26 Jan 2022

Are Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Satellites the Answer to Missouri’s High-Speed Internet Access Problem?

by | posted in: | 0

(De-mystifying Some of the Technology Behind Your Internet Connection)

By Marc McCarty

When I talk to people around the state about bringing high-speed internet access to underserved communities, invariably someone mentions  “the SpaceX Starlink thing that Elon Musk is building.” Musk is not the only person interested in building low-earth orbit satellite (LEO Satellite) networks. Amazon (Project Kuiper), OneWeb, and TeleSat (Lightspeed) all have LEO Satellite projects planned and in some cases in limited operation.  But like electric cars and passenger-capable spacecraft, SpaceX’s “Starlink” product seems to be ahead of the competition, and it’s difficult to match Elon Musk for the “cool factor.” After all, who else has the moxie to launch a cherry-red electric roadster past the orbit of Mars, just to prove he can do it.

So, Is Starlink, or some other similar satellite technology that delivers high speed internet from outer space, the answer to the high-speed internet access problem in Missouri and other states?

It’s certainly worth asking the question, because over the next several years the federal government, along with states and localities, are likely to provide private and public internet service providers (ISPs) more than $60 billion to help fund the deployment of various types of broadband internet infrastructure; all in an effort to finally bring high-speed internet access to every location in America that could reasonably need one. With that much money at stake, getting the best value for the public’s investment will be critical. Past experience has taught valuable lessons on the need to wisely deploy public funds for internet infrastructure investments.

While fiber-optic cable seems to be the one infrastructure technology most capable of supplying high-speed internet service that can expand to meet future consumer and business needs, it is not without drawbacks. The cost of installing fiber to each residence and business can be more than $20,000 per mile even in rural areas with few obstructions, and most recently, wait times for delivery of fiber-optic cable and equipment can be well in excess of a year! The promise of connecting to the internet today – or within a few months – at speeds well in excess of the FCC’s current definition of “broadband” using a small antenna and some electronics that costs about $500, is very appealing, even if the monthly cost for the service is a bit more than fiber-optic cable or other wired internet options.

But what is LEO Satellite Internet? How does it work? What are the prospects that it might actually be the key component in efforts over the next few years to bridge the digital divide?

A Short Primer on Satellite Internet

At the outset, it’s important to distinguish LEO Satellite Internet from geocentric earth orbit (“GEO Satellite Internet”). Both technologies are “fixed” wireless internet, because they both access the internet by transmitting a signal through the air (and outer space) to a “fixed” antenna located at or near the customer’s premises.

However, this is where the differences begin. GEO Satellites orbit the earth at 22,236 miles above the equator.  This altitude, and the fact that the orbit is directly above the earth’s equator mean that it takes 24 hours (one day) for a GEO Satellite to complete a single orbit, and because the satellite’s orbit is above the equator, to a ground observer the satellite appears to remain “fixed” at a single point in the sky.

In Missouri, most folks with a clear view of the southern sky can subscribe for GEO satellite internet from ViaSat or HughesNet. These companies provide internet service using three or four large satellites positioned over the equator with line-of-sight view of North America. On the ground, a subscriber with a small antenna and a clear view of the southern sky can focus on one or more of these satellites to transmit data to and this location up to the satellite, and from there back down to an earth-based antenna connected to a traditional earth-based internet connection operated by the satellite internet service provider.

LEO Satellite Internet also transmits internet signals to and from a fixed antenna located at the customer’s residence, but LEO Satellites orbit much lower to the earth. These orbits vary, but generally are around 150 – 600 miles above the earth. At this altitude, to a ground-based observer the satellite appears to cross the sky from horizon to horizon in just a few minutes. Once the satellite passes below the horizon or some other obstruction, the signal carrying the internet data is lost. For this reason, LEO Satellite Internet requires a “fleet” of satellites orbiting the earth in predetermined orbits trailing one another.  In this way at least one satellite is always within line of site of the antenna at the customer’s home or business. As the connection with one satellite is lost, another comes within range and takes over the communication.

While GEO Satellite Internet is widely available and may seem ideal for many areas, particularly isolated rural areas with a good view of the southern sky, in practice it hasn’t been all that popular.  Complaints include limits on the download speed once certain monthly data transfer limits are exceeded, reliability of the signal in bad weather (snow and/or heavy rain), and high monthly subscription costs. For the most part, these shortcomings are a direct result of limitations imposed by physical laws governing the transmission of data, as well as the capacity of the satellite to handle subscriber demand for the service needed to run new internet applications. One of the reasons LEO Satellite Internet has received so much attention is that it may be able to work around some, but probably not all, of these limitations.

