The Republican U.S. senator from West Virginia has called on the government to cut off broadband funding for Frontier Communications, saying the ISP is not capable of delivering gigabyte speed internet service to all required locations.
Sen. Shelley Moore Kititopito (RWVA) outlined her concerns in a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pine last week. Capito told Pine that Frontier had misappropriated funds from the previous government and appeared to lack both the technical capabilities and financial capacity to meet its new obligations.
Frontier, which filed for bankruptcy in April, is one of 180 ISPs that received funding in the auction results, in contrast to the FCC’s Rural Digital Ortend Fund (RDF) announced last week. Frontier is set to receive $ 370.9 million over 10 years to bring broadband to 127,188 homes and businesses in eight states. Frontier’s largest payment is in West Virginia, where it is to receive 24 247.6 million over 10 years to expand its broadband network to 79,391 locations.
Despite failing to meet the FCC’s deadline for the previous round of subsidized broadband deployments in West Virginia and other states, the FCC won two-thirds of the funds allocated to West Virginia by the Frontier in 2015. The deadline had to be met. Frontier told Arsen today that it would now meet the deadline “by the end of 2021.”
“Example” of missing deadlines
Capito urged Pie to block Frontier’s new funding by rejecting the ISP’s long-form application, which should be completed by winning bids to get the money allocated. “The stakes are too high to supply the company with about 250 250 million, which does not have the capacity to deliver on the promises made to the FCC,” he wrote.
Under FCC rules, winning bidders must deploy 40 percent of the required locations in each state in three calendar years, 60 percent in four years, 80 percent in five years, 100 percent in six years, broadband. Because Frontier got the funds in gigabyte tires, it would have to offer a download speed of 1 Gbps and upload speeds of 500 Mbps with a monthly usage allowance of at least 2 TB.
Capito described his reasons for concern about Frontier’s ability to meet the following requirements:
Frontier’s mismanagement of previous federal funds through the Broadband Technology ort Poverty Fund program, which resulted in .7 7 million being paid for improper use of federal funds, raises significant questions about their ability to manage federal funds of this magnitude. Furthermore, Frontier has a documentary approach to history showing the FCC’s inability to meet the deadline to complete support for Connect America Fund II in West Virginia. The inability to deploy federal funds in a timely fashion to improve a network delivering broadband services at speeds of 10/1 Mbps or more should also raise significant concerns about their ability to build a network that reaches that level a hundredfold.
Especially with regard to Frontier’s assigned performance level, I urge you to do a lot of research to make sure West Virginia has the technical capacity to deliver gigabyte-level service. According to the Federal Register of June 18, 2020, the FCC reserves the right to reject an applicant’s long-form application if they do not meet the technical qualifications for the level of performance in which they are allowed to bid. Based on Frontier’s current and past performance, I’m concerned that they lack the technical capabilities in West Virginia that transition from a provider that struggles to deliver an FCC minimum standard of 25/3 Mbps to a provider that can provide up to 95 percent Gigabit level service. Is. Necessary number of places in the state.
In April, we wrote about an audit report commissioned by the West Virginia Public Service Commission, which found that Frontier’s “copper network” had at least 952,163 connection points sensitive to moisture, corrosion, loose connections, etc. that could cause service disruptions. .Customers. “The report also found that Frontier repeatedly failed to meet the service-quality benchmark to set the outage to 85 percent within ages percent hours. Frontier has about 300,000 customers in West Virginia, most of whom are subscribers to DSL Internet service.
A spokesman for Frontier, who contacted Ars today, said: “Due to the quiet period rules, the company will not be able to comment further on what has been made public by the FCC.” Frontier told the FCC that it would use Fiber-Two at home to speed up gigabytes and would have to provide more details about its network and funding plans in the long form application.
We have contacted the FCC today about Capito’s letter and will update this article if we receive any feedback.
Bankruptcy of the Frontier
Frontier’s bankruptcy also worries Capito. Because the FCC subsidy apparently would not cover the full cost of the deployment, it wrote that Frontier would need to raise $ 250 million in private capital to fund the Gigabit network in West Virginia. “
Across the country, the FCC paid આઈ 9.2 billion to the ISP, despite initially providing ઉપલબ્ધ 16 billion. The reverse auction constitution has resulted in lower payments as ISPs compete for funding. Capito wrote to Pie:
I urge you to take a closer look at Frontier’s financial viability for these investments, especially when they arise from Chapter 11 financial restructuring. Due to the nature of the opposite auction, it is entirely possible, if not impossible, that the bidder would have to invest their own funds to meet costs above and beyond the subsidy provided by the RDF. Emerging from financial restructuring requires significant private capital and I am concerned about Frontier’s ability to both complete their financial restructuring and fund the construction of a network that will deliver the required gigabyte level of service to the locations where they successfully bid. RDF auction. The cost of building a network capable of delivering gigabytes of service is a costly and daunting feat for a financially strong company.
At the time of its bankruptcy, Frontier admitted to investors that its “significant under-investment in fiber deployment” had contributed significantly to the company’s decline. Frontier has also faced investigations and complaints in New York, Minnesota and Ohio.
Advocacy group Derek Turner, director of research at Free Press, is skeptical of Frontier’s ability to deploy fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) in remote areas. “Can Frontier handle FTTP deployments in rural areas on this basis? I can’t say; what I can say is that they bought most of their existing FTTP assets from Verizon, so their deployment track record is limited,” Turner told Ars today. Turner also criticized the FCC for funding most of the RDF to various ISPs in affluent urban areas.
“I think the state will get worse”
As the West Virginia Public Broadcasting Report showed last week, the West Virginia captives are not the only officials who have objected to Frontier receiving federal money. Mike Holstein, secretary-treasurer of the West Virginia Broadband Enhancement Council, called Frontier’s new funding “unbelievable.”
“‘I think the state will be crushed again,’ [Holstine] That said, the broadband technology opportunities program referred to a scam in which West Virginia was forced to repay nearly ડો 5 million in federal funds in 2017 after it was squandered by Frontier.
Frontier has said it expects Chapter 11 to come out of bankruptcy by early 2021. In addition to West Virginia, Frontier also won FCC funding in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas.
In May, Frontier launched its Northwest U.S. Operation Sales Completed the sale to the newly formed ISP called Zipley Fiber. Zipley, known as Frontier Communications Northwest in FCC filings, participated in the RDF auction and raised money in the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington.
