But if the FCC is indeed still wading through that input while at the same time dealing with all the other day-to-day work on its agenda, I have to wonder how much time is afforded to the actual analysis side of the equation. And that’s the really important part. The FCC has struggled to get its hands around such individual subjects as net neutrality and USF reform. Now, not only is it being called on to address those challenging issues, but now they’re just part of a large and more complex puzzle. Then again, perhaps the FCC has been working furiously behind the scenes with great success in addressing these key issues and just needs an extra month to cross the T’s and dot the I’s. |
| Spectrum Reallocation Discussion Emphasizes Wireless Shortcomings January 5, 2010 By Paula Bernier As I mentioned in last week’s blog, the Obama administration and FCC have made clear their favoritism toward wireless as the broadband stimulus and National Broadband Plan efforts march forward. But reports this week about discussions among federal regulators regarding wireless spectrum reallocation clearly highlight the shortcomings of wireless broadband as a viable alternative to cable modem-, DSL- and fiber-based solutions. Federal regulators, you see, are considering ways they might reallocate spectrum now used by broadcasters, satellite operators, other commercial entities and/or government agencies to provide the wireless industry with a bigger chunk (800mHz over the next six years, according to the AP report) of frequency. From what I understand, Lawrence Strickling, head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, earlier this week in a letter to the FCC talked about the idea of such a spectrum reallocation, indicating that to do so would provide the wireless industry with some of the ammunition to become a more viable alternative to today’s cableco- and telco-run wireline broadband networks. This letter comes in the wake of a DoJ analysis noting the significant costs of building broadband wireline networks, but says as wireless now stands it’s unclear whether it is fast and reliable enough to be a real competitor with existing wireline cableco and telco broadband. Indeed. Wireless broadband clearly is not comparable to wireline when it comes to speed. And it’s not as reliable either, particularly in areas where wireless operators are seeing heavy loads from iPhone usage. Providing the wireless industry with additional spectrum might help alleviate some of the problems with wireless broadband, but it seems to be a path that will only lead to further delays in making broadband faster and more widespread. Just think about the time it will take to decide what spectrum will be reallocated, migrate existing users off of that spectrum, auction the spectrum, build network equipment and endpoints that can use the new spectrum, and then build networks based on that. |
| Something to Rely On December 29, 2009 By Paula Bernier It didn’t come as a surprise to anybody, really. The wireless industry has been talking for months about the potential for wireless network overload due to the popularity of the iPhone and the other devices being introduced in its wake. And, lately, we’re seeing more evidence that this concern about wireless broadband overload is for real. For example, we learned that AT&T’s website recently was directing users with New York zip codes away from the iPhone and toward other devices. That may be because the ease-of-use of the Apple device leads users to spend more time online enjoying a variety of rich media experiences. While AT&T quickly adjusted its site to again make the iPhone easily available to users everywhere, the company has been candid about the fact that its wireless network is overburdened, particularly in New York and San Francisco. And a CNET story http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10359490-245.html?tag=mncol in September chronicles connectivity challenges iPhone users face across the country. During my time off this week, I relaxed by watching the FCC’s Blair Levin on C-SPAN discussing how wireless is the future and otherwise continuing to emphasize how hot the FCC is on wireless technology as it puts together the National Broadband Plan, due out in February. Right, wireless networks and the new smartphones (some of them anyway) are great. I got an iPhone for my birthday this month, and like so many others I think it’s a lot of fun to use. But when it actually comes to getting stuff done – like editing pages for the magazines I help manage or using the web to quickly find the number for our veternarian – I use my laptop, which is connected via a Wi-Fi network to a high-speed wireline network. It’s a bigger screen and a bigger connection. And, like my wireline telephone service, I know it’s going to be there for me pretty much every time. |
| Sweet Home Chicago December 22, 2009 By Paula Bernier FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski on Monday blew into the windy city to discuss the National Broadband Plan, which is now less than two months away from the expected unveiling. While there he talked about the importance of broadband and other communications tools to businesses, particularly small businesses. Genachowski offered a reminder that a key purpose of the National Broadband Plan effort is not only to expand broadband to address national interests like health care and education, but also to drive investment, job creation, growth and innovation in the private sector. That said, he highlighted the fact that small businesses were responsible for the creation of more than 93 percent of all net new jobs -- more than 22 million of them – in the past 15 years. Noting that online retail sales are forecast to reach $334 billion by 2010, he said tools like broadband and Websites can help small businesses succeed in the competitive global marketplace. Still, Genachowski noted, many companies lack access to even a basic broadband connection. And he quoted one study that says 26 percent of rural business sites lack access to standard cable modem service and 9 percent don’t have DSL. He also talked about how mobile broadband is “vital to business operations, but too few small businesses use it today,” adding that nearly 75 percent of small businesses have little or no mobile broadband but suggesting small businesses will spend $28 billion on mobile in 2009. I would argue here that Genachowski and other regulators and legislators should focus their efforts to expand broadband to both small businesses and, for that matter, customers of all types, primarily on bringing broadband based on high-bandwidth, proven technologies and should worry less about the mobility factor – which businesses can get by deploying Wi-Fi within their walls or campuses. And, I might add, they should concern themselves less with supporting new competitors in already-served markets and instead spend the dollars and put the emphasis on bringing broadband or higher-bandwidth broadband to unserved or underserved areas, respectively. |
| A Call for Balance December 17, 2009 By Paula Bernier The big news of the day, as you may have heard, is that the first of the first-round broadband stimulus award winners have been named. Vice President Joe Biden today is in Dawsonville, Ga., to announce approximately $182 million worth of broadband stimulus awards, which involves 18 broadband projects in 17 states. Those federal monies from the NTIA (about $129 million) and RUS (about $54 million) are being matched by more than $46 million in private investment. Here’s a rundown of who’s getting what…
According to a press release issued late yesterday by the Office of the Vice President: “By building and improving middle-mile connections, Recovery Act awards will bring down the cost of private investment and attract Internet service providers to new areas, maximizing the value of federal investment.” While this outcome is one possibility, the lack of middle-mile networks is typically not the deciding factor for private companies as they consider where to deploy broadband. Rather, the deciding factor is whether it makes financial sense to do so both in the short and in the longer term. And an assist by the government could give these would-be broadband access suppliers just what they need to justify a build in otherwise challenging areas. That said, I hope the federal government balances its broadband stimulus investments going forward between middle-mile and other projects like community computer centers, and last-mile project proposals that could truly bring broadband home. |
| USF – The Next Telecom Stimulus? December 15, 2009 By Paula Bernier A colleague of mine recently pointed out that the Universal Service Fund, at $7.5 billion, is as big as the broadband stimulus fund, which as everyone in the industry probably is aware by now is $7.2 billion. As you’re probably also aware, the idea of expanding the USF to include broadband seems to have strong momentum. If this notion becomes reality -- whether through law, or at the hands of the FCC -- the USF could become a long-term broadband stimulus fund of sorts. If that’s the way things play out, it would of course change the very nature of the USF. That’s not only because an expanded USF would bring broadband into the fold; it’s also because it would alter the very nature of the fund, from an opex support mechanism to a capex one. Creating the formulas around how all this would work and who would contribute what seems a particularly dicey proposition, as would deciding what entities would qualify to be on the receiving end of this theoretical revamped USF. Another interesting question, should this happen, would be how long this broadband funding mechanism should be in place. Just until we reach a certain broadband penetration in the U.S.? Until we hit a certain broadband goal in broadband-challenged parts of America? Forever? I’m curious to hear your thoughts on how this might all play out and learn about your suggestions on how it could best be implemented. |
| Trying Not to Get Choked Op December 10, 2009 By Paula Bernier I’ve been covering the telecommunications space for quite a few years, and while I like to think I have a pretty good understanding about how networking works, the public network is a complex, varied and evolving beast that I find is sometimes difficult to get a handle on. If that’s the perspective of someone like me who has been able to focus on this area for nearly 20 years, imagine how lawmakers and other regulators -- who are sometimes newer to this arena, and focus on telecom as just a small part of their jobs – might feel. While I’m sure some of these folks have a good understanding of telecom networking, even those with a special interest in this area may not have had the time or the detailed information needed to gain a full appreciation for all the challenges and concerns broadband network operators face as a result of the large and growing amount of consumers and rich media on their networks. To help provide regulators, and interested parties of the public at large, with a primer/refresher on broadband, and an update on how technological and market forces are impacting carrier networks, the Telecommunications Industry Association recently held a network neutrality workshop. The workshop consisted of tutorial presentations by experts on network management practices for various Internet access service delivery platforms, followed by questions from the commission's technical working group and members of the public. One of the key takeaways from the workshop was how congestion can impact broadband networks, and the traffic and applications running over them. As you may know, during peak usage times, even the highest-bandwidth broadband networks can experience congestion, which in some cases can result in jitter and packet loss. That’s a problem, particularly for sensitive traffic such as voice services, most video, carrier-grade business services and even mobile backhaul. If congestion chokes up the network too much, end users are either flat out blocked from accessing the network and/or their applications, or have a less than ideal experience. One of the FCC’s principles around network neutrality is this: Subject to reasonable network management, a provider of broadband Internet access service may not prevent any of its users from running the lawful applications or using the lawful services of the user’s choice. While we all want to access whatever applications we like over our broadband connections, the nature of the broadband network is such that allowing all lawful applications on a non-discriminatory basis will not necessarily mean all applications are guaranteed equivalent performance. That’s because, as noted above, different applications have different characteristics in terms of traffic volume, throughput requirements, and latency and jitter ceilings. As service providers have continued to emphasize, peer-to-peer applications place a heavy load on broadband networks yet come from a small subset of end users. So, as one workshop presentation pointed out, if fair traffic management practices limit the volume of traffic on a per-subscriber basis to ensure that all subscribers have equal access to the Internet, P2P traffic may be affected on average more than traffic from other applications. This example is not “discriminatory” from an equity or anticompetitive perspective, however, because the traffic is not being differentiated by application. Instead, bandwidth is being allocated to subscribers fairly based on the services to which they have subscribed. Of course, this is just one aspect of how bandwidth management and the discussion around net neutrality is more complex than it might at first seem. Yes, we all want to continue to support an Internet and related networks that encourage a wealth of innovation, and access to a wide variety of new services and applications. But, as with just about anything – network-based or otherwise – it will require some understanding and management. |
| Bring It on Home December 3, 2009 By Paula Bernier Middle-mile networking issues are certainly worth considering in this broadband stimulus effort. Still, federal officials, who recently have been talking a lot about community-based projects that fall under this umbrella, should not focus on such pitches to the detriment of last mile applications. As I mentioned in a previous blog, a task force assisting the Federal Communications Commission with the National Broadband Plan last month laid out what it views as critical gaps in U.S. policies, programs and practices. A discussion about middle mile concerns was key among those gaps. Global Crossing is among the companies pushing the federal agencies to consider middle mile applications. At the same time, this company has been promoting its middle-mile services to rural providers, hospitals and universities. So it comes as no surprise that middle mile has become a focus of this debate. But while there are probably some middle mile applications worth considering, bringing broadband services to the widest number of customers through high-speed local connections should be the key focus for this national broadband effort. Bringing high-speed broadband to the locations where people live so they can be connected to various voice, video and data services at any time -- whether they’re snowed in, are home-bound for medical reasons, or just want to connect from the comfort of home – is central to the push to make broadband ubiquitous. |
| Fixins’ and Fixes December 1, 2009 By Paula Bernier Apparently not everybody has been as maxed out on tryptophan-laden turkey sandwiches with mayo and red cabbage as I have lately, as there’s been a lot of action on the broadband regulatory front in the past few days. For starters, the NTIA green-lighted broadband mapping funds for five additional states as well as a nonprofit called Connected Nation. Winners include Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Kansas (this is the Connected Nation one), Louisiana, and Missouri. Also this week, various industry groups voiced their opinions on the broadband stimulus effort thus far and how they think it could be improved in the second and final round. Walter McCormick, president of the U.S. Telecom Association, issued comments noting the first round broadband stimulus rules forced many of the country’s largest and most experienced broadband providers to the sidelines. And on behalf of the USTelecom member he recommended that revised broadband stimulus rules should focus on targeting unserved areas of the country, ensuring the most efficient use of limited taxpayer dollars and modifying program rules to increase the pool of experienced providers who are able to participate in the national effort. “We are hopeful that now — with the wisdom of experience — we can make some changes that allow more of the broadband community to contribute and help achieve the important goals set by Congress to create jobs and spark economic growth by expanding the availability of broadband,” he said. The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, meanwhile, reportedly has asked that the NTIA and RUS delay broadband stimulus awards until March to give them more time to study and fix the “known flaws” in the rules laid out in the first Notice of Funds Availability document. And while we all wait to get news on the other first-round broadband stimulus award winners, and work and watch for what’s next in terms of second-round rules, the deadline for the FCC’s National Broadband Plans looms nearer. The status on the National Broadband Plan is expected to be revealed during an open meeting Dec. 16. |
