USF, Programming Costs Focus of Broadband NOI Comments

broadband deployment. NCTA had said in initial comments that the funds should be shifted to any broadband provider able to meet the standard (see 1503060064). Frontier called the proposal a “last-minute attack” and said pursuing the change would “severely delay the deployment of broadband to rural areas.” NTCA and the American Cable Association, in replies posted Tuesday in docket 14-126, also urged the agency to enact reforms to curb increasing programming costs. An ACA study took particular aim at “'Cablization’ of the Internet,” in which content providers charge ISPs fees on a per-subscriber basis to permit the broadband providers’ customers to access the content, said ACA's filing. Should “content providers pursue this business model, the effect on broadband deployment will almost certainly be immediate and grave,” ACA said. Among other reforms, the association urged the agency to monitor for “cablization” and address commercially unreasonable actions. Using Telecom Act Section 706 to deal with the costs of programming would not “present the challenges” of using the provision to pre-empt state anti-municipal broadband laws, the cable association said. Making video content available at affordable rates and under reasonable terms and conditions “spurs rural broadband investment,” NTCA said. It urged changes to USF to support smaller rural companies. Frontier noted that CAF Phase II is “specifically targeted to the areas that most need funding.” By requiring only 10 Mbps download/1 Mbps upload speeds for CAF, the agency is recognizing “a tradeoff between the number of households reached and the speeds achieved,” Frontier said.