Pierce (Image courtesy of: KTUU-TV)

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s choice to lead his newly created Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC) was arrested last week by the FBI and charged with a multimillion-dollar investment fraud scheme.

Elizabeth Pierce, former CEO of Quintillion and ex-chair of the BDAC from its start until September, 2017 surrendered to authorities in New York City. Pierce was charged with wire fraud for allegedly tricking investors into putting more than $250 million into an Alaskan fiber optic project based on guaranteed revenue contracts prosecutors claimed Pierce forged herself to reassure investors Quintillion would benefit from telecom traffic revenue the fiber network never had.

“To realize her plan to build a fiber optic system that would service Alaska and connect it to the lower 48 states, Pierce convinced two investment companies that she had secured signed contracts that would supposedly generate hundreds of millions of dollars in guaranteed future revenue from the system,” said Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman. “Those sales agreements were worthless because the customers had not signed them. Pierce had forged counterparty signatures on contract after contract.”

To raise adequate funds to support Quintillion’s ambitious fiber optic network buildout, Pierce frequently appealed to outside investors. Several wanted evidence the fiber network would attract enough business from telecom companies to justify an investment. Pierce was accused of faking contracts with Alaska’s telecommunications companies from 2015 until 2017 to provide reassurance companies were committed to spend at least $24 million in traffic charges the first year the network began operation.

Pierce’s alleged scheme fell apart when Quintillion began invoicing clients based on the fake contracts. At least one protested, claiming it did not use Quintillion’s network. A subsequent internal investigation allegedly founds dozens of phony contracts kept in Pierce’s Google Drive account, with at least 78 moved to the service’s trash bin 48 hours before investigators began searching Pierce’s computer. Prosecutors were able to recover the deleted documents with a search warrant presented to Google.

Pierce may have attracted FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s attention after publicly complaining the permitting process in Alaska took longer than building fiber cables from scratch and shipping them from Europe. Out of more than 380 applicants, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai picked Pierce in 2017 to head his new broadband advisory committee, tasked with eliminating or streamlining regulations and making life easier for broadband providers to persuade them to expand broadband rollouts.

“The Commission was fortunate to have an excellent and deep pool of applicants to serve on the BDAC,” Chairman Pai noted on the occasion of introducing the BDAC and Pierce to the public. Critics argue Pai’s BDAC has been stacked with industry, industry-funded or industry-friendly committee members that are influencing most of the public policy recommendations issued in the group’s final recommendations. At least two city officials resigned over concerns their views were not being taken seriously.

Pierce resigned from Quintillion in August 2017 and from the BDAC a month later for  “personal reasons.”

KTUU-TV in Anchorage reports Quintillion’s ex-CEO was charged with wire fraud. Nevertheless, the Alaskan fiber project is trying to carry on. (3:11)

The head of a state-funded group with direct ties to the Massachusetts governor’s office told local officials in New Marlborough that the Massachusetts Broadband Institute (MBI) “believes in cable companies” and is favoring one — Charter Communications, with an exclusive offer to invest millions in taxpayer dollars to entice Charter to bring its Spectrum cable service to town, while telling would-be competitors the money is only available to Charter Communications.

MBI was created in 2008, originally tasked with investing $50 million in state funds to help resolve the digital divide between eastern and western Massachusetts. MBI also manages the publicly owned, middle mile fiber optic network that towns in western Massachusetts are depending on as part of their plans to connect local residents to the internet.

In 2015, MBI suddenly yanked support for WiredWest, the region’s most robust and credible player in connecting residential homes and businesses. The group had spent several years organizing and educating some two dozen largely rural communities, and was well on its way to constructing a public broadband network for the towns that agreed to sign on to the project. Since 2015, a series of political disputes, bureaucracy, and confusion has stalled broadband expansion.

Peter Larkin, MBI’s board chairman, has been roundly criticized in many western Massachusetts communities for continuing MBI’s slow and cumbersome bureaucracy, frequent policy shifts, and most recently playing favorites with cable companies. Ignoring his own organization’s systemic failures and bureaucratic roadblocks, Larkin has recently leveraged community frustration with the slow pace of progress as an excuse to hand two of the nation’s largest cable operators public taxpayer dollars to complete a project MBI was directly responsible for stalling.