| Mind the Gap November 19, 2009 By Paula Bernier A task force assisting the Federal Communications Commission with the National Broadband Plan this week laid out what it views as critical gaps in U.S. policies, programs and practices that are acting as barriers to universal adoption and deployment of broadband. In the coming weeks, the FCC says, the task force will develop a range of options the commission can consider to bridge these gaps. Although most these so-called gaps are pretty obvious to anyone who’s been around the communications industry for long, the FCC says putting together this list of gaps involved data gathering at nearly 40 workshops and field hearings, more than 10,000 comments on the National Broadband Plan Notice of Inquiry and 15 public notices. Here’s a look into the gap, courtesy of the task force: The federal Universal Service Fund structure doesn’t support broadband deployment and adoption despite more than $7 billion in annual subsidies. The task force notes that the USF supports affordable phone service, but not broadband, adding that the four USF programs -- high-cost support for rural phone service, support for advanced services in schools and libraries, support for phone service to low-income families, and rural health care support -- are not coordinated to maximize deployment opportunities to fill broadband gaps. Furthermore, the task force reports that this “high-cost funding mechanism rewards inefficiency and is not determined by broadband needs.” It also says the USF is an “unsustainable funding mechanism and increased demands for support have doubled the amount paid by consumers since 2000” and that “accountability is limited for use of high-cost fund for broadband support. [To that I can only say: Understood.] The broadband adoption gap increases the cost of digital exclusion to society. I’m not sure exactly what that means, but under this heading the task force notes that broadband adoption levels vary widely across demographic groups. It says nearly 90 percent of families with incomes of $100,000 or more subscribe to broadband services, compared to 35 percent with incomes of $20,000 or less, and that rural households are less likely to subscribe than urban households. Meanwhile, only 40 percent of Hispanic households subscribe, followed by 46 percent of African-American households, while 65 percent of white households subscribe. [Right, less money usually means lower subscription rates, no big surprise there. It’s well understood, I think, that education and subsidies are what’s needed to address that if the goal is to make broadband universally available. But, as noted above, exactly how to create highly effective programs to make services universally available remains something of a mystery.] There’s also a consumer information gap, which undermines competition, innovation and choice, according to the task force. The task force explains that’s because consumers lack information about actual performance of their broadband service compared to the advertised speeds. Consumers can’t accurately compare performance of competing service, and application providers lack knowledge of network performance, dampening innovation, according to the task force. [Hmmm. While I like the idea of an open Internet and believe that service providers could be more forthcoming on the details of their services, this language – especially the part about application providers lacking knowledge of network performance – is interesting given the FCC has made clear it’s not keen on service providers helping over-the-top application providers get a better understanding of what’s happening at the network level and potentially providing them with the opportunity to guarantee the performance of their applications.] There’s a spectrum gap that frustrates mobile broadband growth. Here, the task force points out that smartphone sales are expected to overtake standard mobile phones by 2011 and that smart phone subscriptions have increased by 690 percent since 1998, while over-the-air TV viewership decreased by 56 percent. At the same time, the task force notes, spectrum is also critical for public safety, telemedicine, smart grid, civic engagement applications. Yet, it notes, identifying available spectrum, reallocating it, and assigning it is often a long, multi-year process. [I believe this is something the FCC could easily address.] High costs can limit broadband deployment in a variety of settings, creating a deployment gap. “Middle Mile” costs for transit and transport of Internet traffic can cost rural providers up to $150 per subscriber annually, almost three times as much as network operations, and can be a serious barrier to rural broadband, the task force notes. Also, the lack of efficient coordination when digging trenches for fiber and other expensive infrastructure costs dramatically increases the cost of deployment. Other outside plant costs, including pole attachments, also drive deployment gaps. [These are important points, and I think the federal government could probably do some good here in terms of clearing hurdles on some of these fronts. It would also be to the advantage of service providers, and those companies that sell them services and equipment, to keep this in mind as they plan network build outs. In fact, a fair amount of network sharing and joint head-end projects are already happening.] A television set-top box innovation gap hinders convergence, utilization, and adoption. Retail navigation device and set-top-box market competition has not emerged, limiting innovation. And the lack of devices addressing the move to IP-based networking and convergence is a major barrier for adoption, according to the task force, which notes that 99 percent of U.S. households have a TV versus 76 percent with PCs. [I’m not really sure what they’re getting at here. I’m pretty happy with my set-top box and digital TV services, which include HD, DVR capability, an electronic program guide and the option of on-demand content – although I don’t use that. I also like my Apple TV, which allows us to watch YouTube video on the TV, and gives us access to both on-demand content on iTunes, as well as the music, video and photos I have on my iMac. It would be cool if all this were available through a single interface and with access to all of the Internet. But I certainly don’t think the lack of a more integrated service or device is a hindrance.] There’s a personal data gap and users need to control their own information. Here the task force notes that personal data is increasingly digitized and moving to the Internet “cloud”; users have little control over their personal information; and ensuring privacy and security will enable a new generation of applications, and improve top national priorities that would benefit by secure but accessible personnel information. [Right. We know this administration is excited about cyber security. But what exactly they’re going to do about it is still under wraps from what I can tell.] So, now that we have these gaps defined, the FCC can go about finding solutions to close them. I certainly hope it’s already well on its way to do that, as less than two months remain until the FCC, per the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, must submit the National Broadband Plan to Congress. |
| You Have to Spend Money to Make Money November 17, 2009 By Paula Bernier The countdown to Broadband Stimulus Funding Winner Announcements, Phase 1, continues. First-round applicants and the rest of the world will find out in approximately one month, we are told, who has been selected to receive broadband stimulus monies. But while much has been written and said about what applicants have to gain from this program, much less has been said about what they have to lose. For example, NewWave Communications, a cable company out of Sikeston, Mo., that serves 115,000 customers in the Midwest and South, invested $80,000 into its broadband stimulus application request for $10 million. Indeed, many applicants sunk a lot of money into their applications. This included dedicating many human resource hours to get from legal, technical, financial and management teams. It also involved costs to hire outside consultants. Some will see a payoff from these investments. Others will go home empty handed. I guess that’s just the cost of doing business. As they say: You have to spend money to make money. But perhaps the modifications the agencies intend to make to the broadband stimulus rules for the second-round of the program should consider whether and how they could lower the bar in terms of what applicants need to invest to create their applications. That way, they can spend more of their dollars on such efforts as putting fiber in the ground and installing electronics. |
| Fast and Steady Wins the Race November 12, 2009 By Paula Bernier I believe it’s important to be open to change. While it can be scary and there may be bumps, and even failures, along the way, the benefits of experimentation – whether in technology, policy or personal endeavors – can be significant. That said, when it comes to the national broadband effort, there’s so much experimentation going on in terms of policy and program implementation that we shouldn’t be making it even more difficult by bringing technological experimentation into the mix. Federal regulators should keep that in mind as they decide who receives broadband stimulus dollars. Rather than awarding money to new, untested technologies or services like satellite, which promise fast and easy implementation but from all accounts I’ve heard are unreliable and costly for rural users, regulators should take the guesswork out of the technological aspects of the broadband stimulus and instead go with tried-and-true technologies that have already seen widespread and successful deployment. |
| One More Time! November 10, 2009 By Paula Bernier The broadband stimulus effort has become so painful it’s almost like getting a shot. Maybe that’s why the NTIA and RUS are trying to get it over with as soon as possible. RUS and NTIA today made official news that there will be just one more round of broadband stimulus funding. Lawrence E. Strickling, assistant secretary for communications and information and administrator of NTIA, attributed the decision to the agencies’ desire to distribute the money, and thus create jobs, at a faster pace. The news, of course, doesn’t come as a complete surprise, as the agencies had previously mentioned they were ruminating over such a move. The rules for the second round of funding, which are expected to be different than the first-round rules, will be issued once again via a Notice of Funds Availability document. The NOFA for the second round is slated to come out early in 2010 after the agencies are able to receive and review feedback on how they might improve on the first-round rules. The agencies are now accepting that input, so if you have something to offer to the discussion, now’s the time. However, I’m sure those that applied and get turned down during the first round of funding might better be able to comment on the process after the first round has played out. But, as you probably already know, the agencies don’t expect to make announcements about first-round fund winners until next month. |
| A Different Take on USF Reform November 5, 2009 By Paula Bernier At SUPERCOMM last month various telco execs and others talked about the opportunity the National Broadband Plan presents for triggering Universal Service Fund reform. But I don’t think the ideas put forth in the National Cable & Telecommunications Association’s recent petition for rulemaking are what they have in mind. The NCTA has reportedly suggested that the FCC can save up to $2 billion for broadband initiatives by eliminating subsidies to rural telcos in areas in which there is more than one service provider. According to a study that NCTA provided as part of its petition the FCC is spending billions supporting telcos in areas in which they have competitors that are not receiving the same benefits. The association suggests that if a cableco or other rural telco competitor can demonstrate there’s competition for more than 75 percent of customers in a select area, or that the state deems sufficient competition to deregulate retail rates charged by incumbents, then the FCC should require the incumbent to suggest the support required only to serve the parts of the area where competition does not exist. I welcome your comments on this issue. |
| Feel the Energy November 3, 2009 By Paula Bernier If you listened in on ADTRAN’s most recent broadband stimulus webinar you may recall Kevin Morgan’s mention that NTIA leadership has indicated it looks favorably upon middle mile broadband stimulus proposals that connect community institutions such as libraries and schools with service providers’ last mile networks. In fact, Larry Strickling of the NTIA has said those projects are garnering the highest scores. That’s a clear message to service providers that they would do well to bring community institutions into the mix as they prepare their applications for future rounds (or elaborate on their applications for the existing round, to whatever extent that’s still taking place). But service providers might want to think even more broadly than schools, libraries and the like as they move to address community needs. They also ought to consider how they could fit into smart grid efforts. Indeed, the Department of Energy recently awarded $3.4 billion in smart grid funds. And service providers like the telcos seem to be a plumb position to help energy companies and other companies in this realm make all the right connections to enable the smart grid we keep hearing so much about. As you all know, this smart grid area is hotter than hot for its potential to help conserve energy, address global warming and create jobs. That, of course, is why the Obama administration is putting so much energy into this space. Perhaps you should too. |
| Happy Holidays! October 29, 2009 By Paula Bernier I hate to once again be the bearer of bad news, but there’s been another delay. Rather than announcing first round broadband stimulus winners next month as previously expected, the involved federal agencies are now saying the unveiling will take place in December. Word is that the NTIA and RUS need a bit more time to comb through the 2,200 applications they received. But while this delay, which is just one of many in the short history of the broadband stimulus, is causing more frustration about this process, there was some reassuring news out of Tuesday’s Senate committee meeting at which the delay was announced. The good news was discussion indicating that the agencies are contemplating changes around the definition of remote rural. And while agency officials declined to spell out their plans on this front, change is good. As it now stands, remote rural is defined in the Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) as those areas 50 miles away from a city or town of at least 20,000 or 50 miles away from an urban area next to a city of at least 50,000 inhabitants. The NOFA currently requires those seeking funds to build broadband infrastructure in areas defined as remote rural to forward their applications to RUS to be considered for the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP). And if a service provider applicant operates in an area that is defined by the U.S. Census as at least 75 percent rural, that company must go through RUS for broadband funds. Unless the service area is classified as remote rural, the RUS BIP program limits the grant funds for projects up to 50 percent. The BIP program is weighted more heavily toward loans than grants. Meanwhile, the NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) will provide grant funds for up to 80 percent of project costs for non-Rural areas. That means suburban and urban populations and providers are better positioned to benefit from the broadband stimulus than are those in rural areas – the very locations that most of us believed this program was created to serve. I guess this isn’t necessarily new news, as I wrote about this possibility back in July. But it’s good to hear this is still in the agencies’ plans. "There's no question we'll make changes. We've learned a lot from this first round," said RUS head and former FCC commissioner Jonathan Adelstein. Let’s hope. |
