Light Reading Cable – Telecom News, Analysis, Events, and Research
Sign up for our Free Telecom Weekly Newsletter
Connect with us

LR Cable News Analysis  

Do Telcos Need More Tax Dollars to Fund Broadband?

July 13, 2012 | Denise Culver | Comments (26)
   
 
no ratings
1 saves

Considering Frontier Communications Corp. (NYSE: FTR) generated nearly $1.3 billion in revenues in the first quarter of 2012, why is it the first to take a new handout from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for the purpose of delivering broadband connectivity?

The answer is far from simple. In fact, it bears a striking resemblance to the raging battle over the tax versus penalty debate in U.S. health care.

On July 9, Frontier Communications announced that it is the first local exchange carrier (LEC) to take money -- to the tune of $71.9 million -- from the FCC’s Connect America Fund (CAF). Those not familiar with CAF are probably more familiar with the name by which it’s been known since it was established in 1934 -- the Universal Service Fund (USF). (See FCC Launches 'Connect America Fund'.)

USF originally was created at a time in which only 40 percent of America had landline phone service, and the idea was to create a fund (created by a tax or a penalty, depending on how it’s viewed) that would subsidize the cost of building out phone service to areas where it might not be considered economically feasible to do so by the phone company. (See Back to the Future on Unbundling.)

Fast-forward about 80 years, and USF’s noble beginnings mushroomed into an unwieldy mechanism that far outgrew its original intent, enabling telecommunications service providers to profit mightily at the cost of consumers, who pay USF fees (for a complete history of USF and its evolution, see Understanding The Universal Service Fund).

The answer to this problem, per the FCC’s ruling late last year, was the creation of CAF, a $300 million fund to be used to build out broadband to unserved -- generally rural -- areas of the country, as defined on the National Broadband Map. The telcos that are eligible for CAF funds have until July 24 to decide whether to accept the funding, which essentially provides them with $775 per household to build out broadband service in these rural areas.

Table 1: Connecting to the CAF

Company Support Amount
CenturyLink $89,904,599
Frontier Communications $71,979,104
Windstream Communications $60,404,310
AT&T $47,857,148
Verizon $19,734,224
Fairpoint Communications $4,856,858
Alaska Communications Systems $4,185,103
Consolidated Communications $421,247
Hawaii Telcom $402,171
Source: FCC data

Double dipping
"The $300 million that funds CAF was created through savings made by reforming USF," according to FCC spokesman Mark Wigfield. What’s most interesting about these savings and the resulting reformation, however, is that now, these service providers continue to receive the USF fees they already were receiving, but they’re also eligible for a hefty chunk of CAF money, as well.

The justification here is that the FCC has capped USF at its 2011 rate for service providers (it’s interesting to note here that between 2002 and 2011, USF fees increased 272 percent, according to Broadband Reports). It’s also helpful to note that service providers are not required to collect USF from their customers; in fact, since the Telecom Act of 1996, they’ve had the distinct option of not charging customers for USF or doing so as a tax, an option for which they all opted (again, the penalty vs. tax analogy).

As of this week, Frontier is the only company to outright accept the FCC’s money. Steven C. Crosby, SVP of Government & Regulatory Affairs and Public Relations with Frontier Communications, said that between the CAF money and Frontier’s own investments, the company plans to deploy broadband to about 200,000 unserved locales. This fits nicely with the company’s need to meet its 2013 goal of achieving 85 percent broadband penetration as part of its 2010 acquisition of Verizon’s 4.8 million landlines, a deal valued at about $8.6 billion. Currently, Crosby says, Frontier is “at nearly 80 percent” of that goal.

The only other company to publicly acknowledge its intent toward the CAF money is CenturyLink. On June 26, CenturyLink filed a waiver with the FCC to ask that it be allowed to use the CAF money to build broadband into locations on the National Broadband Map that are already served by fixed wireless providers. However, CenturyLink contends that these fixed wireless providers do not provide adequate service to the areas. This is an important distinction. Instead of providing service to areas that have no service, CenturyLink has the potential here to use the funding to set itself up as a competitor in areas that already have service.

A CenturyLink company source, speaking under the condition of anonymity, said won't say whether CenturyLink plans to take the money regardless of whether the waiver is granted. “Under the waiver,” the source said, “CenturyLink expects to be able to use an additional $32 million to serve an additional 42,000 homes if the waiver is granted.”

FCC spokesman Wigfield said he was not certain whether CenturyLink’s waiver filing would open the door to other service providers attempting to circumvent the ruling that CAF fees be used to provide broadband to unserved areas, as opposed to those deemed “under served” by the service providers.

“The bottom line,” he said, “is that with CAF, the FCC tried to establish reasonable benchmarks on what the appropriate amount of support is for carriers. Some were found to be getting too much support, but others weren't getting what they deserved. So these changes make the system more fair overall.”

— Denise Culver, Special to Light Reading

Newest Comments First       Display in Chronological Order
Page 1 of 3 Next >
Phil Harvey
User Ranking
Friday July 27, 2012 4:38:06 PM
no ratings

Story update: The two biggest telcos mentioned in this piece did turn down the help from the FCC's Connect America Fund. Broadband Reports has the follow-up.

fgoldstein
User Ranking
Wednesday July 18, 2012 6:10:03 PM
no ratings

Checking the FCC's report on who got how much USF in CY 2010 (a spreadsheet I downloaded from their site), Rate of Return ILECs got about $2B in USF High Cost money, in 1150 study areas (each usually represents a carrier in a state), about twice as much as went to the Price Cap ILECs including those in process of conversion (e.g., some CenturyLink areas).  RoR is alive and well for those 5.7M lines which averaged $352/year each in support.  So it's a small dog but a very hungry one.

