Expect Bipartisan Post-Election Attention to Broadband, NASUCA Told
Both political parties increasingly see more broadband as critical as the presidency changes hands, said panelists at the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA) conference Monday. Although President Donald Trump hasn't conceded, officials highlighted some ways Democratic President-elect Joe Biden could take advantage of political consensus to push the issue forward.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
COVID-19 drove new calls to treat broadband as an essential service, NASUCA Telecom Committee Chair Regina Costa said. The FCC’s broadband plan was 10 years ago, she noted. “For all of the talk, there has been limited success.” Revamping USF contribution could be examined in a Biden administration, she said.
Democratic and Republican members of Congress say they “care a great deal about rural broadband, and there’s been bipartisan interest in infrastructure investment, but it still hasn’t managed to materialize,” said Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld. Biden’s campaign platform supported a $20 billion rural broadband package separate from USF, “so hopefully that might be a first step.”
West Virginia Public Service Commission Chair Charlotte Lane doesn’t expect a new administration to bring “any real change” to views that broadband is needed, she said on a separate panel. Under a Republican trifecta, West Virginia unanimously passed a law this year letting electric utilities provide fiber middle-mile (see 2003090033). "We've got to look at this like rural electrification back in the 1930s,” said Lane. The chair estimates one-quarter of West Virginians lack broadband, although the FCC says it’s 18%.
Let electric utilities spread broadband, Lane urged. “Broadband is a necessity, so why not take advantage of the infrastructure that's already out there?” Electric customers will pay a $1 monthly surcharge to fund utilities’ middle mile, she estimated. “It’s a cost shift that’s well worth it.”
“COVID-19 ripped the Band-Aid off the wound,” and everyone understands the need, said Appalachian Power Company Vice President-External Affairs Brad Hall, whose company will build middle-mile under the West Virginia law. More utilities would get involved if there were a federal fund for middle-mile, he said. The pandemic was the “game-changer,” agreed Utilities Technology Council Senior Director-Advocacy Rob Thornmeyer. More states are now passing bipartisan laws to enable utility broadband projects, he said.
There’s a “strong case” for broadband regulation, contended Ohio University professor Trevor Roycroft on the first NASUCA panel. He sees evidence of restrictive bundling practices and technology redlining keeping broadband from rural and low-income areas, but no strong evidence of price competition. Maybe there won’t be price regulation, but rules could be warranted for redlining and net neutrality, he said. Roycroft disagrees that internet is interstate, he said: Infrastructure is deployed within state borders, and content is increasingly served through local data centers.
Biden’s impact on the federal government's treatment of broadband authority depends on the FCC’s composition, said Feld. Industry resists calling broadband a utility because it doesn't want rate regulation, but it supports getting government money for deployment, he said: “They’d like the money and not any of the responsibility.” States should have jurisdiction to ensure reliability, but industry is challenging that authority in courts, he noted. States and localities have a role to encourage adoption and usage of broadband, he said.