Industry Working With NTIA, States to Be Sure Wireless Is Included in Broadband Spending

As NTIA and the states work through the details of the more than $48 billion in connectivity money that will be awarded through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the wireless industry is making a concerted push to make sure wireless remains part of the equation. Some state officials remain skeptical of how big of a role wireless will play, and remain focused on fiber. Industry officials are watching closely for NTIA rules due out in May.

“It’s a huge priority for us, to make sure that states get this right,” said Wireless Infrastructure Association President Jonathan Adelstein in an interview Monday. “I’m concerned that the states have the flexibility to do what they need to do,” he said: “This is a live debate in the states right now.” Adelstein, a former FCC commissioner and former administrator of the Rural Utilities Service, said that at RUS he needed “every bit of flexibility that I had to get the applications done.”

WIA has lobbyists in 27 states and Puerto Rico, Adelstein said. “It’s really one of the more interesting and complicated set of policy changes we’ve ever seen in this country,” he said. “There’s never been an attempt to delegate down to the states this level with the understanding that there will be disparate approaches, but also that there needs to be some basic uniformity on getting broadband out to unserved Americans,” he said.

The wireless industry has already notched a few wins, Adelstein said. He noted Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) vetoed a bill (see 2204180026) with a message that “recognized the need to have a flexible approach, which we have been advocating.” In New York, the original bill contained language that said grants could be awarded only to projects that solely “utilize fiber-to-the-home, unless the division, upon receiving a written request including explanation of the cost and technical feasibility factors that make fiber-to-the-home unviable or unsuitable, approves the use of other technologies for any part of the project.” That provision was removed from the final version, “allowing wireless projects to be considered for funding,” Adelstein said: “It sends a clear signal in New York that wireless is to be considered for the program.”

Speed Counts

Wireless is also faster to deploy than fiber, Adelstein said. If you try to deploy fiber everywhere “the chances go up exponentially of unacceptable delays,” he said. Speed is a factor Congress required in the IIJA “and the states are recognizing that,” he said. Policymakers need to rely on different technologies, he said. WIA is hopeful the NTIA rules will smooth the use of wireless, he said. “NTIA is a spectrum agency -- they understand the role of wireless,” he said.

“Congress considered, and rejected, the administration’s effort to tilt broadband access spending, at least through IIJA, from anything other than in a technology neutral manner,” former FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly told us. “While I think applicants will need to show competency and be qualified, I doubt that a particular technology, for example, wireless or satellite, will be summarily excluded in the awarding process.”

“Being technology neutral with these funds is essential to making the most of the money,” said Joe Kane, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation director-broadband and spectrum policy. “Fiber has obvious benefits, but in many areas where the digital divide is most stubborn, wireless and satellite solutions can provide the same user experience more economically,” he said: “Often, a preference for fiber has been smuggled in through things like symmetrical speed requirements, but policymakers should be able to disentangle marketing hype from the actual technical requirements of high-bandwidth services that consumers use.”

Fixed-wireless and satellite “are already viable options for high-bandwidth applications, including videoconferencing,” Kane said. “Excluding or disfavoring those options in the allocation of IIJA funds is not only a waste of those funds, it would also crowd out the competition and innovation diverse technologies bring to the table,” he said.

States Skeptical

Louisiana’s broadband office is “technology neutral and there is a role for all technologies to play,” said ConnectLA Executive Director Veneeth Iyengar. But he noted U.S. Treasury Capital Projects Fund rules “strongly favor symmetrical speeds and the burden of proving whether those technologies can achieve what is being required by the federal government is on those entities.” The Louisiana office hasn’t seen a push from wireless providers, he said.

“The wireless people are talking a good fight, but investing in wireless is a mistake for any state” that thinks doing so will close the digital divide and homework and equity gaps, said New York Public Utility Law Project Executive Director Richard Berkley in an interview. Fiber is needed for high-quality, affordable broadband everywhere, said the state consumer advocate: "Bite the bullet and build it." Berkley expects much lobbying by industry of New York’s governor and legislature, he said. New York legislators in the past have been attentive to the wireless industry, though they also raised concerns about cellular service quality, he said.

The usual wireless argument about leveling the playing field “conveniently forgets the massive subsidy of the initial wireless companies getting their initial systems entirely for free because they were paid for by the Bell ratepayers,” said Berkley. Fiber and wireless have different, complementary use cases, he said. Wireless’ big advantage is mobility, since “most people don’t want to talk around with a wire attached to their pocket,” he said: While “massively expensive,” fiber provides more reliability, service quality and bandwidth. “You’re going to have both things,” said Berkley: “Instead of wasting money on trying to convince me that I need wireless to do something that it’s not as well-suited for as fiber,” industry should come up with new wireless use cases.

States should invest in communications networks that last decades, Institute for Local Self-Reliance Director-Community Broadband Networks Director Christopher Mitchell emailed. “I am pro-wireless in some areas, but the bigger question states need to answer is whether they are funding something that will be obsolete in 5 or 10 years.” He noted Minnesota is using federal infrastructure funding for long-term network facilities like fiber connecting towers and private investment for shorter-term components.

Policymakers should be skeptical when the wireless industry tries to “take credit for all the devices that are using wired residential connections,” like when people connect by Wi-Fi to their cable modem 10 feet away, said Mitchell: “More than 99.9% of that connection happens on a wire, but they use that scenario to suggest that wireless is taking over the industry.”

Recent statements by NTIA Administrator Alan Davidson “clearly indicate” the Biden administration “through the NTIA will follow the law as written,” emailed Louis Peraertz, vice president-policy at the Wireless ISP Association. “Congress could have instructed the NTIA to choose a specific technology to get broadband to the unserved but decided otherwise,” he said: “It recognized that a tech-neutral framework would provide States maximum flexibility to invite the largest palette of solutions to the table, and, in the end, this would ensure the goals of the IIJA are properly met. A one-size-fits-all approach would undermine this.”

“Fiber is often the best current technology for new networks , but in many areas the additional costs of fiber-to-the-home greatly outweigh any benefits, and different technologies could provide similar if not better service at a much lower cost,” said Jeffrey Westling, American Action Forum technology and innovation policy director. “This is especially true as we see the breakdown of traditional mobile/fixed distinctions, with many wireless providers offering fixed home service and many wireline providers exploring different mobile offerings,” he said: “Instead, what regulators should continue to focus on is the actual needs of the users and getting broadband to areas that truly lack coverage, regardless of the technology used to do so."

“Wireless groups certainly have a commercial interest in tech-neutrality, but Congress also had good governance in mind -- a tech-neutral policy means more households will benefit from the program,” said Brent Skorup of George Mason University’s Mercatus Center. “Fiber-to-the-home construction costs can exceed $30,000 per household in very rural areas but fixed wireless can provide high-quality home internet at a fraction of that cost,” he said: NTIA will likely favor fiber, “but will recognize that wireless is the most economical way to get high-speed home Internet to very rural households. A bias towards fiber-to-the-home would deplete the funds quickly and unnecessarily.”

“It makes no practical sense to think of broadband only as fiber,” said Cooley’s Robert McDowell, also a former commissioner. “How do we know that?” he asked: “Because consumers have been demanding an ‘all-of-the-above’ approach to broadband for years now. ... More abundance of all kinds of broadband technologies will help the economy produce more goods and services more efficiently. Spurring the supply side of the economy is the best antidote to inflation and stagnation, and having better broadband is crucial to America’s economic prosperity. But a fiber-only approach won’t get us there.”