TMCnews Featured Article

If we were to distill to a simple phrase the source of many of the challenges (translation: pain, grief and aggravation) endured by those going through the first round of broadband stimulus, it would be “What if we threw a party and everybody came?”

 

Today, as we observe the pain, grief and aggravation of project teams attempting to pursue broadband funding in Round 2 of the stimulus program, the source of much of their misery calls up a different phrase, the poem “The Charge of the Light Brigade.”

 

You can read Alfred Lord Tennyson’s poem later, but the gist of the story is simple. Six-hundred stout-hearted cavalry dudes went charging into an attack they could not win without taking heavy casualties because those receiving orders couldn’t see what the person giving the orders saw, compounded by the fact the individual delivering them screwed up the message. Basically, a lack of transparency.

 

At the moment, we’re marching off on a path that will likely turn out badly for broadband in several respects unless Congress (or a higher power) steps in to countermand orders. Those of us involved with and/or observing the process know that the deadline for grant applications (March 15) is much too short to do the right kind of work to prepare a really good proposal.

 

Compounding the problem is the fact you can’t win a grant in this second round of funding if you propose to deliver service in an area that someone received money in Round 1 to build out. The catch, though, is that we won’t see the last of Round 1 money going out until Feb. 28, giving people just two weeks to adjust to areas of conflict or jump into the game if they’ve waited for final results. 
 

The final kicker? RUS still may not be finished dolling out the dough by then.

 

Our broadband light brigades face a ridiculous, detrimental time crunch, and an uncompromising Catch-22. The reason only Congressional intervention can save us, according to fellow industry watcher Peter Pratt, “is that NTIA and RUS have been hearing the complaints of state and local officials from around the nation for weeks, and have done nothing but push ahead with an untenable schedule.”

 

Besides the sheer volume of work required to complete one of these grant application, the lack of transparency is the true Achilles heel of the process. Similar to Tennyson’s Light Brigade, we don’t know what we need to know, yet we’re being forced to deal with the Ides of March.

  

Where’s my #%@##!& transparency!?

 

Both Round 1 and Round 2 applicants, state broadband administrators, service providers and vendors are demanding data about the awards and rejections from Round I. There are many public, nonprofit and private organizations that spent high five-figure sums to complete an application, yet were rejected with no word as to why. No one knows what weight was assigned to incumbent challenges filed against Round 1 applications, or how much will be given to challengers in Round 2.

 

NTIA/RUS are not even releasing the non-proprietary data from either awarded or rejected applications. Billions of dollars are going out the door, some grant recipients have won $100 million grants and neither the public nor grant applicants can see what their scores were. Mapping technology experts and applicants alike find the agencies’ mapping tool lacks enough data on grant winners or broadband usage to be valuable.

 

Not knowing all the applicants who either have or haven’t received Round 1 funding is not a problem of transparency per se. But it does point to the problem of having a program led by a group whose intransigence in the face of clear evidence to make an adjustment is driving us into a very rough valley.

 

The issue of transparency goes beyond government not giving us (the public, media, applicants) the data we need and want, and paid for with our tax dollars to amass. Applicants are asked to present data on broadband availability and usage that moderate to no value, while not being encouraged via better rules that favor applicants who follow best practices in accurately assessing broadband need.

 

Forcing grant applicants to spend time trying to plot incumbent’s advertised speeds is one of the most useless exercises in a program that’s supposed to bring significant broadband to communities. What you need are actual verifiable speeds if you really want to know whether an area does or doesn’t have adequate broadband. Having applicants hunt around for prices for Internet services is somewhat useful, but the numbers are so easy for providers to manipulate you’d do better engaging in some other data collection tasks.

 

One route to consider is to find tech tools that can at least make broadband usage data transparent, and then take this grant winner’s approach of using the data to pressure the agencies to accept a moderated interpretation of their rules. ID Insight’s BroadBand Scout is one option with its national broadband usage database.

 

It is unclear whether we can find someone willing to take a little political heat to extend the Congressionally imposed Sept 30 funding deadline that’s causing best practices for technology deployment to be sacrificed on the altar of political necessity. However, as we have already begun this ride into the mouth of broadband application hell, I believe circumstances will force us to this same end. It probably won’t be pretty.