by Dave Russell, solutions marketing director for Calix and a Fiber to the Home board member

In a final rush of submissions the public comment period for rulemaking regarding broadband stimulus funds ended on April 13th.    In addition to the public meetings, the National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) Website received more than a thousand comments and submissions.   The comments reflected the diversity of opinion and the wide range of stakeholders interested in broadband in the United States.  

These comments ranged from single sentences by private citizens to hundred page documents prepared by Washington, D.C., law firms on behalf of their clients.  Most of the submissions took a point by point approach in answering specific questions raised by the NTIA and the Rural Utility Service (RUS) in their formal request for input.  Some of the more detailed responses created entire frameworks upon which the NTIA and RUS could base their rulemaking. 

There were a few areas where the vast majority of submissions appeared to agree.   First and foremost, most comments felt that satellite delivered services should not qualify as broadband.   Second, there was recognition that “middle mile” infrastructure should qualify for stimulus funding so that subscriber’s bandwidth bottlenecks don’t just move upstream.   Third, most respondents emphasized the importance of addressing currently unserved areas.  Finally, there was general agreement that the broadband speeds in the FCC 477 filings should be used in defining broadband, unserved and underserved areas.

But agreement ended there, and the fault lines appeared with widely varying notions of what speed constitutes broadband.   This was reflected in the definitions of unserved and underserved areas.    For example, one submission considered an area with more than 56 kbps data service as being served.  The vast majority of submissions, including OPASTCO,  argued that bandwidths should be 768 kbps or higher to be considered served, with some saying bandwidths should be at least 3- 6 Mbps to be considered served.   

The definitions of underserved varied even more, with a few saying that an area served by 768 kbps service is not underserved.   Meanwhile others, including OPASTCO, claimed that areas with bandwidths less than 12 Mbps were underserved.  The Fiber-to-the-Home Council commented that stimulus money should consider where bandwidths will need to be in the coming years and that areas with less than 25 Mbps in the downstream and 6 Mbps in the upstream should be considered underserved.

The role of the states in prioritizing and selecting NTIA funded projects generated considerable debate.  The stimulus legislation does not specify a role for the states, but does suggest that the NTIA should consult with the states.   The National Association of Regulated Utility Commissioners (NARUC) submitted a filing, supported by 38 states and the District of Columbia that proposed an expansive role for the states where they would be responsible for prioritizing, selecting and monitoring of all NTIA funded projects.   Many submissions opposed any role for states, except as an advisor on what projects were important to the state’s economic development.

Another area that generated controversy was whether or not the stimulus legislation gives preference for NTIA funds to public entities.   There were some outlier comments that believed that the legislation generally excluded private entities.  Most submissions noted, however, that the legislation specifically included private corporations that served the public interest and noted that serving an unserved and underserved population is by definition “serving the public interest.”

Now begins the wait for the rulemaking and the Notice of Funds Availability, which is due out in June.   Given the vast amount of data submitted to the NTIA and RUS, they have a lot of reading and thinking to do.  The RUS and NTIA must wade through all these public filings and craft an approach for the two agencies that accomplishes the legislative intent of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). 

Because many OPASTCO members are past RUS loan and grant recipients, they may prefer to apply for RUS funds.  The legislation indicates that companies that have received RUS funds in the past will be given preference for the new funds. 

OPASTCO members should use this time to identify projects in unserved and underserved areas.   Organize an internal team that includes representatives from finance, operations, engineering and marketing.  Reach out to the local community, both government and institutions, to solicit their support.   Having their support will be critical.  Work closely with your vendors and engineering consultants to ensure that you have the necessary information to finalize your application.

Not to be lost in all the diversity of opinion, it’s important to keep in mind that the objective is job creation and spurring economic growth.  One criticism of many of the submissions is that they sometimes forgot that the first priority is job creation and that broadband deployment is a means to that end.  

Although the ARRA does require the creation of the National Broadband Policy by the NTIA and FCC, the creation of this policy comes later in the process and after most of the stimulus money is spent.   But before this national policy is finalized and before the stimulus rulemaking is finalized, the FCC will be reporting to Congress on its proposed Rural Broadband Policy on May 22nd.    This will bring the issues of rural broadband front and center in the national spotlight. 

It will also highlight the important role service providers play in bringing broadband to rural areas.  OPASTCO members are ideally suited to carry out the goals of ARRA.   The criteria for project selection will emphasize job creation, but experience in deploying broadband, operational excellence and ability to complete the project will be very important considerations.   The last thing the NTIA and RUS want to do is sit in front of Congress and explain why the funds they allocated led to incomplete projects by inexperienced entities.    OPASTCO members have the skills and resources to utilize the stimulus funds to bring broadband to rural America.