Senators Push FCC To Finally Update Our Pathetic Definition Of Broadband

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

To be clear, the US has always had a fairly pathetic definition of "broadband." Originally defined as anything over 200 kbps in either direction, the definition was updated in 2010 to a pathetic 4 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up. It was updated again in 2015 by the Wheeler FCC to a better, but still arguably pathetic 25 Mbps downstream, 3 Mbps upstream. As we noted then, the broadband industry whined incessantly about having any higher standards, as it would only further highlight the vast impact of monopolization.

Unfortunately for them, last week, a bipartisan coalition of Senators wrote the Biden administration, urging it to adopt a more aggressive broadband definition. How aggressive? 100 Mbps in both directions:

"For years, we have seen billions in taxpayer dollars subsidize network deployments that are outdated as soon as they are complete, lacking in capacity and failing to replace inadequate broadband infrastructure. We need a new approach. "

Granted if the telecom industry hated 25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up, they'll positively despise a new symmetrical 100 Mbps benchmark. In large part because if we implemented it, FCC data suggests that only around 43 percent of Americans have access to at least one provider (aka a monopoly) capable of doling out those speeds. In rural markets that number falls to around 23 percent. The Senators were quick to note that these tallies are probably notably worse given the FCC's historically dodgy broadband mapping data:

"Unfortunately, the FCC data continually overestimates broadband connectivity due to outdated mapping and poor data collection methods. We now have multiple definitions across federal agencies for what constitutes an area as served with broadband, resulting in a patchwork without one consistent standard for broadband."

While the FCC defines broadband at 25/3, the USDA, which helps dole out rural broadband subsidies, defines it a 10 Mbps downstream, 1 Mbps up. As a result, we've thrown billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies at companies that do the bare minimum. Or, upgrades they would have deployed anyway. So yes, it makes perfect sense to set the bar a little higher than at ankle height. Especially given that the US continues to rank somewhere around "mediocre" in every major broadband metric that matters (including price).

The problem for the broadband industry is that were America to adopt 100/100 as a standard, 187 million Americans wouldn't technically have access to broadband. That would only pour fuel on the conversation asking why not. That's the very last thing a heavily monopolized industry wants. US phone providers have spent years refusing to upgrade or repair aging DSL lines, something this new standard would shine a bright spotlight on. Even the US cable industry, which tends to offer faster downstream speeds, is so embarrassed by its upstream offerings it tries to hide them in company advertising.

I tend to think folks are asking for a symmetrical 100 Mbps hoping to settle on symmetrical 50 Mbps, or 50/25 Mbps, as a compromise. Either way, you can probably expect a tough fight by industry. Wimpy definitions, hand in hand with the FCC's crappy broadband availability and pricing data, helps obscure the impact of monopolization and limited competition. And changing it would threaten the subsidy gravy train. So expect ample consternation and hand wringing by major ISPs and their allies about how actually having tough standards (for once) is diabolical extremism of the very worst sort.

Filed Under: broadband, congress, definitions, fcc

Crappy US Broadband Is Also Hampering Equitable Vaccine Deployment

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

As our recent Greenhouse policy forum on broadband made abundantly clear, COVID is shining a very bright light on US broadband dysfunction. The high cost of service, spotty coverage, slow speeds, and high prices are all being felt acutely in an era where having a decent broadband connection is the pathway to education, employment, healthcare, and opportunity. And after 25 years of US apathy to its telecom monopoly problem, COVID-19 is applying pressure on lawmakers and regulators in an entirely new way to do something about the 42 million without broadband, the 83 million under a monopoly, and the tens of millions who simply can't afford service due to limited competition.

