I think the final paragraph with be of greatest interest to readers here so are probably better well versed on the need for subsidies and broadband…

So far, so promising, but the devil, as always, is in the detail—and many of the details are missing. Stuart Polikoff, vice-president of regulatory policy for OPASTCO, a trade group representing around 460 rural telecom companies, fears his clients will end up losing money when the FCC redirects intercarrier-compensation rates (fees one carrier pays to another on whose lines a portion of a call is carried). Dave Osborn, who heads the Valley Telephone Cooperative, which provides high-speed broadband to 4,600 people spread across 7,300 square miles of south Texas, predicts that change will deprive him of $1.5m a year. The large telecoms companies stand to gain: the FCC says they can reach 83% of the 18m Americans without service. Then there is the question of use: one survey found that nearly half of non-internet users in America saw no need for it. That is a problem that infrastructure alone cannot solve.

I’m going to take adoption off the table for this post, because in the areas they describe, greater adoption is not going to help make the business case. The question becomes – will the subsidies go to the right people who will maintain broadband connectivity in rural areas?

On the one hand, you have to think that the bigger providers can compensate the loss off serving lower population density areas with urban counterparts. On the other hand, the local provider usually has a greater investment in the rural community. Who is the better bet?

As always with broadband articles in mainstream press, the comments are as interesting as the article. A few folks not so interested in supporting rural areas. A few folks with very specific perspective (one seems to promote LightSquared, one includes a link to their wireless service and some question the adoption issue.

AT&T‘s proposed merger with T-Mobile has gotten a big thumbs down from the Federal Communications Commission. In a conference call with reporters, FCC officials said the agency has concluded that the proposed transaction would significantly diminish competition and results in an unprecedented concentration in the wireless industry.

This is the second significant blow to the proposed $39 billion merger. Back in August the U.S. Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit to block the deal. This FCC order essentially agrees with the DOJ. FCC officials said that if the DOJ prevails, its suggestion of a trial-like hearing would be moot.

…

The next step is a hearing before an administrative law judge that will, apparently, be very much like a typical trial and should include witnesses from both sides of the debate. The judge would deliver a decision on the merger, but that would not be the end of it. The judge’s decision would then be considered by the FCC commissioners.

Want to gauge the general public’s view of the setback? Check out the comments on the Mashable article. When I looked the only pro-merger comment I saw came from someone who was called out from another commenter for working at AT&T. It will be interesting to see if more industry views come through after the holidays.

Executive Summary -

The plan is to move to the Connect American Fund (CAF) which will allocate a $4.5 billion budget annually for rural, insular and hard cost areas.

One the transition is complete that will mean up to $2 billion for rate of areas with return carriers; $2.8 billion for price cap carriers; $500 million for wireless and mobile voice services – including up to $100 million for tribal areas and at least $100 million for remote areas fund.

CAF recipients will be required to send reports to state and federal overseers. The State Commissions will work with carriers of last resort and ETCs (eligible telecommunications carriers).

Price cap – CAF will support broadband in two phases:

• Legacy cost support will be frozen & subject to broadband obligations ($300 million to commit broadband deployment to areas)
• Creates a framework to provide support on forward looking price model. Incumbents will need to overtake statewide commitment (Except very high cost areas and areas with competitors). When incumbents says no – there will be a bidding mechanism for all ETCs)

Rate of return

• Changes rules to support continued broadband deployment/investment
• Allows them predictability of continued funding but requires more stringent monitoring
• Looks to reduce interstate compensation 11.25%

Mobile

• Eliminates identical support rule
• Phases down existing support

More on mobile

• Phase I $300 million and $50 million in tribal areas and reverse auctions with a goal of 4G
• Phase II $500 million per year to extend and support mobile networks ($100 million to tribal areas) in high costs areas

ICC

• Arbitrage – combating phantom traffic
• Billing key methodology for all ICT traffic with unified national framework
• Caps all interstate and most intrastate effective on date of this order and establishes a transition path for the reduction
• Some carriers will be eligible to receive cap support
• VoIP/PSTN – will be subject to transitional ICC; will be considered equal; expect all carriers to act in good faith for IP calls

Copps Comments:

Re: USF

• I would have much preferred a higher budget for the Fund—a budget that I believe consumers would accept because of its importance to putting the nation back to work and providing our kids with the tools they need for their futures.
• The course we adopt today has two auction phases, with the second installment of mobility support dependent upon further Commission decision-making. Understanding the need for maximum predictability throughout these transitions, we will halt reductions in legacy support if for some unlikely and unanticipated reason the second auction phase does not take place as planned.

