LAKE BUENA VISTA, Florida — With more than $40 billion in federal funding available through state agencies for rural broadband expansion, most small cable operators are hard pressed to know how to navigate the bureaucratic quagmire. But one former Congressman has a simple answer — get to know the decision-makers.

The federal government is making about $42.5 billion in rural broadband grants available to companies through the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, which will be administered through several states. At the Independent Show Tuesday session “Uncle Sam’s Broadband Bucks, Who’s Holding the Purse Strings,” and moderated by outgoing ACA Connects CEO Matt Polka, former Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) suggested that to win those funds, small operators are going to have to learn how their state government machinery works.

“[E]ach state is going to be a little different, some will be better staffed and ready for this money,” Walden said. “You’re going to have to work and get to know who makes those decisions in your state and how do you take advantage of it.”

That means not just getting to know the heads of the state agencies that distribute funding, Walden added, but local and state legislators as well, who can be supportive in dealing with the various bureaucracies involved with each application.

“The extent to which you can build partnerships when you go in, [is] probably the better,” Walden said. “Most elected officials don’t like to choose among their children, so if you can move up, you’ll have a stronger case to make and they will too to whoever is going to make the decision in the state.”

Legislators on both the federal and state side also will have to work hard to ensure that funds go to the right companies, adding that stringent oversight was not a hallmark of past federal programs. But he was encouraged by the current BEAD structure.

“This is a much better statute,” he said.

Stricter oversight could be in store for the House Energy & Commerce Committee, which Walden chaired for six years before retiring on January 3, 2021. With expectations that there will be big turnover in Congress after the 2023 midterm elections, Walden was confident that friendly ears will abound in the House.

“Watch for Congress,” Walden advised, adding that typically the party in power loses 26 seats in Congress after its first midterm election.

“If your president has more than a 50% approval rating that number changes to 14 seats, if it’s less than a 50% approval rating that’s 36 seats,” he continued. President Biden’s current approval rating is about 38%.

“So I would look for a change of control, which means Republicans will take over,” Walden said.

Walden also had some advice for operators who are considering applying for grants to build out broadband services.  

“I would find out what your state has, if they have any kind of broadband buildout plan already, so they already have an idea about what they want to do,” Walden said. “I would also watch for other unmet needs.”

Walden added that in some large rural states, governors are worried about the overall lack of communications infrastructure in their states and could use the lure of broadband money to improve that. 

“They are going to try to leverage this to improve communications overall,” Walden said. “I think, especially in the big rural states, the Montanas, the Wyomings, they are really struggling to get adequate communications one way or another.” ■ 

A bipartisan group of House members wants the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review how interagency cooperation can speed broadband infrastructure buildouts and what progress agencies have made toward such productive cooperation.

The National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA), the White House’s chief telecom advisory arm, has been given a prominent role in the Biden Administration's multi-billion dollar effort to subsidize universal broadband access.

Also Read: RAY BAUM‘s Act Passes House

Writing the GAO were House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and ranking member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.); and Communications Subcommittee chairman Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) and ranking member Bob Latta (R-Ohio).

They pointed out that RAY BAUM‘s Act directed the NTIA to facilitate broadband buildouts on federal property — the NTIA issued a report in October 2020 — as well as to work with the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, Defense, and Transportation, the Office of Management and Budget, and the General Services Administration on ways to streamline siting permits.

They want the GAO to find out how those agencies plan to implement the recommendations in the 2020 report, how NTIA is overseeing federal agency coordination, what challenges they face in implementing the recommendations, and to what extent providers have been affected in areas where there has not been streamlining.

2020 taught us that a broadband connection is essential. The proposed American Jobs Plan provision of building high-speed broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved areas is a magnificent objective. While billions of public and private dollars have already been spent, with many more billions promised, the vision of connecting everyone in our country to broadband is a lofty goal of significant importance.

We are now seeing the determination to connect America play out in a series of bills debated in Congress, initiatives implemented at federal agencies funded through emergency relief spending bills and in the Biden Administration’s proposed American Jobs Plan.  On May 6, at a House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing on broadband access and affordability, Ranking Member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) said, “We all want to close the digital divide, but the only way to truly achieve this is to have solutions that will produce results.” This is exactly why before fully endorsing the entire designation of these dollars, the plan requires a careful examination and consideration regarding which policies actually get consumers to where they need to be.

