CenturyLink and Frontier Communications, two of the more notable internet companies, received $789 million from the Federal Communications Commission in 2015 to expand broadband access to rural communities by the end of 2020. Both companies failed to meet the deadline.
Rural communities have often suffered from a lack of access to fixed broadband services at threshold speeds. A recent report from the FCC found that “approximately 19 million Americans, or 6% of the population, still lack access to fixed broadband service at threshold speeds. In rural areas, nearly one-fourth of the population, 14.5 million people, lack access to this service.” As of 2021, the FCC defines the current threshold speed as 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload, which can accommodate most video services. This lack of threshold speed means that those attending are not receiving optimal internet speeds, which would limit their ability to access and compete on the internet with those who have optimal connections.
The FCC supports this by awarding grants to broadband providers across the United States to expand their physical networks. In 2015, the FCC agreed to provide grants worth up to $9 billion to broadband providers to expand the networks. Some companies have had success in building out their network. Others have struggled.
CenturyLink’s data suggested that the company could not reach the 100% mark in 23 states. Frontier’s data implied that 17 states were incomplete. In its filing, Frontier informed the FCC that it faced extraordinary permitting delays that affected its ability to finish the infrastructure.
The failure was hardly surprising. Frontier filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2020, which was only recently approved by the FCC to consolidate its debt.
That hasn’t stopped the organizations from receiving criticism. West Virginia Sen. Shelley Capito, a Republican, filed a letter in December 2020 to the FCC about Frontier’s complaints, writing, “Frontier’s mismanagement of prior federal funding … raises significant questions about their ability to manage federal funds of this magnitude.” She encouraged Ajit Pai, the FCC chairman at the time, to consider blocking any future funding for Frontier.
While some might expect the FCC to decide to rescind the funds provided to the ISPs that were unable to fulfill their goals, the law permits an extension to finish the work. According to a filing discovered by Ars Technica, federal law states that the two companies still have time to complete their assignments in the states that have not received 100% of the promised infrastructure.
While much of this is a matter of internal economics, the effects of the two companies’ failures are visibly evident in the local impact on the quality of life.
Advocates for infrastructure expansion typically note how a lack of broadband or internet access is the inability to access healthcare. Kaitlyn O’Connor, senior legal counsel at Nixon Gwilt Law, a legal firm that deals primarily in healthcare, told the Washington Examiner, “Even outside of COVID, though, rural internet access is imperative for ensuring that patients have access to quality healthcare.” She noted that “for many patients in rural areas, the costs associated with traveling to an in-person visit at their doctor’s office are prohibitive and lead to delayed treatment and, in turn, expensive emergency room visits.”
Education suffers as well, especially for children in rural areas. While schools have provided children in need with cellular hot spots, the coverage in those areas is spotty and unreliable.
That also means there must be reasonable pricing. Christopher Villari, the head of communications at the infrastructure firm Turner and Townsend, told the Washington Examiner that “there may technically be broadband access, but the cost may make it more difficult for some to consider, therefore making adoption tougher in these areas.”
