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

from the rose-colored-glasses dept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A National Solution To The Digital Divide Starts With States

from the think-local dept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cost Of Broadband Is Too Damned High

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed Under: broadband, cost, fcc, fees

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

from the newfound-urgency dept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instead of catastrophe, we found a solution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from the moral-imperative dept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perpetually Missing from Tech Policy: ISPs And The IoT

from the broader-view dept

U.S legislators have drawn a bizarre line in the sand when exploring the invasive nature of technology companies and personal rights to privacy.

In Washington, D.C. there are regular hearings about the potential harms that “big tech” companies can cause because they have so much access to so much information. Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon testified before Congressional Subcommittees about their business practices, their data sharing between their own businesses, and the way that information gets used in relation to competition. What’s interesting about that, though, is the fact no consumer can share their personal information directly with any of them.

In order to reach any of the Big Tech companies that are generating immense amounts of policy discussion these days, a person must first have access to an internet service provider (ISP). This could be your home wireline connection from companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Frontier, Charter/Spectrum or a litany of other providers. It could also be your mobile service provider if you use a smartphone to browse the internet.

Who Sees What Data?

The big tech companies have historically obtained the majority of the data they have because people elected to use the services. Amazon knows your buying habits because they track what you order. Google knows what ads to show because it tracked what searches you were making. The ISPs, though, have a unique position in that they facilitate the connection between you and those edge services. They not only know that you elected to go to Google to perform a search, they also know that from that Google search, you then clicked a link and navigated to another website. While Google’s reach can be pretty extensive with the ability to track behavior from a search or any click on an ad that they provide, an ISP doesn’t need that secondary interaction. They know where you go online because they facilitate the connection between you and that end point.

There are ways to protect yourself against ISPs monitoring how munch they can see. First, HTTPS encrypts a lot of the actual data being transferred. This means that unless the website is encrypting DNS itself, the only thing the ISP might know is what websites you’re choosing to visit. You can also use a virtual private network (VPN). If you choose to do that, then the ISP will see only that you are connecting from your location to the secondary location. This allows you to mask your location to websites because all of the bidirectional browser traffic is between the websites and the secondary location you’ve tunneled into where the VPN is located.

The Internet is More than Browser Traffic

The problem with many of the policy considerations regarding how to protect consumers when so much of their data is accessible is that it repeatedly falls short. Think about all the devices in your life that connect to the internet. These include your phone, tablet, and laptop along with all of the ancillary devices – lights, outlets, home assistants, robot vacuums, and even the infamous toaster - that make up the world of the Internet of Things (IoT). These IoT devices require similar connectivity as your computer or phone, but without many of the security and safety measures in place.

IoT functions relatively simply. There is a sensor that connects to the network in order to communicate its status to a processor. When the sensor’s status changes, it sends that single to a processor. From there, the processor determines what that sensor’s status change means and sends out a command over the network to an actuator that performs a task. Consider the following example: You pull into your driveway, your house recognizes that you’re there and it opens your garage door, adjusts the temperature, turns on lights, starts your favorite evening playlist. Maybe it even brews you a fresh cup of decaf so you can kick off your shoes and settle in for whatever comes next.

That’s one sensor using merely the presence of your device to trigger a communication with the processor. That processor then reaches out over the network and provides commands for services provided by potentially five different manufacturers – the garage door controller, the thermostat, the lights, your preferred streaming music service, and your coffee pot. How much information has an ISP just potentially learned about you with you typing a single character?

They know that someone arrived home at that specific time because the sensor communicated over the network to the control processor. They know that you have each of those devices in your home provided by each of those manufacturers. They know what streaming music service you prefer.

Some of that information might seem innocuous. Who cares if the ISP knows what coffee maker you have? Why does it matter if the ISP knows what time you got home? Everyone is going to have to get home at some point in time, aren’t they?