Re:ICC

• My enthusiasm here is tempered by the fact that end-user charges (under the label of “Access Recovery Charges”) are allowed to increase, albeit incrementally, for residential consumers.
• While I understand the need for predictability in an ICC regime, I am pleased that my colleagues have retained a key role for states, including arbitrating interconnection agreements; monitoring intrastate access tariffs during the transition to bill-and-keep; and helping to implement our Universal Service Fund as well as, in many cases, their own state universal service funds.
• There is inherent inequity in a system that funds the deployment of broadband off of assessments on interstate telephony. Once we ensure that double, triple and quadruple play services that benefit from Universal Service bear their fair share, we will not be subject to the unnecessary financial constraints that our current approach imposes. We also need
• spectrum management decisions that avoid putting still more spectrum in too few hands. Among other good results, that would drive better mobility auctions.

McDowell Comments 

• Also, today we are only addressing the high cost program of the distribution side of the Universal Service Fund. We are not addressing the entire Universal Service Fund, which currently distributes over $8 billion per year. To put that figure in context, USF is larger than the annual revenues of Major League Baseball. In separate proceedings, we will also reform the other USF spending programs. I cannot stress enough that all of the fiscal efficiencies that we will realize in the wake of today’s reforms will be lost if similar fiscal discipline is not applied to all Universal Service programs as well.
• It is no secret that for years I have been pushing for contribution reform to be carried out at the same time as distribution reform. Obviously, that is not happening today; therefore we must act quickly. The contribution factor, a type of tax paid by consumers, has risen each year from approximately 5.5 percent in 1998 to an estimated 15.3 percent in the fourth quarter of this year. This trend is unacceptable.

Clyburn Comments

• As you all know, I have a deep connection to rural America. Without comparable modern communications services enjoyed by their urban counterparts, those citizens will never adequately compete in our global economy. They need and deserve reliable fixed as well as mobile broadband in order to thrive. Without this critical broadband infrastructure, rural Americans would be forever left behind.
• Most importantly, we have provided for replacement funding as intrastate access rates decline as a result of our reform which relieves the financial burden that would have been on states in their own attempts at reform. To that end, we also have carefully balanced ICC revenue replacement for providers, with the important goal of not burdening consumers with significant increases in their bills or overburdening the USF which is ultimately paid for by consumers.
• Although the reforms we adopt today are extremely important for ensuring that basic and advanced communications services are physically available to all Americans, those services cannot be
• truly available, if consumers cannot afford to purchase them, the devices they need to access them are not available, or if they cannot obtain the skills they need to know how to use these services. I appreciate those who have called for us to address these consumer needs today, and I agree with you that we need to do more in this area. Our broadband adoption task force is working diligently to find solutions to these issues, and I fully expect that we soon will be addressing the proposal in our Lifeline proceeding to adopt pilot projects for broadband adoption to benefit low-income Americans who qualify for the Lifeline program.

Genachowsi Comments

• Over the next year, the Connect America Fund will bring broadband to more than 600,000 Americans who wouldn’t have it otherwise. Over the following five years, millions more rural families will be connected. And today’s Order puts us on the path to get broadband to every American by the end of the decade – to close the broadband deployment gap which now stands at close to twenty million Americans. We are also extending the benefits of mobile broadband coverage to tens of thousands of unserved road-miles, areas where millions of Americans work, live, and travel.
• Today’s action will help connect anchor institutions, which can play a vital role – for example, in expanding basic digital literacy training – in a world where broadband skills are necessary to find and land jobs.
• We did not rubber stamp or adopt wholesale the proposals of any stakeholder or group of stakeholders. Instead, we made our decisions on what’s right for the American people and our economy based on facts and data gathered in one of the most extensive records in FCC history, including hearings and workshops across the country, and more than 2,700 substantive comments totaling tens of thousands of pages.

