The average U.S. triple play is about $220.00 a month, and with an exchange rate of 1 Euro=$1.09 Dollars, the overcharging, which we documented, is $150+ a month — or more.

The Digital Divide was created, in large part, because prices are unaffordable, and America is now paying for over 20 million low-income families to have broadband — up to $30. a month allowance.

America’s prices are out of control, yet where are the investigations and audits to explain how overseas prices are a fraction of what we are paying in the U.S.? And why are we giving billions to the companies that helped to create the Digital Divide in the first place?

We assembled our previous research with new findings in this new series, using both 3rd party expert analysis as well as actual examples from December 2023, comparing and detailing the out of control US prices vs the services of free Telecom in France and Spectrum-Charter in New York City.

America’s broken promises and the state 5-year broken broadband plans

America’s prices for broadband have made high speed internet unaffordable for many households, Moreover, the pandemic revealed a major Digital Divide where whole areas of the U.S. were never upgraded to fiber optic networks, much less high speed services even over the copper wires. Thus, no competition to lower rates.

And every state now has plans to ‘bridge the Digital Divide’, but in all of the state broadband plans, none have addressed how the Divide started in their state or about the massive financial price divide between America and the EU or Asian countries that charge a fraction of the prices charged in the US.

Over $150 billion is being given out in state and federal government subsidies over the next few years, and much of It going to the companies that helped to create the Digital Divide.

The states must investigate the core issues as they impact almost every FCC, NTIA, FTC, Congressional and state current and future actions.

The opening chart tells the tale of how the European countries did not allow for massive multiple additional made up fees, such as the Broadcast-Sports fee ($27.90 on a Spectrum Triple Play). Moreover, the services do not charge ridiculous prices for equipment, such as set top box, that is required to use the service. Also, because there is competition, customers have choices and prices have not skyrocketed, but are actually going down.

America’s prices are 5–10 times higher than comparable data from other countries

How can America’s prices for the stand-alone, double and triple play — (phone, cable TV and ISP-broadband) be 5–10 times more when comparing data from other countries, as highlighted in the European Union Commission’s report, published July 2022 for the year 2021. And, as the report details, even basic stand-alone high speed broadband prices overseas are a fraction of what we’re paying in the U.S.

• America’s “Double play” — high speed broadband and phone service — is being overcharged, on average, almost $75 a month — a whopping $900 a year.
• The “Triple play” is being overcharged by $180 a month on average; this comes to overcharged, over $2,200 for the triple play.

The current triple play in America, after the promotional prices end, is now around $220.00 a month, yet overseas, the average was around $40 a month, but the prices overseas are in decline. However, in some countries, it can be as low as $23.00 for 200 Mbps or more; only $15 for the double play.

According to the EU report, we’ve even been beaten out by Bulgaria, Romania and let’s not forget Slovakia:

• “Overall, Lithuania and Romania have the most attractive prices for broadband internet in the EU. All the offers in these countries belong to the cluster of the least expensive countries in their respective baskets. Bulgaria, Latvia and Slovakia follow. Poland, Hungary, France and Spain have low prices especially for Triple Play.”

But when the EU report says prices are “attractive”, we are talking $10–12 bucks a month for stand-alone broadband and $20–23 for the triple play, with speed of 200 Mbps or more.

By the way, Bulgaria does get Netflix and their Top 10 shows are close to America’s viewing.

How is it possible that America’s Triple Play is $150-$200 a month over what is being charged overseas? That’s over $2,200.00 a year ‘extra’ being charged to families — including low-income families and fixed income seniors. This is on top of the fact that there could be only one or no providers of high-speed services in the rural regions or in low-income neighborhoods of cities.

It would be one thing if it was a small differential between the overseas EU group and others price of service, but this is a difference that is too large to be ignored.

What are the underlying issues?

No Serious Competition to keep market forces and rate increases at bay. First, AT&T et al. failed to show up with high-speed competition to keep the cable companies, the other group of providers that use a wired connection, in check. For example, in CA, AT&T-Pac Bell had obligations to bring fiber optic broadband throughout the state and our maps showed that much of AT&T’s entire Los Angeles county region had been left to deteriorate and not upgraded as promised with fiber optic infrastructure.

Made-up Fees and surcharges are out of control. One of the sleaziest practices in the US has become the addition of made-up taxes, fees and surcharges that are not mandated or government sanctioned. This is being done so that the companies can quote a price that is missing 20–40% of the total costs,

Made-Up Taxes include:

• Broadcast and Sports surcharge: $15–24.00 a month
• Cost Recovery Fee: $1.99–2.99
• Admin Fees: $1.49-$2.99 per month
• Pass-through taxes, Gross receipts tax, telecom taxes

The largest and most egregious added fee is now the Sports and Broadcast surcharge, which is really 2 separate charges that have been merged in many cases:

“Made-up, Broadcast-Sports Fees Up 820%; Overcharging $250+ a Year — then Quintuple-Taxed, Fee’d and Surcharged.” This article was written in December 2021, and along the way there have been increases bringing the total charge on the Spectrum NY June 2022 bill to $23.70 a month. This one fee on the Spectrum NY Triple play bill is more than the entire charges for a triple play in many overseas EU countries.

This charge went up to $27.90 a month extra in 2023. That is an overall increase of 1,140%.

• Quadruple Taxed, Fee’d and Surcharged. — If the increases to this one fee is not enough, there are made-up taxes, fees and surcharges being applied to this fee as it is considered ‘revenue’ to the company and is taxed as such. And some of these surcharges are actually tax pass-throughs where the company gets to have the customer pay the company’s taxes.
• It is impossible to calculate the exact tax assessment as there is no ‘Rosetta Stone’ to be able to unravel how each tax, fee and surcharge is applied.

But, considering that basic telecom taxes can be 12–20% depending on the city and state, if a 15% tax is applied, that would add an additional $3.55 more per month.

• Not included in the advertised price: To add irony to obfuscation, this fee is never included in the advertised rates, nor is it added completely in the promotional price, making the increases after the promotion even more egregious.
• Not included in the EU statistics for the U.S. Triple Play: Ironically, the EU informed us that they do not include the extra charges and fees in the US because — well, the other countries only have a VAT (Value Added Tax), and not the made-up fees.
• No Oversight, No Audits; Regulators Failed U.S.: The idea that a state-franchised cable service or the Holding Companies that control the state telecommunications public utility can just make up fees and add them to bills with no one asking for a cost analysis or some other justification to raise this make-believe charge, should have the peanut gallery screaming.
• Public has Amnesia: No one knows who these local telecom companies are or what they’ve been able to get away with. And virtually no one could answer basic questions about who the companies are or the services they offer.
• Let’s give government subsidies to keep America in a perpetual state of “Please Sir May I have another?” Currently there are subsidies being given to low-income families to go online, which are then handed over to the same companies that have caused this Divide in the first place; i.e.; a new flavor of Corporate Welfare. We will address these issues in an upcoming story.

The telecom holding companies that control the critical infrastructure wires, towers and antennas created the Digital Divide. They also control the pricing of all services, wireline, wireless, broadband, internet and even cable, and as we will discuss, they also were able to manipulate the accounting formulas to have the state telecom utility act as a cash machine to fund, illegally, the other lines of business.

America must go after these cooked books and must clean up the mess. There is plenty of money to get America upgraded, and it must be seen as the first step in LA County to clean up the mess and decades of public policy and regulatory issues.

Government subsidies, both state and federal, to companies who have created the Digital Divide and can control the prices and profits over the public utility wires needs immediate investigations — not more gifts of largesse.

Bruce Kushnick is Executive Director of New Networks Institute and a founding member of the Irregulators. He has been a telecom analyst for 40 years, and playing the piano for 65 years. A version of this piece originally appeared on Medium on January 9, 2024, and is reprinted with permission.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

This new one-day event will run from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and brings together the top stakeholders in understanding broadband speeds, prices, availability, reliability and competition. The Summit is in-person, but with a webcast component.

The Early Bird price of $195 available until Friday, February 9, 2024. Existing Breakfast Club Members take an additional $100 off the in-person event.

Sign up for the Broadband Measurement Summit, and visit the event page for updated information about panelists, keynotes and sponsors.

The current definition, set in 2015, requires a speed of 25 Megabits per second download and 3 Mbps upload for internet service to be considered broadband, or high-speed internet. The commission sought comment in November on a proposal to increase that threshold to 100 * 20 Mbps, in addition to using more data sources in its assessment of broadband availability in the U.S.

NTIA officials met with commission staff on December 21 to express support for the move, according to an ex parte letter the agency filed last week. 

“We support the Commission’s proposal to raise the speed threshold for fixed broadband to 100 Mbps downstream and 20 Mbps upstream,” the agency wrote, saying a higher benchmark would better reflect user needs and bring the standard in line with the Infrastructure Act’s Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program, which the NTIA is tasked with managing.

That $42.5-billion broadband expansion effort already has a 100 * 20 Mbps benchmark, meaning infrastructure funded by the program will be required to provide at least that speed, and areas currently receiving slower internet will be eligible to be served with BEAD funded infrastructure. Homes and businesses receiving less than the current FCC benchmark of 25 * 3 Mbps are given special priority.

The commission is required by section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to conduct annual assessments of the “availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.” In the same November notice of inquiry, the FCC proposed adding a number of new data points to that assessment, including latency, affordability, adoption, and equitable access among minority groups. That will partly be facilitated by the commission’s new Broadband Data Collection database, which has more precise information from internet providers.

The NTIA endorsed all of that as well, writing: “The Section 706 inquiry has the potential to serve as an important indicator of our nation’s progress toward achieving digital equity, and it will be best equipped to do so if it examines the available data on a wide range of challenges in this field.”

The agency added that it is working on a project with the Census Bureau to estimate broadband adoption in small geographic areas.

Industry response

In comments to the commission, broadband industry groups expressed broad support for the 100 * 20 Mbps benchmark, but some disagreed on the commission’s proposed long-term goal of 1 Gbps * 500 Mbps – something the NTIA did not touch on.

CTIA, a trade group representing wireless providers, wrote that while the commission noted some situations in which users require more than 100 * 20 Mbps, “none of these justifies a fixed broadband benchmark above 100 * 20 Mbps, even as a long-term goal.” That’s a view shared by WISPA, an association of wireless broadband providers.

NTCA, which represents small and rural broadband providers, advocated for an even higher long-term goal, but did not specify an exact number. Trade group INCOMPAS pushed for setting the download benchmark to 1 Gbps now, rather than in the future.

USTelecom, another broadband industry group, said the long-term 1 Gbps * 500 Mbps goal would be impractical, as the only technology capable of providing those speeds is fiber-optic cable.

“There are locations where deployment of fiber is not practical now and may never be,” the group wrote in comments to the Commission.

CTIA also opposed adding non-deployment metrics like adoption and affordability to the 706 inquiry, arguing that reporting requirements for existing Universal Service Fund programs are a better venue for assessing them.

This story was updated to reflect the current definition of broadband, 25 * 3 Mbps.

In 2020, the Broadband DATA Act mandated the FCC create maps that don’t simply take as fact the inflated coverage claims of internet service providers. The first version of the map was released in November 2022, but the task of mapping every home and business in the United States and determining their broadband access is a daunting one, and the map still included many incorrectly marked locations. 

• On the Fourth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence

The commission gave states until January 13 to contest the coverage, but not location, data. Those challenges would be incorporated into an updated version of the map, which would ultimately be used to gauge relative need among states and territories and determine how much BEAD money each would receive. That allocation was slated to be finalized in late June. 

That got the year off to a rocky start, as many states were under the impression that both coverage and location data – the coordinates, addresses, and categorization of homes and businesses – could be challenged before the January deadline. 

Many states and advocacy groups asked for an extension to both the challenge and BEAD allocation deadlines, citing a lack of time and resources to gather correct information. But the FCC held firm and kept the cutoff at January 13.

The commission released a new map in May that incorporated the challenges it had received and its own continued data collection efforts. Almost 330,000 new unconnected locations were represented, and more than 3 million homes and businesses had their broadband availability information corrected.

But states were still underwhelmed. The Maine broadband office said it was “disappointed to see claims of advertised speeds at locations where we know it is not possible to receive that level of service.”

BEAD awards were handed down by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Commerce Department agency tasked with handling the program, on June 26. Nineteen states were slated to receive more than $1 billion to expand broadband infrastructure.

There was still work to be done, though. States would be required by the program to conduct their own challenge processes to further refine FCC coverage data before awarding grants under BEAD. The deadline for proposals on how to administer that process is December 27.

Early bird states submitted their challenge proposal separately 

But some early bird states submitted their challenge proposals separately from the rest of their BEAD implementation plans and got the go-ahead to begin from NTIA: Louisiana, Virginia, and Kansas.

Those states used a template process set up by the NTIA. That template allows for some modifications to existing FCC data. Kansas and Louisiana, for example, are attempting to phase out old infrastructure by designating all copper DSL service as inadequate regardless of what speeds an ISP claims to provide. All three are requiring ISPs to prove their reported coverage for an entire census block group or apartment building if enough residents contest the government data.

According to draft plans that have yet to be approved by the NTIA, every other state in the nation is planning to take up its model process, with many opting for the DSL and area challenge modifications used by the states that have already kicked things off.

FCC issued the third version of its public-facing broadband map

The FCC is also continuing its mapping effort to improve the baseline for future BEAD challenges and other funding programs. The commission released a third version of its public-facing map in November. This time, staff processed 4.8 million challenges to coverage data and 1.5 million challenges to location data.

Louisiana is done accepting challenges and is slated to wrap up adjudication in early 2024. Virginia is not far behind – providers can submit rebuttals through December, after which the state will weigh the submitted evidence and finalize its map. Kansas’s approval came later, and the state is still accepting challenges to FCC coverage data.

Other state broadband heads urged states to over communicate about the process at the Broadband Breakfast Digital Infrastructure Investment Summit in December. Only local governments and nonprofits can submit challenges under BEAD rules, and making sure those entities are prepared will be crucial to getting maps ready for grant applications, they said.

In Maryland, which is planning for its challenge process to start up in February, some county governments lack full time IT departments and will need assistance from the state to be successful, said broadband office director Rick Gordon.

“Once addresses are claimed as served, we don’t have the ability to go back and change that, so we have to be very careful,” he said.

See “The Twelve Days of Broadband” on Broadband Breakfast

• On the First Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Second Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Third Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence
• On the Fourth Day of Broadband, my true love sent to me:
  4.8 Million Challenges to Broadband Coverage Data
  $3.6 Billion Funds Remaining in the Affordable Connectivity Program
  24 Reverse-Preemption Pole Attachment States (2023 edition)
  And One Artificial General Intelligence

The analysis of customers from major internet service providers in the U.S. who switched to T-Mobile’s fixed wireless access service reveals that their median download performance prior to switching was lower than the overall median performance of all customers across major ISPs. Those users joining T-Mobile’s FWA service recorded an increase in their median download speed of 13.04 Mbps.

At the same time, users joining Spectrum, Optimum, Cox and XFINITY from T-Mobile’s 5G FWA service experienced median download speeds over 100 Mbps faster, reports Ookla, highlighting the performance advantages that cable and fiber providers maintain over FWA, it said. 

