CTIA Says Mobility Fund Would Fall Short of Dealing with Unserved Population
A mobility fund offering only the $100 million to $300 million proposed by the FCC won’t be enough to meet the many needs for mobile deployment, said CTIA and many of the wireless carriers it represents, in reply comments to the commission. Commenters also said there’s widespread concern about a proposal to use reverse auctions to determine which carriers get funding. The comments arrived at the FCC as it announced that a rulemaking to overhaul the Universal Service Fund is scheduled for a vote at the Feb. 8 commission meeting. (See the related report in this issue.)
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
CTIA said most commenters in the initial comment round agreed that the amount proposed wouldn’t meet industry needs (CD Dec 20 p 6). “Commenters present data demonstrating that $100-$300 million would have little impact on mobile broadband deployment,” the group said. The real cost of deploying wireless broadband in unserved areas would likely be closer to $30 billion, CTIA said. The USA Coalition estimated that $300 million would pay for “only a few hundred new cell sites, increasing the number of cell sites in the United States by a small fraction of one percent,” CTIA noted.
The record shows that the proposed fund “would not result in expanded service to the areas that most need it,” the Rural Cellular Association said. The group called the proposed funding “wholly inadequate.” It said because of problems with USF, the FCC should deal “first and foremost” with a comprehensive revamp.
TIA said most of those that have filed comments agree that the mobility fund could prove helpful. The group acknowledged that broadband needs must be measured in the billions of dollars, “dwarfing the proposed size of the fund.” But TIA encouraged the FCC to fund the program at the level proposed. “Without the full $300 million, the Commission will never know the full impact that the Mobility Fund could have on narrowing the gaps in unserved areas.”
SouthernLINC said although the mobility fund proposal is “well intentioned,” it will provide “little more than an unwelcome and potentially harmful distraction from the Commission’s efforts to ensure sustainable reform” of the whole USF program.
Verizon and Verizon Wireless said the FCC should move forward on the fund, but at the same time eliminate all legacy support to competitive eligible telecommunications carriers funded through the USF. “The only way to ensure adequate funding for new universal service broadband and mobility priorities without burdening consumers with a dramatic increase in USF charges is to eliminate and repurpose remaining CETC support,” Verizon said. The carrier took a shot at commenters that have complained about the fund’s proposed size, noting that the FCC has made clear it will not be the only mechanism for funding broadband buildout in unserved areas. “These complaints largely ring hollow,” Verizon said. “The proposed Mobility Fund is not by itself designed to satisfy all USF program objectives."
In October, when the FCC approved the mobility fund proposal, Chairman Julius Genachowski made clear that the commission views it as only part of the answer for meeting broadband needs. “This is the first time that the commission has identified the mobility gap as a problem to solve and that’s a big deal,” he said (CD Oct 15 p 5).
Many commenters raised red flags about an FCC proposal to use the mobility fund as a test of reverse auctions for possible wider use in a revamped USF. “Reverse auctions are an untested mechanism for determining and distributing universal service support in the United States,” CTIA said. At the least, “the record counsels for a cautious approach.” RCA agreed “the record demonstrates that single winner reverse auctions are inherently anti-competitive.”