| A Good Start October 20, 2009 By Paula Bernier Remember when this whole broadband stimulus discussion began? Some parties were calling for the federal government to earmark $44 billion to $100 billion to build broadband networks in the United States. Instead, we got $7.2 billion in stimulus funds for broadband. That said, it comes as no surprise that some parties, like the Yankee Group in a new report, are saying the $7.2 billion “is woefully inadequate,” and is less than a third of the investment necessary to connect every U.S. household with broadband. It’s certainly a fact worth restating, but it’s definitely no hot news flash. While $7.2 billion is less than we’d all hoped for, and less than will be required for ubiquitous broadband throughout the country, it has been enough to set many in the community scrambling to get a piece of the pie, which the involved federal agencies expect to begin doling out as early as next month. As I’ve mentioned in this space in recent months, the rules around the broadband stimulus could use a remodel, but since this exercise is kind of a figure-it-out-as-we-go kinda thing, maybe it’s not such a bad idea that we’re starting relatively small in terms of funding. I know the idea of less money being a good thing may be a radical idea to some, but stay with me. This first round of funding – in which $4 billion is supposed to be distributed -- has been a learning experience for all of us. With any luck, the next round will go a lot more smoothly and offers the FCC another chance to create a level playing field for all applicants. If I were a service provider, I’d strike while the iron was hot and start preparing my application now to participate in the next round of funding, whether or not I’d applied during the first round. That way, if I didn’t receive first round funding, I would have a head start in putting together my application and could tweak it as needed if the FCC alters the rules in the second round. However, even those companies and projects that don’t make the cut during the $7.2 billion broadband stimulus program might find some hope in the fact that the FCC has indicated that the push to make broadband more widely available in the U.S. will not end with the current effort. Nor should it. The fact that the FCC is now putting together a National Broadband Plan, which is expected to be released in February, gives some credence to this line of thinking. Vince Vittore, principal analyst at Yankee Group and author of the above-mentioned report, believes that a minimum of $24 billion is required to make broadband more ubiquitous in the U.S. I myself am not sure what magic number would allow the U.S. to make broadband ubiquitous in the U.S., and in the process have a positive impact on jobs, the economy at large, and other areas of public interest. But I do believe that Vince quite rightly states the following: “While the stimulus is a good start, it’s just that: a start." |
| Genachowski + Wireless = No Fair! October 15, 2009 By Paula Bernier OK, we get it. It’s nice to be able to access news and applications while you’re on the move. Nobody is denying the appeal of mobility, as the sales numbers of the iPhone -- and the crowd of smartphones being introduced in its wake -- have demonstrated. But, Chairman Genachowski, hold the phone! We know you dig wireless, and that’s just fine. However, you need to take a step back and look at the big picture here: Wireline broadband is capable of delivering a much broader experience than even the fastest wireless. Not only that, but wireline broadband is the key underlying infrastructure in terms of backhaul for Wi-Fi as well as the femtocell-based fixed mobile/convergence services everybody is talking about. So while your comments at the CTIA event, and the fact that the FCC has said it will treat wireless broadband stimulus applications more favorably in terms of bandwidth requirements than wireline applications, indicate your favoritism toward wireless, we urge you to reconsider your wireless leanings. You are part of the new administration, which has promised to introduce more fairness in governance by considering all viewpoints. Please, Mr. Chairman, consider this one. |
| Chewing on Genachowski’s CTIA Speech October 13, 2009 By Paula Bernier As I mentioned in my Oct. 1 blog, incumbents this month are invited to comment on other organizations’ broadband stimulus applications. And the federal government could begin announcing winners of the first round broadband stimulus program as early as next month. But from a new news standpoint, there doesn’t seem to be a heck of a lot new around the broadband stimulus at this particular time. Perhaps this is the so-called calm before the storm. The most interesting news on the regulatory front recently was the comments by our new FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski about net neutrality and how wireless fits into that idea. I discussed those comments and my take on them in my Sept. 22 blog in this space. But the chairman has since elaborated on some of his positions during a speech last week at the International CTIA WIRELESS I.T. & Entertainment event in San Diego. So I’d like to provide a few choice cuts of that speech. Bon appétit! “At the FCC, we … recognize that mobile is central to our mission. No sector of the communications industry holds greater potential to enhance America’s economic competitiveness, spur job creation, and improve the quality of our lives.” “My specific objectives involve unleashing spectrum for broadband; removing obstacles to 4G deployment, like delays in tower siting; developing fair rules of the road to preserve the openness of the Internet, while recognizing the differences between wired and wireless technologies; and empowering consumers by supporting a vibrant, transparent and competitive mobile marketplace.” “On a clear night last week I was outside with my kids and my iPhone. We were using an app called Star Walk. When you point it up, you can see dynamic images of the stars and constellations. After playing with it for a minute my 5-year-old daughter pointed to the sky and said: ‘There’s Pegasus.’ As they say, ‘priceless.’ Well actually, it was $4.95, happily paid.” “In recent years, the wireless sector has averaged a 16 percent annual rate of growth. In an economy that certainly can use some pacesetters, we need this industry to continue driving economic growth and job creation.” “More and more I hear people say that broadband is the future of mobile, and I agree. I also believe the reverse is true -- mobile is essential to the future of broadband.” “Communications technologies are complex and changing rapidly, nowhere more than mobile, and my time in business has convinced me that the last thing we want is heavy-handed and prescriptive regulation. Our goal is to empower innovators, not lawyers.” “In looking at wired and wireless Internet access, some have said that ‘one size doesn’t fit all.’ I agree. We know from experience at the FCC that there are real and relevant differences between wired and wireless. Mobile poses unique congestion issues, for example. Managing a wireless network isn’t the same as managing a fiber network, and what constitutes reasonable network management will appropriately reflect that difference.” “I welcome and encourage steps the mobile industry is taking to provide better information to consumers, but the FCC is also aware of ongoing confusion and frustration in the marketplace. Our goal is to ensure that consumers are armed with the information they need to make the market work. This is a key component of our mobile broadband agenda.” |
| Are You Ready to Rumble? October 1, 2009 By Paula Bernier It’s funny that October should be the month in which incumbent operators can comment on other organizations’ applications for broadband stimulus funds and whether those requests are actually for areas that are unserved or underserved in terms of broadband, because this process could get ugly. Incumbents reportedly have 30 days as of Monday night to put in their two cents about broadband stimulus applications. And while we’ve been hearing a lot lately about the promise of different interests working together in harmony, it just doesn’t seem to play out that way in most cases. Different interests obviously have varying views on what should be considered unserved and underserved. And some have even suggested that larger interests might attempt to further muddy the waters by launching campaigns to advertise broadband offers that aren’t actually available (although I should add that I don’t have any first-hand knowledge of any such activities). In any case, the month ahead looks to be an interesting one. So get your plastic ninja swords and lightsabers out of the closet and get ready to rumble. |
| Tick Tick Tick September 29, 2009 By Paula Bernier It’s the end of September, and you know how the rest of the year goes. You do your work, rake some leaves and maybe watch a football game or two, and before you know it it’s Halloween. So you do your work, put up your storm windows and maybe watch a football game or two, and before you know it it’s Thanksgiving. So you do your work, shovel some snow, buy some gifts, and now it’s 2010. Indeed, time waits for no man. So I truly hope the FCC is moving forward in a real way with the National Broadband Plan. I say this because in looking at the status report issued by the commission yesterday I have to say I’m a little nervous. The FCC has until mid February to put together this grand plan that’s supposed to be the blueprint not just for the communications industry but for the country as a whole. It’s supposed to lay out not only how to make broadband more available and accessible, but how to make sure the support systems are in place to allow for that. And, we are told, the National Broadband Plan also is positioned to be a guide for how broadband can help improve our collective quality of life by enabling new efficiencies and capabilities across a broad spectrum of applications and industries. Yet when I looked at the National Broadband Plan status update issued earlier this week by the FCC, I didn’t see much in the way of new information. Instead, I read a rehash of what the FCC has been talking about roughly since the inception of the National Broadband Plan as laid out in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Maybe the FCC is just waiting for the big moment to unveil the whole enchilada, because what it put out this week doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Of course, I’m sure that in addition to all the general proclamations about the plan and the various workshops the FCC has staged in the past few months, there’s a lot of work being done behind the scenes to flesh out the details we’ll see when the National Broadband Plan is finally unveiled Feb. 17. It’s a big job, but I certainly hope the FCC is pushing hard enough now that it is able to come out with a detailed National Broadband Plan that actually has some real impact. Because once 2010 arrives, you know how the next month and a half goes. You do your work, make some resolutions, break some resolutions and January is over. So you do your work, buy some flowers, eat some chocolate and it’s Feb. 17. |
| Genachowski on Net Neutrality September 22, 2009 By Paula Bernier The hot news of the week in communications is the comments made by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski relative to net neutrality. (Oh yes, and the Dell-Perot Systems deal too.) Just when many in the industry started to wonder whether the federal government would ever get more specific about this divisive issue, Genachowski, in a speech Monday at The Brookings Institution, started pushing the net neutrality button. In the speech, Genachowski said he wants to add two new principles to the FCC’s existing four open Internet principles. The first would prevent Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management. The second would ensure broadband providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement. But what really grabbed headlines were the chairman’s comments around how all six principles should apply to all platforms that access the Internet -- meaning not just wireline, but wireless as well. (So although current broadband stimulus application review rules note that the same points will be awarded for lower-bandwidth wireless links as are given to wireline operators offering more bandwidth, those wireline providers that don’t have a stake in wireless may find some solace here.) Anyhow, Genachowski said these new ideas would be paired with the initial four principles put forward previously by the FCC. They essentially include the assertion that network operators cannot prevent users from accessing the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network. But while Genachowski said he expects to codify these six principles and move to apply them to all network platforms, it’s likely going to take a long while before we see any more specifics around all this. And from what he said during the speech it doesn’t sound like there are plans for any actual legislation around this. As I think most would agree, that’s probably a good thing. For now, the FCC plans to issue at its October meeting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) asking for input on how best to create regulations around these ideas. (If you want to put your two cents in, go to the website, www.openinternet.gov.) “I am convinced that there are few goals more essential in the communications landscape than preserving and maintaining an open and robust Internet,” Genachowski said in his speech. “I also know that achieving this goal will take an approach that is smart about technology, smart about markets, smart about law and policy, and smart about the lessons of history.” Perhaps in this last part he’s referring to what many consider the disastrous Telecommunications Act of 1996, which leads us to this other Genachowski quote… “I will propose that the FCC evaluate alleged violations of the non-discrimination principle as they arise, on a case-by-case basis, recognizing that the Internet is an extraordinarily complex and dynamic system. This approach, within the framework I am proposing today, will allow the Commission to make reasoned, fact-based determinations based on the Internet before it — not based on the Internet of years past or guesses about how the Internet will evolve.” |
| Round and Round September 18, 2009 By Paula Bernier Things are changing quickly in terms of the broadband stimulus. Or at least they could be changing quickly. In case you haven’t heard, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration last week revealed it is considering doing not two -- but just one more -- round of applications and funding. In comments given last week before the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet Committee on Energy and Commerce of the U.S. House of Representatives, NTIA Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Lawrence E. Strickling, said: “Although NTIA and RUS previously indicated that we planned to hold up to three rounds of funding, our review of our experience in this first round, leads us to now explore the option of holding just one more round of funding. This more consolidated approach may have the potential of yielding benefits for all stakeholders. “First, it would enable us to complete the entire grant-making process in the summer of 2010, as opposed to next September, thus expediting the stimulative benefits for the economy and job creation that the Recovery Act promises. “Combining the second and third rounds into a single funding round, and adjusting the application deadline, could afford additional time – both to stakeholders, to provide us with well-informed views on how the first round worked for applicants, and to NTIA and RUS, to learn from our experience and adjust those aspects of the process that need to be improved. Also, parties who wish to collaborate on an application, such as through consortia or public-private partnerships, could have additional time to work out the details of those arrangements. Finally, combining the final two rounds may also economize on administrative expenses.” The idea of getting stimulus funds out faster sounds good. But how exactly does merging the two rounds and moving thing up to the summer of 2010 afford additional time? Maybe I should get a new watch. |
| Don’t Be Left in the Dark – Rules Around Broadband Transparency Could Be in Our Future September 16, 2009 By Paula Bernier As I mentioned in my last blog, I listened in on one of the National Broadband Plan workshops staged by the FCC. These events often are a rehash of things that we’ve all heard before. But the comments by panelist Sascha Meinrath, director of the Open Technology Initiative at the New America Foundation, made me perk up my ears. He was no Serena Williams, but Meinrath at the Broadband Consumer Context workshop used some pretty strong language about the U.S. service providers’ practices relative to marketing and consumer education – or, as he sees it, lack of it. According to Meinrath, service providers in the U.S. are intentionally keeping consumers in the dark about their broadband options. “Imagine if every gas station in the country didn’t have a sign about what it cost and what the octane on it was and you were told ‘Look, just start pumping gas and we’ll tell you what you’re going to pay for that gas and we’ll tell you what your octane is post-op,’” said Meinrath. “That’s kind of the environment we’re in with broadband connectivity.” (I personally think the dry cleaning business would’ve been a better example, but back to Meinrath…) That’s not allowed in Europe, he added, where rules require an open book policy around the cost, availability, contention and competition for broadband. “You can’t make an informed decision on what your broadband service options are if you don’t have access to that information,” he added. I’m not sure how much pull Meinrath has, but he is clearly calling for similar regulations in the U.S. So if you’re a U.S.-based service provider, be warned. “These are mandates that would just be excruciatingly easy to implement,” he said. “Maybe unpopular, but easy to implement.” |