The report finds cable and DSL providers are shouldering the majority of user churn, with existing cable and DSL customers forming the primary group transitioning to both T-Mobile’s and Verizon’s FWA services. 

While this shift is predominant, there’s a two-way flow occurring: T-Mobile’s larger user base exhibits some migration toward cable providers. In rural areas, where choices are restricted, FWA services are engaging in direct competition, with over 10 percent of users opting for Verizon’s FWA service transitioning from T-Mobile.

The competitive pricing tactics employed by FWA providers have driven prices down across the market, according to the Ookla report. As cable operators face the bulk of customer turnover, their strategic price competition is enticing some FWA subscribers to return to cable services, it added.

Ookla reports that major wireless carrier T-Mobile currently leads the 5G fixed-wireless market share, closely followed by Verizon. AT&T currently lags in terms of service, having recently launched its updated FWA service, AT&T Internet Air, in August 2023.

Nationally, T-Mobile and Verizon’s 5G FWA performance remains robust. Despite substantial customer growth, both companies have sustained their performance levels over the past year, as indicated by Ookla Speedtest data. 

In the third quarter of 2023, both ISPs exhibited comparable median download speeds of over 120 Mbps. However, T-Mobile retains an advantage in median upload performance at 17.09 Mbps, while Verizon’s average upload speed trails at 11.53 Mbps, as shown by Ookla Speedtest data.

The Ookla analysis sheds light on the evolving performance of 5G fixed wireless access (FWA) across the nation and its impact on market dynamics.

Still, notable variations in performance exist at the state level and between urban and rural settings. The performance of 5G FWA services depends heavily on the spectrum bands available in each location.

The report suggests the introduction of more C-band spectrum will bolster the argument for FWA. The rollout of extra C-band spectrum across all three national cellular carriers, coupled with AT&T’s new FWA service, may elevate performance and intensify competitive pressures in 2024.

The data and analysis was gathered through consumers using Ookla’s Speedtest website on internet connections on user devices across the globe.

Though the new rules were finalized in October, Internet Service Providers have until April 10, 2024 to publish their broadband labels, though providers with 100,000 or fewer subscriber lines have until October 10, 2024.

Just like the label on the back of packaged food in grocery stores helps shoppers understand the nutritional value of the food they are buying, the broadband label requires ISPs to disclose their broadband pricing and service information (at the point of sale) to help potential subscribers make informed decisions about the service they are signing up to get.

Transparency on Display

Though the label is just another red-tape requirement for some providers, others see it as an opportunity to show off the quality of their services.

Google Fiber, for example, published via social media and its blog a preliminary version of its own broadband consumer label, just days after the final rule was published, and six months before its deadline.

In a post titled “Is your internet high fiber?,” Ariane Schaffer, the company’s Government Affairs & Public Policy Manager, wrote about how the broadband nutrition labels are “a great idea,” adding “we didn’t think that Google Fiber customers should have to wait for that clarity. As of today, GFiber is launching nutrition labels for our residential 1 Gig, 2 Gig, 5 Gig, and 8 Gig products — some of the first to roll out anywhere.”

Schaffer told ILSR, “we think that transparency is the right thing for the customer. It should be easy to understand what you are paying and what you are getting for that price.”

The label helps Google show off its consistent speeds and straightforward pricing structure, especially when compared with large monopoly providers known for making it difficult, if not impossible, for subscribers to figure out exactly how much they can expect to pay month-to-month.

Planet Networks, an ISP serving just over 6,000 subscribers in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York, didn’t wait until the final requirements were published to get their label over a year ago. The ISP posted the label on social media in addition to publishing it at the point of sale, the minimum requirement.

Planet Networks CEO Robert Boyle told ILSR that putting the label together was simple:

“We don’t play games with pricing and we overprovision everything to ensure customers always get what they are paying for.”

He believes Planet Network’s straightforward and honest pricing, exhibited on the label, gives the provider a market advantage, which is why the company shared it on its social media platforms. “I think greater transparency is going to help us compete against the cable company when they advertise one price, but actually bill significantly more after all their made up fees that they disguise as government taxes and surcharges,” Boyle said. “There is no sales tax nor other government taxes in any jurisdiction where we do business.”

Boyle also mentioned that Planet Networks would eventually publish the label on monthly bills – something advocates fought hard for but that didn’t make it into the final ruling.

A Challenge for WISPs

While the label is a great opportunity for fiber providers to show off their speeds, some wireless Internet service providers (WISPs) are concerned that meeting the requirements will be more difficult for them. WISPs with straightforward and transparent pricing structures shouldn’t have an issue when it comes to reporting cost of service. The challenge is reporting performance metrics.

Matt Larson, CEO of Vistabeam, a wireless provider serving over 8,500 subscribers across Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, & Wyoming, told ILSR that “it’s almost impossible to put out performance metrics that will be consistent across the board because network conditions change constantly.” Speed and latency, he said, vary greatly depending on what time of day it is and how much traffic there is.

Larson worries that the label will create unrealistic expectations by incentivizing providers to overstate their services. He also emphasized that it leaves out other important information that could help potential subscribers make decisions, such as the level of competition in a given area, what kind of company is offering the service, and the provider’s responsiveness to service outages and billing concerns.

Bringing Transparency to Market

Ideally, no ISP would try to lure subscribers into purchasing broadband service through complex pricing structures or other deceptive sales tactics. And while the new labels may be a headache for some providers, the idea behind requiring them is rooted in enabling the transparency true free markets require, and to establish mechanisms that are in the best interest of subscribers.

Although, it should also be noted that a number of public interest groups agree the label requirements don’t go far enough, as noted by Free Press policy director Josh Stager who points out how the FCC opted not to require the label be put on the monthly bill (only at the point of sale), adding that the new rules still allow providers to hide the label from subscribers who are not aware that the label even exists.

Still, we hope to see the new labels nudge providers away from opaque pricing and sneaky deals that are actually a huge part of the reason why big cable and telecom companies are among the most hated companies in the nation.

Emma Gautier is a Researcher with ILSR’s Community Broadband Networks Initiative. She supports data collection and analysis within the broadband initiative. Emma recently received a BA in Women’s and Gender Studies from Carleton College, and since graduation has been working in research, advocacy, and political organizing for social and environmental justice. She is interested in the synthesis of research and on-the-ground action in communities. This piece was originally published on communitynets.org on December 19, 2023, and is reprinted with permission.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

While each of the 56 states and territories may determine their own preferred approach, each challenge process is required to include the following four phases: (1) publication of locations deemed eligible for BEAD funding; (2) a challenge process in which a unit of local government, a nonprofit organization, or a broadband service provider may submit refuting evidence; (3) the challenged service provider may rebut the reclassification of a location with evidence; and (4) states and territories determine of the final classification of the location.

Louisiana’s adjudication process is set to begin this Friday, and the state already has “160,000 unique location challenges,” said Thomas Tyler, deputy director of Connect Louisiana. The challenge process is projected to last until January 2024, when the state’s broadband office will make its final decision on eligible BEAD locations and submit its findings to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration for approval.

Rick Gordon, director of the Maryland Office of Statewide Broadband, issued a warning to entities to do their due diligence when declaring locations to be served or unserved. “Once addresses are claimed as served, we don’t have the ability to go back and change that, so we have to be very careful,” Gordon said. For example, Maryland will allow an ISP with plans to deploy into an area to claim those addresses to be served, but only if a legally binding agreement with the state exists, which requires the ISP follow through on the agreement. The state projects its challenge process will last from February to May.

The panelists voiced concern over the vast range in different communities’ current understanding of the BEAD program, stating that broadband offices should air on the side of overcommunication with communities as they advance toward their challenge processes. “Some communities have lined up everything they need and are ready to apply for BEAD fairly soon. On the other end of the spectrum, we are working with some communities to bring them up to speed on what the definition of served and unserved is, and what they need to be doing now to challenge some of those things. It’s that range that concerns us,” said Brian Vo, chief investment officer at Connect Humanity.

This sentiment was echoed by Gordon, who detailed that some of Maryland’s county governments merely have part-time IT departments, while other counties have fully staffed GIS departments.

“We need to make sure that these more rural counties are just as equipped to handle the challenge process,” Vo assured.

The panel detailed challenges small or municipal internet service providers have faced in their pursuit of BEAD funding.

Initially, a letter of credit requirement deterred some smaller ISPs from participating in the program. That requirement was waived in early November, as the NTIA responded to public comment that this requirement would prevent the very type of service providers from participating, that BEAD was aiming to bolster.

The panel forewarned that service providers must also account for the fact that BEAD grants are taxable as income on both the state and federal level, which will largely affect the cost of projects. The federal government will tax the awarded grants at 15 percent.

Looking ahead, the panel agreed that BEAD will not connect 100 percent of the unserved, and called for the creation of a subgrant program to reach universal connectivity.

“We are going to need more capital, and new investment models,” voiced Vo. “Continued communication with regulation is critical.”

The session was moderated by Maria Curi, a reporter at Axios.

Editor’s note: A prior version of this story incorrectly noted the month that Louisiana’s challenge process will end. It will end in January, not May.

Commissioners urged Congress to restore the FCC’s authority to action spectrum, which expired in March and left the nation’s airwaves in limbo, and to fund the Affordable Connectivity Program, the low-income internet subsidy set to dry up in April of next year. 

GOP lawmakers FCC Republicans also took the chance to slam efforts by the commission’s Democratic majority.

The discussion touched on other issues including robocall prevention, rip and replace funding, and pole attachments.

Robocalls

The commission has been taking action on preventing robocalls this year, kicking off an inquiry into using artificial intelligence to detect fraud, blocking call traffic from 20 providers for lax enforcement policies and issuing hundreds of millions in fines. In August the commission also expanded the STIR/SHAKEN regime – a set of measures to confirm caller identities – to all providers who handle call traffic.

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel asked multiple times for three Congressional actions she said would help the commission crack down on scam calls: a new definition for “autodialer,” the ability to collect fines, and access to Bank Secrecy Act information.

The Supreme Court limited the definition of autodialers in 2021 to devices that store or produce phone numbers with random or sequential number generators. That leaves the scope of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which guides the FCC’s authority, “stuck in the nineties,” according to Rosenworcel.

“A lot of scam artists are using technologies no longer covered” by the act, she said. “We can’t go after them.”

On collecting robocall fines, that authority currently rests with the Department of Justice, and Rosenworcel is not the first to tell Congress the agency’s enforcement has been lax. Industry groups at an October Senate hearing cited slow DOJ action as a major reason FCC fines on the issue often go uncollected.

The Bank Secrecy Act requires financial institutions to keep records on certain transactions to help law enforcement agencies track money laundering and other criminal activity. The FCC cannot access information governed by the act, which Rosenworcel said would help the commission go after repeat scammers.

“These scam artists set up one company, we shut them down, they go and set another one up,” she said.

Rip and replace

Commissioners urged Congress to fund the rip and replace program. Congress allocated $1.9 billion to reimburse broadband companies for replacing network equipment from Chinese companies deemed to be national security threats, mainly Huawei and ZTE.

The FCC was tasked with overseeing the program and found in 2022 that another $3 billion would be needed to get the work done. The Biden administration joined a chorus of lawmakers and broadband companies in calling for Congress to fill the gap, but legislation on the issue has yet to be passed.

“We’re providing 40 cents on the dollar to a lot of small and rural carriers,” said Rosenworcel. “They need more funds to get the job done.”

The commission has been granting extensions to providers unable to get the work done on time. In addition to supply chain issues, some small providers cite a lack of funding as the reason they’re unable to replace insecure equipment.

Pole attachments

Commissioners expressed a willingness to shift some of the burden of utility pole replacements off of broadband providers as they attach new equipment.

“If a pole is getting replaced,” Commissioner Brendan Carr said, “there’s probably a role for the FCC to say that the pole owner should bear somewhere north of the cost of $0.”

The commission has authority in 26 states over most pole attachment deals between utility pole owners and telecommunications companies looking to expand their networks. The issue of who pays for poles that need to be replaced to accommodate more communications equipment is contentious, with telecoms arguing utilities force them to pay for replacing already junk poles. 

After spending years sifting through thousands of comments, commissioners have apparently been persuaded. Rules up for a vote at the commission’s December meeting would limit the scenarios in which utilities could pass full replacement costs on to attachers.

Broadband funding map

Rosenworcel repeatedly asked lawmakers to work with the commission on ensuring its broadband funding map is kept up to date.

The FCC launched its funding map in May to keep track of the myriad federal broadband subsidy efforts and avoid funding the same areas multiple times. The Department of Agriculture, the FCC, and the Treasury Department each oversee separate broadband funding programs, in addition to the Commerce Department’s upcoming $42.5 billion broadband expansion effort.

The commission has signed memoranda of understanding with those agencies on providing data for the funding map, but Rosenworcel asked the subcommittee for help ensuring the agencies follow through and respond to FCC requests for their funding data. 

“If you could help us make sure those other agencies respond to us with data, you’ll see where there are problems, duplication, areas we haven’t reached,” she said.

Speaking on a panel about “The Power of Navigation Services,” the expert, Jessica Dine of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, said states lack comprehensive data on why some residents remain offline. This information is essential for digital navigator programs to succeed, she said.

She highlighted the need for standardized national metrics on digital literacy and inclusion, and said that federal surveys – including the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey – provide insights on barriers to technology adoption. But more granular data is required.

She also said that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s Internet Use Survey doesn’t delve deeply enough into why people choose not to adopt the internet. For instance, understanding the nuances behind the ‘not interested’ response category could unveil targeted intervention strategies.

In particular, Dine praised Louisiana and Delaware for surveying communities on their connectivity needs, including overlaying socio-economic indicators with broadband deployment data. But she said more work is required to quantify the precise challenges different populations face.

Other panelists at the session, including Michelle Thornton of the State University of New York at Oswego, emphasized the importance of tracking on-the-ground efforts by navigators themselves.

Bringing in her experience from the field of healthcare navigation, Thornton underscored the value of tracking navigator activities and outcomes. She suggested a collaborative model where state-level data collection is supplemented by detailed, community-level insights from digital navigators.

The panel was part of the Connect20 Summit held in Washington and organized by Network On, the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, and Broadband Breakfast.

The session was moderated by Comcast’s Kate Allison, executive director of research and digital equity at Comcast.

To stay involved with the Digital Navigator movement, sign up at the Connect20 Summit.

Courtney Lang, a vice president at tech industry trade group ITI, said AI could be used to improve the quality of current broadband maps.

A machine learning model could do that by using past data to identify buildings that are likely to be accurately marked as having adequate broadband, according to Lang.

“It’s a really interesting use case,” she said.

Broadband mapping is a difficult task. The Federal Communications Commission’s broadband map is on its third version, undergoing revisions as consumers submit challenges to provider-reported broadband coverage data. The Biden administration’s $42.5 billion broadband expansion program requires states to administer a similar ground-truthing process before allocating any of that cash.

But Nicol Turner Lee, director of the Brookings Institution’s Center for Technology Innovation, urged caution.

