Opinion

US must resist South Korea's high-tech power grab

By 

Michael O'Reilly

 

August 30, 2022 06:00 AM

The U.S. high-tech industry has produced one of the greatest innovation stories in history, resulting in millions of jobs and trillions in investment and economic growth.

For this reason, foreign nations look at the U.S. technology industry as an imposing economic locomotive built to disrupt the future. American-led technology creates huge economic value globally. But rather than thoughtfully dealing with any growth problems, some would rather derail it with flawed, self-serving schemes that target U.S. success and make consumers pay the price.

One of the latest, more perverse cases was hatched in South Korea. Seoul has introduced a "streaming and online tax" designed to install new "fees" on U.S. online content providers to funnel money directly to South Korean internet service providers. Such unprecedented overreach to impose new burdens only on one foreign country is shortsighted. It should be summarily rejected. Every country has a legitimate right to oversee business practices in its own nation. It is in our collective economic interests for nations to treat our respective companies fairly when considering new regulations, fees, and obligations.

This stance held true during the Trump administration when European countries attempted to impose a flawed digital services tax regime on American high-tech companies. The Biden administration has defended these same U.S. companies abroad.

It is thus frustrating to see South Korea pursue such a troubled, anti-U.S. policy. Seoul enjoys favorable U.S. relations and trade treatment. It also benefits from vast U.S. security guarantees that are largely funded by U.S. taxpayers. This allows South Korea to limit its own military spending in the face of North Korea's significant threat. Why is South Korea taking punitive action against U.S. interests?

Painted as a way to fund growing broadband infrastructure, Seoul's proposed new fees punish U.S.-based internet content providers, which are only guilty of bringing entertainment and consumer services to Koreans. It would be just as harmful to free trade for U.S. officials to target Korean companies and impose a fee on them for use of networks in the United States, be they levies against Hyundai for use of our roads or LG for use of our electric grid. Should U.S. companies charge K-pop artists for making extremely popular videos that are streamed in the U.S.?

Interestingly, the South Korean legislation is reportedly driven by the popularity of U.S. content that allegedly has increased internet traffic. They say "content" has supposedly forced local ISPs to invest and expand their network capacity. While those claims are debatable and seem to be a function of traditional consumer demand, their purported remedy is fraught with unintended consequences, including punishing Korean broadband users. Moreover, other non-U.S.-related internet traffic, such as video calling, financial services, and stock trading, generates high peaks and volumes at certain times, also introducing capacity problems for ISPs.

More pointedly, most of the costs of South Korea's legislation would likely be passed to consumers. Other internet goods and services could see increases as well. Heavy broadband usage is a sign of a successful product and happy customers for Korean ISPs who will continue to rely on this connectivity. Don't misunderstand me, these companies should be free to establish additive fees on very high-traffic broadband users consuming above set amounts.

Instead, Seoul's proposed fee would place a bull's-eye on every other content provider on the internet, large or small, especially those located outside of the country. Consequently, South Korean online content companies should ready themselves as they, too, may soon face a mandate for fees from ISPs in other nations, should this precedent spread globally.

There remains hope that South Korea's new government will see the light and reverse course on negative actions toward U.S. online content providers and Korean consumers. President Yoon Suk Yeol has shown his support for upholding a market economy and strengthening ties between the two countries. But the U.S. should actively fight any effort to curtail internet innovation.

Michael O'Reilly is a private consultant, former Federal Communications Commission commissioner, and prior longtime congressional staff member. His consulting firm provides advice to a select group of telecommunications and technology companies. It does not represent or provide any work for an internet service provider on the issue discussed in this op-ed.

• Technology

Extend Auction Authority Now

Posted to Technology September 22, 2022 by Michael O'Rielly

Having served for decades as a government policymaker and regulator, my experience suggests that it is not exactly rare to see federal programs misfire, or worse, completely waste taxpayer funds.  

For those select instances, however, when programs are efficient and effective, successes must be celebrated and continued. That is precisely the case for the Federal Communications Commission’s spectrum auction authority. Set to expire soon, Congress must find common ground to continue this vital mechanism for awarding spectrum licenses. To do otherwise would set a horrible precedent, setting back wireless communications policy at precisely the wrong moment.

By all accounts, the multi-award-winning U.S. spectrum auctions have been a huge success. Strongly supported by Republicans and Democrats over the last 30 years, auction authority has never been allowed to expire. That’s partly because multi-round auctions have proven the best way to get licenses into the hands of those who value them most and have been a godsend at bringing wireless innovation to market — resulting in jobs and investment happening in the United States.