Larkin

Under the latest proposal, outlined last Friday, Charter Communications would receive $3.1 million to expand Spectrum cable service to at least 96% of the community of New Marlborough. Originally, the town was responsible for $1.44 million in cost sharing with the state, a substantial sum for a community with a population just over 1,500 residents. Larkin last week offered to split the cost to the town, with the town’s share reduced to $720,000 — payable directly to Charter.

“The state is willing to cut the gap in half to make this project go,” Larkin said.

But that deal appears to be good only if the town selects Charter Communications. Over the last year, MBI has been allocating public taxpayer dollars towards private cable and phone companies, especially Comcast and Charter, to get the companies to agree to expand their cable systems in areas both have ignored for decades. WiredWest’s proposal made towns partners in the project. Larkin’s offer suggests taxpayers should pay up to 50% of the expansion costs, while Charter keeps 100% of the revenue and profits.

In the past, MBI’s financial carrots have been enough to get the two cable companies to expand using state matching funds alone, but as the town’s Broadband Committee Chairman Richard Long told the Berkshire Eagle after the meeting, he thinks this is the first time an unserved town in central or western Massachusetts will have to contribute local taxpayer funds as well just to get service from a cable company.

Larkin’s hard sell for Charter raised eyebrows among some in the town, especially after Larkin offered to use state funds to also finance their $720,000 portion of the deal over as much as a decade. Larkin claimed he wanted to get the project done and wanted to be helpful.

“The state may spend moneys or engage in other activities that benefit or incentivize private businesses in order to promote such [economic] development and it may authorize or partner with its cities and towns to do likewise,” Larkin recently wrote in a letter to towns offering to help them get negotiations going with the cable companies.

Town resident Dave Travis called Larkin’s offer something else.

“Call me a whistleblower, concerned citizen, activist for fairness, justice and democracy, but for Massachusetts Broadband Institute to show such blatant preferential treatment [to Charter] when there are qualified, experienced local options feels like corruption, and it needs some serious daylight,” Travis wrote.

WiredWest’s Tim Newman exposed just how far Larkin was willing to go to bat for Charter.

“Is the generosity you’re presenting to our town on behalf of Charter the same generosity if the town were to build its own network?” he asked Larkin.

“We do believe in the cable companies … we think it’s a value worth leaning in a little bit harder for,” he said, suggesting Charter has the financial ability to complete the project.

“So, the short answer is ‘no’ — the $720,000 would not be available?” Newman pressed.

“No,” Larkin answered.

A growing number of Frontier Communications employees are sharing their dissatisfaction working at a phone company that continues its decline with nearly $2 billion in losses and more than a half-million customers departing in 2017. Employees who find themselves in such challenging situations may explore legal remedies for hostile work environments.

According to Perelson, using proactive communication in the workplace increases the productivity of your staff and helps you stay ahead of potential speed bumps that can impede project completion.

Workers describe a deteriorating workplace with increasingly hostile and disappointed customers that want to take their business elsewhere, and employees that are increasingly frustrated and predict the company is headed towards bankruptcy.

“This is a company in a long-term decline, which is good and bad for workers and customers,” said ‘Geoff,’ a Frontier employee in California who wished to remain anonymous for obvious reasons. “It’s good because you know there is still some time left in case of a miraculous turnaround, but bad because like a glider slowly descending toward the ground, it is inevitably going to land or crash at some point in the not-too-distant future.”

Geoff was formerly employed by Verizon Communications before Frontier completed an acquisition of Verizon’s landline, fiber, and wireline networks in California in 2016. Now he’s employed full-time as a network engineer for Frontier.

“The trouble started almost immediately, because Verizon’s methodical, if not bureaucratic way of doing business was replaced with Frontier’s never ending chaos,” Geoff told Stop the Cap! “We were warned by techs in Connecticut, Indiana and West Virginia that Frontier’s management was very uneven, changes direction on various executive whims, and is very disconnected from mainline workers, and boy were they right.”

