Blueprints for BEAD is a series of short notes and analysis on nuances of BEAD that might otherwise get lost in the volume of material published on this federal funding program. Click the “Blueprints for BEAD” tag at the bottom of this story for other posts.

Few people dispute the vital importance of affordability in closing the digital divide. A 2021 Pew Research Center survey found that nearly half of all people without broadband cited cost as a barrier, with 20 percent listing cost as the primary reason for not subscribing to broadband service.

Research from EducationSuperHighway pegged that number even higher, estimating that lack of affordability explained about two thirds of the remaining digital divide in the country.

As the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program steams ahead, questions about affordability have come to the fore. After all, deploying tens of thousands of miles of new fiber is only half the equation. BEAD will help build the physical networks necessary to connect the millions of households that still lack access to high-speed Internet service, but will it make a difference if they still can’t afford a plan? This possibility is all the more likely in light of the Affordability Connectivity Program’s (ACP) untimely demise.

Image

BEAD’s low-cost plan requirement sought to ease such concerns about affordability. To ensure households with limited financial means would actually see the benefits of the program’s massive infrastructure investment, this requirement mandated that all networks built using BEAD funds offer a low-cost plan for eligible subscribers.

<p>The <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/">Pew Charitable Trusts </a>has begun publishing memos that will be useful for state broadband offices as they beef up staff to ensure state broadband grant funds are not wasted and track whether states are awarding grants to proposed projects in a way that advances various state’s goals in building a bridge across the digital divide.</p><p>One memo focuses on how allowing providers to object to applications can promote accountability. The second memo examines how state broadband offices can use scoring metrics to evaluate grant applications.</p><p><strong>The Challenge Process</strong></p><p>The first memo begins noting that by “providing a system for existing high-speed [I]nternet providers to raise concerns about grant applications, (it) can help state broadband offices ensure that public funds are not tapped multiple times for the same project or awarded to areas without sufficient need.”</p><p>That can be done through the “<a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2022/01/broadband-grant-progra… process</a>,” which allows Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to challenge an application if the challenger can demonstrate that they already provide service in a grant application area, have started network construction in that area, or have plans to do so.</p><p>The memo boils down four summary points that are “key features from a variety of states.”</p><blockquote><p>• Challenge processes can be an important control to prevent public subsidies from being awarded to areas that are already receiving equivalent service or will receive equivalent service within a set period (e.g., 12 months).

In the interest of “closing the digital divide,” the FCC issued a Notice of Inquiry in August “Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion.” According to the notice, the FCC still considers it reasonable and timely to define the minimum broadband speed as 25 Megabits per second (Mbps) download and 3 Mbps upload, the same minimum speeds the FCC first established in 2015.

It’s an important benchmark that is widely-agreed to be outdated in the era of families juggling multiple video chat calls and other digital tasks at the same time.

However, according to the FCC’s most recent look at the issue, there remains “significant support for maintaining this benchmark.” Therefore, the notice went on to say, “we propose to maintain the 25/3 Mbps benchmark for fixed services.”

This, despite the objection of Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, whose official dissent noted that, in addition to the “nonstop criticism from consumers and Congress” over the FCC’s misleading data on how many Americans lack access to broadband, “in its last report, the FCC continued to use a broadband standard that is too low for a nation that has moved so much online.”

“Many households with multiple users are calling, watching, listening, gaming, and searching online all at the same time,” Rosenworcel noted. “But the FCC has been sticking with a download standard of 25 megabits per second that it adopted more than five years ago. We need to set audacious goals if we want to do big things. With many of our nation’s providers offering gigabit service, it’s time for the FCC to adjust its baseline upward, too. We need to reset it to at least 100 megabits per second.”

A year prior to Rosenworcel’s dissent, Next Century Cities submitted comments noting how much had changed both up and downstream since the 2015 standard was put in place.

“As more people work from home or engage in online education courses, the requirement of multi-tasking while participating on an HD video conference will overwhelm that 3 Mbps capacity, even if no other devices in the household are attempting to share the network.” 

In September 2019, we interviewed Kathryn DeWit from the Broadband Initiative at the Pew Charitable Trusts about their State Broadband Policy Explorer. The tool documents state laws aimed at expanding broadband access. Now, the group has released a reported titled, How States Are Expanding Broadband Access, that examines developments in nine states where broadband availability has improved after implementing state efforts. The report dives into what those states are doing that works and makes recommendations to emulate those policies and repeat that positive trajectory.

