After weeks of tense negotiations to secure bipartisan support for the Biden Administration’s $1 trillion infrastructure stimulus measure, the White House appears to have largely capitulated to Republican efforts to water down funding to expand broadband service into a $65 billion package that will doubtless be a financial bonanza to the country’s largest phone and cable operators.

The Biden Administration’s original proposal for $100 billion in broadband funding was dedicated to wiring rural areas as well as focusing funding on new entrants like community-owned networks that could deliver internet access to unserved and underserved locations without having a profit motive. The original proposal also would have prioritized funding for future-capable fiber internet, with some advocating that networks be capable of delivering at least a gigabit of speed to customers to qualify for funding. The Administration also promoted the idea of affordable broadband, combatting the growing digital divide exacerbated by internet pricing out of reach of the working poor.

What emerged on Sunday as a “bipartisan agreement” with Republicans on infrastructure stimulus is almost a travesty — slashed almost by half and now effectively a veritable gift to Big Telecom. The industry spent hundreds of millions lobbying Congress and got almost everything it wanted. If passed in its current form, those same phone and cable companies will pocket much of the money for themselves.

Here is how consumers were sold out:

Reduced speed requirements are a dream come true for cable operators.

The bipartisan measure proposes to water down speed requirements to qualify for government stimulus funding to a underwhelming 100/20 Mbps. That speed is tailor made for cable operators, which traditionally offer upload speeds just a fraction of their download speeds. Gone is any condition requiring gigabit-capable networks, at a time when more providers than ever are marketing near-gigabit speeds. That could quickly lead to the emergence of a speed divide, with rural Americans stuck with slower broadband technology from companies that will have no financial incentive to upgrade in these areas.

Addressing affordability is now mostly wishful thinking.

The latest proposal’s idea of solving the broadband affordability issue is to admit there is a problem and declare the need for some kind of low-cost broadband option, but apparently does not specify pricing, who is qualified to get cheaper service, and who will oversee that such programs remain affordable. That allows providers to keep writing the rules of their own token, voluntary efforts to offer discounted internet, like those that disqualify current customers and requires enrollees to jump through various qualification hoops to sign up. The stimulus program will also spend billions of dollars effectively paying a portion of disadvantaged Americans’ internet bills, at the current high prices many ISP’s charge. That is a direct subsidy to big cable and phone companies that can continue charging whatever they please for access, knowing the government will now pay $30-50 of the bill.

Republicans have made sure there is not a whiff of rate regulation or consumer protection mandates in the measure. It also abandons establishing a fixed rate, affordable internet tier for as little as $10 a month. That original proposal would have given cable and phone companies as little as $10 a month from the federal government, much less than collecting up to $50 a month from the Emergency Broadband Benefit, which pays a portion of regular-priced service. The $14 billion being set aside to continue subsidizing Americans’ internet bills at Big Telecom’s monopoly or duopoly prices could be better spent building and expanding internet services where no service or competition exists now.

Digital redlining is A-OK

The watered down compromise measure chastises companies for only incrementally expanding fiber service, mostly to wealthy neighborhoods, but stops short of banning the practice. This wink and a nod to redlining primarily benefits phone companies like AT&T and Frontier, which can now cherry-pick rich neighborhoods for fiber upgrades most likely to return the biggest profits. Phone companies and fiber overbuilders will continue to skip over urban poor neighborhoods and the highest cost rural areas which have always been the hardest to reach.

Sky is the Limit pricing with onerous data caps are fine with us.

Nothing in the measure will give preference to providers willing to offer affordable, flat rate service without the hassle of data caps. Neither will it discourage applicants that plan to use public tax dollars to subsidize expanding service that comes at high prices and with paltry usage limits.

