SHLB State BEAD Recommendations 

     The NTIA provides that anchor institution locations that are specifically eligible for BEAD funding include those that lack access to gigabit-level broadband service. [FN 3]  Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) National Broadband Map (Map) does not adequately account for the connectivity needs of anchor institutions. A study commissioned by SHLB and conducted by Dr. Colin Rhinesmith found that the FCC’s Map “was not necessarily helpful for gaining a better understanding of the actual broadband” at anchor institutions. [FN 4] 

     Fortunately, NTIA’s BEAD challenge guidance makes up for this problem and recognizes that Broadband Leaders have the authority to use their own information, and that reported by the anchor institutions themselves, in evaluating anchor institution broadband needs. Specifically, Broadband Leaders must create “[a] list of each Eligible CAI location identified within the jurisdiction of the Eligible Entity, including the National Broadband Map location ID (if applicable) or the latitude and longitude for each Eligible CAI in the data format in Appendix A. Eligible Entities may rely on CAIs to identify their unmet broadband need. Where SBO capacity is limited, Eligible Entities should focus their efforts on enumerating those CAIs that are currently not served by gigabit broadband.” [FN 5]

     In other words, Broadband leaders have an obligation under the BEAD NOFO to create an inventory of community anchor institutions and to identify those that lack access to gigabit connectivity.  We recognize that this is not an easy process.  But those states that are most successful have been engaged in frequent conversations and meetings with local leaders to understand the broadband needs of their anchors.  In fact, some anchor institutions may already have gigabit-level service and need multi-gigabit service to keep up with growing demand.  Other smaller and more remote anchors, however, may only have access to low-speed residential service and need help understanding how to obtain the broadband that they need to serve their community.

_{3  BEAD NOFO at 12.}

_{4  See Colin Rhinesmith, Ph.D., Missing Pieces: How the FCC’s Broadband Map Misrepresents Public Libraries, pg. 9, available at https://www.shlb.org/uploads/Policy/National%20BB%20Plan/Rhinesmith_2023_Missing_Pieces%20-%20Jan%2028%202023.pdf. Professor Rhinesmith found that “[a]ll of the locations marked as ‘Community Anchor Institutions’ were classified as either ‘Residential’ or ‘Business’ (e.g., see West Virginia’s public libraries) in the selected location ‘Broadband Type.’ This was not necessarily helpful for gaining a better understanding of the actual broadband ‘Service’,’Technology’, and ‘Speeds’ available at each CAI location.” Id.}

_{5  U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIA, BEAD Challenge Process Policy Notice, pg. 9, available at https://ntia.gov/sites/default/files/publications/bead_challenge_process_policy_notice_final.pdf (emphasis added).}

   The BEAD NOFO states that “NTIA underscores its strong preference that Eligible Entities also ensure deployment of Gigabit connections to community anchor institutions such as libraries and community centers that lack such connectivity.” [FN 6] NTIA also states that a state may allocate grant funds for “[d]eploying and/or upgrading broadband network facilities to provide or improve service to an eligible community anchor institution” [FN7] which “can potentially include deployment of Middle Mile Infrastructure where the Middle Mile Infrastructure is in or through any area required to reach interconnection points or otherwise to ensure the technical feasibility and financial sustainability of an Unserved Service Project or an Underserved Service Project.” [FN 8]

    We recognize that the legislation gives priority to connecting unserved/underserved homes, but this does not mean that anchor institutions can only be connected after all homes are connected. [FN 9] Anchor institutions are often embedded in their communities (surrounded by homes) and it would be unwise and costly to bring equipment and staff back to an area a second time just to connect anchors that were not part of an initial buildout project. Rather, it makes more economic sense to provide high-bandwidth broadband facilities to the anchor institutions early in the build-out process (much like investing in Middle-Mile connectivity) as that will make it easier to connect the surrounding homes.

_{6  BEAD NOFO at 7.}

_{7  Id. at 33.}

_{8  Id. n. 44.}

_{9  We recommend against the model of connecting unserved/underserved households first, and then connecting the anchors only afterward if there is money left over. In fact, NTIA staff has indicated that connecting anchor institutions may be third in priority, but not necessarily later in time.}

     Open-access networks provide wholesale broadband capacity to several retail ISPs who ride on the network at the same time and compete for customers. Such networks can take on different forms and serve various purposes, including middle-mile open access networks, last mile open access networks, and statewide networks. An open access network may also be initially constructed to serve a specific purpose (such as one built as a research and education network serving only anchor institutions) but can be often later expanded to address new needs, like reaching beyond the anchor’s campus to serve a last-mile customer.

