Blueprints for BEAD is a series of short notes and analysis on nuances of BEAD that might otherwise get lost in the volume of material published on this federal funding program. Click the “Blueprints for BEAD” tag at the bottom of this story for other posts.

Few people dispute the vital importance of affordability in closing the digital divide. A 2021 Pew Research Center survey found that nearly half of all people without broadband cited cost as a barrier, with 20 percent listing cost as the primary reason for not subscribing to broadband service.

Research from EducationSuperHighway pegged that number even higher, estimating that lack of affordability explained about two thirds of the remaining digital divide in the country.

As the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program steams ahead, questions about affordability have come to the fore. After all, deploying tens of thousands of miles of new fiber is only half the equation. BEAD will help build the physical networks necessary to connect the millions of households that still lack access to high-speed Internet service, but will it make a difference if they still can’t afford a plan? This possibility is all the more likely in light of the Affordability Connectivity Program’s (ACP) untimely demise.

Image

BEAD’s low-cost plan requirement sought to ease such concerns about affordability. To ensure households with limited financial means would actually see the benefits of the program’s massive infrastructure investment, this requirement mandated that all networks built using BEAD funds offer a low-cost plan for eligible subscribers.

Blueprints for BEAD is a series of short notes and analysis on nuances of BEAD that might otherwise get lost in the volume of material published on this federal funding program. Click the “Blueprints for BEAD” tag at the bottom of this story for other posts.

There are still almost two dozen states that have yet to go through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program challenge process, which will lock down those locations that will be eligible for federal broadband infrastructure funding. And one refrain we’ve heard over and over from those in states that have already completed theirs is that, despite NTIA’s best efforts, it's complicated and hard. 

States have been given significant leeway in setting the rules for developing a challenge process wherein unserved and underserved locations can be identified. Lacking clear direction from the NTIA for what may seem like insignificant details, the often-hastily developed rules have in many states resulted in opaque processes characterized by a lack of clear communication and outreach. The resulting state guidance on how to request a data license, navigate a challenge portal, and submit challenges has left many local governments, small ISPs, Tribes, and nonprofits feeling defeated about their ability to participate. Without the detailed counsel on strategies for identifying prospective challenges, the scale of impact that this group of eligible entities could have on BEAD outcomes has been significantly narrowed. 

This is particularly troubling because widening the circle of those who can effectively participate is important. Residents, local governments, and nonprofits often have the best sense of exactly where the connectivity gaps in their communities exist. They also know what form the digital divide takes - whether in reliability, or cost, or latency, or available speeds. But so far, the challenge process for BEAD has been dominated by the largest ISPs that have the staff and expertise to interact with large amounts of geographic data in a relatively short period of time.

Blueprints for BEAD is a series of short notes and analysis on nuances of BEAD that might otherwise get lost in the volume of material published on this federal funding program. Click the “Blueprints for BEAD” tag at the bottom of this story for other posts.
 

By mid June, we will have blown past the halfway mark in the BEAD challenge process - with more than thirty states having completed their “challenge windows” and another handful set to close imminently. But the “challenge window” is only part of the overall challenge process, and there are reasons for communities to stay engaged with the process even after that window closes. Communities - don’t sleep on the rebuttal window!

Where We Sit Today

Each state must conduct a challenge process prior to opening up BEAD grants to verify that the data on the National Broadband Map is accurate. That process will have three stages: the challenge window, the rebuttal window, and the determination window. During the challenge window, eligible challengers (local and Tribal governments, nonprofits, and ISPs) can present evidence that locations are incorrectly categorized as served, underserved, or served. According to the NTIA’s Challenge Process Policy Notice, those same eligible entities can participate in the rebuttal window, where they supply evidence refuting a challenge that was made by someone else. After both of these periods are over, the state weighs all of the evidence and makes a final determination (determination window). 

Why might this rebuttal period be important for communities? In short, not all challenges are created equally. While we might primarily think of challenges that make the map more accurate, some challenges could, in fact, make the map less accurate. Some ISPs might make questionable challenges about the level of service they can or will provide.

The Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) was supposed to drive affordable fiber into vast swaths of long-underserved parts of rural America. And while the FCC administered program accomplished some of that goal, a multitude of problems have plagued the program since its inception, putting both current and future broadband funding opportunities at risk.

The $20.4 billion RDOF program was created in 2019 by the Trump FCC as a way to shore up affordable broadband access in traditionally unserved rural U.S. markets.

The money was to be doled out via reverse auction in several phases, with winners chosen based on having the maximum impact for minimum projected cost.

During phase one of the program, the FCC stated that 180 bidders won $9.2 billion over 10 years to provide broadband to 5.2 million locations across 49 states and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

But, according to ILSR data, roughly 34 percent of census blocks that won RDOF funding–more than $3 billion in awards – are now in default. All told, 287,322 census blocks were defaulted on by more than 121 providers as of December 2023.

Image

The defaults are only one part of a larger problem: namely that many communities bogged down in RDOF program dysfunction may risk losing out on the historic amount of federal funding to build modern broadband networks (BEAD) made possible by the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law.

One Big Giant Mess