Light Reading reported Wall Street analysts were generally pleased with the outcome, noting the negotiations resulted in stripping out oversight and price regulation and the measure won’t fund potential competitors. It also noted Big Telecom and its associated trade organizations spent more than $234 million on lobbying. Comcast topped the list of spenders at more than $43 million, with AT&T coming in second at $36 million. Both the cable and wireless industry also spent tens of millions on lobbying. They got their money’s worth. Taxpayers won’t.

AT&T: Using taxpayer and ratepayer dollars to subsidize 4G LTE upgrades for its customers.

With taxpayer subsidies on the horizon, phone companies cut back investing their own money on rural broadband expansion hoping taxpayers would cover funding themselves.

That is the conclusion of Dave Burstein, a long-standing and well-respected industry observer and publisher of Net Policy News. Burstein is concerned the unintentional consequence of Obama and Trump Administration rural broadband funding programs has been fewer homes connected than what some carriers would have managed on their own without government subsidies.

“Since 2009, carrier investment in broadband in rural areas has gone down drastically,” Burstein wrote.

As a result, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced plans to spend $4.53 billion from a public-financed Mobility Fund over the next decade to advance 4G LTE service, primarily in rural areas that would not be served in the absence of government support. Burstein suspects much of that money could end up being unnecessarily wasted.

“Under current plans, most of the money is likely to go where telcos would build [4G] without a subsidy, [or will be used to] buy obsolete technology, or give the telcos two or three times what the job should cost,” Burstein wrote. “Any spending on wireless except where towers or backhaul is unavailable should be assumed wasteful until proven otherwise.  Realistic costs need to be developed and subsidies allocated on that basis.”

AT&T’s rural fixed wireless expansion program, funded substantially by U.S. taxpayers and ratepayers, is a case in point. AT&T is receiving almost $428 million a year in public funds to extend wireless access to 1.1 million customers in 18 states, the FCC says. Much of that investment is claimed to be spent retrofitting and upgrading existing cell towers to support 4G LTE service. But AT&T claims 98% of its customers already have access to 4G LTE service — more than any other carrier in the country, so AT&T is actually spending the money to bolster its existing 4G LTE network, something more likely to benefit its cell customers, not a few thousand fixed wireless customers.

(Source: AT&T)

“An AT&T exec in California said communities didn’t need to worry about the impact of the CAF-funded project, since it was almost all going to be on existing towers,” Burstein wrote, allaying fears among members of the public that money would be spent on lots of new cell towers. “I don’t know what loophole AT&T is using to get the money, but it’s a pretty safe guess they would have upgraded most of them without the government paying. 4G service now reaches all but 3-5 million of the 110-126 million U.S. households. Probably half [of the less than five million] targeted would soon be served without a subsidy – if the telcos knew no subsidy was likely. Before spending a penny on subsidies, the FCC needs to do a thorough assessment of what would be built without government money.”

Burstein

Wireless executives were delighted when the U.S. government in 2009 committed to spending $7 billion in taxpayer funds on broadband stimulus funding as part of a full-scale economic stimulus program to combat the Great Recession.

“Both George Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 had promised to bring affordable broadband to all Americans,” Burstein noted. “The clamor to reach these last few million was so loud, telcos became confident the government would pay for it if they just stopped their own investment. They aren’t stupid and refused to spend their own money. Before 2009 and the expected huge stimulus program, most telcos expanded their networks each year, based on available capital funds.”

Burstein believes some phone companies became better experts at milking government money to pay for needed network upgrades than frugally spending public funds on rural broadband expansion. As a result, after eight years and massive spending, Burstein notes fewer than two million of the “unserved” six million homes were reached by wireline or wireless broadband service when the funding ran out.

Under Chairman Pai’s latest round of rural broadband funding, Burstein believes much of this new money is also at risk of being wasted.

“[Pai] needs to dig into the details of what he’s proposing,” Burstein wrote. “Nearly all cells with decent backhaul will be upgraded to 4G; Verizon and AT&T have already reached 98% of homes. Government money should go to building towers and backhaul where that’s missing, not filling in network holes the carriers would likely cover.”

