Free State Foundation President Randolph May sent a letter
today to Senator John Thune, former Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee,
in response to Senator Thune's request for responses to a wide-ranging set of
questions relating to the implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (IIJA) and other programs disbursing funds to advance broadband
deployment, as well as questions focused more generally on broadband issues.
The letter's Introduction is below:
Introduction
The Free State Foundation's big-picture position regarding broadband
deployment is that the role of marketplace innovation and competition, fueled
by over $2 trillion in private capital investments since 1996 and $86 billion
in 2021 alone, should be acknowledged, protected, and encouraged. And in those increasingly
limited locations where challenging economic realities justify targeted
government intervention to close remaining digital divides, marketplace
competition should be replicated to the greatest extent possible to maximize
overall consumer welfare while promoting fiscal responsibility.
In practical terms, first and foremost, this means that
taxpayer dollars should never be used to subsidize the "overbuilding"
of existing, privately funded networks that are already meeting consumer needs.
Government subsidies should be applied judiciously solely to unserved areas. Then,
and only then, should subsidies be directed to areas properly deemed "underserved."
And in no event should subsidies be awarded in a manner that artificially tilts
the competitive landscape toward government-preferred service providers,
whether municipal or cooperative systems, or providers that choose to deploy
fiber (or both). In other words, to the maximum extent possible, economic efficiency
should serve as the overarching guiding principle so that all Americans can
reap the benefits that accrue from the operation of marketplace forces.
In addition, great care must be taken to prevent waste,
fraud, and abuse. Unfortunately, the scattershot nature that defines the
current multi-agency, multi-program approach to disbursing broadband subsidies inevitably
invites such abuse. Meaningful oversight, such as this effort you have initiated,
is essential to achieve a coordinated, government-wide approach that helps avoid
waste and ensures that taxpayer dollars are expended prudently. Effective oversight
also will help inform efforts by law enforcement officials to hold parties
accountable for fraud and other abuse of subsidy dollars.
Moreover, it is important that Congress require the FCC to
continue to remove obstacles that delay deployment of broadband infrastructure
and raise the costs of deployment. This may require granting the FCC more
explicit authority to preempt various state and local regulations and practices
relating to infrastructure siting that continue to pose unnecessary impediments
to rapid deployment of both wireline and wireless services, including small
cell 5G broadband facilities. It also may require measures to streamline
infrastructure siting on federal lands.
And Congress should require the FCC to complete in a timely
fashion its ongoing pole attachment proceeding and ensure that the final rules
require prompt resolution of pole attachment disputes. Furthermore, Congress
should eliminate the existing exemption from FCC-imposed limits on rates for
attachments to poles owned by municipalities and electric cooperatives.
Finally, efforts spearheaded by Congress to expand broadband
connectivity should not be allowed to be waylaid by extraneous supposed policy
priorities, such as preferences for labor unions, "net neutrality," or
various forms of rate regulation, however disguised or denominated. Attempts to
impose these controversial extraneous policy preferences through the
conditioning of federal broadband subsidies only serve to distract, delay, and
drive costs higher. They are even more harmful now given the inflationary
pressures currently wreaking havoc on projected price estimates.