| The Broadband Stimulus Water’s Warm, Jump Right In September 10, 2009 By Paula Bernier I keep hearing that many would-be broadband stimulus applicants sat out the first round of funding in hoping of getting more clarity on the rules before jumping into the process. While that may well be the case, plenty of folks apparently went ahead and took the plunge. As you may have heard, NTIA and RUS estimated they received requests for grants and loans totaling nearly $28 billion. If you consider the $10.5 billion in matching funds that would involve, the number totals more than $38 billion. Of course the reality is that the agencies only expect to dole out $4 billion this round; winning applicants are expected to be announced between November and the end of the year, NTIA tells me. But the point is that there are a lot of organizations vying for these funds, and the willingness to wade through the application process by so many entities is an encouraging sign and perhaps an indication that the federal government doesn’t have to bend to the will of any one interest group to get this effort off the ground. Here’s the breakdown, according to the NTIA and RUS, on the first round of applicants. More than 260 applications were filed solely with NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), requesting more than $5.4 billion in grants to fund broadband infrastructure projects in unserved and underserved areas. More than 400 applications were filed solely with RUS’s Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP), requesting nearly $5 billion in grants and loans for broadband infrastructure projects in rural areas. And more than 830 applications were filed with both NTIA’s BTOP and RUS’s BIP, requesting nearly $12.8 billion in infrastructure funding. Applicants for infrastructure projects in rural areas must apply to BIP but were given the opportunity to jointly apply to BTOP in case RUS declines to fund their application. More than 320 applications were filed with NTIA requesting nearly $2.5 billion in grants from BTOP for projects that promote sustainable demand for broadband services, including projects to provide broadband education, awareness, training, access, equipment or support, particularly among vulnerable population groups where broadband technology has traditionally been underutilized. The Recovery Act directs NTIA to make at least $250 million available for such programs; up to $150 million is allocated in this first round of grants for this purpose. More than 360 applications were filed with NTIA requesting more than $1.9 billion in grants from BTOP for public computer center projects, which will expand access to broadband service and enhance broadband capacity at public libraries, community colleges and other institutions. The Recovery Act directs NTIA to make at least $200 million available as part of this effort, which will receive up to $50 million in the first round of grants. Some folks have suggested that the volume of broadband stimulus applications may have been overinflated, and they are looking forward to seeing the actual data when, in the coming weeks, the NTIA and RUS post that information online in a searchable database, which they have announced will contain summaries of all applications. In any case, there’s still time and desire by the federal government to welcome more applications into the broadband stimulus process, given there will be two more rounds. But if you are a service provider or other organization that would like to get some of these funds -- or you’re an investor that may be interested in working with such entities to help provide the matching funds -- it would be to your advantage to start putting together your plans sooner than later. A Notice of Fund Availability (NOFA) document laying out the rules for the second round of funding should be issued in the fourth quarter, with the second round application process opening shortly after that. |
| Social Circle September 8, 2009 By Paula Bernier The FCC tomorrow hosts a National Broadband Plan-related workshop on the challenges and opportunities consumers face as the Internet becomes a focal point for shopping, social networking, healthcare, and various other activities. Representatives from Facebook, Yahoo, Consumers Union, Georgetown University, and several think tanks will be among the participants of the event, which is open to the public, who may register at http://www.broadband.gov/. It’s serendipitous for me as a writer that social networking is one of the subjects of tomorrow’s event, given I attended an interesting event on this topic just last week. I’m referring here to a pre-conference seminar called “The Social Enterprise – Are You Ready for It?” at the recent ITEXPO West, (full disclosure here) an event run by my new employer, TMC. At this event speakers emphasized the importance of social networking sites like Facebook not just in the everyday lives of consumers but also in their potential application as marketing and customer care vehicles for a wide variety of businesses. “This is a once-in-a-century communications platform,” said Paul Dunay, author of “Facebook Marketing for Dummies,” adding that the social networking phenomenon embodied by Facebook is on par with world-changing developments such as the printing press and radio. Five billion minutes per day are spent on Facebook, which has surpassed email in popularity. Facebook has 250 million users, which includes one out of five Internet users. It’s the web’s second largest video site. And it lays claim to being the largest photo site, with 1 billion photos uploaded monthly. Because Facebook and sites like it are populated by real people with real interests, marketers can potentially leverage that to deliver more targeted marketing and advertising, search and more. That’s a point that many companies are beginning to understand, given 60 percent of American companies interact on the social Web. According to a Cone Business in Social Media, 93 percent of people believe a company should have a presence in social media; 85 percent said they should not just be present but interact; and 56 percent reported a stronger connection when they do interact. While that opens new revenue-generating opportunities for companies, it also creates new security and privacy concerns for consumers and consumer privacy advocates. Whether such concerns will result in simple opt-out choices for consumers or more stringent regulatory requirements remains to be seen. Either way, it will almost certainly drive new traffic and applications onto broadband networks, creating the need for even more bandwidth and reliability. |
| What’s in a Name? August 25, 2009 By Paula Bernier That which we call broadband is coming under increased scrutiny by the FCC as the agency moves forward in its work to create the National Broadband Plan. The commission last week issued a public notice seeking comment on how it should define broadband within the plan, which it must complete by February. This recent notice seeking “tailored” comment on “broadband” reiterates many of themes found in the Notice of Inquiry that the FCC put out in April. Basically, the FCC aims is to define not simply the data rates it might attach to the term broadband, but also what performance parameters should be considered relative to them, how they can be measured, what parts of the network they involve, what role the applications broadband supports might figure in to one or more definitions for broadband, and how the FCC can ensure that its definition for broadband remains relevant over time. In the FCC’s words, it seeks more targeted comment on “the general form, characteristics, and performance indicators that should be included in a definition of broadband; the thresholds that should be assigned to these performance indicators today; and how the definition should be reevaluated over time.” So the FCC is looking for comment on how common performance parameters like latency, jitter and the like can affect the broadband picture. It would also like input on how traffic loads/patterns on the network can affect broadband delivery to all the users on such systems. And it ponders what minimum thresholds should be assigned to various performance indicators, and whether there should be different parameters and expectations for different technologies (like one maybe one for wireless and one for wired networks). That said, I wish I had a nickel for every time someone in the communications industry has told me customers don’t care what underlying technologies are involved in the delivery of their services, they just want affordable, reliable and easy-to-use services that enable them to get the content and applications they want and need – and quickly. If that is truly the case -- and I believe it is – we should aim for a broadband definition that discusses speeds within the context of sustained rates at peak conditions, and that involves technologies that are both reliable and consistent. Should you like to weigh in to how the FCC should define broadband, you can do so in the following ways: * Enter comments through the commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System at the http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ * Visit the federal government’s eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov * Send an email. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, send an e-mail including the words “get form” to ecfs@fcc.gov * Send five paper copies of your comment by messenger to 236 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 110, Washington, D.C. 20002; via commercial overnight mail to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743; or through U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, or Priority Mail to 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Initial comments are due Aug. 31. Replies are due Sept. 8. |
| Better Late Than Never August 20, 2009 By Paula Bernier Right. So today is the official deadline for the first round of broadband stimulus applications. After pushing back the initial Aug. 14 deadline to today at 5 p.m. Eastern, the NTIA and RUS have said those seeking funds in this round must at least have their applications in, if not the applications and all the attachments that go with them. However, if you have been unable to upload attachments by today at 5 p.m., go ahead and submit the application without the attachments, and send your attachments in their physical form to the appropriate agency. If you do this, however, be sure to send an email by midnight Eastern time tonight to let them know your attachments are on the way via express or snail mail. Such emails should be sent to helpdesk@broadbandusa.gov and contain your the Easygrants ID number; a contact name and telephone number; the agency to receive the application (BIP, BTOP, or BIP/BTOP); the type of project your application is targeting (Infrastructure, Public Computer Center, or Sustainable Broadband Adoption); and the list of attachment(s) that could not be uploaded into the Easygrants System. Good luck! On a separate note, I wanted to point out that there’s yet another blog you might want to add to your Favorites list. This new column, called Blogband, comes from your friends at the FCC and will chronicle the development of the National Broadband Plan from the perspective of multiple FCC folks involved in the effort. There are a handful of blogs on the site, which can be found at http://blog.broadband.gov, now. So far most of the content on the blog is general information as to discussion at the FCC’s National Broadband Plan workshops. (The FCC is also launching on the microblogging platform, Twitter, at http://www.twitter.com/fccdotgov if you’re into that kind of thing.) |
| This Just In August 18, 2009 By Paula Bernier A lot has happened related to the broadband stimulus since I lasted blogged here. As you no doubt already heard, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) postponed the due date for online filing of first-round broadband stimulus applications from Aug. 14 to Aug. 20. The agencies made the change after their servers became overloaded as applications rushed to get their requests filed last week. According to a document issued by the government last week “An applicant that is submitting an application for the BIP and BTOP electronically will be permitted to complete electronic submission of its application until 5 p.m. ET on Aug. 20, 2009, so long as its application was pending in the Easygrants System as of 5 p.m. ET on Aug. 14, 2009 (application closing deadline).” Should you have questions about this relative to a BIP application, you can contact David J. Villano at RUS at bip@wdc.usda.gov or (202) 690–0525. BIP applicants with questions should reach the NTIA’s Anthony Wilhelm at btop@ntia.doc.gov or (202) 482–2048. In another recent development, some of the large incumbent telephone and cable companies have reportedly indicated they will probably not apply for broadband stimulus funds, at least not during this round, for various reasons -- some of which apparently include their distaste for net neutrality language in the rules, the possibility that any funding might result in more scrutiny to their businesses, and the fact that they have ample supplies of cash to fund their broadband buildouts themselves. If that is how it plays out, this would mean fewer applications – and extremely well-heeled applicants -- against which the rest of those seeking funds would have to compete. And that can only be great news for those that are active in this round. |
| Just the Facts August 13, 2009 By Paula Bernier The task of understanding what’s behind the agendas of interested parties in the world of broadband is a tricky one. To help separate the wheat from the chaff, the government has brought in the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI) to serve as an outside expert. CITI, which is based at the Columbia Business School in New York, will provide analysis of companies’ plans to deploy and upgrade broadband networks as well as evaluation of the relationship between previous such announcements and actual deployments. The FCC expects to leverage this data, which will be publicly available, as it develops the National Broadband Plan. “Too often, the debates over internet policy have been driven by narrow agendas, with facts used selectively as ammunition rather than enlightenment,” said Eli Noam, director of CITI and a Columbia Business School professor. “By focusing on data analysis -- of investment plans and deployment figures of upgraded broadband infrastructure, especially in this century -- CITI looks forward to helping the FCC to change the past culture and develop a National Broadband Plan grounded in facts.” If you’d like to assist CITI in this ample task, the institute is accepting comment at CITI-broadband@gsb.columbia.edu. |
| Square Pegs and Round Holes August 11, 2009 By Paula Bernier Competition is good. It can result in lower prices and more choices for consumers. It tends to push companies to deliver higher quality products and services. It can even help those that compete by building greater “brainshare” for the products they deliver, and creating economies of scale for goods from their suppliers. While competition certainly has its upside, I question the prominent focus that the broadband stimulus language places on competition. First, it talks about the government’s desire to fund open and competitive broadband networks, which it says will promote innovation. I don’t want to launch into a net neutrality or open access argument here, but suffice it to say that many informed sources that have spent a pretty penny on network infrastructure question this premise. But, for me, an even more questionable aspect of the broadband stimulus is that it on the one hand talks about the need to expand broadband to areas not currently served and stipulates that no one geographic area can receive more than a single stimulus award, while on the other hand it voice the government’s desire for competition in these same markets. These two goals simply do not square. |
| The Waiting Is the Hardest Part August 6, 2009 By Paula Bernier The first round broadband stimulus application deadline is one week away. At 5 p.m. Eastern time on Aug. 14 all requests for NTIA Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) and RUS Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) funds are due. But because of the definition for remote rural, many service providers hoping to get government assistance to bring broadband to rural locations find themselves in a hurry-up-and-wait situation. As I mentioned in a recent blog, remote rural is defined in the Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) as those areas 50 miles away from a city or town of at least 20,000 or 50 miles away from an urban area next to a city of at least 50,000 inhabitants. The NOFA requires those seeking funds to build broadband infrastructure in areas defined as remote rural to forward their applications to RUS to be considered for the BIP. And if a service provider applicant operates in an area that is defined by the U.S. Census as at least 75 percent rural, that company must go through RUS for broadband funds. Unless the service area is classified as remote rural, the RUS BIP program limits the grant funds for projects up to 50 percent. The BIP program is weighted more heavily toward loans than grants. Meanwhile, the NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) will provide grant funds for up to 80 percent of project costs for non-rural areas. That means suburban and urban populations and providers are better positioned to benefit from the broadband stimulus than are those in rural areas. When I originally wrote about this remote rural issue last month, many held the expectation that the government agencies leading the broadband stimulus charge had been educated about this mistake and that, as a result, RUS would adjust the definition of remote rural. With the first-round deadline fast approaching, it now appears we’ll have to wait until a future round of funding. And the next NOFA is not expected to be issued until the first quarter of next year. That’s too bad. In a speech yesterday at the first National Broadband Plan Workshop, our new FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski referenced three examples of how he’s seen “broadband’s power through my own personal interactions”: one in a public housing project in San Francisco; a second at a hospital in Palo Alto, Calif.; and a third at a farm in Erie, Penn. Not surprisingly, none of these examples are of broadband in rural areas. During this same speech Genachowski mentioned that the FCC’s workshops like the one Aug. 6 “take on added importance, because the first round of filings in response to our notice of inquiry did not advance the ball forward.” An FCC spokeswoman said that quote was not directed at any particular shortcoming in the comments to the FCC’s NOI on the National Broadband Plan or to any specific problems with the first-round NOFA rules or applications, but rather she reiterated that “Crafting a National Broadband Plan for our country is long overdue and it is critical that all stakeholders give the FCC their best ideas, best facts, and best data. The process and participation must meet the moment.” At the moment, a change to the remote rural definition could really help move things forward. |