Rural advocacy groups have been frustrated for years watching rural telephone companies deliver piecemeal upgrades and service expansion, often to only a few hundred customers at any one time. When they learn how much was spent to extend broadband service to a relatively few number of customers, they are confused because companies often spend much less when they budget and pay for projects on their own without government subsidies.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo announcing rural broadband initiatives in New York.

Burstein is currently suspicious about the $200 million approved in subsidy funding to extend rural broadband in parts of upstate New York. Burstein notes Pai is factually wrong about his claim that the hundreds of millions set aside for New York would be spent on “unserved areas of rural New York.”

“Most of that money will not go to unserved areas,” Burstein reports. “Some grants are going to politically connected groups. I’ve read the rules and the approved proposals. The amounts look excessive based on the limited public details.”

Telephone companies have become skilled negotiators when it comes to wiring their rural service areas. Most want more money than the government has previously been willing to offer to help them meet their Return On Investment expectations. Burstein noted that under normal circumstances, a government program offering a 25% subsidy to extend rural broadband into areas considered unprofitable to serve would be enough in most cases to get approval from rural phone companies like CenturyLink and Frontier Communications. But many phone companies, including AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest (now a part of CenturyLink) did not even file applications to participate in early funding rounds. Qwest’s lack of interest was especially problematic, because the former Baby Bell served the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain regions where some of the worst broadband accessibility problems persisted.

Burstein claims Jonathan Adelstein, then Rural Utilities Administrator, had to double his subsidy offer to get Qwest’s attention with a 50% subsidy.

Rural backhaul connectivity is often provided by fiber optic cabling.

“Qwest refused, demanding 75%,” Burstein noted. “That was probably twice the amount necessary and Adelstein rightly refused. They knew the government had few ways to reach those unserved without paying whatever the telcos demanded. A few years later, Qwest is part of Centurylink. Many of those lines are now upgrading under [public] Connect America Funds with what amounts to a greater than 100% subsidy.”

Net Neutrality appeared to have no impact on telephone company investment decisions, even in rural areas. The investment cuts followed a trend that began even before President Barack Obama took office. Wireless carriers slash investments in rural areas when management is confident the government is motivated to step in and offer taxpayer dollars to expand rural broadband service. When those funds do become available, a significant percentage of the money isn’t spent on constructing new infrastructure to extend the reach of wired and wireless networks into unserved rural areas. Instead, it pays for expanding existing infrastructure that may coincidentally reach some rural customers, but is still primarily used by existing cellular customers.

“In many extreme rural areas, only the local telco has the ability to deliver broadband at a reasonable cost,” noted Burstein. “You need to have affordable backhaul and a local staff for repairs. Because the ‘unserved’ are in very small clusters, often less than 100 homes, it’s usually impractical for a new entrant to bring in a backhaul connection.”

Instead, AT&T is attempting to fill some of the gaps with fixed wireless service from existing cell towers. While good news for customers without access to cable or DSL broadband but do have adequate cellular coverage to subscribe to AT&T’s Fixed Wireless service, that is not much help for those in deeply rural areas where AT&T isn’t investing in additional cell towers to extend coverage. In effect, AT&T enjoys a win-win for itself — adding taxpayer-funded capacity to their existing 4G LTE networks at the same time it markets data-cap free access to its bandwidth-heavy online video services like DirecTV Now. That frees up capital and reduces costs for AT&T’s investors. But it also alienates AT&T’s competitors that recognize the additional network capacity available to AT&T also allows it to offer steep discounts on its DirecTV Now service exclusively for its own wireless customers.

HissyFitWatch

A senior executive at Frontier Communications stormed out of a public meeting in Charleston Wednesday after being questioned about Frontier’s DSL broadband speeds that critics claim are below state standards.

Dana Waldo, senior vice president and general manager of Frontier’s West Virginia operations, got up and left the meeting after Citynet CEO Jim Martin began questioning Waldo about Frontier meeting the minimum broadband speed requirements mandated by the state legislature. It was not the first time the two have sparred.