Lack of Broadband Brings Challenges

During the challenges of the past year, we’ve seen how so many have faced extraordinary challenges because they didn’t have broadband.  Kids fell behind in school, parents couldn’t do their work, individuals out of work couldn’t search for new jobs, and older adults were isolated in their homes without any opportunity for social contact and unable to get groceries and medicine.  Life without an online connection is bleak indeed. 

The administration’s plan prioritizes municipal broadband providers and electric co-ops for broadband series, with the objective to open and expand opportunities for competition. The plan presents an enticing picture of low prices, new competition and the subsequent result of all consumers served. Local governments and electric co-ops may have a role to play in achieving connectivity, but while they can potentially be viable options, over the years municipalities have entered broadband markets with a history of mixed results and for the benefit of consumers and competition, careful consideration needs to be made regarding best practices.

It is also critical that consumers have the opportunity to continue to receive the benefits private-sector internet-service providers (ISPs), which have invested billions of their own dollars to build broadband networks. It is vital that any plan does not tie their hands in the marketplace.

ISPs have continued to make huge investments to build broadband networks throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and have invested in broadband networks and programs to connect low-income communities throughout 2020 and into 2021.  The efforts have helped kids connect to online classes at school and older adults get connected, reducing isolation. 

In 2021, AT&T announced $2 billion to expand affordable broadband to help close the digital divide.  In addition, this year Comcast’s Internet Essentials dedicated $1 billion to reach 50 million low-income Americans with tools they need to succeed in the digital world. In February, Charter Communications announced a $5 billion multiyear commitment to deliver high-speed broadband to more than 1 million low-income consumers. 

These commitments follow decades of investing trillions of dollars to build the most reliable networks that served most of the country during months of stay-at-home life during the pandemic. At last week’s Congressional hearing, Rodgers attributed the “critical investments made by broadband providers [as leading] to high speeds, high performance, job creation, and a drop in broadband prices.” While all this funding for low-income consumers is critical, according to a recent poll, consumers also trust these companies to give them the best at-home internet service.

Offering an open, competitive marketplace with reliable providers makes sense for most consumers. However, for low-income consumers struggling to make ends meet, a government subsidy program is still needed.  As we can see by the excitement around the Emergency Broadband Benefit (EBB) program, it is possible to develop a new approach, and to solicit a whole host of companies offering to serve those in need. 

Time for Collaboration

Now is the time to work together to determine the next step to extend this program for low-income communities, and that should be a part of any plan to connect America.  In addition to subsidizing the cost of broadband for those in greatest need, it is also important to help them with their digital learning, a particular area of need for first-time tech device users such as those in the older adult community. Digital readiness should be an added component of the plan. Chairman Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) agreed, stating at the hearing, “We need to address programs that expand digital equity, programs that provide outreach and digital literacy and training skills. The opportunities and resources provided by this technology are wasted if you don't know how to use them.”

Yes, it is time to connect everyone to high-speed broadband. While some local governments may offer attractive solutions in the short term, there is no need to hinder others trying to make the investments in the broadband networks of today and tomorrow. A winning strategy does not favor one competitive interest while handcuffing another, particularly one that has earned the trust of a large majority of consumers.

Debra Berlyn is the president of Consumer Policy Solutions, a firm focused on developing progressive policies for consumers in a competitive and innovative marketplace. She is also executive director of the Project to Get Older Adults onLine (Project GOAL), whose sponsors include NCTA–The Internet & Television Association and its member cable companies. 

Telehealth technology has been adopted by nearly 50% of physicians’ offices, up from 18% in 2018. Large hospitals are trying to keep non-critical patients at home so as not to expose them to COVID-19 and small physicians are trying to keep their practices in business in the face of reduced revenues. The lack of broadband, however, in rural areas is prohibiting hospitals and clinics from servicing individuals that require medical attention.

The need for telehealth, which is the distribution of health services and information digitally through telecommunication technologies, has opened the floodgates for new policies allowing reimbursements. With safer at home orders partially in place, one-on-one phone or video conference calls used by healthcare professionals for prescription renewals, follow-ups and minor urgent care are now a necessity. 