While I think the $7.2 billion in ARRA stimulus funding captured more attention and the imagination of the public – decisions made about the USF/ICC will have a greater long-term financial impact on broadband – especially in rural areas with less densely populated areas. It makes sense to pay attention to what’s happening – but it does come down to intricate details that relate to bringing legacy funding strategies and legacy technology into the future. We’ve all done it for work or home and we know, it gets painful.

In my spare time, I’ve been trying to sift through Genachowski’s speech and various responses to the speech. It’s taken a while.

Genachowski explains the transition from USF to Connect American Fund – and its two goals:

1. ensuring universal availability of robust, scalable, and affordable broadband to homes, businesses, and anchor institutions in unserved areas.
2. ensuring universal availability of mobile broadband through a new Mobility Fund.

For mobile there will be an one-time boost of funding to spur 4G networks:

We will extend deployment of state-of-the-art mobile broadband to more than one hundred thousand road-miles, where millions of Americans live, work, and travel. This will begin with a one-time shot-in-the arm to accelerate deployment of 4G networks. Thereafter, the Mobility Fund will provide significant ongoing support for rural mobile broadband. This will include dedicated support for Tribal areas, where broadband and mobile service remains far behind the national average.

For wired/wireless service there will be a greater focus on prudent spending:

For all elements of the Connect America Fund, we will ensure that support isn’t used to supplant private investment. Funding will be targeted exclusively at areas without an unsubsidized competitor, and where support is needed to extend or sustain broadband networks*, eliminating wasteful spending and promoting healthy competition. And funding will be conditioned upon complying with rigorous obligations to serve the
public and meet the goals of universal service.

*”Sustain broadband networks” seem to be an addition from previous version and one that I think should make incumbent providers happy – especially if they are prudently building/sustaining broadband

There is also a push to transition away from the current model to something that is more competitive but recognizing the potential impact on communities that are served, the plan has always emphasized the need to phase in this transition slowly.

In pursuing these goals, we will introduce competitive processes among providers for obtaining support and transition over time toward a fully competitive system for distributing Connect America Fund dollars. We will do this in a way that recognizes the strong benefits of competitive processes, and also that we are not writing on a blank slate, and that a flash-cut to competitive bidding in some parts of the decades-old program risks consumer disruption, build-out delays, and other unintended consequences.

The plan builds competitive bidding into the first phase of the new Mobility Fund in 2012.

Genachowski outlines how the changes will have an impact on various providers:

• Price cap carriers are companies subject to USF and ICC rules that, as currently structured, reward them for operating efficiently, but not for investing in broadband. For areas currently served by these carriers, ongoing legacy obligations, including state carrier of last resort requirements, complicate the transition to competitive bidding.
• For rate of return carriers, current USF and ICC rules encourage network buildout by reimbursing actual costs incurred, but also enable inefficiencies, like expensive overbuilding of unsubsidized competitors. For these carriers, we will begin by reforming the rate-of-return framework, ensuring providers have appropriate incentives to invest efficiently and receive predictable support. That includes improving accountability, using benchmarks to ensure reimbursable expenditures are reasonable, and extending commonsense limits on reimbursements for corporate operations expenses.

The result: Companies that invest in and manage their businesses prudently will have the support they need to continue extending broadband, and will be on the path to a more incentive-based framework in the future.

Genachowski also addressed Intercarrier Compensation. The goal is…

• to reduce the hidden subsidies paid by consumers across the country, shut down harmful arbitrage schemes and eliminate competitive distortions, remove a significant obstacle to the deployment of modern IP networks, and substantially increase certainty for all stakeholders.