 A Little Science  

Understanding the physical laws that apply to the internet and working to minimize those limitations is the domain of scientists and engineers. Trying to talk their language to provide even  a high-level overview of the challenges they face can quickly result in a bunch of “technical gobble-de-goop.” However, others have developed some analogies that can be help illustrate these basic concepts, and even nontechnically trained folks like me usually can follow  them. Analogies like these do not provide answers on how best to “close the digital divide.” However, they can help in understanding the issues and challenges associated with different types of internet infrastructure, and they may help all of us, and especially our public officials, to make more informed choices of the technologies most appropriate for public-funded investment.

How Big is the Pipe?

The role of all internet infrastructure is to transport “data” from one physical location to another. Data is a series of 1’s and 0’s arranged in a specific sequence. An internet-connected device can decode this sequence and convert it into usable information. Things like email, texts, video calls or movies, audio recordings, large computer files (even this article) all can be converted into data, transmitted through the internet to another location, and then converted back into a usable format. Those wanting to learn a little more about how the internet works, and how it came into existence might enjoy this narrated presentation.

For purposes of understanding how different types of internet infrastructure work, it is useful to think of data moving through internet infrastructure as similar to water flowing through a pipe or a tube at a constant speed. Just as the amount of water that theoretically can move through a pipe in a given period of time will increase or decrease in relation to the diameter of the pipe that carries it, the amount of data that can be transferred through internet infrastructure will vary depending on the type of infrastructure used.

In other words, in a given period of time, a pipe that is 6 inches in diameter won’t  transport as much water as a pipe that is 12 inches in diameter. The same concept holds true for data moving through the internet. Certain technologies can be engineered to carry more data (more information) each second than others. This theoretical capacity to transfer data is called “bandwidth.” When we talk about internet service with download speeds of up to 25 Megabits per second, we really are saying that theoretically the technology being used to connect to the internet has the bandwidth – the capacity to move – 25 million “bits” of data (a megabit) through the internet each second. Different technologies (both wired and wireless) have different theoretical capacities to move data – different “bandwidths.”

Which technology has the highest theoretical bandwidth (the pipe with the greatest diameter)? Currently, first prize goes to fiber-optic cable. Paired with the right equipment fiber-optic cable now carries data at rates measured in the trillions of bits of data (Terabits) each second. To put that in perspective, a “trillion” is equal to a million-millions!

Wireless internet infrastructure technologies such as satellite internet move data by transmitting an electromagnetic signal (similar to that used for TV or radio signals) through the air (or through outer space). Wireless internet can achieve a very high “bandwidth” as well, measured in the billions of bits (or Gigabits) per second (a thousand-million bits per second).

Of course, wireless signals do not use a physical wire or cable of any type. But the “pipe” analogy can still apply if you understand that signals having a different frequency have a different “theoretical bandwidth.” The capacity of the signal to carry data from one point to another each second (its bandwidth) varies depending on the frequency of the signal. In general, the higher the frequency of the signal, the more information can be transmitted – the higher the theoretical bandwidth – the wider the diameter of the pipe.

If the transmitted signal has a high enough signal frequency, if the sender and receiver are within range and have a large enough antenna, and if there is an unobstructed line-of-site between sender and receiver, wireless internet technologies – theoretically – can transfer more than enough data to meet the requirements of current household internet applications. This is important, because it usually is much cheaper at least initially to install wireless internet networks that transmit data through the air than it is to bury or hang fiber-optic cable or other types of wired internet infrastructure.     

Theoretical Capacity and Practical Capacity

Leaky Pipes

You may be wondering why I continue to refer to the “theoretical” capacity of a wired or wireless internet to transfer data. The pipe analogy can help here as well. It may not have occurred to you, but the diameter of the pipe may not be the only thing that determines how much water a pipe can carry. Why? Well, the pipe might have a leak or two, and if the holes are large enough, or there are too many of them, you could end up losing quite a bit of the water.

Much the same holds true for the internet infrastructure. It turns out that if you are moving data through the air (or outer space) wirelessly, as you attempt to “increase the diameter of the pipe” (by increasing signal frequency) your “pipe” tends to get “much leakier.” You tend to lose more and more data the higher the frequency used to transmit the signal carrying the data. Of course, there is no pipe to leak. But data is lost because when signal frequency is raised to levels needed to transmit at bandwidth measured in the billions of bits per second, the signal cannot penetrate solid objects, and even snow or heavy rain will disrupt and, in some cases, interrupt the signal.