   Such networks not only offer an alternative solution to expand broadband services to unserved and underserved communities, they can benefit the ISP, last-mile customer, and those in between (such as anchor institutions that can lease out middle-mile networks). For example, when open access networks exist, individual ISPs can devote their capital to consumer service offerings because they do not need to spend additional capital to build separate, potentially duplicative networks. Such savings can allow them to better focus their expenditures to reach farther into communities. [FN 10] Open access networks can also promote sustainable buildout in economically challenged markets because competitive marketing by multiple retail providers can offer more affordable service for consumers and drive higher adoption rates. In the case of a publicly owned open access network, community stakeholders maintain a voice over their own future about network buildout, fostering broader community involvement in solving the broadband needs that are unique to that area. [FN 11]

_{10  See Jordan Arnold, & John Sallet, If We Build It, Will They Come? Lessons from Open-Access, Middle-Mile} 

_{Networks, Evanston, IL: Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, December 2020, pg. 4, available at https://www.benton.org/publications/middle-mile.}

_{11  See Institute for Local Self-Reliance, “Open Access,” https://muninetworks.org/content/open-access.}

     Like traditional anchor institutions, broadband availability data to multi-tenant dwelling units (MDUs) is vastly unrepresented and mistreated by the FCC’s Map, because it identifies multi-family housing developments as one Broadband Serviceable Location (BSL) and does not represent broadband availability of the individual units or households. Without accurate unit-by-unit data, the FCC’s Map significantly undercounts the number of unserved and underserved households living in multi-family housing.  There are several scenarios where availability of broadband service at an MDU BSL does not equate to the same availability of broadband to all units within that building. This results in an overstatement of the availability of broadband service at multi-family housing locations and thus undercounts the true total of residents who are unserved or underserved. Examples of these scenarios are summarized below:

• The ISP offers a much more substantial service to the building manager’s office or commercial space (e.g. fiber) than their inside wiring is capable of delivering to the residential units (e.g. DSL).
• The ISP has fiber-to-the-curb or building, but has no inside wiring infrastructure capable of delivering 25/3 or 100/20 to each individual unit.
• The ISP is able to deliver fiber to the building (FTTB) within 10 days, but only offers business-class internet services and does not actually provide residential service.

• Inside wiring infrastructure is in a state of disrepair and cannot support speeds of 100/20 Mbps. Many public housing and affordable housing MDUs are 30-40+ years old and wiring has not been adequately maintained.

• Non-cellular, licensed Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) providers without existing equipment/service in the MDU could not meet the 10 day installation window. The individual household of an MDU does not have the ability to authorize a Licensed FWA provider to access rooftops, telco rooms, and run new wiring all the way to their unit. This would require an agreement with the building owner and possibly a permit.

​     

     Broadband Leaders should go beyond the FCC’s Map and publish a more comprehensive list of BEAD-eligible BSL’s, including MDUs that are eligible for the deployment of Wi-Fi infrastructure as an eligible use of funding in connection with last-mile broadband deployment projects as detailed in the BEAD NOFO. To ensure that every resident has access to a reliable, affordable, high-speed broadband connection, Broadband Leaders should consider last-mile broadband deployment projects that will provide access to every unit within a BEAD-eligible MDU, rather than those that only provide access to the entrance to the building. For instance, technologies such as G.hn equipment can deliver up to 1 Gbps service speeds over the existing coax network inside each MDU it serves.

     Small and non-profit broadband providers may not be able to comply with the letter of credit obligation in the BEAD NOFO.  The letter of credit requires broadband providers to put up 25% of their  broadband award into an authorized bank, separate from and in addition to the 25% match.  Most medium and small companies, municipalities and non-profit organizations do not have this level of cash.  This letter of credit requirement could particularly harm minority-owned and women-owned businesses, and it will reduce competition for BEAD funding. SHLB asked NTIA to allow prospective bidders to use other means to verify their financial security, such as performance bonds and reimbursement schedules as alternatives to requiring a letter of credit, as in the ReConnect and Capital Project Fund programs. We encourage Broadband Leaders to support this effort by working with NTIA to allow alternatives to the letter of credit. 

     As Broadband Leaders plan future broadband initiatives (especially using various funding programs) any lack of transparency about those plans – including data about current connectivity, stakeholder feedback, and future deployment – will make it difficult for providers, non-profit/for-profit organizations, and consumers to provide input into planning strategies and challenge processes. Worse, lack of transparency around future broadband plans could provide an opportunity for certain parties with political influence to gain inside intelligence that is not available to people without such connections.  

     We encourage Broadband Leaders to ensure that engagement (such as comment periods and challenge processes), stakeholder feedback, and draft plans are transparent. The efforts made by Congress and NTIA under BEAD to require additional layers of transparency for future broadband planning and engagement efforts are commendable. Transparency will promote greater public support and make it easier to ensure compliance with the plan as it is implemented.