Martin has been a frequent critic of the way the state has spent broadband stimulus funding. Much of it, Martin alleges, paid for the construction of a Frontier-owned and controlled statewide fiber network that will benefit the company more than the state and its residents.

Frontier and the State of West Virginia received more than $126 million of taxpayer money to subsidize the fiber network and the expansion of broadband service into rural areas of the state. Frontier agreed to offer a minimum of 4/1Mbps service to each home connected through the subsidy program.

Martin alleges Frontier has failed to offer consistent access to at least 1Mbps upstream speed, a charge Waldo vehemently denied.

“That is not correct, Jim,” Waldo said. “I wasn’t going to bring this up, but I am absolutely beside myself. I feel so sorry for you, that you are so desperate to make you and Citynet relevant and, apparently, keep it afloat. You make all these characterizations about us and everybody else.”

Waldo also accused Martin of making “misleading and defaming” comments about “my company and myself.”

Waldo

“My God,” Waldo added, “every allegation you make and everything you said, [federal officials] dispute, and you still bring up these allegations. I’m tired talking to you about this stuff. I’m tired of the misrepresentations you make. Jim, it’s over. I’m done talking to you. I’m done wasting my time responding to your mischaracterizations. I’m not going to sit here and waste my time and hear more of his nonsense. I’ll excuse myself.”

Martin said nothing in response as Waldo picked up his papers and left the Broadband Deployment Council meeting room.

Martin later told The Charleston Gazette he was just asking a question and repeated his assertion Frontier’s rural DSL service does not offer rural West Virginians at least 1Mbps upload speeds across the state. Martin added Waldo’s defense relied on news articles and documents now three years out of date.

“Both an independent consultant hired by the Governor’s Office, and the legislative auditor have confirmed what I said was true,” Martin said.

Despite findings from an independent consultant that reported West Virginia wasted millions on a broadband expansion effort that effectively built a private, taxpayer-funded fiber network for Frontier Communications, the governor’s office abruptly canceled a 2011 follow-up state audit of the $126.3 million project.

The Charleston Gazette reports Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin’s office said it dropped the audit because Frontier “answered or addressed” issues raised in a memo produced by an out-of-state independent consulting firm.

ICF’s document was so scathing of the state government’s handling of federal broadband stimulus funds, the governor’s office kept it secret until a copy was independently leaked to the Charleston newspaper. The governor’s office said it initially withheld the “internal memorandum” produced by Vienna, Va.-based ICF International because it proved “embarrassing to some people.”

Among ICF’s findings:

• Taxpayers underwrote the construction of a Frontier Communications’ owned and operated fiber broadband network so fragmented in its construction, the only entity likely to benefit is Frontier Communications;
• ICF found West Virginia’s broadband grant program created an “unintended monopoly” for Frontier Communications, and an unusable ‘open access’ network except for Frontier;”
• Frontier’s documentation and expense reports, submitted for reimbursement by taxpayers were inadequate and could have resulted in double billing;
• Frontier overbuilt its network with excessive numbers of fiber strands three to six times above industry standards, driving up construction costs.

Frontier’s called the ICF report “worthless” and accused the consultant of using inaccurate and stale comments that repeat “previously repudiated allegations.”

Frontier also produced its own company-sponsored “external audit” of its work on the $126.3 million broadband project that found “no material deficiencies.”

But ICF says it is standing by its report, and documented instances where the state authorized Frontier to spend significant sums to build fiber connections to community institutions that were later scaled back by the company. Whether Frontier was paid for the originally scheduled work, or for the scaled back construction eventually completed, is unknown.

At this point, ICF reports it is resigned to the fact Frontier will be a major beneficiary of the taxpayer-funded fiber infrastructure and the state has few options to fix the problems they created. The consultant firm says the only workable option would be a joint effort by Frontier’s competitors to build, at their own expense, a “middle-mile, open-access network” that can interconnect with Frontier’s taxpayer-funded network, assuming Frontier will allow it.

