Digital Discrimination                                                                    

June 2024

As part of the federal infrastructure law passed by Congress, they gave the FCC a clear and important directive – ensure that all Americans have non-discriminatory access to high-quality broadband infrastructure.

That is a goal the cable broadband industry fully supports and has a proven track record of delivering, offering state-of-the-art broadband throughout our service areas regardless of income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin.

In spring 2024, a new FCC rule, adopted on a party-line vote of 3-2, seeks to prevent “digital discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin.” In essence, it would hold ISPs accountable if their actions “differentially impact consumers’ access to broadband” — intentionally or not. That will include decisions about network upgrades, pricing, marketing, maintenance and more.

However, the application of such a rule would be counter to the Biden administration’s overall goal of Internet for All. Applying such a rule would chill investment to expand broadband access, which would fundamentally go beyond antidiscrimination authority granted to the FCC in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

As broadband providers, we are committed to prevent discrimination wherever it may appear. In fact, a recent study by the Vernonburg Group shows what other studies and analyses have shown before — cable broadband networks are deployed equitably across a wide variety of demographics.

Data shows that low-income areas have similar access to cable broadband service as their high-income counterparts. The report also reveals no digital disparities on racial grounds, with some majority-minority areas having even greater broadband availability. The exception is pockets of certain communities affected by the combination of factors such as geography and low density impacting the economics of deployment.

• Available to 87% of the U.S., cable broadband networks are widespread throughout the markets they serve, including in areas with high rates of poverty.
• The data shows that communities with higher rates of poverty (defined as at least 25% of households living below the poverty level) have similar access to broadband compared with higher-income U.S. households.
• Those communities with higher levels of poverty are only slightly (approximately 1-2 percentage points) less likely to have access to high-speed broadband than their higher-income peers.
• These trends hold true for 100/20 Mbps speed tiers, as well as faster broadband connectivity delivering more than 1 Gbps. Even the lowest-income communities, where over 60% of people live below the poverty line, are only 0.9 percentage points less likely to have access to 100/20 Mbps fixed broadband than the highest-income areas.

Rural location, not race or income, leads to minor differences in service availability.

Where differences in access do occur, they often fall into scenarios where other factors, such as population density or highly remote communities, lead to the difference in service. These factors both make network deployment much more difficult and costly, as more infrastructure must be built across wide swaths of land to connect communities that are also made up of homes spread far apart. Again, this increases the cost, materials, labor, and time to extend a network.

As the data shows, cable broadband networks continue to be deployed across the country to communities of all income and racial backgrounds. Through decades of investment and billions of dollars in private capital, cable providers have built high-speed networks across the country and are continuously upgrading the technology and the quality of their service offerings.

Combined with its other anti-business rules they have proposed earlier this year, the FCC’s regulatory overreach will prove impossible to administer and impossible in which to comply.

A printable PDF for download is available here.

Prevailing Wage-Job Classifications

June 2024

BCAP member companies consist of both union and non-union employees, and we respect the use of prevailing wage rates for projects funded with public tax dollars. As such, we do not oppose the use of prevailing wage, as it has an important role to play in our economy, but we believe the wage rates should be appropriate to the work being done, and not applied through a broad, catch-all classification.

Current Capital Projects Fund (CPF) guidelines mandate the application of the prevailing wage on broadband deployment projects for contract labor work. The same will apply to grant funding through the Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program.

Instead of appropriate classifications for cable splicer or teledata lineman, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry insists broadband companies use the “electric lineman” classification at rates 30% to 40% higher than even current telecommunications workers under union contracts. In doing so, they are ignoring the practices of both the federal government and dozens of other states by refusing to establish job classifications for workers installing rural broadband.

The use of appropriate classifications is important, and appropriate classifications for appropriate work scope makes sense. The work of an electric lineman is far different than a telecommunications line worker and a cable/fiber splicer. Workers within the broadband space are trained in various precautions and safe practices relevant to their work with teledata cables and are not trained to work with and are prohibited from working with electric cable. We firmly believe that prevailing wage classifications should match the work, as they do in states such as New York, Indiana, Connecticut and Maryland, and by the U.S. Department of Labor.

We are aware that prevailing wage rates for electric linemen are high, averaging around $90 per hour, and will only increase. These rates, on average and anecdotally, amount to half to two-thirds of the electric lineman rate.