“We have to be careful that we might not have enough data,” she said.

In rural parts of the country, data can be sparse and low-quality. Both factors would make machine learning ill-suited to the task of flagging potential inaccuracies, according to Lee.

She urged lawmakers to exercise restraint when using AI for “critical government functions,” like the broadband maps used to determine where federal grant money will go.

The witnesses spoke at a House Communications and Technology Subcommittee hearing on using AI to enhance American communication networks.

The current definition, set in 2015, requires speeds of 25 megabits per second – Mbps – download and 3 Mbps upload for internet service to be considered broadband, or simply high-speed internet. The agency is seeking comment on increasing that to 100 * 20 Mbps, it said in a notice of inquiry.

“During the pandemic and even before it, the needs of internet users surpassed the FCC’s 25/3 standard for broadband. This standard is not only outdated, it masks the extent to which low- income neighborhoods and rural communities are being left offline and left behind,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel in a press release.

The Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program, a $42.5 billion broadband expansion effort set off with the 2021 Infrastructure Act, already has a benchmark of 100 * 20 Mbps. Areas with access to speeds lower than this will be eligible to get broadband upgrades with BEAD-funded infrastructure, and those with access to anything less than 25 * 3 Mbps are given special priority.

The FCC will also take comments on setting a significantly higher long-term goal: 1 Gbps * 500 Mbps. 

In addition to revamping the commission’s speed benchmarks, the inquiry will also look to evaluate the state of broadband availability in the U.S., looking at broadband deployment, affordability, adoption, and equitable access. The commission is required to do this annually by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

It will be the first of these evaluations, the NOI notes, to use the commission’s Broadband Data Collection data. Part of the 2020 Broadband DATA Act, the BDC database has more precise information on broadband availability in the U.S., and the commission is seeking comment on how best to refresh its standards and frameworks in light of the better data.

Comments are due by December 1, with reply comments due December 18.

The move marks the next step forward in the $42.5 billion federal effort to expand broadband access. Many states are still in the process of submitting initial proposals for administering their grant programs, ahead of the December 27 deadline.

“Our goal is to ensure that every unserved and underserved home, business, and community anchor institution is included in the BEAD program,“ said Dr. Tamarah Holmes, director of the Office of Broadband within Virginia’s Department of Housing and Community Development.

“We eagerly anticipate collaborating with local governments, non-profits, and community anchor institutions during the 30-day challenge window and the subsequent review process to address all broadband access gaps,” she said.

Virginia continues the momentum of other leading state broadband offices, including Louisiana, the first state to begin its challenge process under BEAD on October 6.

Virginia’s challenge process is being carried out through partnership with Virginia Tech Center for Geospatial Information Technology to provide the challenge process portal, and Ready, which is supporting Virginia’s challenge effort with its public map and speed test portal. Ready also offers a Challenge Process Coordinator as part of a software platform to assist leading state broadband offices in being data-driven, scalable and compliant throughout their broadband programs.

A requirement to accept challenges

BEAD rules under the November 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act require states to accept and process challenges to broadband availability data before awarding grants under the program. The Federal Communications Commission coverage map that states will use as a starting point is based largely on provider-reported data, which is not considered accurate enough to determine which locations – that is, individual businesses and housing units – have adequate internet access.

The program prioritizes areas marked as “unserved” – those with access to speeds of 25 megabits per second download speed and 3 Mbps upload speed– for subsidized infrastructure projects, followed by ‘underserved’ areas – those with less than 100 * 20 Mbps.

Virginia has identified 134,221 unserved and 27,806 underserved locations eligible to get broadband with BEAD-funded infrastructure, based on data from the FCC National Broadband Map and previous federal and state funding programs. It will use those numbers as a baseline as it begins processing challenges.

Virginia has in fact identified more than 400,000 locations that are unserved and underserved, but which are already including a state- or federally-funded project area. Such areas are ineligible for funding and are hence removed from the 162,107 “pre-challenge” locations at issue in Virginia’s process.

Adopting NTIA’s model challenge process

Virginia adopted the NTIA’s model challenge process, a template the agency put together for states to expedite the proposal approval process. The process is slated to last 90 days, ending in Virginia on January 30, 2024. The state will be accepting challenges for the first 30 days, until November 30, followed by rebuttal and adjudication phases of the same length.

Challenges in the state can allege that current data on things like the internet speed, technology type, latency, and data caps available at a location is inaccurate. They can only be submitted by nonprofits, municipal governments, and internet service providers, meaning eligible challengers must source evidence of these inaccuracies from their communities or, in the case of providers, internal plans and network management systems.

That evidence can broadly come in the form of provider documents or communications with information on service and equipment or, in the case of latency, speed tests showing an excessive delay in network communications.

Virginia is making use of two optional modifications the NTIA laid out: area challenges and MDU, or multiple dwelling unit, challenges. Under these rules, if six locations in a census block group or 10 percent of the units in an apartment building challenge the same provider’s technology or coverage, the provider must provide evidence that they serve the entire block group or building as reported in government data.

Requirement of enforceable commitments for broadband

The state is also more stringent than the NTIA model on providers claiming to have plans in place to serve BEAD-eligible areas. If a provider submits a challenge to Virginia claiming they are – independent of BEAD – planning to get broadband to certain unserved homes and businesses, the state will require them to enter into an enforceable commitment before marking those locations as served.

Most states are adopting the NTIA’s model process in full, with almost every state basing their process heavily in it. Some states are accepting other forms of evidence, like speed tests measuring network capacity, and making other optional modifications, like marking service from certain technologies as underserved by default.

Providers in Virginia will have 30 days from the notification of a challenge to rebut challenges. The state will then weigh evidence and make determinations on its final broadband map by January 30.

Virginia has already submitted the second volume of its initial proposal, detailing how it plans to award BEAD grants based on that map, to the NTIA. It is one of only two states to have done so, with the other being Louisiana. Virginia will have one year from the approval of that proposal to spend all $1.7 billion of its allocation.

The new guideline, which the NTIA characterizes as a clarification, means that only subscribers of service at 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) upstream and 20 Mbps downstream will have their speed tests accepted.

This specification means that all those considered “underserved” will not be eligible to challenge actual speed measurements with speed tests.

The agency’s model process under the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program was first released on June 28 as a template for states to accept and process challenges to their broadband map data ahead of allocating their portions of the $42.5 billion in BEAD funds.

Speed tests, conducted by subscribers while meeting certain methodological standards, show their actual internet speeds are one form of evidence states can accept in these challenges. The program considers areas with access to speeds in excess of 100 Mbps upload and 20 Mbps download – 100 * 20 Mbps – to have adequate broadband access and makes them ineligible for funding. Money is targeted at areas receiving speeds below 100 * 20 Mbps, called “underserved,” and areas receiving below 25 * 3 Mbps, called “unserved” areas.

Other ways to challenge reported coverage

There are other ways reported coverage can be challenged. The availability of reported coverage can be contested, for example, with evidence providers do not offer plans at the speed they are recorded as providing in government data.

The initial release of the model process included the sentence “If the household subscribes to a speed tier of between 25/3 Mbps and 100/20 Mbps and the speed test results in a speed below 25/3 Mbps, this broadband service will not be considered to determine the status of the location.”

In the updated version — changed on August 30, 2023, according to the NTIA’s change logs — does away with this, specifying “only speed tests of subscribers that subscribe to tiers at 100/20 Mbps and above are considered.” 

Screenshot of the updated model challenge process language.

That means, for example, speed tests from a subscribers to a 80 * 10 Mbps plan showing they receive speeds of 23 * 2 Mbps would not be accepted. Only tests from subscribers to 100 * 20 Mbps or faster showing lower speeds would count toward changing that location’s service designation.

The NTIA said this update does not constitute a change in policy, but was made to clarify an existing rule: only locations marked as served can challenge on the basis of speed.

Screenshot of the original model process, stating speed tests from subscribers between 100*20 and 25*3 Mbps showing actual speeds below 25*3 could be used to disqualify the advertised coverage.

The new specification has caused confusion

This has caused confusion in some state broadband offices. Jessica Simmons, executive director of the Georgia Broadband Program said her office was under the impression that consumers who subscribe to an internet plan offering speeds in the underserved range could submit – through an allowed challenger like a nonprofit or state government office – speed tests showing that they receive speeds below the unserved threshold.

“Rather than clarification, it did seem like a policy shift to us,” she said. “We believed it seemed clear that an underserved location could be changed to unserved.”

States are required to submit their challenge processes in the first volume of their BEAD initial proposals – documents outlining implementation plans for the program – on December 27.

Georgia released volume one of its proposal on Tuesday. Simmons and her four-person team made sure to change the language in their proposal to reflect the new model process.

“If it’s coming from the NTIA, you know, we’ve got to get our plan approved,” she said.

In total, 14 states and Puerto Rico have released their volume one. They all base their challenge processes heavily on the NTIA’s model, with all but three adopting it in full. Vermont, Delaware, and Ohio made minor changes that do not relate to speed test processing.

Eight use the language around speed tests from the original model.

The event, featuring the BroadbandToolkit.com software, is free to attend and publicly available. It took place on Tuesday, September 12 at 2 p.m.

Signup to obtain a copy of the recording and the slides from the event.

The world is data-driven. As the broadband industry assembles to discuss BEAD implementation it is important to understand the essential role of data-driven planning. What kind of data exists? How can it be visualized? How can investors identify compelling opportunities? How can state leaders ensure that limited public funds are directed to projects that will cost-effectively improve the lives of many? How must state leaders prioritize expenditures to comply with BEAD rules? What analytical tools do governments and broadband providers need to make clear-headed infrastructure deployment decisions? How do economics drive decision-making? How can states properly incentivize the private sector to achieve public goals?

This tutorial will take a hands-on approach looking at available tools and data sets, using publicly available BroadbandToolkit.com software and a few other data sources. Participants will emerge with an appreciation of the available resources and how they might be used to answer critically important questions.

Signup to obtain a copy of the recording and the slides from the event.

The Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment Program provides states over $42 billion to expand broadband infrastructure. Part of the implementation process involves consumers and providers submitting challenges to the state’s claim on whether a location is already served with an adequate internet connection. 

In the NTIA’s model challenge process – published in June as a template for states – if six or more locations in a census block group allege the same technology from the same provider is slower than state data indicates, an “area challenge” is initiated. This designates the entire block group as challenged. 

Normally, the challenger must provide evidence that their service is worse than advertised in order to successfully change their location’s status in the state’s data. But under area challenges, the provider must prove that they provide the reported service to the entire census block.

“It’s really important to think about the area challenge,” Dustin Loup, director of community development at Ready, a software company that makes tools for state broadband offices and grant applicants, said at a Broadband Breakfast Live Online event. 

He emphasized that the area challenge provision would allow states to collect information on areas that might be labeled incorrectly by using broadband providers’ infrastructure rather than crowdsourcing speed tests from individual consumers.

“There’s no way you’re going to be able to go out and collect data for 500 locations in a census block group,” he said. “But you can almost certainly find six willing participants.”

The Federal Communications Commission’s broadband coverage map – known as the fabric – is widely alleged to be inaccurate. That makes state and local efforts to collect accurate coverage data essential for getting BEAD-funded projects in areas that need them, according to other experts at the event.

“This is a big, big issue,” said Tom Reid, founder of broadband consulting firm Reid Consulting Group. “It is going to be very much state-driven.” 

“The state challenge process is essentially an acknowledgement that the FCC maps don’t go far enough,” Loup added.

States are not required to use the NTIA’s model process, and those that do are not required to enforce the area challenge provision, but they are required to submit detailed plans for a challenge process with volume one of their initial BEAD proposals. 

Those proposals are due December 27. Some states, like Virginia and Louisiana, have released these ahead of schedule and are adopting the NTIA model challenge process guidelines.

J. Randolph Luening, founder of BroadbandToolkit.com, a suite of mapping tools and datasets for state broadband providers, expressed concern that separate state methodologies could lead to more confusing about the true state of broadband coverage in the U.S.

Chris Scharrer, founder of rural broadband mapping company DCS Technology Design, emphasized the importance of requiring providers to provide evidence for their reported coverage, citing differences in ISP-reported speeds and those detected by on-the-ground testing.

Gerry Lawlor, co-founder of broadband mapping company Hexvarium, said the challenge process could end up distracting state broadband offices from working with providers to ensure coverage for the highest cost communities.

Our Broadband Breakfast Live Online events take place on Wednesday at 12 Noon ET. Watch the event on Broadband Breakfast, or REGISTER HERE to join the conversation.

Wednesday, September 6, 2023 – What’s New in Broadband Mapping

The success of the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program may hinge upon accurate data for distributing infrastructure funding. But broadband mapping remains a formidable challenge. The FCC’s broadband map has already served as the basis for state-by-state allocation decisions. But will one much-maligned tool be enough for state broadband offices as they formulate coverage areas within their states’ communities? Join a range of stakeholders for this special Broadband Breakfast Live Online as we all seek to understand the intricacies of broadband mapping through a range of software databases.

Panelists

• Tom Reid, President and Founder, Reid Consulting Group
• Dustin Loup, Director of Community Development, Ready.net. Coordinator, Broadband Mapping Coalition
• Gerry Lawlor, Co-founder, Chief Executive Officer, Hexvarium
• J. Randolph Luening, Founder and CEO, BroadbandTookit.com
• Chris Scharrer, Founder, DCS Technology Design
• Drew Clark (moderator), Editor and Publisher, Broadband Breakfast

Panelist resources:

• Tom Reid: Accountability in Broadband Maps Necessary for BEAD to Achieve Mission, Broadband Breakfast, June 1, 2023
• Broadband Mapping Coalition Seeks to Bring Openness Back to Internet Data, Broadband Breakfast, June 17, 2022
• Mapping Expert Dustin Loup Joins Ready as Director of Community Development, Ready.net, July 18, 2023
• Key Principles for the Data-driven State Broadband Office, Ready.net, July 25, 2023
• Running a Robust, Transparent, Efficient Challenge Process, Ready.net
• Ask Me Anything! with Gerry Lawlor, Co-Founder and CEO of Hexvarium, Broadband.io, June 30, 2023
• Commercial Mapping Products Positioned to Compliment, Challenge FCC Map, Broadband Breakfast, November 21, 2022
• Fiber Broadband Association Announces High Cost Area Planning Tool for BEAD Projects, Broadband Breakfast, August 21, 2023
• 45 years ago, I installed my first Broadband Coax drop!, Chris Scharrer, Broadband.io, August 20, 2023
• States must not succumb to defeatism on broadband data and mapping, Drew Clark, Broadband.io, February 12, 2023
• Broadband Maps Are a Mess, So Now Let’s Focus on Actually Improving Them, Drew Clark, Broadband Communities and Broadband Breakfast, July 30, 2019

Tom Reid, President and Founder of Reid Consulting Group (RCG) has nearly 40 years of experience in the technology sector. His experience is extensive, advising both public and private-industry clients on strategic planning, technology architecture, competitive bidding, and project management. For fifteen years RCG has been in the forefront of broadband expansion, building deep experience in stakeholder engagement, GIS mapping, engineering, and statistical analysis.  RCG’s rigorous, multi-source mapping methodology can identify the true extent of broadband need in any region, providing a strong basis for state and federal investment.

