Charter Communications, Comcast, and Cox Communications all met with Federal Communications Commission officials earlier in March 2023 to discuss A-CAM issues. A-CAM refers to the FCC’s Alternative Connect America Model program, which supports broadband deployments in eligible high-cost areas. The program is divided into two award phases: support which was granted under the original program founded in 2016 (A-CAM I) and that allocated during a second round in 2018 (A-CAM II). Each phase has its own service and deployment requirements. A-CAM I mandates speeds of only 10 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream and runs through 2026. A-CAM II raises this bar to 25/3 Mbps in exchange for an additional two years of support. As of May 2022, the FCC said the total amount of support provided to A-CAM I and A-CAM II participants was $1.1 billion each year. Operators are so keen to talk about an old program already well underway because another extension is on the line, and a decision is expected soon. In May 2022, the FCC called for input on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to see whether it should adopt changes to the A-CAM program suggested by rural operators in the ACAM Broadband Coalition. The proposed changes would create an Enhanced A-CAM program by making three main changes:

1. Providers would be required to deploy service with speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps to 90% of eligible locations. This would bring locations covered by the A-CAM program in line with the government’s definition of what counts as “served” under the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program. 
2. Raise the cap on support from $200 to $300 per location – a tweak that would raise the annual program cost to $1.49 billion per year.
3. Extend the term of support by six years for most program participants.

However, in a recent filing, NCTA said it, as well as representatives from Comcast, Charter, and Cox, all recently met with the FCC  to push back against the proposal. The parties argued that operators “have made significant investments” in rural expansions in recent years and that “expanding the A-CAM programs by awarding incumbent LECs a sole-source contract, with no competitive bidding process, would be a poor policy choice.” It is unclear when exactly the FCC might take further action on the matter, but many are hoping for a decision soon.

A new best practice white paper explores micro-trenching, an advantageous fiber broadband deployment method. The report compares micro-trenching amongst other deployment methods as a valuable option in the fiber broadband construction toolkit and it also details the scrutiny that micro-trenching faces, success stories, and best practices. The white paper finds that micro-trenching is cost-effective and proven to speed installation and the connection to the symmetrical gigabit-capable networks needed to establish digital equity and close the rural digital divide. The white paper also explores multiple fiber deployment styles, including micro-trenching, horizontal directional drilling, plowing, conventional trenching, and missile boring. In terms of cost, conventional trenching can be roughly five times the cost of micro-trenching. From a time perspective, micro-trenching reduces one-third of the time it takes for a fiber installation using traditional methods, in some cases, moving from days to hours. Installing new utilities, like fiber, brings concerns about damage to previously installed utility infrastructure (such as gas lines and water pipes). The white paper features a risk profile between the different deployment styles by investigating the average strikes (damage to an existing utility that causes a service failure) per mile. The profile reveals that micro-trenching had the lowest (0.03) strikes per mile, compared to conventional trenching with the highest (13.97) strikes per mile. So, while damage and risk are unavoidable, micro-trenching can be regarded as a deployment style with relatively high output and low utility damage risk.

Our analysis of 2021 American Community Survey (ACS) data shows that the Chicago Connected program helped to more than halve the connectivity gap for Chicago’s school-age children — from roughly 110,000 children in 2018 to roughly 46,000 children by the end of 2021 (19% disconnected in 2018 vs. 8% in 2021). The number of disconnected adults was also reduced in 2021 by 2% (from 15% to 13%) which amounts to a reduction of nearly 30,000 adults in 2021 alone. Relative to 2018, Chicago Connected helped reduce the connectivity gap for adults by 8%, or roughly 160,000 adults, through the end of 2021. However, this means that we still have about 185,000 disconnected households in the city. Disconnected households that have yet to be reached demand additional effort and focus on behalf of government agencies, community-based organizations, businesses, nonprofits, and internet service providers. We continue to emphasize the device gap – nearly 260,000 Chicago residents do not own a laptop or desktop computer. As we noted in the Defeating the Digital Divide report, we strongly believe that every Chicago household should own a laptop or desktop to fully participate in modern life.