Broadband Connectivity  

The pressure the coronavirus pandemic is putting on cable providers is unprecedented. When you combine unforeseen challenges brought on by COVID-19 with hefty goals put in place years prior for 5G and 10G deployments, operators are facing more severe capacity and bandwidth issues than ever before. In addition, the need to address improvements in network resilience becomes more critical.  

In response to connectivity limitations, lawmakers are looking for $2 billion to support programs around digital technologies and broadband deployment, especially in rural areas. In addition, experts predict that virtual care is unlikely to go away, even after the current crisis.

One of the primary challenges of deployment is profitability. Providers want to determine a profitable business model as well as a cost-effective service model to best meet the needs of their customers. Today, operators need to be more forward-thinking than ever by focusing on customer fulfillment, minimizing downtime, and controlling costs to remain on track with planned build outs and other upgrades that may be on their roadmap.

Minimizing Downtime

Downtime is an inconvenience to both consumers and providers and worse, it puts patients at risk. As a result of unplanned downtime, surgeries may be postponed, patients may be transported to other facilities for immediate care and switching over to paper records slows down service, especially when younger doctors are not accustomed to working with paper charts.

According to one estimate, unplanned system failures can cost $634 per physician per hour. Meanwhile, according to Dean Sittig, a professor with the School of Biomedical Informatics at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, a large hospital may lose as much as $1 million per hour when their Electronic Health Records (EHR) system is down — daunting numbers.

The costs of running an ever-expanding and overburdened healthcare network can only be met with continuous maintenance and upgrades to the network infrastructure. Hospital IT professionals looking to increase their network performance, patient experience and overall profitability often underestimate the importance of their cabling system. By implementing best practices and adopting resilient technologies, IT professionals can help optimize their system and minimize network downtime.

Controlling Costs

IT professionals can better manage their costs by assessing their environment, such as checking wired and wireless access and how they are transmitting data over their different networks, such as LAN, WiFi, cellular, telemetry, etc. Hospitals should also be investing in preventative technologies such as a backup data centers. When creating a complex, data-driven and collaborative ecosystem, IT staff must consider controlling the total cost of healthcare including hardware, public and private cloud infrastructures, and quality of service. This includes moving beyond legacy practices and mindsets and a willingness to embrace trends that will change the way infrastructure and operations teams run and the proficiencies they provide to their organization.

Americans aged 74 and over represent 73 million people in the United States. Many of these people are not computer-savvy, or open to virtual healthcare services, and some struggle with mental and/or physical limitations. Making services easily accessible to caregivers and family members of this aging population is vital and could prevent a life or death situation. 

Telehealth is a chance to meet consumer needs and lifestyles by servicing them at home, in the office or at other convenient locations that minimize disruptions to their daily lives. In addition, those well under retirement age want access to upcoming telehealth benefits, such as lactation support, home sleep study guidance, remote patient monitoring and so much more.

Telehealth is becoming the new normal. Adopting this new standard and technology is not about engaging the latest best practices in telemedicine, but rather about investing in the greater good of the community. Globally, government officials, physicians, patients, IT professionals, and other supporters in the community have been forced to face the unimaginable. With better tools in place and a critical network of industries, we can now all do our due diligence and put our best foot forward for a brighter, safer future. 

Kara Mullaley is community broadband market development manager at Corning Optical Communications.  

WASHINGTON — Amidst a round of regulatory defeats and a big court loss on net neutrality, cable ISPs scored a win with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’s smackdown of the Federal Communications Commission’s pre-emption of state laws limiting municipal broadband buildouts.

That court concluded that the FCC’s authority to promote advanced telecommunications deployment in a reasonable and timely manner did not extend to deciding whether a state or its municipal subdivision gets to control broadband buildouts, unless Congress has explicitly granted the FCC that power.

The states of North Carolina and Tennessee had asked the court to review the FCC order, which allowed muni broadband buildouts in the communities of Wilson, N.C., and Chattanooga, Tenn.