But it's not just high prices and spotty coverage that have proven to be an issue in the COVID era. In Kentucky, one of countless US states where local monopolies AT&T and Time Warner Cable (now Charter Spectrum) literally dictated state telecom policy for 25 years (with obvious results), a lack of broadband access is hampering the public's access to vaccines. Louisville, Kentucky high schoolers recently set up VaXConnect Kentucky to help seniors get access to their first and second shots. And they're finding themselves "surprised" to learn just how many people don't have access to a reliable, affordable connection:

"People are calling us and they only have landlines, and they don't have internet or a computer or an email," Beck says. "That's more common than I realized."

Granted part of the problem is monopolization and limited competition impacting broadband availability and price. But the other problem, long discussed here at Techdirt, is the fact that state and federal regulators have done a piss poor job accurately measuring broadband availability. In large part because giant incumbents like AT&T have fought tooth and nail against improving broadband mapping for the better part of thirty years. Mostly because once lawmakers and regulators get a better sense of monopolization's real impact, they might just get the crazy idea to do something about it.

In this case, our failures to seriously tackle monopolization and regulatory capture are having a very real human cost. And usually, it's the most vulnerable among us who are the first in line to feel the pain, something experts also discussed at length during our recent Greenhouse panel:

"About 27% of American adults over the age of 65 don't use the internet, according to the Pew Research Center. Pew also reported that a third of Black adults in the US lack home broadband. ABC News reported that the situation is even worse for seniors of color. Meanwhile the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said people 65 and older, as well as members of racial and ethnic minority groups, are dying at disproportionate rates from COVID-19."

Having co-built DSLReports, I spent every day for fifteen years watching first hand how the broadband industry (and its various policy tendrils at think tanks, consultants, and lobbying shops) spent millions of dollars and countless man hours trying to convince the press, public, and regulators that the US broadband market was perfectly healthy and competitive, and in absolutely no need for reform or meaningful oversight. COVID has, in a very short amount of time, punched that self-serving, bad faith argument squarely in the jaw. Hopefully we learn something from the experience.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, covid-19, fcc, us, vaccines

California Poised To Defeat Broadband Industry In Scrum Over Net Neutrality

from the round-and-round-we-go dept

You'll recall that after the Trump FCC effectively neutered itself at telecom lobbyist behest in 2017, numerous states jumped in to fill the consumer protection void. Most notable among them being California, which in 2018 passed some net neutrality rules that largely mirrored the FCC's discarded consumer protections. Laughing at the concept of state rights, Bill Barr's DOJ immediately got to work protecting U.S. telecom monopolies and filed suit in a bid to vacate the rules, claiming they were "radical" and "illegal" (they were neither).

And while the broadband industry had a great run during the Trump era nabbing billions in tax breaks and regulatory handouts, that era appears to be at an end.

Earlier this month the Biden DOJ dropped its lawsuit against California, leaving the industry to stand alone. Now a Judge has refused the broadband industry's request for an injunction, allowing California to finally enforce its shiny new law. Worse (for the broadband sector), Mendez also made it very clear that while the case isn't over yet, the broadband industry isn't likely to win. He was also less than impressed by the broadband industry's claim that because the broadband industry has tried to behave as it awaits a legal outcome, that this somehow meant net neutrality rules weren't necessary:

"I have heard that argument and I don’t find it persuasive,” said Mendez. “It’s going to fall on deaf ears. Everyone has been on their best behavior since 2018, waiting for whatever happened in the DC Circuit [weighing the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality]. I don’t place weight on the argument that everything is fine and we don’t need to worry."

As we've noted a few times, there's a misinformed refrain in some tech policy circles that goes something like this: "the internet didn't immediately implode in a rainbow, therefore net neutrality's repeal must not have mattered." That's wrong for several reasons.

One, ISPs are still violating net neutrality, they're just being more clever about it (see: AT&T only charging you broadband overage fees if you use a competitor's service). Two, the only reason ISPs behaved half as well as they did is because they were awaiting a federal legal ruling, and worried about running afoul of state net neutrality rules. Three, killing net neutrality didn't just kill "net neutrality," it dismantled the FCC's consumer protection authority over everything from anticompetitive behavior to billing fraud. If you're applauding the government ignoring the public and neutering itself because some Comcast lobbyists told it to, you might not be half as clever as you think you are.