• loopholes like phantom traffic and traffic pumping, and other arbitrage schemes
• bringing intrastate access rates in line with interstate rates – starting with terminating charges

And here’s a very quick annotated bibliography on what folks have to say about the USF changes…

• According to the National Journal the FCC is down playing telco influence on the USF proposals
• According to Broadcast & Cable, a team of Democrat legislators are asking the FCC to consider ways to require broadband providers that receive USF support to build-out broadband networks in rural areas to deploy high-capacity broadband to anchor institutions
• According to the Center for Media Justice, the proposed changes will mean and increase in phone bills and feels that the plan reads like a play-book written by the phone companies.
• According to The Hill, Senator Byron Dorgan is worried that proposed caps on the total size of the fund as well as the amount individual carriers can recoup could dissuade telecom firms from investing in rural areas.
• Stop the Gaps thinks that at the core the proposal is to slash the per-minute rates rural phone companies can charge big city phone companies like AT&T and Verizon to connect calls to rural areas – they think that many phone companies will make up the difference by jacking up your phone bill’s USF surcharge to as much as $11 a month per line to make up the difference.
• Connected Planet publishes a spreadsheet presented by Philip B. Jones, a commissioner for the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, shows the total amount of money that carriers in each state currently contribute to support each of the four different Universal Service Fund programs — the low-income program, the schools and libraries program, the rural health care program and the high-cost program — as well as what carriers in each state extract from the program.

First he gave a laundry list of reasons to get online:

• More than 80 percent of Fortune 500 companies today, including Wal-Mart and Target, require online job applications.
• Students with broadband at home have a 7 percent higher graduation rate.
• Consumers with broadband at home can save more than $7,000 a year.
• Closing the broadband adoption gap will create $32 billion in annual economic value, or about
• $100 for every American, every year.
• Right now, government spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year on paper communications with citizens, most of whom are non-adopters. If we move more services online, we can incentive broadband adoption and make government more efficient.

Then he announced a list of corporations who are stepping up to help:

• Best Buy – geek squad to teach basic digital literacy in 20 cities/towns (and train the trainer)
• Microsoft – to teach advanced/business digital literacy including Office training
• Arise Virtual Solutions – online training for customer service skills
• CareerBuilder.com – online prep and certified training for $1
• Monster.com – to scan for “middle skills jobs” in high demand
• Discovery Education – to offer online student success training
• MetrixLearning – to offer online jobs skills training in English, Spanish and Mandarin
• Brainfuse – to provide résumé writing assistance
• Sesame Workshop – to offer online games and lesson on hunger and economic hardship program

There is still opportunity for other businesses and community organizations to get involved through the Connect to Compete project…

Private companies and non-profits have announced the formation of Connect to Compete, a non-profit initiative, to execute the offerings made on expanding digital literacy and helping Americans close the jobs skills gap. The new organization, which will be housed at One Economy, will be a collaborative effort with other non-profits and industry partners.

Connect to Compete will launch national pilot programs beginning in the spring of 2012. For more information, please contact info@connect2compete.org.

Genachowski urges (and I paraphrase) “Imagine what having millions more Americans connected will mean to the American economy.” Just earlier this week, I posted the research that quantifies the impact broadband will have. One report indicates that each job destroyed by broadband is replaced by 2.6 jobs; another report indicates that broadband adds .3 percent to a nation’s GDP – making the case that these companies are investing, not just spending, in the US and in Americans.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
October 11, 2011
NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:
Neil Grace, 202-418-0506 Email: neil.grace@fcc.gov

***MEDIA ADVISORY***

FCC CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI TO ANNOUNCE PUBLIC-PRIVATE BROADBAND ADOPTION INITIATIVE
TO EXTEND DIGITAL LITERACY TRAINING AND PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE TO COMMUNITIES

Washington, DC – On October 12, 2011, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski will announce a national public-private partnership program designed to increase broadband adoption, elevate digital literacy and assist Americans in searching and training for jobs.

According to the Pew Research Center, one-third of all Americans— 100 million people – have not adopted broadband high-speed Internet at home. The public-private partnership seeks to overcome the top obstacles to broadband adoption, including digital literacy, relevance and cost. The national program is the first major action by Chairman Genachowski’s Broadband Adoption Task force, announced in May to help close the adoption gap.