| For the Record July 30, 2009 By Paula Bernier Organizations applying for broadband stimulus funds have their hands full just settling on the projects for which they want to request funds and then putting together their applications based on those projects. But prudent organizations will look beyond the immediate scramble to capture these grants and loans and also consider how they can meet the government’s stringent post-award reporting requirements should they be lucky enough to receive federal monies. Broadband stimulus fund awardees need to be able to stay abreast of – and easily access specific data related to – a variety of data relevant to their projects. For NTIA BTOP projects, that includes tracking the progress of achieving project goals and milestones; what money has been spent at every point along the way; and the amount of non-federal investments made at each point along the way. Additionally, organizations receiving these funds will be required to report where the broadband is available and at what price(s); their subscriber and new subscriber numbers; the advertised and average broadband speeds on the new network; the number and type of entities receiving new or improved access to these broadband services; the average increase in end user and middle mile speeds; and the total and peak utilization of access links. BTOP grant awardees must also be able to provide at all times data on the terms of their interconnection agreements, their traffic exchange relationships, the total and peak utilization on their interconnection links, their IP address utilization and IPv6 implementation, and their various network management practices. Meanwhile, organizations receiving funding under the BIP program need to understand that RUS can at any time during business hours seek access to inspect broadband systems for which BIP money was applied, and any and all business and financial documents related to them. So as you work to seek and, I hope, spend broadband stimulus funds, keep all this in mind and be sure put in place an organizational structure – including both data-gathering procedures and employee education -- that allows your business to meet these reporting requirements. |
| Smoke 'Em If You Got 'Em July 28, 2009 By Paula Bernier Broadband mapping has recently become a key hot-button issue relative to the broadband stimulus and the National Broadband Plan. The NTIA late last week laid out details of its effort to facilitate the creation of a “comprehensive, interactive, and searchable nationwide inventory map” of where in the U.S. broadband is delivered and by whom. Meanwhile, representatives from a variety of U.S. states have been talking up the fact they have existing broadband maps and how said maps could give them an edge in receiving broadband stimulus funds. They may just be right. As I mentioned in a past blog, the existing, state-level broadband maps are probably quite varied in terms of what data they include in what format and the methods through which the data collection took place. The NTIA’s mapping exercise, details of which are offered at this link, should help clear up those vagaries – as well as offer states between $1.9 million and $3.8 million each for their participation in the creation of the map. While awards for this effort are expected to be announced starting around Sept. 15, the actual National Broadband Map doesn’t have to be made available until Feb. 17 of 2011. That means that, for now, the broadband maps that do exist – even if they’re not part of the grand, standardized mapping effort – could be very beneficial to the applicants (governmental or otherwise) hoping to get a piece of the first round of broadband stimulus funds, for which the application deadline is Aug. 14. |
| Professional Engineering Certification July 23, 2009 By Paula Bernier Entities hoping to get more than $1 million in broadband stimulus funds need to get key parts of their applications certified by a professional engineer. And that professional engineer must operate in the state in which the proposed broadband project is planned. That’s according to new broadband stimulus guidelines published July 10 by the NTIA and RUS. Professional engineering firms must confirm that the broadband systems proposed by applicants for NTIA BTOP and RUS BIP funds: * will work as described in the System Design and Network Diagram sections of broadband stimulus applications; * can deliver the proposed services specified in the Service Offerings Section of applications; and * have viable buildout timeframes and will be substantially complete within two years and complete within three years. So if you plan to apply for more than $1 million in broadband stimulus dollars but you’re not already working with a professional engineering firm, you need to find one – and fast. If you’re seeking stimulus funds in more than one state, you’ll have to contract more than one professional engineering firm. Many applicants have been working with grant writers, which is fine, but those that had planned to work exclusively with those grant writers are at a disadvantage. If you don’t already have a relationship with an appropriate professional engineering firm, you might consider partnering with small or medium-sized broadband equipment suppliers that have such partnerships. Another option, if you’re not a service provider, is to join forces with your local service provider, which probably already has professional engineering contacts. |
| A Remote Possibility July 21, 2009 By Paula Bernier The broadband stimulus effort is uncharted territory, so it’s a given that mistakes have and will probably continue to be made along the way. So it should come as no surprise that NTIA and RUS are making adjustments as needed. And making adjustments so the broadband stimulus rules are a better fit to the program’s intended purpose is, of course, a good thing. It appears that such an alteration will soon be made relative to the definition of “remote rural”. As it now stands remote rural is defined in the Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) as those areas 50 miles away from a city or town of at least 20,000 or 50 miles away from an urban area next to a city of at least 50,000 inhabitants. The NOFA currently requires those seeking funds to build broadband infrastructure in areas defined as remote rural to forward their applications to RUS to be considered for the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP). And if a service provider applicant operates in an area that is defined by the U.S. Census as at least 75 percent rural, that company must go through RUS for broadband funds. Here’s the rub: Unless the service area is classified as remote rural, the RUS BIP program limits the grant funds for projects up to 50 percent. The BIP program is weighted more heavily toward loans than grants. Meanwhile, the NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) will provide grant funds for up to 80 percent of project costs for non-Rural areas. As you can see, that means suburban and urban populations and providers are better positioned to benefit from the broadband stimulus than are those in rural areas – the very locations that most of us believed this program was created to serve. Here’s the good news: During a recent NTIA/RUS workshop following the recent release of the first broadband NOFA, the federal agencies indicated they may revise the remote rural definition and advised interested parties to watch the www.broadbandusa.gov website for latest developments on this front. |
| Gone But Not Forgotten July 15, 2009 By Paula Bernier As I was reading the broadband stimulus Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) document issued last week a few things caught my attention because they don’t really mesh with other sections within the NOFA. That includes the promise of a broadband stimulus program that is “technology neutral” while at the same time laying out rules that award higher points for wireless applications with lower promised bandwidth. I wrote about this in Tuesday’s blog. A second, although less obvious, inconsistency, it seems to me, is requiring broadband stimulus applicants to demonstrate that their projects could not be implemented but for federal grant assistance while at the same time requiring these projects be financially feasible and sustainable. I’m all for the sustainable part, of course. It’s a no-brainer to say we don’t want to put money into a network that won’t be used, maintained and have longevity. It’s the other part I’m a little iffy about -- the part in which applicants must show that they have been unable to get their project off the ground in the past. (See NOFA section starting on line 733, which reads: “Grant applicants must provide documentation that the project would not have been implemented during the grant period without federal grant assistance. This documentation may consist of, but is not limited to, such items as a denial of funding from a public or private lending institution, denial of a funding request from RUS for a loan or loan/grant combination, a current fiscal year budget that shows the lack of available revenue options for funding the project, or a business case that demonstrates that the project would not be economically feasible without grant financing.”) While capital has been more than difficult to come by for a long while, I’m not clear on the value of a past denial of funding for a project. Certainly, many of the applicants will submit projects that have been denied funding in the past. And if those applications are deemed as meeting the goals of the broadband stimulus, that’s great. But if the goal here is to create as many jobs as possible as quickly as possible and to bring as many folks as possible broadband as quickly as possible, it seems as though support for projects that are shovel-ready is the way to go. |
| NOFA Not Necessarily Neutral July 7, 2009 By Paula Bernier The expectation that various flavors of both wireline and wireless technologies would be part of the broadband stimulus effort has been in place pretty much since discussion of the program began. True to that expectation, the Notice of Funds Availability (NoFA) document issued last week mentions that “NTIA … will issue awards on a technologically neutral basis, and expects to support projects employing a range of technologies (e.g., fixed and mobile wireless, fiber, satellite).” I believe the wording is pretty similar for the RUS funding. But that’s not the whole story. Read on for a thousand or so lines and you’ll find some language that makes clear wireless and wireline technologies in fact will not be competing on a level playing field for broadband stimulus funds. Here is the language to which I’m referring: “For wireline projects that are constructed to deliver a minimum of 20 megabit per second service to the household (upstream plus downstream), ten points will be awarded. For wireless projects that are constructed to deliver a minimum of two megabits per second service to the end user (upstream plus downstream), ten points will be awarded.” Wait a second. What? A wireline application has to deliver the promise of 20 megabits per second to get the same number of points a wireless applicant gets for offering up just 2 megabits per second? I don’t mean to be flip, but although the NOFA invites both wireline and wireless applicants to seek broadband stimulus dollars, the fact that the deliverable bandwidth of the two mediums will be weighted so differently in terms of points awarded is just plain wrong and not at all “technology neutral.” That’s not to mention that wireline technologies like DSL and FTTx are based on dedicated architectures whereas wireless technologies are shared, meaning the more users join the system the less bandwidth is available. I might also add that wireline is tried and true whereas wireless can be less reliable in certain weather conditions and that newer forms of wireless have yet to be widely proven in real-life networks. That said, I’m hopeful that now that the NTIA, RUS and the FCC have defined terms such as “broadband”, “unserved” and “underserved” will give closer consideration to the definition of “technology neutral”. |
| NOFA Arrives! July 2, 2009 By Paula Bernier It’s here! The document that lays out rules for the first chunk of money to be awarded under the federal government’s broadband stimulus program was issued yesterday by the NTIA and RUS. This much-anticipated Notice of Funds Availability (NoFA) paper:
During this first round of the broadband stimulus effort discussed in this NOFA, the government expects to make available $4 billion in funding. That includes $2.4 billion for grants, loans and grant/loan combinations as part of the RUS Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) program, and $1.6 billion for grants through the NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) effort. Applications for these funds will be accepted starting July 14. The deadline by which applications must be received is Aug. 14. All funds under this first NOFA are expected to be awarded by Sept. 30, 2010. Requests to fund both Last Mile and Middle Mile projects will be considered. While Last Mile projects touch the customer, Middle Mile refers to efforts that focus on edge and core networks. The NOFA indicates middle mile projects may include interoffice transport, backhaul, Internet connectivity or special access. As expected, the definition for broadband under this first NOFA is consistent to the FCC’s current definition. NOFA states that broadband “means providing two-way data transmission with advertised speeds of at least 768 kilobits per second (kbps) downstream and at least 200 kbps upstream to end users, or providing sufficient capacity in a middle mile project to support the provision of broadband service to end users.” The NOFA defines an “unserved area” as one “composed of one or more contiguous census blocks, where at least 90 percent of households in the proposed funded service area lack access to facilities-based, terrestrial broadband service, either fixed or mobile, at the minimum broadband transmission speed. A household has access to broadband service if the household can readily subscribe to that service upon request.” It says an area is “underserved” for Last Mile projects if no more than 50 percent of the households in the area have access to facilities-based, terrestrial broadband service at greater than the minimum broadband transmission speed (set forth in the definition of broadband above); no fixed or mobile broadband service provider advertises broadband transmission speeds of at least 3 megabits per second downstream in the area; or the rate of household broadband subscribership is 40 percent or less. An area is considered “underserved” in terms of Middle Mile networking if one interconnection point terminates in a proposed funded service area that qualifies as unserved or underserved for Last Mile projects. As expected, the NOFA also addresses the issue of nondiscrimination and interconnection, two terms when first mentioned within the broadband stimulus discussion raised the hackles of many large incumbent service providers. I’m not familiar with all the legal nuances of this subject, but it seems that this NOFA’s requirements around nondiscrimination and interconnection are pretty consistent with what the FCC has already said regarding these topics. But probably most noteworthy in this NOFA is the way it lays out specifics on how applicants will be awarded points for their funding requests. For example, the NOFA says that “for every 10,000 unserved households that will receive broadband service, one point will be awarded up to a maximum of five points.” For a wealth of information about how application points will be awarded, check out this section of the NOFA, which starts on Page 60. Applications will be reviewed in a two-part process. During the first part, at least three experts will review and independently score applications based on how well they address NOFA criteria. Step two of the review process will require remaining applications to submit additional information to further substantiate their initial applications. These materials will then be analyzed by NTIA staff as well as engineering, business and other experts. States will also have a chance to weigh in on applications and how they should be prioritized. The NTIA staff will then assign each application a rating between 1 and 5 based on its consistency with the initial application. I’ll discuss what the NTIA and RUS will be looking for in the applications in future blogs. But you can take a look for yourself if you like. That section of the NOFA starts on Page 43. |