Dustin Loup is the Director of Community Development with Ready.net. He also coordinates the Broadband Mapping Coalition and advises on the Digital Inclusion Leadership Program for the Marconi Society. Prior to joining Ready, Dustin served as the Broadband and Digital Equity Project Director for Washington State University Extension.

Very much the accidental telecom executive, Gerry Lawlor has started and led multiple ISPs both regionally and nationally. His broadband adventures started out of necessity after leaving Manhattan in 2011 for remote rural living on a pacific northwest island. Working with his local electric co-op, he led Rock Island Communications which has been one of the most successful Co-op led broadband initiatives. He moved to T-Mobile in 2018 and led the national development and deployment of its Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) line of business. Prior to making his mark in the telecom sector, Gerry led global businesses in the financial industry, where he developed his passion for bringing meticulous research and a unique, boundary-pushing approach to data analysis.

J. Randolph Luening is the founder and CEO of Signals Analytics, LLC and the creator of BroadbandToolkit.com, an entity that delivers powerful business planning tools to FCC auction participants and to others developing fixed or mobile telecommunication business cases.  Mr. Luening has contributed to the wireless telecommunications industry as an influential industry insider over the past three decades. An expert is mobile operator economics, his areas of focus include the economics of next generation mobile networks, small cells, emerging business models, and consumer behavior. Previously as a Senior Director at Vodafone, and more recently as a consultant, his work has benefited telecommunications operators in the US, Europe, and Asia.

Chris Scharrer started in the cable industry in 1978, as an installer, and held positions in construction, operations, and engineering, eventually becoming Division VP and CIO for a major, 800-person global professional services firm. Stepping away from the corporate world in 2008, Chris founded DCS Technology Design, within the professional services industry, to bring excellence in Telecommunication Infrastructure Design for all types of intelligent building and smart community applications. With Covid, and in response to the lack of reliable and trusted ISP service area maps, DCS refocused its mission to develop methodologies that produce highly accurate Rural Broadband accessibility data, and helping Michigan municipalities locate thousands of previously missed or mis-reported homes and businesses that do not have access to Broadband and qualifying them for needed grant funding, ensuring inclusive accessibility for all residents.

Breakfast Media LLC CEO Drew Clark has led the Broadband Breakfast community since 2008. An early proponent of better broadband, better lives, he initially founded the Broadband Census crowdsourcing campaign for broadband data. As Editor and Publisher, Clark presides over the leading media company advocating for higher-capacity internet everywhere through topical, timely and intelligent coverage. Clark also served as head of the Partnership for a Connected Illinois, a state broadband initiative.

As with all Broadband Breakfast Live Online events, the FREE webcasts will take place at 12 Noon ET on Wednesday.

SUBSCRIBE to the Broadband Breakfast YouTube channel. That way, you will be notified when events go live. Watch on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

See a complete list of upcoming and past Broadband Breakfast Live Online events.

The broadband nutrition label, as mandated by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, requires broadband providers to display at the point of sale a label that shows prices, introductory rates, speeds, data allowances, and other critical broadband service information. 

The FCC released proposed rules on July 18 that would add additional requirements to the nutrition labels, to which several providers and associations expressed that the additional rules would place undue burden on small providers and would not improve data, said Steve Coran, chair of Lerman Senter’s broadband at the Spectrum and Communications Infrastructure practice group. 

Data requirements as currently outlined by the FCC are balanced, clear and easy and will promote transparency, said Coran. In response to responses from providers, the FCC increased its estimation that the proposed rulemaking would create between 1 and 9 hours of annual burden on providers to a range of 1.5 to 65 hours, he said. 

However, Ryan Johnston, senior policy counsel at municipality public interest nonprofit Next Century Cities, warned that the label requirements will not provide data as comprehensive as is necessary. As currently written, providers are allowed to report the “typical” speeds that each location receives. These ranges provide no certainty and is “more ethereal than the maximum advertised speed,” said Johnston. 

Additionally, the FCC failed to include the measurements that consumers want to see, include more precise pricing models, promotion lengths, and expected bill after promotions are done, said Johnston. He urged the FCC to require providers to report the average speed. 

Joshua Stager, policy director at Free Press, agreed, saying that the core issue for consumers is to address bill shock, referring to the uncertainty around internet bills and the detrimental effect it has on low-income households. For this reason, he urged the FCC to ensure that consumers will be able to access the label. 

Stager said that the FCC declined to require that the label be put on the monthly bill. He warned that providers can hide the label from consumers which will result in a lack of market response simply because consumers are not aware that the label exists. 

Discriminatory pricing in the industry is blatantly obvious, said Sascha Meinrath, Palmer Chair in telecommunications at Penn State University. “The FCC consistently refuses to collect the kind of information that would exonerate ISPs or condemn them,” he stated.  

Sascha Meinrath

He warned that this lack of appropriate data collection will be to the detriment of consumers. He accused the FCC of refusing to act against discriminatory and predatory pricing, claiming that it is a prime example of “American corruption.” 

Meinrath, who assisted in the initial proposal for the nutrition labels, said that the goal of the labels was to provide customers with information on the minimum services they will expect to see. He claimed that the current nutrition labels are insufficient and do not achieve those goals. 

Our Broadband Breakfast Live Online events take place on Wednesday at 12 Noon ET. Watch the event on Broadband Breakfast, or REGISTER HERE to join the conversation.

Wednesday, July 26, 2023 – Broadband Nutrition Labels: Have They Improved?

In late 2022, the Federal Communications Commission required internet service providers to display broadband “nutrition” labels including speeds, service reliability, ACP participation and other relevant metrics at every point of sale. While there is consensus on the need for an informative and consumer-friendly label, some believe the requirements go too far or don’t go far enough. With federal broadband funding making its way to each state and the implementation phase just around the corner, the “nutrition labels” will soon become a reality. What might be the FCC’s next steps? How will the requirements affect broadband providers? How can consumers make sure they order from the right broadband “menu”?

Panelists

• Ryan Johnson, Senior Policy Counsel, Next Century Cities
• Steve Coran, Chair, Lerman Senter’s Broadband, Spectrum and Communications Infrastructure practice group
• Joshua Stager, Policy Director, Free Press
• Sascha Meinrath, Palmer Chair in Telecommunications, Penn State University; Founder, X-Lab
• Drew Clark (moderator), Editor and Publisher, Broadband Breakfast

Ryan Johnson is responsible for NCC’s federal policy portfolio, building and maintaining relationships with Federal Commissions Commission officials, members of Congress and staff, and public interest allies. Working with various federal agencies, Ryan submits filings on behalf of NCC members on technology and telecommunications related issues that impact the digital divide such as broadband data mapping, benchmark speeds, spectrum policy, content moderation, privacy, and others.

Steve Coran is chair of Lerman Senter’s Broadband, Spectrum and Communications Infrastructure practice group. He represents broadband providers, private equity firms, equipment and technology companies, and new technology firms, serving their policy, transactional, compliance, and licensing needs. He also actively represents a trade association before the FCC, Congress, and other federal agencies in matters involving spectrum policy, Internet regulation, the Universal Service Fund, and other proceedings affecting wireless broadband service providers and other wireless technology interests.

Joshua Stager is the policy director at Free Press, where he advances policies to close the digital divide, protect consumers, and make the broadband market competitive and affordable. As a public interest advocate and attorney, he works closely with industry, Congress, the FCC and other federal agencies. He previously was deputy director of the Open Technology Institute.

Drew Clark is CEO of Breakfast Media LLC. He has led the Broadband Breakfast community since 2008. An early proponent of better broadband, better lives, he initially founded the Broadband Census crowdsourcing campaign for broadband data. As Editor and Publisher, Clark presides over the leading media company advocating for higher-capacity internet everywhere through topical, timely and intelligent coverage. Clark also served as head of the Partnership for a Connected Illinois, a state broadband initiative.

As with all Broadband Breakfast Live Online events, the FREE webcasts will take place at 12 Noon ET on Wednesday.

SUBSCRIBE to the Broadband Breakfast YouTube channel. That way, you will be notified when events go live. Watch on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

See a complete list of upcoming and past Broadband Breakfast Live Online events.

Broadband Genie estimates that the average monthly U.S. broadband bill is $72.20 and the average monthly salary is $4,083.26. That means U.S. residents spend just under 1.8% of their monthly salaries on broadband.

Worldwide, subscribers spend 3.8% of their monthly salary on broadband.

In North America overall, high speed Internet consumes 3.04% of users’ salaries. Canada is 41st on Broadband Genie’s internet affordability rankings.

Regionally, Europe had the most affordable broadband. The Americas were third. Africa had the least affordable broadband.

“The United States and Canada both have one of the highest internet costs,” Alex Tofts, the Broadband Expert for Broadband Genie, said in a summary. “It’s driven by a lack of competition and bigger distances to connect, with lower population density than other developed countries. However, both have average wages in the top fifteen in the world, compensating for the high cost of internet.”

The five countries with the most affordable broadband were Hong Kong, Singapore, Denmark, and Finland. In all of those countries, broadband costs less than 1% of the average salary.

The countries with the least affordable internet are Turkmenistan, Equatorial Guinea, Papua New Guinea. Broadband costs more than 80% of the average monthly salary in all three countries.

A study conducted by NTIA last year found that three in four U.S. households that do not have home internet would use it only if the service were free.

This piece was originally published on Telecompetitor on July 7, 2023, and is reprinted with permission.

The Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration announced that Texas is set to receive the highest award with over $3.3 billion and California the second-highest with $1.8 billion. Nineteen states are set to receive more than $1 billion in funding. Other high awardees include Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and North Carolina. 

The Advanced Communications Law and Policy Institute at the New York Law School issued an estimate of state allocations in January. It correctly predicted that Texas would be the highest awarded state at nearly $3.3 billion.  

Business consulting firm Cartesian predicted that California and Virginia would follow Texas for the highest awardees. The company predicted Missouri to be awarded $1.5 billion but it received $1.7 billion, exceeding Virginia and making it the third highest awardee.  

The Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University based its predictions on Federal Communications Commission From 477 data. It predicted that Missouri would receive less than $1 billion in awards. It also anticipated that Florida would be the second highest awardee at $2.5 billion, with Georgia and Mississippi close behind at $2 billion. 

ACLP likewise anticipated Florida and Georgia to receive higher amounts of funding than they did at $1.7 billion and $1.3 billion. Florida, Georgia and Mississippi were awarded $1.1 billion, $1.3 billion and $1.2 billion respectively.  

Cartesian alone correctly predicted that Florida would receive close to $1.2 billion and California would surpass it at $1.8 billion, making California the second highest awarded state.  

Overall, the Cartesian report was the most accurate of the several reports Broadband Breakfast analyzed, correctly estimating which states would be among the high receivers and even accurately predicting dollar amounts for several states.  

Each report predicted allocation amounts by analyzing the number of unserved locations in each state relative to all unserved locations in the United States. Each state was guaranteed to receive a minimum of $100 million, with the remaining portion allocated based on the relative proportion of the nation’s total unserved households.  

Of the reports, only Cartesian’s was based on the most recently published version of the Federal Communications Commission’s national broadband map, which the NTIA used to determine funding allocations. 

Although the BEAD program promises to invest $42 million in broadband in the next five years, the actual among of investment is projected to be higher due to the private capital match requirement of 25 percent. 

Cartesian’s report predicts that the total provider match for BEAD will be $21 billion, which will equate to about $2,898 per unserved and underserved location in the U.S. According to its research, Cartesian anticipates that BEAD funding and matches will be sufficient to meet program goals of making broadband available nationwide. 

Mike Conlow, broadband data and internet policy analyst and blogger, estimates that the average allocation per unserved or underserved location is $3,218. Factoring in Rural Digital Opportunity Fund investments, which will fund broadband investments in rural areas also covered by BEAD funding, the average allocation per location is $4,406, according to Conlow. 

The Department of Agriculture’s ReConnect program provides funding opportunities to internet service providers aiming to bring broadband connectivity to areas that currently lack sufficient internet access. USDA defines these “eligible service areas” as having internet speeds below 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) downstream and 20 Mbps upstream.

When providers deploy broadband using ReConnect funding, however, they must build at 100 * 100 Mbps.

The current argument is whether to allow funding for areas that are above 100 * 20 Mbps, but below 100 * 100 Mbps.

Jim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, urged the program to target areas between those two thresholds.

According to a Federal Communications Commission’s report from 2021, more than 87 percent of the population has broadband speed at 250 * 25 Mbps. This means the current USDA’s definition of sufficient access to broadband does not meet customer demand and falls short of actual service provided to Americans elsewhere, said Matheson.

“Rural communities should not be treated as second class citizens and be relegated to ‘good enough’ broadband,” he said.

Rural Broadband Association CEO Shirley Bloomfield agreed that 100 * 100 Mbps is critical in fulfilling the digital needs of rural households. High-speed connectivity can facilitate telemedicine and precision agriculture, a technology which allows farmers to use crop inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, and water more efficiently, she said.

David Zumwalt, president of the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which now calls itself Broadband Without Boundaries, opposed the idea. He said that 100 * 20 Mbps is “more than sufficient already.”

Expanding the baseline speed to 100 * 100 Mbps would only create “overbuilding,” he argued, in areas that already have adequate internet. That would divert funds away from those most in need. Symmetrical speed is also unnecessary as customers usually need more data for downloads than uploads, he added.

James Assey, vice president of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, which calls itself the Internet and Television Association, adopted a more cautious stance: A debate about bandwidth speeds may detract from efforts to provide universal internet coverage, he said. He emphasized the importance of striking a balance between ensuring quality internet access and prioritizing coverage in areas that are most in need, particularly those with little to no internet connectivity.

This debate is a response to a widely varying definitions of sufficient internet connectivity across different agencies. While the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act set the “underserved” threshold at 100 * 20 Mbps, the FCC still only requires a minimum of 25 * 3 Mbps to constitute broadband, a definition established eight years ago.

A late 2021 Report showed the average demand for download speed already reached 99.3 Mbps.

Physical location data includes a map of all buildings, identification of which buildings are eligible for or need broadband service, what services are provided, and fiber drop distances. Providers will need this information to understand how to utilize federal investment money from the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program, which award amounts are set to be announced later this month. 

Not only will providers need information on poles, towers, hubs, and fiber infrastructure ownership but they will also need insight on community needs and interests, said presenters. These include barriers to access and customer interest in a new internet provider. 

This assortment of data will be useful in all phases of the planning process, said Kirstin Lardy, broadband consultant at CORI, such as the market analysis phase for penetration assumptions, network design for projected costs, and financial modeling for forecast of costs and revenues.  

Data can be collected from federal resources like the Federal Communication Commission’s national broadband and funding map, which can be used to determine what areas are covered by federal subsidy and where communities should focus their efforts.  

Further data is also available at the municipal level which often hosts information about location of structures, types of structures, vacant lots, addresses, pole data, power distribution paths and rights of way.  