Scientists and engineers have found many ways to compensate for this “leaky pipe” problem, such as increasing the size and efficiency of the antenna or by using special techniques to improve the efficiency of data transmission, but it is not possible for GEO Satellite Internet, LEO Satellite Internet (or any other earth-based wireless technologies) to entirely overcome the issue. Building walls, tree leaves, heavy snow and strong rains, all will either disrupt the signal entirely or degrade and reduce the actual amount of information (data) transferred and received each second.

This same “data leaking” issue exists for “wired” internet infrastructure. For example, copper Ethernet cables can potentially carry up to 10 Gigabits of data per second, but only over a distance of 200 feet or less. After that, much of the data is lost (bandwidth is reduced) and eventually the connection is disrupted entirely. Coaxial cable can move data further without significant “leakage.” Again, however, the technology that has the least amount of “leakage” of data over longer distances is fiber-optic cable. It can transmit data without significant signal loss for distances up to 50 miles without refreshing and retransmission.      

GEO Satellite Internet — Too Long of a Run of Pipe …   

Taking the pipe example one step further, there are other physical laws that particularly impact the usefulness of GEO Satellite Internet. If water is flowing through a pipe, it’s obviously going to take some time to get from one end to the other and, of course, the longer the run of pipe, the longer it will take. The same principle applies for data moving through the internet but it’s not noticeable most of the time because unlike water making its way through your garden hose, bits of data move through copper wire, fiber-optic cable, the air and outer space  much faster– up to 186,000 miles each second, the speed of light.

Nevertheless, it does take some time. This delay is measured in intervals of one-thousandth of a second (milliseconds or “ms”), and the technical term used to describe the interval is “latency.” Latency normally is tested by sending data from one computer to the network remote server and back again through the internet network. This is sometimes called “pinging a server,” and the resulting “ping” is the recorded interval for data to complete the round trip. If you’d like an example to try this, the Missouri Broadband Resource Rail has an internet speed test you can use to test your connection’s bandwidth (uploading and downloading data measured in “Mbps”) and signal latency (measured in “ms”).    

High latency time isn’t that big a deal if you are sending or receiving email, watching a movie over the internet – or otherwise doing something that doesn’t require real-time two-way communication, but if you are playing an interactive video game, conducting a video conference call, or managing internet connected devices remotely, lower latency time becomes much more important. Most recently, Congress has limited grant funding for internet infrastructure to only those technologies capable of latency below 100 milliseconds (1/10th of a second).

Significant latency time has been a major drawback for GEO Satellite Internet, and it’s one that simply cannot be overcome through engineering. Moving data from a computer in Moberly, Missouri to St. Louis and back again, using GEO Satellite Internet is going to take a minimum of 480 milliseconds (approximately half a second) because of the distance involved (at least 22,236 miles 4 times). Of course, latency will be longer than this, because in practice the signal will not travel a direct route between two computers up to outer space and back, but instead will be routed thorough earth-based network infrastructure, and it will take additional time to navigate these switches and relays on earth.

Latency is not nearly as much of a concern with LEO Satellite Internet, simply because the signal need only travel a few hundred miles, up to the satellite and back. Of course, that will result in some signal delay, but early reports from SpaceX’s Starlink show that LEO Satellite can achieve latency well below 100 milliseconds.   

How Well Does LEO Satellite Internet Work?

To date, SpaceX’s Starlink has the only operational LEO Satellite Internet designed and available even on a limited basis to individual household users. This service is limited to certain specific locations with adequate satellite coverage, but more are being added and it is already available in some areas of Missouri.  The latest speed and performance tests for early adopters of Starlink’s better-than-nothing “beta” service have been positive.  The latest test data compiled by Speedtest confirms that the connection is far better than GEO Satellite Internet, but it also seems to illustrate the challenges that must be overcome if LEO Satellite Internet’s is to play more than a limited role in closing the digital divide.

The Speedtest results from July-September 2021 showed that on average connection speeds for LEO Satellite Internet were  more than 4 times faster than that achieved by GEO Satellite Internet and over 3 times faster than the minimum standard for broadband service set by the FCC in 2015 (25 Mbps download).  However, the service was still 35% slower than the average for other fixed wired connections tested and, potentially more troubling, the average connection speed declined by nearly 10 Mbps (from 97 Mbps to 87 Mbps) from the results reported by subscribers earlier in 2021.

In rural communities that currently lack any internet access other than GEO Satellite Internet or a first generation DSL connection, the “better than nothing” service offered by Starlink is much faster than other options, but based on the latest tests, it’s below the required levels set by Congress to qualify for grant funding. The Speedtest article speculates that the decline in service experience over the course of 2021 may be the result of an increase in the number of Starlink subscribers – too many subscribers all trying to access the satellite network at the same time.

