Bipartisanship on Broadband Policy Possible Despite Disagreements, Officials Say

There are ways to move forward on policymaking to improve broadband deployments as the new Congress begins, federal and communications sector officials said Tuesday during a Next Century Cities-led event. Officials highlighted the potential for compromise as a contrast to the rancor over the ongoing partial government shutdown. They also noted policy disagreements. Later, the conference heard about spectrum (see 1901150043).

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel emphasized the bipartisan agreement the FCC needs to fix its broadband coverage data collection and mapping practices, a topic of frequent criticism from Capitol Hill (see 1812100056). The practices are “woefully inadequate,” in part because officials are using “methodology from a decade ago” to map the data it does receive, Rosenworcel said. The FCC should consider “alternative” collection methods, including crowdsourcing and using postal trucks that service rural areas to help fill in gaps in the available data, she said. The FCC began in December to investigate if top wireless carriers submitted incorrect coverage maps in violation of Mobility Fund phase II rules (see 1812070048)

Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Blair Levin cited the USF contribution factor issue as a major problem that most in the communications sector aren't paying attention to in the debate over improving broadband funding. The contribution factor dispute is a “stage-4 cancer” on the USF program, but it likely won't get resolved until the three-month window between the November 2020 presidential election and the 2021 inauguration because the issue has become so politicized, Levin said. Cooley's Robert McDowell, agrees the FCC likely will continue to “kick the can down the road” on the contribution factor, in part to avoid headlines claiming the agency is thinking about “taxing the internet.”

Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld and others cited the need to fix USF issues in the push to improve broadband funding. Policymakers more broadly need to “deal with the universal service problem,” because they “can't claim to solve the rural broadband problem” until that's dealt with, Feld said. There should be a “bipartisan effort to look for ways in which we can rethink” USF policy, he said. “We've been trying” for the past 15 years “and we have not been able to fix” the programs “in any substantial way.” The bulk of policymakers' energy instead should go to thinking about “out of the box approaches,” he said.

Mercatus Center Senior Research Fellow Brent Skorup and NTCA CEO Shirley Bloomfield debated whether a “consumer voucher” for broadband payments, akin to what the USF Lifeline program uses, would be an effective alternative. A “Lifeline for rural” broadband consumers is “something that should be explored, perhaps as an opt-in for states that could make per-consumer funding more equitable," Skorup said. “Vouchers don't build a network,” Bloomfield countered. If ISPs are “not sure” about what [their] annual support mechanism is going to be, I can guarantee” they won't be willing to risk spending additional money on rural deployments.

Lawmakers also should consider other options, particularly if President Donald Trump chooses to return to infrastructure legislation this year as hoped (see 1811130011), said Conexon partner Jonathan Chambers, ex-FCC Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis chief. Chambers estimates it would cost $10 billion-$20 billion to bring fiber to every house in rural parts of the U.S. if there's a change in policy track, well below what he said it might otherwise cost the federal government on its current policy course. The bulk of funding should go to upfront spending on infrastructure construction, Chambers said.