Tag Archives: public policy

Cable to defend Californian monopolies with attacks on independent projects

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Comcast, Charter Communications and other cable companies are demanding the right “to challenge each and every application” for broadband infrastructure subsidies from the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF). Their lobbying front organisation, the California Cable and Telecommunications Association (CCTA), made their perpetual litigation plans clear in a new round of comments on the California Public Utilities Commission’s plan to reboot the program.

The cable companies also want to be able to block independent projects by cherrypicking homes and neighborhoods census blocks using the right of the first night right of first refusal given to them by the lawmakers they’ve generously funded in return. CCTA called universal service requirements advocated by other organisations “especially unreasonable”.

Like the cable lobbyists, AT&T repeated many of it previous arguments in its comments. But it did make one statement about funding middle mile facilities that is both true and useful for developing economically viable broadband projects…

If a CASF applicant and middle-mile provider cannot agree on access rates, terms, and conditions through arm’s-length negotiation, that alone is evidence that the middle-mile provider’s proposed rates, terms, and conditions are not commercially acceptable for the project at issue, and that building middle-mile infrastructure is “indispensable” to the project.

Middle mile infrastructure that connects local, last mile networks to central Internet hubs, such as those found in Silicon Valley, is essential. Incumbents – AT&T included – have used their control over those choke points to keep broadband prices high and competitors out. The CPUC should subsidise more middle mile fiber construction whenever possible, but that money should come with the same strings attached to last mile projects: grant recipients should offer it on the open market at published rates.

Several other groups submitted comments, also mostly restating earlier positions. The North Bay North Coast Broadband Consortium weighed in for the first time, urging the commission to hold incumbents accountable when they exercise a right of first refusal but don’t build out, and to give priority to projects that offer faster broadband speeds than the pathetic 10 Mbps download/1 Mbps upload service that the California legislature agreed to subsidise.

North Bay North Coast Broadband Consortium
CPUC Public Advocates Office (formerly known as the office of ratepayer advocates)
Greenlining Institute
TURN

AT&T
California Cable and Telecommunications Association (lobbyists for Comcast, Charter and other cable companies)
California Emerging Technology Fund
Geolinks
Race Telecommunications
Small Local Exchange Carriers (small, rural telcos)

Links to other documents – decisions on other issues, drafts, comments and more – are here.

Consumer privacy law is back in play in Sacramento

by Steve Blum • , , ,

Sf naked the streets

Monday’s brief meeting of the California legislature didn’t produce any broadband-related bills, with the possible exception of a placeholder introduced by assemblyman Ed Chau (D – Los Angeles). Assembly bill 25 would amend the privacy bill that California lawmakers passed in 2018, but it doesn’t say how.

California’s new privacy law puts tight restrictions on how online companies can use customer data, and how they have to safeguard it. Chau was the author of that bill, which was passed as part of a deal to keep an even tougher privacy initiative off of the November ballot. But what the legislature gives, it can also take away. A coalition of various kinds of advocacy groups sent a letter to lawmakers on Monday, asking them to strengthen the law, and resist attempts to change it…

Irresponsible data practices lead to a broad range of harms, including discrimination in employment, health care, and advertising, data breaches, and loss of individual control over personal information. Technology practices and resulting concerns can limit adoption and use of new technology such as internet-connected devices, threaten e-commerce, and even decrease democratic engagement and speech. Many individuals do not understand and are worried about how their information is used or shared online. They feel that they have lost control of their data and they want government to protect them.

Whether or not consumers are really clamouring for more government protection is an open question. But there doesn’t seem to be much interest in having less, except among the telecoms and online services companies that opposed California’s new privacy law. Some of those companies give millions of dollars to lawmakers, and particularly to senators and assembly members that sit on key committees in Sacramento. With the help of those friend, their lobbyists are adept at carving up laws they don’t like. Chau’s new bill needs to be watched carefully.

Urban or rural, the need for broadband speed is the same for all in the Monterey Bay region

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

MBEP regional broadband speed survey results

To run a business, do homework and enjoy the benefits of our digital economy, broadband service that runs at 100 Mbps download/20 Mbps upload speeds is a necessity for everyone. That’s the conclusion of a year-long study by the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP) and the Central Coast Broadband Consortium.

The report was presented last Friday at MBEP’s 2018 State of the Region event in Seaside. It was based on the work of the broadband leadership team recommended by participants at the 2017 conference and recruited by MBEP earlier this year. The team conducted a survey of residents and businesses in Santa Cruz, San Benito and Monterey counties.

