Doug Dawson

Karl Bode recently wrote an excellent article highlighting the overhyping of wireless technologies. No wireless technology has been a bigger flop than 5G when comparing the hype to the eventual reality. The wireless carriers and vendors blitzed the country in a coordinated effort to paint 5G as the solution that would bring broadband everywhere.

How can a small internet service provider (ISP) compete against the big cable companies? Comcast and Charter together have roughly 55% of all broadband customers in the country, so they are formidable competitors. But the two big cable companies have one obvious weakness – their prices are significantly higher than everybody else in their markets. Every marketing push by these companies involves giving temporary low special prices to lure customers – but those prices eventually revert to much higher list prices. Fixed wireless access (FWA) is clearly competing in price.

As recently as fifteen years ago, I was often asked by many of my clients to help them benchmark their internet service provider (ISP) against their peers. By this, they wanted to know if they had the right number of employees for their customer base, if their revenues and expenses were in line with other similar ISPs, if they had too much expense from overheads, etc. It turns out that ISPs were not particularly comparable. They seemed to differ in most of the statistics that my clients wanted to understand.

There are almost 15.6 million households using the broadband subsidy from the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). The program started with a little over 9 million households at the start of 2022 and added over 500,000 new enrollees per month. Several folks who track funding say that ACP is going to run out of money sometime in the summer of 2024. The obvious solution to keep ACP operating is for Congress to refill the ACP funding bucket.

The House of Representatives' recently announced broadband hearings want to look at two issues. The first is to make sure that the grants are only used for connecting to unserved locations and not used for ‘overbuilding’. This has been a major talking point for the big cable companies for years – they don’t want to see any grant money used to encroach on areas they think of as their service territories.

I’ve seen folks around the country suggesting that state broadband offices ought to put a priority on sustainability when selecting winners of broadband grant funding. It’s a concept that has instant appeal, but I immediately asked myself what it means. How do you measure sustainability in a way that can be used to score grant requests? The first test of sustainability is the expected life of the assets being constructed. Another test of any internet service provider (ISP) on sustainability is the financial ability and willingness to replace those electronics.

It is unfortunate timing that the new Federal Communications Commission broadband map was issued in the middle of the process of trying to determine the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grant funding. Congress said that the amount of funding that will go to each state must be based upon the FCC map – and the first draft is clearly flawed. However, assuming that that grant funding question gets resolved somehow, there remains the bigger issue of whether the new FCC map will ever accurately portray broadband availability.

There has been a lot of recent press about the new ability for households to challenge broadband coverage claimed at their homes by internet service providers (ISP). The Federal Communications Commission's new National Broadband Map also allows folks to challenge the coverage claimed by cellular carriers. There are two ways to challenge the claimed cellular coverage – by individuals or by local governments. The challenge process for individuals is as follows:

For the first time in my memory, the Senate does not have the votes to approve the nominated FCC Commissioner, Gigi Sohn [Senior Fellow and Public Advocate at the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society]. This has meant that the FCC has been on hold and we’ve had a two-year deadlock between the two Democratic and Republican Commissioners on any controversial issues. There are a number of FCC initiatives that are on hold until there is a fifth Commissioner:

While there has been a lot of activity on the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grant program, there is still a long way to go before this grant money is used to build new broadband infrastructure. Most of the delay is due to the incredible complexity of the BEAD grant rules. The priority for state grant programs is usually to quickly get the money out the door and spent on infrastructure. Why are the BEAD grants so complicated?