Ambiguity muddies broadband stimulus award process

When a word has more than one meaning, it can be a problem, particularly if the word is used inconsistently by an organization that others are looking to for direction. And that's exactly the situation that has arisen with regard to the term "middle mile" and how it has been used by the National Telecommunications and Information Agency, the agency charged with administering the majority of $7.2 billion in stimulus funds allocated for broadband.

To deliver broadband, you not only need the "last-mile" connection between the network operator and the end user, you also need to connect the network operator to the Internet. In telecom jargon, that connection between the network operator and the Internet is commonly called the "middle mile." Broadband stimulus funds can be used for either type of project — and initially the NTIA used a definition that largely matched the telecom industry view. Around the beginning of the year, the NTIA began talking a lot about the importance of connecting "anchor institutions" such as schools, libraries and hospitals. Many people in the telecom industry had questioned whether $7.2 billion for broadband was enough, and administrators believed this approach would help make the money go as far as possible. Confusingly, the term "middle mile" started to get used as a synonym for projects connecting anchor institutions.

The idea of connecting anchor institutions, assuming this connectivity is sustainable, could be a good way to maximize broadband stimulus funds. But despite all the Round 1 awards that promise to connect community anchor institutions, such connectivity didn't have the emphasis in Round 1 guidelines that it does in Round 2 — and it's not surprising that we're starting to hear some protests about Round 1 awards. And it's unfortunate that even the Round 2 guidelines do not articulate the NTIA's vision as clearly as they should.