As you might expect, a coalition of broadband industry policy and lobbying organizations like US Telecom were quick to complain about the ruling, whining that it creates a haphazard patchwork of state protections:

"A state-by-state approach to Internet regulation will confuse consumers and deter innovation, just as the importance of broadband for all has never been more apparent,” a coalition of broadband industry organizations said in a joint statement. “We agree with the Court that a piecemeal approach is untenable and that Congress should codify rules for an open Internet."

Of course the only reason we're now looking at a fractured, state-by-state approach to consumer protection is because the broadband industry keeps suing to dismantle popular and modest federal rules. The industry sued (successfully) to kill the FCC's flimsy 2010 rules, despite the fact that had giant loopholes and didn't even cover wireless. Then, when the Wheeler FCC passed tougher rules (but still arguably thin by international standards), the industry sued again. When they lost that case, they got the Trump FCC to ignore the public and kill the rules, using an ocean of sleazy tactics--including paying firms to use fake and dead people--to pretend it was a good idea (something the press and some telecom policy wonks seems oddly intent on forgetting).

The industry has long proclaimed that it wants Congress to pass consistent rules to end this ongoing game of regulatory ping-pong at the FCC. Yet the industry knows full well that our gridlocked Congress is so slathered with telecom campaign contributions that's never going to happen. If a federal net neutrality law does get passed, it's extremely likely it will be ghost written by AT&T and Comcast. As a result it's inevitably going to include numerous loopholes and caveats, while pre-empting any tougher, more consensus-driven state or federal solutions. This exact same gamesmanship, it should be noted, is playing out simultaneously surrounding efforts to pass meaningful broadband privacy rules.

While the industry is likely to appeal any looming loss dragging this case out for much longer than needed, it likely isn't going to matter. There's every indication that the Biden FCC is going to restore net neutrality. But that can't happen until the Biden administration and Congress finally get around to appointing and seating a third Democratic FCC Commissioner, breaking the current 2-2 partisan Commissioner gridlock.

While policy wonks, the press, and the public are clearly fatigued by the endless legal skirmishes surrounding net neutrality, there's only one reason they continue: a broadband industry that has fought tooth and nail, using every gross tactic in their playbook, against even the most modest consumer protection guidelines. If the heavily monopolized US telecom industry truly wants to put this issue to bed, it could perhaps stop spending millions of dollars every year to dismantle even the most modest attempts at state or federal oversight.

Filed Under: california, fcc, net neutrality

The DOJ/FCC 'Fix' For The T-Mobile Merger Is Looking More And More Like Theater

from the this-won't-end-well dept

Economists repeatedly warned that the biggest downside of the $26 billion Sprint T-Mobile merger was the fact that the deal would dramatically reduce overall competition in the U.S. wireless space by eliminating Sprint. Data from around the globe clearly shows that the elimination of one of just four major competitors sooner or later results in layoffs and higher prices due to less competition. It's not debatable. Given U.S. consumers already pay some of the highest prices for mobile data in the developed world, most objective experts recommended that the deal be blocked.

It wasn't. Instead, the Trump FCC rubber stamped the deal before even seeing impact studies. And the DOJ not only ignored the recommendations of its staff, but former Trump DOJ "antitrust" boss Makan Delrahim personally helped guide the deal's approval process via personal phone and email accounts. Both agencies, and the vocal chorus of telecom-linked industry allies, all behaved as if all of this was perfectly legitimate and not grotesquely corrupt.

At the heart of the DOJ's approval was a flimsy proposal that involved giving Dish Network some T-Mobile spectrum in the hopes that, over seven years, they'd be able to build out a replacement fourth carrier. As we noted at the time there was very little chance this plan was ever going to work. And there's been several hints that we're already stumbling along this doomed trajectory.

One, Dish and its former CEO Charlie Ergen have a long history of empty promises in wireless. He'd been accused (including by T-Mobile previously) of simply hoarding valuable spectrum and stringing along feckless, captured regulators for years with an eye on cashing out once the spectrum's value had appreciated. Two, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile are all heavily incentivized to make sure this proposal never got off the ground. Three, federal regulators are generally afraid to stand up to industry on a single issue of substance, and aren't likely to engage in the kind of hard-nosed nannying required to usher Dish's plan from pipe dream to major network.

Not too surprisingly, it doesn't sound like the relationship between Dish and T-Mobile is going particularly well as the company bleeds wireless subscribers (it lost 363,000 last quarter alone). A cornerstone of getting Dish up and running as a viable replacement fourth carrier involved the company leaning heavily on T-Mobile's existing 3G network. But that network is being shuttered as of the beginning of next year, Dish said in a filing:

"These required measures would cause a significant disruption to our Retail Wireless subscriber base which could result in, among other things, a significant increase in our churn rate,” Dish stated in the filing. “Additionally, we would expect to incur substantial costs to implement these measures, and we may be unable to effectively implement them, such as the procurement of an adequate number of replacement devices in a timely fashion. As a result, there can be no assurance that these measures would be successful in reducing or controlling subscriber churn."

It's likely that Dish will continue to hemorrhage TV and wireless subscribers while it strings gullible regulators along for another year or two. But it's unlikely a major fourth network ever gets fully built. Again, the remaining three players (AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile) have immense control over federal and state regulators, and absolutely every incentive under the sun to ensure this replacement competition never materializes. And Dish is heavily incentivized to string regulators along until it simply offloads its valuable spectrum right before an Ergen retirement. Of course the folks involved in concocting this plan likely knew this all along, and will simply hide that intention by blaming everything but themselves (COVID will prove a particularly handy culprit).

Predicting this isn't magic. International and domestic history suggests it's what inevitably happens in the face of monopolization, consolidation, and regulators with zero real interest in holding politically powerful companies accountable on any level whatsoever. There's a lot of endless talk about a love of "competition and innovation" in telecom, but when push comes to shove, that's the very last thing the sector (and the politicians and regulators paid to love them) actually want.

Filed Under: antitrust theater, competition, doj, fcc, fix, merger
Companies: sprint, t-mobile

FCC Pressured To Let Libraries Bridge Broadband Access During The Pandemic

from the little-things dept

An estimated 42 million Americans lack access to broadband, nearly double official FCC estimates. That's kind of a problem during a pandemic when your education, employment, family connection, healthcare and very survival depend on being tethered to the internet. And it's a particular problem for the tens of millions more Americans who can't afford access because we've happily allowed the US telecom sector to become monopolized by a handful of providers.

Last year, the nation's schools and libraries came to the Trump FCC with a novel idea to bridge the gap during the crisis: why not let libraries and schools temporarily provide broadband access to their communities? The FCC's E-Rate program already helps bridge the digital divide by financing a portion of school and library broadband access. But the rules don't clearly allow them to offer service beyond property lines. So, the American Library Association, which represents the country's 16,557 public libraries, wrote a letter (pdf) to the Ajit Pai FCC, asking if they could provide emergency access without the FCC punishing them for it.

And the Ajit Pai FCC simply... didn't answer their question. The FCC made it clear schools and libraries could leave on existing WiFi hotspots so folks on the wrong side of the digital divide could huddle together in school and library parking lots, but it simply ignored their request to be able to deliver more creative solutions, be it letting students have temporary access to mobile hotspots at home, or the creation of things like mobile WiFi-capable bookmobiles. The FCC Chair has the emergency authority to make this happen, Ajit Pai just... didn't want to.

