3 ms·

I think the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was supposed to help improve Internet access through its Universal Service provision. Of course all the telecoms pock

by greedo 6y ago

I think the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was supposed to help improve Internet access through its Universal Service provision. Of course all the telecoms pocketed the money and didn't do shit. https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service

rayiner 6y ago
The 1996 telecom act had an unfunded statement of policy to that end. But the universal service fund wasn’t used for broadband until 2013: https://connectednation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/caf_ph12013_fundingawards_final.pdf https://connectednation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/caf_p.... Larger carriers weren’t covered until 2015. And it has not been a lot of money: https://www.telecompetitor.com/ahead-of-rdof-caf-lives-on-as-carriers-opt-for-seventh-year-of-support/ https://www.telecompetitor.com/ahead-of-rdof-caf-lives-on-as... > AT&T and CenturyLink accepted all funding for all states for which they accepted CAF funding. For AT&T, seventh year CAF funding totals approximately $427 million for 18 states. For CenturyLink, the total seventh year funding totals approximately $503 million for 33 states. Over 7 years, AT&T has received half a billion dollars from the feds. That’s not a lot of money for building fiber. In rural high cost areas, where that money is supposed to be targeted, that might be like 20,000 homes. AT&T spends over $10 billion per year on wireline upgrades and maintenance: https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/at-t-dedicates-40-40b-capex-budget-to-wireline-wireless-business-services https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/at-t-dedicates-40-40b-... ($16 billion in 2017). Over that 7 year period you’re talking $100+ billion in investment from AT&T versus $0.5 billion from the feds. Do you see why that money hasn’t moved the needle at all? To my knowledge, Comcast has never received universal service fund (now called the connect America fund) money. We can argue about whether universal service money has been used efficiently. But the idea that companies like Comcast received billions of dollars from the feds to build fiber everywhere is a very Trumpian misrepresentation (taking something with a tiny grain of truth and spinning it into a tall tale).
- Retric 6y ago
  Your numbers are misleading. “On October 27, 2011, the FCC approved a six-year transfer process that would transition the money from the Universal Service Fund High-Cost Program into the new $4.5 billion a year Connect America Fund, effectively putting an end to the USF High-Cost Fund by 2018.“ “In March 2014, the FCC approved "Phase II" of the transition to the Connect America Fund, adding $1.8 billion a year in funding.” What’s important to realize is these subsides ends up providing paying customers to these companies. As such they don’t need to cover 100% of the cost of connections only the subset of that cost that wouldn’t be covered by monthly fees.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    What's misleading about the numbers? I cited actual distributed money over 7 years for one carrier (AT&T). You're citing proposed amounts to be distributed for the whole program. The program has hit numerous delays, and most of that money has not been distributed. Regarding Phase II, for example: https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/02/fcc-gets-ready-to-kick-off-2-billion-rural-broadband-fund/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/02/fcc-gets-ready-to-kick-off... ("The fund was proposed back in 2013, but for various reasons never saw the light of day."). For the most part the money never materialized. The Phase II support, for example, ended up being just $1.49 billion over 10 years, not $1.8 billion per year as in your quote: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/connect-america-fund-phase-ii-faqs https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/connect-america-fund-ph... It doesn't matter if the subsidies cover 100% of the costs or not--the point is that the funding is a tiny fraction of what the industry already spends, and isn't enough to move the needle outside a small number of very high-cost rural places. The replacement for the connect America Fund, the Rural Broadband Opportunity Fund, plans to distribute $20 billion over a decade: https://thecounter.org/fcc-20-billion-dollar-rural-broadband-auction https://thecounter.org/fcc-20-billion-dollar-rural-broadband.... (Again, plans.) Wireline providers invest about $40 billion annually--or around $400 billion over the next decade. The notion that subsidies are more than a drop in the bucket (and should be expected to significantly move the needle on broadband deployment) is just false.
    - Retric 6y ago
      The fact you’re talking about a subset of total subsidies to all infrastructure spending by these companies. This wasn’t supposed to be new money, it was renaming an existing telecom subsidies as something else. In the associated April 2014 Connect America Report and Order, the Commission decided that a competitive ETC that is awarded “support through the competitive bidding process will cease to receive legacy phase-down support for those specific areas upon commencement of Connect America Phase II support.”12 As of July 1, 2014, consistent with the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission froze fixed competitive ETCs’ legacy support at 60%... Also, wireline providers don’t invest $40 billion per year in extending their networks to new customers. The majority of that money is spent on maintaining and upgrading existing equipment as part of their normal operating costs. It’s like complaining they can’t simply get money without doing anything.
aksss 6y ago
In my state there was USAC funding that went unawarded year over year, and for all I know still is. Carriers just don’t find it worth their while in many cases especially if they don’t need to worry about any threats to the captive markets they already serve.

