CES Depends on Programs Like Affordable Connectivity, Says CTA
CTA and other commenters told the FCC the $14.2 billion affordable connectivity program (ACP) should make room for the expansion of wireless networks, which will be critical to new generations of connected devices. Commenters also continue to raise implementation concerns as the agency shifts from the $3.1 billion emergency broadband benefit program to the new ACP (see 2112090061). Replies were posted Wednesday and Tuesday in docket 21-450.
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.
“Next week, guests will once again be able to walk the show floor at CES 2022 and see a vision of the connected world that is jaw-dropping in its expanse and potential,” CTA said: “Consumers cannot use internet-enabled devices if they lack the broadband networks on which such devices rely.” CTA advised a “flexible, technology-neutral approach to eligible devices, participating providers and providers’ administration of the program” and “public outreach without requiring specific provider mandates.”
Make wireline and wireless devices, including modems, routers and wireless hot spots “eligible under the ACP,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce advised. Connected devices should also be included, the Chamber said: “Flexibility and technology neutrality are crucial for determining eligible services and devices, especially as new communications technologies come into the market.”
CTIA led with implementation concerns. “It is difficult to plan or manage participation in a program for which the rules are not yet established,” it said: “CTIA members are compliance-focused companies, but it is impossible to manage compliance for rules that do not yet exist or for which sufficient implementation time has not been afforded.” CTIA said parts of the ACP will “require significant changes to billing systems, marketing materials, ordering systems, and employee/agent training, which cannot be implemented successfully as quickly as is being proposed.”
The rules should allow a broad number of offerings to qualify for ACP subsidies, said the Wireless Infrastructure Association: “This includes not mandating a minimum service throughput, which may preclude services that are an improvement for some individuals, to be eligible for the benefit.”
Don’t require existing EBB subscribers to opt in to the ACP “because an opt-in approach will result in qualified subscribers losing their benefit,” Verizon said. It suggested an April 1 starting date but said if the FCC’s order includes “an obligation to offer ACP on all legacy services or a complete ban on credit checks,” it would need “several more months” to get up to speed.
AT&T similarly urged the FCC to take a light-handed approach on new rules to ensure “an orderly transition” for the nearly 9 million households participating in EBB. “Imposing an opt-in requirement for EBB Program households to continue receiving the benefit … will create chaos and could result in the permanent de-enrollment from the Program for many of the households that are most in need,” AT&T said: “The record also demonstrates that participating providers need a reasonable timeframe to implement the new ACP requirements with a safe harbor until the end of the implementation period.”
Ignore industry arguments against requiring consumers to opt in, Free Press countered. Industry advocacy is “couched in rhetoric about being ‘consumer-friendly,’ and a belief that EBB customers will not respond to notifications about the impending program transition,” the group said: Providers “suggest policies that would reduce companies’ churn, but also reduce the likelihood that ACP customers can freely switch to the new slate of ACP offerings available to them with their current provider or another provider entirely, and thereby reduce beneficiaries’ ability to make market forces work in customers’ favor.”
Allow opt-in, but only by carriers that “certify that they accept the ACP subsidy as full payment,” said Los Angeles; Chicago; Boston; Montgomery County, Maryland; Washington, D.C.; and the Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues. “The difference between Local Governments and industry is that we believe providing time for a seamless transition ensures eligible household participation, not just provider participation, is maximized,” they said.
Public Knowledge and Common Sense Media would allow an opt-in approach but only for consumers who won’t face a payment increase or who were previous customers of a provider. “In these situations, there is no potential for subscribers to incur unexpected financial harm as a result of continuing service with the decreased ACP benefit,” they said: “An opt-out approach is preferable because it is both easier for ISPs to implement and will not lead to subscribers unintentionally losing service if they fail to respond to an opt-in request.” The groups also urged allowing funds to be used for devices because “although devices are necessary to connect, low income, elderly and people of color are unlikely to have one.”