The key finding is that broadband needs are the same whether people live or work in a well-served urban area or a poorly – or even unserved – rural community.

The result was unexpected. The study’s underlying hypothesis was that the region’s diverse economy and communities would have an equally diverse range of broadband needs. As it turned out, there was little difference in the responses from high tech, agricultural or home-based business sectors, or from consumers anywhere.

In retrospect, the findings made perfect sense: a rancher in Bitterwater uses the same cloud-based business tools as a game developer in Santa Cruz, their families watch the same video programs, and their kids do the same homework and take the same online tests.

Federal and state broadband standards do not meet that need. Broadband subsidy programs run by the federal government set 25 Mbps down/3 Mbps speeds up as a minimum, although providers who deliver significantly slower service in rural areas can still receive funding. California’s primary broadband subsidy program, the California Advanced Services Fund, considers speeds as low as 6 Mbps down/1 Mbps up to be sufficient for urban and rural communities alike.

Businesses and households in the Monterey Bay region are also willing to pay for better service…

When asked about ideal download and upload speeds, 63% of business respondents stated they would like to have 100 Mbps or higher download and 61% stated they would like to have 25 Mbps or higher upload. 69% of these businesses said they would be willing to pay $70 or more per month.

50% of respondents in the consumer survey stated that they would like to have download speeds of 100 Mbps or more. 66% of consumers said they were willing to pay $40 to $99 a month for their ideal speeds.

The MBEP survey data was backed up by a separate broadband needs survey run by the County of Santa Cruz and quarterbacked by broadband leadership team member Zach Friend, who is a Santa Cruz County supervisor.

The question addressed at this year’s conference was how do we achieve the goal of making 100 Mbps down/20 Mbps up broadband service ubiquitous in the region? Participants, who represented local governments, Internet service providers, businesses and non-profit organisations, identified better access to capital, greater public-private cooperation and proactive local broadband development policies as the team’s 2019 objectives.

Achieving Ubiquitous Broadband Coverage in the Monterey Bay Region, Monterey Bay Economic Partnership and Central Coast Broadband Consortium, November 2018.

Monterey Bay Region Broadband Leadership Team

  • Ray Corpuz, City of Salinas
  • Peggy Dolgenos, Cruzio
  • John Freeman, City of San Juan Bautista
  • Zach Friend, County of Santa Cruz
  • Chris Frost, Cruzio
  • James Hackett, Cruzio
  • Matt Huffaker, City of Watsonville
  • Mary Ann Leffel, MCBC
  • Chip Lenno, CSUMB
  • Maureen McCarty, Assemblymember Mark Stone’s office
  • René Mendez, City of Gonzales
  • Andy Myrick, City of Salinas
  • Larry Samuels, CSUMB
  • Brad Smith, UCSC
  • Jim Warner, UCSC
  • Steve Blum, Tellus Venture Associates
  • Freny Cooper, Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
  • Kate Roberts, Monterey Bay Economic Partnership

Comcast and Charter fight for right to charge “exorbitant prices” for broadband connectivity

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Comcast’s and Charter Communications’ lobbying front in Sacramento – the California Cable and Telecommunications Association (CCTA) – doesn’t want the California Public Utilities Commission to require companies that receive broadband infrastructure subsidies to make any commitments about the prices consumers will be charged, or to offer an “affordable broadband plan for low income customers”.

In comments they submitted regarding the CPUC’s proposed reboot of the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) broadband infrastructure subsidy program, the cable lobbyists claimed that the requirements – some of which have been in place for many years – are illegal.

The lobbyists also told the CPUC that it can’t limit Charter’s and Comcast’s right to charge “exorbitant prices” for middle mile connectivity and, in the process, block competition by independent broadband providers.

CCTA objected to a new rule that would allow streamlined review of middle mile proposals in “a situation where a provider…only offers service at exorbitant prices”. Their claim is that “affordability” has nothing to do with the “availability” of middle mile service.

Bullshit.

Middle mile service links a local broadband provider – aka the “last mile” – to a major hub, such as a data center in Silicon Valley, where interconnections between networks are thick and the magic of the Internet happens. If an independent Internet service provider wants to build a last mile network in a poorly served community, the middle mile connectivity problem has to be solved in way that makes economic sense. When incumbents, like Charter, Comcast, AT&T or Frontier, kill an independent’s business model by jacking up middle mile prices – as they are allowed to do – they are deliberately making that service unavailable.