As stewards of public dollars, we believe that specificity of job classifications in the telecommunication space will, as in other states, allow public funds to go as far as possible. We fear that if these dollars are not applied well, the federal dollars and the effort will be wasted. Funding from both CPF and BEAD presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deploy broadband to unserved and underserved portions of our geographically diverse state.

Although we all represent different portions of the telecommunications space, the industry as a whole shares the goal of serving as many people as possible. To do otherwise would not only be a waste of taxpayer dollars but an opportunity lost. Our citizens deserve better.

A printable PDF for download is available here.

FCC Rulemaking on Bulk Billing-Multi-Dwelling Units (MDUs)

June 2024

Nearly one in every three households in the United States lives in multi-dwelling units, or MDUs, such as apartments, condominiums and townhomes.

Arrangements between owners of MDUs and cable and internet service providers (ISPs) have long been a target of regulatory action by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Federal law prohibits cable and ISPs from engaging in “unreasonable” acts or practices that, among other things, significantly deter or hinder competition from alternative service providers. As a result, the FCC is the entity responsible for prescribing regulations that specify the particular conduct that constitutes such prohibited acts or practices.

Background on FCC Regulation

In 2007, the FCC officially declared it unlawful for a cable provider and an owner of an MDU to enter into any exclusivity arrangements. That means an MDU owner cannot offer exclusive access to residents of a MDU in exchange for more favorable rates or other terms. This was followed by a decision in early 2008 to make it unlawful for broadband internet providers to enter into such agreements with owners of MDUs. The FCC reasoned in both Orders that exclusive service arrangements cause significant harm to competition and consumers.

Shortly after the FCC’s decision to prohibit exclusive access arrangements, the FCC began its inquiry into exclusive marketing and bulk billing arrangements. Exclusive marketing agreements between cable and ISPs and owners of MDUs afford the provider the exclusive right to market its services to the MDU’s residents. Typical marketing strategies borne out of such arrangements include advertisements in the MDU’s common areas, the placement of brochures under residents’ doors, and the inclusion of a provider’s brand on the MDU’s website.

In a bulk billing arrangement, an owner of an MDU permits a cable or internet provider to provide service to all residents of the MDU in exchange for a significantly discounted charge. Bulk billing arrangements provide an opportunity for MDU owners to attract residents by offering cable or internet service at a rate significantly lower than retail.

As the regulatory landscape currently stands, exclusive marketing and bulk billing arrangements with both cable providers and internet providers remain compliant with federal law. However, that may change.

In February 2022, the FCC adopted new rules to crack down on the practice by banning revenue-sharing deals that could reward a building owner for signing up tenants to an ISP. But the rules didn’t address bulk billing arrangements. According to the FCC, “While a service provider may not enter into an agreement that grants exclusive access to an MTE [multiple tenant environments] property, a landlord may still choose the providers it allows into the building, even if that means only one company provides service.”

2024 Update from FCC

A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking announced in early 2024 would propose banning bulk billing arrangements by which tenants are required to pay for broadband, cable, and satellite service provided by a specific communications provider, even if they do not wish to take the service or would prefer to use another provider. It essentially proposes allowing tenants to opt out of bulk billing arrangements.

This presents an issue for ISPs. For example, landlord-provided broadband today often goes beyond just providing internet access inside units. Many apartment owners provide WiFi throughout a rental property. It’s also becoming common for landlords to use WiFi to control smart devices of many kinds, including security cameras that can be seen by tenants, smart thermostats, utility meters, and smart devices to control building functions. It’s not clear how a tenant could somehow opt out of all broadband in such a building since many of the smart functions control everyday functions for tenants.

Also, it’s generally quite costly to wire an MDU for broadband, and ISPs make a significant investment to get into a building. Their motivation for entering older and smaller buildings is greatly lessened if they can’t count on getting a return on this investment.

Already, a fair number of ISPs won’t serve MDUs because of the extra cost and work involved. There are ISPs saying that they won’t consider MDUs if bulk billing is no longer allowed. This ruling could make it harder for some MDU tenants to get good broadband. A lot of ISPs have been writing to or meeting with the FCC to plead their case.

