318
submitted 11 months ago by krolden@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.ml

A group of Internet service providers that won government grants are asking the Federal Communication Commission for more money or an "amnesty window" in which they could give up grants without penalty.

The ISPs were awarded grants to build broadband networks from the FCC's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF), which selected funding recipients in December 2020. A group calling itself the "Coalition of RDOF Winners" has been meeting with FCC officials about their requests for more money or an amnesty window, according to several filings submitted to the commission.

The group says broadband construction costs have soared since the grants were announced. They asked for extra money, quicker payments, relief from letter of credit requirements, or an amnesty window "that allows RDOF winners to relinquish all or part of their RDOF winning areas without forfeitures or other penalties if the Commission chooses not to make supplemental funds available or if the amount of supplemental funds the Commission does make available does not cover an RDOF Winner's costs that exceed reasonable inflation," a July 31 filing said.

A different group of ISPs urged the FCC to reject the request, saying that telcos that win grants by pledging to build networks at a low cost are "gaming" the system by seeking more money afterward.

So far, the FCC leadership seems reluctant to provide extra funding. The commission could issue fines to ISPs that default on grants—the FCC recently proposed $8.8 million in fines against 22 RDOF applicants for defaults. Group’s members are a mystery

The Coalition of RDOF Winners doesn't include every ISP that was granted money from the program. But exactly which and how many ISPs are in the coalition is a mystery. The group's attorney, Philip Macres of Klein Law Group, told Ars today that he is "not at liberty to provide the list of all the members in the Coalition of RDOF Winners."

Macres confirmed that the group doesn't include every RDOF winner but said he cannot reveal how many ISPs are members. There appear to be at least two members: Arkansas-based wireless broadband provider Aristotle Unified Communications and a Texas ISP called TekWav both joined the meetings at which the coalition asked the FCC for more money or an amnesty window.

In late 2020, the FCC tentatively awarded $9.2 billion over 10 years to 180 Internet providers that agreed to deploy broadband to over 5.2 million unserved homes and businesses. But after seeing evidence that the program was mismanaged under former Chairman Ajit Pai, the current FCC re-evaluated the grants and authorized payments of $6 billion to a smaller group of ISPs.

The size of individual grants didn't change, but the FCC refused to give final authorization to certain grants, including $886 million that was originally awarded to SpaceX's Starlink satellite service and $1.3 billion that was slated for wireless provider LTD Broadband.

Separately, the US government is distributing over $42 billion in the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program that was authorized by Congress in November 2021. Geographic areas that have RDOF funding are generally ineligible for BEAD grants.

In cases where an ISP defaults on an RDOF grant, the geographic location associated with the grant would become eligible for funding from the larger BEAD program. But if a default happens after BEAD funding is allotted, an unserved area could end up with no subsidized networks. Other ISPs urge FCC to enforce rules

The Coalition of RDOF Winners' request for more funding or an amnesty window drew opposition from WTA—Advocates for Rural Broadband, formerly called the Western Telecommunications Alliance, which says it represents over 360 rural telecommunications companies across the US and over 85 industry vendors.

The WTA said it's not a proponent of the "reverse auction" format the FCC used for the RDOF, in which ISPs bid on grants organized by census blocks. But "if the Commission employs reverse auctions as a device to determine and distribute Universal Service Fund support in certain areas, it must strictly enforce all of its auction rules, terms and conditions in order to prevent such reverse auctions from being abused, distorted and undermined by various gaming tactics," the WTA said.

The WTA pointed out that winning RDOF bidders got their grants because they made lower bids than other ISPs. In other words, the ISPs that agreed to serve specific census blocks at a lower cost to the government are the ones that got the grants.

"An obvious gaming danger is the use of a 'strategy' of making support bids as unreasonably low as necessary in order to 'win' specific service areas, and then coming back to the Commission later for the additional support that is actually needed to construct and operate the promised broadband networks in such areas," the WTA told the FCC in a July 28 filing.

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] heavyboots@lemmy.ml 94 points 11 months ago

This definitely feels like a “you made your bed now sleep in it” situation. If they underbid to get the grants, that’s their problem. I am so tired of corporate socialism.