WHAT:
FCC Chairman Genachowski will announce a major public-private partnership initiative that will extend digital literacy and job training to communities across the country. Representatives from partner companies, non-profits and think thanks will deliver brief remarks.

WHEN:
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
10:00AM-11:00AM Eastern

WHO:
Julius Genachowski, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

PARTNERS:
National electronics retailer
Global consumer and business software corporation Leading non-fiction media corporation Digital literacy training company E-training provider for public workforce development Leading job-search and job-training companies Coalition of digital inclusion experts and non-profits

WHERE:
The Pew Charitable Trusts
901 E Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20004

ONLINE: The event will be webcast on www.fcc.gov/live.

It was a nice complement to the public hearing session hosted by the same groups last year. Last year Commissioner Copps and Commissioner Clyburn listened for *hours* as folks share their news, views and stories. It was an amazing turnout!

This meeting was a much smaller group and the topics were narrower in scope but included diversity in media ownership and representation, Low Powered FM Radio and policies to promote greater use of technology (broadband, telephone, radio) such as Net Neutrality and Universal Service Funds.

Commissioner Copps was generous to allow me to record the session. I didn’t catch the intros, because I wasn’t sure that everyone wanted to be archived – but I think his comments drew upon the remarks from the folks in the room.

I also took some very quick notes on the comments that just stuck out for me. So for a very high-level Reader’s Digest version I will include those notes below. Commissioner Copps will be done with his tenure at the FCC at the end of the year. I got the feeling that he was imparting some good advice on his way out to help community leaders work with the FCC in the future – and maybe to push the FCC to work harder. His key tip – Get Organized to Effect Change!

On Broadcasting & Access to Info

27 states don’t have local reporters in DC

Good journalism came from a time when journalists and owners remembered that there was an FCC that could penalize them for not doing good job.

Civic dialog can’t blossom without access to information.

Net Neutrality prevents the “cable-ization” of the Internet. We set guidelines. Now broadcasters don’t need to apply as often and the renewal is assumed – because generally renewal is a forgone conclusion.

Broadband

We recognize that we need a strategy and a plan to get broadband to rural areas. Everybody has to have access to broadband.

The USF is broken. And is costing consumers millions. The subscriber line fees might go up – but Copps won’t vote unless I know that the burden on the consumers will be reduced.

Universal access is the infrastructure challenge of the 21st century. We need to get it right.

Lifelink and Linkup will get attention in a month or so.

We found ways to build infrastructure in the past – with public/private sector collaboration. But then there was an idea (starting with Regan) that public-private collaboration was un-American.

Auction selling spectrum – one worry is the constriction of spectrum.

These problems get solved from the bottom up.

Three important steps to take:

• Access to Anchor Institutions
• Media/Digital/News Literacy
• Public Media & Support for Public Media

The Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy (CSTPP) will host a lecture featuring two very different views about possible mergers in telecommunications giants AT&T and T-Mobile from 2 to 3:30 p.m. on Monday, October 3, in the Wilkins Room (Room 215) at the Humphrey School. Former Congressman Rick Boucher, now a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Sidley Austin, and amalia delony, grassroots director for the Center for Media Justice will discuss their differing views of the proposed merger and take questions from the audience. Steve Kelley, director of CSTPP, will moderate the discussion.

It was an interesting discussion in many ways because the two main speakers agreed on so many points so unlike many debates today it wasn’t like trying to bring black to white or white to black. There was careful consideration of the nuance, details and ramifications of the decisions being discussed. I’ll include my pretty full notes below but I thought I’d include a quick list of pros and cons. (These are as stated by the speakers – not my personal pros and cons.)