The fight is likely not over. The Democrat-controlled Wheeler FCC has pushed muni broadband, as has the Obama Administration and as likely will a Hillary Clinton administration if she wins the White House in November. Like President Obama, Democratic candidate Clinton has made affordable, ubiquitous broadband a campaign pledge and platform plank.

The court decision came just after two cable industry defeats in D.C. that stung: the appeals court backing of FCC net-neutrality rules and the FCC’s decision not to ban retrans blackouts or mandate arbitration.

FCC AMBITIONS

Asked if the FCC would seek a rehearing of the muni broadband case by the full court of appeals or, alternately, the Supreme Court, a spokesperson said the commission was still reviewing its options. It has 45 days from the decision date to seek en banc re-hearing and 90 days to appeal it to the Supreme Court.

“The FCC has sweeping ambitions for what muni broadband can be,” Scott Cleland, chairman of the ISP-backed NetCompetition, said.

The FCC spokesperson would not discount appealing the 6th Circuit panel decision. But even backers of the FCC’s pre-emption see challenging it in court as a long shot. Harold Feld, legal director for Public Knowledge, said that while either the FCC or the two cities that petitioned the FCC to pre-empt broadband-limiting laws can appeal in either venue, “this isn’t really a good case for either sort of appeal.”

The FCC asserted the state statutes at issue were barriers to broadband investment and competition that Section 706 of the Communications Act empowered the FCC to remove.

The court said not so. It ruled that Section 706 would have to explicitly say that Congress was giving the FCC the right to trump states’ sovereignty when it comes to laws affecting their subdivisions, and the section does not explicitly do that.

“Even as someone who actively supported the FCC on this, I can’t say that’s an obviously wrong interpretation,” Feld said.

ISPs have long argued the FCC was using Section 706 too broadly as an excuse to regulate broadband, particularly when many interpret the provision as a deregulatory one meant to clear away regs impeding broadband expansion.

SEC. 706 AUTHORITY UNRESOLVED

“The clear statutory context of what Congress’ intent was is the deregulatory 1996 Act,” said Cleland, who called Section 706 “transitional deregulatory authority.”

The 6th Circuit clearly signaled that pre-empting states’ rights was not within that broad authority, though that leaves other Sec. 706 authority questions unresolved.

The push for muni broadband will likely move to the states, and getting laws limiting broadband buildouts repealed. Feld said roughly 20 states have such laws on the books. “If folks want the option for their town or county to provide some kind of broadband service, it means either changing local law or changing federal law,” Feld blogged last week.

The latter is a tough slog, so the most likely venue for pro-muni activism is getting states to reverse their prohibitions. Of course, ISPs will be pushing back, since they argue that those buildouts can be both unfair government-subsidized competition that discourages private investment or can leave taxpayers holding the bag when those government buildouts don’t pan out as advertised.

Wheeler, in opining on the court loss, said he would be happy to help an effort to repeal state laws. “Should states seek to repeal their anti-competitive broadband statutes, I will be happy to testify on behalf of better broadband and consumer choice,” he said.

Government broadband buildout efforts in the U.S.--muni broadband buildouts in particular--have gotten pushback from commercial ISPs, who argue that market forces, not government interventions, are a better way to spur price and service competition.

That argument got some support in a case study of a government broadband buildout elsewhere

Australia’s National Broadband Network (NBN), a government-backed effort to replace copper with a wholesale fiber network to boost competition for retail fixed broadband and speed buildouts with higher quality and lower prices failed to achieve those goals and could be sold off to private interests.

That is according to a paper from the Technology Policy Institute, which chronicles what it says was the product of "extensive government involvement" in infrastructure buildouts, which includes "low quality services due to low speeds, higher prices relative to other countries and a slowing rate of price decrease for internet services in the past eight years."

The paper's authors concede the evidence is "nuanced" and drawing conclusions is difficult. But clearly not impossible, since they conclude from their analysis that "the NBN has not only failed to achieve its targets but

stagnated fixed broadband adoption."

The takeaway, says the institute: "Government's role and its continuous attempt to 'catch up' in a sector characterized by its dynamism should be re-evaluated," the paper's authors conclude. "The Australian case reveals how state owned broadband might not be the best answer to meet full coverage and competition objectives."