The value of an ISP being able to monitor that kind of information is not in the snapshot of one instance. Yes, they can use that information to help third-parties better target where they sell ads for your browsing behavior. The real value, though, is that these ISPs know what devices are connecting to your home, and that they can trace your habits and behavioral patterns from that information.

If you habitually arrive at home around that specific time each day, the ISP can track that information. If that data shows that every Thursday there’s no command, but there’s increased traffic from your home, the ISP can reasonably conclude that those are the days that you work from home. They might be able to glean that information from just the increased traffic, but the missing command when you arrive home gives them more verifiable data about your habits and practices.

Your next thought, after reconsidering the position that the data isn’t that important might be to conclude that you have some protections to under United States privacy laws from an ISP monitoring your behavior online. Except, you'd be wrong.

ISPs Broadening Their Reach

This may not concern you, personally, because you figure there isn’t enough data there to be harmful. However, not everyone is a sophisticated tech user. Some people, would rather have one company provide them all of their smart tech and have that company manage it. This is the landscape we’re starting to find ourselves in today.

Comcast not only offers cable and internet to homes, they also offer security systems including cameras, window and door sensors, and more. They even tout the capabilities of being compatible with numerous smart home devices like door locks, thermostats, and lighting. AT&T is no different, offering to sell streaming media players, smart outlets, security cameras, and both Google or Amazon devices as the control.

The ISPs do not care what devices you connect to your network. In theory, any device should work just as well as any other. Though, given the repeal of federal net neutrality regulations. The ISPs have positioned themselves in the perfect spot to pick preferred vendors. Essentially, while they won’t state it openly, if you buy the products that they sell, now they know exactly what’s in your home, and you have an extra bit of confidence that it will work reliably, without any blocking or throttling, because you bought it from the service provider. This creates an advantage for any company willing to open up your information to the ISP because there’s a self-serving benefit. Provide more data to the ISP-reseller about the user and how the device is used and you’ll be included in the preferred vendor list.

Ties to Title II

It seems almost everything that has to do with telecom these days has to do with the net neutrality and reclassification battle, and the ability of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to make privacy rules is no different. The ability of the FCC to promulgate privacy regulation turns on the same point in the 1996 Telecommunications Act as net neutrality.

If telecommunications are classified as a Title I service, then they are subject to 47 U.S.C. §160 which states,

"...the Commission shall forbear from applying any regulation…if the Commission determines that (1) enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulation by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications carrier or…service are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; (2) enforcement of such regulation or provision is not necessary for the protection of consumers; and (3) forbearance from applying such provision or regulation is consistent with the public interest."

All this to say that the FCC, while having authority to make rules that govern privacy regulations under the Telecommunications Act has to deem that it’s required to do so. If the services are classified as Title I, then they lack the authority to regulate.

Even if the FCC was to consider acting, the ISPs could file petitions seeking that the FCC forebear from taking action. Once that petition is filed, then the FCC has one year to respond, with the ability to extend by 90 days under certain circumstances.

Under a Title II classification, the FCC has broad authority to act and regulate.

“It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.”

There is no forbearance consideration required to be made, though one can still be petitioned.

In 2015, when the FCC reclassified broadband as a Title II service, it set up circumstances for greater broadband rules. It even passed privacy rules for broadband interactive service providers. However, when the current FCC passed the Restoring Internet Freedom Order (RIFO), it undid the Title II classification, returning broadband services to a Title I classification. As such, broadband is again outside the regulatory authority of the FCC.

While the logical conclusion, then, might be to restore the 2015 Open Internet Order, that would be incorrect. The 2015 order carved out specific exceptions for non-BIAS (Broadband Internet Access Services) that included devices like heart monitors, e-readers, energy consumption sensors, or other limited-purpose devices such as automobile telematics and scholastic applications providing content in schools. This was not an exhaustive list and, based on the type of communication involved, most if not all IoT devices would likely fall into this same gap. This means that even with a Title II reclassification, IoT would remain outside the protections.