The FCC’s process also brings immeasurable transparency, efficiency and objectivity to awarding all-important licenses. As an added nicety, hundreds of billions have been raised (directly and indirectly) for the Treasury, allowing spending for other worthy purposes and recouping value for a public resource.

Policymakers should not misremember the prior mechanisms for awarding licenses. Simply put, they were an unmitigated disaster, furthering the goals of the well-connected through highly subjective beauty contests or those lucky enough to see their magic ping-pong balls plucked like church bingo balls. In the end, the old methods regularly resulted in licenses eventually changing hands in the private market at the expense of other interested parties, potential competitive forces, and the American public.

The practical effect of any auction authority expiration should be unsettling.  Beyond delaying auctions for any licenses in the FCC’s inventory, including returned AWS-4 licenses, and potentially creating chaos at the agency by sidelining numerous FCC spectrum experts, authority expiration would tell the capital markets that U.S. wireless licensing is less than stable, which could raise future borrowing costs and punish respective equities. This would come when our nation wants greater investment and industry leadership in so-called 5G and 6G wireless networks. Just like faith in the dollar, if federal borrowing authority were to expire, once trust in spectrum auctions is compromised, it would be exceedingly difficult to re-establish.

Equally important, countries worldwide closely watch the United States, and allowing auction authority to lapse sends the wrong signal about the importance of U.S. leadership in 5G and future generations of wireless. We are on the cusp of another World Radio Conference in 2023 and lapsed auction authority is not our best posture for international spectrum negotiations. 

Additionally, numerous international governing bodies conduct spectrum auctions because of U.S. prodding. I was part of countless efforts to spread the gospel of auction advantages, partly for the benefit of U.S. companies investing abroad.  Some of these international regulators would relish the chance to return to a world of awarding licenses by picking their favorites and punishing their enemies.

Extending auction authority must have balanced expectations and a modicum of innate responsibility. To get more commercial wireless spectrum into the market, all affected parties must come to the table ready to deal. Yet, federal agencies have a long record of delaying and thwarting spectrum progress. Over and over, I’ve seen these same federal entities — with no incentive to shrink their spectrum holdings — avoid engagement, obfuscate the facts, and then complain to policymakers when decisions, undeniably grounded in science, don’t go their way.

That means getting an extended commercial spectrum pipeline, which is critical, will likely take longer than a few months to hammer out. Experience tells us that it will be a long process that could take the better part of a year and only occurs with the inclusion of a firm deadline in law and corresponding watchful eyes by the respective congressional telecom leaders.

U.S. spectrum policy fundamentally requires a solid licensing regime that begins with spectrum auctions. The authority to conduct these auctions shouldn’t be curtailed by neglect. Congress can and should move extension authority very soon and do so with the understanding that longer-term commercial spectrum identification and reallocation efforts likely will take into late 2023 or longer.

About the Author

Michael O'Rielly

Michael O'Rielly is a former FCC Commissioner and a twenty-year staff member of the 

U.S. Senate and House focusing on technology and telecommunications policy. 

He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

 

Government Can Improve American Lives by Freeing Up More Wireless Frequencies

By Michael O’Rielly
September 19, 2022

Our ever-increasing wireless world produces cosmic-sized benefits for American consumers and our society. From lifestyle information and health improvements to emergency communications and work productivity, wireless connectivity can sprout longer and fuller lives. Yet, this can only happen if wireless frequencies — slices of the electromagnetic spectrum — are made available for newer and far-reaching technologies. That is not exactly the situation today, and the latest example is with the 12 GHz band, where the case for a great 5G candidate band is being muddled by specious claims of possible problems to existing users. 

By all accounts, additional spectrum is critically needed for next generation wireless services, be it 5G or eventually 6G. Statistics by the wireless industry show mobile data use reaching the stratosphere, soaring by over 100 times in the last decade. Couple this with the need for larger contiguous spectrum blocks (or slices) for unlicensed and licensed uses – think autonomous vehicles and augmented/virtual reality – and you have a major demand issue. On the supply side, all of the past efforts I helped lead to bring more bands to the commercial marketplace haven’t been enough to keep pace. Despite adding C-band, 3.4 GHz, CBRS, and others as newly instituted 5G bands, spectrum experts are clear: U.S. wireless providers face a shortfall of hundreds of megahertz, especially if we seek to remain a world leader in wireless services.

