CCG Consulting

There is one nuance of the Federal Communications Commission maps that doesn’t seem to be talked about. Internet service providers (ISPs) are only supposed to show coverage on the FCC maps for locations where they are able to serve within ten business days of a customer’s request for service. Any ISP that is claiming areas it won’t serve that quickly is exaggerating its coverage on the FCC maps. That can have real-life consequences. Consider the pockets of unserved areas inside cities. We worked with an urban area recently where we identified nearly 200 such unserved pockets.

One of the things that I don’t hear discussed enough is that some of the internet service providers (ISP) chasing rural broadband grants have high broadband rates. I’m curious how much emphasis State Broadband offices will put on the retail rates of grant applicants when evaluating grant winners. The two most easily identified ISPs with high broadband rates are Charter and Comcast. Charter rates for standalone basic broadband are now over $90 in many markets, and Comcast is nearing $100 per month.

The Federal Communications Commission circulated draft rules to govern the lower 42 GHz spectrum (between 42 – 42.5 GHz). This is within the range of spectrum referred to as millimeter wave spectrum. This is one of the more unusual FCC spectrum deliberations because this spectrum is totally empty – there is nobody currently authorized by the FCC to use the spectrum band.

The Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program grant rules established by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) are going to be a difficult hurdle for many internet service providers to cross. If you are thinking of applying to BEAD, read these rules carefully. The rules start on page 56 of the NOFO.

It’s becoming clear that we are now deep into a fiber land-grab. By that, I mean that companies that overbuild fiber are moving as quickly as possible into markets to build fiber. The biggest broadband providers have publicly discussed their plans for building a lot of fiber in 2023. I call it a land grab because these providers are all hoping to get to towns and neighborhoods first in order to dissuade anybody else from building fiber there.

There is one mapping issue that unfortunately messed up the count of eligible passings for Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program grants and that is going to be a real concern. Both T-Mobile and Verizon have activated rural cell sites that can deliver home broadband using licensed spectrum that can be 100/20 Mbps or a little faster.

I’m starting to see situations where a shortage of construction labor is causing problems for some broadband providers. The supply chain issues for materials have largely been solved but the supply chain for construction contractors is a worsening situation for many providers. To give an example, I know a broadband provider with a long history of building networks that recently went to bid for two projects that are being funded by local American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grant funding.

The Federal Communications Commission has a specific set of environmental rules that must be followed when building any telecommunications infrastructure. Broadband providers that haven’t built on park lands or were funded by certain federal broadband grants probably never heard of these rules. But the rules apply to all telecommunications construction. The reason providers probably haven’t heard about these specific rules is that the FCC has largely put providers on the honor system to meet these guidelines.

Ajit Pai recently wrote an article in the National Review where he talks about how his decision as head of the Federal Communications Commission to repeal net neutrality was the right one. He goes on to claim that repealing net neutrality was the driver behind the current boom in building fiber and upgrading other broadband technologies.

One of the hardest things that the Federal Communications Commission does is to decide spectrum policy. The agency has full authority to determine the details of how we use each slice of available spectrum. Most importantly, the agency can determine who can use spectrum – and that’s why the task is challenging. In the last decade, it’s hard to think of any spectrum deliberation and decision that didn’t have to weigh the interests of multiple spectrum users. There is almost always somebody using spectrum that must be considered.