Why would more customers result in a slower connection? Resorting once again to the “water flowing through a pipe” example, just as a pipe can handle only a finite amount of water passing through it each second, internet infrastructure can transfer only a limited amount of data each second.  When too many internet-connected devices in too many homes, schools, and businesses are all trying to access the internet at the same time, there are two choices – either the network stops working (it crashes), or the individual users – on average — see a decline in bandwidth and/or increased latency for their connection.

To prevent inadequate capacity from becoming a problem as the number of subscribers expand or their average use of the internet increases, an LEO Satellite Internet provider will need to reduce or limit the number of subscribers it serves, launch more satellites, upgrade and replace its satellites with models that can transfer more data (have a higher bandwidth) – or perhaps a combination of all three of these approaches. How many satellites might be needed to complete an LEO Satellite network that can serve consumers in all parts of the United States?  As of late 2021, Starlink currently had less than 2,000 satellites operating in orbit. As of November 2021, it reported that it has 140,000 customers in 20 countries around the world. The FCC has granted SpaceX a license to operate up to 4808 satellites. However, SpaceX recently said that to reach its desired network capacity – to serve customers across the United States and around the world with a network designed to provide capacity of 1 to up to 10 Gigabits per second, it needed a license from the FCC to operate nearly 30,000 satellites (more than 15 times the number it currently has on station). The fate of that request is uncertain, as questions and objections have been raised both to the location of satellite orbits, and to the risk posed from interference with other wireless communications.

Additionally, LEO satellites cannot operate indefinitely. Each satellite is estimated to have a useful life of approximately 7-10 years. This would seem to suggest that even after getting the full fleet of satellites in orbit, SpaceX would need to continue to launch more than 3,000 satellites a year just to maintain that network. Those costs presumably would need to be covered through monthly subscription fees or by permanent government operating subsidies (or both) in order for the company to earn a reasonable profit.

If 30,000 satellites were launched and operating, could LEO Satellite Internet serve at least 19 million Americans estimated by the FCC to be without adequate high-speed internet?  In late 2020, SpaceX received a preliminary grant award from the FCC of over $900 million in exchange for the company’s commitment to make internet service available to at least  643,000 locations in census tracts located in 35 states. The award required reliable delivery of at least 100 Mbps of bandwidth to each location. Competitors and others were skeptical of SpaceX’s ability to meet these requirements within 6 years as required by the terms of the grant, and provided the FCC with a study estimating that even with 12,000 satellites in orbit (the number then planned) the network could not serve this many locations at the required bandwidth level. However, the concern voiced about the specific grant may be academic, as the FCC has questioned whether many of the service locations SpaceX initially was awarded actually qualify for grant funding at all.  

A research report commissioned by Congress from last year catalogued many of these concerns and others, and concluded: “it is unclear—due to unknown factors such as the ability to reach fiber-like speeds, what the competition landscape may look like, or if LEO satellite broadband service will be affordable—whether the inclusion of LEO satellite broadband providers would help address the digital divide through their participation in federal broadband [grant funding] programs.”

No “One Size Fits All” Solution”

So, is LEO Satellite the answer?

No, it isn’t. But in some sense the same really is true of fiber-optic cable, coaxial cable, twisted copper, fixed wireless and all other infrastructure available to deliver internet service today.  There really is no “one size fits all” solution to the high-speed internet access problem, here in Missouri or in any other state. Different technologies or different “mixes” of technologies, likely will be needed to bridge the digital divide over the next several years. Different technologies have strengths and weaknesses that make them most appropriate for some installations and applications but not others.  In addition to theoretical and practical capacity (bandwidth) and the latency of the technology, other important characteristics include engineering difficulties, the cost of installation, ongoing maintenance and operating costs, and the time needed to plan, design and install the network.

Future-proofing the Internet Infrastructure

Yet perhaps among the more important considerations is the ability to increase network capacity to adapt to future increases in the demand for high-speed internet service. The electrification of rural America nearly a hundred years ago provides a useful analogy here. Electrical service installed in homes by the Rural Electrification Administration would be woefully inadequate to meet the requirements of modern homes and businesses. In most cases the service initially installed did not have the capacity to power one wall outlet in each room of the home. However, the service was adequate for the times. Modern electrical appliances we now use were not widely available; most had not even been invented. However, the electric power infrastructure that connected the homes and businesses anticipated these future needs, and could be upgraded over time to adapt to the increased demand for electric power.

