Permitting has long been the bane of broadband deployments across the country, but a little-known federal council is working to change that. According to the newly appointed Executive Director of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council Eric Beightel, the council is looking to do so with a combination of funding and expertise. Created in 2015, the Permitting Council oversees what is known as the FAST 41 program, which is designed to streamline the federal permitting process for large infrastructure projects by bringing together stakeholders from 16 member agencies.  Most broadband projects (with the exception of some Tribal initiatives) don’t qualify for FAST 41 treatment due to the program’s $200 million investment benchmark. But Beightel said the council is working on a number of other initiatives to ensure permitting moves as smoothly as possible for Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program projects. These include spending $25 million to help federal agencies staff up for the impending influx of permit applications that will come with BEAD. He also noted the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act included $350 million in funding for the council to fund its efforts over the course of nine years. While the council – as a federal entity – has little power to influence state governments, he said it can use some of this funding to help state and local entities reform their permitting processes with grant money. Additionally, Beightel said the Permitting Council is working to develop best practices for permitting and is working with states to identify opportunities for agencies to standardize their permitting processes. The idea is to ensure agencies are consistent and asking applicants for the same information to provide a predictable process. 

An AI expert suggested that AI could be used to produce better broadband maps. I had to chuckle at that idea. The primary reason for my amusement is that Federal Communications Commission maps are created from self-reported broadband coverage and speeds by the many internet service providers (ISP) in the country. ISPs have a variety of motivations for how and why they report data to the FCC. Some ISPs try to report accurate speeds and coverage. People may be surprised by this, but some of the biggest companies, like CenturyLink and Frontier, seem to have gotten better at reporting DSL speeds – in some markets, you can find DSL capability being reported at a dozen different speeds to reflect that DSL speeds vary by the distance from the central office. Other ISPs take the exact opposite approach and report marketing speeds that are far in excess of the capability of the technology being deployed. It’s not hard to find wireless internet service providers (WISP) claiming 100 Mbps to 300 Mbps download capability when they are delivering speeds in the 10 Mbps to 30 Mbps range. Some ISPs have already been accused of over-reporting speeds to try to block grant money from overbuilding them. The only way that AI could be used to improve the maps is if the FCC gets serious about mapping and changes some rules, and enforces others. The FCC would have to eliminate the ability of ISPs to claim marketing speeds, which provides easy cover for overstating capabilities. The FCC would also have to get serious about enforcing coverage to meet the 10-day installation rule. If those two changes were made and enforced, the FCC might be able to use AI to improve the maps. AI could match claimed ISP coverage to speed test data and also reference and compare coverage to complaints and challenges from consumers. I don’t see the FCC ever being willing to get that aggressive with ISPs – because this process would be extremely contentious.

Elon Musk, became involved in the war in Ukraine soon after Russia invaded, in February 2022. Along with conventional assaults, the Kremlin was conducting cyberattacks against Ukraine’s digital infrastructure. Ukrainian officials and a loose coalition of expatriates in the tech sector, brainstorming in group chats on WhatsApp and Signal, found a potential solution: SpaceX, which manufactures a line of mobile Internet terminals called Starlink. The tripod-mounted dishes, each about the size of a computer display connect with a network of satellites. The units have limited range, but in this situation that was an advantage: although a nationwide network of dishes was required, it would be difficult for Russia to completely dismantle Ukrainian connectivity. Of course, Musk could do so. Three people involved in bringing Starlink to Ukraine, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they worried that Musk, if upset, could withdraw his services, said that they originally overlooked the significance of his personal control. “Nobody thought about it back then,” said one of them, a Ukrainian tech executive. “It was all about ‘Let’s fucking go, people are dying.’ ” In the ensuing months, fund-raising in Silicon Valley’s Ukrainian community, contracts with the U.S. Agency for International Development and with European governments, and pro-bono contributions from SpaceX facilitated the transfer of thousands of Starlink units to Ukraine. Initially, Musk showed unreserved support for the Ukrainian cause. But, as the war ground on, SpaceX began to balk at the cost. Musk was also growing increasingly uneasy with the fact that his technology was being used for warfare. Then Musk’s sympathies appeared to be manifesting on the battlefield. Musk’s singular role presented unfamiliar challenges, as did the government’s role as intermediary. “It wasn’t like we could hold him in breach of contract or something,” the official continued. The Pentagon would need to reach a contractual arrangement with SpaceX so that, at the very least, Musk “couldn’t wake up one morning and just decide, like, he didn’t want to do this anymore.” Added Colin Kahl, then the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy at the Pentagon, “It was kind of a way for us to lock in services across Ukraine. It could at least prevent Musk from turning off the switch altogether.”

In July 2023, wireless and broadband provider Vistabeam acquired Airbits, which served the towns of Estes Park and Pole Hill, which are in Colorado’s Front Range area. Vistabeam also established a digital empowerment Center in Yuma, Colorado. The move into Colorado’s Front Range area is a sign that fixed wireless access (FWA) technology is maturing. The acquisition includes 25 towers. Vistabeam’s footprint is 40,000 square miles and covers more than 100 towns in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming. Vistabeam’s first move into the Front Range area was September 2022, when it acquired Front Range Internet. The company is also working with Microsoft to offer digital skills programming and other online learning resources. A dedicated digital navigator is available to help eligible residents enroll in the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) and other digital equity initiatives.