CCTA also continued to argue for the right to perpetually and continually challenge proposed projects. Derailing project applications with late challenges, sometimes based on false claims, is a tried and true tactic that incumbents use to protect their monopolies in communities where 1. their service is poor, and 2. so are residents.

The cable companies have never liked the CASF infrastructure subsidy program, and they have handed bags of cash offered cerebral arguments against it to California’s lawmakers in largely successful attempts to cripple it.

CCTA’s comments are worth reading as a reminder of why the CASF program was created in the first place.

Links to CASF reboot documents – decisions on other issues, drafts, comments and more – are here.

I drafted and submitted the comments filed by the Central Coast Broadband Consortium. I am not a disinterested commentator. Take it for what it’s worth.

Telcos, cable companies should face consequences for filing false California broadband data

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

AT&T, Frontier Communications, Charter Communications and Comcast have to file reports with the Federal Communications Commission detailing where they offer broadband service, how fast it is and what technology they use. The California Public Utilities Commission uses that information, along with other sources of data, to determine if particular areas or communities are eligible for broadband infrastructure subsidies, via the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) program.

The CPUC is rewriting the rules for those subsidies, as a result of the generosity of California lawmakers who rigged CASF so that big, monopoly model telecoms companies get a shot at hogging all the cash.

The availability data that those incumbents provide is of dubious quality. It’s largely based on marketing claims, and not on actual speed tests or subscriber information. The CPUC’s proposed new rules highlight comments that I drafted and filed in May on behalf of the Central Coast Broadband Consortium in which we called out, as an example, obviously false data that AT&T submitted about fiber to the home service.

The CPUC draft diplomatically attributes AT&T’s false reports to “miscoding”. We filed comments last week suggesting that this isn’t the time to be speculating on AT&T’s motives or possible excuses for giving the CPUC and the FCC bad information…

We did not attribute this false data to miscoding. AT&T has established “AT&T Fiber” as an “umbrella brand” which includes technology such as “the former AT&T GigaPower network” which does not, in all regards, meet the Form 477 definition of “fiber to the home or business end user”. It is reasonable to posit a connection between AT&T’s brand positioning and its Form 477 submissions.

In its comments, Race Communications, which has received several CASF grants to build FTTH systems in rural communities, urged the CPUC to hold companies accountable for their data…

The [proposed decision] properly notes that these errors have major consequences for the CASF program, because corrections are time-consuming for the Communications Division Staff, and errors cause confusion and frustration for communities and CASF applicants who must rely on the maps for eligibility decisions. Race contends that the Commission should take a more aggressive enforcement stance if data is consistently provided to the Commission that is erroneous and/or overstated by a particular existing provider. Providing erroneous data on coverage is a [CPUC rule] violation and should be treated as such.

The rule in question says that AT&T – and everyone else who does business with the CPUC – must agree “never to mislead the Commission or its staff by an artifice or false statement of fact or law”.

Just so.

Links to CASF reboot documents – decisions on other issues, drafts, comments and more – are here.

AT&T, Frontier tell CPUC to loosen broadband subsidy rules for them, but make it harder for everyone else

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

The arm wrestling over how California should manage its primary broadband infrastructure subsidy program – the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) – is nearly complete. Ten organisations filed comments on a draft of new rules offered by commissioner Martha Guzman Aceves last month. The rewrite is necessary because the California legislature changed the way CASF is structured, giving incumbent telcos – particularly AT&T and Frontier Communications – privileged access to the money and another layer of protection from independent providers that propose to offer modern levels of broadband service to rural communities. Not surprisingly, AT&T and Frontier want the CPUC to make it easier for them to scoop up taxpayer money and harder for everyone else.

AT&T urges the commission to loosen the draft rules so it can get 100% subsidies for infrastructure wherever it wants – the CPUC’s draft would target low income communities and areas with nothing but dial-up service for full funding. The company also claims that it’s illegal for the commission to consider whether there are any existing subscribers in an area before deciding that it’s eligible for subsidies. A provider’s claim that it offers broadband service at particular speeds should be enough, AT&T argues.

Frontier added an amen to those prayers, saying in its comments that it “opposes setting specific criteria linked to funding levels” and that the commission should take its word for what service it offers.

Both companies also object to a requirement that they update the CPUC on the progress they’re making on federally subsidised broadband upgrades. The state law that they paid key lawmakers big bucks for convinced public-spirited legislators to pass gives them an exclusive right to Californian subsidies in those areas for a couple of years, if they actually do the promised work. How dare the CPUC ask them if they’re meeting those obligations?