[-] Brkdncr@kbin.social 0 points 11 months ago

Yes, but think like the government: should we fine the isp, or do what it takes to get broadband to those underserved areas? Fines and other similar approaches just put those ISPs closer to going out of business and that makes it worse for the people targeted by the project.

[-] heavyboots@lemmy.ml 50 points 11 months ago

Let 3 or 4 go under as an example to the rest and see if they suddenly find they can make it happen after all? I do feel like there’s some merit to the idea they are gaming the system with lowball bids.

[-] Brkdncr@kbin.social -2 points 11 months ago

At the end of the day the gov shouldnt care. They are spending the same amount of money.

If the government wants to make it fair though, they can simply block the “scammers” from future projects.

[-] Cabrio@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

No, the government cares because they want a result and the ISPs are fucking with achieving that result and now it's time to fuck them back for defrauding the government.

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

I mean I guess the best time to do anything is today... but it's been over 3 decades of scamming and empty promises, so I could see people thinking the government doesn't actually care.

[-] Cabrio@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The government is made up of representatives, if you have a problem with your government blame your populace.

[-] nostalgicgamerz@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I don’t want corporations to be regulated as they have been shown to offer services, prices and availability that is the most benefit to their customers and can police themselves.

/s

Not gonna ratio you but that’s basically what you’re saying…and time has shown that ISPs do not act on what’s best for their customers (many who are forced to be customers since there isn’t any other choices)

[-] Brkdncr@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

I’m not saying what they are doing/did is best. I think it’s been mishandled for decades. I’m just saying this is how the government “thinks” and why cost overruns and corruption is often lower on the priority list.

I’d rather the service providers be threatened with local government ownership if they mishandle the deal.

In fact I think last-mile delivery should be provided by the local government and be subsidized by taxes to some extent. Residents should have the option to use public funded internet with baseline bandwidth targets, have the ability to choose a different ISP that’s managed at a local colo going over the public wires, or choose a last mile isp using their own private wired or wireless infrastructure.

[-] nostalgicgamerz@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Local government ownership is not reliable. They’re already compromised. Hell many of them passed laws to literally prevent local competition. It’s why Google stopped fiber rollout because they couldn’t beat the corrupt state leaders

[-] Brkdncr@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

Google accomplished their goal of increasing internet usage. Where ever they threatened to go the local isp suddenly got their act together.

I’m suggesting local government 1)provide a baseline service and 2) treat last-mile delivery like a utility. In the pockets of the US where local government or utility provider is also an ISP, I have yet to hear of people being upset with it. It’s usually something crazy like $15/mo for 500/50 speeds that comes out of your water/trash/electric bill.

[-] nostalgicgamerz@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Oh I understand. Yeah that would be a great idea.

[-] Nindelofocho@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

this isint the first time ISPs received funding to extend infrastructure into rural areas but then sat on their asses. We shouldn’t enable them to do it again. Big ISPs make millions. They could do the expansion without the grant, its just incentive

[-] wanderingmagus@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Arrest every member of the ISPs, nationalize the ISP, seize all the assets of its investors and board members, and then force the members of the ISPs to install the promised broadband systems as community service as part of their debt. Make them pay for everything, and don't allow them to file bankruptcy - all debts will pass to their children, their children's children, and all their descendents in perpetuity until the debt is paid in full. They made their bed off the backs of the American people. Now let them pay it all back in full.

[-] Arotrios@kbin.social 66 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

They're doing it because it worked in the 90s. Different companies involved, but same ballgame, same playbook.