We’ve seen the same pattern of ever-increasing demand today with the development of new internet applications and the proliferation of new internet-connected devices for homes and businesses. Together, these are feeding consumer demand for internet networks capable of delivering higher bandwidth and lower latency. This is reflected in the criteria used by the Federal Communication Commission and other federal funding programs. An internet connection capable of transmitting 1/5 of 1 Megabit of data per second (0.2 Mbps) was considered to be a “broadband connection” before 2010, when the standard was increased to 4 Mbps (a 20-fold increase), and yet again to 25 Mbps in 2015. Today, even that standard is widely viewed to be far too low. Last year Congress set the standard for federal grants to include only those networks offering service of at least 100 Mbps, 500 times what was deemed sufficient only 12 years ago!

The point here is that if the public is going to help fund broadband infrastructure, that infrastructure not only should be able to meet the needs of households and business over the 3-4 years that it will realistically take to plan, engineer, fund and deploy them, it also needs to be able to expand to meet future demand over the next few decades. Certain technologies (fiber-optic cable being the most obvious) clearly already has a proven capacity to expand far beyond the needs of any applications now contemplated. Others, such as standard copper telephone lines used to deliver digital subscriber line (DSL) connections, or GEO Satellite Internet, seem to have hit the limit of our ability to engineer ways around constraints imposed by their physical properties. While these internet technologies might still work for some applications, they seem clearly unsuited for a long-term, publicly funded investment that needs to have lasting value over several decades. Still others, like LEO Satellite Internet present closer questions. While the technology seems to hold some promise, the engineering behind wide scale deployment seems problematic.   

However, even taking the concerns and issues associated with LEO Satellite Internet into account, it would be a mistake to count it out as a useful technology. That should be evident by the substantial continued private investment being made by SpaceX, Amazon, OneWeb, and Telesat. Those companies could not raise substantial capital from private investors if there was no realistic market for LEO Satellite Internet service. The technology available and in use today for LEO Satellite Internet (both hardware and software) will continue to improve, and this likely will result in efficiencies and improved performance for earth-based antennas, the LEO satellites, and the rockets used to launch them. LEO Satellite Internet networks may play an important role in expanding earth-based 5G mobile phone and internet service, be a means of establishing temporary high-speed internet service in extremely remote locations, provide high-speed internet connections for container ships and cruise ships at sea, and keep international commercial airline passengers “connected.” Since the market will be world-wide, it’s likely LEO Satellite Internet will be an appropriate technology for some individual consumers in remote parts of the world as well.

That said, wired based technologies such as fiber-optic cable also continue to improve, and even though initial installation costs may be high, the cost and complexity to expand service to meet future demand likely will be far lower,  as will be the the potential for lower long-term operating costs.  The point here is that simply because LEO Satellite might be an appropriate solution for some consumers and applications, that doesn’t make it appropriate to minimize the obvious technological constraints that seem to make it inappropriate for wide-scale deployment in communities that need access now, particularly when other existing technologies can deliver superior levels of service today – and in the future.

11 Jan 2022

Broadband and the 2022 Missouri Legislative Session

by | posted in: | 0

By Marc McCarty

The regular session of the 2022 Missouri General Assembly is getting underway, and in terms of broadband legislation, it promises to be historic both in scope and in the amount of the public investment.

Governor Parson’s Proposal

A major part of the work this Session will be addressing Governor Parson’s spending priorities, and among those will be the $400 million proposed appropriation for broadband from the State’s share of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds.

I’ve written here and here about how ARPA funds provided directly to counties and municipalities can be used for broadband planning and infrastructure projects. Last Friday, the United States Treasury confirmed its earlier guidance on the use of these funds for broadband in a set of final regulations. The state received a separate distribution of money from the Federal government under ARPA as well.  The state’s share is $2.6 billion. The first $1.3 billion was distributed last fall, the balance will be available to the state later this calendar year.

How the $400 million is to be allocated will be outlined in greater detail in the Governor’s State of the State address on January 19th, but it is expected to be heavily weighted to broadband infrastructure grants (both last mile and middle mile broadband infrastructure) with lesser amounts provided for adoption and technical assistance. Officials with the Missouri Department of Economic Development have stated that they hope to have grant program documents in draft form by late spring, so that applications can be submitted around the beginning of the new fiscal year (July 1), assuming funding has been approved by the General Assembly.

There also are several bills related to broadband pre-filed last December, that will be considered during this Session.

Senate Bill 981

While it’s relatively short and simple, SB 981 might be the most consequential broadband bill this session, not so much because it creates a new program for funding broadband, but simply because it makes existing legislation potentially far more useful. The bill changes the definition of what it means to be without adequate fixed wired or wireless internet service by changing the definition of an “unserved” or  “underserved” location. This is important because state funding for broadband and several special financing tools for broadband infrastructure investment are available only for unserved or underserved locations.   