Read the full report here.

All Hands on Deck

One of the primary discoveries from the report is that states are using many technologies and funding approaches to bring high-quality Internet access to those who have been left behind. Like other projects that involved multiple stakeholders and public funding, Pew learned that building broadband support and requiring accountability are factors that contribute to success.

Pew examined efforts in California, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. They also looked at Minnesota, where the Border to Border Development Grant Broadband Program provides funding for projects in areas where connectivity is slow and unreliable or where people have no service options at all. In Minnesota, notes the report, the state has established measurable and increasing speed goals and allows funding to flow to a broad range of recipients, including local governments, rural cooperatives, tribal governments, and large corporate Internet access providers.

Next City - April 20, 2017

Tennessee Bills Send Message on Municipal Broadband

Written by Josh Cohen

In a world increasingly reliant on high-speed internet for all facets of life, about 34 percent of Tennesseans lack broadband access. Two state bills were considered this year to remedy that. One would’ve allowed city-owned high-speed internet infrastructure to expand at no cost to residents. Another outlined an offer of $45 million in subsidies to private internet service providers to build the same infrastructure. Only the latter passed.

...

Unsurprisingly, surrounding towns and suburbs want access to that network. EPB wants to expand as well. But they cannot. A state law pushed by private telecom companies prohibits public utilities with broadband networks from expanding beyond city limits. The Federal Communications Commission overturned that law in 2015, but an appellate court reversed the FCC’s ruling, meaning the law still stands.

State Senator Janice Bowling’s bill would’ve changed Tennessee law to allow municipal broadband providers to expand beyond city limits. Tullahoma, a city in Bowling’s district, also has a municipal broadband network. EPB said it could expand its network infrastructure with cash on hand and private loans. But both Bowling’s bill and its companion in the House died in committee.

Instead, the legislature passed the Tennessee Broadband Accessibility Act, a bill pushed by Governor Bill Haslam. It provides $45 million in tax breaks and grants to private companies such as AT&T and Comcast to build broadband infrastructure in communities that need it.

A new Pew Research Center survey reveals that 70 percent of adults, regardless of political leanings, believe local governments should be able to invest in municipal Internet networks.

Local Authority Has No Party

The survey, conducted March 13 - 27 supports the finding that local authority for telecommunications decisions is a bipartisan notion. On closer examination of the survey results, we see that 67 percent of Republicans and Republican leaning respondents and 74 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaning respondents support local authority to invest in municipal networks.

In Colorado, two more local communities voted this month to opt out of the state’s restrictive SB 152. The law prevents local communities from investing in Internet infrastructure to offer telecommunications services or work with a partner to improve local connectivity. Colorado Springs and Central City became cities 97 and 98 to join the growing list of communities opting out, which includes places that have taken action to deploy and others who merely want the option. 

Colorado Springs, known as one of the state’s more conservative communities, passed the measure with 61 percent of the vote, not far from the results of the Pew Research survey.

Of Growing Importance

The survey also asked U.S. adults about how important high-quality Internet access is at home. Forty-nine percent said home broadband is essential and 41 percent described it as important but not essential. That leaves just one out of ten survey respondents who describe home broadband as either not too important or not important at all.

Respondents also answered questions about assistance to low-income households to help them pay for Internet access. Unlike support for municipal networks, political affiliation, income level, and current access to the Internet appeared to play a part in respondent replies.

Washington Post - April 11, 2017

Most Americans want to let cities build and sell homegrown Internet service

Written by Brian Fung

With Internet providers ranking near the bottom of customer satisfaction surveys, 7 in 10 Americans say their towns or communities should be allowed to build new Internet networks that compete with large, established providers, according to new data from the Pew Research Center.

The latest findings add to a long-running battle over restrictions — often written by state legislatures and supported by telecom and cable companies — that prevent local governments from establishing homegrown rivals to ISPs such as AT&T or Charter. And, policy analysts say, the results underscore a gulf in attitudes about public infrastructure spending — although perhaps not the kind you may expect.

...

Where they are allowed to, other towns have increasingly moved to build their own independent networks. For example, the government of Colorado Springs, recently became the 100th jurisdiction in the state to vote to overcome the Colorado legislature's restrictions on municipal broadband, said Christopher Mitchell, a public broadband advocate at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Minneapolis.

“In Colorado, we see liberal cities like Boulder, conservative cities like Colorado Springs, and many conservative counties putting, in some sense, their money where their mouth is,” said Mitchell.