We have long urged the FCC to include community networks in discussions around subjects like Universal Service Fund reform -- where communities are better poised to build the networks they need than private companies. The good news is that the FCC is now listening; the bad news is that they are listening during a short window in the middle of August. Doh!Nonetheless, we urge as many of you as possible to file whatever information you can to inform the FCC. Public Knowledge and the Benton Foundation are coordinating a filing to make it easier on you -- a recent email copied below explains further. Please contact me or one of the people below if you have any questions - getting good information in front of the FCC is essential for them to make the right decision. From Public Knowledge and Benton:
In reforming this portion of the fund the FCC has requested addition information on the idea of communities “self-provisioning” their broadband service. Specifically the Commission is considering requiring all fund recipients to open up their networks to self-provision communities at reasonable rate. Right now this requirement would be limited to self-provisioners that are in areas where USF recipient may have facilities nearby BUT the USF recipient is not providing service to the self-provisioning community.
We think that small, independent or community based ISPs are just the kind of folks the FCC envisions to be “self-provisioning” an unserved community. Public Knowledge and the Benton Foundation are working together to document input from current “self-provisioners” to help answer some of the questions in this proceeding. If you are interested in participating you can either file a comment on your own by August 24, 2011 or work with PK and Benton’s attorneys to put together a coordinated filing.
Note: You can file confidential information with the FCC in the proceeding using the procedures outlined in this document.
If you are interested in working with PK and Benton please answer the following questionnaire with as much detail as possible and email to Amina Fazlullah or John Bergmayer by August 24th 2011.
The FCC needs data on how various kinds of small, independent, community-based, or other ISPs serve their customers.
How much does it cost you to serve your average customer?
What are your main costs (equipment, backhaul, customer support...)?
What is your main source of funding (payments from customers, grants, etc)?
What kind of entity are you (a sole proprietorship, a nonprofit, a corporation, etc)?
How many people do you employ? Are they based in your local community or elsewhere?
Is it cheaper for you to serve your average customer, than it would be for an outside carrier to serve that same customer?
What are the characteristics of your area that make you well-suited to serve it?
Are there features of the geography or population distribution that call for custom solutions?
Does your service require customer support of a level that larger carriers might be unsuited to provide?
If you were to make use of a small fund that enabled you to purchase extra equipment, what would you buy first? How many extra customers would this help you to serve?
If you were to make use of a small fund that enabled you to purchase extra equipment, what would you buy first? How many extra customers would this help you to serve?
Do other providers serve your area? If so, how does your service compare with theirs?
Please provide whatever other information you think would be relevant to the FCC in deciding whether to direct funds to organizations like yours.
Language added to a New York State budget bill is threatening to undermine a municipal broadband grant program established by Gov. Kathy Hochul’s office earlier this year. Buried near the bottom of the Assembly budget proposal is a Trojan horse legislative sources say is being pushed by lobbyists representing Charter Spectrum, the regional cable monopoly and 2nd largest cable company in the U.S. that was nearly kicked out of New York by state officials in 2018 for atrocious service.
Hardy Telecommunications, a small community-owned cooperative, connected its first fiber customer in 2013. Slowly and consistently, the cooperative has been expanding its fiber network and is now serving over 5,000 subscribers.
Los Angeles becomes first city in the nation to define digital discrimination at the local level in the wake of the new rules issued by the Federal Communications Commission to prevent digital discrimination. Other cities from Oakland to Cleveland are also leveraging the new FCC rules for local action.
Waterloo, Iowa’s municipal broadband project has taken a major step forward after nearly two decades of planning. Waterloo Fiber officials just launched their first limited fiber trial, will connect their first commercial customers in February, and are on target to deploy affordable fiber at speeds up to 10 gigabit per second (Gbps) to every last city resident by 2026. Construction of the network began last summer at a groundbreaking ceremony hosted by Waterloo Mayor Quentin Hart. Last month the city connected the first of four participants in a limited pilot project.
Over 22 Americans now enrolled in the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) are weeks away from being officially notified of its pending termination as ACP funds are on track to be depleted by the end of April. Given the increasingly likely chance Congress will not act before the fund runs out of money, the Federal Communications Commission is freezing enrollment as Internet service providers who have participated in the program since its inception two years ago are turning their focus to how to wind down the benefit.
As we approached the new year, and after more than a decade of criticism, the FCC finally moved to tackle the agency’s long-dated definition of broadband with an eye on nudging the industry toward faster broadband deployments. But many industry watchers say the belated reform inquiry arrives late and long after other agencies have filled the void left by a lack of FCC leadership.