Engaging with community anchor institutions is essential to building comprehensive and useful data sets, added Kristen Corra, policy counsel at the Schools, Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition. She urged providers to work with localities to gather information. 

States may also collect data directly from providers and users through speed tests, surveys, and censuses. 

The new version of the map identifies nearly 330,000 new unserved locations and updates availability data for more than 3 million locations. According to the FCC’s statement, the new version has resolved 75 percent of the issues raised since November and reflects more than a million new serviced locations. It will be the basis for Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program awards. 

“Version two of the map is a step in the right direction but will never be perfect when it is based on a snapshot of the availability of service from technologies that are very dynamic,” said Deputy Director of Vermont Community Broadband Board, Rob Fish in comments to Broadband Breakfast. 

Vermont is taking time to absorb the information in the map seeing as there are discrepancies between what the state sees on the ground and what the map shows, said Fish. There are still challenges that need to be resolved by the FCC, which, when talking about billions of dollars in a small state, can make a huge difference, he said. 

Maine Connect Authority said in a statement to Broadband Breakfast that they were “disappointed to see claims of advertised speeds at locations where we know it is not possible to receive that level of service.” The state will continue to improve the map through citizen engagement, partner collaboration, and the FCC challenge process. 

“We believe there is opportunity to incorporate more diverse data sources in the future,” said Andrew Butcher, director of Maine Connect Authority, referring to crowdsourced speed tests. “It is unfortunate that this work will not be counted toward our BEAD Allocation dollars.” 

‘Neither accurate nor precise’

Sascha Meinrath, telecommunications professor at Penn State University, said in an email that the maps “are neither accurate – they vastly overstate service availability – nor precise – with failure rates of 10 to 20 percent in correctly identifying rural broadband serviceable locations and huge problems correctly identifying homes versus garages in many cities.” 

Meinrath also claimed that the maps “completely whitewash underservicing of communities of color in our urban cores; all while failing to provide any pricing information, much less any overlay of demographic information.” 

President and Founder of tech consultant Reid Consulting Group Tom Reid expressed his agreement in an email, stating that the maps have made no significant improvement since previous maps based on Form 477 data-collection and that “the difference this time is that so many policy makers perceive the new maps to be better.” 

Reid suggested that the precision of the fabric locations, which simply maps the broadband serviceable locations and does not contain coverage claims, is falsely translated into accuracy with the coverage claims.  

Industry groups expressed support for a ‘success story’ of broadband

The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association expressed its support of the map, claiming that it “tells the success story of the vibrant and growing ISP broadband industry.” 

US Telecom CEO Jonathan Spalter said in a statement that “the data contained in this version of the National Broadband Map will no doubt be an important tool to reach 100 percent connectivity.” 

The BEAD awards to states are expected to be announced June 30. States will allocate subgrants based on new iterations of FCC maps and state-collected data which will be available through a state challenge process. 

Broadband improvements have been constrained for decades by inaccurate maps, yet the Federal Communications Commission continues to accept dramatically exaggerated availability and capacity claims from internet service providers. The cumbersome challenge process requires consumers and units of government to prove a negative — a logical fallacy.

The Reid Consulting Group and other parties, including Microsoft, have developed robust algorithms to reliably identify actual broadband availability. RCG utilizes Ookla Speedtest Intelligence data due to the large quantity of consumer-initiated tests. In Ohio, as an example, we draw on more than 16 million speed tests reflecting the lived experience from millions of households. We combine the speed test findings with FCC and Census data to deliver irrefutable identification of unserved and underserved locations.

Such methodologies offer State Broadband Leaders the opportunity to reverse the burden of proof in the BEAD program, requiring that ISPs submit concrete evidence supporting their availability and speed claims. As an example, in Ohio, RCG’s maps were accepted as proof of unserved status for the 2022 state grant program. BroadbandOhio then required ISPs to submit substantial proof in their challenge process. In other words, the ISP’s were tasked with proving a positive instead of expecting citizens to prove a negative.

ISPs and the FCC denounce crowdsourced data unless conducted under unusually restrictive conditions. The ISPs have successfully promoted unsubstantiated myths regarding the value of consumer-initiated speed tests.

Myth: Bad tests are because of poor Wi-Fi.
Reality: RCG eliminates speed tests with weak Wi-Fi and includes GPS enabled wired devices. Even first-generation Wi-Fi would saturate a 25 Megabits per second download and 3 Mbps upload connection.

Myth: Residents only subscribe to low-speed packages.
Reality: According to the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, in areas where rural electric cooperatives offer broadband, 25 to 33 percent of rural subscribers opt for the top speed tier offered. We can clearly see this trend in areas where fiber has been deployed in recent years, as described later in this article.

Myth: People only test when there is a problem.
Reality: Network problems prompt tests, as do resolutions of problems.  RCG recommends focusing on the maximum speed test results to eliminate this “unhappy customer effect.”

Finding the truth: Broadband and the lived experience

In Ohio, RCG analyzed more than 14 million consumer-initiated speed tests over a three-year period. The data reveals a clear pattern of carrier overstatement. The stark visual contrast between the two maps is hard to ignore — and while this study is focused on Ohio, the issue remains nationwide in scope. The sheer magnitude of the overstatements makes the FCC challenge process untenable.

Figure 1: Ohio Broadband Reality vs. FCC ISP stated coverage map.

RCG utilized the “maximum speeds ever seen” at a location for generating maps and coverage figures, but we also examined the results from the average of speed test. Switching between average and maximum speeds does not change the overall picture of broadband availability. As an example, Figure 2 focuses on an area around Bolivar, Missouri. Looking at the maximum speed turns Bolivar itself a deeper green, meaning “better served,” but the rural areas around Bolivar remain predominantly red, meaning “unserved.”  The preponderance of evidence clearly demonstrates that much of the rural area around Bolivar remains unserved, even at maximum speeds.

Figure 2: Map visualization illustrating the difference between viewing average speeds in the Bolivar, Missouri area and maximum speeds documented.

When rating broadband availability in the Bolivar area at the Census block level and overlaying with ISP coverage claims at the H3 R8 level, you can see that many of the unserved and underserved areas have been reported as served to the FCC by ISPs (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Carrier overstatement small scale in Bolivar, Missouri. RCG speed map with FCC H3 R8 hexagon overlay.

Zooming out to examine the entirety of Missouri (Figure 4), the pattern of ISP overstatement becomes quite clear. According to the FCC maps, most of the state is served, whereas the analysis conducted by RCG shows that significant areas remain in need of broadband investment. As with Ohio, the scope of the overstatement in Missouri presents an unreasonable burden on the public to challenge.

Figure 4: Missouri reality vs. ISP Reports, March 2023.

Showing Progress: Change of State Analysis

Change-of-state analysis taps progressive releases of Ookla records to identify areas where broadband speeds have set new highs. This approach works not only for grant funded projects but also private investments. The area surrounding Byesville, Ohio (Figure 5) reveals a significant uptick in test volume, test locations, and speeds from 2020 to 2022. Side-by-side comparison shows a large number of “green” (served) speed test locations where there used to be only “red” (unserved) and “orange” (underserved) results. This change is a direct result of a Charter Communications Rural Digital Opportunity Fund deployment.

Figure 5: The unserved area around Byesville, Ohio before and after broadband deployment.

State Broadband Leaders can use these capabilities to document progress and identify lagging projects. Any service area will always exhibit a mix of speed test results.  Even in an area like Byesville where fiber-to-the-home has been deployed, not all the location “dots” will turn green. However, the preponderance of evidence clearly shows that a funded ISP — in this case, Charter — has made good on its commitment to expanded broadband access. ISPs can help by conducting speed tests at the time of installation from the customer’s premises and by increasing minimum packages to 100/20 Mbps or higher.

There is no mystery to solve — we know how to identify areas lacking broadband services. For many rural Americans, even their telephone services have become unreliable, still dependent on the now-decrepit copper cables built in the 1940s through 1960s. We all depend on a healthy rural economy for our food, water and energy. Let’s make the commitment to build the infrastructure needed to bring these households into the internet age — starting by bringing reality and accountability to the availability maps.

Tom Reid is the president of Reid Consulting Group, a firm specializing in broadband. They work with clients to generate insights, create actionable plans, and identify funding sources to connect unserved and underserved areas. RCG’s engagements in eight states have delivered 6,000 miles of fiber construction with a total project value of $1.6 billion and has secured over $330 million in grant funds on behalf of clients. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

Historically, tribal data has been excluded or misinterpreted in broadband maps, he said. The $42.5 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program will be allocated to subgrantees by state governments according to state broadband maps. 

Tribal governments need to be prepared to approach the state with a data-driven argument about what coverage data is not included in the state map and what changes need to be made, said Valandra. 

In turn, state broadband offices need to listen to tribes, added Megan Beresford, director of broadband programs at grant writing company Learn Design Apply.  

The $3-billion Tribal Connectivity Program of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration received over $5 billion in grant requests from its application process last year. BEAD allocations, expected to be announced by the end of June, can play a part in addressing the undersubscription of funds to tribal programs, said E.J. John, senior research analyst at the American Indian Policy Institute. 

Other federal programs can also support tribal connectivity, said Beresford. The Affordable Connectivity Program allows eligible low-income households to get a discount on broadband of up to $75 per month on tribal lands. 

The NTIA announced in May nine new Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program grants of $500,000 each, bringing the program’s total amount disbursed to $1.77 billion.  

Our Broadband Breakfast Live Online events take place on Wednesday at 12 Noon ET. Watch the event on Broadband Breakfast, or REGISTER HERE to join the conversation.

Panelists

• Lori Adams, Vice President of Broadband Policy & Funding Strategy, Nokia
• Joe Valandra, CEO and President, Tribal Ready
• Megan Beresford, Director of Broadband Programs, Learn Design Apply
• E.J. John, Senior Research Analyst, American Indian Policy Institute
• Drew Clark (moderator), Editor and Publisher, Broadband Breakfast

Panelist resources

• American Indian Policy Institute, Arizona State University

As senior director of broadband policy and funding strategy, Lori Adams is a key member of the Nokia Government Affairs Americas Team. She is responsible for developing strategies and tools to enable increased company participation in state, federal, and international programs supporting infrastructure deployment by several of Nokia’s business organizations. Additionally, she focuses on external government relations and communications with stakeholders at all levels of government through direct engagement, filings, and participation in public forums.

Before leading Tribal Ready, Joe Valandra served as the executive director of the Native American Contractors Association (NACA). He also served as the managing director of VAdvisors, LLC, a specialty advisory firm in Washington, DC, and as the chief of staff for the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), a federal regulatory agency with Indian gaming oversight responsibilities. Joe has served in senior executive roles in private and public sectors, including as a board member of numerous companies in multiple industries.

Megan Beresford is the director of broadband programs at Learn Design Apply Inc (LDA). She joined the company mid-pandemic as the digital divide became glaringly evident. Since then, she and her team have helped states, public entities, tribes, and private internet service providers secure over $300 million in broadband infrastructure and digital equity funding.

E.J. John is the senior research analyst at the American Indian Policy Institute at Arizona State University. He is a member of the Navajo Nation who uses his experience working in Tribal government and policy research to promote digital equity for Tribal communities.

Drew Clark (moderator) is CEO of Breakfast Media LLC. He has led the Broadband Breakfast community since 2008. An early proponent of better broadband, better lives, he initially founded the Broadband Census crowdsourcing campaign for broadband data. As Editor and Publisher, Clark presides over the leading media company advocating for higher-capacity internet everywhere through topical, timely and intelligent coverage. Clark also served as head of the Partnership for a Connected Illinois, a state broadband initiative.

As with all Broadband Breakfast Live Online events, the FREE webcasts will take place at 12 Noon ET on Wednesday.

SUBSCRIBE to the Broadband Breakfast YouTube channel. That way, you will be notified when events go live. Watch on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

See a complete list of upcoming and past Broadband Breakfast Live Online events.

South Carolina processes the same data as does the Federal Communications Commission as it creates its broadband map. However, it also performs audits on the ISPs to ensure they are submitting accurate data. Hence, the state can determine errors in reporting data based on where the ISP’s networks had been deployed previously and where state investments have gone, said Jim Stritzinger, director of the state’s broadband office.

Providers are required to file amended returns with the FCC in the event that South Carolina’s state broadband office flags errors in their reporting information. Errors include misreporting of technology types.

If the reporting errors are not corrected, the state will report the defaulting ISP to the FCC, said Stritzinger, a software engineer with a passion for mapping broadband in the Palmetto state.

A big flaw of the FCC’s maps is that ISPs were able to report advertised speeds, which Stritzinger said were useless.

To enhance the accuracy and reliability of the maps, Stritzinger partnered with broadband data collection company Ookla, and integrated speed test data directly into the mapping system. More than 12 million Ookla speed tests have now been incorporated into the map, with some census blocks containing over 15,000 tests.

In 2021, South Carolina made the decision to no longer accept Digital Subscriber Lines as reliable service anywhere in the state. Doing so opened large regions of the state to investments, said Stritzinger, and will reduce the number of underserved locations.

The state’s next iteration of its map is set to come out sometime before June 30, and will be the state’s first address-level broadband map.

Stritzinger estimated that investments from the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program will be deployed in 2025. In the meantime, the state will continue working to deploy the American Rescue Plan Act dollars, which allocated $25 billion in several broadband projects, $8 billion of which will go to states and local governments directly.

“We will never get to allocation if we are after perfection,” said Stegeman, claiming that the company has been working hard to improve its processes over time.  

The broadband fabric data is a dataset that maps all locations at which “fixed broadband internet access service has been or could be installed.” The FCC populates its National Broadband Map with the fabric data. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration has committed to allocating federal broadband funding by June 30 based on a version of the map. 

Since its initial roll-out and subsequent challenge process – in which providers and state broadband offices have been able to challenge coverage claims by submitting contrary evidence – many have complained about the map’s many inaccuracies. 

CostQuest maintains that the fabric identifies 99.3 percent of all broadband serviceable locations correctly and is “very good” where it stands. 

Fabric will be continual improved 

Stegeman outlined in his remarks areas in which the fabric and its processes will continue to improve in the coming iterations.  

Each version of the fabric implements feedback, he said. Version two incorporated over a million new BSLs, 178,000 of which came from the FCC’s challenge process and 860,000 from CostQuest’s internal efforts to improve the fabric.  

The FCC is currently in the process of releasing the next version of the National Broadband Map based on version two of the fabric data. This version of the map is expected to be the map which the NTIA allocates BEAD funding. 

Subsequent iterations of the map will support state deployment and challenge processes, said Stegeman. 

Version two also improved tribal land BSL identification by updating the logic that identifies whether a parcel of land holds a BSL and whether it contains multiple or single units. 

Furthermore, through contractual agreement with the FCC, CostQuest has retained a file – facetiously titled the detritus file – that stores information on where water towers, sheds, chicken coops, and other agricultural buildings are located.  

Precision agriculture, the process of using broadband to optimize agricultural production, requires broadband connection to these locations, often located miles away from homes and other BSLs. The FCC anticipates that this location data may be of future use, said Stegeman.