by greedo 6y ago

rayiner 6y ago

The 1996 telecom act had an unfunded statement of policy to that end. But the universal service fund wasn’t used for broadband until 2013: https://connectednation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/caf_ph12013_fundingawards_final.pdf https://connectednation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/caf_p.... Larger carriers weren’t covered until 2015. And it has not been a lot of money: https://www.telecompetitor.com/ahead-of-rdof-caf-lives-on-as-carriers-opt-for-seventh-year-of-support/ https://www.telecompetitor.com/ahead-of-rdof-caf-lives-on-as... > AT&T and CenturyLink accepted all funding for all states for which they accepted CAF funding. For AT&T, seventh year CAF funding totals approximately $427 million for 18 states. For CenturyLink, the total seventh year funding totals approximately $503 million for 33 states. Over 7 years, AT&T has received half a billion dollars from the feds. That’s not a lot of money for building fiber. In rural high cost areas, where that money is supposed to be targeted, that might be like 20,000 homes. AT&T spends over $10 billion per year on wireline upgrades and maintenance: https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/at-t-dedicates-40-40b-capex-budget-to-wireline-wireless-business-services https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/at-t-dedicates-40-40b-... ($16 billion in 2017). Over that 7 year period you’re talking $100+ billion in investment from AT&T versus $0.5 billion from the feds. Do you see why that money hasn’t moved the needle at all? To my knowledge, Comcast has never received universal service fund (now called the connect America fund) money. We can argue about whether universal service money has been used efficiently. But the idea that companies like Comcast received billions of dollars from the feds to build fiber everywhere is a very Trumpian misrepresentation (taking something with a tiny grain of truth and spinning it into a tall tale).

Retric 6y ago
Your numbers are misleading. “On October 27, 2011, the FCC approved a six-year transfer process that would transition the money from the Universal Service Fund High-Cost Program into the new $4.5 billion a year Connect America Fund, effectively putting an end to the USF High-Cost Fund by 2018.“ “In March 2014, the FCC approved "Phase II" of the transition to the Connect America Fund, adding $1.8 billion a year in funding.” What’s important to realize is these subsides ends up providing paying customers to these companies. As such they don’t need to cover 100% of the cost of connections only the subset of that cost that wouldn’t be covered by monthly fees.
- rayiner 6y ago
  What's misleading about the numbers? I cited actual distributed money over 7 years for one carrier (AT&T). You're citing proposed amounts to be distributed for the whole program. The program has hit numerous delays, and most of that money has not been distributed. Regarding Phase II, for example: https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/02/fcc-gets-ready-to-kick-off-2-billion-rural-broadband-fund/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/02/fcc-gets-ready-to-kick-off... ("The fund was proposed back in 2013, but for various reasons never saw the light of day."). For the most part the money never materialized. The Phase II support, for example, ended up being just $1.49 billion over 10 years, not $1.8 billion per year as in your quote: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/connect-america-fund-phase-ii-faqs https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/connect-america-fund-ph... It doesn't matter if the subsidies cover 100% of the costs or not--the point is that the funding is a tiny fraction of what the industry already spends, and isn't enough to move the needle outside a small number of very high-cost rural places. The replacement for the connect America Fund, the Rural Broadband Opportunity Fund, plans to distribute $20 billion over a decade: https://thecounter.org/fcc-20-billion-dollar-rural-broadband-auction https://thecounter.org/fcc-20-billion-dollar-rural-broadband.... (Again, plans.) Wireline providers invest about $40 billion annually--or around $400 billion over the next decade. The notion that subsidies are more than a drop in the bucket (and should be expected to significantly move the needle on broadband deployment) is just false.
  - Retric 6y ago
    The fact you’re talking about a subset of total subsidies to all infrastructure spending by these companies. This wasn’t supposed to be new money, it was renaming an existing telecom subsidies as something else. In the associated April 2014 Connect America Report and Order, the Commission decided that a competitive ETC that is awarded “support through the competitive bidding process will cease to receive legacy phase-down support for those specific areas upon commencement of Connect America Phase II support.”12 As of July 1, 2014, consistent with the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission froze fixed competitive ETCs’ legacy support at 60%... Also, wireline providers don’t invest $40 billion per year in extending their networks to new customers. The majority of that money is spent on maintaining and upgrading existing equipment as part of their normal operating costs. It’s like complaining they can’t simply get money without doing anything.

aksss 6y ago

In my state there was USAC funding that went unawarded year over year, and for all I know still is. Carriers just don’t find it worth their while in many cases especially if they don’t need to worry about any threats to the captive markets they already serve.