Geoff and his team, responsible for managing Verizon’s FiOS fiber network in Southern California, were split up after Frontier took over and put under severe budget restraints, which have grown tighter and tighter as Frontier’s economic condition deteriorates.

“Under good leadership, cost cutting can be an effective way to deal with wasteful, creeping spending that sometimes happens at large companies when budgets still reflect the priorities of several years ago, but Frontier just wants costs cut willy-nilly, including investments that actually save the company a lot of money, time, and frustration,” said Geoff. “Those cuts are also responsible for the deteriorating infrastructure and increasing failures customers are experiencing.”

“As a network engineer, I can see each day what Frontier’s network looks like and I talk to many other engineers at this company who are seeing much the same thing in their areas,” Geoff said. “If you live in an area where Verizon upgraded its network to fiber before selling it to Frontier, you will probably experience the least number of service problems, although the company’s billing systems are still troublesome. If you live in what Frontier calls its legacy (copper) markets, it’s a real mess and things are not getting better near fast enough, and customers are going elsewhere.”

Geoff’s views are shared by a growing number of hostile employee reviews being left on websites like Glassdoor. When cumulatively examined, those reviews show common points of complaint:

• Customers are treated to aggressive sales tactics, offered products and services they cannot use, while rushed off the phone when reporting service problems.
• Management is out of touch with employees and issue directives for new policies and services that cannot be easily managed from antiquated software and systems still in use at the company.
• Because company is performing poorly, managers can be very protective of their employee teams and attempt to keep them independent and insulated from management chaos. New employees perceive this as ‘cliquish’ and they often do not do well when assigned to one of those teams, as they are viewed with suspicion.
• Major cuts in training budgets have left employees with inadequate knowledge of Frontier’s own systems. In sales, this results in customers being sold plans they cannot actually get in their areas, incomplete orders, misrepresentation of pricing and product information, and customer trouble tickets being accidentally erased or left incomplete. Constant process changes are expected to be implemented by employees not trained to implement or manage them.
• No significant upgrades are coming, but employees are trained to tell customers to be patient for better service that is unlikely to be forthcoming.

Many employees share the view, “we’re all in the same boat, except that boat is sinking.”

The Better Business Bureau offers this advisory about Frontier Communications, which received a grade of “F” from the consumer organization.

“Sally,” who works at a Frontier internet support call center, tells Stop the Cap! she has noticed customers are getting increasingly hostile towards the company.

“The frustration level is enormous for customers and those of us tasked to help them,” Sally said. “Frontier markets itself as a solutions company and we sell a lot of ‘Peace of Mind’ support services for technology products, including our own, but sometimes the only answer to a problem has to come from the company investing in its facilities and not making excuses for why things are not working.”

Sally explains many Frontier customers do not have much experience troubleshooting technology problems.

“Most of my calls come from our rural customers who don’t have a choice in internet providers or are from lower and fixed income customers that cannot afford the cable company’s prices for internet access,” Sally said. “They know what they want to do with their internet connections but call us when they can’t seem to do it, whether that is sending email or watching video or using an internet video calling application to see their grandkids. You can only imagine what they feel when we tell them their DSL connection is unstable or their speed is too slow to support the application they want to use. We end up disappointing a lot of people because the internet and technology is moving much faster than Frontier is and our network just cannot keep up.”

Sally has been on the receiving end of profanity and a lot of slammed down phones, but there is little she can do.

“We can send a repair crew out but considering some of our lines are decades old, there isn’t much they can do about it,” Sally said. “This is a problem only management can solve and they’ve been distracted trying to deal with shareholders, acquisitions, and if you don’t mind me saying, being very preoccupied with their performance bonuses. We always know when another bad quarter is coming because of last-minute directives from top management designed to really push sales and hold on to customers to limit the damage. That is also around the time they start taking perks away from us in various cost-cutting plans. My co-workers are starting to leave because they don’t feel valued and do not want to work for a company in a long-term decline.”

“It seems like Frontier has just given up trying to compete with cable companies for internet services and now just sells internet to rural customers it can reach with the help of government subsidies,” adds Geoff. “It’s easy to do business with customers who don’t have any other choice for internet access.”