Louisiana’s state broadband office, ConnectLA, is working to build a state challenge process based on federal guidance for state broadband maps.  

Providers tend to inflate coverage claims, which represents the most fundamental issue of broadband coverage maps, Hunt claimed. Unfortunately, the areas in which speed claims are inflated are left out of funding opportunities, he said.  

For Louisiana, this issue is why a state challenge process is so essential, said Thomas Tyler, deputy director of ConnectLA. Federal guidance suggests that the challenge process errs on the side of accepting challenges, which can serve to eliminate overreporting, he added. 

Hunt, whose company does business as Swyft Fiber, expressed uncertainty that the process will solve the problem. According to NTIA guidance, only non-profits, internet service providers and communities can submit challenges. Individuals looking to challenge speed claims must rely on community institutions to submit the challenge.  

Photo of Jason Hunt of CableSouth, Tiffany Howard of LCTCS, Greg Ford of Southern University at New Orleans, Thomas Tyler of ConnectLA, and Drew Clark of Broadband Breakfast (left to right)

ConnectLA is working on the allocation and deployment process of its Giving Unserved Municipalities Broadband Opportunities program, which includes $176 million from the Treasury Department’s Capital Projects Fund. The office is also deploying broadband through the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. 

The state is supplementing the National Broadband Map, which is populated with national, location-level coverage data, with its own data from the GUMBO and RDOF programs. The maps have “changed the game” for providers, said Hunt.  

The GUMBO program also invests capital in workforce development. The Louisiana Community and Technical College System is using money to educate college campuses on available careers in the telecommunications industry and to develop training programs for its students. The program has seen a lot of success, said Tiffany Howard, director of transportation and logistics at LCTCS. 

Applications for the GUMBO program require that potential awardees submit workforce development plans to support future needs, she added. 

Louisiana was the first state to receive planning funds from the Digital Equity and Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment programs and will be the first to release its plans. We are excited to receive public feedback from our plans, said Tyler.

The Broadband Breakfast Live Online event was orchestrated with ConnectLA and hosted at the Greater New Orleans Foundation on Tuesday. It was pre-recorded and webcast on Wednesday at 12 Noon ET.

Our Broadband Breakfast Live Online events take place on Wednesday at 12 Noon ET. Watch the event here on Broadband Breakfast.

Wednesday, May 10, 2023, 12 Noon ET – GUMBO and Louisiana’s Broadband Progress

Since its creation in 2020, Louisiana’s state broadband office has accrued an impressive list of accomplishments: Louisiana was the first state to be awarded a planning grant from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the first state to receive federal approval for broadband funding from the American Rescue Plan and the nation’s number one state for per capita adoption of the Affordable Connectivity Program. With an ambitious goal of eliminating Louisiana’s digital divide by 2029, ConnectLA’s Granting Unserved Municipalities Broadband Opportunities program — otherwise known as GUMBO — recently awarded more than $170 million to projects that ultimately aim to serve over 80,000 locations across the state. In this Broadband Breakfast Live Online session, hear directly from the leaders of Louisiana’s broadband efforts about how they are approaching this pivotal moment.

Panelists:

• Jason Hunt, CEO, CableSouth
• Tiffany Howard, Director of Transportation and Logistics, Louisiana Community and Technical College System
• Greg Ford, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Southern University at New Orleans
• Thomas Tyler, Deputy Director, ConnectLA
• Drew Clark, Editor and Publisher, Broadband Breakfast

Jason Hunt is CEO of CableSouth.

Dr. Tiffany J. Howard, CWD, serves on the Louisiana Community and Technical College System’s Academic and Workforce team as the Director of Transportation Industry Initiatives. She is responsible for providing technical assistance, leadership, and support concerning high-quality training programs that meet the state’s and prospective employers’ needs. Her major projects include designing and implementing the first dual enrollment Transportation pathway curriculum, leading the $3.5M Professional Resilience Occupations (PRO) project in collaboration with the Office of Community Development, leading the statewide $10M Broadband training project, leading the nationwide Noncredit and Credit Alignment project, serving as lead on the Haas training project, and establishing partnerships with various industries seeking workforce solutions across the state.

Dr. Gregory Ford is a native of Louisiana and the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs and Southern University at New Orleans. Dr. Ford is the Principal Investigator on a $3M National Telecommunication and Information Administration-Connecting Minority Communities Pilot Grant to provide digital literacy and broadband access to the New Orleans Area. The goal of the grant is to address digital equity and inclusion in underserved communities.

Thomas Tyler, deputy director of ConnectLA, has experience in technology strategy, cybersecurity concerns, economic development and public policy disciplines. Throughout the past 13 years, he has operated in a variety of roles supporting public and private entities. Most recently, he served as a consultant and adviser for one of the nation’s leading cybersecurity and technology advisory practices. Thomas’ experience includes providing information security and technology strategy, consulting and training services to a variety of clients.

Drew Clark (moderator) is CEO of Breakfast Media LLC. He has led the Broadband Breakfast community since 2008. An early proponent of better broadband, better lives, he initially founded the Broadband Census crowdsourcing campaign for broadband data. As Editor and Publisher, Clark presides over the leading media company advocating for higher-capacity internet everywhere through topical, timely and intelligent coverage. Clark also served as head of the Partnership for a Connected Illinois, a state broadband initiative.

As with all Broadband Breakfast Live Online events, the FREE webcasts will take place at 12 Noon ET on Wednesday.

SUBSCRIBE to the Broadband Breakfast YouTube channel. That way, you will be notified when events go live. Watch on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

See a complete list of upcoming and past Broadband Breakfast Live Online events.

For a free article summarizing the event, see ‘It Is a Concern’: FCC Contractor Responds to Commercial Conflict Concerns Over Map Challenge Process: CostQuest’s CEO said states need to look at their vendors if they pose a problem challenging FCC map data, Broadband Breakfast, November 17, 2022

The broadband fabric data is a dataset that maps all locations at which “fixed broadband internet access service has been or could be installed.” The FCC populates its National Broadband Map with the fabric data and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration has committed to allocating federal broadband funding by June 30 based on a version of the map.

Since its initial roll-out and subsequent challenge process – in which providers and state broadband offices have been able to challenge coverage claims by submitting contrary evidence – many have complained about the map’s many inaccuracies.

“In that first version, we got feedback that there were issues with the data, that we missed points, and we did,” said James Stegeman, president of CostQuest, the mapping company that was hired to deliver the fabric data.

The second version of the map is “light years” ahead of the first version, said Jase Wilson, CEO of Ready.net.

Concerns about allocation decisions based on map

Concerns remain that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration will base initial allocation decisions of the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program on inaccurate maps which will impact states’ ability to get the funding they need to address the needs of their communities.

Ideally, there would be more challenge processes and versions of the map before allocating funds, Stegeman said in response to the concerns.

“Yes, there are going to be tiny inaccuracies [in the map],” said Gerry Lawlor, founder and CEO of mapping software Hexvarium, but the industry needs to move past the inaccuracies and address the “bigger challenge” of ensuring the data – and the detail behind it – is equally available to small and large providers to develop their business plans and financial models.

Not all audience members agreed with his assessment. “Let’s generate the most accurate maps that we can to ensure that state broadband offices have the data they need to allocate fundings,” said Scott Woods, president of public-private partnerships at Ready.net.

Woods pointed out that community anchor institutions and multi-dwelling units are often not accurately reflected in the map, which can present a barrier for states to receive accurate funding.

Community anchors are not considered broadband serviceable locations under the FCC’s Broadband Data Collection rules.

The fabric does identify some community anchor institutions, said Stegeman. The FCC provides guidelines on which locations are considered community anchor institutions and included on the map.

“The difference between the FCC’s fabric and what we found is not statistically significant,” said Bill Price of mapping software LightBox.

It’s important to address accuracy, he said, but people need to recognize how much time it takes to accomplish these big goals. It is good that the industry is complaining and pointing out problems, but people have “unrealistic expectations” for the map, he said.

“I think that most of the blame for the accuracy of the map is in the hands of the ISPs,” said Lawlor. In a competitive landscape, providers will not be completely forthcoming about the services they provide, he said.

That’s why the FCC needs to hold ISPs accountable and set a precedent for accuracy, he said:  “Is the FCC going to be willing to hold ISPs accountable and then can states fundamentally trust that to hold any grantee accountable for delivery to that location and monitor and manage that over time?”

As states prepare their five-year action and digital equity plans as mandated by the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program, they are also working to outline a state challenge process that will allow entities to submit evidence to dispute a state’s claim on whether a location is unserved or underserved. 

Last week, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration released a proposed BEAD Challenge Process Model that dictates suggested processes for states to follow as they draft their plans, which it hinted at earlier this year.

The model outlines a highly controlled system in which the NTIA will review and approve each challenge process and its results. States will not be authorized to begin the challenge process until they submit their full proposal and receive NTIA approval.  

Furthermore, states will be required to produce a comprehensive list of all community anchor institutions within their jurisdiction that are eligible for BEAD funding. States will be subject to a deduplication process which mandates that a state may not treat a location as unserved or underserved if it is already subject to an enforceable commitment to deploy qualifying broadband. 

Louisiana’s broadband office is working to develop its state challenge process according to these guidelines, said Veneeth Iyengar, director of ConnectLA. 

The state is “working with a sense of urgency” to connect its citizens to broadband, said Iyengar. Louisiana submitted over 60,000 fabric map challenges to the Federal Communication Commission’s broadband map and is set to release its digital equity plan next week.  

As ConnectLA outlines its state challenge processes, it is also working to solve permitting challenges through its partnerships with local communities.

“We feel really good with the partners we have across the state to help us solve [these challenges],” said Iyengar.  

Like previous versions, this one too doesn’t represent the real situation. We have almost enough money to reach all the Unserved and Underserved, except for states that are particularly high cost.

Estimating how far the money will go does not require advanced math. We need an average cost to reach a location, and the total number of locations. There are 12.8 million Unserved and Underserved locations nationally. Instead of using the FCC data, the wireless study estimates this number from Census data, then adds 10% assuming growth from challenges to arrive at 16 million locations. That’s one difference.

The study breaks down these locations by the density of their Census tract. That’s a reasonable approach. Density is the primary driver of cost to serve a location, and is a decent proxy for other important things like terrain. When we break down the 12.8 million location Digital Divide by density, the peak is between 20-50 housing units per square mile. There are 2.7 million locations in that density range. There are about 1.5 million locations each in the least dense bucket 0-5 housing units/sq mile and the bucket between 5-10 hu/sq mi.

Now turning to the price per location at each of these intervals. I use the reserve prices from the RDOF reverse auction to estimate cost per location served by fiber. The reserve prices are not the winning bid from the RDOF auction. Instead, they are the price below which the FCC was willing to fund a project. If you add up all the RDOF reserve prices, it was $26.5 billion for 5.3 million eligible locations, or $5,000 per location. These prices are very clearly derived from the FCC’s cost model (built by CostQuest) and may be the cost model itself. Regardless, they certainly order locations correctly — more rural locations have a higher reserve price than urban locations.

As I’ve done previously, here I’m inflating the RDOF reserve price by 25% to capture changes since the RDOF auction like inflation, supply chain issues, and other things. When you plot these prices against the density of the Census block groups they cover, you see the expected hockey stick-like increase in cost. At less than 5 housing units per sq. mile the cost per location is $13,243 per location. It drops quickly: between 5-10 hu/sq mi the cost is $9,154, and when it reaches the mode at 20-50 hu/sq mi the cost is $6,015. In the most dense areas, the cost per location is $1,150. The overall average is $5,266 per location.

(As an aside, there are 373,000 BDC Unserved and Underserved locations in Census block groups with zero density. How does that happen? The Census counts housing units, not businesses. A Census block that is entirely businesses has 0 housing units and thus 0 density according to this metric using Census data. )

If you add up all these costs — the number of locations in each group times its average cost — you get $64.5 billion to reach all of them with fiber. That number includes the private capital match of at least 25%. The tab to BEAD alone is $50.6 billion. Remember also that this rough estimate doesn’t factor in the significant RDOF commitment to fund locations, nor ARPA, nor some locations which will be Extremely High Cost and therefor they won’t get fiber. Even if you inflate the RDOF cost by 50% it only brings the total to $81 billion, without any deductions for RDOF, private capital match, etc. I see no way to get $307 billion as this study did.

Below is the summary of how the wireless study reaches the conclusion about needing $307 billion in investment. The distribution of locations by density is not all that different. They have 6 million locations below 20 housing units/sq mile. I have 4.9 million. However, according to the BDC data there are over 1 million locations in blocks with density above 750 hu/sq mi which have a very low cost and is not reflected in this study.

Probably the biggest difference is the cost per location applied to that lowest density group. They appear to give a cost of $18,100 for every location under 20 hu/sq mi. I don’t disagree that the cost curve bends upwards for the lowest density areas, but I think the bend starts happening at 10 housing units / sq mile or even lower. There probably are locations that cost $18,000 to reach them, but it isn’t fair to apply that average across every location below 20 hu/sq mile. I can’t replicate how they get $191 billion to serve that lowest density group. Six million locations times $18,100 per location is $108.6 billion, not $191. That’s a big difference. Maybe there’s some methodological aspect I’m not following.

About the same time that this study was published, Cost Quest put up a blog post about cost curves. Using a state which they don’t name, they provide a cost curve chart by percentile for Unserved locations. The average cost per location in this state is $5,589, in line with the estimates I use for average cost per location nationally. Their cost curve starts to increase significantly for the last 10% most expensive locations in the state. It really hockey sticks for the hardest to reach 5% of locations.

If we apply this logic to the national distribution of Unserved and Underserved locations by density, it means costs start to rise for least dense 10% of locations — 1.3 million locations. And really hockey sticks for the last 650,000 locations. While it is interesting to consider these locations, no state is going to try to build fiber to them. NTIA created the Extremely High Cost Location threshold for exactly this purpose. According to NTIA, the EHCL threshold is a price above which a state “may decline to select a proposal if the use of an alternative technology meeting the BEAD Program’s technical requirements would be less expensive.” How high the cost curve reaches doesn’t matter. They’ll be EHCLs and won’t get fiber.

Implicit in my contention that there’s [almost] enough money to reach all the Underserved and Unserved nationally is that BEAD grants are awarded competitively and close to the true cost to serve the location. Consider the example Cost Quest state above. They have a statewide average of $5,589 per location. But about 62% of locations are below that average. Some of these locations are on the “network edge” — an ISP provides service on the block, or next door. Some of them are dense towns served by DSL now. It is critical that this state generates competition for these areas and finds a proposal close to the true cost to serve the location. If they fund all these locations at the statewide average of $5,589 they could waste $2,000 or more per location.

We know private capital is willing to bring most of the capital for these low-cost locations because that’s exactly what happened in RDOF. Private capital brought more than 90% of the necessary funding in 20% of the locations that were won by providers planning to offer gigabit service. As a reminder, these location were unserved and relatively high cost. If private capital can bring most of the funding during RDOF, let’s find a way to bring the same level of private capital to state-administered grant programs.