The California net neutrality law does a little better in potentially offering some protection in that it focuses its efforts on the behavior of the ISPs when it comes to blocking, throttling, or forcing paid prioritization for the devices on a network. However, the emphasis of the devices needing to be non-harmful may defeat any IoT protections because nowhere in the bill did it define what a non-harmful device was. Considering the lack of security measures and the common use of IoT in botnet or Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks, it may be difficult to confidently state that the devices are non-harmful.

Federal Privacy laws

In October 2016, the FCC passed new privacy rules that required the ISPs to get their customers to opt-in to before the data that the ISPs acquired was shared with third parties. The scope of information, as defined by the FCC was the, “statutory definition of customer proprietary network information (CPNI),” meaning, “individually identifiable CPNI, personally identifiable information (PII), and content of communications.”

Even examining those terms, it’s still difficult to see how IoT would have seen any coverage. Perhaps an argument could have been made for devices that were tracking personal health information, but it’s hard to say what identifiable information could be gained from an individual IoT device that raises and lowers a garage door. In aggregate it’s a different story, but that would have required the ISPs to be collating the data to sell in a package about a consumer household, which may have been deemed a violation of the rules, or to be doing it themselves.

It’s a moot point, though, because a few short months after the rules were passed, when Congress went into session at the beginning of 2017, they utilized the Congressional Review Act to repeal the rules. This had two effects. First, it treated the rules as though they had never taken effect. (See 5 U.S.C. §801(f)). The second, and arguably more important part, this disapproval resolution made it so that the FCC could not reissue privacy rules in “substantially the same form” nor could they issue a “new rule that is substantially the same…unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule.” (See 5 U.S.C. §801(b)(2).

What this means is that the federal agency tasked with overseeing communications by wire and the companies that operate in that space have now been specifically restricted from enacting any kind of rulemaking in regards to how those companies gather, store, and share data from their customers.

State Privacy Laws

To date, there are only three states that have passed consumer privacy laws – California, Maine, and Nevada. There are several other states that either have bills in process or have assembled task forces in lieu of a comprehensive privacy bill. Since there is only a small offering of laws, it’s worth taking a look at the contents to each bill to see if they cover ISP activity.

California: The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) applies to any business that has annual gross revenues in excess of $25 million, or that annually deals with personal information from 50,000 or more households in California, or that gets 50% or more of its annual revenues from selling consumers’ personal information. The larger ISPs will certainly fall under the first category and would likely be subject to the second as well.

Where this hits the IoT space would be Section 1798.135(o)(1)(F) which covers “Internet or other electronic network activity information, including, but not limited to, browsing history, search history, and information regarding a consumer’s interaction with an internet website, application, or advertisement.” Alternatively, Section 1798.135(o)(1)(K) includes “Interferences drawn from any of the information in this subdivision to create a profile about a consumer reflecting the consumer’s preferences, characteristics, psychological trends, predispositions, behavior, attitudes, intelligence, abilities, and aptitudes.

Of course, there’s a strange loophole. The CCPA does not protect “consumer information that is deidentified or aggregate consumer information.” (See Section 1798.135(o)(3)). This seems to means that if the ISP is able to piece little bits of deidentified data together to offer a more comprehensive view, then it’s not in violation of the CCPA.

Maine: The Maine legislature went a different direction with their privacy law when it passed the Broadband Internet Access Service Customer Privacy. Instead of focusing on the edge service providers collecting data, Maine’s law specifically targets the ISPs. The key points in relation to IoT are §9301(1)(C)(g), protecting “The customer’s device identifier, such as a media access control address, international mobile equipment identity or Internet protocol (IP) address;” and §9301(1)(C)(i) covering “The origin and destination Internet protocol addresses.”

In order for the IoT devices to communicate with other devices on the network or “phone home” and provide data to the manufacturer they have to have an IP address. For the device to provide useful information to the ISP, it would need to know the destination where the device was communication – the destination IP address. Both are protected under the law.