March was a big month for lobbyists visiting the Federal Communications Commission, which opened the doors to wireless special interest groups for “ex parte” meetings with agency staffers that, in turn, brief the three Republicans and two Democrats that serve as FCC commissioners.

Last month’s ex parte filings reveal strong evidence of a coordinated, well-financed campaign by America’s wireless operators and cable companies to get the FCC to ease off regulations governing forthcoming 5G networks, particularly with respect to where tens of thousands of “small cell” antennas will be installed to deliver the service.

Four industry trade groups and companies are part of the concerted campaign to scale back third party control over where 5G infrastructure will end up. Some want to strip local governments of their power to oversee where 5G infrastructure will be placed, while others seek the elimination of laws and regulations that give everyone from historical societies to Native American tribes a say where next generation wireless infrastructure will go. The one point all four interests agree on — favoring pro-industry policies that give wireless companies the power to flood local communities with wireless infrastructure applications that come with automatic approval unless denied for “good cause” within a short window of time, regardless of how overwhelmed local governments are by the blizzard of paperwork.

Here are the big players:

The Competitive Carriers Association (CCA)

The CCA is primarily comprised of rural, independent, and smaller wireless companies. In short, a large percentage of wireless companies not named AT&T or Verizon Wireless are members of CCA. The CCA’s chief goal is to protect the interests of their members, who lack the finances and political pull of the top two wireless companies in the U.S. CCA lobbyists met ex parte with the FCC multiple times, submitting seven filings about their March meetings.

CCA’s top priority is to get rid of what they consider burdensome regulations about where members can place cell towers and antennas. They also want a big reduction in costly environmental, tribal, and historic reviews that are often required as part of a wireless buildout application. CCA lobbyists argue that multiple interests have their hands on CCA member applications, and fees can become “exorbitant” even before some basic reviews are completed. The CCA claims there have been standoffs between competing interests creating delays and confusion.

Costs are a relevant factor for most CCA members, which operate regional or local wireless networks often in rural areas. Getting a return on capital investment in rural wireless infrastructure can be challenging, and CCA claims unnecessary costs are curtailing additional rural expansion.

NCTA – The Internet & Television Association

The large cable industry lobbyist managed to submit eight ex parte filings with the FCC in March alone, making the NCTA one of the most prolific frequent visitors to the FCC’s headquarters in Washington.

The NCTA was there to discuss the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) band, which is of particular interest to cable companies like Charter Communications, which wants to get into the wireless business on its own terms. Cable lobbyists, under the pretext of trying to avoid harmful interference, want to secure a large percentage of the CBRS band for their licensed use, at the expense of unlicensed consumers and their wireless industry competitors.

The cable industry wants CBRS spectrum to be wide, spacious, and contiguous for its cable industry members, which should open the door to faster speeds. The lobbyists want to make life difficult for unlicensed use of the band, potentially requiring cumbersome use regulations or costly equipment to verify a lack of interference to licensed users. They also want their traffic protected from other licensed users’ interference.

CTIA – The Wireless Association

The wireless industry’s largest lobbying group made multiple visits to the FCC in March and filed 10 ex parte communications looking for a dramatic reduction in local zoning and placement laws for the next generation of small cells and 5G networks.

The CTIA has been arguing with tribal interests recently. Tribes want the right to review cell tower placement and the environmental impacts of new equipment and construction. The CTIA wants a sped-up process for reviewing cell tower and site applications with a strict 30-day time limit, preferably with automatic approval for any unconsidered applications after the clock runs out. Although not explicitly stated, there have been grumblings in the past that tribal interests are inserting themselves into the review process in hopes of collecting application and review fees as a new revenue source. Wireless companies frequently question whether tribal review is even appropriate for some applications.

Sprint has had frequent run-ins with tribal interests demanding several thousand dollars for each application’s review under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), which is supposed to protect heritage and historical sites.