This should be needle-moving for Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to make new mid-bands available, via reallocations or increased sharing regimes. More 5G spectrum bands will bring new and expanded services by existing providers and permit new entrants a chance to obtain spectrum – allowing both to immediately implement vertical use cases, which may have started slow but are starting to ignite like a rocket ship. 

With the spectrum cupboard essentially bare, few good mid-band options for 5G can be found on the horizon. That is why the 12 GHz band makes so much sense. It’s completely free from Federal government users, which have been the 800-pound gorillas of past spectrum fights. It’s also within stone’s throw of other bands so as to be economically viable for manufacturers and network deployers. Lastly, it enjoys the cheering support from so many current band users and the public interest community. These are no small feats in spectrum policy.  

Sadly, standing on the other side of all this is a newer band user Starlink, funded and run by the world’s richest individual, Elon Musk. As you can imagine, he has not been shy in tweeting his position on the 12 GHz band, even if those tweets don’t align with the actual history of the band. In short, he and his satellite offering, Starlink, are objecting to increased terrestrial use of the band on the notion that doing so will cause harm to its satellite broadband subscribers. While I am a huge proponent of low earth orbit satellite services, this is an interesting stance given that Starlink has rights to 15,000 megahertz of other spectrum bands to serve the exact same purpose. From the beginning, Starlink’s right to use 12 GHz was explicitly and meticulously conditioned on accepting interference from other band users. Moreover, its engineering analysis to argue against 5G leadership in the band is extremely tortured, and has fueled a blatantly manipulative write-in campaign to misdirect simple facts. To no surprise, positions such as these just so happen to be the same behavior taken time and time again by those seeking to block spectrum efficiency efforts. 

Appropriately, the fundamental question the FCC is exploring at this stage is whether the 500 MHz at 12 GHz band can be used for expanded land-based uses without disrupting existing users, not which entities should get any resulting licenses or how to award them. Avoiding other contentious issues is smart and makes this solely a judgement of mathematical projection and probability. Any credible examination of the science submitted in the Commission’s record — not the paper-thin, self-serving outcomes of Starlink and its compatriots — shows that it can. But no one has to rely on my word for it, as the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), one of the crown jewels of the FCC, is closely reviewing the engineering and supporting facts on the matter. OET’s earned reputation for rigorous work is beyond reproach, respected both domestically and internationally. Given its cautious nature, if OET ultimately finds that increased sharing the band can be accomplished, you can take that to the bank.  

If U.S. policymakers want continued success from our wireless ecosystem of providers, innovators, manufacturers, and more, than adding more terrestrial mid-band spectrum is essential. The 12 GHz band is a strong fit for this purpose, assuming OET agrees to permit terrestrial use in a band sharing regime. Any claims to prematurely stop or usurp OET’s work before it is complete should be recognized for what they are – attempts to push away from a science and fact-led process. It shouldn’t work ever, and it shouldn’t work in the evaluation of the 12 GHz band.

Michael O’Rielly is former Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a Visiting Fellow at The Hudson Institute’s Center for the Economics of the Internet and Senior Fellow at the Media Institute.

 

Responding to Biden Administration’s Tech Neutrality Rejection
By Michael O’Rielly

For decades in communications policy, Republicans and Democrats have uniformly supported the principle that government(s) should not pick technology winners or losers.  This simple concept, best known as technology neutrality, has served our nation well, preventing countless missteps and allowing a greater chance for innovators to win the marketplace.  Despite this great work, the Biden Administration recently rejected the concept in a key part of its latest broadband funding initiative at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) within the Department of Commerce.  You don’t have to take my word alone: this exact point was included in a thoughtful critique of NTIA’s actions by some of the lead Senate authors of the broadband provisions.[1]

Effectively ignoring this basic principle (and the underlying law), the Administration essentially has done everything possible – absent strict mandates – to favor fiber broadband technology over any other when awarding the $41.601 billion in competitive grants under the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program.[2]  In doing so, the Administration has unfairly penalized other innovative technologies, such as licensed fixed wireless access (FWA) providers or Low Earth Orbit Satellite systems.  This has huge ramifications, including driving up broadband costs and deployment timelines in the short-term and leaving consumers unserved in the longer-term.  For State Broadband Offices, which have been empowered by Congress to expand broadband access to the unserved families throughout the nation, it makes their jobs that much harder.

What is Technology Neutrality?