One area of particular worry concerns ISPs that serve low-income housing. As might be imagined, there is little profit in these situations, and many ISPs provide low-cost connections to provide a social good. These ISPs know they will go underwater if some tenants decide to eliminate broadband to save money.

One advantage to bulk billing is that many landlords like the ease of dealing with one ISP, and many have no desire to take on the extra effort involved in opening their buildings to multiple ISPs. These landlords might have the courts on their side since there have been many legal rulings over the years that say that property owners have the ultimate say over what happens inside their buildings.

A printable PDF for download is available here.

The Pennsylvania Broadband Development Authority, established by law on Dec. 22, 2021, as Act 96 of 2021, is an independent agency of the PA Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED).

The authority is responsible for creating a statewide broadband plan and distributing federal and state funds for broadband expansion projects in unserved and underserved areas of Pennsylvania. Its efforts focus on closing Pennsylvania’s digital divide so all Pennsylvanians can get connected to affordable and reliable high-speed broadband internet at home, at work, or on the road.

Executive Director – Brandon Carson

PBDA Board of Directors

• Board meets quarterly with ability to call special meetings.
• For motions to be successful, all four legislative appointees must vote in favor of the motion. One legislative appointee voting no will deem the motion failed.

Legislative Appointees

• Rep. Robert F. Matzie (D-Beaver/16^th District) – House Democrat Caucus (also chairman of House Consumer Affairs, Utilities and Technology Committee)
• Rep. Carl Metzgar (R-Somerset/69^th District) – House Republican Caucus (also minority chairman, House Professional Licensure Committee)
• Sen. Kristin Phillips-Hill (R-York/28^th District) – Senate Republican Caucus (also vice chairman of Senate Communications and Technology Committee), Board Secretary
• Sen. John Kane (D-Philadelphia/9^th District) – Senate Democrat Caucus (also minority chairman, Senate Labor and Industry Committee) Board Assistant Secretary

Cabinet Secretaries

• Secretary Uri Monson – Office of the Budget (appointed chairman by governor)
• Secretary Reggie McNeil – Department of General Services
• Secretary Dr. Khalid Mumin – Department of Education
• Secretary Rick Siger – Department of Community and Economic Development
• Secretary Russell Redding – Department of Agriculture

Others

• Stephen DeFrank – Chairman, Pennsylvania Public Utility
• Dr. Kyle Kopko – Executive Director, The Center for Rural Pennsylvania

Subcommittees

• Mapping
  • Members: Jay Summerson, Microsoft; Bill Kiger, Pennsylvania One Call; Ed Mooney, Communications Workers of America; Lisa Schaefer, County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania; Gary Zingaretti, Zingaretti Enterprises; Julie Tritt Schell, PA Department of Education; Steve Schwerbel, Wireless Internet Service Providers Association; and Chris Cap, PA State Association of Boroughs.
• Outreach and Education
  • Members: Lisa Davis, Office of Rural Health, Penn State University; Carrie Nace, PA State Grange; Sarah Hammond (co-chair), American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations ; Bailey Thumm, Pennsylvania Farm Bureau ; Dan Alwine, PA Chamber of Business & Industry; Molly de Aguiar, Independence Public Media Foundation; Amy Sturges, PA Municipal League; and Joseph Gerdes, PA State Association of Township Supervisors.
• Technical
  • Members: Todd Eachus, Broadband Communications Association of PA (co-chair); Barb Burba-Filoreto, PA Wireless Association; Frank Baier, PA Office of Administration; Jim Gardler, Communications Workers of America; Shane Ellis, Pennsylvania Utility Contractors Association; Bill Wiendenheft, PA Intermediate Units; Steve Samara, PA Telephone Association; and Terry Fitzpatrick, Energy Association of Pennsylvania.

• Workforce and Supply Chain
  • Members: VACANT, International Brotherhood of Electric Workers International; Russ McDaid, eCommerce Association; Shannon Munro, Pennsylvania College of Technology; John Pulver, PA Association of Career & Technical Administrators; Steve Brame, PA Rural Electric Association; Carl Marrara, PA Manufacturers’ Association; VACANT, PA Department of Labor and Industry; and Gary Bolton, Fiber Broadband Association.

The board has already received $5 million in planning funds through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program and over $1.6 million in funds through the Digital Equity Act Program. These resources are being used by the Authority to build staff capacity, complete statewide mapping, and develop the relevant plans that NTIA requires prior to the distribution of implementation funds in 2024.

The funding allocations from NTIA will be based on the total number of unserved locations in the Commonwealth as compared to the number of unserved locations in the other states and territories.

Based on the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) National Broadband Map, Pennsylvania will receive $1.16 billion in funding for broadband efforts.

To maximize the funding allocation, the Authority contracted with Penn State Extension to assist with the review of the map and development of challenge data to submit to the FCC in response to the information provided by internet service providers.

The authority must also submit two plans: Five-Year Action Plan for BEAD (submitted in August 2023) and the Digital Equity Plan. The work plan includes facilitation of roundtable discussions and a strategic planning session for the Authority’s board of directors; facilitation of core planning team meetings; development and deployment of a statewide community survey; partnering with Authority staff to host in-person community outreach events to help identify locally specific barriers and inform asset mapping; development of a “Broadband Ready” framework/checklist to prepare local units of government for broadband projects and prepare for partnerships with providers; and the development of a draft framework of the BEAD Five-Year Action Plan and Digital Equity Plan.

The Authority also worked to develop its first competitive grant program to incentivize broadband deployments in underserved and underserved areas. The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) allocated $10 billion to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which established the Capital Projects Fund (CPF) Program. The CPF Program provides payments to states and territories for the purposes of critical capital projects that are in direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Commonwealth was allocated $279 million under the CPF Program, through which the Authority submitted program plans to Treasury identifying the intended use of funds. The Authority has identified three grant programs through which CPF funds will be administered: (1) $200 million for the Broadband Infrastructure Program (BIP); (2) $45 million for the Digital Anchor Institution Program; and (3) $20 million for the Digital Access and Opportunity Grant Program.

This Issue Brief is also available to download in PDF format.

Achieving digital equity in the United States would mean that all the nation’s individuals and communities have the information technology capacity needed for full participation in our society, democracy, and economy. Digital equity is necessary for civic and cultural participation, employment, lifelong learning, and access to essential services and is considered a long-term challenge.

The internet has made it possible to start a business from home, communicate with loved ones across oceans and time zones, work and learn remotely, receive health care services even if you live hours from a medical provider, and engage in any other of the thousands of opportunities. Yet, many U.S. residents continue to be disconnected from the internet and the opportunities it provides access to and has accentuated disparities where they exist.

As part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), the federal government is directing responsibility for digital equity plans to the states, citing their knowledge, coordination, convening abilities and expertise, their relationships with local communities, municipalities, and residents.

Digital equity involves broadband availability; broadband adoption; and digital inclusion.

Broadband availability refers to the ability of a household to subscribe to broadband service at a speed, quality, and capacity needed to accomplish everyday online tasks.

Broadband adoption refers to a household’s active subscription to broadband service at a speed, quality, and capacity needed to accomplish every day and critical online tasks, possession of the digital skills necessary to accomplish such tasks and ability to do so on a personal device and secure convenient network.

Digital inclusion refers to the activities necessary to ensure that all individuals and communities, including the most disadvantaged, have access to and use of information and communication technologies. It must evolve as technology advances by requiring intentional strategies and investments to reduce and eliminate historical, institutional, and structural barriers to access and use technology.

The groups most affected by the digital divide are many of the same that were most severely impacted by the pandemic and have consistently experienced social inequities over time. According to the American Community Survey (ACS), 14.5 million households — 12 percent of all households in the country — had internet access only through a cellular data plan, and 16.7 million households (14 percent of all households) had no home broadband subscriptions of any kind in 2019, including a cellular data plan.

However, low-income households, older adults, and certain racial and ethnic groups lack broadband and computer access at higher rates than the general population. Among low-income households (making less than $35,000 per year), 30 percent lack a home internet subscription. Among persons 65 years of age and older, 22 percent lack broadband or a computer in their household.

Efforts to bridge the digital divide and work toward digital equity began in the early- to mid-1990s, primarily as grassroots efforts focused on improving digital skills through class training and public computer labs. In the 2000s community-based organizations and anchor institutions began investing in and creating what is now called digital equity programs, focused on addressing one or more of the five elements of digital inclusion:

1. Affordable, robust broadband Internet service.
2. Internet-enabled devices that meet the needs of the user.
3. Access to digital literacy training.
4. Quality technical support.
5. Applications and online content are designed to enable and encourage self-sufficiency, participation, and collaboration.

