CCG Consulting

As states are getting ready to create their broadband plans for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)’s $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program grants, we’re starting to see some interesting arguments being made by incumbents to influence state broadband plans. One of the aspects of the BEAD plan that hasn’t been discussed much yet is that the NTIA is stressing affordability. For example, the NOFO states several times that states must develop a middle-class rate plan.

There has been a lot of discussion in the last few months about how wonderful it was for Congress to have increased the speed requirements for broadband grant eligibility to 100/20 Mbps in the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program grants. If we accept that 25/3 Mbps was a good definition for download speed in 2015 and that 100/20 Mbps is a good definition in 2022, then that is an acknowledgment that the demand for download broadband speed has grown at about 21 percent per year.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)'s definition of reliable broadband service in the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program grant rules says that any grant cannot be used to overbuild a reliable broadband technology that meets or exceeds the 100/20 Mbps speed threshold of the grants.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has established basic rules for the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) grants in the recent Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). One of the most important aspects of the rules that potential applicants need to understand relates to funding and financing. Note that the NOFO instructs the States what it expects to be included in each state’s broadband grant program for the BEAD funding. The first set of rules concerns the amount of grant funding.

The Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the $42.2 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) grants establishes new rules for the grants that might have a wider implication for broadband elsewhere. One of the most interesting aspects of the NOFO was the definition of a new term – Reliable Broadband Service.

USTelecom recently sent a letter to practically every politician who might have a hand in deciding how broadband grants are awarded – the White House and key Cabinet officials, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, members of Congress, Governors, Mayors, other local officials, Tribal leaders, and state broadband offices.

The Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the $42.2 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program grants has been released by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Here are some issues I’ll be exploring in more detail:

From a lobbying perspective, municipal broadband providers have never had a seat at the table. In any given state, a municipal broadband provider might get its voice heard through organizations like the League of Cities and Counties – or whatever that is called in a given state. But municipal broadband internet service providers (ISPs) have never had a national voice to push back against the hard lobbying that has been leveled against them for the last few decades.

Sean McDevitt, a partner at Arthur D. Little, a consulting firm that largely works for the giant ISPs, says cable companies are not likely to universally upgrade broadband networks in the future. In the past, when a cable company migrated from DOCSIS 1.0, to 2.0, and to 3.0 everybody in a community was upgraded to the latest technology. He says going forward that it’s almost certain that there will not be across-the-board upgrades.

Since the national dialog has suddenly fixated on inflation, the big ISPs decided to jump into the discussion by claiming that broadband prices are falling. The big ISP industry has been trotting out this untruth for the last several years. What underlies this claim is that the cost per megabit of speed has been falling as ISPs increase speeds. By definition, when an ISP upgrades a customer from 100 Mbps to 200 Mbps, the cost per megabit drops. While the cable companies have been unilaterally increasing speeds, consumers have not seen the check they write each month drop.