| The Squeaky Wheel June 11, 2009 By Paula Bernier As I mentioned in my past two blogs, I’m spending the summer at my in-laws’ farm in rural Cherry Valley, Illinois. (Yes, I promise, this will be my last “My Summer Vacation” blog.) Although my father-in-law pays for a broadband subscription from a satellite-based supplier, he tells me the connection at his farm is frequently ridiculously slow or completely down. So I’m writing this blog from the Cherry Valley library. My nephew Tyler -- one of six school-age kids living at the farm along with their parents; Papa, my father-in-law; and Tootsie, my mother-in-law – came along for the ride so he could get on the Internet as well. The family would love to have a reliable broadband connection, and is not only willing and able to pay for and use broadband, but already does so, with mixed results. So when I hear calls for the government to spend a lot of time and money educating and offering consumer device subsidies to folks that don’t have experience with – or just plain don’t want – broadband connectivity, it makes me think that perhaps we should first figure out which consumers want affordable and reliable broadband and try to get broadband to as many of that group as possible, and then take a look at consumers who don’t have broadband but could benefit from it. (Of course, identifying important medical, educational and civic applications that could be supported by broadband and benefit both the tech-saavy and those not as comfortable or familiar with networking clearly makes sense and is now happening across the country.) That said, I fear this blog might come off as elitist, so let me just add that my wonderful family consists of a tool-and-dye maker, a public school special education aid, and two former owners of a catering/vending business. I believe it is people like mine whose needs this broadband stimulus is trying to address. Being a journalist who is married to a public high school teacher, I would never argue against education or helping those most in need. What I am suggesting is that we make sure to meet the needs of those unserved and underserved consumers who are crying out for reliable broadband before spending the limited funds on marketing campaigns or excessive end user gear subsidization. |
| Rural Telcos’ Plumb Position June 9, 2009 By Paula Bernier CHERRY VALLEY, IL -- The news of the week relative to broadband politics is that Blair Levin has been tapped to lead the FCC’s national broadband efforts. Levin, as you will remember, was part of President Obama’s transition team. This will mark the former Stifel Nicolaus analyst’s second stint working for the FCC. As such key positions relative to the federal government’s broadband effort are filled and we (little by little) learn more the broadband stimulus program, I have been asking sources which entities are likely to be the winners and losers in these broadband exercises. Again and again, I’m hearing that rural telcos – and, of course, their customers -- appear to be best positioned to benefit. I guess that’s not earth-shattering news, considering the broadband stimulus effort is aimed at bringing high-speed access to unserved and underserved areas – two terms, while not yet defined, makes many of us think about rural locales. But it’s more than just that. As Tom Nolle of consulting firm CIMI Corp. says: “Generally, rural telcos will win because generally they’re going to offer the best answer. Wireless isn’t a practical option if you want to give everyone ‘parity’ with more developed areas because per-customer available bandwidth can’t match wireline.” Add to that the fact that large incumbents like Verizon are shedding their rural holdings, rural telcos tend to have experience in how the federal process works, and rural cable providers aren’t any more cost-effective than telcos (as Nolle points out), and you have a strong argument for the rural telcos being top-of-the-heap in terms of broadband stimulus awards. So, again, if you’re a rural telco that’s still sitting on the broadband stimulus fence, you may want to consider whether you have a broadband project that needs doing and you think can be justified under the stimulus effort. On the Road June 4, 2009 By Paula Bernier It’s Wednesday, June 3, and tomorrow morning I hit the road for a cross-country trek that will take me, my husband, 9-year-old child, young border collie and old black lab from Scottsdale, AZ, to Cherry Valley, IL. Given we are lovers of the outdoors and broadband access and that we will have one very energetic dog in tow, we expect to stay primarily at KOAs which, according to the KOA website, offer Wi-Fi Internet access. Once we get to beautiful, rural Cherry Valley, we’ll be staying in my in-laws’ RV at their farm, so I’ll have to go to my nearby brother-in-law’s house for my high-speed access fix. But if their baby is sleeping I’ll have to scope out a bookstore or library that offers free or very affordable connectivity. The fact that I’ve planned my connectivity out in advance – in addition to completing my long list of other get-ready-to-go chores like stopping the newspaper, cleaning out the fridge and buying diapers for my 15-year-old lab (don’t ask!) – is just further evidence that broadband access has become a very important part of life for so many of us. Whether we’re talking about connecting for leisure purposes like to access iTunes, browse real estate or watch puppy videos with a child, or using broadband to do research, efficiently send email to a client or participate in a Webinar, broadband is a must. And not just any broadband, we’re talking about connectivity that’s reliable and fast enough to handle a wide variety of bandwidth-hungry applications. I hope that I’ll be lucky enough to enjoy the reliability and speed on the road that I get at home from my broadband connection. But even if connectivity is not available or reliable at a certain location, I will have the luxury of being able move to new lodging or, once we reach our destination, another location. Of course, not everybody that wants or could benefit from a broadband connection is so fortunate. But if President Obama’s broadband stimulus plan works as expected, more folks in the U.S. soon will have access to reliable and reasonably priced broadband at speeds that enable the applications of today. I sure hope so. In the meantime, I look forward to staying connected – both through mobile and fixed devices and networks – as I travel this great country of ours in the months ahead. But for now, I must bid you adieu, as the family just returned from dropping off our tortoise with a neighbor. Copps Weighs in on Rural Broadband May 28, 2009 By Paula Bernier Acting FCC Chairman Michael J. Copps has released his report on rural broadband strategy. As mentioned in my May 4 blog, the creation of this report was a requirement of the 2008 Farm Bill, which mandated that the FCC submit to Congress a comprehensive rural broadband strategy within a year of passage of said bill. The Farm Bill passed a year ago May 22, so Copps came pretty close to hitting the deadline, but he didn’t provide much in the way of new direction in terms of broadband stimulus and expansion. Much of the Copps’ rural broadband report emphasizes the importance of increased and sustained coordination among federal agencies; tribal, state and local governments; community groups; and individuals to align rural broadband program criteria and otherwise work together to set and meet rural broadband goals. He also recommends involved parties take advantage of existing coordination mechanisms (such as the Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Services), and leverage and streamline existing funding mechanisms that might extend the availability of broadband funds beyond broadband-specific efforts like the broadband stimulus and USF. He talks about the well-understood and soon-to-be-addressed need to compile and analyze the necessary data that will enable us to understand to whom and where broadband is and is not available today and why. And he touches on the need to stimulate and sustain broadband demand while managing costs in rural America. For those of us who read the Notice of Inquiry issued by the FCC in early April regarding the National Broadband Plan, it’s like déjà vu all over again. But while this new document doesn’t do much to offer further illumination on broadband issues, it’s probably a good sign that the two broadband papers are pretty consistent in the issues they address. Indeed, Copps writes in his rural broadband paper: “I view this Report as a prelude to, and a building block for, the national broadband plan, which will address in greater detail and on a vastly more complete record, the input of all stakeholders and the steps the nation must take to achieve its broadband goals.” Noting that the BDIA and Recovery Act pieces of legislation recently enacted by Congress will over time help the country obtain more complete data on broadband deployment and adoption in the U.S., Copps writes: “Although inexact, currently available data and studies suggest that, in comparison to non-rural areas, broadband services are less extensively adopted in rural areas generally, and that this stems in part from less extensive deployment of broadband capability in rural areas. The 2008 Pew Broadband Adoption Study found that a much larger proportion of urban and suburban residents have broadband at home (57-60 percent) than rural residents do (38 percent). And according to NTIA, while 54 percent of urban households had broadband in the home in 2007, only 39 percent of rural households did. Mobile broadband networks also cover more urban than rural areas. We estimate that, although mobile broadband networks cover 95.6 percent of the total U.S.” Copps also writes that broadband is clearly lacking in rural areas in the U.S., and indicates that tribal peoples (which have by far the lowest telephone penetration, at a paltry 30 percent, not to mention broadband), minorities, the disabled and the poor should be groups of particular interest in this broadband fact-finding and service expansion efforts. All that said, Copps also notably adds that although there is $7.2 billion in stimulus funds available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, that money is “just a down payment on the broadband needs of the country, and that even after this money has been invested, many Americans, including those residing in rural areas, will continue to lack access to critical broadband services.” Don’t Overdo It May 26, 2009 By Paula Bernier The availability of federal broadband stimulus funds has aroused the interest of many service providers, and wireless network operators are no exception. While wireless broadband technologies have some attractive features in terms of time-to-market and the ability to reach select areas that might otherwise be unreachable, wireless network operators’ involvement in the stimulus program is raising red flags for some in the wireline camp. Some folks in the wireline arena worry that the wireless guys might capture some of the limited federal funds to overbuild the networks in which they’ve already spent precious time and dollars. And building a new network on top of an existing one that could be upgraded or spending the money on an overbuild when it could be invested to serve those in areas without any broadband access doesn’t make much sense. That’s why the federal agencies doling out the broadband stimulus funds should prioritize first projects for areas that lack any access to terrestrial service. Next in line should be projects at or below 768kbps broadband – the rate at which the FCC currently defines broadband. It certainly makes sense to use a mix of wireline and wireless technologies in addressing the broadband needs of our nation. But let’s make sure areas that don’t have broadband but are best able to demonstrate the need for it are first in line for the service rather than passing those who already have broadband twice. Another Reason to Allow Preexisting Investment for Matching Funds May 21, 2009 By Paula Bernier Preparation for the dispersal of broadband stimulus funds continues to move forward on several fronts. But it looks like the money won’t be passed out as quickly as originally envisioned. The federal government had initially led us to believe that the first of three rounds of broadband stimulus funding would be between April and June of this year. While the Notice of Funds Availability (NoFA) document -- which should provide key definitions, requirements and other details relative to broadband stimulus funds – is still expected to be released by the FCC next month, it now looks like the first round of actual funds won’t be awarded until the end of this year. That’s according to new data available at the Office of Management and Budgets’ www.recovery.gov websites. That means there probably won’t be a lot of actual broadband spending until the first quarter of 2010. And a delay in spending is exactly what those in the broadband communications space had feared. While it’s probably not earth-shattering news that the federal government, which has been working diligently to try to fix the economy and address myriad other controversial problems, is pushing back on some of the initial broadband stimulus deadlines, plenty of folks in our industry are concerned that it could only further delay planned investment in broadband networks and, therefore, a more speedy recovery of both the communications industry and economy at large. In my view, this delay is just one more reason the federal government should allow stimulus applicants to use recent preexisting infrastructure investments toward the 20 percent matching fund requirement. (For more on this discussion, see my May 12 blog.) Here’s a rundown of the current deadline schedule… For the NTIA Procurement for Grants Program Assistance Services: March - June 2009 Award Contract for Grants Program Support: June 12, 2009 Preparation for Initial Solicitation for Proposals: April - June 2009 Publish Notice of Funds Availability: June 2009 Initial Proposal Processing and Review: Sept. - Dec. 2009 Initial Grant Awards Made: Dec. 31, 2009 Second Solicitation for Proposals: Oct. - Dec 2009 Third Solicitation for Proposals: April - June 2010 All Awards to Be Made: September 30, 2010 For RUS Procure contractor for implementation, administration and oversight Assistance: June 12, 2009 Publish NoFA for first round funding: June 2009 Initial Awards: by end of FY 2009 or first quarter of FY 2010 (OMB summary includes both dates at different points) Additional NOFAs to follow with awards anticipated in the 2nd-4th quarters of FY 2010 Think Big May 19, 2009 By Paula Bernier Communications service providers by and large have made their businesses by identifying and then serving areas to which they could justify investment based on various ROI scenarios. Now comes along the broadband stimulus and turns that model on its head. The key to getting federal grants is to figure out how to build to and justify investment in “unserved” and “underserved” areas – or those locales not previously considered economical to serve. And that requires a new kind of thinking on behalf of many service providers and others seeking Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) funds. As I mentioned in my last blog, U.S. Census Bureau data can be a rich source of information about everything from graduation rate and high school literacy to how far various population centers are from important resources such as schools and hospitals. And this kind of information can be key in helping justify network investment that enable a service provider or other party to help prove the sustainability of a build or the need for connectivity that can allow for remote education or health care. It’s also worth mentioning again that getting local governments and other community anchors such as education and health care entities involved in the application process can be extremely helpful. So be proactive in meeting with key government and business people and ask them for letters of support reiterating why your application will help create jobs, offer better access to health care or education, allow for more civic involvement, or whatever your justifications for a build may be. It’s important that broadband stimulus fund applications have something tangible in their applications, and supporting data and testimonials are just the ticket. And for you rural telcos folks out there, let me leave you with one parting thought. Rural America is served by small telcos, and those small telcos know their communities better than anybody. Use that knowledge and those connections to your advantage in applying for broadband stimulus funds. Map Quest May 14, 2009 By Paula Bernier When working at my first telecom reporting job in the early ‘90s, I was amazed when an inventory software outfit told me that phone companies frequently lacked detailed information as to what network assets they had and/or where it was located. As various service providers have built broadband networks in the years since, I feel certain that keeping track of network assets has vastly improved. But as a nation, we apparently still lack complete information relative to U.S. broadband availability and need. Of course, the federal government is trying to address that issue. As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the NTIA has been charged with allocating $350 million of the $4.7 billion in broadband