Technology neutrality is based on the simple concept that policymakers are not necessarily technologists or market experts.  They are far and away not in a position to select which technologies should be allowed to succeed and which ones should fail.  Instead, healthy reliance and trust is placed with the innovators, manufacturers, market researchers, and ultimately the consuming public to determine which products and services will capture the attention of consumers and enterprises.  This doesn’t come blindly, as policymakers often enact parameters or broader requirements to roughly shape the offerings to be made.  Industry associations also can prevent complete freewheeling by enacting and adopting standards and specifications.  Within this larger framework, however, it is the private marketplace that gets to decide the future of technology.

This structure has proven highly effective over command-and-control approaches, as it inherently incorporates market demand into the equation while removing the subjectivity of elected or appointed officials.  History is replete with example after example of applications of technology neutrality that generated surprising results as to which features and/or functions were more important for eventual adoption.  Does anyone remember when VHS media players beat the more robust but pricier BETA versions?  Reversing technology neutrality comes with the belief that the technology selected is absolutely correct for all applicable situations. 

Adherence to the principle doesn’t leave policymakers without a role, it just directs their attention and authority to a much higher regulatory layer.  Consider that there is a notable difference between suggesting or even pushing industry to decide on a uniform phone charging port (a dubious policy for sure) and mandating that a future one can only be USB-C, as the European Commission recently did (even more outrageous).  Likewise, government officials can set minimum performance requirements for programs without selecting a particular technological outcome, as the FCC did in 2019 with the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF). 

In the case of broadband, rejecting technology neutrality doesn’t make sense.  Fiber is an absolutely wonderful technology.  With the right electronics, it allows for digital communications at fast speeds, high capacity, low latency, and high longevity.  It just so happens to be expensive to purchase, often hard and time-consuming to deploy, difficult to obtain, and uneconomical in situations.  Other technologies, namely FWA and LEOs, can offer comparable functionality without some of the downsides.  For instance, FWA can provide greater resiliency compared to aerial fiber builds, common architecture for rural deployments.  Moreover, these alternatives are improving at galactic speed, reducing any perceived deficiencies, and can serve as gateway technologies for decades to come with enormous benefits – not harm – to the consumer or enterprise Internet access experience.  Simply put, non-fiber technologies can offer far greater deployment timelines, which may matter tremendously to an unserved consumer: a few months compared to fiber’s multiyear builds.  That is not to suggest, all things being equal, that fiber is inferior but all things being equal requires consideration of other factors into the equation, which must include cost and deployment speeds. 

It is particularly egregious to ignore or denigrate the capabilities of FWA as a broadband technology.  Today, millions of American families use fixed wireless as a means to obtain Internet access, and its growth expectations are substantial.[3]  The technology uses spectrum, whether licensed or unlicensed, to beam wireless Internet from tower or antenna points to individual locations.  For functionality, the technology has shown to be capable of, depending on certain conditions, offering multi-hundreds of megabits per second high-speed, high-capacity Internet access (and upwards of a gigabit or more[4]) with comparable downloads.  Verizon’s residential FWA offering, 5G Home, is up to 300 Mbps for $25.00 per month.  Over the last many years, FWA has been the drink of water in a desert for millions of rural Americans.  Their livelihoods and lifestyles have depended on those connections.  Why would government officials turn their backs on that contribution to rural economic development?  Everyone should also acknowledge that a very tiny number of consumers, if any, come close to needing more than these capabilities today or in the near future.        

The Infrastructure Law & the NOFO

While the broadband provisions within the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) may have been drafted by a few members of Congress, the resulting text was consecrated by a majority of members and then signed by the President.  According to the law, “The Assistant Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, carry out this title in a technological neutral manner.”[5]  Use of the verb “shall” should be viewed as removing any discretion by NTIA, and reliance on the inclusion of the phrase “to the extent practicable” does not undermine this requirement.  Admittedly, the statute provides NTIA latitude to define broadband performance criteria, it does not provide a carve-out to the technology neutral requirement, beyond the extent practicable clause.  It is not reasonable to suggest that adopting a technology neutral selection for underlying broadband technology is not practicable since it has been done by many other federal agencies in the broadband sphere.  Arguably there are other provisions where the extent practicable clause may be applicable, but not in the selection or approval of acceptable broadband technology. 