Currently, areas lacking service at data transfer rates (speeds) of at least 10 megabits per second (Mbps) download, and 1 Mbps upload are (10/1 Mbps) are considered to be “unserved.” Locations with fixed wired and wireless service of at least 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload (25/3 Mbps) are considered “underserved.”

SB 981 increases the “unserved” definition to 25/3 Mbps (25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload) and the underserved  definition to 100/20 Mbps (100 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload).   These new standards are the same as those incorporated in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (the IIJA). SB 981 also ties the unserved/underserved definition to future increases in the definition of broadband used by the Federal Communications Commission – the  FCC.

Why does this matter?  Many folks discovered during the pandemic that internet service which technically qualified as “broadband” (currently 25/3 Mbps) was not sufficient to perform critical tasks like telecommuting, online learning, and high-definition video, particularly if two or more folks were attempting to access the internet from the location at the same time. So, raising the standard to a level more able to serve household needs today, and making further increases dependent on FCC guidance as internet-based technologies require even higher service levels in the future, should dramatically increase the number of locations in the state that are eligible for financial assistance or special funding options today, and make the statutory definition capable of adapting existing programs to meet future needs.

The definition of unserved and underserved applied originally only to the Department of Economic Development’s broadband grant program. However, those same definitions now are cross-referenced in legislation that specifically permits certain broadband infrastructure projects to be financed by Community Improvement District, Neighborhood Improvement Districts (2020) and Broadband Infrastructure Improvement Districts (2021). Hopefully, if this legislation passes, the Department of Economic Development will quickly move to adopt procedures specifying how projects authorized under these laws can obtain confirmation that they are in an “unserved” or “underserved” area, so this legislation can be used effectively.

House Bill 2016     

Speaking of Broadband Infrastructure Improvement Districts, there’s legislation to make some changes here as well. The changes would allow any political subdivision of the state (not just municipalities) to form a Broadband Infrastructure Improvement District and allow for admission of rural cooperatives and investor-owned utilities as “partners” in the District.

Senate Bill 990

This Bill seeks to address the issue of charges for attaching fiber or other types of internet cable to existing utility poles that are owned by municipal utilities and rural electric cooperatives. Internet service providers (ISPs) often wish to attach their wires or cable to these poles in order to connect to homes and businesses. The problem is that the added weight or the need to separate data and power lines on the pole, often means the poles need to be replaced or “made ready” before the attachment can be made. Some internet service providers have complained that they are being charged too much for this and, of course, municipal utilities and rural cooperatives have a different perspective.

SB 990 seeks to address this by barring municipalities and rural electric cooperatives from charging an ISP for pole replacements in situations where the pole needed to be replaced for safety or other reasons (unrelated to the ISP’s need to connect) or where the pole was scheduled for replacement within two years of the proposed attachment. To address the concerns of municipal utilities and rural electric cooperatives, the bill would create a new fund to be administered by the Missouri Department of Economic Development that could cover up to 50% of the cost of pole replacements. Money for the new fund would need to be separately appropriated by the General Assembly or funded through federal grants or other contributions.

House Bill 2052

House Bill 2052 would establish a new “21st-Century Missouri Broadband Deployment Task Force” composed of representatives from government, trade associations telecoms, MU Extension and other ISPs. This task force would evaluate the status of broadband deployment, the process used to finance deployment, and make recommendations for improvement to the General Assembly annually over the next several years.

There also are several bills making “return appearances” this session – having failed to gain passage in prior sessions.

House Bill 1518

Not every broadband bill relates to investing public money to fund and expand broadband infrastructure. House Bill 1518 addresses the politically-charged issue of “net neutrality.” Similar legislation has been proposed  for the past several sessions and the issue has been debated at the FCC for the past ten years or more. The issue is whether and when, ISPs should be permitted to prioritize the transmission of certain types of data through the internet over that of others. Prioritization can become an issue when a large number of users are attempting to access the ISP’s network at the same time, and in some cases, prioritization could degrade the quality of service enjoyed by customers whose data was not given transmission priority.     

Democrats and a number of public advocacy groups generally favor laws and/or regulations mandating “net neutrality” (no prioritization of data), and most Republicans, along with the ISP industry, believe ISPs should be permitted to offer certain users or data priority over that of others. Laws similar to House Bill 1518 have been passed in a number of states but the ultimate resolution may lie with the federal government, because arguably Congress – and not the individual state legislatures — should decide the issue for the nation as a whole.