stimulus funds it will disperse to developing and maintaining a broadband inventory map. Still unclear, however, is just who will develop and maintain that map, or collection of maps, and precisely what kind of information said map(s) should include. It’s a no-brainer to conclude that the map should detail where broadband is available in the U.S. today, from what providers, and at what speeds. Other useful information relative to the broadband stimulus (and, as part of that effort, determining and reaching out to those who are “unserved” and “underserved”) would be the cost of broadband in various areas; data on household populations and their access to key services such as health care and education; and analysis about what areas and applications might most benefit from the addition or upgrade of broadband connections. While we’re involved in this mapping exercise, it probably also makes sense to estimate the costs of deploying various technology options in given areas. Naturally, this is just the tippy top of the iceberg in terms of data that could, and probably should, be collected and analyzed. That said, the first thing that needs to be decided is just exactly what information we need to collect relative to broadband mapping. The second order of business is to agree on standard methods of collection. It’s probably also prudent to look at what needed information has already been collected and is available from service providers, the states, the U.S. Census and other sources. An engineering consulting firm tells me that incumbent carriers currently are the only ones with records as to whether an area is served by broadband and at what speeds. (If true, that would certainly seem to give incumbent providers a strong edge in quickly and effectively proving business cases around network builds for the unserved or underserved.) But I digress. As noted by Progressive States Network, at the state level several broadband mapping efforts are already under way or on the agenda. Some of these state-level mapping efforts were launched a year or more ago as a result of frustration about how the FCC collected such data. In many other states, broadband mapping moved onto the radar as the availability of broadband stimulus funds came into view. In fact, some are suggesting that the broadband mapping should be overseen by the states. And some are lobbying to put states like California, Kentucky and Minnesota that have existing broadband maps first in line to receive BTOP dollars. While that might be an idea worth looking into, federal agencies first need to assess whether the available data and collection methods used meet as nearly as possible whatever criteria the FCC decides on for broadband mapping. Show Me the Money May 12, 2009 By Paula Bernier The Notice of Funds Availability (NoFA) for the broadband stimulus is expected next month. This document will detail the criteria for getting grants. That means we will soon get some answers regarding such widely debated issues as what’s meant by broadband, unserved and underserved relative to the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP). Folks also expect to get clarity on the interconnection and open networks language in the broadband stimulus legislation. And NoFA should clear up the rules related to NTIA grant recipients’ 20 percent matching fund requirement. To that last point, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) states that, with exceptions, the Federal share of any BTOP project may not exceed 80 percent. Many small companies, like regional ISP Rabbit Internet Services, and some organizations, like the American Library Association, have requested that the 20 percent matching funds for NTIA grants be dropped entirely. While that would certainly open the field to a broader number of grant candidates, others rightly argue that it could drop the bar for grants so low that some recipients might not be able to sustain in the long-term projects that receive funding. That said, it does make sense to be somewhat flexible with this 20 percent matching fund requirement considering both that we’re in a recession and it’s well into the 2009 calendar year. The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) wrote to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in an April 13 communiqué asking that preexisting infrastructure investments be allowed to apply to the 20 percent match: “State and local government applicants, who have already established Fiscal Year 2009 appropriations, may be especially challenged to create new cash resources in order to participate in NTIA’s rounds of grant funding. In addition, private entities seeking to participate in BTOP, and who are proposing new projects or project extensions not possible absent Federal assistance, are facing the very same economic conditions that gave rise to the ARRA, as well as the same economic factors that make a BTOP project impossible absent federal assistance in the first place.” Agreed. Preexisting infrastructure investments such as fiber, copper, wireless towers, rights of way and communications gear made within a reasonable time period should reasonably be classified as “in-kind” contributions. But while I support the notion of this type of “in-kind” allowance, let’s not go crazy here. Some have also suggested that “in-kind” contributions include not only hard assets like glass, wire and equipment, and real estate like rights of way, but also apply to things such as consulting services. But allowing something like consulting to apply to the contribution, in my opinion, is a tricky proposition. So to the government agencies now working on the NoFA, I urge you to be flexible with this in-kind contribution issue while still sticking with contributions that are real and measurable. Avoid Long Lines, Register Early May 7, 2009 By Paula Bernier Did you know that entities applying for broadband stimulus funds must go through a registration process before electronically filing their grant requests? If you were not aware of this requirement and/or your organization expects to seek funds through the broadband stimulus program, you might want to familiarize yourself with the registration requirements and perhaps even go ahead and register now. From what I understand, it’s a fairly simple process that involves obtaining and registering with the federal government a Dun & Bradstreet number. There’s a bit more to it, of course, and you can get more details at the following links. * To read about how to register, click here * For a tutorial on the registration process, click here While this registration seems relatively simple, it will add time to the process. This one-time requirement, I’m told, typically takes three to five business days. However, it may interest you to know that as of May 2 Grants.gov had received around 30,000 applications (not related to the broadband stimulus, for which rules have yet to be released, but rather for other American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 projects) between April 20 and 27 alone. The government said as a result of the high volume of applications, it had a backlog for some time, but that has now been cleared. That said, the federal agencies involved in managing ARRA-related documents are clearly being inundated with this kind of work; and as the release of the broadband stimulus fund Notice of Funds Availability – which is expected in June – draws nearer, the number of registration requests is likely to grow exponentially. So it might make sense for you to put in your registration request earlier rather than later. And you don’t even have to bring a lawn chair. Order in the Chaos May 4, 2009 By Paula Bernier The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) are expected to begin distributing broadband stimulus funds by this summer. Yet the National Broadband Plan, through which the FCC is expected to offer definitions and suggestions on a wide variety of communications issues (see my April 15 blog for the potential list), won’t be complete until February of next year. Clearly, we have a cart-before-the-horse scenario on our hands. But – at the risk of contradicting myself – I will add that maybe, just maybe, things aren’t as cattywampus as they seem. Consider, if you will, the fact that the 2008 Farm Bill includes a statute requiring the FCC, with the Secretary of Agriculture, to submit to Congress a comprehensive rural broadband strategy within a year of the passage of this act. The Farm Bill was passed a year ago May 22, so the deadline for this FCC report is just around the corner. This Farm Bill-related study effectively asks the FCC to recommend:
Are You Being Underserved? April 30, 2009 By Paula Bernier Maybe it's just me, but when I think about the broadband stimulus plan, I think primarily about a federal effort to bring broadband to areas that today only have dial-up. Yet, as even a casual observer of the broadband stimulus knows, the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) within the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 talks about bringing broadband to "underserved" areas as well. Just what "underserved" means within the context of BTOP remains to be seen. But, as you may know, the Federal Communications Commission has defined broadband as 768kbps and up. That said, if your organization offers services at data rates below 768kbps, don't count yourself out for the broadband stimulus program. If you can not demonstrate in your funding application how upping bandwidth in a particular locale can create new jobs or support applications that will otherwise help stimulate the economy, are able to encourage civic participation, improve health care, support energy independence and efficiency, aid in education, enable worker training, and/or assist in public safety and homeland security, I encourage you to do just that. If you can bring in partners, such as local hospitals, schools or other organizations, to collaborate on the application process (and the actual project, should you receive the funding), even better. While it's possible that the FCC could depart from its 768kbps-and-up broadband definition for the BTOP, it is a good guideline to follow during this early phase of the broadband stimulus program, during which requirements for receiving funding are still very pliable. So if you're asking yourself whether you're free to apply for broadband stimulus funds based on your belief that customers in one of your target areas are being underserved, the answer is: Yes, you are free. Skin in the Game April 28, 2009 By Paula Bernier What level of commitment should companies and other organizations that receive broadband stimulus funds have in the projects for which they receive federal monies? Douglas Hawk, network manager of Metamora Telephone Co/MTCO Communications, recently raised this excellent question through the NTIA's online forum that seeks comments on the broadband stimulus. While all organizations seeking broadband stimulus money would no doubt like minimal requirements, some are asking for virtually no hurdles, yet seek full funding. As I mentioned in my previous blog, Odessa Office Equipment, an ISP run by just two employees out of Odessa, Wash., is hoping that broadband stimulus grants will be provided with a minimum of paperwork and requirements. The company says it needs full funding, and that those dollars must be provided up front. It wants the flexibility to tweak any project for which it acquires funding in case, for example, it finds greater demand in another area, can't get access to land for a tower, or needs to push out a build deadline for whatever reason. Additionally, the wireless ISP's owner Marlon K. Schafer goes on to write that any grant program for which Odessa would be a candidate would need to be "no strings attached." To that last point, he explains: "The RUS grant programs that I've looked at for my area have requirements for things that are not needed anymore. We don't need 10 computers at the library in every town. We don't need computer centers staffed 6 days per week. People have computers at home or at work. Or they have a friend that has one that they can use ...." Schafer also writes: "In the years that I've been an ISP I've put every nickel I can get my hands on into expanding my network already. If I had access to funds I have already used them. Even 0% interest loans will often create a payment too high to sustain the health of the network." While Hawk didn't comment specifically about Odessa, he indicates that it probably makes more sense to award broadband funds to outfits that are willing to have some skin in the game and have shovel-ready projects. "Unlike all the other stimulus programs that call for shovel-ready projects for consideration, these [broadband stimulus grant] rules seem to be saying that if you have a project ready to go, it should lose precedence to projects that 'could only be undertaken with this stimulus money,'" Hawk wrote me last week: "When you also check out many of the other comments from companies who are complaining about having to kick in 20% of their own $$$, then you can see that there are a lot of people hoping to pocket government funds for poorly conceived pipe dreams. It just seems a poor government investment to go that route." What do you think? Funding Eye for the Little Guy April 23, 2009 By Paula Bernier I know. You’re anxious about the broadband stimulus, your business and the economy at large. The broadband stimulus process seems a mystery. But a mystery that’s too good to pass up. You’d like to jump to the end of the story and read the last chapter – or even get a look at the middle -- but that’s not an option with this story. So you read what you can. You ask coworkers and other colleagues what they know about and expect from the process. And you even write to the regulatory agencies involved and your representatives in Congress. But all you get in return are a few form letters and more questions. At least that’s been the experience of Frederick Weber, founder of regional ISP Montana Sky Networks Inc. From his standpoint, negotiating the broadband stimulus is “kind of like being out in the Everglades in an inner tube.” While the large service providers have the attorneys and association memberships to wade through this often-murky process, Weber tells me that Montana Sky – which would like to get broadband stimulus funds to bring high-speed Internet service to a small town called Libby, Mont., which has been “raked” by the economy at large and by the fact its local economy was heavily dependent upon a now-closed asbestos mine -- just doesn’t have the resources to keep its head above water in this kind of environment. Odessa Office Equipment, an ISP run by just two employees out of Odessa, Wash., faces similar challenges, according to comments offered by its owner Marlon K. Schafer on the NTIA website. Schafer writes that what he needs from any grant program is simplicity, flexibility, full funding, realistic expectations, advanced funding and no strings attached. That’s a tall order. But, for now, let’s just look at Schafer’s comments relative to the first request: “Grants that take hundreds of hours to complete and require a lawyer to understand don’t even get applied for. The customers have to come first and there just isn’t enough time in the day for both.” While this need alone would seem to make acquiring broadband stimulus funds for such a small outfit, and others like it, seem insurmountable, help for the little guys may be on the way. If you’re a small service provider interested in participating in the broadband stimulus program, you might want to take a look at – and comment on -- the broadband-related Notice of Inquiry recently issued by the FCC. Toward the end this NOI the FCC asks for input on whether there is a need for it to assign a case worker to every broadband stimulus fund applicant. These case workers would consider funding requests and help applicants identify which broadband stimulus grants or loans -- or even funds from other government programs within RUS, as just one example – are the best match for their needs. If effectively implemented, this case worker program could go a long way toward helping small providers get the direction they need and deserve to play a key role in the broadband stimulus effort. Head of State April 21, 2009 By Paula Bernier The Obama administration has charged the NTIA and RUS with dispersing $7.2 billion in broadband stimulus monies. But many officials at the state level want a voice in how the funding is decided as well. At least 38 states have told the federal government they want to be key players in deciding who within their respective jurisdictions should receive broadband monies. There are both merits and potential problems with bringing the states in on the action. On the up side, state regulators have the experience and proximity to understand the needs of their constituencies. The NTIA and RUS, which will be inundated with broadband stimulus applications, might ultimately welcome the added human resources to weed through the requests for funding. Indeed, bringing in extra help from the states could potentially expedite the process of fund allocation. On the other hand, getting states involved in the decision-making process around the broadband stimulus effort would add another layer of bureaucracy. And that instead could slow the process. Some also have argued that bringing state regulators into the broadband stimulus fund allocation process would give large service providers – which tend to have strong lobbying efforts at the state level -- an unfair advantage. So deciding whether and to what extent the states should