Despite the statutory language, NTIA has effectively declared fiber, a non-technologically neutral approach, as the default selection for funding by determining that “Priority Broadband Projects” are those that use end-to-end fiber-optic architecture[6].  NTIA officials have reiterated this point by multiple officials, including comments by Andy Burke of NTIA who stated that “You will see that we have clearly expressed a preference for fiber.”  Moreover, the NOFO confirms early in its Overview that, “the Program prioritizes projects designed to provide fiber connectivity directly to the end user.”[7]   

Here again, the recent Senate letter provides helpful input and rebuttal.  It states, “the law prioritizes those providers who can deliver the buildout speeds we require with consistency, have the ability to scale speeds up over time, and are able to help support the deployment of 5G and other advanced services throughout its useful life. The NOFO contradicts this by explicitly stating that fiber is the only technology that can meet the definitions of a priority project. That is not the case. Never in the legislation did Congress stipulate that one technology was able to meet these needs above any other. Fiber, fixed wireless, and cable providers have all demonstrated an ability to reliably serve customers at the 100/20 Mbps required speed, an ability to scale up service over time, and an ability to support deployment of other advanced telecommunication services.”[8] In addition to these alternatives, keep in mind that unlicensed FWA and LEOs may be capable of meeting this standard too, and these alternative technologies will most likely only continue to improve.

FWA Ramifications

The decision to ignore tech neutrality permeates how the NOFO funding will be allocated for FWA networks and other applicable systems in at least two ways. 

Licensed FWA

The good news is that the NOFO allows FWA networks using hybrid licensed and fully licensed spectrum networks to be selected as subgrantees (i.e., broadband providers) by state broadband offices.  The NOFO defines “reliable broadband service” to include fiber-optic technology, cable hybrid fiber-coaxial, DSL technology, and terrestrial fixed wireless technology utilizing entirely licensed spectrum or using a hybrid of licensed and unlicensed spectrum.  This last clause means that there is definitional exclusion for FWA licensed and hybrid offerings, as exists with other technologies.  That said, the NOFO requires state broadband offices to select “priority broadband projects” – i.e., fiber builds – anywhere there is a qualified fiber applicant and absent an NTIA waiver to pick an acceptable alternative technology including applicants with locations exceeding the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold.  The NOFO specifically states, “NTIA has determined that ‘Priority Broadband Projects’ are those that use end-to-end fiber-optic architecture.”  Beyond ignoring tech neutrality, this structure adds an extra hurdle for a state to select FWA licensed or hybrid systems to serve its citizens. 

FWA licensed offerings are not likely to have spectrum congestion issues, as the licenses were obtained at market and include exclusive use rights.  In fact, licensed FWA providers architect their systems and utilize the appropriate spectrum bands to ensure service quality for users.  Does anyone really believe that users of T-Mobile’s successful FWA offering[9] are bypassing a fiber product by accident or somehow welcome an inferior service?  With upwards of two million recent customer adds this year, licensed FWA seems to be treated by the market as a broadband alternative. 

Policy wise, NTIA’s decision is potentially troubling as it narrows where an exceptionally constructed, highly capable FWA licensed or hybrid network would be eligible to receive BEAD funds.  On its face, it seems to inappropriately treat those offering these systems as second-class service providers, letting qualified pure fiber builders pick their desired territories and leave any remnants of unserved (and eventually underserved) areas to licensed FWA and others.  For states trying to ensure that every citizen obtains broadband access, this limits their options to improve cost efficiencies, thereby increasing the likelihood of running out of overall funding.  U.S. policy has made clear: NTIA owes it to taxpayers to connect every American household and that requires all technologies.  It should be criminal for this problem to exist when this program concludes. 

On the provider side, limiting FWA licensed and hybrid spectrum networks to this universe, while excluding its use in areas that may be more fruitful, will likely result in fewer applicants, and consequently, participating providers.  Consider that fewer applicants in an effective reverse auction for competitive grants, for instance, means less competition and ultimately fewer matching funds from the subgrantees, and thus more NTIA funding.  Did we somehow forget that the RDOF scoring rubric meant baseline FWA applicants kept gig-tier applicants honest in the support funding they would be willing to accept?

Unlicensed FWA

For FWA networks using only unlicensed spectrum, the NOFO deems them as not “reliable broadband service” meaning that the technologies face a higher set of hurdles, requiring an NTIA waiver and then in only “extremely high cost per location threshold” (EHCPLT) areas. 

Categorically discounting unlicensed FWA projects (except in EHCPLT areas) should be viewed as objectionable as it ignores the real-world application of unlicensed FWA networks operating today. Networks that deliver capable and reliable broadband to both urban and rural consumers today.  In fact, many rural parts of America have only a FWA network as an option because it is uneconomic to build a wireline network.  To the extent the subsidies in the NOFO remove cost as an issue, it doesn’t undermine the historical value brought forward by unlicensed FWA providers or justify that these networks be summarily excluded from funding. 