Much of the Maine law is what the FCC rules tried to implement before being subject to the disapproval resolution from Congress.

Nevada: The Nevada law has the most limited protections of the three enacted laws. It only protects personal information if it includes first initial or name and the last name along with either a social security number; or driver’s license or identification card number; or a bank or credit card number with the required security code or password to provide financial account access; or medial identification or health insurance identification number; or “a user name, unique identifier, or email address in combination with a password, access code or security question and answer permitting access to an online account.”

This law is useful from the perspective of keeping personal account information secured, but the sensor and actuator data that IoT is dealing with is well outside of the protections.

Conclusion

Other than the Maine privacy law and the CCPA, it seems as though there are no privacy laws in the United States that act to protect the information that an ISP can gather, sell, or share with third parties. They can capture your browser data, but in addition to that, the majority of the privacy laws that have been written only examine browsing behavior and ignore the device-to-device communication involved with IoT.

The lack of net neutrality regulations means that the ISPs can also treat all data types differently. This means that they can examine the source of the data transmissions and determine if they want to block, throttle or force the device maker or owner to pay more to transmit that data without interruption. It also means that that the ISPs are in a position to pick preferential business partners in the IoT marketplace.

If the manufacturer is willing to share data with the ISP, then their transmissions will go uninterrupted. This can disadvantage any real competition between device manufacturers, all under the name of “proper network management practices.”

Finally, it means that even though you are not actively providing information to edge service providers by using the internet, your devices are still providing a lot of data about the ways in which you live. Anyone with access to that information can collate it, determine your common behavioral patterns (even if you are offline), discover your preferred service providers, and then package and share that information.

Considering the degree to which an ISP can monitor your behavior, it’s pretty incredible that somehow the large ISPs have managed to avoid any public scrutiny while Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon are subject to complaints from Congress, and now pending antitrust litigation.

Josh Srago is a third-year law student at Santa Clara University. Prior to law school he spent over a decade designing communications and smart building solutions. His studies focus on the ethical development of technology, exploring how current regulations and policies affect smart home and smart city development.

Filed Under: broadband, iot, isps, privacy

10 Years Of U.S. Broadband Policy Has Been A Colossal Failure

from the can't-fix-what-you-don't-understand dept

November 18^th, 2020 marked 3900 days since the Federal Communications Commission launched its heavily-hyped "National Broadband Plan." 400 days ago, I penned an op-ed for the Benton Foundation which assessed how the FCC had been unable to achieve any of the benchmarks or meet any of the six stated goals of the plan. You probably won’t be surprised to hear that another year didn’t fix very much of the shortcomings I identified then.

Nominally, the U.S. National Broadband Plan was designed to run for 10 years. The mandates expired, unfulfilled, back in mid-March, just as the Covid-19 Pandemic was beginning. Now, eight months later, concerns over the digital divide have only grown louder, while the FCC commissioners crow about statistics on broadband deployment and hand out additional subsidies for telehealth.

While the National Broadband’s Plan included a goal for universal access, (Goal 3: “Every American should have affordable access to robust broadband service, and the means and skills to subscribe if they so choose.”) the FCC employs creative math to cover up the fact that 10 years of broadband policy has been a colossal failure.

As 2020 has unfolded, the agency continues to tout anecdotal successes in broadband “growth” using measurements of the subsidies being handed out to connect homes left behind by the FCC’s economic centric theories of regulatory implementation. Just over a month ago, Commissioner Carr went on the road to tout a subsidy for rural broadband in Pennsylvania to the tune of $690 Million dollars:

While anything that actually solves the gaps in broadband coverage that have resulted from the FCC’s negligent policy approach over the last decade is good, and even setting aside the potentially partisan electoral implications of handing out this subsidy in a critical battleground state just weeks before the Presidential election, the lack of scrutiny given to these routine subsidy announcements can be found in the cost. In this recent example, $690 Million to hook up 190 thousand new customers breaks down to a real bargain, at a mere cost of $3631 per household.

At that inflated price point, a subsidy to connect the roughly 125 Million homes in the country to broadband would have cost a bit North of $4.5 trillion.

Yet, even in the face of these targeted subsidies, we continue to see a large gap in access to broadband in many places in the U.S. Despite the fact the FCC adopted a slower broadband speed definition of 25 Mbps downstream, 3 Mbps upstream, when it was clear the 100 Mbps downstream, 50 Mbps upstream target for 100 Million Homes in the National Broadband Plan could not be met. So not only has the FCC missed it targets for access, it even had to reduce what counted as access to get to the numbers it is now routinely writing press releases about.

To be fair, the FCC is correct when it says that the fact that only 14.5 Million people remain without access to broadband is an improvement (though third party organizations estimate this is a massive underestimate), but that’s like a football team who is being shut-out while down by four touchdowns late in the game takes time to celebrate that meaningless field goal they just kicked. It is an improvement, sure, but nowhere close to getting the job done, and frankly on broadband deployment we should be well past the end of the game.

While we can debate metrics when assessing successes and failures of the FCC’s policymaking, the events of the last eight months have put a spotlight on how important the FCC’s failure to achieve its goals has been. As millions of Americans were forced to go virtual for work and school the clear requirement for affordable universal broadband access has never been clearer.

Gaps in coverage and the cost of broadband have put kids in parking lots outside of fast food places so they can do their school work on open Wi-Fi because the availability of broadband in an area does not guarantee one’s actually ability to access it. Broadband is expensive, and even in the areas where broadband is widely available, people suffering the economic strains of the last eight months may not have the resources to have broadband at home. So, at the same time we’re handing out hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to cover up a problem that was supposed to be fixed already, we’re leaving even more people on the wrong side of the digital divide. Unfortunately, the current leadership of the FCC seems more interested in trying to invent ways to regulate internet speech that they object to.

With the indications that COVID-19 is going to be sticking around like an unwanted houseguest, the new incoming leadership at the FCC has to redouble the efforts to cover the gaps in the broadband maps. Universal access to broadband was not an unreasonable goal, and the FCC has had more than 10 years to make it happen. Kids on the wrong side of the divide have found ways to get their homework in on time, maybe we should hold the FCC to the same standard?

Christopher Terry spent 15 years as a producer in broadcast radio and six years as a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee before becoming an assistant professor of Media Law at the University of Minnesota’s Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication. His research includes policy, regulatory and legal analysis of media ownership, media content and political advertising.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband plan, covid-19, digital divide, fcc, national broadband plan, subsidies

Digital Redlining: ISPs Widening The Digital Divide

from the mind-the-gap dept

As school districts are facing the new school year under conditions drastically changed by COVID-19, the digital divide is deepening education inequality in the US.

Many families struggle to meet the requirements of remote schooling as millions of students around the US lack access to a broadband internet connection. We’ve learned in pandemic times that our health depends on those of others and we are only as strong as our weakest links. Still, inequalities arising from the lack of internet and technological access mean that online learning poses insurmountable challenges to many households worldwide, leaving many children behind.

Rachel Cooper, a teacher in rural Sacramento Valley reported to the Atlantic, “It’s rough, some kids are using their phones to log into class, but the screens are too small to do work on. Some kids’ internet cuts out in the middle of class, and others don’t log on at all. I’ve had several students already say that they were really nervous they were going to fall farther behind in a specific subject because they think distance learning is going to be really difficult.”

Many Households Left Behind

While the US is considered to be at the forefront of technological innovation, the Federal Communications Commission estimated that 21 million Americans lack a high-speed internet connection. In fact, researchers at Broadband Now found that the actual number is double the FCC’s figure. The disparity in the FCC’s numbers is a direct result of relying on internet service providers (ISPs) to self-report. This allows providers to claim they serve the population of an entire block even if they serve just one household on that block.

