TMCnews Featured Article

Many of you involved in the broadband stimulus process, and those sitting on the sidelines, have had moments where it seemed dealing with the rules of the game was like suffering the death of a thousand cuts. Today opens a 15-day window of opportunity for you to influence a kinder, gentler set of broadband stimulus rules.

 

Last week, the National Telecommunications Information Administration and the Rural Utilities Services announced that there is only to be one more round of broadband funding. This probably doesn’t surprise people since it's been hinted at a bunch over the past month that the agencies were considering consolidating the final two funding rounds.

 

When you look at the degree of headache and heartburn both agencies have endured since February, this move should be no surprise. The level at which the first round was over-subscribed, with applicants collectively asking for seven times the $4 billion of funds available, assures us that there won’t be a lack of people queuing up for the remaining $3 billion. The unrelenting pressure to get more stimulus money on the street faster was likely becoming unbearable and so another factor in the decision. 

 

NTIA/RUS also let it be known that the joint RFI (News - Alert) to gather comments on changing/improving the broadband stimulus rules. As you may remember from one of my previous columns, others and myself have been clamoring for some changes. It’s time for us step up since the RFI is officially open for business starting today once it is published in the Federal Register.

 

The RFIs reflects a serious attempt to address issues people have brought up throughout the first NOFA funding round. It acknowledges, for example, that the first rules and information requirements did not accommodate proposals from local governments and public-private partnerships. It appeared they were written primarily for private telecom companies. Requiring details such as past P & L statements, or P & L projections are difficult to respond to when 'profits' mean something very different for local governments and nonprofit organizations that were a large percentage of applicants. The RFI asks if rules should be created that are more in line with these organizations' reality.

           

The RFI goes right to the heart of several major concerns such as how are terms such as "remote," "underserved" and "un-served" defined, and whether the use of volunteers to review applications was a good idea. Hopefully we'll get some better definitions of these, which could go a long way to making sure some of this stimulus money goes to urban areas that are just as underserved as some rural communities.

 

It warms my heart to see them open up the volunteer panel reviewers program to comment. Those of you who read my commentary on that process know this wasn’t one of my favorites. The agencies deserve a pat on the back for being pretty open in the RFI about how their past policies have been received, which gives you some context before you add your feedback.

 

Besides touching on many of the frequently launched tirades against the process, the RFI also breaks new ground in a couple of places. It asks at one point if the agencies should adjust their focus to encourage proposals with a clear economic development impact. This is significant because it goes beyond just trying to accomplish a goal of getting people online, and gets to the heart of the ARRA's primary goal - turning the economy around.

 

You also get a chance to comment on a strategy floated by inference in a letter sent to the FCC (News - Alert) by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The gist of it is that it makes sense to focus on bringing fiber first to all of a community’s institutions (hospitals, libraries, schools, etc.), and expand the network from there. Check out my overview on this approach. It should give you ideas for the RFI.

 

Even though the RFI may not address the topic, I strongly advise people to sound off on operational (versus policy) issues that have made this application process tortuous. For example, the agencies need to upgrade their Web computing power to better handle online application filing, if they haven't already. At the same time, consider streamlining the Web process. Why force people to convert files to PDF format online when they can do that more easily on their desktop and e-mail a zipped file? You may have additional thoughts in this area to contribute.

 

On my blog, Fighting the Next Good Fight, I lay out a number of specific points you also may want to address in your reply to the RFI. All in all, I feel the issues this RFI addresses indicate there will be new rules that should make round 2 funding a lot more effective and efficient for everyone involved. There should be [fingers crossed] a lot fewer gray hairs when we get through that round.

 

Step up and make your voice heard. Like the ads say, you can’t win if you don’t play.