Here's some relevant info from a Reddit post 6 years ago from Bruce Kushnick, well known for his activism and writing on the topic:

I've been tracking the telco deployments of fiber optics since 1991 when they were announced as something called the Information Superhighway. The plan was to have America be the first fiber optic country -- and each phone company went to their state commissions and legislatures and got tax breaks and rate increases to fund these 'utility' network upgrades that were supposed to replace the existing copper wires with fiber optics -- starting in 1992. And it was all a con. As a former senior telecom analyst (and the telcos my clients) i realized that they had submitted fraudulent cost models, and fabricated the deployment plans. The first book, 1998, laid out some of the history "The Unauthorized Bio" with foreword by Dr. Bob Metcalfe (co-inventor of Ethernet networking). I then released "$200 Billion Broadband Scandal" in 2005, which gave the details as by then more than 1/2 of America should have been completed -- but wasn't. And the mergers to make the companies larger were also supposed to bring broadband-- but didn't. I updated the book in 2015 "The Book of Broken Promises $400 Billion broadband Scandal and Free the Net", but realized that there were other scams along side this -- like manipulating the accounting.

We paid about 9 times for upgrades to fiber for home or schools and we got nothing to show for it -- about $4000-7000 per household (though it varies by state and telco). By 2017 it's over 1/2 trillion.

Finally, I note. These are not "ISPs"; they are state utility telecommunications companies that were able to take over the other businesses (like ISPs) thanks to the FCC under Mike Powell, now the head of the cable association. They got away with it because they could create a fake history that reporters and politicians kept repeating. No state has ever done a full audit of the monies collected in the name of broadband; no state ever went back and reduced rates or held the companies accountable. And no company ever 'outed' the other companies-- i.e., Verizon NJ never said that AT&T California didn't do the upgrades. --that's because they all did it, more or less. I do note that Verizon at least rolled out some fiber. AT&T pulled a bait and switch and deployed U-Verse over the aging copper wires (with a 'fiber node' within 1/2 mile from the location).

Here's a direct link to the PDF of his book,The Book of Broken Promises: $400 Billion Broadband Scandal & Free the Net that he still provides for free from his website, www.irregulators.org.

For reference sake, here's the link to his post on the bad place. Note I usually try to use better sourcing than Reddit, but Google's search on this topic is either flailing or details on how this went down have undergone an active scrubbing attempt.

[-] diskmaster23@lemmy.one 12 points 11 months ago

Bruce is doing the Lord's work on this telecom game.

[-] Alto@kbin.social 48 points 11 months ago

Why are we giving these fuckers anything after they stole billions to lay fiber, and they just fucking didn't.

[-] Amir@lemmy.ml 36 points 11 months ago

How is this not criminal behaviour? They were paid to do the job and then didn't do it. Sounds like fraud to me.

[-] krolden@lemmy.ml 8 points 11 months ago

Its only fraud if you can't afford teams of lobbyists and lawyers.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 21 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


A group calling itself the "Coalition of RDOF Winners" has been meeting with FCC officials about their requests for more money or an amnesty window, according to several filings submitted to the commission.

A different group of ISPs urged the FCC to reject the request, saying that telcos that win grants by pledging to build networks at a low cost are "gaming" the system by seeking more money afterward.

There appear to be at least two members: Arkansas-based wireless broadband provider Aristotle Unified Communications and a Texas ISP called TekWav both joined the meetings at which the coalition asked the FCC for more money or an amnesty window.

In late 2020, the FCC tentatively awarded $9.2 billion over 10 years to 180 Internet providers that agreed to deploy broadband to over 5.2 million unserved homes and businesses.

But after seeing evidence that the program was mismanaged under former Chairman Ajit Pai, the current FCC re-evaluated the grants and authorized payments of $6 billion to a smaller group of ISPs.


I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Speculater@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago
[-] athos77@kbin.social 18 points 11 months ago

Considering the government already paid tens of billions of dollars back around 2009 for broadband that mostly wasn't built, getting paid for it again and then asking for even more on top of that is particularly egregious.

[-] diskmaster23@lemmy.one 5 points 11 months ago

Agency takeover. That's why.

[-] taylus@lemmy.ml 11 points 11 months ago

The audacity of these motherfuckers

[-] zoe@lemm.ee 9 points 11 months ago

isps are the most fraudulant businesses there are.

[-] AnonymousLlama@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

Amazing, the balls of these people

[-] Anonymouse@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Could comebody ELI5 on the amnesty request? To me, it sounds like they would just give the money back. Why would this be so bad?

this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
318 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

33578 readers
356 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS