Monthly Archives: May 2024

Comcast Trials Hollowcore Fiber

Comcast released a press release that announced it is the first ISP in the U.S. that is trialing hollowcore fiber. Hollowcore fiber takes advantage of the phenomenon where light can travel 50% faster through air than it can through fiberglass. As is described by the name, hollowcore fiber is a fiberglass strand with a small hollow tube in the center.

Comcast is interested in the technology because the faster light speed translates into as much as a 33% reduction in latency. Comcast would use the hollowcore fiber for applications that demand low latency.

The press release described a test where Comcast made a 40-kilometer connection between two locations in Philadelpia to be able to test the performance of the fiber in a real-world application. Comcast was able to successfully establish a bidirectional transmission using simultaneous traffic paths ranging from 10 to 400 gigabits per second to 400 Gbps on a single strand of hollowcore fiber.

Hollowcore fiber has been developed by Lumenisity. The concept of hollowcore fiber was born a decade ago in a DARPA lab working with Honeywell to improve fiber performance. Those tests showed that it was possible to create a single straight path of light in tubes that was perfect for military applications. The light could carry more bandwidth for greater distances without having to be regenerated. By not bouncing through glass, the signal maintained intensity for longer distances. DARPA found the fixed orientation of light inside the tubes to be of great value for communication with military-grade gyroscopes.

Until some recent breakthroughs, the hollow tube fiber was plagued by periodic high signal loss when the light signal lost it’s straight-path coherence. Lumenisity has been able to lower signal loss to 1 dB per kilometer, which is still higher than the 0.2 dB loss expected for traditional fiber. However, the lab trials indicate that better manufacturing processes should be able to significantly lower signal loss.

Lumenisity big breakthrough came when it developed the ability to combine multiple wavelengths of light while avoiding the phenomenon known as interwave mixing, where different light frequencies interfere with each other. By minimizing signal dispersion, Lumenisity eliminated the need for digital signal processors that are used in other fiber to compensate for chromatic dispersion. This means repeater sites that can be placed further apart and require simpler and cheaper electronics.

Lumenisity doesn’t see hollow core fiber being used as a replacement on most fiber routes. The real benefits come in situations that require low latency along with high bandwidth. For example, the hollow core fiber might be used to feed the trading desks on Wall Street. The fiber might improve performance for the fiber serving large data centers.

DOCSIS 3.0 is Obsolete

Most State Broadband Offices have decided that DSL is an obsolete technology, regardless of the bandwidth that it can deliver. This means that for purposes of BEAD grants, homes and businesses served by DSL are considered to be unserved even when the DSL is providing speeds greater than 25/3 Mbps (underserved) or 100/20 Mbps (served).

The reasons for ignoring DSL for purposes of BEAD is that DSL is an obsolete technology. Copper networks are old and dying. Telcos are working diligently to back out of the copper business. Even where DSL might still be working well for customers today, nobody expects those connections to still be functioning a decade from now. States want to make sure that customers whose only choice today is DSL will have a broadband option going into the future.

I think that NTIA and the States should make the same determination for cable networks still using DOCSIS 3.0 technology. There are still a number of small towns and cities where cable networks are deployed with this technology.

DOCSIS technology (Data Over Cable Interface Specification) was created by CableLabs to give cable companies the ability to deliver broadband over a hybrid fiber-coaxial network. There have been several generations of DOCSIS technology. The first generation of the technology was DOCSIS 1.0, released in 1997. This technology allowed cable companies to offer broadband download speeds of 1 Mbps, and was eventually used to boost download speeds to around 6 Mbps broadband.

This was quickly followed by DOCSIS 2.0, released in 2001. This upgrade allowed for more channels to be assigned to broadband and was used over time to offer speeds up to 60 Mbps download. DOCSIS 3.0 was a significant upgrade that allowed the bonding of multiple channels together for the broadband path. This allowed cable companies to increase download bandwidth to several hundred Mbps. But most DOCSIS 3.0 networks have upload speeds under 20 Mbps.

The most commonly deployed configuration of HFC technology in the U.S. is DOCSIS 3.1. This was the upgrade that introduced gigabit download capability. This is the technology deployed in every major city and in most smaller cities and towns. The cable industry is already conducting trials of DOCSIS 4.0. This upgrade will allow for speeds of 5 Gbps download and will also allow for upload speeds of several Gbps. This is the upgrade that cable companies hope will allow them to compete on an even footing with fiber.

It’s not hard to make an argument that DOCSIS 3.0 is obsolete. The technology will soon be two generations of technology behind what will be deployed in most markets. The vast majority of cable customers in the country have already seen an upgrade to DOCSIS 3.1 which brought the ability to buy gigabit speeds. Nobody expects DOCSIS 3.0 networks to still be functioning a decade from now. Any cable company operating this technology will have to eventually upgrade – but until they do, this technology should not qualify for BEAD funding.

It’s possible to tweak and fine-tune a DOCSIS 3.0 network to just squeak by as served for BEAD grants. But in my mind, counting DOCSIS 3.0 as served is equivalent to letting telcos still claim DSL as served.

It won’t take many years for a DOCSIS 3.0 network to degrade in capability as customers use more broadband each year. I always refer back to Open Vault statistics that show that the average usage for broadband customers has increased from 270 gigabytes per month at the end of 2018 to 641 gigabytes per month at the end of 2023. It’s inconceivable to think that a DOCSIS 3.0 network will be able to handle the broadband loads that are coming just a decade from now. That’s the primary reason why the technology is obsolete. If networks with DOCSIS 3.0 technology are classified as providing adequate broadband today, the owners of these networks will have no incentive to make investments to improve the networks.

I’m sure that a decade ago, nobody would have believed that there would be telcos still claiming 100/20 Mbps broadband speeds for DSL today – but I’ve seen pockets of this across the country. State Broadband Offices and the NTIA have recognized that the technology is not sustainable to meet future broadband needs and decided to ignore DSL when defining BEAD-eligible locations. If they apply the same logic to DOCSIS 3.0 networks, I’m positive they will draw the same conclusion.

Broadband Labels for Small ISPs

The FCC recently issued a detailed Compliance Guide that describes the rules associated with the creation of broadband consumer labels. ISPs with more than 100,000 customers were required to publish a label by April 10, 2024. All other ISPs have until October 10, 2024.

The FCC implies in the guide introduction that it is serious about the labels and threatens fines for ISPs that don’t create labels or who create labels that don’t comply with the rules. While the labels seem simple, there is a lot of information that must be disclosed to the public, so ISPs should read the guidelines.

Here are a few of the key requirements – but there are others:

  • Use the FCC Format. You can’t customize the label and must follow the FCC format – which has been standardized to be the same everywhere.
  • Machine Readable. The labels must be machine-readable on a website – don’t post a picture of a label.
  • What Products are Covered? You need a separate label for each broadband product. There are no exclusions in the rules for small business broadband. A huge number of ISPs of all sizes don’t quote business rates on their website since they negotiate rates with customers. The new labels are going to force ISPs to somehow show business rates, and it won’t be easy for ISPs that charge unique rates to each business customer.
  • Where to Show the Label. On a website, the labels can be displayed upfront or can become available after a customer lists the service address. Labels have to also be made available on any alternative websites where you advertise your products. Labels must be made available for those with disabilities. If you advertise in multiple languages, there must be a label in each language. You have to make labels easily available at retail outlets or other places where customers can buy your broadband.
  • Service Plans. You may identify plans by speed or by brand name.
  • Prices. At a minimum, you must show the unbundled standalone rate for each service offering. This must be the retail price before any promotions or discounts are applied to the product. You are allowed to separately describe the discounts that are available. This would include any bundling discounts.
  • Fees. You must disclose all fees associated with the product. This includes any installation fees. It would include all fees that are billed monthly in addition to the base price. This would include fees for a modem, gateway, or router. Fees like deposits or fees for late payment must be disclosed. Any fees for cancelling the contract must be disclosed.
  • Introductory Rates. If you offer introductory rates, you must disclose the discounted price, the length of a discount period, and the rates after the introductory rate expires. You can provide a link to a webpage that describes the special rates.
  • Contracts. You must disclose if a contract is required to get the listed price. There should be a link to see the contract terms that would apply.
  • Taxes. You must disclose if there are taxes on the product, although you don’t have to disclose the exact amount. You should disclose if taxes are rolled into your quoted prices.
  • Speeds and Latency. ISPs must disclose their ‘typical’ download and upload speed and latency for each product. If ISPs participate in the Measuring Broadband America (MBA) program, you should disclose the speeds determined in that process. If you don’t, you should disclose speeds based on actual internal testing. This is a stern warning to ISPs that advertise 100/20 Mbps but deliver 20/5 Mbps to disclose a number closer to your actual speeds. The same rules apply when reporting latency.
  • Network Management Practices. These don’t go on the label, but there must be a link near to the labels that directs the public to a description of network practices. Current transparency rules specifically require disclosing practices associated with blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. I highly recommend describing the technology you are using in plain English without hyperbole.
  • Privacy Policy. ISPs must also provide a link that discloses the privacy policies for dealing with customer data.
  • FCC Glossary. You must include a link to the FCC webpage that includes a glossary of broadband terms and other informational materials.
  • Archive. You must keep labels on file for at least two years for any products that you no longer offer. This basically means keeping all versions any time you make changes. This also implies that your labels must be up to date for all information provided.

If your broadband products are superior to those offered by competitors, you should post the labels now and not wait until October.

I think the labels are a great marketing tool for ISPs that sell good broadband at a good price. The labels have to be a major concern for ISPs that deliver broadband products that are much slower than what they advertise. Expect that customers will complain to the FCC if you advertise a speed or price on the labels but deliver something different.

The Trajectory for FWA

Mike Dano, in LightReading recently quoted Sowmyanarayan Sampath, the EVP and CEO of Verizon’s consumer business, as saying that Verizon expects to have 4 to 5 million FWA customers at the end of 2024, up from 3.4 million at the end of the first quarter of 2023. Mr. Sampath says that Verizon’s current network can support 4 to 5 million customers, but that the company is assessing how to grow beyond that point – a decision they will make later this year.

Verizon says its FWA growth was a little sluggish at the beginning of 2024, but that sales have picked in March after the company started offering new customers a free Nintendo Switch, the game console that retails for $200 to $300.

Dano also quotes financial analysts at TD Cowen who predict that Verizon will add 888,000 new net subscribers this year while T-Mobile will add 1.3 million more customers this year to add to the 4.8 million customers at the end of 2023. We also can’t forget that AT&T has entered the fray. The financial analysts at New Street Research recently predicted that AT&T will hit a peak of 180,000 new FWA customer additions per quarter by late 2025.

FWA broadband has majorly disrupted the broadband industry. According to the TD Cowen estimates, FWA operators will gain 2.6 million new customers in 2023 while fiber operators will add around 600,000 new customers. They predict that the big cable companies will lose about 1.1 million customers in 2024. That’s a net market change of 2.1 million new broadband customers – down from 3.5 million new customers in 2023.

I don’t know if the TD Cowen estimates include the impact from the end of the ACP program that brought discounts to 10 million landline broadband households. While many of those customers will likely still keep a broadband connection, many of these households got free broadband after applying the discount, and it doesn’t seem unrealistic to think that at least several million households will eventually disconnect broadband without the discount.

FWA broadband has one notable weakness that might define a natural market cap for the product as currently configured. The current version of the product shares bandwidth with cellular customers. Cell sites were not designed to accommodate large numbers of broadband connections that stay connected for long periods of time – and that, according to OpenVault, now use an average of 651 gigabytes of broadband every month. FWA broadband usage has to be eating into the resources at cell sites – and the impact will only get worse as both home and cellular customers use more broadband every year.

I think I’ve already witnessed some evidence of the stresses caused by FWA. I’ve had access to detailed speed test records for entire counties, and I’ve seen FWA customers who test at speeds of 100-300 Mbps down most of the time but who occasionally test at only a few Mbps. The FWA providers all say that they throttle users any time the cell site gets too busy, and I’ve seen enough examples to think this is evidence of severe throttling. That’s a situation that will occur more often as the FWA providers add more customers. Most broadband customers today won’t tolerate occasionally losing all broadband and likely will return to their original ISP if they continue to get throttled.

Mr. Sampath touched on a possible solution to the problem. He says Verizon is exploring the use of millimeter-wave spectrum at cell sites. Both Verizon and T-Mobile are considering C-Band spectrum for FWA customers. Moving at least some FWA customers off the same spectrum used for cellphones would eliminate the biggest weakness of FWA – that it uses the same spectrum that is serving cellphones. As much as carriers like FWA, they are not going to endanger their much larger cellular business – and one has to think that the success of FWA has already degraded cellular quality to some extent.

Interestingly, both Verizon and T-Mobile had originally publicly predicted that they would eventually achieve 15 million customers on FWA. They still have a long way to go to get there. It already looks like Verizon might have tapped into a lot of the households that are choosing FWA strictly due to lower prices. Having to bribe new customers with a new video console is a sign of a market that is already maturing.

It’s clear that FWA growth is probably the most important statistic in the market today since other ISPs are competing for the customers who aren’t opting for FWA. If the overall broadband market is reaching maturity, it gets even harder to predict how any given ISP or technology will perform.

Warehousing Spectrum

Today’s blog talks about a practice that doesn’t get discussed very often, which is the warehousing of spectrum. Warehousing is the practice where carriers sit on spectrum without using it or make only a minimal technical deployment to protect a spectrum license without actually using the spectrum as intended.

Warehousing is most often done because FCC rules require that spectrum be put into use within a reasonable amount of time after somebody acquires a license. Each band of spectrum has different rules. Some require deployment working links within a few years, while other spectrum bands give license holders up to a decade to use the license.

There are several situations that promote warehousing. The first is spectrum speculators who buy spectrum in the hope of selling it later at a profit. There are a few big examples of the practice. Columbia Capital bought a lot of 600 MHz spectrum in an FCC auction in 2017, purely as a speculative investment. The company profited handsomely a few years later when T-Mobile paid them a premium price for the unused spectrum. NextWave openly purchased huge amounts of PCS spectrum in the 1990s as an investment. The company went bankrupt and then spent years in legal battles with the FCC to retain the spectrum licenses until the company finally was able to sell the spectrum to AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and others.

Buying spectrum as an investment is common in auctions where the FCC sells licenses for smaller geographic areas. I recall the LMDS and MMDS auctions in the late 1990s, when a large percentage of spectrum went to investors who had been convinced that the licenses were great investments. These spectrum bands required that an active link be established in a market to retain the licenses. I remember fielding a lot of requests from license holders trying to preserve their speculative investments.

A more common use of warehousing is with the big carriers that buy spectrum because they think it might be useful. For example, most cellular companies purchased licenses for millimeter wave spectrum when there was a lot of talk that the spectrum would be a key component of 5G and the ability to provide gigabit speeds. T-Mobile alone invested over $1 billion in millimeter wave licenses. It turned out that the spectrum didn’t play as well as hoped in the outdoor environment, but most carriers who bought the spectrum are still sitting on it, hoping that research into 6G applications might find a use for it.

Probably the most common use of warehousing spectrum is in rural America. A lot of spectrum is sold in licenses that cover large geographic areas, in some cases nationwide. Carriers buy the spectrum to use in urban areas with no intentions of ever deploying it in rural areas. Unfortunately, most of the big wireless carriers are not interested in the effort involved in sublicensing spectrum to rural users, so the spectrum sits idle.

The use of the term warehousing is practically taboo among the big wireless carriers, and all will deny that they sit on unused spectrum. The industry has spun the story so often that spectrum is for serving customers that they don’t want to go on the record saying they have unused spectrum.

The politics of spectrum includes a tradition of wireless carriers constantly begging for more spectrum. Most wireless experts say that the big three cellular companies have more spectrum today than they need – which is part of the reason they can offer FWA cellular broadband. But the carriers also know that it takes many years to get the FCC to shake loose new spectrum, so they constantly cry poverty today for spectrum they won’t need for another decade.

New Survey on Broadband Speeds and Prices

U.S. News and World Report published the results of a new broadband survey in April that concentrated on what people are paying for broadband. The survey was administered to 2,500 people nationwide and asked about prices paid for broadband, service reliability, and overall satisfaction with their ISP.

The survey had some interesting findings:

  • The survey found that 95% of U.S. adults say they use the Internet.
  • The survey showed that the number one concern of U.S. Internet customers is price – and the survey was taken before the end of the ACP low-income subsidy.
  • Respondents in the survey had initially paid an average price of $77 for Internet service. However, their current bills had climbed to an average of $89 per month through price increases or from the lapse of promotional pricing.
  • New Jersey has the highest broadband rates, with an average monthly bill of $126. Folks in New Jersey have also seen the biggest bill increase, with the average price increasing by $28 since they first purchased broadband.
  • The lowest Internet bills are in Montana, where the monthly average bill is $70.
  • Folks in North Dakota have seen their average broadband bills drop by an average of $4 since they first signed up for service.
  • One-third of respondents said that cost is an issue, and they have to trim other expenses to be able to pay for broadband.
  • 54% of respondents are still bunding broadband with another service. This is way down from surveys I remember from a decade ago where 75% or more of households were buying a bundle.
  • 38% of respondents don’t know the speed they are paying for.
  • Older consumers are subscribing to slower speeds, with the most common package for those over 54 years old being between 25 Mbps and 100 Mbps. The age group of 45 to 54 had the fastest average speeds, with most subscribing to speeds between 300 Mbps and 1 Gbps.
  • 75% said their Internet connection is reliable, which the survey saw as good news. I guess I’m a pessimist and see that 25% of people don’t have a reliable connection.
  • Subscribers in the South were the most satisfied with reliability.
  • 73% of all subscribers were satisfied with their Internet service.

Overall, this survey showed the same trends that I’ve seen in other surveys, including the ones done by my consulting firm. Prices paid for broadband are definitely higher year after year – regardless of the claims of the big ISPs that broadband prices are dropping.

The bundle is growing less popular as millions of homes continue to drop traditional cable TV each year.

The majority of people are happy with the reliability of networks, but that means that 25% of homes are unhappy. About the same percentage (73%) are happy in general with their broadband connection.

The question I wished the survey would have asked is if people felt they have a choice of ISPs. The surveys we’ve been conducting show that a large percentage of homes, including many who are happy with their ISP, wish for a competitive alternative.

Satellites Directly to Cellphones

AT&T and satellite company AST SpaceMobile announced a partnership to provide satellite cellular service directly from satellites to cellphones. This will provide a service that is much needed for the billions of remote users who are not in the range of a cell tower.

This is an emerging industry that is still being referred to be different acronyms. Direct-to-Device, or D2D seems to be emerging as a popular term. The FCC has been calling this Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS). Others have been referring to this as Direct-to-Cell Phone.

AST offers a unique satellite technology that is far different than what can is used for broadband satellites like the ones being deployed by Starlink. The AST satellites have a large surface area which provides the ability to shape the signal to reach cellphones and to receive the signal back directly from a phone.

The company claims that the large satellites will be able to process up to one million simultaneous calls. The satellites will also be able to provide some broadband capability. AST is also using both low- and mid-band frequencies to increase connectivity options to and from users. Backhaul will likely be accomplished through links to AT&T ground stations.

The first AST launch will include five satellites in July or August that will be operational in about three months after launch. The satellites will be circling the globe at a high speed, and initial customers will only be able to make calls when the satellites are overhead. The company needs at least 45 satellites to provide constant connectivity, and over time, will likely keep adding satellites to improve overall capacity.

There are a lot of other players interested in pursuing the lucrative market that could include as many as 5 billion customers worldwide for folks who live, work, or travel to remove places. Here in the U.S., there are still huge parts of rural America with terrible cellular coverage.

  • Apple started the race by providing links directly from satellites to devices in 2022 when it announced that the iPhone 14 had the capability of connecting to Globalstar satellites for emergency text messages. Apple has invested more than $450 million to help Globalstar upgrade its ground stations.
  • Later in 2022, SpaceX announced a partnership with T-Mobile to also allow emergency texting. SpaceX had previously acquired Swarm in 2021 to try to develop the technology.
  • In early 2023, Qualcomm announced that its Snapdragon chip could connect directly to the Iridium satellite network to relay emergency text messages.
  • Lynk Global is working on constructing a fleet of satellites. The company has three test satellites in orbit. Lynk is collaborating with over 40 worldwide cellular carriers.
  • MediaTek has developed a satellite-compatible chipset that can connect to a Bullitt platform to use high-orbit GEO satellites from Inmarsat and Echostar.
  • Huawei and China Telecom have developed emergency calling and are working to deploy a LEO satellite constellation.
  • Deloitte predicted at the end of last year that 200 million smartphones will be sold in 2024 that contain the capability of connecting directly to a satellite.

There is a lot of demand for seamless cellular connectivity. People who travel around the world get frustrated by cellphones that only work in some countries. People who work daily in rural areas are frustrated as they move in and out of cell coverage. The ability to provide cellphone broadband could bring Internet connectivity to billions of people who are still not able to connect to an ISP. This service could also provide connectivity to remote sensors and other devices located out of reach of terrestrial networks.

This is going to be an interesting market, and it’s likely to be a huge one. It’s not unexpected to see AT&T jump into the fray to chase a huge new revenue stream.

Solar Storms and Broadband

Many readers will have seen recent news that the aurora borealis, or northern lights, were visible deep into the South for several days. This phenomenon is caused by a geomagnetic storm that is caused by strong solar flares. Solar flares can cause problems on Earth by emitting clouds of magnetized particles and hot plasma.

The geomagnetic storm that occurred last week was the strongest storm for the last twenty years. A strong solar storm is called a coronal mass ejection, and the recent storm emitted a stream or particles aimed directly at the Earth. The storm was rated by scientists as a G5 storm, which is considered to be extreme.

We only get about a one-hour warning about a pending solar storm. The United States Geological Survey operates observatories that monitor the Earth’s magnetic field. NOAA and NASA also operate satellites at about 1 million miles from Earth that monitor the sun.

It’s highly unlikely for solar storms to directly affect people since the Earth’s outer atmosphere absorbs the worse of the ions and particles from the storm. However, geomagnetic storms can cause a lot of damage to electronics and wired networks. Solar storms tend to only last a few days, but some of the damage can be devastating. Radios can go dark during a bad storm, making it impossible to communicate with airplanes and ships. Solar storms can play havoc with telecommunications networks. Particularly vulnerable are undersea cable networks, which, due to their long length, can pick up and magnify the disruptions and blow out electronics.

Strong storms can knock out electric grids, and a storm in 1989 knocked out the entire power grid in Quebec, affecting six million people. The USGS along with NOAA provides maps and advice to electric utilities about pending storms.

Some of our most vulnerable electronics are in the many satellites that now circle the globe. Satellites sit outside the protective upper atmosphere and the storms can damage electronics. This could force satellites to veer off course or even fall to Earth. One of the problems caused by the recent solar storms was to precision GPS. People driving in cars wouldn’t have noticed any issues, but there are applications that rely on locating things precisely. One of these applications is precision agriculture.

404 Media published an article that documented problems experienced by the GPS navigation systems in John Deere and other brands of tractors. Precision GPS allows John Deere tractors to navigate precise straight lines using Real-Time Kinematic technology that is accurate to within a few centimeters. Farmers were warned about planting new line crops like corn during the current storm since inaccurately aligned planting makes it impossible to precisely run tractors during the rest of the season for weeding, watering, and fertilizing the rows or crops. The current storm hit during the week when farmers in the Midwest were planting many of their crops.

There are steps that can be taken to avoid the worst damage from bad solar storms. One of the best defenses for the electric grid is to turn off the grid during the worst part of a storm. That sounds drastic, but it’s better than losing large numbers of transformers. It’s possible for electric companies to install modern transformers that provide some protection against the kinds of surges created during a solar storm. It’s also possible to design undersea fibers with some protection against solar storms.

The ultimate protection is to place electronics inside a Faraday cage, which is a wire mesh box built around all sides of the electronics device. But that’s expensive, and the Foundation for Resilient Societies estimates that putting new electronics in these cages each year would cost $25.5 billion.

But maybe that’s not expensive when considering the alternative. The National Academy of Science estimated that a disastrous solar storm could cost $2 trillion worldwide and cause a global recession when electric grids stay out of service for months.

ISPs and the End of ACP

As I write this blog, the ACP program that provides a discount for millions of homes will disappear unless Congress takes action to continue it. By now, most big ISPs have announced how they will handle broadband for low-income homes after the end of ACP.

Altice Optimum provides the Optimum Advantage Internet plan that provides 50 Mbps download speed for $14.99 per month. Customers can choose to double the speed by doubling the price.

AT&T. The company says it will still offer its Access from AT&T plan for $30 per month that provides unlimited usage at 100 Mbps. Those speeds are available on fiber, with best effort-speeds on DSL or FWA cellular wireless.

Charter will continue to offer the Spectrum Internet Assist plan, which offer 50 Mbps download speeds for $24.99 per month. Customers can double the speed for an extra $5 per month.

Comcast is going to keep its Internet Essentials plan that provides speeds up to 50 Mbps for $9.95 per month. Plan participants can also buy a low-cost basic computer. Comcast is going to let customers who were enrolled in ACP rollover to Internet Essentials without having to go through the qualification process again. But it looks like customers will have to choose the rollover option and it’s not automatic.

Comcast also just announced a new plan called NOW Internet that will offer 100 Mbps service for $30 or 200 Mbps service for $45. These are not low-income programs and are available to everybody. This seems to be the company’s response to losing customers to FWA wireless plans being offered by T-Mobile and Verizon.

Cox Communications will continue to offer two plans. First is its Connect2Compete plan that provides a $9.95 monthly broadband connection to families with a child in grades K-12 who qualifies for the national School Lunch Program or other federal programs. Cox also has a ConnectAssist plan for $30 per month for other families who qualify for a list of federal programs. Both plans deliver speeds up to 100 Mbps.

Frontier will allow customer who were using ACP to instead get the $9.25 FCC Lifeline discount. It’s not clear if that transition is automatic or if customers will have to apply for the Lifeline discount.

Mediacom offers the Xtreme Connect plan for low-income households for $28.99 per month. This includes a $14 charge for the WiFi modem. Households with students who qualify for the federal School Lunch Program are not charged the modem fee, bringing the price down to $14.99.

T-Mobile has several plans for customers who are already using the ACP discount. Customers of Assure Wireless will continue to get the equivalent of the ACP discount through August 2024, at which point they will covert to get the FCC’s $9.25 Lifeline discount. ACP customers using Metro by T-Mobile will continue to receive the ACP discount through June 2024. For July and August, the discount will drop to $15 per month.

Verizon will continue to offer its Verizon Forward plan that gives customers a 300/200 Mbps connection for $20 per month. Existing ACP customers will get this plan free for at least six months.

Windstream gave ACP customers until April 30 to transfer their ACP benefit to its Kinetic Benefit program. Any customers who made the transition will be able to keep the identical discount received under ACP for as long as they keep the plan at the same address and don’t make any changes to the plan. It’s not clear what happens to customers who did not make the benefit transfer.

This is a wide range of responses to the end of ACP. Some big ISPs are reverting to affordable rates for low-income households such as the $9.95 plan from Comcast. Others are extending the ACP from a few months up to six months. A few are only offering Lifeline as the alternative to ACP. A few are making the transition automatic to low-cost plans while it appears others will require customers to apply for the discounts.

While I won’t list them, smaller ISPs are making similar changes. For example, I know one ISP that will keep the ACP discount the same for customers as long as they keep service. I also know smaller ISPs that will let ACP lapse with no low-income replacement plan.

RDOF Amnesty

I have been asked my opinion several times recently about RDOF amnesty – letting RDOF winners walk away from their obligations without big penalties. There is no easy answer to the question.

It’s certainly a timely topic, since we are seeing ISPs walk away from RDOF. As I was writing this blog, Charter announced it was returning RDOF winnings in 125 Census block groups in Michigan, Missouri, and Wisconsin due to pole replacement issues. Altice defaulted on 18 Census blocks in Louisiana. Other RDOF winners are considering walking away from RDOF commitments.

There are several good arguments to be made that favor some kind of amnesty. Soon after the end of the RDOF auction the country experienced much higher inflation than has been seen for more than a decade. I’ve seen estimates across the industry that the cost to build a new broadband network increased 20% to 25% over the last few years. That certainly makes it significantly harder for an RDOF winner to build the markets it won in the auction.

The counterargument is that this same inflation also impacted other federal grants like ReConnect and various state broadband grants awarded across that same time period. When the FCC offered a 10-year RDOF subsidy, there was no guarantee that the economy would not change over that time frame. In fact, anybody winning a 10-year subsidy should expect at least one economic downturn during a ten-year cycle. The current spate of inflation is significant, but it’s not unprecedented, and there have been several worse periods of inflation during my career.

Another argument that can be made for amnesty is that RDOF was never enough funding to build rural networks. While RDOF wasn’t a grant program, many companies who took the funding treated is as such. Most ISPs, except perhaps the few giant ISPs, use the RDOF subsidy to secure funding to build the promised network. In doing so, RDOF winners treat the funding as if it is a grant.

Anybody who now complains that they didn’t get enough funding from RDOF doesn’t have a strong argument. Nobody required winners to bid below a price that they thought was sufficient. It’s clear that the reverse auction for RDOF got crazy due to bidders who had no business being in the auction – but anybody that got into a bidding war with one of the crazy bidders can’t complain that they didn’t achieve the RDOF award they were hoping for.

Perhaps the best reason to allow RDOF amnesty is that there is a good chance that anybody asking for amnesty might walk away. Or they might build a minimal network to try to say they satisfied the RDOF rules – but there is a good chance they will eventually walk away from RDOF, penalties or no penalties.

The immediate issue with RDOF amnesty is the impact it could have on BEAD grants. It’s completely unfair to State Broadband Offices to ask them to toss new locations into the BEAD process at this late date. Many States have already finished or are in the middle of the BEAD map challenge – and RDOF locations were not part of that process. States also didn’t look at the RDOF areas when defining high-cost plans.

Maybe even worse, ISPs haven’t considered building in any RDOF areas that are suddenly dumped into BEAD. The BEAD grants require careful deliberation by ISPs, and a significant amount of work is needed to understand the cost of building into grant areas. This isn’t something that ISPs are going to quickly tackle. This is even more so for areas like the ones that Charter is abandoning because of the cost of replacing poles – that would scare anybody else off from considering such areas.

I believe that at this late stage, the FCC needs to own the consequences of ISPs abandoning RDOF. I hope that the NTIA and states refuse to roll abandoned RDOF locations into BEAD grants at this late date. The FCC broke RDOF, and whether they allow amnesty or ISPS just walk away, the FCC needs to be the one to fix the problems caused by RDOF defaults.