-
ITIF released a report that gave states an A, B or C grade for BEAD initial proposals
-
The report graded states on technology neutrality, regulatory efficiency and digital inclusion strategy
-
Tech neutrality was “worst performing area” but states did better with digital equity, said ITIF’s Jessica Dine
For states, preparing for the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program is not unlike getting ready for an exam...if the results of said exam impact whether millions of unserved households get connected (no pressure!). And just like an exam, their BEAD proposals have been graded.
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) this week published a report that scored state initial proposals on three main criteria. First, it looked at whether states plan to rely on a range of technologies to maximize their broadband coverage. Second, it examined if they’ve created a “streamlined regulatory environment” that minimizes wasted BEAD funds. And lastly, the group marked whether states came up with a digital inclusion strategy within their BEAD plans.
ITIF analyzed the initial proposals of 34 states and assigned them an A, B or C grade. Proposals from eligible territories were not included in the report. An interactive map displaying the results can be found here.
Jessica Dine, ITIF policy analyst and author of the report, told Fierce Network ITIF wanted to assess “how well BEAD is doing right now” and also get a sense of how many states are prioritizing fiber over technologies like fixed wireless access (FWA) and satellite.
Only nine out of 34 states (counting Washington, D.C.) scored an A on their initial proposals, though Dine prefaced “no state did very badly” – that’s not what the report was looking for. But it’s worth noting that tech neutrality “was definitely the worst performing area” across the board, whereas states generally performed better in digital equity plans and regulatory efficiency.
She pointed out there’s been “so much talk around Louisiana and Virginia,” with the former being the first to get its initial proposal approved.
“I was definitely expecting them to sort of head the pack,” said Dine.
Virginia was one of the states to get an A. The report stated Virginia “is potentially willing to exceed its own high-cost threshold in the right circumstances despite its emphasis on tech neutrality, but it has built strong collaborative structures.”
The high-cost threshold opens the door for less expensive technologies to be deployed in areas where fiber will be too expensive to build, though NTIA still expects states to set the threshold as high as possible to allow for as much fiber as possible.
While Virginia did “very well in general,” Dine said Louisiana (which received a B grade) actually “lost some points.” One reason for that had to do with how it conducted its challenge process.
Eligible entities can challenge the eligibility of locations for BEAD funds based on a few factors, she explained. Mainly things like: Is the location covered? Is it covered by the technology the state’s map says it’s covered by? And does that technology reach the speeds it’s supposed to reach?
“One option that states could choose to take was something called an area challenge or multi-dwelling unit challenge. And that essentially shifted the responsibility of proving coverage onto the provider if the trend showed that it was likely that there was not coverage there,” she said.
Area challenges are triggered when a certain number of challenges are submitted regarding a specific quality of a provider’s stated coverage, such as availability, latency or speed. Similarly, MDU challenges can happen if a certain percentage of units within an apartment building challenges one of these metrics.
Interestingly, Louisiana did not choose to apply area and MDU challenges for speed, but Dine noted, “I think a lot of states following [Louisiana] actually did do that.” Perhaps that was a product of Louisiana being the first out of the gate with its initial proposal.
Putting the 'E' in BEAD
She also delved into some of the report’s digital equity findings.
“One thing that I had not expected at all going in and I was pleasantly surprised to see a big trend of it among a lot of the states was within the subgrantee selection criteria,” said Dine, which is basically the rubric states will use to grade project proposals from ISPs.
Many states put in a section where they would award points for applicants who solicited community input for the area they’d like to serve.
Let’s say an ISP heard from a community that it gets a lot of rainfall. Maybe it would determine a fixed wireless network “wouldn’t be the best” option.
While community input alone isn’t likely to “tip the scales in any meaningful direction” in terms of points, Dine thought “it was a great way of sort of making sure that there’s a little bit in there that pushes projects towards the communities that are really going to be best served by them.”
Something else she noticed was some states awarded points to ISPs that are coming in with “some type of digital inclusion plan” in addition to their deployment plan. These could include broad ideas, like ways to promote digital literacy or device acquisition.
Ultimately, ITIF’s overarching stance on BEAD is to get everyone connected and have it be “one-and-done as much as possible,” Dine said, while trying to avoid “an iterative process where you deploy the networks and then have to turn to getting people to adopt.”