Additionally, the loudest objection to unlicensed services usually is based on uncertainty to obtain spectrum and possible band congestion.  Yet, in many of the unserved and even underserved areas of America, unlicensed spectrum is not necessarily subject to such constraints.  One only needs to take a look at the CBRS Priority Access Licenses to see where licenses were not claimed as a measurement of crowding in these markets.  In congested areas, new radio technologies such as beamforming and noise nulling enable unlicensed spectrum to perform comparably to its licensed counterparts.  Further, to the extent existing unlicensed bands are congested, new bands – including 5.9 GHz and 6 GHz – are coming to the market in short order.  Policymakers should be raising questions over the delay to complete any necessary proceedings so these bands can be put to use for broadband expansion. 

State Broadband Office Options

It seems safe to assume that NTIA is locked into its approach and sadly will not be changing the NOFO, notwithstanding the views of key Senators in the recent letter.  Absent other funding, there should be real questions as to whether NTIA’s focus on fiber will ensure there is enough money to fund every unserved location. 

Even with the elevated subsidies under BEAD, it’s almost a guarantee that many states may have to use the Fiber-only waiver or the EHCPLT waiver processes to some degree.  States and Territories are required to file their five-year broadband plans next now that all have provided letters of interest to participate in BEAD funding. These five-year plans will serve as a good sanity check and indication of whether alternative technologies beyond fiber are needed to steward NTIA funding.  Given that the States and Territories are charged with bringing broadband to all unserved (and then underserved) locations, how can they best react to the NOFO’s waiver processes while ensuring their five-year action plans to best fit the needs of their constituents? 

1.      Seek Clear Waiver Criteria

States should be seeking clear guidelines and specific criteria from NTIA of exactly how the waiver processes will work and how readily petitions will be granted.  While NTIA has sent signals in the broadband community that it will liberally approve these petitions, such private assurances are not worth all that much given NTIA’s ultimate rejection of tech neutrality.  Putting state broadband officers in an impossible position of risking billions in federal funding on a wink and a nod that federal bureaucrats will not enforce their clear fiber-preference guidance is not acceptable.  States should expect, and more appropriately demand, a more defined criteria to make sure their broadband plans are not rejected by NTIA or OMB and as a result the efforts required to complete them are wasted.  And this needs to be done publicly and early, otherwise other technologies are likely to skip even seeking participation.  Moreover, States and Territories should expect that there will be a presumption in favor of granting any waiver submitted.  

2.      Liberally Apply Waiver Asks

NTIA intentionally built waivers into the NOFO and did not include discouraging language, meaning that it should fully expect that States and Territories will seek waivers.  Accordingly, NTIA officials should be held accountable to this guidance (and in subsequent public comments of waiver receptivity).  That means States and Territories should actively build waivers into their five-year action plans, advocate that FWA and other alternative technologies submit applications, and generally welcome the waiver process, rather than seeing it only as an emergency-only case option.  At some point, it would also be rational to move to a pro forma, properly structure waiver process to minimize confusion and bureaucracy. 

3.      Set EHCPLT at Reasonable Levels

Similarly, States and Territories should consider setting their respective EHCPLT at reasonably lower levels to account for funding issues and needs of unserved residents. If these thresholds are set too high, then alternative providers will not have sufficient locations to make business cases to reach the remnant locations left after other grants are awarded.

*             *             *

The opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and are not intended to be a submission to the Federal Communications Commission (or any other government agency or proceeding) with the intent to influence agency employees in the performance of their official duties in any current or future Commission matter.

---

[1] Letter to Sec. Raimondo BEAD NOFO Aug 18 2022 (senate.gov)

[2] This represents the $42.45 billion minus the minimum administrative costs retained by NTIA as allowed in the statute.  See NOFO p. 29.

[3] See for example, Global Data US fixed wireless access subscriptions will capture 9% of broadband accounts by 2026 driven by user demand and government intervention & Advanced Television Research: T-Mobile to top US 5G FWA connections | Advanced Television (advanced-television.com)

[4] Gigabit Speeds Achieved in FWA Test - Inside Towers

[5] See Section 60307(b) of the IIJA.

[6] See pg. 42 BEAD NOFO

[7] BEAD NOFO.pdf (doc.gov) p. 7

[8] Letter to Sec. Raimondo BEAD NOFO Aug 18 2022 (senate.gov)

[9] T-Mobile now boasts a million 5G FWA customers | TechRadar