Big Telcos Bluffing about Broadband Stimulus?

Some people think the "big telcos" are bluffing about refusing to apply for funds to be awarded under either of the programs authorized for "broadband stimulus" programs as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

There are concerns about strings attached to the grants, to be sure. But there are other, more practical issues that suggest many "big telcos" will be unable to apply, or will find the "strings" too onerous.

"Big" companies serving "urban" areas, or even rural areas within states where they also serve classic small and rural communities, are generally barred from getting Rural Utilities Service funds, and RUS is in charge of some of the funds. So "big companies" cannot apply for RUS funds.

Big companies might be able to apply for NTIA funds, if they get waivers. But the clear logic and language of the statute makes clear a preference for non-profits and government-related agencies as "eligible" applicants. That's why the language about "waivers" exists. "Big telcos" are seen as exceptions to the rules about eligible applicants.

You can make your own educated guesses about the likelihood of applications from "big companies" being funded, under those circumstances. "Big companies" aren't seen as the logical applicants, even if the final rules might allow them to bid. At this point, waivers seem to be necessary, in any event.

Aside from strings that also bother some U.S. governors about accepting funds authorized by other parts of ARRA, it is possible bigger telcos might just take a pass for those reasons alone. The statute is written in ways that make clear an intention to fund non-profits and projects that primarily create jobs (it is part of the "stimulus" bill, recall), and only secondarily create infrastructure.

There are lots of reasons for carriers to think they will not be allowed to apply for some of the funds, and are not the most-favored applicants for most of the funds.

http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/04/big-telcos-bluf.html

Verizon and AT&T: No, Thank You, to Stimulus Funds

Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T might very well pass on applying for any of the "broadband stimulus" programs, at least in part because of "strings" attached to the money.

Neither company is well placed to apply for the Rural Utilities Service portion of the funds targeted at rural areas, and access provisions might be unpalatable for the National Telecommunications & Information Administration grants. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aXx.QVEa9vpM&refer=home

Addressing "Sustainability" of NTIA Broadband Stimulus Projects

The problem many applicants must face in crafting projects under the National Telecommunications & Information Administration portion of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act ("stimulus bill") are the conflicting objectives.

The "broadband stimulus" portion of the ARRA is supposed to create jobs. Broadband is almost a secondary objective. The projects are supposed to have "measurable" goals. But economists aren't sure whether new broadband facilities actually create--or destroy--jobs.

All funds awarded under the NTIA program must be spent in two years, so are temporary, but the ARRA ideally expects "sustainability" of the projects once federal funding ends.

Nobody yet knows what "under-served" means, so many projects might actually be proposed in areas where there are two wired services providers as well as two satellite providers, plus three mobile broadband providers. Lots of people are "under-served" not because of lack of access to facilities but for some other reason: lack of interest, lack of knowledge, equipment or money.

Most people think the Rural Utilities Service portion of the program will address rural areas. But an argument can be made for rural programs under the NTIA rules that actually have a route to "sustainability" and "job creation" on a permanent basis.

That route is funding rural call center operations. NTIA funds can be used to create facilities, either "at home" or perhaps at new call center facilities, with monies used to train rural residents.

The sustainability of the jobs and connectivity once the NTIA funding runs out are provided by the call center operations. Since NTIA projects have a stated preference for education and job creation, proposals should be submitted by community colleges and state job training agencies, in conjunction with service providers that can provide the connectivity and equipment.

The objective would be to deliver a turnkey "call center" capability ready to be used by any firm requiring such capabilities.  It's a thought.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100739283

Expect Upwards of $29 Billion in Fraud, Waste from Energy Dept. "Stimulus" Spending

When was the last time an infrastructure project--any infrastructure project--really was better because spending was rushed?

Based on rates of fraud already encountered by the Department of Energy, one might expect a 17.5 percent rate of fraud and waste, at minimum, for funds disbursed as part of the "stimulus" spending authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

According to Energy Department Inspector General Gregory Friedman, the $165 billion in stimulus cash to be distributed by the Department so dwarfs the annual Department budget of $27 billion that the resources of the agency for getting the money spent while avoiding fraud and abuse will be sorely tested.

In the last four fiscal years the Department of Energy investigations into misspent federal funds have resulted in about 150 criminal convictions, and fines and recoveries of more than $190 million. This represents a little over 17.5 percent of budget money, and suggests the Energy Department can expect more than $29 billion in waste and fraud just within its slice of the stimulus pie.

Friedman's memo acknowledges that low income home weatherization is the program most at risk for fraud, so if you intend to be working on projects of that nature, expect a lot of extra paperwork and figure your bid overhead accordingly.

http://chicagoconstructionlaw.blogspot.com/

FCC Asks for Advice on "Broadband Stimulus" Rules

The Federal Communications Commission is asking for comment on how to distribute broadband funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, commonly known as the "broadband stimulus" program.

The FCC has already established a separate docket for parties wishing to comment generally on a rural broadband strategy (GN Docket No. 09-29). The FCC now is seeking comment as part of its consultative role with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) and the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (“RUS”), the agencies that actually are charged with disbursing the funds.

The FCC specifically is seeking comment on five core terms and concepts:

The definition of "unserved area;"

The definition of "underserved area;"

The definition of "broadband;"

The non-discrimination obligations that will be contractual conditions of the Broadband Fund Opportunities Program ("BTOP") grants; and

The network interconnection obligation that will be contractual conditions of BTOP grants.

Comments are limited to these five specified items and are due on April 13, 2009 and should be submitted in GN Docket No. 09-40.

The comment period extends to April 13, 2009. That implies that no final rules can be issued by NTIA or RUS until May, since NTIA and RUS staffers will require time to read and digest the new input.

That in turn means the first third of the funds, which by statute must be released before the end of June, will require submission and awards over a roughly two-month period, at best, by agencies which never before have had to process, much less award, so much money in such a short time frame.

For better or worse, that suggests projects in the first round will be weighted to providers with enough "track record" that NTIA and RUS can reduce the risk of making awards to applicants that are not well placed to execute, that may squander the money or that may prove otherwise embarassing when later oversight reveals what actually happened, or didn't happen, with the awarded funds.

And though most observers probably think the funds are supposed to lead to deployment of new facilities, the statute is part of a "stimulus" package that is supposed to create jobs in the near term. That could lead to a situation where projects actually do not create facilities or make better use of facilities but rather mostly can be pitched as projects that create jobs related to those facilities and use of facilities. "Training" or "education," in other words, might play a bigger role than some think.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing if one assumes that a great deal of non-use is related to people not understanding what they can do with broadband and the Internet, or non-use by people who think they understand what they can do, but don't feel too comfortable using computers and software.