The right to internet access was historically never prioritized by the US government, and was mostly left to be managed by private ISPs. ISPs gained even more freedom under the Trump administration, when federal regulation got looser. In 2017, net neutrality regulations were abolished, allowing broadband companies to decide where to build out their infrastructure and how much to charge for their services. This was the reversal of the 2015 decision by the Obama administration to have stronger oversight over ISPs and it generally reflected the Trump administration’s view that regulation by the market will lead to better results and yield more innovation.

This decision, however, largely led to systemic issues like digital redlining, a practice of creating and perpetuating inequities between already marginalized groups specifically through the use of digital technologies. An example of digital redlining is when ISPs deliberately won’t serve certain geographical areas and low-income neighborhoods because they are not considered profitable.

“Unlike rural areas, where providers receive a subsidy to serve a high-cost area, no subsidies exist to encourage providers to serve or upgrade urban neighborhoods despite the perceived lack of profit,” Gene Kimmelman, senior advisor at the think tank Public Knowledge testified. “Either we should build new programs explicitly designed to create competing providers in these underserved neighborhoods or legislation should require universal service standards or other anti-redlining measures enforced at either the state level or by the FCC.”

Some of the unconnected families live in areas that are not serviced by providers, but others simply can’t afford to pay for an internet connection. The average cost of internet service in the United States is about $68 per month (compared to Europe’s average of $44) which is simply a cost that not all households can bear.

Short-term Solutions for Bridging the Gap

At the advent of COVID-19 and remote schooling, many school districts organized Wi-Fi-equipped buses to drive around areas where disconnected students live. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, Public Schools with the help of the City of Albuquerque were providing “drive-up mobile Wi-Fi units at a number of APS schools and other public locations.” These drive-up mobile units were usable up to a 100 feet radius, which meant that internet users could remain in their cars to aid social distancing.

Some school districts have also tried to subsidize Internet access for disconnected students, often with funds from the government's $2.2 trillion coronavirus aid package under the CARES Act. Additionally, many school districts have purchased and distributed 4G wireless hotspots or paid for discounted wired Internet services for low-income families, such as Comcast's $9.95 per month Internet Essentials package, which now connects approximately 200,000 students. However, these efforts are mostly initiated by school districts and ISPs “free” offers are usually limited and capped, thus sub-par to the realistic broadband needs of students learning online.

In Need of Long-term Regulation

These measures taken by school districts are good short-term fixes, they will not solve the digital divide for the future when online schooling will be a common practice.

Long-term solutions need federal or municipal investments and have to come from non-commercial efforts. For example, Congress could encourage municipal broadband to intervene where private companies do not see worthwhile business opportunities. However, competition between ISPs and municipal broadband networks is limited by state law in more than half of US states, and municipal broadband can not be set up in areas that are already served by one private ISP.

This means that many communities are left with ISPs that provide poor quality and expensive services because of the lack of competition, and are unable to pursue municipal broadband because their area is considered “served”. Some states also require municipal broadband services to match prices of the local ISP, further limiting competition for private providers.

Global Outlook

According to a new UNICEF report, 463 million children globally were unable to access remote learning when schools closed due to COVID-19. The report highlights significant inequality across regions: sub-Saharan Africa is the most affected, where at least half of all students cannot be reached with remote learning.

The governments of South Korea and Sweden are building national broadband infrastructures and letting ISPs use them. In the US, essential services like broadband connections are left to be managed by private ISPs, leading to whole areas and neighborhoods with no or poor internet connection. What will be the long-term systemic consequences of children in rural and low-income households struggling to keep up with online curricula?

Andrea Kelemen is a Berlin-based writer and content strategist exploring topics related to technology ethics and the cultural effects of digital media for FairShake. IRL, she likes swimming, dancing and deconstructing objectifying dualisms with both human and non-human agents.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, digital divide, redlinining