For the Merger:

• It’s a good way to get to 98% broadband coverage in the US in the next 5-6 years without government spending.
• T-Mobile will probably be sold anyways the parent company is no longer interested in the American market
• 4G is broadband; it is faster than most rural communities experience now

Against the Merger

• A merger will mean a loss of jobs. T-Mobile’s workforce is 48% minorities
• AT&T is not known for quality customer service while T-Mobile is the most low-income-friendly with prices and service locations
• 4G may be broadband, but access through a smartphone alone is not enough. You can’t fill out a college application on your smartphone. People need

Former Senator Rick Boucher –
Now heads up the Internet Innovation Alliance – they agree on nationwide universal broadband. It is achievable. (Universal however is 9% broadband deployment within 5 year period)

1. Get the FCC to reform USF. The US has highest telephone rate. SO the USF has worked in terms of getting landlines to rural areas. It makes sense to modify USF to allow it to be expended for broadband as well as telephone. Right now the providers are small rural telcos – if they could use funds for broadband, they would.
2. Get the Legislature to allow the FCC to confer incentive auctions. Smartphones have taken off hugely. We’ll need more spectrum to accommodate smartphones.
1. The FCC would encourage spectrum owners (TV air owners) to give it up for a portion of auction proceeds. There are urban, independent stations that will take advantage of the opportunity.
2. Enough stations have expressed interest to make it worth trying. It might happen this year. The Super Committee is looking into it.
3. Support the merger between AT&T & T-Mobile. We have a goal of 98% broadband coverage. AT&T says within 6 years they will cover 97%. We think we can make up the rest from USF reform & financial support.

Why is the merger good for consumers?

T-Mobile will be bought by someone. Deutsche Telkom owns it and wants to get out of the American market. Few upgrades have been made.

Verizon 4G is as fast as my connection at home. It can be a stable and independent platform for access. We may see people give up cable & DSL to go wireless on 4G as people have given up their landlines. AT&T has said they will deploy 4G.

AT&T says it will honor T-Mobile customers contracts for the duration of the contract.

AT&T will remove one carrier from the national table – but it’s not anti-competitive in that 1 of the largest 20 cities, there will still be 5 or more wireless providers from which to choose. In the other 2 cities the merger requirements may mean that T-Mobile is broken down and sold to others.

The current major spectrum holder is Sprint. They control about 30 percent of all spectrum. Then Verizon and then AT&T. TO remain competitive, AT&T needs more spectrum.

amalia deloney

I don’t work for AT&T in any way, shape or form.

We agree on the importance of broadband. The Center for Media Justice is a think tank that represents marginalized communities. We work with grassroots communities of color.

The Media Action Grassroots Network is made up of community-based organizations. We want to build media policy that’s people centered and place-based. Our top concerns:

• Internet Freedom (Net Neutrality)
• Universal Service Fund
• Involve din low cost programs
• Safelink (mobile/tracphone)
• AT&T T-Mobile
• Created video on Mo Mergers Mo Problems
• Minnesota is leading a voice against the merger

Broadband connectivity is essential for education, healthcare… For low-incomes folks, jobs is the top concern. You can only apply for jobs online. So that means the Rondo Library in St Paul opens up with a 3-hour wait for a computer.

Why don’t we like the merger?

• We think the merger is a jobs killer.
• T-Mobile has chosen to build out in marginalized areas. It is the cheapest option. So many people use it. Nationally 4% of T-Mobile’s workforce is a minority.
• AT&T is notorious for bad customer service.
• The merger will leave a duopoly in the industry – that will not be good for customer service for users.
• Real competition doesn’t really exist right now. In many places there is only 1-2 providers.
• Wireless access is essential – but you can’t fill out a college application on your smartphone. They need affordable prices, the need protective policies.
• Families are getting broadband through their wireless devices. Wireless access is essential – but you can’t fill out a college application on your smartphone. They need affordable prices, the need protective policies

We want reliable, affordable service from a corporation with a connection to the community. We want to be innovators, not just consumers.

Boucher –

AT&T has not widely deployed 4G yet. The fifth generation iPhone is coming out soon. (Hopefully this week.) Verizon has done a pretty good job of 4G deployment.

AT&T has pledged to retain all of the call center positions from AT&T and T-Mobile. They will need those call center operators to handle the subscribers. This is one of the fastest growing industries in the US.

CWA & ALFCIO have both endorse the merger. The claim that up to 96,000 jobs will be created.

The FCC has a low definition of broadband. What do you call broadband?