A coalition of rural telephone companies – small, often locally owned incumbent providers that serve remote communities – echoed some of those comments. They, too, object to the use of actual subscriber data to validate marketing claims and to the requirement for a reduced cost plan for low income households.

The lobbying front organisation that pushes Comcast’s and Charter Communications’ agenda at the CPUC as well as at the state capitol also filed comments – I’ll have more to say about that on Monday.

There’s one more round of reply comments due next week, then commissioners will vote on the final draft. That could happen in a couple of weeks, at their next meeting on 13 December 2018.

Central Coast Broadband Consortium
CPUC Public Advocates Office (formerly known as the office of ratepayer advocates)
TURN and Greenlining Institute joint comments
AT&T
California Cable and Telecommunications Association (lobbyists for Comcast, Charter and other cable companies)
California Emerging Technology Fund
Frontier Communications
Geolinks
Race Telecommunications
Small Local Exchange Carriers (small, rural telcos)

Links to other documents – decisions on other issues, drafts, comments and more – are here.

I drafted and submitted the comments filed by the Central Coast Broadband Consortium. I am not a disinterested commentator. Take it for what it’s worth.

Cities ask to move appeals of FCC muni property preemption to San Francisco court

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

The cities, counties and related associations that are challenging the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to preempt local ownership of streetlight poles and similar municipal property in the public right of way are asking to move the case from Denver to San Francisco. A motion to that effect was filed yesterday in the Denver-based tenth circuit court of appeals by the City of San Jose and the other west coast agencies that appealed the FCC decision in the last week of October.

Mobile carriers also challenged the ruling, because they didn’t get everything they wanted. And – likely – because they didn’t want the case heard in San Francisco’s ninth circuit court of appeals, which is not their home turf, to say the least. Under court rules, when multiple appeals of a federal agency’s action are filed in different appellate districts within 10 days of its publication, a lottery is held to determine where they will be consolidated. Denver won the draw.

But San Jose and its cohorts found a wrinkle in the law. They argue that the 10 day clock starts running when the first appeal in a given agency proceeding is filed. The City of Portland appealed an earlier FCC wireline ruling two weeks before the local agencies and mobile carriers went to court to challenge the wireless ruling. The wireline and wireless rulings were part of the same proceeding: as case law cited by San Jose puts it, both “are associated with the same dockets, arise out of the same administrative proceeding, and govern aspects of a single agency undertaking to implement…provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996”.

All the cities and counties involved are in the ninth circuit’s vast western territory. In the past, the San Francisco court has interpreted federal telecoms law more narrowly, and more in line with municipal interests, than the Denver appeals court. It makes sense for them to try to get the case moved.

The mobile carriers and the FCC will have a chance to argue against the transfer, and it’s a fair bet they will. A decision on San Jose’s motion will likely come quickly from the Denver court – there’s not a lot of time left before the FCC’s wireless preemption ruling takes effect on 14 January 2019 and, whether it’s in Denver or San Francisco, there’s a lot of legal work to be done.

City of San Jose, et al, motion to transfer cases to ninth circuit, 29 November 2018.
City of Portland’s petition for review of FCC wireline order, 2 October 2018.
FCC report and order and declaratory ruling, In the Matter of Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment and Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, 2 August 2018.

Links to petitions, court documents and background material are here.

FCC embraces 25 Mbps down/3 Mbps up standard for faster rural broadband

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

The biggest, by far, broadband service and infrastructure program in the U.S. is the Federal Communications Commission’s Connect America Fund, which is handing out $3 billion$590 million in California – over the next decade. It’s been paying that money to Internet service providers – mostly incumbent telephone companies – who promise to provide a minimum service level of 10 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload speeds.

That standard is about to be raised to 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds for some telephone companies because, an FCC draft decision says, “we recognise that access to 25/3 Mbps broadband service is not a luxury for urban areas, but a necessity for all”.

Just so.

It’s good news, and the republican majority on the FCC deserves credit for putting it on next month’s meeting agenda: approval is a virtual certainty. It’s a big step in the right direction, but it’s not mission accomplished yet.

In its draft, released just ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday, the FCC proposes to offer additional money to telephone companies that fall under the “rate of return” rules, if they upgrade their broadband infrastructure to support the 25/3 standard. There are different scenarios for how they might qualify for the extra money, and doing so is largely optional – the FCC would still subsidise 10/1 service.