have a hand in who receives broadband stimulus funds will be a balancing act. Perhaps the best way for the federal government to draw on the states’ expertise and manpower would be to welcome them into the process as trusted advisors and set deadlines by which they must offer input on broadband funding requests with their respective states. Inquiring About National Broadband By Paula Bernier April 15, 2009 After two cups of coffee, a bowl of berries and a large salad, I have finished reading the Notice of Inquiry issued last week by the FCC regarding the National Broadband Plan. Although it's just 59 pages, a paltry document by legal standards, a simplistic entrée into the discussion of broadband it is not. This Notice of Inquiry casts a wide net in considering and asking for public input on the potential National Broadband Plan. At the same time, it delves into many of these topics with enough depth that readers get a decent feeling for the goals of this exercise and what kind of questions they should be responding to in relation to it. In fact, the NOI offers many informed questions around various topics, but doesn't limit the potential discussion points to those issues. A case in point is the NOI's discussion related to defining broadband. It doesn't simply talk about broadband as a wideband access network over which data can be transmitted at a particular rate of speed and ask for suggestions as to what data rate should define broadband. Rather it asks whether and to what extent the services that broadband connections support should be the guiding factor in defining broadband, and it looks beyond just the access parts of the network in discussing broadband. Here's an excerpt: We also seek comment on whether a definition of “broadband” should be tethered to a numerical definition or, instead, an “experiential” metric based on the consumer's ability to access sufficiently robust data for certain identifiable broadband services. In this regard, should we define broadband in terms of bandwidth and latency capability to download a certain type of media in a certain amount of time, ability to access a certain online service or operate a certain application without depreciation in quality, or by some other metric? Furthermore, should such performance metrics apply only for the local access link, for the end-to-end path, or some other portion of the network? To what extent should our consideration of access to broadband capability take account of the middle mile? Much of the focus on broadband deployment has been on last mile connections. Is there a need, for instance in rural areas, for a greater focus on broadband capabilities in the network beyond last-mile connections? How robust are broadband capabilities in backbone and feeder networks throughout the country?Not only does the NOI seek input on the definition of broadband, among other terms, it also asks for recommendations on how to ensure broadband-enabled services are affordable and useful. It asks how the federal government can best leverage, improve or replace existing agencies, rules and procedures (including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the 2008 Farm Bill, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Universal Service Fund, the FCC's spectrum allocation efforts and more). And it urges interested parties to offer comment on how a National Broadband Plan could help the U.S. meet key objectives around not just more widespread broadband availability, and job creation and economic stimulus, but also related to community development, health care, energy independence and efficiency, education, worker training, civic participation, public safety and homeland security. Of course, I'm just scratching the surface of what this NOI – which asks for comment on everything from how to define “openness” and what value it brings, to how to guard against cyberbullying, to whether things like deep packet inspection and behavioral advertising might limit broadband usage. But while the multitude of undecided issues this NOI lays out for comment makes clear the formidable challenges that lie ahead in constructing the National Broadband Plan, I'm heartened to see that this early document is raising, and in some cases helping frame, in a thoughtful way many of the key things we need to consider in this process. There's No Time Like the Present By Paula Bernier April 8, 2009 There's something to be said for restraint. I'm usually not a girl who jumps in with both feet before first testing the waters. Then again, on occasion it makes sense to go ahead and take the plunge. That seems to the best way to approach the broadband stimulus. Hey, let's be honest, we're all figuring out this broadband stimulus thing as we go. We're all waiting for the FCC to define unserved, underserved and broadband and to offer up details on what is meant by the broadband legislation's references to non-discrimination and interconnection obligations. The National Broadband Plan that the Obama administration has assigned the FCC to put together won't be done for about a year. In fact, the FCC just yesterday released a Notice of Inquiry regarding the plan. So about all we know at this point is how much money is available, who will pass it out and the overarching goals it aims to achieve. While it would be nice to have more clear-cut rules and a better sense of how this will all flesh out, figuring out these details would've slowed the process. And President Obama wanted to put the funds out there now in an attempt to get the economy going ASAP. So we have the money without a lot of rules -- not an altogether bad scenario if you're in the position to request funds. Why not get into the process early so you have a chance of getting funds earlier rather than later, and while you might be able to have a bigger impact on the direction in which this broadband stimulus is headed? The worst that can happen is you don't get the funding in one of the early rounds and still have time to fine-tune your application for the second or third round of funding. The first round of funding is expected between this month and this June. The second round should take place some time in the October-December time frame. And the third round is slated for between April and June of 2010. Get er done. Keeping It Real By Paula Bernier April 7, 2009 The federal government has earmarked $7.2 billion to bring broadband to unserved and underserved areas in the U.S. That's great news for remote and other locales with spotty or non-existent broadband access. For those areas that receive funding, broadband projects could mean new jobs, the ability to enable important new applications, and the potential to help revive sagging local economies. But before we get too caught up in all the excitement, let's take a step back to look at the big picture. Two of the key issues that need to be addressed before embarking on a new broadband are adoption and sustainability. Those pitching broadband plans need to take a good look at whether and how end users will be able to enjoy these broadband networks. Will most of those in the target area or areas be able to afford the cost of a monthly broadband bill, and just how much might that bill be? For that matter, does the majority of the population even own a computer? If not, should the broadband plan include some sort of computer subsidy or/and provisions to establish one or more public computer centers? (In fact, $200 million of the $4.7 billion in funds the NTIA will disperse are allocated for expanding public computer center capacity.) And how can that be done without draining too many dollars from the network side of the effort? Beyond this front-end adoption issue, those involved in these efforts should also craft plans for what happens to these broadband networks when the stimulus funds run out. If it's a community or other organization that's leading the project, will that group have the funding and the human resources to maintain and do needed upgrades to the network and related end user centers in the long term? If not, what partners might those entities bring in up front to help them build and maintain these networks in both the near- and long-term? That's a lot to digest, I know. But these are just a couple of the many issues that the folks applying for broadband stimulus dollars should seriously consider. As a recent piece in The Atlanta Journal Constitution points out, there are more than a few cautionary tales about municipal governments that attempted broadband builds with less than positive results. But adequate planning and consulting with those experienced in networking and broadband services can help ease the burden of both acquiring and putting to good use broadband stimulus funds. Community Anchors By Paula Bernier April 2, 2009 Two heads are better than one. Broadband stimulus is just another area to which this adage seems to apply. What I'm getting at here is that the people in the Obama administration, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and others involved with the broadband stimulus are urging applicants to look beyond themselves as they put together their grant and loan applications. Applicants are being asked to consider how they might work in partnership with other groups and businesses in their areas to address particular needs with proposed broadband builds. The message is clear: Grant and loan requests that talk about specific potential uses of broadband and offer input from "community anchors" such as schools, hospitals and libraries on how the public interest could benefit from broadband builds are more likely to get priority than single-source requests. For example, a rural telco could talk with a hospital in its area about the health care organization's needs. Perhaps the hospital serving a large rural area has an interest in taking x-rays from far-flung nursing homes, so patients don't have to be moved, and sending those medical images over a broadband connection for real-time diagnosis at the hospital. The rural telco could potentially enable that application over a new or expanded broadband network. And it would be to the telco's advantage to mention that in its request for broadband stimulus funds. Companies and organizations seeking to build broadband networks with the assistance of government funds might also want take a good look at the overall RUS program and the stimulus act at large when putting together their grant and loan requests. The RUS program already has money set aside for distance learning and telemedicine, as two examples. And the administration's larger stimulus program addresses things such as smart grid energy efforts and highway building, so those seeking funds to build networks might look into how their efforts could dovetail with initiatives on those fronts both on the front end (digging trends once to save money, for example) and on the back end (enabling smart grid applications). Defining Broadband By Paula Bernier March 31, 2009 Broadband is such a common term in the telecom lexicon that it's frequently used without further explanation. Of course, broadband can be used to describe a broad range of connectivity rates. So just what does broadband mean relative to the broadband stimulus program? That, my friends, has become a topic of hot debate in recent weeks. It's a political hot potato with which the Federal Communications Commission has to contend. Per the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the FCC has been charged with the task of settling on a definition for broadband (among other terms) as part of its consultative role to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) - one of the two agencies (the other one being RUS) that will be doling out the broadband stimulus dollars. To help it make an informed ruling, the FCC is seeking input from interested parties on how to define broadband relative to the broadband stimulus. The comment period runs through April 13, but, according to a Public Notice issued by the FCC on March 25, commission staff is available for meetings with interested parties this week. How the FCC ultimately defines broadband for the purposes of the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program, as the stimulus effort is known, is anybody's guess. Some groups have suggested that broadband should be defined as high as 100meg. Meanwhile the FCC's current definition of broadband is 768kbps and up. My guess is that the FCC ultimately will settle on a more middle-of-the-road broadband definition for the stimulus program. That's pure conjecture, of course, but here's my reasoning. Rich media just keeps getting richer, and these new broadband networks should be able to handle Web 2.0 applications by supporting data rates that are at least in the single-, if not double-digit, megabit range. At the same time, I'm pretty sure that the FCC will want to ensure the majority of these new networks in now "unserved" and "underserved" areas of the country aren't so high bandwidth that they are difficult to maintain once the subsidies run out. (But, then again, I believe Verizon justified its FTTH build in part by talking about the ease of maintaining all-fiber networks.) It might also be hard for the government to justify funding broadband that's higher rate than the broadband that's typically available in densely populated areas. Choosing a mid-range definition of broadband also would enable a wider variety of technologies and interests - including DSL, FTTx, cable modem and wireless - to benefit from broadband stimulus funds. But this technology discussion brings up another sticky point or two: Will the definition of broadband distinguish between peak and sustained data rates? And will the FCC consider that some technologies can ensure set data rates even during heavy usage on the network while others are based on a shared model, meaning that per-user bandwidth goes down as more people get on the network? This is another of the many details the FCC should be sure to consider in helping formulate the definitions and rules around the broadband stimulus. Stimulating Discussion about the Broadband Stimulus By Paula Bernier March 26, 2009 It's been a little more than a month since the president signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The legislation, as you probably are aware, allots $7.2 billion in federal monies to broadband stimulus under what is called the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. As you may also know, the NTIA has been charged with doling out $4.7 billion of the $7.2 billion pie, while RUS will manage the other $2.5 billion. Said money has been earmarked for various grants, loans and loan guarantees, as well as to do broadband mapping of the U.S., and will be dispersed to select service providers, state governments, nonprofits, and indigenous peoples organizations. The goals of the program are to bring broadband to unserved and underserved areas of the country; facilitate greater use of broadband services by or through educators, healthcare providers and others; improve public safety organizations' access to broadband; and, of course, drive job creation. But beyond that, we don't have a lot of details. Naturally, that's creating a lot of questions and debate around the broadband program. For example, many folks are wondering just how their businesses and organizations can best position themselves to take part in the broadband stimulus opportunity. Another big question mark is whether or how the program will define broadband. Is it 1meg or 5meg, (which are common rates I think of when I think of broadband)? Up at 45meg or 100meg, as some have suggested? Or will the FCC's definition of broadband as 768kbps and up be borrowed for the stimulus? Defining what's meant by "broadband" in this scenario is hugely important since it will affect the cost of the network and choice of technology, among other important factors. Of course these are just a few of the myriad questions that have people scratching their heads. And until these questions are debated and resolved broadband will not only fail to advance, it will actually be pushed back in some cases. Some organizations looking to build or expand on broadband networks are adopting a wait-and-see stance until the details of the broadband stimulus plan become clear. Even SUPERCOMM pointed to its desire to get more details on the plan before the show as a justification for delaying its June event until this fall. Because the broadband stimulus effort has become so central to the communications industry, ADTRAN is taking a leadership role in this area. The company has created this site, the Broadband Stimulus Advisor, to keep you up to date on the latest developments relative to the broadband stimulus. The company and I also want to stimulate discussion and debate through this blog on how the broadband stimulus effort will and should be handled. I look forward to your readership and feedback as we set out to better understand and negotiate the broadband stimulus program. Paula Bernier, formerly editor in chief of xchange magazine, is a veteran telecom reporter. Before launching her career as a freelance writer earlier this year, Bernier worked at xchange magazine, a Virgo Publishing title, for 11 years. Prior to that, Bernier was a senior writer at Inter@ctive Week. She got her start in telecom at Telephony magazine, where she spent more than five years, leaving as the news director. Bernier also been on the reporting staffs of various mainstream daily and weekly newspapers in Iowa, Minnesota and South Carolina. The contents of this blog represent solely the opinions of the author and are not the opinions of, or approved by, ADTRAN, Inc. |