At its core, digital equity work requires trust to succeed. The community members who would benefit most from support services often experience disenfranchisement and have seen their communities and neighbors overlooked by institutions. An inherent distrust of technology, borne from a lack of confidence or past negative experiences, can make people hesitant to engage with online resources. Moreover, logistically, those lacking broadband access are inherently harder to reach as outreach tools are increasingly digital.

For these reasons, trusted community-based organizations are fundamental to developing impactful digital inclusion programs. They have known entities with existing relationships and a history of providing services to the community, and digital inclusion programs are often a logical extension of their work. The types of organizations that develop digital inclusion programs can vary greatly depending on the character and needs of the community. However, some of the most common include small community-based organizations, libraries, public housing authorities, local governments, senior centers, schools and academic institutions, faith-based organizations, and social service organizations.

As the U.S. continues on the path toward digital equity, individuals will experience real, tangible outcomes. They’ll enjoy improved and remote education for lifelong learning, more options to receive care to stay healthy, and expanded job opportunities. More job opportunities, which leads to meaningful employment, is the key that will continue to unlock other opportunities for this generation and the next.

The availability of broadband, along with the digital skills to take advantage of it, opens the door for all individuals to be active, productive members of the workforce. With access to high-speed internet, they can search for open job postings and do online research to help them get the job. With digital literacy, they can thrive in those jobs and help advance themselves and their families economically, as well as the country as whole.

By investing in digital equity efforts, the U.S. is investing in a 21st century workforce – one that leads to real outcomes of families enjoying richer, fuller and healthier lives.

(Information derived from National Telecommunications and Information Association, Nov. 28, 2022)

This Issue Brief is also available for download in PDF format.

Broadband Cable’s Pennsylvania Impact

The critical role of broadband in today’s increasingly digital society is well documented, and for good reason. From statewide business and economic growth, to basic educational tools for completing homework and school assignments, to telemedicine, reliable high-speed Internet service is an ever-growing part of today’s way of life.

And as our increasingly web-based society moves forward requiring the most cutting-edge advances in telecommunications, the vast majority of Pennsylvanians have broadband access largely due to cable companies having launched – in the mid-1990s – a private capital investment of more than $10 billion to build out robust Internet service throughout the Commonwealth. Over 85,000 miles of high-speed cable plant – providing services for approximately 3 million customers – connects our state’s cities, townships, boroughs and rural areas.

Pennsylvania joins 49 other states in the reality of not realizing 100 percent broadband access and adoption within its borders. The state’s cable industry – having literally launched Pennsylvania’s first high-speed Internet service through its multi-billion-dollar investment of private capital more than twenty years ago – continues to expand its service footprint to the commonwealth’s hard-to-reach pockets.

Governor Tom Wolf’s recently-announced “Restore Pennsylvania” initiative includes rural broadband access as a component in helping the Commonwealth realize important infrastructure objectives within the next few years.

The 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload benchmark established by the Federal Communications Commission, and often referenced by Gov. Wolf’s administration, is the appropriate measure for whether a broadband service provides advanced telecommunications capability, allowing customers to receive high-quality data, voice, and video telecommunications services. It is important to note that more than 95 percent of Pennsylvania homes have broadband cable access – and nearly 99 percent of those residences – are offered Internet speeds higher than those standards established by the FCC.

This widespread access to broadband service is the result of the investment made by cable companies in Pennsylvania, and commitment to continually reduce our state’s digital divide. That commitment from Pennsylvania’s cable companies also includes contributions that provide critical broadband services to thousands of the Commonwealth’s schools, libraries, medical facilities and community centers.

Pennsylvania’s broadband cable industry is dedicated to continuing the aggressive efforts to close any gaps of Internet access, and remains engaged with local and state government to further that effort.

BCAP media statement – June 2019

Blog: Outdated, Inaccurate Technology Undermines Pennsylvania Broadband Report

Pennsylvania Broadband Speed map; prepared by global broadband network intelligence firm Ookla and flagship platform Speedtest