Boucher – 3G isn’t real broadband; 4G is. And AT&T is looking at 20 Mbps.

deloney – it depends. Symmetrical upload/download is necessary.

Question: 20 Mbps in many rural areas would be a step up. Is there a difference in impact between a low-income users in rural vs urban area?

deloney – generally no. There’s a false division between communities that are underserved and unserved – but we would group them together. You face issues of being left behind. It’s not that people don’t understand that they need broadband.

People need reliability & affordability. Competition helps. Maintains a low cost providers helps too. Options are important for consumer rights.

Question: Customers are fluid and growing. Congress gave broadcasters spectrum with the ideas that they might give it back.

Boucher – 8 years ago Congress decided to prepare a path to transition from analog to digital. SO 700 MHz spectrum was opened up. The big change was getting home owners a digital TV set (or convertor box). We loaned the spectrum to the broadcaster so that they could broadcast on analog and digital. About 3 years ago analog broadcasting stopped. There were subsidies to buy convertors.

We got the spectrum back and that’s where the 4G is coming from.

Sprint in the largest spectrum holder and they don’t use much of it now.

Isn’t it possible to get to 98% broadband in 5-6 years without the merger?

Boucher – no. There will be a requirement in the law to make them cover 98% in that timeframe. AT&T won’t do it in the timeframe without the merger.

Verizon might be better poised, but they will build in the cities first.

deloney – There’s a question of how AT&T spends money – such as lobbying and a multi-billion dollar ads.

There are innovative solutions – ILSR in MN talks about community-based broadband networks. We can open up the discussion to talk about community-based solutions. Now is a good time to look at what models in which we should invest.

Boucher – I supported the bill that would have allowed easier connection to community-based networks. About half the states have prohibitions of some sort of network communications.

There ought to be an expanded definition to lifelink & linkup to include broadband options.

Their first Measuring Broadband America report is just out. For the report, they focused on performance during peak usage times , which they found to be weekdays from 7:00 pm – 11:00 pm local time. Good news for providers; the results indicated that the actual speeds aren’t really very far off the advertised speeds for downloading or uploading. Fiber performed closest (actually better) than advertised speed, then cable and finally DSL.

Also they found that for web browsing speed isn’t much of an issue – especially once you get past 10 Mbps. VoIP worked well in all environments; the quality had more to do with what else was happening on the local (home) network. Streaming video also worked well assuming that the user chose the steaming (standard or high density) that best suited their connection.

One quick note – they clearly did not look at mobile connections – but there is discussion about how to look into it further especially given its growing prevalence in the field and the National Broadband Plan focus on wireless.

I wanted to share a couple of graphs from the report the first two just show performance. The third diagram is a nice look at the different components of a broadband connection – as you can see some are under the control of the broadband provider and some are not.

If I were going to read this report again – I might skip the executive summary and go right to the good parts.

The National Broadband Plan introduces the idea of big changes in policy with an effort to increase deployment (and adoption). I suspect the comments would be interesting to read because there are so many approaches to deployment. The devil is really in the detail. The LMC, SRA and MACTA have really focused on Rights of Way…

These comments respond to the main NOI topic areas by explaining ROW and facility management practices in Minnesota and describing how such practices effectively provide access to communications providers while protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public. The regulatory framework for use of city, town and county ROWs in Minnesota is principally governed by Minnesota Statue, Section 237.162 and 237.163 and Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) Rules. These statues and rules draw from the long history in the US and Minnesota regarding the common law of city police power.

They go on to detail the policy in Minnesota; it’s a great primer (or a reminder). They strive to make the case that the FCC should consider the experience and success of state policymakers when moving forward with federal policies…

The LMC, SRA and MACTA do not believe that Minnesota Statutes, rules or local ordinances have discouraged or created barriers to broadband deployment. Minnesota cities welcome and desire broadband deployment, and our policies allow us to work with any company willing to provide service. We believe our policies have helped to avoid problems and delays in broadband deployment.

We urge the Commission to conclude that ROW and facility management and charges are not impeding broadband deployment. There are concrete reasons to believe that additional federal regulations would prove costly and disruptive to our communities. There is simply no need for such additional regulation.