In Houston, Sprint deployed small cells around the NRG Stadium, but found itself paying fees to at least a dozen Indian Tribal Nations as part of the NHPA. The NHPA opens the door to a lot of Native Americans interests because of how the law is written. Any Tribal Nation can express an interest in a project, even when it is to be placed on public or private property that is not considered to be tribal land. In Houston, Sprint found itself paying $6,850 per small cell site, not including processing fees, which raised the cost to $7,535 per antenna location. Those fees only covered tribal reviews, not the cost of installation or equipment. Some tribes offered better deals than others. The Tonkawa Tribe has 611 remaining members, mostly in Oklahoma. But they sought and got $200 in review fees for the 23 small cell sites deployed around the stadium. The Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, not Texas, charged $1,500 for the 23 applications it reviewed.

Sprint complains it has paid millions in such fees over the last 13 years and no tribe to date has ever asked to meet with Sprint or suggest one of its towers or cell sites would intrude on historic or tribal property.

“Tribal Nations are continuing to demand higher fees and designate larger and larger areas of interest,” says Sprint. “At present, there are no constraints on the amount of fees a Tribal Nation may require or the geographic areas for which it can require payment for review. The tribal historic review process remains in place even in situations—such as utility rights-of-way—where the Commission has exempted state historic review.”

The CTIA wants major changes to the NHPA and other regulations regarding cell tower and antenna placement before the stampede of 5G construction begins.

Verizon

Verizon has been extremely busy visiting with the FCC during the month of March, filing 10 ex parte communications, also complaining about the tribal reviews of wireless infrastructure.

Verizon argues it wants to expand wireless service, not effectively subsidize Native American tribes.

“The draft order’s provisions to streamline tribal reviews for larger wireless broadband facilities will likewise speed broadband deployment and eliminate costs, thus freeing up resources that can, in turn, be used to deploy more facilities,” Verizon argued in one filing.

Verizon has also been carefully protecting its most recent very high frequency spectrum buyouts. It wants the FCC to force existing satellite services to share the 29.1-29.25 GHz band for 5G wireless internet. Verizon has a huge 150 MHz swath of spectrum in this band, allowing for potentially extremely high-speed wireless service, even in somewhat marginal reception areas.

“Verizon assured the commission that even when sharing with other services, we would be able to make use of the 150 MHz of spectrum in this block to provide high-speed broadband service to American consumers,” said one filing.

Stop the Cap! today filed recommendations with the New York State Department of Public Service suggesting Charter Communications face additional sanctions in New York State if it is found once again to have missed its rural broadband buildout commitment, agreed to as a condition of its merger with Time Warner Cable.

New York’s Public Service Commission has accused Charter/Spectrum of using invalid or unqualified addresses to pad the number of new passings the company is required to achieve each quarter in its latest agreement with the Commission. As a result, the PSC is considering imposing a $1 million penalty and New York City officials are considering franchise revocation proceedings.

“In upstate New York we are focused on rural broadband and our recommended sanctions seek relief for the 75,638 homes and businesses that are going to be saddled with satellite internet access as the state’s rural broadband expansion program winds down,” said Stop the Cap! founder and director Phillip M. Dampier. “We believe Charter should be compelled to make good on disqualified addresses by expanding service to an equal number of customers that are currently assigned to get HughesNet satellite internet instead of true broadband service.”

Under Stop the Cap!’s proposal, Charter would be given a list of all census blocks assigned to satellite service and be required to buildout to many of those homes and businesses, particularly those  just 1-2 miles away from existing Charter infrastructure.

“Some western New Yorkers are livid because Gov. Andrew Cuomo repeatedly promised to ‘fulfill a goal of providing access to high-speed internet to every New Yorker in every corner of this state,’ and offering them satellite internet service breaks that promise,” Dampier said.

The New York State Broadband Program Office’s last round of awards failed to attract bids from providers for the 75,000+ affected homes and businesses. Because the awards program requires providers to pay a significant portion of expansion expenses, with the rest subsidized by the state, these rural addresses were effectively orphaned.

“It appears the state is giving HughesNet $15,426,269 of taxpayer funds to allow the governor to declare ‘rural broadband victory’ — money Hughes will use to discount satellite dish equipment and installation expenses — something it already does out of its own pocket in its marketing campaigns,” Dampier said.