There’s an important practical takeaway from all this: a public cost curve for every state is critical. States need it to set a reasonable Extremely High Cost Location threshold. But more importantly, states and the public need it to evaluate grant proposals. If states don’t have the cost curve data and the ability to run a grant program that optimizes on it, BEAD will run out of funding for sure, and it doesn’t matter whose numbers we use for estimation now.

Takeaways:

• NTIA should procure a national cost model that represents the unique contours of every state.
• NTIA should give that cost model to every state, and make it public.
• NTIA should provide guidance to states on how to set the Extremely High Cost Location threshold based on their individual cost curve.
• NTIA should provide guidance, and only accept plans from states, that encourage competition between ISPs, and that fund locations based on the underlying costs to reach those locations.

Mike Conlow is a longtime broadband data and Internet policy analyst. Prior to being involved in Internet policy he was in political technology, and was on both of President Obama’s campaigns, in 2012 as the Deputy CTO. This piece was originally published on Mike Conlow’s substack on April 25, 2023, and is reprinted with permission.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

The $42.5 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program directs states to design their own grant programs, complete with two challenge processes that allows residents and service providers to challenge posted coverage claims at individual locations. To successfully implement these state grant programs, states must “be the source of truth for challenges,” said Peggy Schaffer of mapping software company VETRO.

It is the responsibility of states to determine truth by sifting through many sources of coverage claims, said Schaffer. In this way, states will become arbiters of truth that can be trusted to effectively manage federal grant money and narrow the digital divide in its communities.

Chad Rupe, general manager of fiber provider Ponderosa Communications agreed. Coverage maps require a party that can call out untruths and misdirection. Providers often claim to be providing 100 Megabit per second (Mbps) symmetrical speeds to locations simply to prevent competition in the area.

Misrepresenting coverage claims has harsh consequences for unserved and underserved communities, said Rupe: It will leave money on the table. Rupe urged providers to provide accurate information on coverage. Grant funding is not “free money”: Providers must adhere to reporting, tracking, and digital equity requirements of the grant programs.

“Remember that we are all trying to achieve the same objective,” added Jeff Sobotka from Vivacity Infrastructure Group.

In response to concerns that states are not equipped to effectively audit ISPs, Schaffer simply stated that they “will have to be prepared.” The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which allocates BEAD funds, is invested in ensuring funds will be handled responsibly over the following 10 years, she said.

In fact, part of the funding through the BEAD program will support administrative costs for ISP auditing, Shaffer added. Effective auditing will require that states are prepared with accurate information of each individual location’s internet connection, agreed panelists. 

The Federal Communications Commission is currently investigating service providers that may have overreported data for its national broadband map, the first version of which released in November of 2022. 

“We have taken several steps to prevent systematic overreporting of coverage by broadband service providers,” said Rosenworcel in a February letter to senators. “We recognize also that as providers gain familiarity with this system, efforts to intentionally misstate service may be subject to enforcement action. In fact, we already have an investigation underway.” 

New Street Research said in a recent report that it is “likely” that carriers are over-reporting their coverage to the FCC.

Ready State Broadband Office Resources:

• Optimizing Your State’s BEAD Allocation
• Running a Robust, Transparent, Efficient Challenge Process

A lot of energy has been expended in the last several months to dispute the FCC National Broadband Map. The focus has been on two primary issues:

• The first is a disagreement about the number of broadband service locations (BSLs) that exist in each state. Only residential buildings are eligible and many multi-dwelling units (MDUs) are considered a single location.
• The second issue regards how many of those locations do not have access to broadband service. Those with throughput speeds less than 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload are considered unserved. Locations served with speeds less than 100 down and 20 up are considered underserved.

These counts are important because the number of total locations and unserved locations in each state will define how much funding each state receives of the over $42 billion available through the Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment Program (BEAD).

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) that established this program was bipartisan, and so is the concern over the current state of the map. The deadline to challenge the accuracy of these location counts passed in January, but many state broadband offices and the legislators that represent them have made it clear they were unhappy with the process. Some of them felt that there was simply not enough time to analyze the data after gaining access to it.

New legislation proposed to “fix” the map

The demand to fix the map became increasingly serious on Friday, March 31, 2023, as Senators Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and John Thune (R-SD) introduced the “Accurate Map for Broadband Investment Act.” Calling the current map “deeply flawed,” the bill aims to provide additional time to challenge the number of BSLs as well as which ones are considered unserved or underserved.

Everyone expects the FCC map to forever be a work in progress as communities grow and networks expand. It has already improved from its first release and it will continue to get better. As we approach a moment in time that will divide up a finite funding pool, accuracy on the metrics has real monetary consequences. Once allocations are made, it will be up to NTIA to work with each state to fund broadband infrastructure projects and connect communities. However, the dollars each state has to work with won’t change.

The newly proposed legislation would add seven more months to the challenge process for states and other interested parties to dispute the map’s accuracy. To ensure that broadband projects aren’t brought to a complete halt, 20% of the funding would be made available on the original timetable, delaying assignment to states of the remaining funds while more scrutiny is applied to the underlying data.

Multiple bites at the apple

There are two agencies, not just one, that will impact which communities get broadband infrastructure assistance and how soon they get it. Up until now, providing input to the FCC for corrections to the map has been the primary focus. But NTIA will be responsible for working with each state broadband office to identify areas of need and approve project awards. These plans will certainly evolve as new evidence is presented.

During the first phase of their mapping effort, the only significant challenges to the map the FCC accepted were for the number of broadband service locations and individual reports of availability not matching those reported by ISPs. There were certainly some individual challenges submitted, but many states were frustrated at the lack of public awareness and participation. Through NTIA, state offices were always going to get a second bite at the apple as far as getting funding to the right communities. Depending upon the outcome of the Rosen/Thune legislation, states may get an extra bite from the FCC apple as well.

Confusion over crowdsource data

The Commission defined a process for crowdsource data to be presented as evidence to support that reported service availability and performance was less than claimed. However, many filers have found this process unclear or difficult, notably in regard to the requirement that all submissions include Broadband Serviceable Location (BSL) identification numbers. To make this process even more difficult, the only file types accepted as additional evidence were formats that lacked geospatial awareness. In other words, they could not easily be imported into a mapping system.

As of late February, the FCC now accepts JSON files in addition to those formats already approved (PDF, DOC, DOCX, JPG and PNG). This new format can include columns for longitude and latitude, making it easier to include crowdsource data evidence, and has the added benefit of making analysis by the FCC significantly more efficient.

Multipurpose research

Crowdsource data evidence has multiple target audiences. The very same evidence developed to submit to the FCC can be used to work with NTIA during the next phase. NTIA is very familiar with how crowdsource data is employed to define “indicators of need,” and used data from Ookla^®, M-Lab, and Microsoft extensively to build their National Broadband Availability Map a couple of years ago.

These federal agencies have been the primary concern, but local interests will become very vocal as projects are chosen. Which communities receive grants and in what priority may be vigorously debated. ISPs that compete for expansion areas will need to prove a track record, and the states will need independent evidence on how well they are serving their existing customers. And those providers that stretched the truth on the level of service they actually provide will fight being overbuilt. States should be preparing for local challenges to their own decisions.

Crowdsource data provides the largest pool of evidence to understand the quality of service being delivered to a community. Hundreds of millions of tests across the country means that even less populated states have hundreds of thousands of points to analyze and better understand the availability and performance of each serving network.

How to support your claim with crowdsource data

Crowdsource data from Ookla Speedtest® measurements can easily be overlaid with FCC maps to produce the needed evidence that indicates where services don’t meet minimum broadband standards. Through crowdsource data submissions, broadband offices can dispute existing maps, advocate for federal funding eligibility, and assist federal officials in their mission to improve broadband availability and performance.

Below are some helpful tips for submitting crowdsource data for disputed areas in a format that can meet FCC requirements.

Step 1: Identify Broadband Serviceable Locations (BSLs)

As an example, we are going to focus on an area near Durango, Colorado — a mountainous area that is both difficult and expensive to cover. We start by looking at all of the BSLs represented in the FCC’s map within the area of interest for early 2023.

Step 2: Overlay FCC hexagon system with BSLs

Next, we overlay the BSLs with hexagons where the FCC defines broadband service as being available. The darker the hexagon, the more ISPs claiming to provide service in that area.

Step 3: Layer Speedtest data with FCC hexagon system and BSLs 

By layering Speedtest data from fixed terrestrial operators on top of the hexagons, we can see that Durango and Durango West have high test densities. There are many households packed closely together, making those areas more viable to justify the cost of building high-speed services to them from a purely economic standpoint. Location accuracy for most tests is under 100 meters, so tests will grid into bins measuring approximately 100² meters (this varies based upon latitude). If there are multiple tests within each bin, they will stack, and we are showing the fastest recorded speed on the top in this view. Speedtest measurements shown are for the four quarters (Q1-Q4, 2022) immediately previous to the published FCC data.

Step 4: Create clusters to see Speedtest data at scale within the FCC hexagon system

To get an idea of the actual volume of Speedtest data we’re looking at, we created a clustered version demonstrating where the number of tests are much greater. Some hexagons have 100+ tests, and a few hexagons have no tests, usually because there are fewer households.

Step 5: View Speedtest performance within the FCC hexagon system

Using that methodology, we can show how the aggregated test results appear within the hexagons defined by the FCC. The red hexagons (levels 8 and 9) demonstrate where the median speed is not meeting FCC minimum standards for broadband. This helps you get an idea of the overall experiences people are having, as well as the maximum speeds experienced in an area referencing the stacked tests previously shown.

Step 6: Create a polygon of Speedtest data with BSLs 

Next, create a polygon that surrounds the community or specific area of interest. Many ISPs have created polygons to capture all of the BSLs that fall within their territories for their service area and technology submissions. In our discussions with the FCC, staffers have suggested following a similar approach for crowdsource submissions.

Step 7: Export the polygon of BSLs as a CSV file

Next, export a CSV file of the locations that are within the polygon, including the Location ID, as directed in the instructions defined by the Broadband Data Task Force (BDTF). The entire FCC submission process has been built around identifying these location IDs for each BSL.

Step 8: Export the polygon of Speedtest data as a JSON file

Using the same polygon, select and export the Speedtest results as a JSON file, including speed and latency measurements, ISP names, timestamps, anonymized user ID, and source test ID.

Step 9: Submit the files to the FCC 

Submit the CSV file as well as the JSON file as additional evidence to the FCC along with any other documents supporting your dispute of the service availability, using one of the accepted file formats. This may include maps defining the area being disputed, documents from residents claiming inadequate or no service, and any other pertinent information.

Step 10: Be prepared to use the evidence to partner with NTIA

The FCC maps will ultimately define how many dollars go to NTIA to determine state funding. NTIA is preparing to use the same map fabric and BSL data as that used by the FCC. This will allow collaboration with all the above parties and will assist with reconciling the differences between the federal stakeholders. You can utilize this same data as you work with NTIA to demonstrate where you would like to focus funding as well as resolving local disputes on broadband availability.

Want to learn more? Watch our recent webinar

We hosted a webinar on March 30, 2023 titled “Using Crowdsource Broadband Data to Dispute FCC Maps”. In this webinar, a panel of experts came together to discuss common challenges in the mapping process and successful broadband mapping projects. Panelists included Jamie Hoffman, Program Manager at the West Virginia Department of Economic Development, Patrick Ryan, Senior Solution Engineer, Telecommunications at Esri, Tom Reid, President at Reid Consulting Group and me, Bryan Darr, VP of Government Affairs at Ookla.

You can watch the recording of the recent webinar here.

New York was one of the earliest challengers of the accuracy of the Federal Communications Commission’s preliminary broadband data fabric, which includes service provider data and constitutes the foundation of the commission’s broadband availability map. The state, which created its own map in anticipation of having to challenge the federal data, claimed that there were 31,500 missing locations in the first version of the fabric before the map’s preliminary release in November.

On Monday, Altice filed to the FCC a request for confidentiality in anticipation of submitting data it said challenges the state’s contentions. The FCC allows for challenges to its fabric, including allowing the provider to dispute a challenge by providing evidence that it serves or could and is willing to serve the location being contested.

“In response to a bulk challenge filed by the Empire State Development Corporation, Altice is submitting lists of location IDs where the company has previously provided service, where the company currently provides service to an active subscriber, and where the company could and is willing to provide service,” Altice said in its letter to the FCC.

“Altice is also submitting a supporting affidavit that includes information regarding the number of challenged locations that Altice currently serves or formerly served,” it added.

Broadband Breakfast reached out to Altice’s communications representatives about how many locations it’s challenging and did not hear back in time for publishing.

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said last week the commission added nearly three million locations – one million net new locations – and has “largely completed” the second version of the map fabric. The commission releases updated maps every six months.

The map will be used by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to deliver to the states the $42.5 billion in broadband infrastructure funds from its Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program. Fewer underserved locations in a state will mean less BEAD funding.

In a mapping update blog post, chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel noted that the net additions to the map – where fixed broadband could be installed – came after it added 2.96 million new locations and removed 1.92 million locations from the first version of the fabric released in November.

The chairwoman also said the second version of the fabric, which underpins the broadband map, is “largely completed” and is slated for a release later this spring. The map will be used by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to spread among the states by June 30 the $42.5 billion from its Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program.

“In the past four months, our mapping team has processed challenges to availability data for over 4 million locations,” Rosenworcel said in the post. “In other words, on average, we are addressing availability challenges to tens of thousands of locations every single day. Every two weeks, our public map is updated to reflect all availability challenges that have been resolved. In other words, the system is working.”

The chairwoman noted that the one-million-location difference suggests that the net adjustment from the last version of less than one percent in the number of serviceable locations “says that, on balance, the November pre-production draft of the National Broadband Map painted a helpful picture of where high-speed Internet service could be available.”

Previously, the chairwoman said challenges that sought corrections to the data corresponded to less than one percent of the total number of locations identified.

Rosenworcel also noted Thursday that important corrections and additions to the data were made, including “data refreshes to more sophisticated tools” that helped remove structures like garages and sheds. The most significant additions were in Alaska, U.S. territories and tribal lands, she said.

The challenge process led to nearly 122,000 new location additions, she noted, but also added that the majority of location adds were due to the updates and dataset model refinements by the agency’s contractor CostQuest.

“While over time we expect future versions of the Fabric to require fewer refinements,” Rosenworcel added, “these ongoing efforts to improve the Fabric outside of the challenge process will continue and will remain an important tool for the improvement of the National Broadband Map.”

The Schools, Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition has repeatedly told the FCC that its broadband map incorrectly leaves out anchor institutions because they are categorized as non-broadband serviceable locations by virtue of the fact that they are treated as businesses that purchase commercial service rather than subscribers to “mass-market broadband internet access service,” which is what the FCC maps. SHLB has said this means institutions may not be able to get enhanced connectivity.

While SHLB has said that many small and rural libraries and other institutions subscribe to mass market service, it said in meeting notes from a Monday rendezvous with officials that the commission is “locked into” their current methodology and even recommended a “work-around” that the association said risked penalties.