With new leadership at the FCC, some lawmakers are pressuring the agency to revisit the idea so that kids don't have to huddle outside of Taco Bell just to attend class in the wealthiest country in the history of the planet:

The estimate is that around 12 million kids can't get online, though given the FCC's data collection and broadband mapping efforts tend more toward fantasy than reality, you can be fairly sure that number is notably higher. The catch: existing E-Rate funding would require a boost from Congress. The same Congress that thought nothing of giving AT&T billions in wasted subsidies, regulatory favors, and a $42 billion tax cut in exchange for absolutely nothing, but will hem and haw endlessly over whether we should finance emergency broadband access to poor kids during an unprecedented crisis.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, e-rate, ed markey, fcc, libraries, pandemic

Ajit Pai Tried To Strangle A Broadband Aid Program For Low Income Americans. Then A Pandemic Hit.

from the you're-really-not-helping dept

While recently departed FCC boss Ajit Pai was perhaps best known for ignoring the public and making shit up to dismantle FCC authority over telecom monopolies, many of his other policies have proven to be less sexy to talk about--but just as terrible.

One of the biggest targets throughout Pai's four year tenure as boss was the FCC's Lifeline program, an effort started by Reagan and expanded by Bush Jr. that long enjoyed bipartisan support until Trumpism rolled into town. Lifeline doles out a measly $9.25 per month subsidy that low-income homes can use to help pay a tiny fraction of their wireless, phone, or broadband bills (enrolled participants have to chose one). The FCC, under former FCC boss Tom Wheeler, had voted to expand the service to cover broadband connections, something Pai (ever a champion to the poor) voted down.

Despite constant pledges that one of his top priorities was fixing the "digital divide," Pai's tenure as boss included a notable number of efforts to scuttle the Lifeline program that weren't paid much attention to -- until a pandemic came to town. COVID-19 has shone a bright spotlight on the fact that 42 million Americans still can't access broadband (double official FCC estimates), and millions more can't afford service thanks to monopolization and limited competition.

Under Chairman Ajit Pai's "leadership," the FCC voted 3-2 in late 2017 to eliminate a $25 additional Lifeline subsidy for low-income native populations on tribal land. As part of Pai's effort, he also banned smaller mobile carriers from participating in the Lifeline program. Pai's attempt to neuter Lifeline in tribal areas certainly hurt overall enrollment, but didn't always fare well in the courts. One ruling (pdf), for example, noting that Pai and his staff not only pulled their justifications completely out of their asses, but failed to do any meaningful research whatsoever into how the cuts would impact poor and tribal communities:

"The Commission's adoption of these two limitations was arbitrary and capricious by not providing a reasoned explanation for its change of policy that is supported by record evidence. In adopting the Tribal Facilities Requirement, the Commission's decision evinces no consideration of the exodus of facilities-based providers from the Tribal Lifeline program. Neither does it point to evidence that banning resellers from the Tribal Lifeline program would promote network buildout."

That's a polite way of the court saying that Pai based his decisions on ideology, not evidence (kind of a theme throughout his tenure as reflected by other court rulings). On the other end of these decisions are real, struggling human beings. Human beings the Washington Post recently did an excellent piece on as it surveyed the real-world damage from Pai's decisions to neuter a program that already did the bare minimum to help struggling Americans:

"The restrictions have been especially problematic during the pandemic, as Americans find themselves more dependent than ever on their mobile devices to stay connected. Many Lifeline subscribers say they have had to make unfair trade-offs — talking either to family or to doctors, for example, or participating in their communities or saving precious minutes for emergencies — that most Americans would find unfathomable."

Lifeline as a program is no stranger to fraud, with companies from Sprint to AT&T being routinely busted for taking money for people that don't technically exist. As the report notes, Pai hid his ideological assaults on the program under the guise that he was exclusively worried about said fraud, yet didn't take the steps necessary to prevent said fraud from happening:

"Under Pai’s watch, for example, the U.S. government for years did not fully implement a national verification system — a state-of-the art digital tool designed to determine eligibility and crack down on the fraud Republicans sought to prevent. The myriad missteps are laid bare in a report released by the Government Accountability Office in late January, which found that by summer 2020, most states still had not implemented the technology. Those that did found it even harder for Lifeline applicants to get approved, creating undue delays even in cases in which low-income Americans should have qualified easily for the program."