House Bill 2015 & Senate Bill 848

These identical Bills seek to authorize investor-owned regulated public electric utilities to offer broadband internet service.  If enacted, the “Electrical Corporation Broadband Authorization Act” would permit investor-owned electric utilities to use their existing internet assets (primarily fiber optic cable currently used to manage the power grid) to provide broadband internet service to others in certain situations. Passage of the legislation has been hampered in the past by the complexity of determining what role the Public Service Commission should play in contracting, customer rate setting, and accounting for shared expenses.

Background – Implementation of Federal Legislation — IIJA

The work of the General Assembly takes place in the background of work by federal government agencies – primarily the National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA) and the FCC to implement distribution of the $65 billion appropriated for broadband under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. As discussed previously, the IIJA will rely in large part on individual states to develop plans to distribute funds for broadband access and to encourage broadband adoption.  For this reason, efforts to develop the infrastructure within state government and their partners to efficiently work to expand broadband access and adoption this legislative session, likely will be a critical first step, and a model for applying much larger distributions of funds from the federal government in the future.     

3 Jan 2022

The Broadband DATA Act, RDOF, BEAD, The Long Slog Toward Broadband Access

by | posted in: | 0

By Marc McCarty

Happy New Year!

As 2022 begins, it seemed an appropriate time to take stock of progress we’ve made in funding broadband access. This blog checks in on some federal government programs that have gotten quite a few headlines over the past year or two, to see how implementation is going.

The Broadband DATA Act

The Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act (thankfully shortened to the “Broadband DATA Act”), doesn’t directly provide any money to build broadband infrastructure, but implementing it may be the key to actually spending the billions of dollars already appropriated by Congress for broadband buildout, and that’s part of the reason why the results to date have been a little disheartening.

The Broadband DATA Act became law March 23, 2020. One of its primary objectives is to once and for all identify – with a high degree of confidence – all areas in the United States where a broadband connection can be installed (a “Serviceable Location”).  Serviceable locations include those in urban as well as rural areas, and arguably should include businesses and institutions, as well as residences. A key provision of the Broadband DATA Act requires the FCC to define what a “Serviceable Location” is and to produce a “data set” that would enable folks to accurately locate all of them on a map. This is called the “FABRIC.” Internet providers and the public would then report whether fixed wired or wireless broadband service is (or could be) offered to each of these Serviceable Locations with existing infrastructure.  

Knowing all this is critical of course, because federal funding to assist in building internet infrastructure needs to be targeted to locations that currently do not have service available. Folks just “tuning into” this issue usually are shocked to learn that many billions of federal government dollars have already been directed to build out broadband infrastructure based on maps that everyone acknowledges are not very good. In fact, Missouri was one of two states where this was illustrated in a pilot project commissioned in 2019 by the broadband industry. This project was undertaken to determine the feasibility of creating the FABRIC, and to see how much it differed from the broadband access data that the FCC and others were using to award federal grants and loans.  The results were sobering: In Missouri, 36% of the rural Serviceable Locations identified using the FABRIC were not being reported at all (either as served or unserved) in the existing FCC data.

However, even though the need is obvious, progress in creating the FABRIC has been slow, even as the need for it has become even more critical. After the Act became law, the FCC reported that it could not begin work because it did not have the funds necessary to achieve the objectives of  the Broadband DATA Act. This was finally rectified in December 2020, when an additional $65 million was appropriated to the FCC by Congress.

So, where is the FABRIC? Well, that’s what Indiana Congresswoman Victoria Spartz wondered. So, in late September she sent a letter to FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, asking for a target date for completion of the FABRIC and related objectives of the Broadband DATA Act. It seemed a logical question, as the Commissioner was reported to have testified before Congress in March 2020 that the improved map could be produced in 3-6 months.

Commissioner Rosenworcel responded in early December. She did not provide a date for delivery of the FABRIC but did provide some reasons for delays in 2021. The FCC elected to contract out work to produce the FABRIC to a private company. After a series of false starts, the bid request was finalized in mid-August and the contract to build the FABRIC was awarded in early November. However, before work could start an unsuccessful bidder filed a protest with the General Accounting Office (GAO) and this has delayed any further work until February 2022 while the bidder’s protest is evaluated. Assuming the GAO does confirm the original award, once work commences it will be another four months before a preliminary version of the FABRIC is delivered.

Of course, that’s just the preliminary version of the FABRIC. There are also important policy questions that remain unresolved. For example, should Serviceable Locations identified as part of the FABRIC be limited to residences only, or should some or all all businesses and institutions be included as well. And of course, the preliminary version of the FABRIC will need to be vetted and updated, internet providers will need to report whether they can (or do) offer service at those locations, and this information will need to be verified by the FCC and the public, as required by the Act.

The Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) Auction

There are “real world” consequences to delays in implementing the Broadband DATA Act. On December 7, 2020, the FCC announced that $9.2 billion had been awarded on a “preliminary” basis to hundreds of private and public internet service providers to help fund the build out high-speed internet in unserved areas (census blocks) throughout the United States. While the announcement of this award was welcome, in an earlier blog I cautioned not to expect too much too soon because the awards were preliminary, recipients would have to go through a vetting process, and when the grant was finalized they would have six years to satisfy their commitment to build out service in the unserved areas.

However, these observations proved to be far too optimistic. Earlier this month, in response to a written inquiry signed by 19 members of Congress, Commissioner Rosenworcel detailed the challenges that have delayed the FCC in finalizing the awards. At that time, more than a year after the initial announcement, less than 20% of the preliminary award had been finalized and committed.

Because eligibility for grants was based on the FCC’s maps, the Commission determined that over 5000 census blocks that were announced as receiving awards last December needed to be removed because they clearly either had broadband service – or they never should have been included in the first place. Parking lots and international airports were among those receiving preliminary awards of funds in 2020.

While 5,000 census blocks is a big number, there were well over 60,000 census blocks that received an initial award, so there were still plenty of locations remaining. According to the Commissioner, the FCC continues to press on, reviewing details provided by winning bidders, and it will periodically continue to announce more locations and winning bidders that have successfully navigated the review process. Most recently, on December 16th, the FCC announced it would begin to fund an additional $1 billion (over 10 years) of the original $9.2 billion announced last December. That said, it is sobering that distribution of approximately 2/3 of the promised money has yet to begin, particularly in light of the 6-year period the awardees have to complete the required internet service connections.

The IIJA

Of course, by far the most newsworthy new federal funding program this year was the mammoth Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act (the IIJA). This law appropriates $42.4 billion to the new Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (or “BEAD”) Program. As noted in an earlier Blog, rather than the FCC, the agency primarily responsible for administering the BEAD Program is the National Telecommunication and Information Agency (NTIA). In addition, instead of direct federal grants to internet service providers, the BEAD Program contemplates that each state will establish its own program for broadband deployment, (subject to NTIA’s approval) and that NTIA will allocate each state a share of BEAD Program funds based primarily on how many underserved locations are present within the state as compared to the rest of the country. All this is supposed to commence with the publication of a “Notice of Funding Opportunity (or “NOFO”) to all states by May 14, 2022.

“How will NTIA figure what locations are served and unserved” you ask? Well, that will be based on the FABRIC and full implementation of the Broadband DATA Act. And of course, as noted earlier, delivery of the FABRIC and full implementation of the Broadband DATA Act is in the hands of the FCC.

What Comes Next?

A “slog” is a particularly tiring task that requires a lot of effort. A “long slog” describes situations where that effort is required for an extended time. The events of the last year certainly make it clear that this description is going to be appropriate for the process of getting the promised federal dollars necessary to build and deploy broadband into the hands of states, and ultimately to public and private internet service providers.

To some extent, local government, business, and institutions are at the mercy of the federal agencies charged with implementing the RDOF, the BEAD Program, and many other similar grant and loan fund programs; and those agencies must follow procedures mandated by law to account for the proper expenditure of those funds. However, that doesn’t mean it is appropriate to ignore situations where the bureaucracy appears to have run amok. If nothing else, keeping the lack of progress or inordinately slow progress front and center in the public’s mind may ultimately lead to procedural reforms within these agencies and perhaps within Congress as well.

It also seems apparent that it would be a mistake for state and local governments to wait for the FCC to compete the FABRIC. For one thing, it seems apparent that delivery of the final product will extend well into 2022 (and perhaps beyond). But at a more fundamental level, each state needs independent engineering and technical evidence to verify that the data the FCC and NTIA propose to use to distribute federal grants is accurate and complete. Thankfully, Missouri is moving in that direction, and in November awarded a contract for a detailed assessment of fixed and wireless broadband deployment needs, and estimates of the cost to make fixed wired and wireless broadband service available throughout each county in the state. That work should be completed this spring, well in advance of the completion of even the preliminary FABRIC.

Likewise, state and local governments already have funds available through the American Rescue Plan Act to assess community needs and resources available to improve broadband service, with a view and to beginning the process of deploying broadband in their communities. While there are many priorities that arguably need to be addressed with this money, broadband certainly is one of them, and the Governor’s proposal to commit $400 million of the state’s share of those funds to broadband deployment, should serve as an example for counties and cities as they decide how to spend their American Rescue Plan Act funds.