“Rate of return” telcos are those that are still regulated based on costs and a particular return on their investment. The two biggest telcos in California – AT&T and Frontier Communications – do not fall into that category. They operate under the newer and inappropriately named “price cap” rules that let them charge as much as they want for broadband service (there are limits on telephone service charges, but not so strict that it makes a significant difference). A third, mid-sized telco in the Sacramento area, Consolidated Communications, is similarly unregulated, as is CenturyLink, which serves a few dozen homes along the Oregon border in Modoc County.

Small, rural telephone companies are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission under the “rate of return” rules, though, and the new FCC incentives would apply to them.

The FCC said its decision to begin raising the standard was “informed by our recent auction to award universal service support in eligible areas”. In that auction, ISPs submitted bids to provide a particular level of service in return for a particular subsidy, with higher speeds and better quality getting preferential treatment. According to the FCC, 99.7% of the homes and businesses getting subsidised service as a result will be able to get 25/3 speeds or better.

The FCC’s move matches an earlier decision by the federal agriculture department to raise the minimum standard for its rural broadband subsidy programs to 25/3.

We are not so lucky in California, though. AT&T, Frontier, Comcast, Charter Communications and other big telecom companies paid key lawmakers tens of thousands of dollars each, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in aggregate, this past legislative session. In return, lawmakers approved a $300 million broadband subsidy program, courtesy of Californian taxpayers, that lowered California’s minimum acceptable broadband speed to 6 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up.

FCC’s broadband market share data shows urban/rural technology divide and decline of DSL

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

There’s a lot to chew over in the Federal Communications Commission’s latest report on broadband subscribers in the U.S. Just one of the many charts (pictured above) tells an interesting story about how people in the U.S. get fixed broadband service in their homes. Two conclusions jump out immediately: cable companies are winning the fight for broadband market share, but the availability of cable modem, fiber to the premise or other wireline service depends population density.

In other words, high density urban areas, and medium to high density suburbs are likelier to have high speed service via direct fiber or coaxial cable service, while people in rural areas are likelier to have to depend on fixed wireless or satellite providers.

DSL service, of whatever generation of technology, is fading into irrelevance. It is significantly less popular than cable modem service. Nationally, 62% of all fixed residential broadband service (defined as better than 200 Kbps in at least one direction) is delivered via cable modem, while telco style DSL accounts for 24%, and FTTP for 12%. But when usable service levels are examined, telco DSL craters, accounting for 13% of connections at 10 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload speeds or better, and only 4% at speeds of at least 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up. The former is the FCC’s minimum for its $3 billion broadband subsidy program – the Connect America Fund – while the latter is the FCC’s and federal agriculture department’s minimum benchmark for what they call “advanced services” and what everyone else considers to be run of the mill Internet use in 2018.

The overall trend in California is the same, according to the study, which is based on reports filed by service providers as of 30 June 2017. It doesn’t break out residential and business connections, but market share figures for total connections tell a similar story: cable accounts for 64% of all broadband connections, telco DSL is at 28%, FTTP is at 8% and fixed wireless has about 1%.

FCC preemption of local pole ownership challenged by muni electric utilities

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Municipal electric utilities joined the challenge the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to preempt local ownership and control of streetlights and other publicly-owned infrastructure in the public right of way. The American Public Power Association, which represents cities, utility districts and other public agencies that provide electric service, filed a petition in the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. last week, asking that the ruling be overturned.

It argues…

In the Order, the Commission has improperly asserted regulatory authority and jurisdiction over the control and use of public power utility facilities. The Order exceeds the Commission’s statutory authority; poses significant risks to safe, secure, and reliable electric utility operations; and interferes with the proprietary rights of public power utilities to determine the terms and compensation for use of their utility assets by private wireless carriers.

That makes a total of eight challenges to the FCC ruling. Three were filed by western cities with objections that parallel the APPA’s; four by mobile carriers that want federal judges to give them everything they asked for, instead of the virtually everything they got from the FCC.

The City of Huntington Beach filed its obligatory and brief description of its case, stating…

The federal government cannot deprive a state or cities of their proprietary powers as owners of property…Localities, in their capacity as a property owner, have the “right to decline to lease the property except on agreed conditions.”

The group led by the City of Seattle submitted similar comments. The City of San Jose-led challengers filed their’s last week.

More challenges are possible (and might have already been filed – I’m not checking every circuit court every day). The deadline is the middle of next month, 60 days after the FCC’s ruling was published in the federal register. An earlier deadline – 10 days after publication – was for getting into the judicial lottery that determines which court of appeals will hear the case. That honor went to the tenth circuit court of appeals, based in Denver. Presumably, the APPA case will be transferred there, along with AT&T’s appeal, which was also filed in D.C.

Links to petitions, court documents and background material are here.