Hughes will charge grant-funded users no more than $60 per month for the next five years, and no more than $49 for installation. But HughesNet’s website shows new customers are given installation for free, and without more information it is hard to discern what each customer will get for around $60 a month. The website shows a satellite plan costing $49.99 a month that includes just 10 GB of usage per month, with a 24-month commitment. A 20 GB plan costs $69.99 a month with the same commitment. Customers also have to pay $449.98 to own the necessary equipment or a one time fee of $99 + $14.99/mo to lease it.

“Satellite internet is not broadband and while it is a useful tool for those living in extremely rural areas, it should not be the only answer for a customer who has neighbors with Spectrum cable service just a mile or two down the road,” Dampier added. “We feel Charter could be an important partner in achieving 100% coverage in New York, if they are compelled to act.”

Stop the Cap! is also recommending a statewide audit of the “new passings” Charter is claiming towards its rural broadband expansion commitments. The group also wants the state to spend the proceeds of the proposed $1 million fine towards further broadband expansion for would-be satellite customers.

“There is no reason to believe Charter is only counting unqualified addresses downstate, so there needs to be a statewide audit,” said Dampier. “The governor made an important commitment to rural New Yorkers and we want to see him keep it to as many people as possible, with Charter picking up more of the costs. It is the least they could do after paying their CEO Thomas Rutledge $98 million after successfully completing the merger deal.”

Submission Follows:

April 5, 2018

Hon. Kathleen H. Burgess
Secretary, Public Service Commission
Three Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12223-1350

Dear Ms. Burgess,

In reference to the proceeding 15-M-0388 and 18-M-0178, in which the Commission proposes to disqualify more than 14,000 New York addresses shown as “newly passed with broadband services,” we offer our views about Charter Communications’ buildout performance and make recommendations about possible additional penalties and sanctions that should be considered by the Commission if Charter Communications is found to be in violation of its agreements.

Need for Statewide Audit

If Charter Communications is found to be in violation of its commitment and agreed-upon timetable to expand broadband to 145,000 new homes and businesses, there is no reason to believe addresses miscounted in New York City represent an isolated incident. Indeed, the Commission has already seen fit to impose sanctions against Charter Communications for missing its buildout commitments, and should the Commission now find Charter to be out of compliance once again, it appears the Commission’s earlier threats of forfeiture were not compelling enough to ensure future compliance.

Stop the Cap is concerned that Charter’s counting of invalid or disqualified addresses towards its 145,000 new passings commitment may not be limited to the New York City area.

In Erie County, Charter claims to have completed 4,357 passings, including the City of Buffalo, the Towns of Angola, Eden, Grand Island, and the Village of Williamsville.[1] In Monroe County, Charter claims to have built out service for approximately 3,395 passings, including the City of Rochester, and the Towns of Perinton, Greece, Webster, Gates, and Henrietta. These are remarkable numbers in counties that have shown almost no population growth[2] or dramatic upswing in new major new housing developments.[3] As a result, we urge the Commission to carefully audit Charter’s buildout reports for possible evidence that, like in New York City, there may be a number of unqualified or invalid addresses in upstate New York as well. In fact, the Commission should, at the least, undertake random audits of each report claiming new passings to verify compliance.

Proposed Sanction: Charter should prioritize “make-up” buildouts to reach New York addresses currently assigned by the New York Broadband Program Office to Hughes Network Systems, LLC for satellite-delivered internet access.

Despite efforts by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the “New NY Broadband Program (NNYBP),” the state’s Broadband Program Office (BPO) has identified at least 75,638 New York locations[4] that will be offered substandard satellite internet access from Hughes Network Systems, LLC.[5] This option is considered a last resort for addresses Charter and other providers have refused to service, despite the potential of funding available during Round III of the NNYBP awards.

Hughes cannot guarantee access to 25 Mbps service 24 hours a day across its New York footprint[6], meaning these locations will not be guaranteed broadband service.[7] The company has also confirmed it will impose a low data usage cap that, when exceeded, reduces broadband speed to well below anything approximating true broadband service.[8]

The decision to supply satellite service instead of wireline internet access may permanently leave these residents and businesses disadvantaged with inferior internet access, with little incentive or a compelling business case for other companies to buildout to these locations, especially after Hughes receives a state subsidy to reduce its service and installation expenses.