Since they were outsized capital spenders, capping USF will certainly put a damper on the supplier industry.

brookseven
User Ranking
Tuesday July 17, 2012 10:58:18 AM

fg,

Good post but I do have one comment.  There are actually not as many ROR IOCs left as your post might lead folks to believe.  Many of them are Price Cap carriers and USF/CAF/etc all apply for them.

You hit something tangentially that I think is part of the issue psychologically.  In the days of ROR carriers (lots of them), the State PUCs were tasked with lowering CAPEX spending not raising it.  The lobbying done by the large carriers is to eliminate unbundling of their new spend (FTTH in particular).  No entity is actually trying to raise Capex by any significant amount.  

seven

 

fgoldstein
User Ranking
Tuesday July 17, 2012 10:50:17 AM
no ratings

USF is of course a tax, since the government compels you to pay, but they label it a fee because Americans are allergic to "tax" by name.  The rational approach is to have the general fund pay for this, if it's a social obligation, not come up with cockamamie schemes to fund it via other industry customers.  But that's what the law calls for.  And Alaska gets huge USF from Washington rather than spending ist oil money because it, like Wyoming and other subsidy-sucking states, gets the same two Senate seats as every other state.  Think "farm bill".  Same thing.

Telcos don't pay for this themselves because the incentives aren't there.  Rate of return regulation gave an incentive to spend a lot, to build up the rate base.  Price caps give an incentive to do a cost-benefit analysis on every dollar out the door.  Rural areas aren't profitable so they lose.  USF's primary role is to make up the difference between revenues and the revenue requirements of the remaining (small rural) rate of return carriers.  A "reform" in CAF is to force holding companies with big price cap entities (think CenturyLink) to move their RoR subsidiaries onto Price Caps instead.  So after the CAF grants are awarded, rural areas owned by big carriers could be permanently orphaned.

One foot is too hot, one foot is too cold, so I guess on average the feet are at the right temperature.

joanengebretson
User Ranking
Monday July 16, 2012 12:13:53 PM
no ratings

BrookSeven

Thanks for the clarification. You may be quite right about large carrier thinking. If they truly don't believe USF funding can help justify the business case in unserved areas and ultimately decline funding, other carriers will have the opportunity to bid to deliver service through a reverse auction.

We should have a better idea how the other large carriers are thinking later this month when decisions on Phase 1 funding are due.

 

 

 

brookseven
User Ranking
Monday July 16, 2012 10:56:57 AM

 

Joan,

There are more projects than CAPEX available for carriers.  These get ranked by business case.  This business case contains many elements.

1 - What is the cost?

2 - What is the revenue gain?

3 - What is the cost avoidance?

4 - What is the risk involved in getting to any of these financial elements?

I suspect this last is where there is confusion.  Revenue gains are almost always somewhat risky.  So, you have to temper the amount of revenue gain by the risk of getting the gain.  Cost estimates might be off as well but are generally better controlled.  So, risk elements are part of business case calculations.

Once all these elements are put in, the best business cases get funded up to the point that all the CAPEX is used.  Once that is done, it is done.  The Connect America Fund lowers the cost element (not to zero of course) but does not do any other changes to the model.

One of the beauty of the unserved areas is that there is no risk to the revenue gain.  Even better it does not get worse over time since nobody else is going to bother to provide service.  So, 10 years from now those same areas will be unserved and so there is no risk to the revenue being available then.

So, for AT&T does the CAF money move projects to the top?  Probably not.  Which is why the idea that this money has a lot of value to the largest carriers is comical.  Typical bureaucrat thinking about companies.

seven

 

joanengebretson
User Ranking
Monday July 16, 2012 10:12:25 AM
no ratings

BrookSeven

I'm not sure what you mean by "risk adjusted GREATEST increase in profitability" so I'm hard pressed to respond to what you've written. It sounds like we're in agreement on the basic idea that a large telco would make it a very low priority to invest in an area where it can't make money or may even lose money, yes?

 


 

joanengebretson
User Ranking
Monday July 16, 2012 9:58:48 AM
no ratings

Hello Dennis-

I realize telcos pass on USF costs to consumers and in that way USF is like a tax. Here's the difference. If the money wasn't going toward USF, it wouldn't be used for education or school lunch programs or winning in Afghanistan or whatever else people might think it could be better spent on. Instead it would simply go back to the telcos.  It's not general purpose money. It comes from telecom for telecom. And while consumers might hope the telcos would pass back the savings if telcos no longer had to support the fund, I question whether that would actually happen.

I believe the line item you refer to actually goes to the schools & libraries program (a different part of Universal Service). Funding for the high-cost program is variable, based on usage.

 

 

mendyk
User Ranking
Monday July 16, 2012 8:41:34 AM

Joan -- My phone bill has a separate line item for Universal Service Fee. Quack quack.

brookseven
User Ranking
Sunday July 15, 2012 9:10:41 PM

joanengebretson,

 

For item 2, you have entirely the wrong threshold.  Profitability or ANY increase in earnings is not the threshold.  It is the risk adjusted GREATEST increase in profitability that is the issue.  Telcos are not going to put in kit up to the level of profitability of any project.  They are going to spend an amount of money on capex.  Money will be spent based on a priority system.  The Connect America Fund may change the outcome of the calculation but it needs to push the value of the project above the cut line before any money will get spent.

seven

 

Page 1 of 3 Next >
The blogs and comments are the opinions only of the writers and do not reflect the views of Light Reading. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.