Mike Conlow

The Federal Communications Commission published its first “illustrative run” of what the offers might be to broadband providers who elect extended subsidies in exchange for agreeing to bring 100/20 broadband to every location in their “study area.” With this illustrative run document, it now appears that if all the ISPs accept the FCC’s offer, 1.3 million locations would be ineligible for BEAD funding because the FCC would have an enforceable commitment from the ISP to bring service to that location.

The Federal Communications Commission released a Report and Order creating the Enhanced Alternative Connect America Cost Model program which extends subsidies for rural broadband providers for 10 additional years (beyond the remaining 5 years) at a cost of $1.27 to $1.33 billion annually to the FCC’s Universal Service Fund. In exchange, any ISP that elects this subsidy would be required to deploy 100/20 broadband to everyone in its service area.

Recently I wrote about how there are too many locations in the National Broadband Map when you compare it with the recently-released Census count of housing units. In rural areas, there are 30.1 million housing and business units according the National Broadband Map, and 24.6 million housing units according to the Census. This isn’t just academic.

How can we make the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program funding go as far as possible? The answer is that state grant plans need to be laser focused on how to generate competition and keep costs as low as possible. If we can do that, we stretch the BEAD dollars as far as possible. If we don’t, we run out of money. It’s really quite easy to construct this framework. We only need two pieces of data: the number of unserved and underserved locations, and what we pay to reach them.

Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) generated snickers and some jeers when he tweeted his excitement about the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funding for Alabama. Even Twitter thought it necessary to add the context that Sen Tuberville voted against the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) that is providing this funding.

I finished updating the number of Served, Underserved, and Unserved based on the National Broadband map with updates and corrections as of June 15, 2023. Those numbers are available in this tab of the spreadsheet.

I get asked a lot what I think of the Federal Communication Commission's Broadband Map and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) allocation of the $42.5 billion in broadband funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Here’s what I think: this has been a fair process and a fair outcome. As far as I’m aware, no state has cause to be very upset. I highly doubt we’ll see lawsuits and angry senators yelling at Federal Communications Commission and National Telecommunications and Information Administration officials.

At the time the Federal Communications Commission Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) program winners were announced, $9.23 billion was committed over 10-years to cover over 5 million Unserved locations.

The US is a country is covered in cable broadband. More than 86% of the country has access to at least one cable or fiber broadband service according to Federal Communications Commission maps. Only 5% of locations among the 50 states and DC have access to three or more cable or fiber (I’ll call them wired) internet service providers (ISP). Thirty-two percent of locations have access to two wired offerings. And 49% have access to only one wired offering. Importantly, 13.5% of locations have access to zero wired offerings.

How the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will allocate the 10% of the BEAD funding ($4.25 billion) set aside for high-cost locations has to be an estimate because the NTIA hasn’t shared guidance on how it plans to do that calculation. On a closer reading of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), I want to offer a possible — even likely — scenario where certain states get almost no funding in the high-cost allocation because their Unserved locations are dispersed and not concentrated.