A major critic of the broadband stimulus program in West Virginia, Citynet President Jim Martin, has long said the broadband project was primarily going to benefit Frontier.

In September 2010, Martin told the Gazette, “Frontier is going to have the state’s business forever. No other company will have the money to come in and build the network.”

Two months later, Martin was back ringing the alarm bell before more than $126 million in taxpayer funds were spent.

“The state represented it would build a ‘middle-mile’ network reaching 700,000 homes and 100,000 businesses, and it would be this great new superhighway and do all the things the federal government is seeking,” Martin told the Gazette. “But afterward, Citynet and others got to look and it looks like it is a windfall for Frontier Communications only.”

“We’ll ultimately prove this was a complete sham and didn’t benefit anybody,” Martin said. “We’re here. We’re not going anywhere. We totally recognize this is going to be a long battle unless the Broadband Council or the new governor or the next governor does something. We’re going to be on this for however many years it takes. We’re going to hold the state accountable for every single dollar they’re spending. At the end of the day we will show that no jobs were created, there’s no benefit to the citizens of West Virginia. Hopefully we’ll show this was all about Frontier.”

Three years later, Martin is still trying to get accurate broadband maps that depict exactly where Frontier has laid its publicly funded fiber infrastructure. Apparently they are secret, too.

Burdette: Won’t release a publicly funded report to a reporter he considers “dangerous.”

A damning report criticizing West Virginia’s use of $126.3 million in federal stimulus tax dollars to expand broadband in the state may never be made public because it might “be embarrassing to some people.”

State taxpayers funded the $118,000 review but they cannot read the results because Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin’s administration has declared the report confidential.

Once again, the Charleston Gazette’s Eric Eyre was promptly on the case asking Commerce Secretary Keith Burdette why the state wants to keep the findings secret.

“The documents may be embarrassing to some people . . .  . Embarrassing because it was someone’s opinion,” Burdette told Eyre. “It was a specific document, citing specific companies, and making very specific suggestions to me.”

The newspaper did glean some information from its Freedom of Information request to the state — it learned of the existence of the consultant’s document and his criticism of some of the players involved in the broadband expansion effort.

But Burdette won’t name names, other than to say the consultant wasn’t targeting the governor’s office for criticism. Possible companies that could be in the report include various equipment vendors and consultants tied to technology companies including Verizon and Cisco. It could also target Frontier Communications, the largest grant recipient.

Burdette decided on his own he didn’t like the report’s findings and dismissed requests to release copies to the public because he claimed it was an “internal memorandum” not required to be released under state law.

“”There’s some criticism of the players in there that I don’t accept,” Burdette told the newspaper. “I had the memo drafted, but I didn’t use it. It was assumptions and making recommendations. At the end of the day, I didn’t agree with their assessment.”

That decision promptly sparked West Virginia’s House Minority Leader Tim Armstead (R-Kanawha) to demand the release of all documents related to the taxpayer-funded broadband stimulus program, noting the federal government administered program requires grant recipients to be open and transparent about how taxpayer funds are spent.

A secret report about that very subject does not meet that requirement, according to Armstead.

“When you have a project, and you’re talking about millions of dollars in spending, and there are questions about whether those funds were efficiently spent, the public has a right to know about it,” Armstead told the Gazette. “It’s insulting to tell the public they have to pay for something and they can’t see it. The public paid for that report.”

Armstead has introduced a bill that would drop the exemption from the Freedom of Information Act Burdette cited to keep the report secret.

When Eyre asked Burdette why he won’t release the report, Burdette responded, “Because you’re dangerous.”

Last week, Tomblin’s administration abruptly cancelled a statewide “broadband summit,” fearing ongoing scrutiny of the broadband funding project and how the money was spent would be the main topic of discussion.