According to SHLB, officials said the institutions could challenge their status on the map by representing that “they are not anchor institutions in order to change their designation.

“This recommendation is not feasible,” SHLB said. “Anchor institutions are not about to risk penalties by mis-representing themselves in such a way.”

The map, which has been extensively challenged by local governments and is updated every six months, is relied on to provide the most accurate picture of connectivity in the country and to assist federal agencies in divvying out public money. In fact, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration will use the map to determine how much each state will get from tis $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment Program by June 30.

SHLB said it commissioned a study that found the “vast majority” of 200 libraries on the FCC map were “grayed out” as not broadband serviceable locations.

“If states base their funding decisions on the Map, they will not be able to provide funding to ensure that anchor institutions receive gigabit level service as called for” in the BEAD program, SHLB said in the letter.

The association also said that information presented to it by the FCC during the meeting suggests the map “significantly overstates the areas that are served.”

The team at Reviews.org came up with a list of the 10 best cities for digital nomads and found that the key to living life as a digital nomad is fast internet speed. In fact, all but one of the top 10 cities for digital nomads have average internet speeds of over 100 Megabits per second (Mbps).

Why do digital nomads need fast internet?

Digital nomads have been around for decades, but they gained in popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic when it was possible to work from anywhere in the world.

But you can’t just pack your bags and set off on your journey. The most important things digital nomads need are a laptop, a cell phone and a strong internet connection. While it can be easy to find the first two things, a strong internet connection is dependent on where you move.

However, it can be hard to find a strong enough connection for Zoom calls and Google Docs while you’re in the middle of nowhere. So the big thing digital nomads need to consider before embarking on the trek of a lifetime is finding a place with a strong connection.

The top cities all have one thing in common

At Reviews.org, we decided to find the best U.S. cities for digital nomads. Forty percent of the weighted score was given to average download speed and the number of free WiFi hotspots. Internet connectivity was key to ranking the best cities.

And what did we find? All of the top cities have fast internet speed and free connection spots.

1. Atlanta, GA: 114.1 Mbps average speed and 138 free WiFi hotspots
2. Portland, OR: 106.2 Mbps average speed and 153 free WiFi hotspots
3. Austin, TX: 104.2 Mbps average speed and 134 free WiFi hotspots
4. Seattle, WA: 111 Mbps average speed and 164 free WiFi hotspots
5. Phoenix, AZ: 96.2 Mbps average speed and 114 free WiFi hotspots
6. Houston, TX: 115.7 Mbps average speed and 105 free WiFi hotspots
7. Dallas, TX: 117.1 Mbps average speed and 96 free WiFi hotspots
8. Chicago, IL: 104.1 Mbps average speed and 143 free WiFi hotspots
9. Las Vegas, NV: 116.2 Mbps average speed and 65 free WiFi hotspots
10. San Francisco, CA: 124.2 Mbps average speed and 119 free WiFi hotspots

These metro areas were determined to have the fastest speeds thanks to Federal Communications Commission data compiled by HighSpeedInternet.com, which discovered that the average internet speed is 89.3 Mbps and the fastest metro is separated from the slowest metro by over 95 Mbps!

So, where you decide to live can have a huge impact on how you work. If you live in Myrtle Beach, North Carolina (number 98 on our list), you might have gorgeous weather and views, but its average internet speeds are over 65 Mbps slower than metros in our top 15.

Overall, digital nomads need to have fast internet speed and numerous provider options in their metro area. Plus, it doesn’t hurt to have some WiFi spots available when you want to work outside of the house.

Becoming a digital nomad

Digital nomads have the freedom to travel and work from anywhere. With the increasing prevalence of remote work plus the ubiquity of mobile, wireless technology, anyone is able to become a digital nomad and move somewhere new. And honestly, it’s pretty awesome having the ability to travel the world without worrying about commuting to an office.

But to be a digital nomad, you need to have internet access and broadband equity is key. Without it, there’s no way you can stay connected to your work while living away from the office. Some places have better internet access than others, but overall US metros share strong internet connection and lots of WiFi hotspots.

So what are you waiting for? Pick a city from our list and start your life as a digital nomad today!

Alex Kerai is the Consumer Trends Reporter for Reviews.org where his writing and research help users tackle what lies ahead. He has spent his career writing for small businesses, entertainment companies, nonprofits, and higher education institutions, helping them align their mission and attract consumers. This piece is exclusive to BroadbandBreakfast, but the research was originally published by Reviews.org on February 7, 2023.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views reflected in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

“An average speed allows consumers to understand the real speeds they can expect to receive, whereas typical speeds can only provide the potential speed a consumer might receive,” the group said in a Thursday letter summarizing the meeting. “Broadband speed estimates are typically higher than actual speeds delivered.”

The FCC is now in the process of gathering more input as to whether it should include more information on the label that is supposed to resemble nutrition panels on foods. The labels have been ordered by the commission in November after a consultation with the public.

The group also pushed for discounts consumers are eligible for and the state and local taxes that they would have to pay. “These data points enhance a consumer’s ability to understand the charges at the end of the month, which is also essential for the success of the CBNL.”

The point the group is pushing is that more granular data is required to get service to as many people as possible. “Absent granular data, the Commission will continue to have significant blind spots in broadband deployment, the success of its subsidy programs, and key areas that require digital discrimination investigations,” the NCC said in the letter.

Experts, however, have warned about the level of detail and additional information on the labels that may burden providers, including smaller outfits that have fewer resources than larger players.

In addition to the broadband speeds promised by the providers, the new labels must also display typical latency, time-of-purchase fees, data limits, and provider-contact information.

The NCC also recommended the FCC set up a “quasi-formal complaint process” for state and local governments, community anchor institutions like libraries, schools and health care facilities, and other organizations that collect digital discrimination data. This, it said, would allow for a less burdensome way to communicate issues without having to go through the “procedural burden” of a formal complaint.

“It would also promote collaboration between local officials, community leaders, anchor institutions, and the Commission which are all working to help end digital discrimination,” it said.

The commission is currently examining how to define digital discrimination when it comes to infrastructure builds.

At the same time, we’ve seen FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel plead with the states to help fix the “new” FCC map. She also recently announced that the FCC is launching a campaign to identify and hold ISPs accountable if they have provided inflated network service speeds for the “new” FCC map.

One could conclude that officials in Washington view citizens outside of D.C. as intellectually challenged. Why? It’s been well known for many years that the FCC allows — and indeed encourages — ISPs to post their advertised networks speeds (not their real network service speeds) on the FCC maps, which is why the “new” FCC map continues to be flawed and mostly indistinguishable from the old FCC maps (hence my use of quotation marks).

None of this frankly surprises me given we’ve seen this movie before with each update of the FCC maps. Yet, I held out a glimmer of hope that this time would be different. This time the FCC received clear directions as part of the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability (DATA) Act of 2020 – legislation that specifically instructed the FCC to produce more accurate maps once and for all.

Notably, the Broadband DATA Act drew deep and broad bipartisan support in the otherwise hyper-partisan nation’s capital. In the Senate, the DATA Act boasted 70 Senate cosponsors, which made it one of the most bipartisan pieces of legislation enacted in the 116^th Congress. It became Public Law 116-130 in March 2020 and called on the FCC to set up a process to collect “crowdsourced” data directly from citizens “on an ongoing basis” to “ensure that the Broadband Map is granular and accurate.”

These new and improved maps would then guide federal broadband deployment dollars to those areas of the country with no or subpar connectivity. That was music to the ears of tens of millions of rural Americans who still lack broadband. However, that music stopped on November 18, 2022 when the FCC released its “new” and inaccurate maps.

States must now look to the future and look to themselves to ensure they are well-positioned for additional broadband infrastructure funding that will be forthcoming from a variety of Federal agencies, untethered to the FCC Broadband Map. It’s time for states to get their own houses in order by ensuring that their respective broadband maps are supported by a statewide device-driven network metering program. A network metering program would allow states to validate their broadband data in a secure way and keep it up-to-date. It would also give states the ironclad data needed to support audits of ISP self-reported data, the FCC-mandated ISP broadband labels, and compliance with publicly funded broadband infrastructure contracts.

States need someone armed with security, industry-standard network monitoring

States need in effect, a “Digital Sheriff” who is armed with secure, industry-standard network monitoring/metering devices to do for broadband what is already done for other important essential services and commodities, e.g., the metering of electricity, natural gas, water to the home, and the gasoline you pump into your car. All are independently metered for the consumer’s protection. Somehow, as important as it is, broadband has escaped this same level of accountability. States should now step up and add this much needed accountability for broadband.

I do see a silver lining in all of this. The “new” FCC map and controversies around the CostQuest Fabric rollout have opened the eyes of many in the broadband stakeholder community. For example, it is spurring efforts to build an opensource Fabric data site that would provide this valuable information to the general public.

It reminds me of Craigslist and its genesis in 1996 as a free, unencumbered classified advertising website, while newspapers had charged for this service for the last century. Likewise, the latest FCC map episode has also focused attention on the need to meter broadband, as an essential service, the same way other essential services are metered for a customer’s protection and the public good.

We may very well be witnessing the final gasps of the FCC’s attempt to build a credible National Broadband Map. But from its ashes, states now have the opportunity to rise up and take on the responsibility of providing an accurate accounting – and in doing so, truly close the nation’s broadband gap.

If you want a citizen-centric partner in these validation and network metering initiatives, please reach out to us. PAgCASA (pagcasa.org) is a non-profit organization focused on promoting rural prosperity, utilizing industry standard network monitoring/metering devices, litigation-ready methodologies, and an expert team and partnerships to accomplish our goals.

Garland T. McCoy, Co-Founder and Executive Director of Precision Ag Connectivity and Accuracy Stakeholder Alliance, is a long-time non-profit veteran in the fields of technology and telecommunication policy having served as Founder and CEO of the Technology Education Institute. Garland was recently an adjunct professor at Syracuse University’s iSchool, teaching information policy and decision making, and can be reached at garland.mccoy@pagcasa.org. This piece is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views reflected in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.

“It is incumbent on Tribal leaders, citizens and allies to gather data on a scale large enough to ensure that Tribal nations receive the billions of dollars that are available and necessary to complete broadband expansion projects,” said Joe Valandra, CEO of the new entity.

Hear Joe Valandra of Tribal Ready during Broadband Breakfast Live Online on March 8, 2023: A Status Update on Tribal Broadband

Valandra, a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, said that Tribal entities should receive at least $5 billion of the $42.5 billion of federal funds available under the bipartisan infrastructure law’s Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program.

The $5 billion number, he said in an interview, is “a very rough calculation that I did based upon the priority being unserved” individuals, and based open the gaping lack of available broadband in Indian County.

Valandra has more than 25 years of experience in executive-level leadership roles in the public, private, government, and non-profit sectors, including an extensive background in Tribal economic development.

Virtual broadband office aims to speak for Tribes

Valandra was highly critical of the Federal Communications Commission’s broadband serviceable location fabric, which he said dramatically undercounted locations and availability for broadband in rural and Tribal areas.

“If the FCC’s fabric were the only tool that were used to allocate these funds, Indian country would be left out,” he said. He cited the broadband map’s representation that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota was served, which he said wasn’t accurate.

In the view of Tribal Ready, the solution is for Tribal Nations to sign up for the Virtual Tribal Broadband Office at TribalReady.com. The new entity works in close partnership with Ready.net, he said, which gives Tribal Ready access to data and other broadband tools.

Just as every state and territory has a state-wide broadband office, Tribes need to be represented through a voice in Washington focused on their needs, said Valandra.

“We hope to become or to acquire a number of ISPs so that we can partner with Tribes to give them the type of knowledge and expertise and regulatory framework to really run those networks and to preserve ownership and control for Tribes,” he said.

Others on the team emphasize the crucial role of broadband data, and other broadband resources, to ensuring maximum funds for Indian country.

“High-speed broadband is a resource – a means to an end,” said Scott Dinsmore, vice president of external affairs at Tribal Ready. “It takes resources to achieve sustainable high-speed networks and the world-class access to economic, education, healthcare and other benefits that come with it.”

Tribal Ready said that it believes the best way to achieve this is to create data and guidelines that help states design fair and inclusive challenge processes. Tribal Ready also emphasized ensuring that Tribal data sovereignty is secure and protected.

Before launching Tribal Ready, Valandra worked in the Indian gaming industry for more than the decade of the 1990s, before coming to Washington. In 2005, he became chief of staff for the National Indian Gaming Commission, a position he occupied until 2007. He subsequently worked extensively in the field of in the Tribal communications.

The FCC released its first broadband draft map on November 18, 2022, which strives to represent location-by-location broadband availability and makes individual points available for location and service challenges. The commission said it has received over a million challenges, with those challenges “predominately” being to add missing locations.

But according to some observers, there is too much attention being given to locations that are missing from the fabric. Mike Conlow, director of network strategy at web hosting platform Cloudflare, said Monday there needs to be more attention given to removing locations that are not in need of broadband. Conlow is a knowledgeable expert on mapping, and participated in a panel on “Broadband Mapping: Are We on the Right Track or the Wrong Track?” at Digital Infrastructure Investment–Washington event.

Almost all counties on the map have more listed locations than the United States census depicts, said Conlow, even when accounting for business addresses. The problem only grows starker in rural counties, he continued.

This phenomenon occurs when buildings that are not residential addresses or businesses appear on the map as serviceable locations. This causes confusion in allocating funds from programs that have certain service requirements, such as the $42.5 billion Broadband Access, Equity and Deployment program of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

The FCC previously faced a conundrum when it turned out that part of the data – provided by internet service providers – on which it distributed money from its $9.2 billion Rural Digital Opportunity Fund in December 2020 was based on submissions that overrepresented areas that needed coverage. Some bidders were inadvertently committing to connect areas that didn’t need connecting. The dilemma forced a new-look commission to clawback awards and start anew with better data.

Since the debut of the FCC’s map, there have been four million challenges of provider-reported availability information and one million new locations picked up between the first and second versions of the map, said Eduard Bartholme of the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.

Despite the map’s shortcomings, Conlow urged states to continue working to improve the map through the challenging process. The map will be useful when it is time for states to allocate funds to subgrantees of the BEAD fund, he said. The NTIA has said BEAD money will be allocated to the states based on the map by June 30.

The FCC is very “hands-on” with the broadband map, said Bartholme at the webinar. The map requires a cursory check to make sure challenges align with the right location and are filed correctly, said Bartholme, at which point the commission moves challenges to providers. Furthermore, the commission is required to adjudicate service disputes that are not resolved within 60 days of filing.

Challenges can be filed for individual locations directly through the map’s interface or through the bulk challenge process. The primary data collection method for states previous to the FCC’s challenge process was speed tests, which are not being accepted by the agency for the new broadband map.

Instead, states must turn to bulk crowdsourcing by encouraging residents to submit challenges through the map’s interface. Evidence of unsupported service claims include a service provider denying service installation, failing to schedule a repair or installation within 10 days of a request, or denying service claims.

Providers are required to concede or dispute challenges with 60 days of filing, after which the two parties have an additional 60 days to come to a consensus regarding the service received at that location, said Bartholme.