Carol Mattey

There’s been much handwringing this year over the prospect of defaults in the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) program, but very little empirical analysis of the actual extent of default that has occurred to date or data-driven projections of what’s likely to occur in the future. It’s time to dig deeper to figure out what’s going on at the local level. The FCC authorized 379 companies to receive $6 billion in RDOF support over a ten-year term, covering just under 3.5 million locations in 48 states and one territory.

Many people have criticized the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for its execution of the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) program, which awarded $6 billion in funding to bring broadband to 3.5 million locations across the country.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration has now given 48 states the green light to start their required Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program challenge process to refine the list of locations that will be eligible for BEAD funding. The starting point for the states is the Federal Communications Commission’s National Broadband Map, based on its Broadband Data Collection (BDC), with the state-run challenge process providing stakeholders the opportunity to make updates and corrections.

Over the last 18 months, there’s been a lot of discussion about whether National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) struck the right balance in urging states to extend fiber as far as possible when implementing the $40+ billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program. With all due respect to those who are passionate about their respective point of view—it’s time to step back and take a deep breath.

States are racing to finish their Initial Proposals for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's $40+ billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. One of the things they need to be thinking about is how to design their programs so that they have viable applicants for all their eligible locations, not just most of them. This requires a radical shift in mindset from past grantmaking activities, when the state’s task was to award grants to improve service in discrete areas.

In a one-two punch, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rejected LTD’s appeal of the earlier decision declaring it to be in default for its Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) winning bids and proposed to fine LTD over $21 million for its defaults.

In the bi-partisan 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Congress decided to provide a larger Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) benefit in high-cost areas—up to $75/month, compared to the standard $30/month benefit. Last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) quietly announced that service providers could start filing applications on January 17, 2024, to become eligible to receive this larger benefit.

The goal of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) $40+ billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program is to ensure that everyone in the United States has access to reliable, high-speed, and affordable broadband. Part of the challenge is how to treat areas where funding already has been awarded for broadband deployment. Will all awardees perform as expected?

Today, many months after passage of the landmark Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the states are finally on the cusp of implementing National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s $40+ billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program. Some states are confidently moving ahead quickly, while others are in the early days of developing concrete plans for how they will manage this historic federal investment.

The USForward group, consisting of Mattey Consulting—the Ad Hoc Telecom Users Committee, INCOMPAS, NTCA, Public Knowledge, the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition, and the Voice on the Net Coalition—filed a letter on July 8, 2022, in response to AT&T’s letter claiming the USForward Report and i