Rural Broadband Federal Legislative Update
Craig Dingwall on September 3, 2010
Last month we wrote about the FCC’s efforts to promote broadband through the National Broadband Plan. See Rural Broadband: Miles to Go Before We Sleep, July 16, 2010, GoingWiMax.com. In this article we focus on the Rural Broadband Initiative Act of 2010, H.R. 4545, pending in Congress.
This Bill was introduced on January 27, 2010, and was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce “for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker.” This Bill amends the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to establish in the Department of Agriculture the Office of Rural Broadband Initiatives, to be headed by the Under Secretary for Rural Broadband Initiatives. If enacted, this Bill would give the Under Secretary the power to administer rural broadband-related grant and loan programs, conduct rural outreach, foster development of a comprehensive rural broadband strategic vision, assess technologies (including WiFi, WIMAX, DSL, cable, satellite, fiber, and broadband over power lines), serve as a single information source and provide technical assistance to develop broadband deployment strategies. The Bill also requires the Under Secretary to submit a comprehensive rural broadband strategy report to the President and to Congress, and it establishes a National Rural Broadband Innovation Fund of $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012. The Fund is to be used for experimental and pilot rural broadband projects and applications, including WiFI, WIMAX, DSL, cable, satellite, fiber, and broadband delivery over power lines.
This Bill and a related Bill (S.2880) introduced in the Senate late last year and also referred to Committee are important because they consolidate authority in the Under Secretary of Rural Broadband Initiatives to foster the development of rural broadband, to assess broadband strategies, and to oversee broadband projects. But don’t hold your breath waiting for this legislation to become law based on recent history, given the death of previous rural broadband development bills on the Hill during the last few years. Moreover, companies with deep pockets that are adverse to competing with publicly-funded broadband projects may have a vested interest in opposing this legislation.
Proponents of this legislation will argue that consolidated oversight of rural broadband development, and the commitment of public funds, are long overdue. Critics will likely oppose the expenditure of $20M of taxpayer dollars during these tough times for rural broadband projects that may never bear fruit. Most broadband companies would prefer to develop and compete for these projects themselves, but will they do so in sparsely populated rural areas where the need is greatest but where the return on investment is significantly less than in urban and suburban areas? If passed, how will this Bill dovetail with the FCC’s National Broadband Plan? Also, does the Bill go far enough to promote rural broadband in the face of continuous legislative challenges in many states to stop or curtail municipal broadband projects?
We welcome your thoughts.
© 2010 Technology Law Group. Craig Dingwall is an attorney with the Technology Law Group, a Washington, D.C.-based law firm specializing in telecommunications transactional matters, complex litigation and intellectual property issues. Craig can be reached at dingwall@tlgdc.com, at 202-895-1707, or at our website: www.tlgdc.com. The views in this article are those of the author, and do not necessary represent those of the Technology Law Group.
Tagged as:
broadband initiative,
DSL,
FCC,
rural broadband,
WiFi,
Wimax
Craig has written 10 articles for GoingWimax.
Craig Dingwall has over 28 years of experience successfully representing communications, media, information technology, and broadcast companies before federal and state regulators on a variety of matters, including market entry, mergers, regulatory compliance, competition policy and litigation.
Prior to joining Technology Law Group in 2009, Mr. Dingwall was a partner in Parks, Dingwall and Associates where he represented clients on regulatory compliance, contracts, real property, employment, estate planning, corporate transactions, litigation, and other matters. He also was of counsel to Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC in Washington, DC. where he represented telecommunications service providers, cable companies, Internet protocol-enabled service providers, prepaid calling card providers, resellers, energy companies and other clients before the FCC and state regulators on universal service, carrier access charges, interconnection, reciprocal compensation, market entry, transactions, mergers and acquisitions, regulatory compliance and other issues.
From 1982 to 2006, Mr. Dingwall worked for Sprint, where he most recently was Sprint's Director of State Regulatory Affairs and he was responsible for Sprint's regulatory compliance and competitive local exchange service (CLEC) entry in over 16 states. He also represented Sprint in several mergers and joint ventures, and worked on antitrust, trademark, copyright, patent, bankruptcy, credit, real property, litigation and contract issues.
Mr. Dingwall received his B.A. from San Diego State University graduating with high honors and academic distinction as a Phi Beta Kappa and Phi Kappa Phi; and received his M.B.A. and J.D. from the University of San Diego where he served as Comments Editor for the San Diego Law Review. While in law school, Mr. Dingwall served as a law clerk at the U.S. Attorney’s office and for Justice Howard B. Wiener at the California Court of Appeal in San Diego.
Mr. Dingwall is licensed to practice law in California, Virginia and the District of Columbia.
