ISPs Not Happy About ‘Deeply Flawed’ Section 706 Report

Broadband ISPs excoriated the FCC for adopting unrealistic standards for its Section 706 report on the state of broadband deployment, in comments filed Thursday and Friday in docket 12-228. In response to a notice of inquiry asking what factors the commission should consider for its ninth report (http://xrl.us/bnqtzn), the telcos and cable companies aired some longstanding grievances about the commission’s findings the last three years that broadband was not being deployed on a “reasonable and timely fashion” (CD Aug 22 p1). States spoke of the need for the commission to tweak its USF rules to enable faster deployment of broadband, and interest groups expressed a need for a faster definition of broadband to enable more data-hungry applications.

The commission has “adopted a standard that cannot be met,” AT&T said (http://xrl.us/bnqtpx). Despite “massive investment in and torrid pace of broadband deployment,” the last three Section 706 reports concluded that broadband was not being deployed in a “reasonable and timely basis because it is not yet available to ‘all Americans,'” AT&T said. Such an approach “fails to comport with any reasonable reading of the statute and discards the facts regarding the huge investment in broadband that continues to this day,” the telco said. AT&T strongly objected to the commission’s “baffling” conclusions that because 2 percent of the American population lacked access to speedy broadband, it was not being deployed reasonably or timely. “This conclusion is baffling when you consider that it took nearly 100 years and the assistance of rate of return regulation and federal subsidies to achieve 98% penetration of wireline telephony,” AT&T said.

"This Ninth Inquiry asks ‘what other measures should we use to assess the reasonableness and timeliness of broadband deployment?’ The answer is none,” the telco wrote, arguing the commission has to “change its glass-half-empty perspective and abandon the flawed view of ‘all Americans’ that was applied in the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Reports. In particular, the Commission should revert to a more pragmatic approach that better comports with congressional intent.” Considering the deployment of wireless broadband going forward will help correct the fact that the last Section 706 report “significantly understates the availability of broadband services,” AT&T said.

Verizon said the commission’s assessment of broadband deployment does not fully reflect the expanding range of choices now available to consumers. “Consumers have fully embraced mobile broadband services, and there is no reasonable basis for excluding mobile broadband services from the Commission’s analysis, particularly with the deployment of 4G networks,” Verizon wrote (http://xrl.us/bnqtrg). The commission should also avoid adopting new criteria that would “unnecessarily complicate the Commission’s analysis and hinder the proper assessment of broadband deployment,” Verizon said. As Section 706 clearly states that “advanced telecommunications capability” is defined without regard to any specific technology, “there is no reason to evaluate mobile broadband and satellite broadband separately from fixed terrestrial broadband service offerings,” it said. The commission should also “not conflate broadband adoption with broadband availability,” Verizon said.

"To the extent the Commission continues to be predestined to conclude that -- despite the efforts of private investment and the infusion of billions of dollars in government spending -- the country continues to be off course in deploying broadband, the remedy directed to the Commission by Section 706 itself is clear,” USTelecom said, urging the commission to remove barriers to infrastructure investment by granting USTelecom’s forbearance petition that focuses on “outdated voice-centric rules that make little sense today” (http://xrl.us/bnqtrz). By promptly implementing its high-cost universal service policies, and adopting a “sensible” and “well-constructed model” to better connect the large majority of Americans serviced by price cap ILECs, the commission would help quickly connect more Americans to broadband, the association said. Approval of the pending Windstream, CenturyLink and FairPoint petitions for waiver of the current Connect America Fund Phase I rules would allow those companies to deploy more broadband in the near term, it said.

The commission’s statutory analysis is “deeply flawed,” NCTA said (http://xrl.us/bnqtva). Finding unreasonable anything less than 100 percent broadband deployment and adoption “renders this annual exercise a nullity. ... As long as the Commission retains this erroneous interpretation of the statute, its ultimate conclusion as to the reasonableness of deployment will be meaningless,” the association wrote. “That said,” NCTA encouraged the commission to continue to use the same baseline definition of broadband as it has in its most recent reports -- 4 Mbps downstream, 1 Mbps upstream. The definition should be based on speed, without regard to latency, capacity limits, or number of devices in the home, NCTA said. Capacity limits are “irrelevant to capability” of the connection, which is the focus of the statute, NCTA said. Comcast agreed, and worried that creating latency and capacity standards would not be “consistent with the language or intent of Section 706,” and would “cause the Commission to further understate the rapid pace of deployment” (http://xrl.us/bnqtzc).

The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors encouraged the commission to “look at how the use of multiple devices is increasing consumer needs for speeds and capacity, and how anchor institutions and Wi-Fi hot spots are changing the ways consumers access and use the Internet” (http://xrl.us/bnqtc9). NATOA urged “a new minimum broadband speed threshold” to match the evolving marketplace and look at municipal broadband networks “approvingly,” it said. The FCC should establish a “minimum threshold speed [that] should be revised upward and set at a sustained 10 Mbps, symmetric level at peak usage times, for residential and small business users, and at 1 Gbps for enterprise users” as well as “set a floor speed of at least 25 Mbps per anchor” for elementary and secondary schools, NATOA said. These levels shouldn’t be static and should be subject to review, it added.

Multiple filings emphasized the challenges for those without easy access to broadband, whether due to geography or disability. These comments suggest a tweaking of funds and a broad consideration of funding purposes as well as broadband speeds. The state of Hawaii made the case for its own telecom needs and emphasized the challenging geography it faced in expanding broadband access. “It follows that Hawaii warrants classification as an insular area for purposes of universal service,” the state said (http://xrl.us/bnqtep). Hawaii doubts the FCC’s Phase I Mobility Fund will help expand broadband there because only one national carrier of the 52 qualified bidders has “a significant history or current holdings,” Hawaii said. “The cost of full deployment and maintenance of sufficient broadband facilities may need to be met by the recurring support to be provided by the Commission’s Remote Areas Fund.” The state calls these and other support mechanisms “critical” to its broadband future.

Alaska Communications Systems pointed out similar challenges in Alaska and referred to the 49 percent of the state’s rural residents who lack broadband access. Of the other 51 percent, many are underserved, the group said. “If the CAF rules are rationalized, with support proportionate to the actual cost of broadband deployment in price cap ILEC territories, then ACS would be far better positioned to support the broadband build-out obligations on which it is conditioned,” it said. “Without sufficient support, there is no rational business plan for expansion of broadband to unserved areas in Alaska, in the near term or otherwise.” The current models aren’t sufficient, it argues. The CAF Phase I funding is “inadequate to spur immediate broadband deployment to any but a modest number of unserved Alaska locations,” according to the group. The prospects of CAF Phase II are also not sufficient, it said. The group suggests broadband adoption has become skewed. It’s being “deployed far more rapidly in urban areas than in rural areas, and far more rapidly in the rest of the nation than in Alaska,” the group said.

Advocates for the deaf argued that faster broadband speeds are needed to accommodate the video and other communications services that those without hearing rely on. “The Consumer Groups suggest that iTRS providers and others may be able to provide more specific information on speed requirements, latency parameters and performance thresholds applicable to their specific services,” the consumer groups said (http://xrl.us/bnqtjq). They also slammed the transition from copper to fiber because, though fiber is faster, fiber is also more expensive and thus reduces broadband availability in low-income and rural areas. “For low-income deaf and hard of hearing consumers who rely on broadband enabled services such as VRS and other iTRS services for communications, the retirement of copper loops may remove their only affordable access to broadband services,” they said. Any transition should come with consideration about affordability, the groups said. They advocate for a TRS broadband pilot program intended to increase broadband availability.