While satellite access may indeed be the best available, last resort service for some extremely rural and inaccessible locations in isolated parts of New York, there are many examples of residents living in census block areas now assigned to Hughes Network Systems that are very close to existing Charter service areas.

One example is Mr. Matt Stern, [redacted], Middleport, N.Y.[9] His Niagara County census block has been identified in Round III of the NNYBP expansion program as 360630240013000. That census block has been assigned by the BPO to receive Hughes’ satellite service because Verizon does not offer DSL at his address and Charter did not bid to serve Mr. Stern’s immediate neighborhood because he lives 1.3 miles away from existing Charter facilities. As a result, Mr. Stern is exploring selling his home and moving out of state because his school age children lack internet access.

Should the Commission find it reasonable to strike more than 14,000 addresses from Charter’s latest buildout list, we respectfully recommend the Commission sanction Charter by requiring it to make up the disqualified addresses starting with locations like Mr. Stern’s, currently assigned to get satellite internet service.

Although costlier than counting business parks or new housing projects as new passings that Charter would have likely serviced with or without its commitment to New York State, this sanction will deliver real benefits to many location-disadvantaged rural New York residents and businesses tantalizingly close to existing wired broadband networks, but unlikely to get true broadband service any other way. The Commission can develop a formula to identify addresses in census blocks that are located within a reasonable distance (perhaps 1-2 miles) of existing Charter facilities to keep expansion costs reasonable.

Sanction Proposal: A portion or all of the forfeiture penalties collected as a result of Charter’s alleged missed targets should be devoted to a further expansion of wireline broadband service to areas currently assigned to Hughes Network Systems, LLC.

Drawing $1,000,000 from the letter of credit to penalize Charter Communications for missed targets will, by itself, not bring broadband service to areas that were originally promised true broadband service by Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s NY Broadband Program.[10]

Instead, 75,638 homes and businesses will be offered satellite service that cannot guarantee to consistently meet the FCC’s definition of broadband: 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speed. In contrast, wireline providers like Charter Communications have committed to offer 100 Mbps service with the option of gigabit speed by the end of 2018.[11]

These locations assigned satellite service attracted no bidders in the final round of the NNYBP awards. Therefore, there is little chance a wireline provider will extend service to these locations without additional subsidies.

By allocating some or all of the proceeds from fines or forfeitures to an additional buildout subsidy program limited to locations currently assigned to satellite internet service, the costs to wire at least some of these census blocks could be more tolerable to wireline providers around the state.

The shared goal by all concerned is to bring 21^st century broadband internet access to every New York home and business. It is our view that Charter’s alleged failure to meet its obligations to New York after getting approval of its multi-billion dollar merger with Time Warner Cable, offers a unique opportunity to compel Charter to share a small amount of the company’s overall revenue towards resolving the urban-rural broadband divide, while at the same time gaining new customers and additional revenue as a result of these service expansions.

Yours very truly,

Phillip M. Dampier
Director

[1]15-M-0388 – Charter’s Build-Out Report – January 8, 2018
[2] New York Counties Population Measurements (https://bit.ly/2Emx4dS)
[3] Year 2017: https://www.census.gov/construction/bps/txt/t3yu201712.txt; Year 2016: https://www.census.gov/construction/bps/txt/tb3u2016.txt
[4] http://stopthecap.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/phase_3_awarded_census_blocks_3.xlsx
[5] https://nysbroadband.ny.gov/new-ny-broadband-program/phase-3-awards
[6] “Stated speeds and uninterrupted use of service are not guaranteed. Actual speeds will likely be lower than the maximum speeds during peak hours.” Part 1.1 HughesNet Subscriber Agreement: http://legal.hughesnet.com/SubAgree-03-16-17.cfm
[7] http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/news/local-news/2018/03/hopeful-skeptical-about-broadband/
[8] http://www.lockportjournal.com/news/local_news/frustration-continues-with-broadband-build-out/article_855e3058-fa8e-5b01-94e5-8c3bce287004.html
[9] ibid.
[10] https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-next-step-implementation-500-million-new-ny-broadband-program
[11]15-M-0388 – Charter’s Build-Out Report – January 8, 2018