Again, Pai's tenure was largely pockmarked by doing huge favors for entrenched telecom monopolies, then using flimsy or nonexistent data to justify those policies. All while simply ignoring the fact that monopolization and a lack of competition creates most of the sector's problems (note how he'd never discuss US broadband prices). Concern about fraud was never symmetrical; while Pai went out of his way often to highlight Lifeline fraud, he never once even mentioned the problem with throwing billions in tax cuts and regulatory favors at monopolies like AT&T in exchange for doing absolutely nothing. That's before you even get to Pai's most recent subsidization scandals, which doled out billions to companies that gamed the FCC process.

This kind of facts-optional ideology has, for years, been brushed aside as normal policymaking (former FCC boss turned top cable lobbyist Mike Powell wasn't all that different). Unfortunately while this stuff gets dismissed as boring policy wonkery or "partisan politics," it's good to remember this kind of behavior has very real costs that the purveyors of said policies try very hard not to think much about.

Filed Under: ajit pai, arbitrary and capricious, covid, digital divide, fcc, lifeline, pandemic

16 States Ask The FCC What The Hell Is The Point Of The Verizon Tracfone Merger

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

Late last year, Verizon announced it would be acquiring Tracfone for around $6.2 billion. As we noted when the deal was first announced, it was yet another example of the "growth for growth's sake" mindset that has long infected US industry, particularly the telecom sector. There are really no real benefits to be gleaned from further consolidation in the space (especially in the wake of a T-Mobile Sprint merger that immediately resulted in layoffs and reduced US wireless competition by around 25%). Yet we really adore pretending otherwise as the government rubber stamps deal after deal.

In a letter (pdf) to the FCC, attorneys general from 16 states and the District of Columbia urged the agency to actually, you know, do its job and ask more questions about the deal. TracFone is among the biggest providers of Lifeline, the FCC program that provides services for about 1.7 million low-income subscribers in 43 states. Verizon is a lumbering media and telecom monopoly that views such programs (and the regulators that oversee them) as largely an irritant. Putting the TracFone contributions at risk during an historic economic and health crisis isn't particularly bright.

As such, the states are wondering if the FCC might be able to take a few moments to make sure the deal doesn't harm those relying on the program:

"The potential for Verizon to pursue additional profits by reducing the access and/or quality of Lifeline services could shut out millions of low-income Americans from adequate communications services,” they wrote. “Considering the fundamental role that cellular telephones play in accessing modern society and the modern economy, it is imperative that Lifeline services be protected and maintained if this transaction is approved."

The states also are quick to point out that maybe more consolidation in a telecom sector filled with problems caused by mindless consolidation might not be a great idea:

"Furthermore, a vertical merger of the leading Mobile Network Operator (MNO), and the leading Mobile Virtual Network Operator in an already concentrated mobile wireless market would see the last significant MVNO integrated into a national facilities-based provider. If this resulted in a decrease in the number or quality of Lifeline offerings, that could be contrary to the public interest and could have an adverse impact on consumers and the communications industry."

Notice, however, how even the minority of US states that could be bothered to care about these problems can't be bothered to recommend simply blocking a deal that will benefit nobody other than Verizon executives and shareholders. It's not even something that enters their minds.

Instead such mergers are eagerly rubber stamped, conditions are affixed that are usually largely feckless (or volunteered by the companies themselves), then regulators fail to meaningfully enforce them. Monopolies like Verizon then just double down on the same behavior they've engaged in for the better part of the last forty years. We then stand around with a dumb look on our collective faces wondering why Americans pay some of the highest prices in the world for some of the most mediocre telecom speeds and services in the developed world. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, mvno, wireless
Companies: tracfone, verizon