Congressmen Call for Expanded CAF Phase I
Several members of Congress said they were concerned about the “unfulfilled promise” of Connect America Fund Phase I -- in which the FCC made available $300 million to fund broadband deployment in unserved areas -- but only $115 million was accepted by ILECs. The legislators encouraged the FCC to move forward with refinements that would expand areas eligible for the funding (CD Nov 21 p9). But CLECs criticized proposals they said would unfairly give ILECs a “second bite” at funding instead of making the money available to all providers through a competitive bidding process.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Iowa Sens. and Charles Grassley (R) and Tom Harkin (D) said they were “concerned” about Phase I rules “so restrictive that it is difficult for carriers to utilize them to deploy broadband, including in Iowa.” In their letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, dated Friday, they cite “clear evidence that more flexibility is needed so available funds can be used to expand broadband to consumers and businesses, especially in rural areas.” Grassley and Harkin agree with the FCC’s Dec. 28 rulemaking notice that CAF rules should be “refined” to enable price cap carriers to bring broadband service to more unserved and underserved households. “It is critical for our rural constituents that vital funds set aside for CAF not be lost and that they be utilized as fully as possible,” Grassley and Harkin said.
"While we certainly recognize the magnitude of such a multi-year endeavor, we are nevertheless concerned by the unfulfilled promise of CAF 1,” wrote Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, in a letter last week signed by the state’s senators and all three of its representatives. They criticized what they called “the FCC’s overly prescriptive eligibility criteria,” which in 2012 “restricted broadband deployment, passing over hundreds of Utah households despite available funds.” It’s “especially disconcerting in light of the fact that our constituents contribute money to this fund with the expectation that the FCC will fulfill its mission to connect every American, regardless of where they live,” the Utah delegation wrote. “To date, the FCC has yet to fulfill its duty."
Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., said he supported the FCC’s proposed modifications to the Phase I rules. It’s “readily apparent” in Arkansas that “only modest gains have been achieved to extend broadband to rural America,” he said in a letter sent to Genachowski on Monday. “We find it encouraging that the FCC realizes the need for reforming the CAF Phase I rules.” Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo., said in a letter Monday he was “encouraged” by the proposed refinements of the Phase I eligibility rules. “Unfortunately there are still thousands of Coloradans who do not have broadband access."
The New Mexico delegation asked the commission to “invest all available CAF I incremental support this year, thereby narrowing the digital divide in New Mexico and across the nation.” Just 58 percent of New Mexicans use broadband at home, compared to a national average of 80 percent as reported in the 2010 U.S. Census, wrote Democratic Sen. Tom Udall. “We urge you to consider proceeding this year with another round of CAF projects that fully uses universal service funds already set aside for this important work,” the delegation wrote. Doing so would be consistent with Section 254 of the Communications Act, they said, which instructs the commission to base its universal service policies on giving rural Americans services “reasonably comparable” to those in urban areas.
Not everyone favors modifications to the Phase I program. The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) said it disagrees with those who assert that “the generous Phase I subsidies offered to price cap carriers to date were somehow overly restrictive” (http://bit.ly/U7234F). In reply comments Monday, WISPA said it laments the FCC’s focus on “manufacturing additional mechanisms to funnel funding to price cap carriers, instead of promoting the prompt provision of competitively neutral consumer broadband service in unserved areas.” WISPA opposes modifications to CAF rules that would “afford price cap carriers ‘a second bite’ at Phase I funding,” it said. The “best use” of the remaining Phase I funding would be to place it in the Remote Areas Fund, “where it would be guaranteed to benefit consumers who are most in need,” WISPA said.
The ILECs are “not content with the overly generous proposals advanced by the Commission” in its further notice, said NCTA, criticizing ILEC proposals that would enable them to receive close to $500 million in subsidies “with no obligation to extend service to a single location that does not already have access to broadband” (http://bit.ly/12H1Rwq). “It is long past time for the Commission to cease giving money exclusively to incumbent LECs and move to a more transparent, more effective mechanism for distributing support,” NCTA said. Instead of continuing distributing Phase I money to ILECs only, the FCC should make support available to all providers through a competitive bidding process, the association said. That would be “far more effective at expanding broadband to people who do not have it today.”